Synthesis of nanostructured cupric oxide for visible light assisted degradation of organic wastewater pollutants

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) XRD plots of the CuO nanoparticles showing different preferential crystallographic growth directions. (b) Modelled XRD patterns for (i) CuO-S60, and (ii) CuO-N60. (c) Lognormal distribution of crystallite sizes

Figure 1. Continued

Figure 1. Continued

Figure 2. SEM images of (a) CuO-S60 and (b) CuO-N60

Figure 3. (a) (i) Energy dispersive x-ray spectrum and (ii) atomic weight distribution of Cu and O in CuO-S60 sample. (b) (i) Energy dispersive x-ray spectrum and (ii) atomic weight distribution of Cu and O in CuO-N60 sample

Figure 3. Continued

Figure 4. UV-Vis spectra of the as-prepared nanostructured CuO specimen

Figure 5. FTIR spectra for the synthesized CuO samples

Figure 6. Nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms of (a) CuO-S60 and (b) CuO-N60

Table 1. Summary of the analytical parameters for the prepared nanostructured CuO crystals

Sample	Average Crystallite size (nm)	Energy Band gap (eV)	BET surface area (m^2/g)	BJH surface area (m^2/g)	Pore size (nm)	Pore volume (cm^3/g)	Dye degradation (%)
CuO-S60	15.0	2.12	42.9	110.9	11.4	0.1032	90.7
CuO-N60	12.0	2.40	69.6	206.9	24.9	0.3921	95.0

Figure 7. Synopsis of mean percentage rate of dye degradations for each CuO specimen in each dye

Figure 8. UV-Vis absorbance spectra for the degradation of (a)MeO, (b) MB and (c) RhB dyes using CuO-N60

Figure 9. Variation in percentage dye concentration with time for MeO, MB and RhB (Inset: shows colour change for photocatalysis of: (a) MeO, (b) MB, and (c) RhB, respectively)