Full text loading...
(a) SEM micrograph and (b) Rietveld refinement of the XRD pattern of the nanostructured sample. Tick marks below the pattern indicate the expected Bragg reflection positions for cubic and monoclinic crystal phases.
(a)–(c) SEM images of the nanostructured sample with higher CuO/Cu2O ratio. The inset of (a) shows a TEM image of a nanowire along with its electron diffraction pattern. The inset displays a thin layer of Cu O nanograins. (d) Rietveld refinement of the XRD pattern.
(a)–(c) SEM micrographs and (d) XRD pattern with Rietveld refinement of the sample after a heat treatment at 900 °C.
(a) Magnetization measured at H = 5 kOe versus temperature for CuO nanograins on Cu2O. The inset shows hysteresis measurement at two temperatures and diamagnetic contributions—the theoretically expected (black) and observed (red) taking into account the data at high magnetic field extrapolated to low field. (b) Magnetization versus magnetic field measured at different temperatures.
(a) Magnetic susceptibility (χ = M/H) measured at H = 0.5, 1, and 5 kOe for CuO nanowires/grains on the Cu2O layer. (b) Magnetization as a function of magnetic field measured at different temperatures. The dashed line is the observed diamagnetic contribution. The inset shows an expanded view of the data at low magnetic field.
(a) Magnetization as a function of temperature (FC) measured at H = 5 kOe for the sample after the heat treatment. The FC and ZFC measurements of CuO NWs on NGs + Cu2O shown in Fig. 5(a) are plotted again for comparison. (b) Magnetization versus magnetic field measured at different temperatures for AFM CuO bulk sample. The upper inset shows an expanded view of the data at low magnetic field and the lower inset is the coercive field versus temperature for CuO bulk and CuO NWs/NGs.
(a) The saturation magnetization as a function of temperature for both CuO NGs and CuO NWs on NGs and (b) Bohr magneton versus magnetic field for the CuO NGs and CuO NWs on NGs.
Article metrics loading...