Advertisement

Catalytic and Photocatalytic Properties of Oxide Spinels

  • Tetiana TatarchukEmail author
  • Basma Al-Najar
  • Mohamed Bououdina
  • Mamdouh Abdel Aal Ahmed
Reference work entry

Abstract

Oxide spinels (OSs) have been identified as perspective functional materials in various fields of applications including water treatment, degradation of dyes, hyperthermia, and drug delivery and as antibacterial agent. In recent years, extensive researches are devoted to the synthesis and properties of spinel nanooxide systems to fulfill the essential requirement of better chemical and thermal stabilities with enhanced catalytic and photocatalytic. In this chapter, the applications of OSs (ferrites, aluminates, chromites) as heterogeneous catalysts in different inorganic processes and as photocatalysts in many chemical processes such as decomposition, oxidation, reduction, and construction are described. The catalytic properties of OSs crucially depend on the distribution of cations among the octahedral and tetrahedral sites in the spinel structure and accordingly the corresponding physical properties. In particular, the most interesting feature of spinel ferrites is the magnetic property for the removal of catalyst from the reaction medium by means of a magnet without loss of catalytic or photocatalytic activities. These compounds have well-established catalytic characteristics for many reactions including carbon monoxide oxidation, catalytic decomposition of greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4), catalytic combustion (oxidation) of soot, and the growth of the CNTs. Through this chapter, we hope to provide the readers with a distinct perspective of the present and future of this field.

Keywords

Catalyst Active center Mössbauer spectroscopy Photocatalysis Spinel Ferrite Soot Dye Catalytic activity 

References

  1. 1.
    Coïsson M, Barrera G, Celegato F et al (2017) Hysteresis losses and specific absorption rate measurements in magnetic nanoparticles for hyperthermia applications. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj 1861(6):1545–1558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.12.006Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Satalkar M, Kane SN, Kumaresavanji M et al (2017) On the role of cationic distribution in determining magnetic properties of Zn0.7–xNixMg0.2Cu0.1Fe2O4 nano ferrite. Mater Res Bull 91:14–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2017.03.021Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kane SN, Satalkar M (2017) Correlation between magnetic properties and cationic distribution of Zn0.85−xNixMg0.05Cu0.1Fe2O4 nano spinel ferrite: effect of Ni doping. J Mater Sci 52:3467.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0636-7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed MA, Hassan HE, Eltabey MM et al (2018) Mössbauer spectroscopy of MgxCu0.5−xZn0.5Fe2O4 (x = 0.0, 0.2 and 0.5) ferrites system irradiated by γ-rays. Physica B: Cond Matt 530:195–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2017.10.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tatarchuk TR, Paliychuk ND, Bououdina M et al (2018) Effect of cobalt substitution on structural, elastic, magnetic and optical properties of zinc ferrite nanoparticles. J Alloys Compd 731:1256–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.10.103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tatarchuk T, Bououdina M, Macyk W et al (2017) Structural, optical, and magnetic properties of Zn-doped CoFe2O4 nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett 12(1):141–151.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-017-1899-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurta SA, Mykytyn IM, Tatarchuk TR (2014) Structure and the catalysis mechanism of oxidative chlorination in nanostructural layers of a surface of alumina. Nanoscale Res Lett 9(1):357–365.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-9-357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu Y, Hsu J, Fu Y et al (2016) Preparation of Cu–Zn ferrite photocatalyst and it’s application. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(35):15696–15702.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.04.127Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karthik K, Dhanuskodi S, Gobinath C et al (2017) Photocatalytic and antibacterial activities of hydrothermally prepared CdO nanoparticles. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 28:11420–11429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-017-6937-zGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reddy DHK, Yun YS (2016) Spinel ferrite magnetic adsorbents: alternative future materials for water purification? Coord Chem Rev 315:90–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2016.01.012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang MH, Jeong JM, Lee KG et al (2017) Hierarchical porous microspheres of the Co3O4@graphene with enhanced electrocatalytic performance for electrochemical biosensors. Biosens Bioelectron 89:612–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2016.01.075Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhao M, Fan S, Liang J (2015) Synthesis of mesoporous grooved ZnFe2O4 nanobelts as peroxidase mimetics for improved enzymatic biosensor. Ceram Int 41(9):10400–10405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.04.080Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahmad T, Bae H, Iqbal Y, Rhee I et al (2015) Chitosan-coated nickel-ferrite nanoparticles as contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Magn Mater 381: 151–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2014.12.077Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kombaiah K, Vijaya JJ, Kennedy JL et al (2018) Okra extract-assisted green synthesis of CoFe2O4 nanoparticles and their optical, magnetic, and antimicrobial properties. Mater Chem Phys 204:410–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2017.10.077Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdel-Hamid Z, Rashad MM, Mahmoud SM et al (2017) Electrochemical hydroxyapatite-cobalt ferrite nanocomposite coatings as well hyperthermia treatment of cancer. Mater Sci Eng C 76:827–838.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.126Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang G, Zhao D, Ma Y et al (2018) Synthesis and characterization of polymer-coated manganese ferrite nanoparticles as controlled drug delivery. Appl Surf Sci 428:258–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.09.096Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sohrabnezhad S, Rezaeimanesh M (2017) Synthesis and characterization of novel magnetically separable NiFe2O4@AlMCM-41-Cu2O core-shell and its performance in removal of dye. Adv Powder Technol 28(11):3039–3048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2017.09.014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobs JP, Maltha A, Reintjes JGH (1994) The surface of catalytically active spinels. J Catal 147:294–300Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Briceño S, Castillo HD, Sagredo V (2012) Structural, catalytic and magnetic properties of Cu1−XCoXFe2O4. Appl Surf Sci 263:100–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.09.007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Védrine JC (2014) Revisiting active sites in heterogeneous catalysis: their structure and their dynamic behaviour. Appl Cat A Gen 474:40–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2013.05.029Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li X, Zhu K, Pang J (2018) Unique role of Mössbauer spectroscopy in assessing structural features of heterogeneous catalysts. Appl Catal B Environ 224:518–532.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.11.004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu K, Rykov AI, Wang J (2015) Chapter one – recent advances in the application of Mößbauer spectroscopy in heterogeneous catalysis. In: Jentoft FC (ed) Advances in catalysis, vol 58. Academic, San Diego, pp 1–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acat.2015.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bauminger R, Cohen SG, Marinov A et al (1961) Study of the low-temperature transition in magnetite and the internal fields acting on iron nuclei in some spinel ferrites, using Mössbauer absorption. Phys Rev 122:1447Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kelly WH, Folen VJ, Hass M et al (1961) Magnetic field at the nucleus in spinel-type crystals. Phys Rev 124:80Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evans BJ, Hafiner SS, Kalvius GM (1966) The hyperfine fields of 57Fe at the A and B sites in copper ferrite (CuFe2O4). Phys Lett 23:24–25Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Evans BJ (1968) Magnetic hyperfine interactions in some spinel ferrites. In: Proceedings of the fourth symposium on mossbauer effect methodology, Chicago, Illinois, England Nuclear Corporation. Plenum Press, New York, pp 139–158Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sicafus KE, Wills JM, Grines NW (1999) Structure of spinel. J Am Ceram Soc 82:3279–3292Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Da Dalt S, Takimi AS, Volkmer TM et al (2011) Magnetic and Mossbauer behavior of the nano structured MgFe2O4 spinel obtained at low temperature. Powder Technol 210:103–108Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abbas YM, Mansour SA, Ibrahim MME et al (2011) Microstructure characterization and cation distribution of nanocrystalline cobalt ferrite. J Magn Magn Mater 323:2748–2756Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sepelak V, Becker KD (2004) Comparison of the nanoscale milled spinel ferrites with that of the quenched bulk materials. Mater Sci Eng A 375–377:861–864Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naik PP, Sali RBT, Meena SS et al (2014) Gamma radiation roused lattice contraction effects investigated by Mossbauer spectroscopy in nanoparticles Mn-Zn Ferrite. Radiat Phys Chem 102:147–152Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deraz NM (2008) Production and characterization of pure and doped copper ferrite nanoparticles. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 62:212–222Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rana MU, Islam M, Abbas T (2000) Cation distribution and magnetic interactions in Zn-substituted CuFe2O4 ferrites. Mater Chem Phys 65:345–349Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heiba ZK, Mohamed MB, Hamdeh HH et al (2015) Structural analysis and cation distribution of nanocrystalline Ni1-xZnxFe1.7Ga0.3O4. J Alloys Compd 618:755–760Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lakhani UK, Pathak TK, Vasoya NH et al (2011) Structural parameters and X-ray Debye temperature determination study on copper ferrite aluminates. Solid State Sci 13:539–547Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heiba ZK, Mohamed MB, Ahmed MA et al (2014) Cation distribution and dielectric properties of nanocrystalline gallium substituted nickel ferrite. J Alloys Compd 586:77–781.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.10.137Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dhal GC, Mohan D, Prasad R (2017) Preparation and application of effective different catalysts for simultaneous control of diesel soot and NOX emissions: an overview. Cat Sci Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CY02612EGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lin X, Li S, He H et al (2017) Evolution of oxygen vacancies in MnOx-CeO2 mixed oxides for soot oxidation. Appl Catal B.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.06.071Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Legutko P, Jakubek T, Kaspera W et al (2014) Soot oxidation over K-doped manganese and iron spinels – how potassium precursor nature and doping level change the catalyst activity. Catal Commun 43:34–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2013.08.021Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Legutko P, Kaspera W, Stelmachowski P et al (2014) Boosting the catalytic activity of magnetite in soot oxidation by surface alkali promotion. Catal Commun 56:139–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2014.07.020Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu H, Dai X, Wang K et al (2017) Highly efficient catalysts of Mn1−xAgxCo2O4 spinel oxide for soot combustion. Catal Commun 101:134–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2017.08.007Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fino D, Russo N, Saracco G et al (2008) Removal of NOx and diesel soot over catalytic traps based on spinel-type oxides. Powder Technol 180(1–2):74–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2007.03.003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zawadzki M, Staszak W, López-Suárez FE et al (2009) Preparation, characterisation and catalytic performance for soot oxidation of copper-containing ZnAl2O4 spinels. Appl Catal A General 371(1–2):92–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2009.09.035Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu Z, Zhou Z, He F (2017) Catalytic decomposition of N2O over NiO-CeO2 mixed oxide catalyst. Catal Today 293–294:56–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2017.02.030Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kapteijn F, Rodriguez-Mirasol J, Moulijn JA (1996) Heterogeneous catalytic decomposition of nitrous oxide. Appl Catal B Environ 9(1–4):25–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-3373(96)90072-7Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pachatouridou E, Papista E, Iliopoulou EF et al (2015) Nitrous oxide decomposition over Al2O3 supported noble metals (Pt, Pd, Ir): effect of metal loading and feed composition. J Environ Chem Eng 3(2):815–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.03.030Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Abu-Zied BM, Bawaked SM, Kosa SA et al (2017) Effects of Nd-, Pr-, Tb- and Y-doping on the structural, textural, electrical and N2O decomposition activity of mesoporous NiO nanoparticles. Appl Surf Sci 419:399–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.05.040Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yu H, Wang X, Wu X et al (2018) Promotion of Ag for Co3O4 catalyzing N2O decomposition under simulated real reaction conditions. Chem Eng J 334:800–806.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.079Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grzybek G, Stelmachowski P, Gudyka S et al (2015) Insights into the twofold role of Cs doping on deN2O activity of cobalt spinel catalyst – towards rational optimization of the precursor and loading. Appl Catal B Environ 168–169:509–514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.01.005Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ciura K, Grzybek G, Wójcik S et al (2017) Optimization of cesium and potassium promoter loading in alkali-doped Zn0.4Co2.6O4|Al2O3 catalysts for N2O abatement. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 121:645.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-017-1188-9Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xue L, Zhang C, He H et al (2007) Catalytic decomposition of N2O over CeO2 promoted Co3O4 spinel catalyst. Appl Catal B Environ 75(3–4):167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2007.04.013Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maniak G, Stelmachowski P, Stanek JJ et al (2011) Catalytic properties in N2O decomposition of mixed cobalt–iron spinels. Catal Commun 15(1):127–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2011.08.027Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rutkowska M, Piwowarska Z, Micek E et al (2015) Hierarchical Fe-, Cu- and Co-Beta zeolites obtained by mesotemplate-free method. Part I: synthesis and catalytic activity in N2O decomposition. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 209:54–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2014.10.011Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhang B, Liu F, He H et al (2014) Role of aggregated Fe oxo species in N2O decomposition over Fe/ZSM-5. Chin J Catal 35(12):1972–1981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(14)60184-4Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boroń P, Chmielarz L, Gurgul J et al (2014) The influence of the preparation procedures on the catalytic activity of Fe-BEA zeolites in SCR of NO with ammonia and N2O decomposition. Catal Today 235:210–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2014.03.018Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Abu-Zied BM, Soliman SA, Abdellah SE (2015) Enhanced direct N2O decomposition over CuxCo1−xCo2O4 (0.0≤x≤1.0) spinel-oxide catalysts. J Ind Eng Chem 21:814–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.04.017Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Russo N, Fino D, Saracco G, Specchia V (2007) N2O catalytic decomposition over various spinel-type oxides. Catal Today 119(1–4):228–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2006.08.012Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yan L, Ren T, Wang X et al (2003) Catalytic decomposition of N2O over MxCo1−xCo2O4 (M = Ni, Mg) spinel oxides. Appl Catal B Environ 45(2):85–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-3373(03)00174-7Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Grzybek G, Stelmachowski P, Gudyka S et al (2016) Strong dispersion effect of cobalt spinel active phase spread over ceria for catalytic N2O decomposition: the role of the interface periphery. Appl Catal B Environ 180:622–629.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.07.027Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Grzybek G, Stelmachowski P, Indyka P et al (2015) Cobalt–zinc spinel dispersed over cordierite monoliths for catalytic N2O abatement from nitric acid plants. Catal Today 257:93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2015.02.022Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tatarchuk T, Bououdina M, Vijaya JJ et al (2017) Spinel ferrite nanoparticles: synthesis, crystal structure, properties, and perspective applications. In: Fesenko O, Yatsenko L (eds) Nanophysics, nanomaterials, Interface studies, and applications. NANO 2016. Springer proceedings in physics, vol 195. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56422-7_22Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tatarchuk T (2014) Сatalytic oxidation of carbon monoxide on lithium-zinc ferrites with a spinel structure. Ekologia i Technika 22(2):70–75Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang W, Wu F, Li J et al (2017) Dispersion–precipitation synthesis of highly active nanosized Co3O4 for catalytic oxidation of carbon monoxide and propane. Appl Surf Sci 411:136–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.03.162Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ahmad W, Noor T, Zeeshan M (2017) Effect of synthesis route on catalytic properties and performance of Co3O4/TiO2 for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon oxidation under real engine operating conditions. Catal Commun 89:19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2016.10.012Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Amini E, Rezaei M, Sadeghinia M et al (2013) Low temperature CO oxidation over mesoporous CuFe2O4 nanopowders synthesized by a novel sol-gel method. Chin J Catal 34(9):1762–1767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(12)60653-6Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mobini S, Meshkani F, Rezaei M et al (2017) Synthesis and characterization of nanocrystalline copper–chromium catalyst and its application in the oxidation of carbon monoxide. Process Saf Environ Prot 107:181–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.02.009Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mobini S, Meshkani F, Rezaei M (2017) Surfactant-assisted hydrothermal synthesis of CuCr2O4 spinel catalyst and its application in CO oxidation process. J Environ Chem Eng 5(5):4906–4916.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.09.027Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lv M, Guo X, Wang Z et al (2016) Synthesis and characterization of Co–Al–Fe nonstoichiometric spinel-type catalysts for catalytic CO oxidation. RSC Adv 6:27052–27059.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA02204ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tatarchuk T, Bououdina M, Paliychuk N et al (2017) Structural characterization and antistructure modeling of cobalt-substituted zinc ferrites. J Alloys Compd 694:777–791.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.10.067Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huš M, Dasireddy VDBC, Štefančič NS et al (2017) Mechanism, kinetics and thermodynamics of carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol on Cu/ZnAl2O4 spinel-type heterogeneous catalysts. Appl Catal B Environ 207:267–278. 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.01.077Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ghosh BK, Moitra D, Chandel M et al (2017) CuO nanoparticle immobilised mesoporous TiO2–cobalt ferrite nanocatalyst: a versatile, magnetically separable and reusable catalyst. Catal Lett 147:1061–1076.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-017-1993-9Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kumar RT, Selvam NCS, Ragupathi C et al (2012) Synthesis, characterization and performance of porous Sr(II)-added ZnAl2O4 nanomaterials for optical and catalytic applications. Powder Technol 224:147–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2012.02.044Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kumar RT, Suresh P, Selvam NCS et al (2012) Comparative study of nano copper aluminate spinel prepared by sol–gel and modified sol–gel techniques: structural, electrical, optical and catalytic studies. J Alloys Compd 522:39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2012.01.064Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wei Y, Meng W, Wang Y et al (2017) Fast hydrogen generation from NaBH4 hydrolysis catalyzed by nanostructured Co–Ni–B catalysts. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(9):6072–6079.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.11.134Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wang Y, Li T, Bai S et al (2016) Catalytic hydrolysis of sodium borohydride via nanostructured cobalt–boron catalysts. Int J Hydrog Energy 41(1):276–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.076Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tomboc GRM, Tamboli AH, Kim H (2017) Synthesis of Co3O4 macrocubes catalyst using novel chitosan/urea template for hydrogen generation from sodium borohydride. Energy 121:238–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.027Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Akbarnejad HR, Daadmehr V, Rezakhani AT et al (2013) Catalytic activity of the spinel ferrite nanocrystals on the growth of carbon nanotubes. J Supercond Nov Magn 26:429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-012-1758-zGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zampiva RYS, Kaufmann Junior CG, Pinto JS et al (2017) 3D CNT macrostructure synthesis catalyzed by MgFe2O4 nanoparticles – a study of surface area and spinel inversion influence. Appl Surf Sci 422:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.06.020Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Memon NK, Xu F, Sun G et al (2013) Flame synthesis of carbon nanotubes and few-layer graphene on metal-oxide spinel powders. Carbon 63:478–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2013.07.023Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sherly ED, Vijaya JJ, Selvam NCS et al (2014) Microwave assisted combustion synthesis of coupled ZnO–ZrO2 nanoparticles and their role in the photocatalytic degradation of 2,4-dichlorophenol. Ceram Int 40:5681–5691Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Joa W, Kumar S, Isaacs MA et al (2017) Cobalt promoted TiO2/GO for the photocatalytic degradation of oxytetracycline and Congo red. Appl Catal B Environ 201:159–168Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kokane SB, Suryawanshi SR, Sasikala R et al (2017) Architecture of 3D ZnCo2O4 marigold flowers: influence of annealing on cold emission and photocatalytic behavior. Mater Chem Phys 194:55–64Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tsai MT, Chang YS, Liu YC (2017) Photocatalysis and luminescence properties of zinc stannate oxides. J. Ceram Int 43:428–434Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Huang S, Xu Y, Liu Q et al (2017) Enhancing reactive oxygen species generation and photocatalytic performance via adding oxygen reduction reaction catalysts into the photocatalysts. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 218:174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.06.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zhang Y, Zhou X, Zhang F et al (2017) Design and synthesis of Cu modified cobalt oxides with hollow polyhedral nanocages as efficient electrocatalytic and photocatalytic water oxidation catalysts. J Catal 352:246–255Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Li H, Liu Y, Tang J et al (2016) Synthesis, characterization and photocatalytic properties of Mg1-xZnxAl2O4 spinel nanoparticles. Solid State Sci 58:14–21Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zhu HY, Jiang R, Fu YQ et al (2016) Novel multifunctional NiFe2O4/ZnO hybrids for dye removal by adsorption, photocatalysis and magnetic separation. Appl Surf Sci 369:1–10Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Xu Y, Aia J, Zhang H (2016) The mechanism of degradation of bisphenol A using the magnetically separable CuFe2O4/peroxymonosulfate heterogeneous oxidation process. J Hazard Mater 309:87–96Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liu P, He H, Wei G et al (2016) Effect of Mn substitution on the promoted formaldehyde oxidation over spinel ferrite: catalyst characterization, performance and reaction mechanism. Appl Catal B Environ 182:476–484Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Huang Y, Long B, Tang M et al (2016) Bifunctional catalytic material: an ultrastable and high-performance surface defect CeO2 nanosheets for formaldehyde thermal oxidation and photocatalytic oxidation. Appl Catal B Environ 181:779–787Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rasheed A, Mahmood M, Ali U et al (2016) ZrxCo0.8xNi0.2xFe2O4-graphene nanocomposite for enhanced structural, dielectric and visible light photocatalytic applications. Ceram Int 42:15747–15755Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mousavi M, Habibi-Yangjeh A (2017) Novel magnetically separable gC3N4/Fe3O4/Ag3PO4/Co3O4 nanocomposites: visible-light-driven photocatalysts with highly enhanced activity. Adv Powder Technol 28:1540–1553Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Butt FK, Cao C, Wan Q et al (2014) Synthesis, evolution and hydrogen storage properties of ZnV2O4 glomerulus nano/microspheres: a prospective material for energy storage. Int J Hydrogen Energ 39:7842–7851Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kima S, Durand P, Andréa E et al (2017) Enhanced photocatalytic ability of Cu, Co doped Zn Al based mixed metal oxides derived from layered double hydroxides. Colloid Surface A 524:43–52Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gan L, Xu L, Qian K (2016) Preparation of core-shell structured CoFe2O4 incorporated Ag3PO4 nanocomposites for photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes. Adv Mater Res Switz 109:354–360Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mohamed MM, Ibrahim I, Salama TM (2016) Rational design of manganese ferrite-graphene hybrid photocatalysts: efficient water splitting and effective elimination of organic pollutants. Appl Catal A Gen 524:182–191Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Qiu XP, Yu JS, Xu HM et al (2016) Interfacial effect of the nanostructured Ag2S/Co3O4 and its catalytic mechanism for the dye photodegradation under visible light. Appl Surf Sci 362:498–505Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Vijayaraghavan T, Suriyaraj SP, Selvakumar R et al (2016) Rapid and efficient visible light photocatalytic dye degradation using AFe2O4 (A = Ba, Ca and Sr) complex oxides. Mater Sci Eng B Adv 210:43–50Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zeng Y, Wang Y, Chen J et al (2016) Fabrication of high-activity hybrid NiTiO3/g-C3N4 heterostructured photocatalysts for water splitting to enhanced hydrogen production. Ceram Int 42:12297–12305Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Wang C, Wang X, Xua B et al (2004) Enhanced photocatalytic performance of nanosized coupled ZnO/SnO2 photocatalysts for methyl orange degradation. J Photoch Photobio A 168:47–52Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wang C, Xua B, Wang X et al (2005) Preparation and photocatalytic activity of ZnO/TiO2/SnO2 mixture. J Solid State Chem 178:3500–3506Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Maria S, Jeghan N, Kang M (2017) Facile synthesis and photocatalytic activity of cubic spinel urchin-like copper cobaltite architecture. Mater Res Bull 91:108–113Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Caia C, Zhang Z, Liu J et al (2016) Visible light-assisted heterogeneous Fenton with ZnFe2O4 for the degradation of Orange II in water. Appl Catal B Environ 182:456–468Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Huang J, Ren H, Chen K et al (2014) Controlled synthesis of porous Co3O4 micro/nanostructures and their photocatalysis property. Superlattice Microst 75:843–856Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zhang D, Zhang L (2016) Ultrasonic-assisted sol-gel synthesis of rugby-shaped SrFe2O4/reduced graphene oxide hybrid as versatile visible light photocatalyst. J Taiwan Inst Chem E 69:156–162Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Feng J, Hou Y, Wang X et al (2016) In-depth study on adsorption and photocatalytic performance of novel reduced graphene oxide-ZnFe2O4 polyaniline composites. J Alloy Compd 681:157–166Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zhu Z, Wang Z, Di J et al (2016) Enhanced visible-light photocatalytic properties of g-C3N4 by coupling with ZnAl2O4. Catal Commun 86:86–90Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ain N, Shaheen W, Bashir B et al (2016) Electrical, magnetic and photoelectrochemical activity of rGO/MgFe2O4 nanocomposites under visible light irradiation. Ceram Int 42: 12401–12408Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Yao Y, Lu F, Zhu Y et al (2015) Magnetic core–shell CuFe2O4@C3N4 hybrids for visible light photocatalysis of Orange II. J Hazard Mater 297:224–233Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wang S, Zhang B (2013) SPR propelled visible-active photocatalysis on Au-dispersed Co3O4 films. Appl Catal A Gen 467:585–592Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Mady AH, Baynosa ML, Tuma D et al (2017) Facile microwave-assisted green synthesis of Ag-ZnFe2O4@rGOnanocomposites for efficient removal of organic dyes under UV- and visible-light irradiation. Appl Catal B Environ 203:416–427Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Li Z, Ai J, Ge M (2017) A facile approach assembled magnetic CoFe2O4/AgBr composite for dye degradation under visible light. J Env Chem Eng 5:1394–1403Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ge M, Liu W, Hu X et al (2017) Magnetically separable Ag/AgBr/NiFe2O4 composite as a highly efficient, visible light plasmonic photocatalyst. J Phys Chem Solids 109:1–8Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wang J, Li H, Meng S et al (2017) One-pot hydrothermal synthesis of highly efficient SnOx/Zn2SnO4 composite photocatalyst for the degradation of methyl orange and gaseous benzene. Appl Catal B Environ 200:19–30Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Tanga C, Liu E, Wan J et al (2016) Co3O4 nanoparticles decorated Ag3PO4 tetrapods as an efficient visible-light-driven heterojunction photocatalyst. Appl Catal B Environ 181:707–715Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Tezuka K, Kogure M, Shan YJ (2014) Photocatalytic degradation of acetic acid on spinel ferrites MFe2O4 (M = Mg, Zn, and Cd). Catal Commun 48:11–14Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Anchieta CG, Sallet D, Foletto EL et al (2014) Synthesis of ternary zinc spinel oxides and their application in the photodegradation of organic pollutant. Ceram Int 40:4173–4178Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rashid J, Barakat MA, Mohamed RM et al (2014) Enhancement of photocatalytic activity of zinc/cobalt spinel oxides by doping with ZrO2 for visible light photocatalytic degradation of 2-chlorophenol in wastewater. J Photoch Photobio A 284:1–7Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Qiu XP, Yu JS, Xu HM et al (2016) Interfacial effects of the Cu2O nano-dots decorated Co3O4 nanorods array and its photocatalytic activity for cleaving organic molecules. Appl Surf Sci 382:249–259Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Hao X, Jin Z, Wang F et al (2015) Behavior of borate complex anion on the stabilities and the hydrogen evolutions of ZnxCo3-xO4 decorated graphene. Superlattice Microst 82:599–611Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Preethi V, Kanmani S (2012) Photocatalytic hydrogen production over CuGa2LxFexO4 spinel. Int J Hydrogen Energ 37:18740–18746Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Rekhila G, Bessekhouad Y, Trari M (2015) Hydrogen evolution under visible light over the solid solution NiFe2-xMnxO4 prepared by sol gel. Int J Hydrogen Energ 40:12611–12618Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Boudjema A, Popescu I, Juzsakova T et al (2016) M-substituted (M = Co, Ni and Cu) zinc ferrite photo-catalysts for hydrogen production by water photo-reduction. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:11108–11118Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Narendranath SB, Thekkeparambil SV, George L et al (2016) Photocatalytic H2 evolution from water–methanol mixtures on InGaO3(ZnO)m with an anisotropic layered structure modified with CuO and NiO cocatalysts. J Mol Catal A Chem 415:82–88Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Gómez-Solís C, Peralta-Arriaga SL, Torres-Martínez LM et al (2017) Photocatalytic activity of MAl2O4 (M = Mg, Sr and Ba) for hydrogen production. Fuel 188:197–204Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Dang H, Qiu Y, Cheng Z et al (2016) Short communication hydrothermal preparation and characterization of nanostructured CNTs/ZnFe2O4 composites for solar water splitting application. Ceram Int 42:10520–10525Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Gautam S, Shandilya P, Priya B et al (2017) Superparamagnetic MnFe2O4 dispersed over graphitic carbons and composite and bentonite as magnetically recoverable photocatalyst for antibiotic mineralization. Sep Purif Technol 172:498–511Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Oliveira CA, Volanti DP, Nogueira AE et al (2017) Well-designed β-Ag2MoO4 crystals with photocatalytic and antibacterial activity. Mater Des 115:73–81Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Jesudoss SK, Vijaya JJ, Kennedy LJ et al (2016) Studies on the efficient dual performance of Mn1–xNixFe2O4 spinel nanoparticles in photodegradation and antibacterial activity. J Photochem Photobiol B 165:121–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tetiana Tatarchuk
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Basma Al-Najar
    • 3
  • Mohamed Bououdina
    • 3
  • Mamdouh Abdel Aal Ahmed
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural ScienceVasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National UniversityIvano-FrankivskUkraine
  2. 2.Educational and Scientific Center of Materials Science and NanotechnologyVasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National UniversityIvano-FrankivskUkraine
  3. 3.Department of Physics, College of ScienceUniversity of BahrainZallaqBahrain
  4. 4.Physics Department, Faculty of ScienceAl Azhar UniversityNasr CityEgypt

Personalised recommendations