Investigation on the Three-Dimensional Nanostructure and the Optical Properties of Hydroxyapatite/Magnetite Nanocomposites Prepared from Natural Resources
- 5 Downloads
Hydroxyapatite, which has been widely used in the medical field in the last couple of years, is a superior biomaterial due to its biocompatibility and nontoxicity. Hydroxyapatite requires highly magnetic materials to perform maximally in specific medical fields. In this study, hydroxyapatite/ magnetite composites mainly composed of limestone and natural iron sand were synthesized through a coprecipitation method, and composites having different hydroxyapatite-to-magnetite mass ratios were compared. The crystal structure, particle size, fractal dimension, morphology, functional group, and energy gap were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD), synchrotron X-ray scattering (SAXS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, and ultraviolent-visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy. The research results showed that the hydroxyapatite and magnetite phases had a hexagonal structure and cubic structure, respectively. In general, from the FTIR data analysis, the hydroxyapatite and magnetite particles were identified from the functional groups of phosphate, iron-oxygen, carbonate, and hydroxyl. Moreover, depending on particle size, the samples consisting of 3.7-nm primary particles formed a cluster with a massive three-dimensional structure. Meanwhile, the energy gap showed various values ranging between 3.25 and 3.86 eV.
KeywordsHydroxyapatite Magnetite Limestone Iron sand Nanostructure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This work was supported by a “PDUPT” research grant from Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for AT.
- Y. Xu et al., Adv. Powder Technol. 29, 4 (2018).Google Scholar
- J. K. Odusote et al., J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 17, 2 (2019).Google Scholar
- Z. Noor et al., Universa Med. 30, 1 (2016).Google Scholar
- E. Damien and P. A. Revell, J. Appl. Biomater. Biomech. JABB. 2, 2 (2004).Google Scholar
- B. Kundu et al., Ceram. Int. 39, 8 (2013).Google Scholar
- E. Kosobrodova et al., J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 29, 1 (2017).Google Scholar
- I. Bressler, J. Kohlbrecher and A. F. Thünemann., J. Appl Cryst. 48, 5 (2015).Google Scholar
- J. Kohlbrecher, SASfit: A Program for Fitting Simple Structural Models to Small Angle Scattering Data (Laboratory for Neutron Scattering: Paul Scherrer Institute, 2017).Google Scholar
- Y. A. Hariyanto et al., IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 515, 4 (2019).Google Scholar
- S. J. Iyengar et al., RSC Adv. 6, 17 (2016).Google Scholar
- M. Munasir and A. Terraningtyas, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1171, 2 (2019).Google Scholar