For the RM of the diffractograms, the software FullProf Suite (version July 2001) was employed, the CeO2 and TiO2 crystallographic information files (CIF) obtained from Match v3 software were used as initial parameters, which crystallographic data for CeO2 were cubic crystalline structure, space group Fm-3m, and cell parameter a = 5.4110 Å. For TiO2 anatase, they were tetragonal crystalline structure, space group I 41/amd, cell parameters a = 3.78435 Å and c = 9.50374 Å. For both cases the Caglioti initial parameters were U = 0.004133, V = −0.007618, and W = 0.006255. Refinement was done using the Thompson–Cox–Hastings (TCH) pseudo-Voigt Axial divergence asymmetry function. Finally, the average crystallite size was determined in the FullProf Suite program. To do that, we first characterized the Al2O3 standard. The used experimental conditions were 2θ = 10°–80° with a step of 0.02°. For the Al2O3 refinement, the TCH profile was employed to obtain the instrumental parameters of the equipment, which was added to the instrumental resolution file (IRF) and later used to determine the average crystallite sizes of the CeO2 and TiO2 NPs.
Characterization of CeO2 and TiO2 Nanoparticles
For the RM of the diffractograms, the software FullProf Suite (version July 2001) was employed, the CeO2 and TiO2 crystallographic information files (CIF) obtained from Match v3 software were used as initial parameters, which crystallographic data for CeO2 were cubic crystalline structure, space group Fm-3m, and cell parameter a = 5.4110 Å. For TiO2 anatase, they were tetragonal crystalline structure, space group I 41/amd, cell parameters a = 3.78435 Å and c = 9.50374 Å. For both cases the Caglioti initial parameters were U = 0.004133, V = −0.007618, and W = 0.006255. Refinement was done using the Thompson–Cox–Hastings (TCH) pseudo-Voigt Axial divergence asymmetry function. Finally, the average crystallite size was determined in the FullProf Suite program. To do that, we first characterized the Al2O3 standard. The used experimental conditions were 2θ = 10°–80° with a step of 0.02°. For the Al2O3 refinement, the TCH profile was employed to obtain the instrumental parameters of the equipment, which was added to the instrumental resolution file (IRF) and later used to determine the average crystallite sizes of the CeO2 and TiO2 NPs.
Corresponding Organization : National University of San Marcos
Other organizations : Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
Protocol cited in 4 other protocols
Variable analysis
- Standard aluminum dioxide (Al2O3)
- PXRD data
- Crystallographic phases
- Average crystallite size
- No further purification was performed of the powder samples
- PXRD data were collected using a Rigaku diffractometer (Tokyo, Japan), operating with CuKα radiation (1.5406 Å) at 50 kV and 100 mA
- Diffractograms were collected using a step scanning configuration between 2θ = 20°–100° for CeO2 and TiO2, with 0.02° and 5s per step
- Crystallographic phases were identified using Match-Phase Identification from Powder Diffraction software (version3, Crystal Impact, Germany)
- OriginPro 9.0 software was used to estimate the FWHM, using a pseudo-Voigt fitting model corrected by the instrumental resolution function (IRF) obtained from the standard corundum
- FullProf Suite (version July 2001) was employed for the Rietveld Refinement (RM) of the diffractograms
- Crystallographic information files (CIF) obtained from Match v3 software were used as initial parameters for RM
- Caglioti initial parameters were U = 0.004133, V = −0.007618, and W = 0.006255 for RM
- Thompson–Cox–Hastings (TCH) pseudo-Voigt Axial divergence asymmetry function was used for refinement
- Al2O3 standard was used to characterize the instrumental parameters of the equipment, which was added to the instrumental resolution file (IRF) and later used to determine the average crystallite sizes of the CeO2 and TiO2 NPs
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!