4.6 Article

Multifunctional performance of gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O hybrid nanocomposites for magnetic separable photocatalytic and antibacterial activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly active gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O nanocomposites were successfully prepared via a facile, cost effective and eco-friendly method of hydrothermally wet precipitation combined with ultrasonic dispersion process. The prepared samples were characterized by XRD, FTIR, HRSEM, EDS, TEM, UV-Vis DRS, PL, VSM, BET and electrochemical properties. By means of these analysis for examine the crystal phase, nanostructure, band gap and light-harvesting properties were carried out. UV-DRS spectra indicate that the bandgap of g-C3N4 (2.7 eV) reduced to 2.59 and 2.21 eV by mixed with corresponds to BiFeO3 and BiFeO3/Cu2O nanomaterials. The ideal photocatalytic activity of the gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O nanocomposites, where RhB dye under visible light irradiation which was up to 4.36 and 2.52 times as the higher photodegradation ability to compare pristine g-C3N4 and gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3 catalyst. The magnetization was confirmed by VSM studies, and hence, after the photocatalytic reaction, the magnetically separable catalyst can be quickly separated from the water by an external magnetic field. The superior photocatalytic performance is due to the synergistic effect on the interface of BiFeO3/Cu2O in the gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O nanocomposites has reduced the bandgap which enables high separation efficiency of the charge carrier, suppressed recombination rate and their high surface area. Moreover, the chief gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O catalyst can exhibited the lesser charge transfer resistance (impedance), enhances of photocurrent responses, whereas exposed to the development of photocatalytic appearance and more charge carrier ability. Also, the antibacterial activity of the gC(3)N(4)-BiFeO3-Cu2O nanocomposite has showing a well deactivation in both G(+) (S. aureus) and G(-) (E. coli) bacteria's whereas compare to other prepared samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据