Domestic microwave assisted one-step co-precipitation of Ag–CuO nanocomposite of Cu/Ag ratio optimized for photocatalysis and comparison with blending CuO with Ag nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ag–CuO metal–semiconductor nanocomposite (NC) is an important component in various nanomaterial-based applications. Several approaches have been studied to facilitate its synthesis. However, most of them encounter some drawbacks. In the present work, we show the synthesis of Ag–CuO NCs through one-pot co-precipitation with the aid of simple starting chemicals and measures including metal nitrates, hexamine, agar, and domestic microwave heating. Photocatalyzed degradation of Congo Red in addition to the structural and optical characteristics show that this method is successful in production of the Schottky barrier in Ag–CuO NCs with improved photocatalytic activity (PCA). Changing the Cu content shows that the NC is not successfully formed at low Cu mol%. Consequently, the PCA of Ag–CuO of low Cu (2%–6%) lies within 4.5 × 10 −4 – 5.1 × 10 −4 min −1 , which is even lower than those of plain Ag and CuO nanoparticles (6.0 × 10 −4 – 8.1 × 10 −4 min −1 , respectively). 60 mol% was the optimum Cu content with the highest PCA (18.8 × 10 −4 min −1 ). Blending plain Ag and CuO nanoparticles to mimic the co-precipitated 60 mol% Ag–CuO showed very low PCA, even lower than the plain Ag and CuO, which once again confirms the efficiency of the simple one-pot co-precipitation approach in producing Ag–CuO with the Schottky barrier and promoted PCA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".