| Literature DB >> 35806752 |
George V Belessiotis1,2, Pinelopi P Falara2, Islam Ibrahim1,3, Athanassios G Kontos1,4.
Abstract
In this review, the most recent advances in the field of magnetic composite photocatalysts with integrated plasmonic silver (Ag) is presented, with an overview of their synthesis techniques, properties and photocatalytic pollutant removal applications. Magnetic attributes combined with plasmonic properties in these composites result in enhancements for light absorption, charge-pair generation-separation-transfer and photocatalytic efficiency with the additional advantage of their facile magnetic separation from water solutions after treatment, neutralizing the issue of silver's inherent toxicity. A detailed overview of the currently utilized synthesis methods and techniques for the preparation of magnetic silver-integrated composites is presented. Furthermore, an extended critical review of the most recent pollutant removal applications of these composites via green photocatalysis technology is presented. From this survey, the potential of magnetic composites integrated with plasmonic metals is highlighted for light-induced water treatment and purification. Highlights: (1) Perspective of magnetic properties combined with plasmon metal attributes; (2) Overview of recent methods for magnetic silver-integrated composite synthesis; (3) Critical view of recent applications for photocatalytic pollutant removal.Entities:
Keywords: ferrite; magnetic composite; photocatalysis; pollutant degradation; silver (Ag); synthesis method
Year: 2022 PMID: 35806752 PMCID: PMC9267654 DOI: 10.3390/ma15134629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Photocatalytic treatment of organic pollutants by an irradiated photocatalyst.
Figure 2Schematic representations of (i) LSPR (Reused with permission [52]. Copyright Elsevier 2017) and (ii) Plasmonic enhancement mechanisms (Reproduced from Ref. [43] with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry).
Figure 3Energy diagram for common spinel ferrites, anatase ΤιO2 and silver. The diagram was constructed using the referenced bibliographic works: for Ag [57] and anatase TiO2 (reconstruction with permission [58]. Copyright John Wiley & Sons 2010) and for spinel ferrites (reconstruction with permission [54]. Copyright Elsevier 2021).
Summary of synthesis methods.
| Synthesis Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Co-precipitation |
Simple process Environmentally benign |
Wide particle size distribution of synthesized NPs Generated wastewaters with high basic pH |
| Thermal decomposition |
High quality monodispersed NPs Highly crystallized NPs |
High reaction temperature requirement Complicated procedure Possible emission of toxic gases Use of high cost and toxic reagents |
| Combustion |
Simple and rapid process Energy efficiency Cost effectiveness Controllable stoichiometry and crystallite size |
High energy demand |
| Sol–gel auto combustion |
Reproducibility Products with high surface to volume ratio Good stoichiometric control Narrow size distribution of NPs Lower temperatures needed compared to combustion method |
Heating requirement |
| Solvothermal and hydrothermal |
Cost-effectiveness High yield of products Excellent particle crystallinity Controllable size and good morphology |
Slow kinetics due to the lower reaction temperature |
| Microemulsion |
Very fine and monodispersed NPs Economic method Environmentally benign |
Usage of large amounts of solvent Uncontrollable effects of the remaining surfactants |
Figure 4Schematic illustration of co-precipitation synthesis method. (Reused with permission [85]. Copyright Elsevier 2020).
Figure 5Pictorial representation of sol–gel auto combustion route. (Reused with permission [94]. Copyright Elsevier 2018).
Figure 6General fields of applications for magnetic materials.
Recent magnetic silver-integrated composites synthesized with different methods.
| 9 | Composites: Preparation Method (Component) | Particle Size(S) | Target Application Type (Details) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-precipitation-based | Ag/Fe3O4: co-precipitation (Fe3O4)/ | ≈16.2 nm (magnetic NPs) | Catalysis (methane partial oxidation and formation of formaldehyde) | Navarro et al., 2020 [ |
| Ag/PDA/GO/Fe3O4: co-precipitation (Fe3O4)/ | ≈20 nm (Ag NPs) | Catalysis (removal of methylene | Upoma et al., 2020 [ | |
| Ag/CNT/ Fe3O4: co-precipitation | - | Catalysis (removal of o-nitrophenol, p-nitrophenol, 2-methyl-p-nitrophenol, and methyl orange with NaBH4) | Bhaduri et al., 2018 [ | |
| Ag/C-QDs/ Fe3O4: co-precipitation (Fe3O4)/ | ≈42 nm (magnetic NPs) | Catalysis (removal of crystal violet and p-nitroaniline in the presence of NaBH4) | Guo et al., 2017 [ | |
| Ag/PE/MnFe2O4: co-precipitation (MnFe2O4)/ | ≈100 nm (magnetic NPs) | Catalysis (removal of RhB, MO, CR, MR, AY and 4-NP in the presence of NaBH4) | Gürbüz et al., 2021 [ | |
| Hydrothermal-based | Ag/C/CoFe2O4: hydrothermal (Fe3O4)/ | ≈50 nm (magnetic NPs) | Adsorption (adsorption of penicillin and ciprofloxacin) | Bodaghi et al., 2020 [ |
| Ag/rGO/CoFe2O4: hydrothermal | ≈35–46 nm (magnetic NPs) | Electrochemical | Khan et al., 2020 [ | |
| Solvothermal-based | Ag/PTA/Fe3O4: solvothermal (Fe3O4)/self- polymerization (PTA)/ | ≈250 nm (magnetic NPs) | Biomedical (antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus bacteria) | Wang et al., 2018 [ |
| Ag/Fe3O4: solvothermal | ≈217 nm (magnetic NPs) | Adsorption and catalysis (Hg2+ adsorption and reduction) | Inglezakis et al., 2020 [ | |
| Ag/PDA/Fe3O: solvothermal (Fe3O4)/ | ≈420 nm (magnetic NPs) | Biomedical (antibacterial activities against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus) | Qin et al., 2017 [ | |
| Combustion and sol–gel auto combustion-based | Ag/MnFe2O4: sol–gel auto combustion | ≈40–50 nm (magnetic NPs) | Biomedical (antibacterial activity toward Escherichia coli) | Ning et al., 2020 [ |
| Ag/CoFe2O4: sol–gel auto combustion | ≈32–58 nm (magnetic NPs) | - | Routray et al., 2020 [ | |
| Ag/MgFe2O4: combustion (MgFe2O4)/ | ≈100 nm (magnetic NPs) | Biomedical (antibacterial activity) | Lagashetty et al., 2019 [ | |
| Thermal decomposition-based | Ag/NiFe2O4: thermal decomposition (NiFe2O4)/ | ≈35 nm (magnetic NPs) | Biomedical (anti-bacterial and anti-fungi activity toward Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas syringae bacteria and Alternaria solani and Fusarium oxysporum, respectively) | Golkhatmi et al., 2017 [ |
| Not mentioned | Ag/CD-MA/Fe3O4 | ≈50 nm (magnetic NPs) | Catalysis (removal of nitroaromatics and organic dyes) | Nariya et al., 2019 [ |
Figure 7TEM images of a magnetic CoFe2O4/TiO2 (TCF) composite without (a) and with (b) Ag nanoparticle integration (white circles signify Ag nanoparticles), alongside reduction kinetics of Cr6+ under UV (c) and artificial solar light (d) using the TCF/Ag photocatalysts, and the depiction of the photocatalyst’s magnetic removal after completion (d, inset). (Reused with permission [20]. Copyright Elsevier 2019).
Photocatalytic pollutant removal performance by magnetic photocatalysts with and without Ag. Pollutants include hexavalent chromium (Cr6+), dyes such as methylene blue (MB), congo red (CR), methyl orange (MO), malachite green (MG), and rhodamine B (RhB), and pharmaceuticals such as tetracycline (TC), carbamazepine (CBZ), metronidazole (MZ), sulfanilamide (SAM), gemfibrozil (GEM) and tamoxifen (TAM).
| Photocatalyst | Pollutant (Initial Concentration, mg/L) | Irradiation Type | Removal Efficiency (%) | Time | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TiO2/CoFe2O4 | (0.1) | Cr6+ (5) | UV/Vis | 58.3/18.4 | 150/300 | Ibrahim et al., 2020 [ |
| Ag/TiO2/CoFe2O4 | 95.1/92.1 | 150/300 | ||||
| Ag/CoFe2O4/PANi | (0.05) | MB | Sunlight | ~80 | 180 | Mosali et al., 2017 [ |
| ZnFe2O4/ZnO | (1) | MO (10) | Vis | 63.4 | 420 | Su et al., 2018 [ |
| ZnFe2O4/ZnO/Ag | 84 | |||||
| Bi12O17Cl2/AgFeO2 | (0.5) | TC (40) | Vis | 77.3 | 60 | Guo et al., 2021 [ |
| Bi12O17Cl2/Ag/AgFeO2 | 94.1 | |||||
| BiFeO3 | (1) | MG (10) | Vis | ~70 | 240 | Jaffari et al., 2019 [ |
| Ag/BiFeO3 | 85.5 | |||||
| Ag3PO4/Ag/NiFe2O4 | (0.4) | MB (20) | Vis | ~99 | 60 | Dong et al., 2018 [ |
| Ag/Fe3O4/ZnO | - | MB | UV | 99 | 120 | Tju et al., 2018 [ |
| Ag/AgBr/ZnFe2O4 | (1) | CBZ (10) | Vis | 22.7 | 240 | Yentur et al., 2020 [ |
| AgBr/g-C3N4/Fe3O4 | (0.4) | RhB (20) | Vis | 76 | 150 | Zhang et al., 2021 [ |
| Ag@AgBr/g-C3N4/Fe3O4 | 96 | |||||
| MgFe2O4/ZnO | (1) | CR (25) | Vis | 88 | 60 | Nasab et al., 2020 [ |
| MgFe2O4/ZnO/Ag | 82 | |||||
| g-C3N4/Fe3O4/Ag/Ag2SO3 | (0.4) | RhB (12) | Vis | 99 | 270 | Akhundi et al., 2017 [ |
| Zn0.5Ca0.5Fe2O4/Ag | (2) | RhB (40) | Vis | total | 120 | Fernandes et al., 2021 [ |
| Fe3O4@TiO2@PDA/SiW11V | (1) | MO (15) | Vis | 29 | 120 | Wu et al., 2021 [ |
| Fe3O4@TiO2@PDA/SiW11V-Ag | total | |||||
| Fe3O4@TiO2@PDA/SiW11V | (1) | Cr6+ (500) | 36.5 | |||
| Fe3O4@TiO2@PDA/SiW11V-Ag | 91.3 | |||||
| Ag/Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 | - | MZ (50) | UV | 99.9 | 360 | Mustafa, 2021 [ |
| ZnO/Fe3O4 | (1) | MB (10) | Simulated Sunlight | 63.48 | 240 | Zhang et al., 2021 [ |
| Ag/ZnO/Fe3O4 | 97.31 | |||||
| NiFe2O4-TiO2/rGO | (0.15) | MB (10) | Vis | ~60 | 150 | Bourzami et al., 2021 [ |
| NiFe2O4-TiO2/rGO/Ag | ~75 | |||||
| Ag/ZnFe2O4 | (0.4) | Cr6+ (20) | Vis | 82.7 | 120 | Liu et al., 2021 [ |
| ZnFe2O4 | SAM (20) | 48.4 | ||||
| Ag/ZnFe2O4 | 98.4 | |||||
| Ag-CuFe2O4@WO3 | (0.2) | GEM (5) | UV | 81 | 150 | Sayadi et al., 2021 [ |
| TAM (5) | 83 | |||||
| Ag/AgBr/ZnFe2O4 | (1) | MO (10) | Vis | 96 | 120 | Li et al., 2020 [ |
Figure 8Schematics of photocatalytic processes: (a) for the degradation of the antibiotic sulfanilamide (SAM) and the reduction of hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) by a magnetic/silver composite (Ag/ZnFe2O4). (Reused with permission [70]. Copyright Elsevier 2021) (b) for the degradation of organic pollutants by a visible-light-activated Ag/AgBr/ZnFe2O4 composite. (Reused with permission [155]. Copyright John Wiley & Sons 2020).