BiFeO3/Magnetic nanocomposites for the photocatalytic degradation of cefixime from aqueous solutions under visible light

[Display omitted] •CFX was photocatalyticaly eliminated using the BFO/MNPs under visible light irradiation.•Increasing the BFO/MNPs dose, time, and the temperature improved CFX removal.•Increase of pH and the initial CFX concentration had a negative effect on its elimination.•Removal efficiency pred...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. A, Chemistry. Chemistry., 2019-09, Vol.382, p.111926, Article 111926
Hauptverfasser: Mostafaloo, Roqiyeh, Mahmoudian, Mohammad Hassan, Asadi-Ghalhari, Mahdi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:[Display omitted] •CFX was photocatalyticaly eliminated using the BFO/MNPs under visible light irradiation.•Increasing the BFO/MNPs dose, time, and the temperature improved CFX removal.•Increase of pH and the initial CFX concentration had a negative effect on its elimination.•Removal efficiency predicted by the model found to be 91.8%. BiFeO3/magnetic nanocomposite was synthesized, and its photocatalytic activity was investigated on the photo-degradation of cefixime drug in an aqueous medium under visible irradiation. The influence of five main effective parameters, namely pH (3–9), CFX initial concentration (1–15 mg/L), BFO/MNPs dose (0–5*103 mg/L), time (2–90 min), and temperature (10–50 °C), was studied on CFX removal using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Under the optimized conditions, the maximum CFX elimination efficiency was found to be 91.8% with desirability 0.97, with the optimum values of pH = 4.5, CFX initial concentration 4.5 mg/L, BFO/MNPs dose 3.75 *103 mg /L, time 32 min, and temperature 20 °C. The validity and adequacy of the proposed model was confirmed by the corresponding statistics (i.e. F-values of 7.02 and 3.88 and p-values of 0.0002 and 0.036 for the own model and its lack of fit, respectively, R2 = 0.981, R2adjusted = 0.974, R2predicted = 0.96, AP = 43.67, CV = 10.48) and plots (i.e. normal distribution of the residuals, residuals versus the predicted responses, and studentized residuals versus run).
ISSN:1010-6030
1873-2666
DOI:10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.111926