4.1 SEM analysis
The morphology of obtained ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids has been analyzed using SEM analysis displayed in Fig. 1 (a-d). The SEM of ZnFe revealed intense bright, flower-like morphology with rough surface (Rahman et al. 2023). The SEM of 1% PPy/ZnFe and 3% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 1(b),(c) showed the formation of heterogeneous morphology with globular spherical aggregates of dark particles associated with PPy embedded with bright nodular particles which were correlated to ZnFe. The size of dark PPy particles was small but the distribution of the dark particles increased with the increasing in PPy confirming that the hybrid was heterogeneous and revealed mixed morphology. The SEM micrograph of 5% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 1(d), showed the formation of huge spherical clusters of dark and bright particles. The morphology clearly shows that huge structural transformation occurs upon increase of loading of PPy.
4.2 IR analysis
The FTIR spectra of as synthesized ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids are shown in Fig. 2(a-d). The broad band absorption peak at 3415 cm− 1 in ZnFe ,Fig. 2(a) was due to the presence of OH group of entrapped water. The peak at 1684 cm− 1 was attrivutred to the metal-OH (M-OH) stretching vibration. Zn-O vibration was indicated by the presence of the peak at 846 cm− 1. The peak at 657 cm− 1 was attributed to Fe-O vibration, and represent the tetrahedral and octahedral modes of Fe in ZnFe. The existence of the peaks above supported the formation of ZnFe (Gaffar et al. 2023c,Zia et al. 2020). In case of 1% PPy/ZnFe nanohybrid, Fig. 2(b), the peak at 3309 cm− 1 corresponded to the NH and OH stretching vibration of PPy and entrapped water respectively. The peaks at 1556 cm− 1 and 1408 cm− 1 were attributed to the C = N bands of pyrrole. The peak at 1197 cm− 1 corresponded to N- C bending vibration of PPy.
The peaks at 1043 cm− 1 was attributed to C-H stretching vibration of PPy, while the peak associated with pyrrole ring appeared at 927 cm− 1. The IR spectrum of 3% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 2(c), showed characteristic peak at 3148 cm− 1 representing –OH and NH stretching vibration peaks. The peaks at 1546 cm− 1 and 1402 cm− 1 corresponds to C = N bands of pyrrole ring vibrations and the peak at 1192 cm− 1 was observed representing N-C bending vibration. The peaks at 1045 cm− 1 and 921 cm− 1 were also observed corresponding to = C-H in plane vibration and N-H in plane vibrations of pyrrole ring. Similarly, the IR spectrum of 5% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 2(d), was also recorded displaying the characteristic peak at 3142 cm− 1 representing the –OH stretching of H2O and NH of pyrrole. The peaks at 1550 cm− 1, 1402 cm− 1 and 1195 cm− 1 were seen corresponding to C = C bands, N-H stretching vibration of pyrrole ring and N-C stretch vibration respectively. The peak at 1045 cm− 1 represented = C-H in plane vibration. The peak at 923 cm− 1 was also observed corresponding to N-H in plane vibrations (Zia and Riaz 2020). The region of NH/OH stretching vibration appeared to be broad and intense confirming the interaction of NH of pyrrole with the M-OH of ZnFe. The presence of the peaks associated with ZnFe and with PPy therefore confirmed the formation of the nanohybrid.
4.3 XRD analysis
The XRD profile of ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids are depicted in Figure 3. The XRD profile of ZnFe demonstrated peaks at 2θ= 27.46°, 31.7°, 45.3°,56.3° and 74.9° which correspond to (220), (311), (400), (422), (511), and (533) crystal planes respectively. The cubic spinel structure precisely corresponded to all of the peaks described by JCPD card no. 01‐077‐ 0011
(Algarni et al. 2022) .The 1% PPy/ZnFe nanohybrid revealed diffraction peaks at 2θ= 18.06°, 31.5°, 35.08°, 56.46° and 61.7° corresponding to crystal planes (200), (220), (311), (511) and (533) respectively. For 3% PPy/ZnFe demonstrated crystal planes (200), (220), (311), (511) and (533) revealed by diffraction peaks at 2θ =18.06°, 31.5°, 35.08°, 56.46° and 61.7° respectively. The nanohybrid 5% PPy/ZnFe revealed peaks at 2θ = 12.62°, 18.34°, 31.5°, 35.22°, 56.46° and 61.9° corresponding to crystal planes (001), (200), (220), (311), (511) and (533) respectively.
The peaks that were previously seen in pure ZnFe and which correlate to different crystal planes have been retained in the nanohybrids 1% PPy/ZnFe, 3% PPy/ZnFe, and 5% PPy/ZnFe. The peak intensities of ZnFe were found to show broadening when PPy loading was increased from 1–5%, confirming that the nanohybrid transformed into a semi-crystalline state. The structural changes appeared presumably due to the encapsulation by PPy chains that tend to arrange themselves along the ZnFe planes causing the later to be semi-crystalline.
4.4 Photoluminescence studies
The Fig. 4 displays the room temperature PL spectrum of ZnFe and 5% PPy/ZnFe2O4 nanohybrids. The PL spectrum of ZnFe2O4 displayed the near band-edge emission at 529 nm, which was clearly associated with the basic defect density in the lattice structure(Kumar et al. 2021). This band was also correlated to the weak green emission due to the presence of oxygen vacancy in spinel ferrite. In case of 5% PPy/ZnFe nanohybrid, two photoluminescence emission peaks at 435 nm and 411 nm were observed in addition to the characteristic peak at 529 nm, which were attributed to PPy and therefore confirmed the presence of PPy in ZnFe (Rahman et al. 2023).
4.5 XPS studies
The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis results are provided in Fig. 5 (a-f). The overview of the XPS spectrum of pure ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 5(a), revealed the existence of Zn, Fe, O, in ZnFe and Zn, Fe, O C, N in the PPy/ZnFe naohybrid. Fig. The high-resolution spectrum of Zn in PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 5(b), showed peaks centered at 1045 eV and 1025 eV eV correlated to the existence of Zn 2p1/2 and Zn 2p3/2 and the + 2 oxidation state. The high resolution spectrum of Fe in PPy/ZnFe ,Fig. 5(c), showed the peaks of Fe 2p at 724 eV and 711 eV attributed to Fe 2p1/2 and Fe 2p3/2 and the oxidation state of + 3 was confirmed for Fe. Thus, the existence of ZnFe2O4 was established in PPy/ZnFe. The high resolution O1s spectrum ,Fig. 5(d), revealed peaks at 531 eV and 529 eV which were assigned to the lattice oxygen binding with Zn and Fe (denoted as Zn–O and Fe–O)(Han et al. 2014). The high resolution spectrum of C1s of PPy/ZnFe ,Fig. 5(e), shows peak at 284 eV attributed to the C = C chemical state and at 287 eV due to C = N/ C = O. The high resolution spectrum of N1s ,Fig. 5(f), revealed satellite peaks at 398 eV, 400 eV and 401 eV ascribed to C = N, C–N and N-O respectively(Feng et al. 2020). The presence of the peaks related to Zn, Fe, C, O and N confirmed the structure of PPy/ZnFe nanohybrid.
4.6 UV analysis and calculation of bandgap
The UV-visible spectra of ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe are given in Fig. 6(a-d). The optical band gap of ZnFe2O4 and PPy/ZnFe2O4 nanohybrids were calculated using Kubelka-Munk equation (Ghazkoob et al. 2021). The band gap for ZnFe was found to be 2.03 eV, Fig. 6(a) (Ghazkoob et al. 2021). The band gap values were found to be 1.94 eV for 1% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 6(b) ,1.66 eV for 3% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 6(c) and 1.38 eV for 5% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 6(d). With an increase in PPy content, ZnFe’s band gap consistently diminished, making it appropriate for utilization as a visible light photocatalyst.
The BET surface area of ZnFe was observed to be 150 m2/gm and that of 1%PPy/ZnFe was close to 158 m2/g. The BET surface areas of 3% PPy/ZnFe and 5% PPy/ZnFe were observed to be 163 and 165 m2/g. The highest pore size and volume was noticed to be for 5% PPy/ZnFe, Table S1.
4.7 Photocatalytic studies: effect of drug concentration
CTZ-HCl was degraded using visible light-driven photocatalysis performed for a period of 60 minutes under visible light, and the UV spetrum revealed a pronounced peak at 229 nm(Souri et al. 2013). Figures 7(a-d) reveal the reduction in the CTZ-HCl peak using ZnFe and its nanohybrids with PPy. In order to investigate the effects of CTZ-HCl concentration on the degradation behavior, solutions of 30 ppm, 50 ppm, and 70 ppm were taken in along with 50 mg of catalyst (given in supporting information as Figure S1(a-d)). In case of ZnFe, for 30 ppm CTZ-HCl solution, almost 67% degradation was observed for 30 ppm, 59% for 50 ppm and 53% for 70 ppm. The rate constant (k) values for 30 ppm, 50 ppm, and 70 ppm were computed to be as 0.018 min− 1, 0.015 min− 1 and 0.013 min− 1 respectively (given in supporting information as Figure S1(a-d) inset). For 1% PPy/ZnFe, 30 ppm solution showed 71% degradation, 50 ppm showed 64% and 70 ppm showed 58% of degradation. The k values were found to be 0.020 cm− 1 for 30 ppm, 0.017 cm− 1 for 50 ppm and 0.015 cm− 1 for 70 ppm solution. The 3% PPy/ZnFe nanohybrid, showed 75% degradation for 30 ppm solution and almost 69% degradation was observed for 50 ppm solution, while 62% degradation was achieved in case of 70 ppm solution. The k values were found to be 0.023 min− 1 for 30 ppm, 0.020 min− 1 for 50 ppm and 0.017 min− 1 for 70 ppm solution respectively. Likewise, for 5% PPy/ZnFe, 82% degradation was observed 30 ppm, 74% for 50 ppm and 68% for 70 ppm. The k values were observed to be 0.029 min− 1, 0.022 min− 1, 0.019 min− 1 for 30 ppm, 50 ppm and 70 ppm respectively. The k values confirmed that the degradation followed the pseudo-first order model.
To investigate the influence of catalyst concentration, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg of ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids were used to degrade a 70 ppm cetirizine dihydrochloride solution, as (shown in supooting information as Figure S2(a-d)). For ZnFe, 53%, 69%, 72% degradation was observed for 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg respectively. The k values were found to be 0.013 min− 1, 0.020 min− 1 and 0.022 min− 1 respectively. The 1% PPy/ZnFe revealed 58% degradation for 50 mg catalyst, 74% for 100 mg and 86% for 150 mg. The k values were computed to be 0.015 min− 1, 0.023 min− 1 and 0.033 min− 1 for 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg respectively. Similarly, 3% PPy/ZnFe, showed 62% for 50 mg, 79% for 100 mg and 91% for 150 mg. The observed k values are 0.017 min− 1 for 50 mg, 0.026 min− 1 for 100 mg and 0.040 min− 1 for 150 mg catalyst. Likewise, 5% PPy/ZnFe, exihibited 68% degradation for 50 mg, 86% for 100 mg and 98% for 150 mg in the same irradiation time. The k values were recorded as 0.019 min− 1 for 50 mg, 0.034 min− 1 and 0.066 min− 1 for 100 mg and 150 mg respectively. With the increase in concentration of catalyst, the degradation efficiency was found to increase very promptly. The kinetics of photocatalyst concentration also followedthe pesudo-first order kinetics model.
4.8 Radical scavenging experiments and TOC analysis
To further understand the mechanism behind the enhanced photocatalytic performance of ZnFe and PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids, radical trapping studies were carried out to confirm the main reactive oxidative species involved in the photocatalytic degradation of the CTZ-HCl. Before being exposed to visible irradiation, CTZ-HCl solution was mixed with various scavengers, p-benzoquinone (PBQ) (O2●− scavenger), ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) (h+ scavenger), and isopropyl alcohol (IPA), which is an ●OH scavenger, Fig. 8(a-d). Using ZnFe as photocatalyst, Fig. 8(a) the degradation efficiency was reduced to 60% in presence of EDTA, 49% in presence of PBQ and 31% in presence of IPA. For 1% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 8(b), the degradation efficiency was reduced to 69%, 56%, and 40% in presence of EDTA, PBQ and IPA respectively.
In case of 3% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 8(c), the reduction was seen up to 74% in presence of EDTA, 60% in presence of PBQ and 45% in presence of IPA. Similarly, in case of 5% PPy/ZnFe, Fig. 8(d), degradation efficiency was reduced to 79% in presence of EDTA, 64% in presence of PBQ and 48% in presence of IPA. From radical trapping studies it was concluded that ●OH radicals were the main species involved in photocatalytic degradation of CTZ-HCl. The changes of total organic carbon (TOC) during photocatalytic degradation of CTZ-HCl in the presence of 5% PPy/ZnFe is shown in Fig. 9.
The gradual decrease of TOC represented the gradual disappearance of organic carbon and the reduce rate of TOC was estimated to be 98.32% after visible light irradiation for 60 min. It was illustrated that CTZ-HCl was converted to organic carbon. The degraded fragments were also analyzed by LCMS studies as given in supporting information, Figure S3. Since ●OH radicals were responsible for degradation as confirmed by radical scavenging studies, the degradation pathway proceeds by fragmenting the parent molecule (P1) into {4-[(4-chlorophenyl) (phenyl)methyl] piperazin-1-yl} acetaldehyde (M1) with m/z ratio as 325 that undergoes further fragmentation in presence of ●OH radicals to produce 4-[(4-chlorophenyl)(phenyl)methyl]piperazin-1-ol (M2, m/z 305) and N-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]-N- (hydroxymethyl)formamide (M3,m/z 199), Scheme 1. The major degraded fragment as per LCMS profile is N-hydroxy-N-(2-oxoethyl) formamide (M5) with m/z value of 100.
4.9 Mechanism of degradation
The photocatalytic mechanism of the PPy/ZnFe is presented in Scheme 2. The photogenerated electrons in the CB of ZnFe are transferred to the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of PPy, where they recombine with the photogenerated holes. At the same time, the photogenerated electrons in the LUMO of PPy are separated and migrate to the surface to react with surface-adsorbed O2 in order to generate O2−● radicals, and the photogenerated holes in the VB of ZnFe are also transferred to the surface for the photocatalytic evolution of ●OH radicals which are responsible for the photodegradation of CTZ-HCl.
The synergistic interaction between the 2 components improves the photoinduced charge separation and suppress charge recombination, resulting in an enhanced photocatalytic performance. Moreover, photoinduced electrons are easily transferred in the nanohybrid due to the π-π stacking of in PPY, which leads to prevention in charge, resulting in significantly enhanced photocatalytic activity of the nanohybrid as compared to pristine ZnFe.
ZnFe2O4 and 5% PPy/ZnFe2O4 showed remarkable photocatalytic activity even after 5cycles, which confirmed their extraordinary reusability. The Cetirizine hydrochloride was degraded to 62%, Fig. 10(a), and 90.6% Fig. 10(b), even after 5 cycles of using ZnFe2O4 and 5% PPy/ZnFe2O4 as catalyst. The 5%7 PPy/ZnFe2O4 showed more stability than ZnFe2O4.
The comparative studies provided in Table 1 reveal that the synthesized PPy/ZnFe nanohybrids are superior in terms of rapid degradation of CTZ-HCl within 60 min.
Upon comparing degradation studies by other authors, we observed, Uheida et al.(Uheida et al. 2019) reported 99% degradation of (5ppm) cetirizine under visible light in time span of 50 minutes utilizing PAN-CNT/TiO2-NH2. Mohamed et al. (Mohamed et al. 2018) have reported 99% degradation for 50 ppm of cetirizine by PAN-MWCNT/TiO2 –NH2 in 40 min under UV light, while as Iqbal et al.(Iqbal et al. 2021) reported 87% degradation by 3D-ZVF in 120 minutes for 10 ppm of cetirizine. Talwar et al. (Talwar et al. 2019) carried out heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of cetirizine utilizing TiO2 as photocatalyst and reported 98% degradation for 15 ppm of cetirizine in 420 min exposure time. Qureshi et al. (Qureshi et al. 2019) performed UV light-assisted photocatalytic degradation of cetirizine using GO-ZnWO4 as photocatalyst for 120 minutes and reported 89% degradation for the concentration of 10 ppm. In this study we have reported 98% of visible light induced degradation of 70 ppm cetirizine in a short time span of 60 minutes utilizing 150 mg of 5% PPy/ZnFe2O4. Our results are therefore comparable as well as superior to the ones reported by other authors who have used lower concentrations of cetirizine for degradation and also in terms of higher degradation efficiency attained in a short span of 60 minutes.
Table 1
Comparative Studies demonstrating degradation of CTZ-HCl using different catalysts
Catalyst Used
|
Mechanism Involved
|
Concentration of CTZ-HCl
|
Degradation Time
|
Degradation (%)
|
PAN-CNT/TiO2-NH2 (Uheida et al. 2019)
|
Visible light Photocatalysis
|
5 mg/L
|
50 min
|
99%
|
PAN-MWCNT/TiO2–NH2 (Mohamed et al. 2018)
|
UV-light photocatalysis
|
(5–50 mg/L)
|
40 min
|
99%
|
3D-ZVF (Iqbal et al. 2021)
|
UV-light Photocatalysis
|
10 mg/L
|
120 min
|
87%
|
TiO2 (Talwar et al. 2019)
|
Heterogeneous Photocatalysis
|
15 ppm
|
420 min
|
98%
|
GO-ZnWO4 (Qureshi et al. 2019)
|
UV irradiation photocatalysis
|
10 mg/L
|
120 min
|
89%
|