Next Article in Journal
Polyacrylate Decorating Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) Film Surface for Boosting Oxygen Barrier Property
Next Article in Special Issue
RETRACTED: Advanced Binder-Free Electrode Based on CuCo2O4 Nanowires Coated with Polypyrrole Layer as a High-Performance Nonenzymatic Glucose Sensing Platform
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanism of Polyurethane Binder Curing Reaction and Evaluation of Polyurethane Mixture Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Carbide Reinforced TiC-Based Ultra-High Temperature Ceramics: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/coatings11121452
coatings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Retraction published on 21 May 2024, see Coatings 2024, 14(6), 650.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

RETRACTED: Synthesis, Characterization and Photodegradation Studies of Copper Oxide–Graphene Nanocomposites

by
Indah Raya
1,
Awais Ahmad
2,
Ayad F. Alkaim
3,
Dmitry Bokov
4,
Enas R. Alwaily
5,
Rafael Luque
2,*,
Mabkhoot Alsaiari
6,7,* and
Mohammed Jalalah
6,8
1
Department of Chemistry, Faculty Mathematics and Natural Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia
2
Departamento de Quimica Organica, Universidad de Cordoba, Edificio Marie Curie (C-3), Ctra Nnal IV-A, Km 396, E14014 Cordoba, Spain
3
Department of Chemistry, College of Science for Women, University of Babylon, Hilla 51002, Iraq
4
Institute of Pharmacy, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991 Moscow, Russia
5
Microbiology Research Group, College of Pharmacy, Al-Ayen University, Nasiriyah 64011, Iraq
6
Promising Centre for Sensors and Electronic Devices (PCSED), Advanced Materials and Nano-Research Centre, Najran University, Najran 11001, Saudi Arabia
7
Empty Quarter Research Unit, Department of Chemistry, College of Science and Art in Sharurah, Najran University, Najran 11001, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, Najran University, Najran 11001, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2021, 11(12), 1452; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121452
Submission received: 19 October 2021 / Revised: 18 November 2021 / Accepted: 19 November 2021 / Published: 26 November 2021 / Retracted: 21 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strengthening, Corrosion and Protection of High Temperature Structural Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this work, a simple hydrothermal method was employed to prepare a pristine sample of copper oxide (CuO) and three samples of copper oxide–graphene nanocomposites (CuO-xG) with x = 2.5, 5, and 10 mg of graphene. The synthesized samples were characterized using X-ray powder diffractometry (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and ultraviolet–visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy. The XRD patterns of CuO-xG nanocomposites exhibited the diffraction peaks related to the crystal planes of monoclinic CuO and hexagonal graphite. The surface morphology of the prepared samples was investigated using FESEM images. EDX analysis was used to investigate the chemical composition of the synthesized samples. FTIR spectroscopy identified the vibrational modes of the covalent bonds present in the samples. The allowed direct optical bandgap energy was calculated for all prepared samples using UV-Vis absorption spectra. The small bandgap of CuO-xG nanocomposites indicates their potential use as an effective photocatalyst in the presence of visible light. Photocatalytic activity of the samples was explored for the degradation of methylene blue (MB) dye contaminant under visible light irradiation. The results showed that the CuO-5G sample has the highest photodegradation efficiency (~56%).

1. Introduction

In recent years, hybrid graphene nanocomposites have been of great research interest due to their potential use in different technological applications [1,2,3,4,5]. To meet the specific requirements of various industrial applications, there has been an ever-increasing need for the development of novel functional materials with more favorable features [6,7,8,9,10].
Due to their special properties such as cost-effective fabrication procedure, good chemical stability, eco-friendliness, high theoretical specific capacity, and abundant availability, transition metal oxides (TMOs) including Fe2O3, Co3O4, NiO and CuO have attracted considerable attention for use in various applications, including solar cells, photocatalysts, electrode materials, and gas sensors [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, TMOs have some drawbacks such as low conductivity, pulverization, and aggregation caused by large volume expansion [18,19,20]. These drawbacks lead to fast capacity attenuation during the charge/discharge process and therefore limit TMOs practical applications [21,22,23,24,25].
CuO is a p-type semiconductor with a bandgap of ~1.2 eV in its bulk form [26]. CuO has been successfully used in solar cells [27,28], sensors [29,30], batteries [31,32], biosensing [33], water remediation [33,34], CO2 conversion [7], and heterogeneous catalysis for degradation of several dyes [35,36,37]. Owing to its narrow bandgap, CuO can be considered as a proper alternative to other wide bandgap semiconducting nanomaterials. It should be noted that the narrow bandgap of copper oxide causes very fast electron-hole recombination, which limits the photocatalytic activity [38].
Carbonaceous nanomaterials like mesoporous carbon, carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers have demonstrated good performance as catalyst support materials for different applications [39,40,41,42]. Graphene, as the fundamental building block of all graphitic materials, is composed of a single layer of sp2 bonded carbon atoms [43,44]. Chemical inertness, unravel electrical properties, high mechanical strength, good thermal conductivity and ultrahigh surface area are some of the extraordinary properties [45] that make graphene a promising material for many applications such as field-effect transistors [46], batteries [47,48], fuel cells [49], solar cells [50], supercapacitors [51], and biosensors [52]. For use in the practical graphene/metal composites, the poor dispersion of graphene in metal matrix and weak graphene/metal interfacial bonding are considered as two main drawbacks. Interfacial interaction between a metal oxide and graphene gives us the ability to control the morphology and size of inorganic particles grown on the surface of graphene nanosheets (GNSs) [53,54,55,56,57]. This interaction influences the charge transport and rate performance as well as the ability to withstand repeating lithiation/delithiation of electrode materials [58].
Copper matrix composite reinforced with graphene has recently attracted much attention. Introducing graphene into the copper matrix, effectively improves the electrical, thermal, and electrical properties of the composites [59,60]. However, due to the aggregation of graphene in the Cu matrix, the mechanical properties of the graphene/Cu composites are still unsatisfying. This gives rise to the importance of the synthesis of Cu-matrix composite with uniformly dispersed graphene. In this regard, graphene-induced bandgap widening and luminescence quenching in ceria–graphene composites has been reported elsewhere [61,62,63]. Additionally, the loading of graphene increased the absorption and photocatalytic activity of the Fe2O3 in the Fe2O3/rGO composites [64,65,66,67]. Compared to CuO nanostructures, the nanocomposites formed by immobilization of CuO nanostructures on graphene-based materials have a completely distinct performance [68,69,70]. In addition to having a combination of individual features of constituents, functionalization or interaction or charge transfer between graphene and CuO nanostructures can introduce new features in the CuO nanostructures.
To overcome the limitations of copper oxide applications, its chemical structure must be improved. Incorporating CuO with graphene might be a suitable candidate for doing this improvement since graphene reduces the rate of electron-hole recombination [38]. Graphene, as a perfect absorber of light [71], can also supply the electrons required for photocatalytic reactions. The present work has been performed to experimentally investigate the structural, morphological, compositional, optical and photodegradation properties of newly synthesized CuO–graphene nanocomposites.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Copper (II) acetate, Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB), sodium hydroxide, ethanol, multilayer graphene and methylene blue were used as starting materials. Table 1 represents some information on these chemicals.

2.2. Synthesis

CuO-xG nanocomposites with x = 2.5, 5 and 10 mg of graphene were synthesized using a simple hydrothermal method. In the first step, 2.5 mg of graphene was poured into a breaker containing 25 mL of 50:50 % ethanol-water solution. The obtained mixture was dispersed by ultrasonication for 15 min. The beaker was then placed on a magnetic stirrer and 0.11 g of copper acetate was added to the mixture while stirring. After 10 min, 0.3 g of CTAB was also added to the mixture. In the next step, 0.04 g of sodium hydroxide was added to 20 mL of another 50:50 % ethanol–water solution and after mixing for a while, it was added drop by drop to the original mixture. After approximately 10 min, the color of the mixture turned dark green. After 45 min, when the precursors were well mixed, the obtained mixture was poured into a 50 mL Teflon container and placed in an autoclave. The autoclave was then completely sealed and placed in a chamber furnace for 12 h at 135 °C. The synthesized material was then removed from the autoclave and washed several times by centrifugation at 6000 rpm for 5 min. The sample was then transferred to an incubator to dry at 60 °C for 12 h. This sample was named CuO-2.5G. To assess the effect of graphene addition on the structural, optical and photocatalytic properties of CuO, a pristine CuO sample as well as two other copper oxide–graphene nanocomposites (CuO-5G and CuO-10G) were prepared by the same method.

2.3. Sample Characterizations

To study the structural phases of the synthesized samples, XRD patterns of all synthesized samples were obtained in powdered form at room temperature by a Panalytical PW1730 diffractometer (JDX-3532, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) using Cu Kα1 radiation (λ = 1.540598 Å) with a scanning angle (2θ) varied from 20° to 80° and scanning step width of 0.02. The XRD profiles were analyzed by ANalytical X’Pert HighScore software and compared to standards compiled by the Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction and Standards (JCPDS). Investigation of the surface morphology of the samples and their elemental analysis were performed using a MIRA3-TESCAN FESEM Sigma, Zeiss, Jena, Germany) equipped with an EDX system. Suspension of nanomaterials was performed in ethanol and drop cast on glass slides. These samples were stuck on carbon tape after drying and then subjected to carbon coating. FTIR spectra of CuO and all synthesized nanocomposites inserted in KBr powder system are investigated in the frequency range of 400–4000 cm−1 using a BFRL Rayleigh FTIR WQF-510 spectrometer (Perkin Elmer) (IR Prestige21, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The UV-Visible absorption spectra were also recorded at room temperature using a Shimadzu UV-1800 UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Shimadzu-2700 spectrophotometer) equipped with an integrating sphere, in which white BaSO4 was served as the reference material in the wavelength region of 200–1000 nm.

2.4. Photocatalytic Activity of the Samples

Photocatalytic experiments were carried out at room temperature (24 °C) by photodegrading MB dye with a 100 W household light bulb. To do so, 20 mg of each synthesized sample was added separately into 50 mL of 100 ppm MB solution. Before illumination, the suspensions were continuously stirred at a dark place at room temperature for 30 min to reach an adsorption-desorption equilibrium. Then, the suspensions were exposed to visible light irradiation for 9 h at room temperature. At regular 1-h intervals, 5 cc (cubic centimeter) samples were taken from the suspensions and analyzed using a Shimadzu UV-1800 UV-VIS spectrophotometer in the wavelength region of 300–1100 nm.

3. Results

3.1. Structural and Morphological Analysis

Figure 1 illustrates the XRD patterns of the as-prepared pristine CuO and CuO-xG (x = 2.5, 5 and 10 mg of graphene) samples. The diffraction peaks and their corresponding crystal planes are listed in Table 2. All the peaks obtained for the pristine CuO sample can be attributed to the monoclinic phase of CuO (space group C2/c; a0 = 4.685 Å, b0 = 3.423 Å, c0 = 5.132 Å and β = 99.47°; JCPDS Card no. 48-1548) [72]. The peak obtained at 2θ = 26.67° for the CuO-2.5G and CuO-5G samples is the signature of (002) plane of the hexagonal graphite structure, suggesting that the graphene is incorporated with the CuO. The other peaks in the XRD profiles of CuO-2.5G and CuO-5G nanocomposites are assigned to the monoclinic phase of CuO. The XRD profile of CuO-10G sample exhibits a diffraction peak at 2θ = 26.67° corresponding to (002) plane of the hexagonal graphite structure, as well as two peaks at 2θ = 32.47° and 2θ = 35.61° related to the ( 1 ¯ 11) and (111) planes of the monoclinic phase of CuO. The average crystallite sizes of graphene and CuO were calculated for all samples using the Debye–Scherrer equation [73].
D = kλ/βcosθ
where k is a constant which equals 0.9, λ is the wavelength of the X-ray radiation (λ = 1.540598 Å), β is the corrected band broadening (full-width at half-maximum (FWHM)) after subtraction the equipment broadening, and θ is the Bragg angle. In these calculations, the peak corresponding to the (002) plane was used for graphene, and the peak linked to the ( 1 ¯ 11) plane was considered for CuO. The values obtained for the average crystallite sizes are given in Table 3. As is clear, the average crystallite size of CuO increases from 8.46 to 10.32 nm with the addition of 2.5 mg graphene, but it falls slightly to 10.19 nm when the amount of graphene in the nanocomposite reaches 5 mg. Furthermore, when 10 mg graphene is combined with copper oxide, the average crystallite size of CuO grows to 12.47 nm. From Table 3, the average crystallite size of graphene increases as the amount of graphene incorporated with CuO increases.
The FESEM images of the pristine CuO sample and the CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites are represented in Figure 2a,b and Figure 3a,b, respectively. Figure 2a shows a grain structure for the pristine CuO sample with an average grain diameter of around 31.95 nm. When CuO is incorporated with graphene, we see the formation of graphene sheets on which CuO grains appear to grow. The presence of the sheets becomes clearer with increasing the amount of graphene in the nanocomposite. The average diameter of grains grown on the graphene sheets is about 28.92, 20.11 and 40.85 nm for CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites, respectively (see Table 4). When the amount of graphene is low, ultrasonic dispersion can cause the graphene to disperse well. However, when the amount of addition is large (~10 mg), the graphene is not easily dispersed, and agglomerates obviously.
EDX analysis was used to investigate the chemical composition of the synthesized samples. The obtained EDX spectra are shown in Figure 4. The weight and atomic percentages of the elements found in the samples are also provided in Table 5. The EDX spectrum of pristine CuO (see Figure 4a) confirms the presence of Cu and O elements in this sample. Additionally, the EDX spectra of CuO-xG nanocomposites (x = 2.5, 5 and 10 mg of graphene) indicate the presence of three main elements including Cu, O and C, further demonstrating the successful formation of the samples. The EDX spectra present the high content of oxygen in the nanocomposites which could be predicted due to formation of graphene oxide [74], which are further confirmed by the C=O and C–O vibrational peaks in FTIR spectra.

3.2. FTIR Spectroscopy Analysis

FTIR spectroscopy provides significant information on the molecular vibrations and rotations associated with different covalent bonds found in the chemical compositions. The FTIR spectra of CuO-xG (x = 2.5, 5 and 10 mg) nanocomposites are represented in Figure 5. The assignments of the observed absorption peaks are also provided in Table 6. The presence of the typical absorption peaks of Cu-O bond (around 506 and 593 cm−1) confirms the formation of CuO structure in the nanocomposites. Additionally, the peaks related to C=O and C-O bonds verify the existence of graphene in the synthesized samples. The peaks assigned to C–H and O–H bonds might be due to impurities in the samples. As expected, by increasing the amount of graphene from 2.5 to 5 mg, three new absorption peaks appeared in the FTIR spectrum of CuO-5G nanocomposite (at around 728, 910 and 960 cm−1). These additional peaks are related to the vibration modes of C=O bond. Additionally, by further increasing of graphene amount from 5 to 10 mg, two other new peaks are detected in the spectrum of CuO-10G (at ~804 and ~1022 cm−1), which are linked to C–C and C–O–C bonds, respectively.

3.3. Evaluation of Optical Bandgap

One of the most suitable tools for studying the band structure and bandgap energy of crystalline/non-crystalline systems is the analysis of optical absorption spectrum, especially the absorption edge in the ultraviolet and visible regions. Figure 6 shows the UV–visible absorption spectra of the pristine CuO and CuO-xG nanocomposites. As can be seen, the addition of graphene into CuO increases the absorption in the visible range and causes a red shift of the absorption edge toward higher wavelengths. Wider absorption spectrum directly increases charge generation efficiency and ultimately increases dye degradation [81,82]. To estimate the allowed direct optical bandgap energy, Tauc’s plots are presented in Figure 7 for all prepared samples. Tauc’s relation is expressed below [83].
(αhυ)n = A(hυ − Eg)
where A is a constant, hυ is incident photon energy, Eg = hc/λ represents the optical bandgap energy, α indicates the absorption coefficient, and n is an integer that determines the type of direct/indirect bandgap allowed or forbidden transitions and takes the value 2 for direct bandgap materials like CuO in our case. Extrapolating the linear part of the curve to the horizontal axis yields the optical bandgap energy (see Figure 7). The values obtained for Eg are given in Table 7. For pristine CuO, we found an optical bandgap of ~1.41 eV, which is close to the reported value. However, the incorporation of CuO with graphene reduces the bandgap value to around 1.29 eV. Additionally, increasing the amount of graphene from 2.5 to 5 and then 10 mg lowers the optical bandgap to 1.20 and 1.17 eV, respectively. The narrowed optical bandgap energy may occur due to the existence of defects in the intergranular regions and the introduction of energy levels between the conduction and the valence bands of CuO, mainly arising due to the chemical interaction of graphene and CuO [77].

3.4. Study of Photocatalytic Activity

Figure 8 shows the UV−visible absorption spectra of MB solution recorded at 1-h intervals during the photodegradation experiments of pristine CuO and CuO-xG (x = 2.5, 5 and 10 mg) samples. It can be seen that MB exhibits a maximum absorption peak at ∼664 nm. As is clear, the absorbance of MB in the presence of the samples decreased with increasing time of light irradiation. The photodegradation efficiency was determined for all samples by using the equation shown below [84]:
Photodegradation efficiency (%) = [(A0 − At)/A0] × 100% = [(C0 − Ct)/C0] × 100%
where C0 is the initial concentration of MB, Ct is the concentration of MB at time t, A0 is the initial absorbance of MB, and At is the absorbance after time t photo irradiation, recorded at the maximum absorbance wavelength for the MB. Figure 9a represents the photodegradation efficiency (%) of the sample in terms of time of light irradiation. The uncertainty in the photodegradation efficiencies is about 1%. Additionally, Figure 9b shows the rate of MB dye photodegradation by the synthesized samples. As can be seen from Figure 9a, after 9 h of irradiation, the photodegradation efficiencies of pristine CuO and CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G samples are about 28%, 48%, 56% and 12%, respectively. The addition of graphene improved the photodegradation efficiency of CuO after 3 h of light irradiation (from ~9% to ~19%). From Figure 9a, increasing the amount of graphene from 2.5 to 5 mg increased the photodegradation efficiency again. Graphene has been reported to be a highly efficient absorbent for MB molecules [85,86]. Graphene acts as a substrate for copper oxide and hinders electron-hole recombination by trapping the charge carriers that have reached the semiconductor surface, resulting in an increase in the photodegradation efficiency. The graphene/GO sheet induces strong π i – π i conjugation with the molecules of MB [86,87]. There is electron transfer from the CuO to MB molecules when the energy matches or exceeds the band gaps of CuO the electrons are excited from the valence to conduction bands, and holes are generated. The photoelectrons are transferred to graphene. The conjugated graphene then transfers the electrons towards the MB molecules absorbed on the surface, causing the decomposition reaction. The concentration of MB molecules on surface of nanocomposites (CuO-xG) is greater than the CuO because of greater absorbing capacity of graphene which leads to the greater photocatalytic activity [33]. In addition to this, the presences of surface hydroxyl (eOH) groups causes trapping of holes to produce radicals which are excellent oxidizing agents for organic pollutants in water [88]. On the basis of EDX and XRD data, it is confirmed that CuO and CuO-xG have high amounts of Cu-eOH, which can provide sources of OH radicals and facilitates the decomposition of MB. However, further increasing the amount of graphene from 5 to 10 mg surprisingly reduced the photodegradation efficiency. Finally, it can be concluded that CuO-5G nanocomposite has the best photocatalytic activity among the prepared samples. The lower catalytic activity of CuO-10G than CuO nanoparticles can be explained by the particles size. It has been reported that activity of any material is related to its size [89]. The smaller the size of the nanoparticles, the lower the rate of electron–hole recombination. The order of average grain diameter of synthesize material is CuO-5G (20.11 nm) < CuO-2.5G (28.92 nm) < CuO (31.95 nm) < CuO-10G (40.85 nm). The particle size of CuO is smaller than the CuO-10G as confirmed by the XRD and SEM, so it has a higher photocatalytic activity than CuO-10G.

4. Conclusions

Pristine CuO and CuO-xG (2.5, 5, and 10 mg) nanocomposites were successfully synthesized by a simple hydrothermal method and tested and tested by XRD, FESEM, EDX, FTIR and UV-Vis techniques. XRD studies showed that with increasing the amount of graphene incorporated with CuO, the average crystallite size of graphene in the nanocomposite increases. The sample CuO-5G had the smallest average crystallite size of CuO (~10.19 nm) among the nanocomposites. FESEM images showed a grain structure for the pristine CuO sample with an average grain diameter of around 31.95 nm. The average diameters of grains grown on the graphene sheets were found to be around 28.92, 20.11 and 40.85 nm for CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G samples, respectively. FTIR studies exhibited the absorption peaks related to the main covalent bonds present in the structure of the samples. It was found that the optical bandgap energy decreases with increasing the amount of graphene in the nanocomposite; it decreased from 1.41 eV in pristine CuO sample to 1.17 eV in the CuO-10G sample. The potential of the nanocomposites as a photocatalyst was evaluated by photodegradation of methylene blue dye under visible light irradiation. After 9 h of irradiation, the photodegradation efficiencies of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G samples were about 28%, 48%, 56% and 12%, respectively. In fact, graphene acts as a substrate for copper oxide and hinders electron-hole recombination by trapping the charge carriers that have reached the semiconductor surface, resulting in an increase in the photodegradation efficiency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.R. and A.A.; methodology, A.F.A.; software, D.B.; validation, E.R.A. and R.L.; resources, M.A.; data curation, M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, R.L. project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the deputy for research and innovation-Ministry of education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for this research through grant (NU/IFC/INT/01/003) under the institutional funding committee at Najran University Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Upadhyay, R.K.; Soin, N.; Roy, S.S. Role of graphene/metal oxide composites as photocatalysts, adsorbents and disinfectants in water treatment: A review. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 3823–3851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Quan, Q.; Lin, X.; Zhang, N.; Xu, Y.-J. Graphene and its derivatives as versatile templates for materials synthesis and functional applications. Nanoscale 2017, 9, 2398–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Huang, W.-Y.; Wang, G.-Q.; Li, W.-H.; Li, T.-T.; Ji, G.-J.; Ren, S.-C.; Jiang, M.; Yan, L.; Tang, H.-T.; Pan, Y.-M.; et al. Porous ligand creates new reaction route: Bifunctional single-atom palladium catalyst for selective distannylation of terminal alkynes. Chem 2020, 6, 2300–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmad, A.; Jini, D.; Aravind, M.; Parvathiraja, C.; Ali, R.; Kiyani, M.Z.; Alothman, A. A novel study on synthesis of egg shell based activated carbon for degradation of methylene blue via photocatalysis. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 8717–8722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aravind, M.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, I.; Amalanathan, M.; Naseem, K.; Mary, S.M.M.; Parvathiraja, C.; Hussain, S.; Algarni, T.S.; Pervaiz, M. Critical green routing synthesis of silver nps using jasmine flower extract for biological activities and photocatalytical degradation of methylene blue. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pervaiz, M.; Ahmad, I.; Yousaf, M.; Kirn, S.; Munawar, A.; Saeed, Z.; Adnan, A.; Gulzar, T.; Kamal, T.; Ahmad, A. Synthesis, spectral and antimicrobial studies of amino acid derivative schiff base metal (Co, Mn, Cu, and Cd) complexes. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2019, 206, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hussain, S.; Khan, A.J.; Arshad, M.; Javed, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Shah, S.S.A.; Khan, M.R.; Akram, S.; Ali, S.; ALOthman, Z.A. Charge storage in binder-free 2D-hexagonal CoMoO4 nanosheets as a redox active material for pseudocapacitors. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 8659–8667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhan, M.; Hussain, S.; AlGarni, T.S.; Shah, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.; Ahmad, A.; Javed, M.S.; Qiao, G.; Liu, G. Facet controlled polyhedral ZIF-8 MOF nanostructures for excellent NO2 gas-sensing applications. Mater. Res. Bull. 2021, 136, 111133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kashif, M.; Ngaini, Z.; Harry, A.V.; Vekariya, R.L.; Ahmad, A.; Zuo, Z.; Sahari, S.K.; Hussain, S.; Khan, Z.A.; Alarifi, A. An experimental and dft study on novel dyes incorporated with natural dyes on titanium dioxide (TiO2) towards solar cell application. Appl. Phys. A 2020, 126, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saleem, M.; Irfan, M.; Tabassum, S.; Albaqami, M.D.; Javed, M.S.; Hussain, S.; Pervaiz, M.; Ahmad, I.; Ahmad, A.; Zuber, M. Experimental and theoretical study of highly porous lignocellulose assisted metal oxide photoelectrodes for dye-sensitized solar cells. Arab. J. Chem. 2021, 14, 102937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kashif, M.; Jaafar, E.; Bhadja, P.; Low, F.W.; Sahari, S.K.; Hussain, S.; Loong, F.K.; Ahmad, A.; AlGarni, T.S.; Shafa, M. Effect of potassium permanganate on morphological, structural and electro-optical properties of graphene oxide thin films. Arab. J. Chem. 2021, 14, 102953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, X.Z.; Xu, P.H.; Liu, G.W.; Ahmad, A.; Chen, X.H.; Zhu, Y.L.; Alothman, A.; Hussain, S.; Qiao, G.J. Synthesis, characterization and wettability of cu-sn alloy on the si-implanted 6h-sic. Coatings 2020, 10, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fallah, Z.; Zare, E.N.; Ghomi, M.; Ahmadijokani, F.; Amini, M.; Tajbakhsh, M.; Arjmand, M.; Sharma, G.; Ali, H.; Ahmad, A. Toxicity and remediation of pharmaceuticals and pesticides using metal oxides and carbon nanomaterials. Chemosphere 2021, 275, 130055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bibi, S.; Ahmad, A.; Anjum, M.A.R.; Haleem, A.; Siddiq, M.; Shah, S.S.; Al Kahtani, A. Photocatalytic degradation of malachite green and methylene blue over reduced graphene oxide (rgo) based metal oxides (rgo-Fe3O4/TiO2) nanocomposite under uv-visible light irradiation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmad, I.; Jamal, M.A.; Iftikhar, M.; Ahmad, A.; Hussain, S.; Asghar, H.; Saeed, M.; Yousaf, A.B.; Karri, R.R.; Al-kadhi, N.S. Lanthanum-zinc binary oxide nanocomposite with promising heterogeneous catalysis performance for the active conversion of 4-nitrophenol into 4-aminophenol. Coatings 2021, 11, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Javed, M.S.; Khan, A.J.; Ahmad, A.; Siyal, S.H.; Akram, S.; Zhao, G.; Bahajjaj, A.A.A.; Ouladsmane, M.; Alfakeer, M. Design and fabrication of bimetallic oxide nanonest-like structure/carbon cloth composite electrode for supercapacitors. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 30747–30755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Javed, M.S.; Najim, T.; Hussain, I.; Batool, S.; Idrees, M.; Mehmood, A.; Imran, M.; Assiri, M.A.; Ahmad, A.; Shah, S.S.A. 2D V2O5 ultrathin nanoflakes as a binder-free electrode material for high-performance pseudocapacitor. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 25152–25157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Beena, V.; Rayar, S.; Ajitha, S.; Ahmad, A.; Albaqami, M.D.; Alsabar, F.A.A.; Sillanpää, M. Synthesis and characterization of sr-doped znse nanoparticles for catalytic and biological activities. Water 2021, 13, 2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Siyal, S.H.; Javed, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Sajjad, M.; Batool, S.; Khan, A.J.; Akram, S.; Alothman, A.A.; Alshgari, R.A.; Najam, T. Free-standing 3D Co3O4@ nf micro-flowers composed of porous ultra-long nanowires as an advanced cathode material for supercapacitor. Curr. Appl. Phys. 2021, 31, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Syah, R.; Ahmad, A.; Davarpanah, A.; Elveny, M.; Ramdan, D.; Albaqami, M.D.; Ouladsmane, M. Incorporation of Bi2O3 residuals with metallic Bi as high performance electrocatalyst toward hydrogen evolution reaction. Catalysts 2021, 11, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abbas, Q.; Javed, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Siyal, S.H.; Asim, I.; Luque, R.; Albaqami, M.D.; Tighezza, A.M. Zno nano-flowers assembled on carbon fiber textile for high-performance supercapacitor’s electrode. Coatings 2021, 11, 1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bibi, S.; Khan, A.; Khan, S.; Ahmad, A.; Sakhawat Shah, S.; Siddiq, M.; Iqbal, A.; Al-Kahtani, A.A. Synthesis of cr doped limnpo4 cathode materials and investigation of their dielectric properties. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  23. Raees, A.; Jamal, M.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, I.; Saeed, M.; Habila, M.; AlMasoud, N.; Alomar, T. Synthesis and characterization of ceria incorporated nickel oxide nanocomposite for promising degradation of methylene blue via photocatalysis. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Beena, V.; Rayar, S.; Ajitha, S.; Ahmad, A.; Iftikhar, F.J.; Abualnaja, K.M.; Alomar, T.S.; Ouladsmne, M.; Ali, S. Photocatalytic dye degradation and biological activities of cu-doped znse nanoparticles and their insights. Water 2021, 13, 2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meyer, B.K.; Polity, A.; Reppin, D.; Becker, M.; Hering, P.; Klar, P.J.; Sander, T.; Reindl, C.; Benz, J.; Eickhoff, M.; et al. Binary copper oxide semiconductors: From materials towards devices. Phys. Status Solidi (B) 2012, 249, 1487–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Masudy-Panah, S.; Kakran, M.; Lim, Y.-F.; Chua, C.S.; Tan, H.R.; Dalapati, G.K. Graphene nanoparticle incorporated CuO thin film for solar cell application. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2016, 8, 43507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, X.; Wang, D.; Wang, T.; Yang, Z.; Zou, X.; Wang, P.; Luo, W.; Li, Q.; Liao, L.; Hu, W.; et al. Enhanced photoresponsivity of a GaAs nanowire metal-semiconductor-metal photodetector by adjusting the fermi level. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 33188–33193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Tian, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W.-P.; Zhang, X.; Peng, W. CuO nanoparticles on sulfur-doped graphene for nonenzymatic glucose sensing. Electrochim. Acta 2015, 156, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Macdonald, D.D.; Yang, J.; Qiu, J.; Wang, S. Point defect model for the corrosion of steels in supercritical water: Part I, film growth kinetics. Corros. Sci. 2020, 163, 108280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, D.S.; Lee, G.H.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.C.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, B.K.; Kim, D.W. Electrocatalytic performance of CuO/graphene nanocomposites for Li–O2 batteries. J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 707, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ji, B.; Zhang, F.; Song, X.; Tang, Y. A novel potassium-ion-based dual-ion battery. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Choi, J.; Oh, H.; Han, S.-W.; Ahn, S.; Noh, J.; Park, J.B. Preparation and characterization of graphene oxide supported Cu, Cu2O, and CuO nanocomposites and their high photocatalytic activity for organic dye molecule. Curr. Appl. Phys. 2017, 17, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pandiyarajan, T.; Saravanan, R.; Karthikeyan, B.; Gracia, F.; Mansilla, H.D.; Gracia-Pinilla, M.A.; Mangalaraja, R.V. Sonochemical synthesis of CuO nanostructures and their morphology dependent optical and visible light driven photocatalytic properties. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 2017, 28, 2448–2457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharma, A.; Dutta, R.K. Studies on the drastic improvement of photocatalytic degradation of acid orange-74 dye by TPPO capped CuO nanoparticles in tandem with suitable electron capturing agents. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 43815–43823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bhattacharjee, A.; Ahmaruzzaman, M. CuO nanostructures: Facile synthesis and applications for enhanced photodegradation of organic compounds and reduction of p-nitrophenol from aqueous phase. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 41348–41363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, R.; Yin, J.; Du, W.; Gao, F.; Fan, Y.; Lu, Q. Monodisperse CuO hard and hollow nanospheres as visible-light photocatalysts. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2013, 2013, 1358–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arshad, A.; Iqbal, J.; Siddiq, M.; Ali, M.U.; Ali, A.; Shabbir, H.; Nazeer, U.B.; Saleem, M.S. Solar light triggered catalytic performance of graphene-CuO nanocomposite for waste water treatment. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 10654–10660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Park, K.-W.; Sung, Y.-E.; Han, S.; Yun, Y.; Hyeon, T. Origin of the enhanced catalytic activity of carbon nanocoil-supported PtRu alloy electrocatalysts. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, X.; Shi, T.; Li, B.; Chen, X.; Zhang, C.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, Q. Subtractive manufacturing of stable hierarchical micro-nano structures on AA5052 sheet with enhanced water repellence and durable corrosion resistance. Mater. Des. 2019, 183, 108152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheng, J.-Z.; Tan, Z.-R.; Xing, Y.-Q.; Shen, Z.-Q.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Liu, L.-L.; Yang, K.; Chen, L.; Liu, S.-Y. Exfoliated conjugated porous polymer nanosheets for highly efficient photocatalytic hydrogen evolution. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 5787–5795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, H.; Li, X.X.; Liu, X.Y.; Ma, Z.H.; Yin, Z.Y.; Yang, W.W.; Yu, Y.S. Schiff-base-rich gCxN4 supported PdAg nanowires as an efficient Mott–Schottky catalyst boosting photocatalytic dehydrogenation of formic acid. Rare Met. 2021, 40, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Allen, M.J.; Tung, V.; Kaner, R.B. Honeycomb Carbon: A review of graphene. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rao, C.N.R.; Sood, A.K.; Subrahmanyam, K.S.; Govindaraj, A. Graphene: The new two-dimensional nanomaterial. Angew Chem. Int. Ed. 2009, 48, 7752–7777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Park, S.; Ruoff, R.S. Chemical methods for the production of graphenes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schwierz, F. Graphene transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010, 5, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, D.; Choi, D.; Li, J.; Yang, Z.; Nie, Z.; Kou, R.; Hu, D.; Wang, C.; Saraf, L.V.; Zhang, J.; et al. Self-Assembled TiO2–Graphene hybrid nanostructures for enhanced Li-ion insertion. ACS Nano 2009, 3, 907–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sheng, M.; Zhang, F.; Ji, B.; Tong, X.; Tang, Y. A novel tin-graphite dual-ion battery based on sodium-ion electrolyte with high energy density. Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1601963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yoo, E.; Okata, T.; Akita, T.; Kohyama, M.; Nakamura, J.; Honma, I. Enhanced electrocatalytic activity of Pt subnanoclusters on graphene nanosheet surface. Nano Lett. 2009, 9, 2255–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, X.; Zhi, L.; Tsao, H.N.; Tomović, Ž.; Li, J.; Müllen, K. Transparent carbon films as electrodes in organic solar cells. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2008, 47, 2990–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Li, G.; Xu, C. Hydrothermal synthesis of 3D NixCo1−xS2 particles/graphene composite hydrogels for high performance supercapacitors. Carbon 2015, 90, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, C.H.; Yang, H.H.; Zhu, C.L.; Chen, X.; Chen, G.N. A graphene platform for sensing biomolecules. Angew. Chem. 2009, 121, 4879–4881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, H.; Robinson, J.T.; Diankov, G.; Dai, H. Nanocrystal growth on graphene with various degrees of oxidation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 3270–3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lv, B.-J.; Wang, S.; Xu, T.-W.; Guo, F. Effects of minor Nd and Er additions on the precipitation evolution and dynamic recrystallization behavior of Mg–6.0Zn–0.5Mn alloy. J. Magnes. Alloy. 2020, 9, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, X.; Sheng, X.; Guo, Y.; Lu, X.; Wu, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Gu, J. Multifunctional HDPE/CNTs/PW composite phase change materials with excellent thermal and electrical conductivities. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2021, 86, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Babushkina, E.A.; Belokopytova, L.V.; Grachev, A.M.; Meko, D.; Vaganov, E.A. Variation of the hydrological regime of Bele-Shira closed basin in Southern Siberia and its reflection in the radial growth of Larix sibirica. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1725–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anwar, A.W.; Majeed, A.; Iqbal, N.; Ullah, W.; Shuaib, A.; Ilyas, U.; Bibi, F.; Rafique, H.M. Specific capacitance and cyclic stability of graphene based metal/metal oxide nanocomposites: A review. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2015, 31, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liang, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhou, J.; Wang, J.; Regier, T.; Dai, H. Co3O4 nanocrystals on graphene as a synergistic catalyst for oxygen reduction reaction. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 780–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, S.; Brown, L.; Levendorf, M.; Cai, W.; Ju, S.-Y.; Edgeworth, J.; Li, X.; Magnuson, C.W.; Velamakanni, A.; Piner, R.D.; et al. Oxidation resistance of graphene-coated Cu and Cu/Ni alloy. ACS Nano 2011, 5, 1321–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Goli, P.; Ning, H.; Li, X.; Lu, C.Y.; Novoselov, K.S.; Balandin, A.A. Thermal properties of graphene–copper–graphene heterogeneous films. Nano Lett. 2014, 14, 1497–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Udayabhaskar, R.; Mangalaraja, R.; Sahlevani, S.F.; Perarasu, V.; Karthikeyan, B.; Contreras, D.; Gracia-Pinilla, M. Graphene induced band gap widening and luminescence quenching in ceria:graphene nanocomposites. J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 770, 1221–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lu, Z.-Q.; Zhao, L.; Ding, H.; Chen, L.-Q. A dual-functional metamaterial for integrated vibration isolation and energy harvesting. J. Sound Vib. 2021, 509, 116251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhu, H.; An, Y.; Shi, M.; Li, Z.; Chen, N.; Yang, C.; Xiao, P. Porous N-doped carbon/MnO2 nanoneedles for high performance ionic liquid-based supercapacitors. Mater. Lett. 2021, 296, 129837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Suresh, R.; Udayabhaskar, R.; Sandoval, C.; Ramírez, E.; Mangalaraja, R.V.; Mansilla, H.D.; Contreras, D.; Yáñez, J. Effect of reduced graphene oxide on the structural, optical, adsorption and photocatalytic properties of iron oxide nanoparticles. New J. Chem. 2018, 42, 8485–8493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tian, Y.; Lin, L.; Chen, S.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, H.; Yu, W.; Ning, H.; Hu, N. Defects engineering of Fe2O3@Sn2O3 nanosheet arrays for high-performance hybrid supercapacitor. J. Energy Storage 2021, 42, 103123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aadil, M.; Shaheen, W.; Warsi, M.F.; Shahid, M.; Khan, M.A.; Ali, Z.; Haider, S.; Shakir, I. Superior electrochemical activity of α-Fe2O3/rGO nanocomposite for advance energy storage devices. J. Alloys Compd. 2016, 689, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mohan, B.S.; Ravi, K.; Anjaneyulu, R.B.; Sree, G.S.; Basavaiah, K. Fe2O3/RGO nanocomposite photocatalyst: Effective degradation of 4-Nitrophenol. Phys. B Condens. Matter 2019, 553, 190194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, B.; Wu, X.-L.; Shu, C.-Y.; Guo, Y.-G.; Wang, C.-R. Synthesis of CuO/graphene nanocomposite as a high-performance anode material for lithium-ion batteries. J. Mater. Chem. 2010, 20, 10661–10664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, Y.; Sun, M.; Yuan, Y.; Wu, Q.; Wang, H.; He, Y.; Lin, Z.; Zhou, F.; Ling, M.; Qian, C.; et al. Accommodation of silicon in an interconnected copper network for robust Li-ion storage. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 1910249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, H.; Lin, L.; Wu, B.; Hu, N. Vertical carbon skeleton introduced three-dimensional MnO2 nanostructured composite electrodes for high-performance asymmetric supercapacitors. J. Power Sources 2020, 476, 228527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, Y.; Chen, K.; Bai, H.; Li, L. Electrochemically reduced graphene porous material as light absorber for light-driven thermoelectric generator. J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 17800–17804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ghijsen, J.; Tjeng, L.H.; van Elp, J.; Eskes, H.; Westerink, J.; Sawatzky, G.A.; Czyzyk, M.T. Electronic structure of Cu2O and CuO. Phys. Rev. B 1988, 38, 11322–11330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, J.; Li, F.; Xu, M. Synthesis and Characterization of Nanoscale CuO Powders. In Proceedings of the 55th International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology, Beijing, China, 27–31 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sarkar, C.; Dolui, S.K. Synthesis of copper oxide/reduced graphene oxide nanocomposite and its enhanced catalytic activity towards reduction of 4-nitrophenol. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 60763–60769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yusoff, N. Synthesis of Functionalized Graphene/Copper Oxide (CuO) Nanocomposites and Their Catalytic Activity/NORAZRIENA Binti Yusoff. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Malaya, Lumpur, Malaya, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  75. Erdoğan, İ.Y.; Güllü, Ö. Optical and structural properties of CuO nanofilm: Its diode application. J. Alloys Compd. 2010, 492, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jadhav, M.S.; Kulkarni, S.; Raikar, P.; Barretto, D.A.; Vootla, S.K.; Raikar, U.S. Green biosynthesis of CuO & Ag–CuO nanoparticles from Malus domestica leaf extract and evaluation of antibacterial, antioxidant and DNA cleavage activities. New J. Chem. 2018, 42, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. El-Trass, A.; ElShamy, H.; El-Mehasseb, I.; El-Kemary, M. CuO nanoparticles: Synthesis, characterization, optical properties and interaction with amino acids. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 2997–3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Muhamad, E.N.; Irmawati, R.; Abdullah, A.H.; Taufiq-Yap, Y.H.; Hamid, S.A. Effect of number of washing on the characteristics of copper oxide nanopowders. Malays. J. Anal. Sci. 2007, 11, 294–301. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sabeeh, S.H.; Hussein, H.A.; Judran, H.K. Synthesis of a complex nanostructure of CuO via a coupled chemical route. Mater. Res. Express 2016, 3, 125025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, Y.; Tang, Z.-R.; Fu, X.; Xu, Y.-J. TiO2−graphene nanocomposites for gas-phase photocatalytic degradation of volatile aromatic pollutant: Is TiO2−graphene truly different from other TiO2−carbon composite materials? ACS Nano 2010, 4, 7303–7314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sakthivel, S.; Kisch, H. Daylight photocatalysis by carbon-modified titanium dioxide. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2003, 42, 4908–4911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Manickathai, K.; Viswanathan, S.K.; Alagar, M. Synthesis and characterization of CdO and CdS nanoparticles. IJPAP 2008, 46, 561–564. [Google Scholar]
  83. Pouretedal, H.; Kadkhodaie, A. Synthetic CeO2 nanoparticle catalysis of methylene blue photodegradation: Kinetics and mechanism. Chin. J. Catal. 2010, 31, 1328–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ramesha, G.; Kumara, A.V.; Muralidhara, H.; Sampath, S. Graphene and graphene oxide as effective adsorbents toward anionic and cationic dyes. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 361, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, S.-T.; Chen, S.; Chang, Y.; Cao, A.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H. Removal of methylene blue from aqueous solution by graphene oxide. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 359, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Liu, T.; Li, Y.; Du, Q.; Sun, J.; Jiao, Y.; Yang, G.; Wang, Z.; Xia, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, K.; et al. Adsorption of methylene blue from aqueous solution by graphene. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2012, 90, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Akhavan, O.; Azimirad, R.; Safa, S.; Hasani, E. CuO/Cu(OH)2 hierarchical nanostructures as bactericidal photocatalysts. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 9634–9640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, Y.; Yang, X.-Y.; Rooke, J.; Van Tendeloo, G.; Su, B.-L. Ultralong Cu(OH)2 and CuO nanowire bundles: PEG200-directed crystal growth for enhanced photocatalytic performance. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 348, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hagfeldt, A.; Graetzel, M. Light-induced redox reactions in nanocrystalline systems. Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coatings 11 01452 g001
Figure 1. XRD patterns of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites.
Figure 1. XRD patterns of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites.
Coatings 11 01452 g001
Coatings 11 01452 g002
Figure 2. FESEM images of the samples: (a) CuO and (b) CuO-2.5G.
Figure 2. FESEM images of the samples: (a) CuO and (b) CuO-2.5G.
Coatings 11 01452 g002
Coatings 11 01452 g003
Figure 3. FESEM images of the samples: (a) CuO-5G and (b) CuO-10G.
Figure 3. FESEM images of the samples: (a) CuO-5G and (b) CuO-10G.
Coatings 11 01452 g003
Coatings 11 01452 g004
Figure 4. EDX spectra of the samples: (a) CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G and (d) CuO-10G.
Figure 4. EDX spectra of the samples: (a) CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G and (d) CuO-10G.
Coatings 11 01452 g004
Coatings 11 01452 g005
Figure 5. FTIR spectra of the samples: (a) CuO-2.5G, (b) CuO-5G, and (c) CuO-10G.
Figure 5. FTIR spectra of the samples: (a) CuO-2.5G, (b) CuO-5G, and (c) CuO-10G.
Coatings 11 01452 g005
Coatings 11 01452 g006
Figure 6. UV-Vis absorption spectra of the samples.
Figure 6. UV-Vis absorption spectra of the samples.
Coatings 11 01452 g006
Coatings 11 01452 g007
Figure 7. Tauc’s plots of the samples: (a) CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G, (d) CuO-10G.
Figure 7. Tauc’s plots of the samples: (a) CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G, (d) CuO-10G.
Coatings 11 01452 g007
Coatings 11 01452 g008
Figure 8. Time-dependent absorption spectra of MB solution during light irradiation in the presence of: (a) pristine CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G, and (d) CuO-10G.
Figure 8. Time-dependent absorption spectra of MB solution during light irradiation in the presence of: (a) pristine CuO, (b) CuO-2.5G, (c) CuO-5G, and (d) CuO-10G.
Coatings 11 01452 g008
Coatings 11 01452 g009
Figure 9. (a) Photodegradation efficiency (%) of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites in terms of time of light irradiation and (b) the rate of MB dye photodegradation by the samples.
Figure 9. (a) Photodegradation efficiency (%) of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites in terms of time of light irradiation and (b) the rate of MB dye photodegradation by the samples.
Coatings 11 01452 g009
Table 1. Chemical information of starting materials.
Table 1. Chemical information of starting materials.
ComponentChemical FormulaCAS NumberMolar Mass (g/mol)SupplierPurity
Copper (II) AcetateCu (CH3COO)26046-93-1199.65Merck99.99%
Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromideC19H42BrN57-09-0364.45Merck99.99%
Sodium hydroxideNaOH1310-73-240Merck99.99%
EthanolC2H5OH64-17-546.07Merck99.99%
Methylene blueC16H18ClN3S61-73-4319.85Sigma-Aldrich95%
GrapheneC1034343-98-012.01US Research Nanomaterials, Inc.95%
Table 2. X-ray diffraction peaks of the prepared samples and their associated crystal planes.
Table 2. X-ray diffraction peaks of the prepared samples and their associated crystal planes.
Sample
CuOCuO-2.5GCuO-5GCuO-10
2θPlane2θPlane2θPlane2θPlane
32.4711026.6700226.6700226.67002
35.61 1 ¯ 11 32.4700132.4700132.47 1 ¯ 11
35.8211135.61 1 ¯ 11 35.61 1 ¯ 11 35.61111
49.04 2 ¯ 02 35.82 2 ¯ 02 35.82 2 ¯ 02 --
58.5120238.8502038.85020--
61.79 1 ¯ 13 49.0420249.04202--
66.2202253.72 1 ¯ 13 53.72 1 ¯ 13 --
68.2722058.5102258.51022--
------61.7922061.79220--
------66.2231166.22311--
------68.27 2 ¯ 22 68.27 2 ¯ 22 --
Table 3. Calculated average crystallite sizes of CuO and graphene in the synthesized samples.
Table 3. Calculated average crystallite sizes of CuO and graphene in the synthesized samples.
SampleAverage Crystallite Size
CuOGraphene
CuO8.460.00
CuO-2.5G10.3215.40
CuO-5G10.1920.98
CuO-10G12.4726.02
Table 4. The average grain diameter of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites.
Table 4. The average grain diameter of pristine CuO, CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites.
SampleAverage Grain Diameter
CuO31.95
CuO-2.5G28.92
CuO-5G20.11
CuO-10G40.85
Table 5. Weight percentage and atomic percentage of the elements present in the samples.
Table 5. Weight percentage and atomic percentage of the elements present in the samples.
SampleElementWeight Percentage (%)Atomic Percentage (%)Error (%)
CuOO30.7863.3021.18
Cu69.2236.701.04
CuO-2.5GC25.4450.2210.66
O17.3927.5810.66
Cu57.1722.200.84
CuO-5GC59.0676.2013.94
O18.5219.0213.94
Cu22.424.780.73
CuO-10GC47.2262.2714.14
O33.6633.1514.14
Cu19.124.580.60
Table 6. Bond assignments of CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites in FTIR spectra.
Table 6. Bond assignments of CuO-2.5G, CuO-5G and CuO-10G nanocomposites in FTIR spectra.
CuO-10GCuO-5GCuO-2.5G
ReferenceVibraton Modek (cm−1)ReferenceVibraton Modek (cm−1)ReferenceVibraton Modek (cm−1)
[75]Cu–O517[75]Cu-O520[75]Cu–O506
[76]C=O724[76]Cu-O590[76]Cu–O593
[77]C–C804[77]C=O728[78]C=O1410
[75]C=O907[75]C=O910[78]C=O1470
[76]C=O952[76]C=O960[79]C–O1573
[78]C–O–C1022[78]C=O1410[78]C=O2364
[78]C=O1410[78]C=O1470[80]C=O2840
[79]C=O1478[79]C-O1570[80]C–H2919
[78]C–O1564[78]C=H2862[80]O–H3433
[80]O–H1641[80]C-H2840---
[80]C=O2365[80]C-H2919---
[80]C–H2917[80]O-H3410---
[80]O–H3436------
Table 7. Calculated optical bandgap energies for the synthesized samples.
Table 7. Calculated optical bandgap energies for the synthesized samples.
SampleOptical Bandgap Energy (±0.01 eV)
CuO1.41
CuO-2.5G1.29
CuO-5G1.20
CuO-10G1.17
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raya, I.; Ahmad, A.; Alkaim, A.F.; Bokov, D.; Alwaily, E.R.; Luque, R.; Alsaiari, M.; Jalalah, M. RETRACTED: Synthesis, Characterization and Photodegradation Studies of Copper Oxide–Graphene Nanocomposites. Coatings 2021, 11, 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121452

AMA Style

Raya I, Ahmad A, Alkaim AF, Bokov D, Alwaily ER, Luque R, Alsaiari M, Jalalah M. RETRACTED: Synthesis, Characterization and Photodegradation Studies of Copper Oxide–Graphene Nanocomposites. Coatings. 2021; 11(12):1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121452

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raya, Indah, Awais Ahmad, Ayad F. Alkaim, Dmitry Bokov, Enas R. Alwaily, Rafael Luque, Mabkhoot Alsaiari, and Mohammed Jalalah. 2021. "RETRACTED: Synthesis, Characterization and Photodegradation Studies of Copper Oxide–Graphene Nanocomposites" Coatings 11, no. 12: 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121452

APA Style

Raya, I., Ahmad, A., Alkaim, A. F., Bokov, D., Alwaily, E. R., Luque, R., Alsaiari, M., & Jalalah, M. (2021). RETRACTED: Synthesis, Characterization and Photodegradation Studies of Copper Oxide–Graphene Nanocomposites. Coatings, 11(12), 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11121452

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop