Research article

Banksia Ashbyi-engineered facile green synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles: Characterization, and determination of micro-strain, stress, and physical parameters by X-ray-based Williamson-Hall analysis

  • Received: 17 July 2024 Revised: 05 November 2024 Accepted: 13 November 2024 Published: 28 November 2024
  • Magnetite nanoparticles (MNPs) were synthesized by a straightforward one-step biogenic process using a leaf extract taken from the Australian indigenous plant Banksia ashbyi (BA). Several advanced characterization techniques, such as X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and Raman spectroscopy were used to investigate the physical and chemical properties of synthesized MNPs. In addition, the size and morphology of the synthesized particles were examined using both focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIBSEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) methods. FT-IR analysis revealed the presence of a Fe–O band located at 551 cm-1, which confirmed the formation of BA-MNPs. Both FIBSEM and TEM image analysis confirmed the nanoparticles were spherical in shape and had a mean diameter of 18 nm with a particle distribution that ranged between 13 and 23 nm. The strong iron (Fe) and oxygen (O) peaks seen in the EDS analysis also confirmed the formation of the MNPs. TGA analysis revealed the leaf extract not only acted as the reducing agent but also served as a capping agent. The XRD analysis revealed that the synthesized MNPs exhibited a high degree of crystallinity and did not contain any impurities. Furthermore, X-ray peak profile analysis using Williamson-Hall methods found the average crystallite size was 9.13 nm, with the crystal lattice experiencing a compressive stress of 546.5 MPa and an average micro-strain of 2.54 × 10-3. In addition, other material properties such as density (5.260 kg/m3), average Young's modulus of elasticity (217 GPa), modulus of rigidity (90 GPa), and Poisson's ratio (0.235) were also estimated from the XRD data.

    Citation: Gérrard Eddy Jai Poinern, A F M Fahad Halim, Derek Fawcett, Peter Chapman, Rupam Sharma. Banksia Ashbyi-engineered facile green synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles: Characterization, and determination of micro-strain, stress, and physical parameters by X-ray-based Williamson-Hall analysis[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(6): 1096-1124. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024053

    Related Papers:

    [1] Hatice Kübra Sarı, Abdullah Kopuzlu . On topological spaces generated by simple undirected graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5541-5550. doi: 10.3934/math.2020355
    [2] Yang Yang, Yanyan Song, Haifeng Fan, Haiyan Qiao . A note on the generalized Gaussian Estrada index and Gaussian subgraph centrality of graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2279-2294. doi: 10.3934/math.2025106
    [3] Adnan Khali, Sh. K Said Husain, Muhammad Faisal Nadeem . On bounded partition dimension of different families of convex polytopes with pendant edges. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4405-4415. doi: 10.3934/math.2022245
    [4] Fatma Salama, Randa M. Abo Elanin . On total edge irregularity strength for some special types of uniform theta snake graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8127-8148. doi: 10.3934/math.2021471
    [5] Ufuk Sevim, Leyla Goren-Sumer . Consensus of double integrator multiagent systems under nonuniform sampling and changing topology. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16175-16190. doi: 10.3934/math.2023827
    [6] Ali N. A. Koam, Adnan Khalil, Ali Ahmad, Muhammad Azeem . Cardinality bounds on subsets in the partition resolving set for complex convex polytope-like graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10078-10094. doi: 10.3934/math.2024493
    [7] Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes, Ernesto Estrada . Network bipartitioning in the anti-communicability Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1153-1174. doi: 10.3934/math.2021070
    [8] Naila Mehreen, Rashid Farooq, Shehnaz Akhter . On partition dimension of fullerene graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(3): 343-352. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.3.343
    [9] Dalal Awadh Alrowaili, Uzma Ahmad, Saira Hameeed, Muhammad Javaid . Graphs with mixed metric dimension three and related algorithms. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16708-16723. doi: 10.3934/math.2023854
    [10] Tariq Alraqad, Hicham Saber, Rashid Abu-Dawwas . Intersection graphs of graded ideals of graded rings. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10355-10368. doi: 10.3934/math.2021600
  • Magnetite nanoparticles (MNPs) were synthesized by a straightforward one-step biogenic process using a leaf extract taken from the Australian indigenous plant Banksia ashbyi (BA). Several advanced characterization techniques, such as X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and Raman spectroscopy were used to investigate the physical and chemical properties of synthesized MNPs. In addition, the size and morphology of the synthesized particles were examined using both focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIBSEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) methods. FT-IR analysis revealed the presence of a Fe–O band located at 551 cm-1, which confirmed the formation of BA-MNPs. Both FIBSEM and TEM image analysis confirmed the nanoparticles were spherical in shape and had a mean diameter of 18 nm with a particle distribution that ranged between 13 and 23 nm. The strong iron (Fe) and oxygen (O) peaks seen in the EDS analysis also confirmed the formation of the MNPs. TGA analysis revealed the leaf extract not only acted as the reducing agent but also served as a capping agent. The XRD analysis revealed that the synthesized MNPs exhibited a high degree of crystallinity and did not contain any impurities. Furthermore, X-ray peak profile analysis using Williamson-Hall methods found the average crystallite size was 9.13 nm, with the crystal lattice experiencing a compressive stress of 546.5 MPa and an average micro-strain of 2.54 × 10-3. In addition, other material properties such as density (5.260 kg/m3), average Young's modulus of elasticity (217 GPa), modulus of rigidity (90 GPa), and Poisson's ratio (0.235) were also estimated from the XRD data.



    We denote by

    G=(V,E)

    an undirected graph with a set, V, of n vertices, and a set, E, of m edges such that E is a set of 2-vertex subsets of V. We say that uV is adjacent to vV in G if and only if {u,v}E. We denote by uv an edge {u,v}E. Let A and B be disjoint nonempty subsets of V. We call {A,B} a partition of G if and only if

    AB=V.

    We call {A,B} a satisfactory partition of G if and only if {A,B} is a partition of G such that for every vertex uA,

    |{vA:uv}||{vB:uv}|,

    and for every vertex xB,

    |{yB:xy}||{yA:xy}|.

    See, for example, the graph in Figure 1, where {1,2,3,4,5,6} and {7,8,9,10,11,12} are a satisfactory partition of the depicted graph.

    Figure 1.  An undirected graph with its satisfactory partition.

    The satisfactory partition problem (SPP for short) is the problem of deciding whether an undirected graph G has a satisfactory partition. The SPP was introduced in a paper [1], where an integer-programming formulation of the SPP was given, and a heuristic procedure was employed for solving the SPP. For an interpretation of the SPP, consider the problem of organizing a sightseeing tour on two boats where it is required to separate the participants into two groups and to satisfy everyone. A participant is satisfied if he knows at least as many people on his boat as on the other. This problem can be seen as an instance of the SPP on a graph where the participants are the vertices, and two vertices are adjacent if the corresponding persons know each other (see the article [1]). Research [2] showed that the SPP can be solved in polynomial time on graphs with bounded clique width. An article [3] studied the complexity of different variants of the SPP. A work [4] proved that the SPP is NP-complete. However, an article [5] showed that for graphs with maximum degree at most 4, the SPP is polynomially solvable. Additionally, a paper [6] presented several parameterized algorithms for solving the SPP.

    In this paper, we give new results on the time complexity of computing satisfactory partitions. We prove that for a given undirected graph with n vertices, a satisfactory partition (if any exists) can be computed recursively with a recursion tree of depth O(lnn) in expectation. Subsequently, we show that a satisfactory partition for those undirected graphs with recursion tree depth matching the expectation can be computed in time O(n32O(lnn)).

    The article is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses related work in a broader scope of graph partitioning literature. Section 3 illustrates a recursive algorithm to compute a satisfactory partition of a given undirected graph. Section 3 shows that the algorithm's recursion tree has a depth of O(lnn) in expectation. In Section 4, we give further arguments on the correctness of our results. Section 5 discusses our results, limitations, and future directions, while section 6 concludes the article.

    In the introduction, we discussed closely related work to the study presented in this article. This section gives a glimpse of broader literature overviewing diverse works on various graph processing and applications in recent years. Thus, a study [7] employed RNA graph partitioning to discover RNA modularity. A work [8] studied subgraphs of pair vertices. An article [9] presented a novel edge detection algorithm based on a hierarchical graph-partition approach. A paper [10] exploited a genetic algorithm for graph partition in a heterogeneous cluster. A study [11] presented a large-scale graph partition algorithm with redundant multi-order neighbor vertex storage. An article [12] investigated forbidden subgraphs in reduced power graphs of finite groups. A work [13,14] discussed an ant-local search algorithm for the partition graph coloring problem. An article [15] analyzed an efficient and balanced graph partition algorithm for the subgraph-centric programming model on large-scale power-law graphs. A work [16] introduced an improved spectral graph partition intelligent clustering algorithm for low-power wireless networks. A study [17] presented an artificial intelligence knowledge graph for dynamic networks. A paper [18] used a graph partition sampling algorithm in medical intelligent systems and orthopedic clinical nursing. A study [19] proposed a robust spectral clustering algorithm based on grid partition and decision graph. An article [20] argued about improving a graph-based label propagation algorithm with group partition for fraud detection. A study [21] presented results on monochromatic vertex disconnection of graphs. A paper [22] analyzed a task partition algorithm based on grid and graph partition for distributed crowd simulation. An article [23] introduced a novel sports video background segmentation algorithm based on graph partition. A work [24] discussed a property graph partition algorithm based on improved barnacle mating optimization. A study [25] put forward a text mining method of dispatching operation ticket systems based on graph partition spectral clustering algorithms. A work [26] discussed distinguishing colorings of graphs and their subgraphs. A paper [27] proposed an implementation of a parallel graph partition algorithm to speed up computations. A work [28] presented a memetic algorithm with two distinct solution representations for the partition graph coloring problem. A paper [29] studied the informational entropy of B-ary trees after a vertex cut. A work [30] discussed the existence of a graph whose vertex set can be partitioned into a fixed number of strong domination-critical vertex sets. An article [31] examined network bipartitioning in the anti-communicability Euclidean space. The interested reader may find further citations in the reviewed literature to other studies within the broad domain of graph processing algorithms.

    We formalize the structures of our exact process of finding a satisfactory partition, {A,B}, of a given undirected graph

    G=(V,E).

    Hence, let γ: VN0, α:VN0, and β: VN0 be total mappings such that

    γ(v)=|{uuv}|,   α(v)=0andβ(v)=0

    for all v. During our process of finding a satisfactory partition, {A,B}, of the given graph G, for every vertex vV, we use α(v) to track the number of v's adjacent vertices that are in part A, and we use β(v) to track the number of v's adjacent vertices that are in part B. Since initially we have empty parts, i.e., A= and B=, we initialize α(v) and β(v) with 0 for all v. On the other hand, for all vertices v, we employ γ(v) to track the number of v's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to a part yet. Subsequently, for every v, γ(v) is started with |{uuv}|.

    Additionally, we utilize another total mapping μ: V{0,1,2} such that for all vertices v, μ(v) is initialized with 0 to indicate that v is not assigned to either A nor B. Thus, assigning 1 to μ(v) means that the vertex v now is a member of A, while assigning 2 to μ(v) implies that v now is a member of B. Whenever a vertex v joins some part, we update the status of the adjacent vertices of v as follows: If v joins A, then we increment

    α(u)α(u)+1

    for all uv. Likewise, if a vertex v joins part B, then we update

    β(u)β(u)+1

    for all uv. Whenever we assign a vertex to some part, we verify that this assignment adheres to the satisfactory partition specification. That is, we check that for every vertex vA (i.e., μ(v)=1),

    α(v)+γ(v)β(v);

    likewise, we ensure that for every vertex v in part B (i.e., μ(v)=2),

    β(v)+γ(v)α(v).

    Consequently, whenever we put a vertex in some part, if for some vertex vV, μ(v)=1 with

    β(v)>α(v)+γ(v),

    or, μ(v)=2 with

    α(v)>β(v)+γ(v),

    then a contradiction with the satisfactory-partition specification is found; hence we return to a previous stage of the search process where the satisfactory-partition specification is unviolated by revoking one or more vertices from part A (or from part B) as we elaborate throughout this section.

    Further, in finding a satisfactory partition, we perform the following routine every time we put a vertex in some part. For every vertex v in the graph,

    (i) If vA (i.e., μ(v)=1) and half of the adjacent vertices of v are in part B, then we assign to part A the adjacent vertices of v that are not assigned to any part yet;

    (ii) If vB (i.e., μ(v)=2) and half of the adjacent vertices of v are in part A, then we assign to part B the adjacent vertices of v that are not assigned to any part yet. This routine is repeated every time we put a vertex in some part. We stress that assigning a vertex to some part may require other vertices, which are not assigned to any part yet, to join a specific part to fulfill the satisfactory partition requirement.

    Our exact process for constructing a satisfactory partition of a given graph

    G=(V,E)

    is rigorously described in Algorithm 1. The algorithm finds a satisfactory partition (if any exists) immediately after Σ(,V,μ,α,β,γ) is invoked with μ, α, β, and γ being initialized such that every vertex yV has

    μ(y)=0,   γ(y)=|{z:zy}|,   α(y)=0andβ(y)=0.

    We shortly explain the first parameter (i.e., ) passed to the algorithm. The second parameter of our procedure Σ is initially the whole set, V, of the graph vertices. Referring to lines 30–31, a call for a new instance, k, of the algorithm (i.e., the procedure Σ) entails creating a new copy of the passed structures such that the last copy of the structures (belonging to the caller instance, k1, of Σ) are not affected by the updates carried on during the execution of instance k. In other words, all the calls for the procedure Σ are done by passing a copy of the parameters.

    Algorithm 1: Σ(Δ,V,μ,α,β,γ).
    1 while: Δ do
    2   Extract a vertex v from Δ;
    3   if μ(v)=1 then
    4     if β(v)>α(v)+γ(v) then return;
    5     if α(v)+γ(v)1β(v)α(v)+γ(v) then
    6       foreach uv with μ(u)=0 do
    7         μ(u)1; VV{u}; ΔΔ{u};
    8     foreach uv do
    9       α(u)α(u)+1; γ(u)γ(u)1;
    10       if μ(u)=2α(u)>β(u)+γ(u) then return;
    11       if μ(u)=2β(u)+γ(u)1α(u)β(u)+γ(u) then
    12         foreach su with μ(s)=0 do
    13           μ(s)2; VV{s}; ΔΔ{s};
    14   if μ(v)=2 then
    15     if α(v)>β(v)+γ(v) then return;
    16     if β(v)+γ(v)1α(v)β(v)+γ(v) then
    17       foreach uv with μ(u)=0 do
    18         μ(u)2; VV{u}; ΔΔ{u};
    19     foreach uv do
    20       β(u)β(u)+1; γ(u)γ(u)1;
    21       if μ(u)=1β(u)>α(u)+γ(u) then return;
    22       if μ(u)=1α(u)+γ(u)1β(u)α(u)+γ(u) then
    23         foreach su with μ(s)=0 do
    24           μ(s)1; VV{s}; ΔΔ{s};
    25 if V= then
    26   if {vμ(v)=1}{vμ(v)=2} then
    27     μ is a satisfactory partition; end the execution of the algorithm;
    28 else
    29   Extract (a randomly selected) v from V;
    30   select randomly i from {1,2}; μ(v)i; Σ({v},V,μ,α,β,γ);
    31   Let j{1,2} but ji; μ(v)j; Σ({v},V,μ,α,β,γ). }

    Let us go through the algorithm's actions in further detail, line by line. Referring to the caption of Algorithm 1, note that our procedure Σ is recursive (see lines 30 and 31). As noted earlier, we initially run Σ with Δ=, the whole vertex set of the given graph V, and the total mappings μ, α, β, γ such that

    μ(v)=α(v)=β(v)=0

    while

    γ(v)=|{u:uv}|

    for all vV. Thus, because Δ is initially empty, we delay discussing the purpose of Δ and the while loop at line 1 in the algorithm. Likewise, since V is initially nonempty, let us skip line 25 and go to line 29, where we take a vertex v out of V. Referring to line 30 (respectively line 31), supposing i=1 (respectively j=2), we assign v to part A (respectively part B) by applying μ(v)1 (respectively μ(v)2). Subsequently, we run the algorithm again by invoking Σ({v},V,μ,α,β,γ) trying to construct a satisfactory partition with vA (see line 30). If this attempt is unsuccessful, we try constructing a satisfactory partition with v in B (see line 31).

    Note that during the very first call for the procedure Σ, there is no need to try constructing a satisfactory partition by assigning v (the extracted vertex from V in line 29) to part B, as this is symmetric to the scenario where vA. Suppose no satisfactory partition is possible with vA. In that case, there is no satisfactory partition possible with vB, which means that in the initial call for Σ, we can omit to execute line 31. We leave this tiny detail out of Algorithm 1. However, suppose one wants to include such detail. In that case, the algorithm should be started with Σ({x},V{x},μ,α,β,γ), where the first parameter (i.e., {x}) indicates that the process of constructing a satisfactory partition is started by assigning some vertex x to some part. As said earlier, it does not matter whether x is set to part A or B. Hence, one might start the algorithm by assigning x to part A. Therefore, x must be removed from the vertex set as indicated by V{x}, the second parameter passed to the algorithm. For the rest of the parameters (i.e., μ, α, β, and γ), we mentioned earlier that these structures are usually initialized such that for every vertex yV,

    μ(y)=0,   γ(y)=|{z:zy}|,   α(y)=0andβ(y)=0.

    But since we start the algorithm with some vertex x being included in part A, we must initially set μ(x)1.

    Back to the description of Algorithm 1, now assume that the algorithm has been recursively invoked with Σ({v},V,μ,α,β,γ) where v is assigned to either part A or part B (see lines 30 and 31). At this point, we note that Δ={v}. So, we run the while loop (line 1) and extract v from Δ according to line 2. The purpose of Δ is to temporarily hold those vertices that are newly assigned to some part until we accordingly update the total mappings (employed by the algorithm) as we elaborate next. Referring to line 3, we check if v was assigned to part A (i.e., μ(v)=1), and if so, the following actions need to be performed. In line 4, we examine if the number, β(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are in part B is greater than the sum of the number, α(v), of v's adjacent vertices contained in part A plus the number, γ(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to any part yet; if it is the case that

    β(v)>α(v)+γ(v),

    then the algorithm returns to the previous instance of Σ. In line 5, we verify if the number, β(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are in part B has reached the maximum allowed value of |{w:wv}|2 by examining the inequality laid down in line 5; if this inequality is true then the v's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to any part yet must join part A (the part of v); see lines 6 and 7 where for every u adjacent to v with μ(u)=0, we assign u to part A, remove u from V, and then put u in Δ. To see that the inequality in line 5 is true if

    β(v)=|{w:wv}|2,

    let

    k=|{w:wv}|.

    Recall that throughout the algorithm it is the case that

    β(v)+α(v)+γ(v)=|{w:wv}|.

    If k is even, then the inequality is

    k21k2k2.

    If k is odd, then the inequality is

    k+121k12k+12.

    Now we show that if the inequality (in line 5) is true, then it is the case that

    β(v)=|{w:wv}|2.

    Given that

    β(v)+α(v)+γ(v)=|{w:wv}|,

    the inequality can be rewritten as

    α(v)+γ(v)1|{w:wv}|α(v)γ(v)α(v)+γ(v),

    which is

    2α(v)+2γ(v)1|{w:wv}|2α(v)+2γ(v).

    Divide all sides by two and then take the floor value. The inequality becomes

    α(v)+γ(v)12|{w:wv}|2α(v)+γ(v).

    Hence,

    α(v)+γ(v)1|{w:wv}|2α(v)+γ(v).

    That is,

    β(v)=|{w:wv}|2.

    Back to the algorithm. In line 8, we process the adjacent vertices of v as follows: For every vertex uv, we update

    α(u)α(u)+1andγ(u)γ(u)1(line 9).

    Subsequently, we check whether the specifications of satisfactory partition are violated as a consequence of v being included in part A. More specifically, referring to line 10, if a vertex u (such that uv) is in part B, then we verify that α(u), the number of adjacent vertices of u that are in part A, is still less than or equal to β(u)+γ(u), which is the number of adjacent vertices of u that are either in the part of u (i.e., B) or not assigned to any part. Otherwise, again referring to line 10, the algorithm returns to the previous state (i.e., the algorithm returns to the caller instance of Σ). Moving on to line 11, the algorithm tries to find out if any adjacent vertices of u must join a specific part, according to the definition of satisfactory partition. Therefore, in line 11, we check that if u is in part B and that the number of u's adjacent vertices in part A has reached the maximum allowed value, i.e.,

    α(u)=|{w:wu}|2,

    then for every vertex su such that s is not assigned to any part yet (lines 11 and 12), s must join part B, and consequently s is removed from V and then included in Δ (line 13).

    The rest of the while loop, lines 14–24 in Algorithm 1, deal with the case where the vertex v (extracted from Δ in line 2) is assigned to part B. This is analogous to the scenario of v being assigned to part A (lines 3–13). However, we trace lines 14–24 for the reader's convenience. Referring to line 15, if the number, α(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are in part A is greater than the sum of the number, β(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are in part B plus the number, γ(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to any part, then the algorithm returns to the previous stage (i.e., to the caller instance of Σ). As to line 16, if the number, α(v), of v's adjacent vertices that are in part A has reached the maximum allowed value, i.e.,

    α(u)=|{w:wu}|2,

    then, in lines 17 and 18, we put into part B every uv with μ(u)=0 (i.e., every uv not assigned a part yet). In line 18, we move u from V to Δ so that u is processed in a subsequent round of the while loop. In lines 19–20, we update

    β(u)β(u)+1

    and

    γ(u)γ(u)1

    for every uv. In line 21, if a vertex uv is in part A and the number, β(u), of u's adjacent vertices that are in part B exceeds the sum of the number, α(u), of u's adjacent vertices that are in part A plus the number, γ(u), of u's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to any part, then the algorithm returns to the previous state (i.e., the algorithm returns to the caller instance of the procedure Σ). In line 22, we check whether there is a vertex uv such that uA (i.e., μ(u)=2), but the number, β(u), of u's adjacent vertices belonging to part B, has reached the maximum allowed value, i.e.,

    β(u)=|{w:wu}|2;

    if this is true, then we put each su into part A, provided that s is not already included in any part; see lines 23 and 24. In line 24, we move s from V to Δ so that s is processed further in a later round of the while loop.

    Thereby, the while loop continues as long as Δ has some vertices that need to be processed. In summary, we note that the while loop's actions ensure that the current part assignment of graph vertices is consistent with the satisfactory partition specifications. Going beyond the while loop, in line 25, the algorithm checks if all the graph vertices are included in some part; if not, i.e., if V, then we repeat the same process as discussed above by re-applying lines 29–31, and so forth. Referring to the lines 25–27, if V= (line 25) with A and B being nonempty (line 26), then we stop the search process for a satisfactory partition since A and B is a satisfactory partition of the given graph. Referring to line 26, recall that the set

    {vμ(v)=1}

    designates part A, whereas the set

    {vμ(v)=2}

    denotes part B. By this, we completed a description of Algorithm 1 and its structures. The next section discusses the algorithm's running time (and running space).

    Example 1. Let us demonstrate the operation of Algorithm 1 on the graph depicted in Figure 2.

    Figure 2.  An undirected graph.

    Initially, we invoke Σ(Δ,V,μ,α,β,γ) with

    Δ=,V={w,x,y,z},μ={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},α={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},β={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},γ={(w,2),(x,2),(y,2),(z,2)}.

    Assume that w is extracted from the vertex set (in line 29). Then, in line 30, suppose w is assigned to the first part A by labeling it with μ(w)1. Then, we invoke Σ(Δ,V,μ,α,β,γ) with

    Δ={w},V={x,y,z},μ={(w,1),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},α={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},β={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},γ={(w,2),(x,2),(y,2),(z,2)}.

    Now, line 2 is operated to extract w from Δ, which makes Δ empty; then, line 9 is executed twice for w's adjacent vertices x and z such that

    α(x)=1,   γ(x)=1,   α(z)=1andγ(z)=1.

    Thus, after execution of this round of the while loop, the state is

    Δ=,V={x,y,z},μ={(w,1),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},α={(w,0),(x,1),(y,0),(z,1)},β={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},γ={(w,2),(x,1),(y,2),(z,1)}.

    Now, line 29 is executed. Assume that x is extracted from V. Then, in line 30, suppose x is assigned to part B by labeling it with μ(x)2. Afterwards, in line 30, we invoke Σ(Δ,V,μ,α,β,γ) with

    Δ={x},V={y,z},μ={(w,1),(x,2),(y,0),(z,0)},α={(w,0),(x,1),(y,0),(z,1)},β={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)},γ={(w,2),(x,1),(y,2),(z,1)}.

    Now, we track the actions taken in a round of the while loop. Line 2 is operated to extract x from Δ, which makes Δ empty. Lines 17 and 18 are executed such that

    μ(y)=2,   V={z},   Δ={y}.

    Lines 19 and 20 are operated such that

    β(w)=1,   γ(w)=1,   β(y)=1,   γ(y)=1.

    Then, lines 23 and 24 are executed such that

    μ(z)=1,   V=,   Δ={y,z}.

    In summary, after execution of this round of the while loop, the state is

    Δ={y,z},V=,μ={(w,1),(x,2),(y,2),(z,1)},α={(w,0),(x,1),(y,0),(z,1)},β={(w,1),(x,0),(y,1),(z,0)},γ={(w,1),(x,1),(y,1),(z,1)}.

    The following actions are taken in the next round of the while loop. Line 2 is run to extract y from Δ, so

    Δ={z}.

    Lines 19 and 20 are executed such that

    β(x)=1,   γ(x)=0,   β(z)=1,   γ(z)=0.

    The state after execution of the second round is

    Δ={z},V=,μ={(w,1),(x,2),(y,2),(z,1)},α={(w,0),(x,1),(y,0),(z,1)},β={(w,1),(x,1),(y,1),(z,1)},γ={(w,1),(x,0),(y,1),(z,0)}.

    In the following round of the while loop, line 2 is run to extract z from Δ, so

    Δ=.

    Lines 8 and 9 are executed such that

    α(w)=1,   γ(w)=0,   α(y)=1,   γ(y)=0.

    Now, the state is

    Δ=,V=,μ={(w,1),(x,2),(y,2),(z,1)},α={(w,1),(x,1),(y,1),(z,1)},β={(w,1),(x,1),(y,1),(z,1)},γ={(w,0),(x,0),(y,0),(z,0)}.

    Since Δ is empty now, there are no more rounds of the while loop. Hence, line 27 is executed to terminate the algorithm as a satisfactory partition {{x,y},{w,z}} is found.

    We first discuss the implementation of V in Algorithm 1. We implement V as a variable-size array, R, of |V| pairs where each pair has a vertex v and a boolean value b reflecting whether v is deleted from V or not such that

    b=true

    means that the vertex v is still in V. Now, deleting v from V is implemented by firstly locating v in R using another fixed-size array I[v] that holds the current position of v in R. Note that throughout the algorithm's execution, the size of I constantly equals the number of vertices of the originally inputted graph. Hence, by applying

    R[I[v]].bfalse,

    we delete v from V. Therefore, deleting one vertex from V costs constant time, which implies that line 29 in the algorithm runs in constant time.

    However, observe that before we randomly select a vertex to be extracted from V (line 29), we must shrink the V's underlying array R due to vertex removal from V (that happened in lines 7, 13, 18, 24, and 29 since the last time we ran line 29). To this end, we create an array, R, of pairs (v,b) with a size of |R|d, where d is the number of vertex deletions that occurred since the last time we shrank R. Then, we check all R[k]; if

    R[k].b=true,

    then we copy R[k] into R[m] and perform

    I[R[k].v]m.

    After processing all R[k], we cancel R and replace it with R to represent the current V.

    Now, we show that the recursion tree of Algorithm 1 has a logarithmic depth in expectation.

    Theorem 1. For a given undirected graph with n vertices, the recursion tree of Algorithm 1 has a depth O(lnn) in expectation.

    Proof. Whenever we make a non-terminal recursive call to the algorithm, we extract a randomly selected vertex v from the current vertex set V; see line 29 in the algorithm. So, the expected depth of the recursion tree of Algorithm 1 is

    nv=1Ev(X),

    where Ev(X) is the expected number of times a vertex v is selected and extracted within a simple, complete path of the recursion tree starting from the root call until a terminal call where V is empty (see line 25 in the algorithm).

    Considering line 29, let V={1,...,i} such that 1in. Recall that throughout the algorithm's execution, V is a subset of the vertex set of the originally inputted graph. At the start of the execution, V contains n vertices. But as we go on with the algorithm's execution, V is reduced to in vertices as an effect of executing lines 7, 13, 18, 24, and 29 in the algorithm. The algorithm keeps reducing V across multiple recursive calls until V is empty; see line 25 in Algorithm 1.

    To calculate the expected number of times a given vertex v is selected and extracted within a simple, complete path of the recursion tree, let

    X:{({1,2,...,i},v)1in}{0,1}

    be a random variable that represents the number of times we select and extract a given vertex v from a set of i vertices. For every i, it is the case that

    X(({1,2...,i},v))=1

    if 1vi and otherwise

    X(({1,2...,i},v))=0.

    For a given in, it is the case that

    P(X(({1,2,...,i},v))=1)=(1i)(1n),

    where 1i is the probability of selecting v from in vertices and, 1n is the probability of having in vertices. Hence, the expected depth of the recursion tree of Algorithm 1 is

    nv=1Ev(X)=nv=1ni=1X(({1,2,...,i},v))P(X(({1,2,...,i},v))=1)=nv=1ni=1(1)(1i)(1n)=nv=1(1n)ni=1(1i)=ni=1(1i).

    Thus,

    nv=1Ev(X)O(lnn).

    This ends the proof.

    In the following theorem, we illustrate the overall time complexity of Algorithm 1 for cases where the recursion tree of the algorithm has a logarithmic depth.

    Theorem 2. Let G be an undirected graph with n vertices such that the Algorithm 1's recursion tree depth matches the expectation, i.e., O(lnn). Then, Algorithm 1 runs in time O(n32O(lnn)).

    Proof. Observe that the algorithm's running time is bounded by the number of Σ calls multiplied by the running time of the while loop (in line 1 in the algorithm). However, the while loop requires at most O(n3) time due to the three nested loops that have no more than n rounds each. Referring to lines 29–31 in the algorithm, assume two Σ calls are made for every graph vertex. Then, the algorithm's running time in this extreme scenario is bounded by O(n32n). Nevertheless, as the depth of the recursion tree of Algorithm 1 is O(lnn), the recursion tree size is O(2O(lnn)). Consequently, the overall running time of Algorithm 1 is estimated by the running time of the while loop (i.e., O(n3)) multiplied by the recursion tree size (i.e., O(2O(lnn))). This means Algorithm 1 runs in time O(n32O(lnn)).

    Regarding the space complexity of Algorithm 1, we note that the input graph requires O(n2) space. In the following theorem, we discuss the additional space needed by Algorithm 1 other than the space required to hold the input graph. Next, we show that the additional space of Algorithm 1 is linearithmic in expectation.

    Theorem 3. For a given undirected graph with n vertices, Algorithm 1 runs in additional space O(nlnn) in expectation.

    Proof. We note that the maximum size of any structure employed by the algorithm is O(n) and the expected depth of the recursion of the algorithm is O(n), which implies that the maximum number of copies of any structure employed by the algorithm is O(n). Thus, the additional space of Algorithm 1 is O(n2). But since the expected depth of the recursion of the algorithm is logarithmic, as established earlier, the expected additional space is O(nlnn).

    The following technical lemmata together solidify the validity of Algorithm 1. Recall that the algorithm finds (if any exists) a satisfactory partition {A,B} for a given undirected graph G. In the following lemma, we state that throughout the execution of our algorithm, the algorithm (line 3) checks every vertex assigned to part A; likewise, the algorithm (line 14) checks every vertex put in part B.

    Lemma 1. Throughout the execution of Algorithm 1 on a graph G, for all vertices y of G, whenever y is put into part A or part B, then the algorithm examines the adjacent vertices, z, of y to update the mappings α(z), β(z), and γ(z) accordingly.

    Proof. Recall that assigning μ(x) to 1 means that x is included in part A, while μ(x) getting 2 indicates that x is assigned to part B. Now, it suffices to note that whenever the algorithm assigns a vertex to a part, it immediately adds the vertex to Δ; see lines 7, 13, 18, 24, 30, and 31. Subsequently, the algorithm processes every vertex v in Δ; see line 2; and later, the algorithm examines all v's adjacent vertices, u, to update the mappings α(u), β(u), and γ(u) accordingly; see lines 3, 8, 9, 14, 19, and 20.

    The following three lemmata show the correct usage of the mappings α, β, and γ, respectively.

    Lemma 2. Throughout the execution of Algorithm 1 on a graph G, for any vertex y in G, α(y) indicates exactly the number of y's adjacent vertices that are in part A.

    Proof. Recollect that our algorithm is started with

    α(y)=0

    for every vertex y in G. Likewise, the algorithm is started with

    μ(y)=0

    for all y in G, which means that the algorithm is started with part A being empty. Throughout its execution, the algorithm performs

    α(y)α(y)+1

    for any vertex y whenever an adjacent vertex of y is assigned to part A, see lines 3, 8, and 9. Recall that, by definition, assigning μ(x)1 for any vertex x is equivalent to assigning x to part A.

    Lemma 3. Throughout the execution of Algorithm 1 on a graph G, for any vertex y in G, β(y) indicates exactly the number of y's adjacent vertices that are in part B.

    Proof. Recall that our algorithm is started with

    β(y)=0

    for every vertex y in G. Additionally, the algorithm is started with

    μ(y)=0

    for all y in G, which implies that part B is initially empty. The algorithm updates

    β(y)β(y)+1

    for any vertex y whenever the algorithm assigns an adjacent vertex of y to part B, see lines 14, 19, and 20. By definition, assigning μ(x)2 for any vertex x implies putting x into part B.

    Lemma 4. Throughout the execution of Algorithm 1 on a graph G, for any vertex y in G, γ(y) indicates exactly the number of y's adjacent vertices that are not assigned to any part.

    Proof. Consider that our algorithm is started with

    γ(y)=|{x:xy}|

    for every vertex y in G. Similarly, the algorithm is started with part A and part B being empty. The algorithm updates

    γ(y)γ(y)1(lines 9 and 20)

    for any vertex y whenever the algorithm assigns an adjacent vertex of y to either part A (see lines 3, 8, and 9) or part B (see lines 14, 19, and 20).

    Now, we emphasize the integrity of line 4, where Algorithm 1 might return to a previous point of the search process under some conditions, as detailed in the following lemma:

    Lemma 5. For any graph G, at any stage of the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is vA (i.e., μ(v)=1) with

    β(v)>α(v)+γ(v),

    then there is no

    AA,   BB

    such that {A,B} is a satisfactory partition of G.

    Proof. This follows directly from the definition of satisfactory partition. But we mean here to highlight that the premise of this lemma corresponds to the conditions of lines 3 and 4. Likewise, we stress that the consequence of this lemma agrees with the action of Algorithm 1 as declared in line 4, where the algorithm returns to a previous instance of the procedure Σ, which holds the previous copy of an under-construction satisfactory partition.

    Next, we show the soundness of line 10, where Algorithm 1 goes back to a previous point of the search process under some conditions, as illustrated in the following lemma:

    Lemma 6. For any graph G, at any stage of the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is a vertex vA (i.e., μ(v)=1) with a vertex uv such that uB (i.e., μ(u)=2) and

    α(u)>β(u)+γ(u),

    then there is no

    AA,   BB

    such that {A,B} is a satisfactory partition of G.

    Proof. This lemma follows directly from the definition of satisfactory partition. Observe that the premise of this lemma corresponds to the conditions of lines 3, 8, and 10 in Algorithm 1. Similarly, the consequence of this lemma is consistent with the action of Algorithm 1 as stated in line 10, where the algorithm returns to the previous instance of the procedure Σ that holds the previous copy of an under-construction satisfactory partition.

    In the following lemma, we focus on the correctness of line 15, where Algorithm 1 might return to a previous point of the search process under some conditions, as detailed next.

    Lemma 7. For any graph G, at any stage of the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is vB (i.e., μ(v)=2) with

    α(v)>β(v)+γ(v),

    then there is no

    AA,   BB

    such that {A,B} is a satisfactory partition of G.

    Proof. This follows directly from the definition of satisfactory partition. Note that the premise of this lemma corresponds to the conditions of lines 14 and 15 in Algorithm 1. Likewise, the consequence of this lemma agrees with the action of Algorithm 1 as declared in line 15, where the algorithm returns to the previous instance of the procedure Σ, which holds the previous copy of an under-construction satisfactory partition.

    Now, we underline the correctness of line 21, where Algorithm 1 returns to a previous stage of the search process when some conditions hold, as stated in the following lemma:

    Lemma 8. For any graph G, throughout the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is a vertex vB (i.e., μ(v)=2) such that there exists uv with uA (i.e., μ(u)=1) and

    β(u)>α(u)+γ(u),

    then there is no

    AA,   BB

    such that {A,B} is a satisfactory partition of G.

    Proof. This lemma is in line with the definition of satisfactory partition. Observe that the premise of this lemma corresponds to the condition of lines 14, 19, and 21 in Algorithm 1. Further, the consequence of this lemma is consistent with the action of Algorithm 1 as stated in line 21, where the algorithm returns to the previous instance of the procedure Σ that holds the previous copy of an under-construction satisfactory partition.

    Next, we prove the correctness of lines 11–13 and 16–18, where Algorithm 1 decides to assign part B for some vertex provided that some conditions hold, as demonstrated by the following lemma:

    Lemma 9. For any graph G, at any stage of the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is xB (i.e., μ(x)=2) such that

    β(x)+γ(x)1α(x)β(x)+γ(x)

    and, there is a satisfactory partition, {A,B}, of G such that AA with BB, then for every yx with yAB, yB.

    Proof. The premise of this lemma corresponds to lines 11, 14, and 16. The consequence of this lemma is guaranteed by Algorithm 1 according to the actions in lines 12, 13, 17, and 18. However, let us show the correctness of these actions (i.e., this lemma) by contradiction. Suppose there is yx with yAB such that yB. This means yAA. Hence, this requires

    β(x)+γ(x)2α(x)+1β(x)+γ(x)1.

    Therefore, it holds that

    β(x)+γ(x)3α(x)β(x)+γ(x)2.

    Consequently,

    α(x)=β(x)+γ(x)2

    or

    α(x)=β(x)+γ(x)3.

    This contradicts the inequality given in the premise of this lemma

    β(x)+γ(x)1α(x)β(x)+γ(x),

    that means

    α(x)=β(x)+γ(x)1

    or

    α(x)=β(x)+γ(x).

    This completes the proof of this lemma.

    Now, we aim to show the correctness of lines 5–7 and 22–24, where Algorithm 1 decides to assign part A for some vertex provided that some conditions hold, as we elaborate in the following lemma:

    Lemma 10. For any graph G, at any stage of the execution of Algorithm 1, if there is xA (i.e., μ(x)=1) such that

    α(x)+γ(x)1β(x)α(x)+γ(x)

    and if there is a satisfactory partition, {A,B}, of G with AA and BB, then for every yx with yAB, yA.

    Proof. The premise of this lemma corresponds to lines 3, 5, and 22. The consequence of this lemma is guaranteed by Algorithm 1 according to the actions in lines 6, 7, 23, and 24. However, let us show the correctness of these actions (i.e., this lemma) by contradiction. Suppose there is yx with yAB such that yA. Thus, yBB. This requires that

    α(x)+γ(x)2β(x)+1α(x)+γ(x)1.

    Therefore, it holds that

    α(x)+γ(x)3β(x)α(x)+γ(x)2.

    Consequently,

    β(x)=α(x)+γ(x)2

    or

    β(x)=α(x)+γ(x)3.

    This contradicts the inequality given in the premise of this lemma

    α(x)+γ(x)1β(x)α(x)+γ(x),

    that implies

    β(x)=α(x)+γ(x)1

    or

    β(x)=α(x)+γ(x).

    This completes the proof of this lemma.

    In the following, we show the correctness of lines 25–27 in Algorithm 1.

    Lemma 11. For any graph G, if line 27 of Algorithm 1 is executed, then the reported set

    {{xμ(x)=1},   {xμ(x)=2}},

    which denotes the set {A,B}, is truly a satisfaction partition of the inputted graph G.

    Proof. We need to show that the set {A,B} reported by the algorithm in line 27 satisfies the definition of satisfactory partition. Thus, we first show that

    A and B,

    which is guaranteed by line 26. Likewise, we need to show that

    AB=.

    This is ensured using our total mapping μ throughout the algorithm. Additionally, we need to show that

    AB=V,

    which is certain by the actions of the algorithms that whenever a vertex joins part A or part B, v is removed from the vertex set V, see lines 7, 13, 18, and 24. Further, the algorithm reports {A,B} being a partition of the inputted graph if and only if V=; see line 25. Equally, we need to show that

    xA,α(x)β(x),

    which is warranted by lines 4 and 21; note that whenever line 27 is executed, it is the case that γ(x)=0 for all vertices x. Lastly, we need to prove that

    yB,β(y)α(y),

    which is maintained by lines 10 and 15.

    In our last theorem, we stress that Algorithm 1 is correct.

    Theorem 4. Algorithm 1 finds a satisfactory partition (if any exists) of a given undirected graph.

    Proof. Lemmas 1–11 altogether show this claim.

    Literature demonstrating applications of "satisfactory partitions" is scarce. Hence, a natural direction to extend this research line in the future is to conduct case studies in domains that can benefit from the "satisfactory partitions" notion. Nonetheless, identifying a satisfactory partition of a graph may play a vital role in understanding the social structure of communities. Take, for example, a community of voters; one might be interested in discovering networks of electors or coalitions that are internally cohesive. Likewise, consider a human management case where the company aims to create two teams to implement different projects. The company desires teams with minimal conflict, minimal communication across teams, and maximal collaboration within each team. Represent employees as vertices and put links between the vertices to denote interactions between the employees. A satisfactory partition of the resulting graph will be an optimal solution to the team formation problem. However, further work might examine diverse potential applications in other specialized domains, such as studying fullerenes (see, e.g., [32,33]).

    Limitations of our study lie in that we calibrate the design of our algorithm (i.e., Algorithm 1) to optimize its expected recursion depth. Specifically, we incorporate the process of the "while" loop, which runs in cubic time. However, for the general worst-case, the running time of Algorithm 1 is O(n32n). Suppose we drop the while loop and modify the if statement (at line 25) to check for the conditions of a satisfactory partition. In that case, the algorithm becomes literary a "generate and test" procedure that runs always (in all cases) in exponential time O(2n). Compare this to the running time of Algorithm 1 O(n32O(lnn)) under the assumption that the recursion depth of the algorithm does not exceed the expected depth O(lnn). As discussed earlier in this article, this upper bound of the expected recursion depth is reached by approximating the sum

    ni=11i.

    In fact,

    lnn+1nni=11ilnn+1.

    This means if the recursion depth of Algorithm 1 does not exceed the expectation, then the running time of Algorithm 1 is in

    O(n32lnn)O(n3nln2)O(n3.7)

    Therefore, there is an obvious trade-off between achieving a logarithmic expected depth of the recursion of the algorithm versus an all-case exponential time of O(2n). Future research might investigate whether the amortized running time of the while loop is better than cubic time to mitigate this trade-off.

    We studied an algorithm for computing a satisfactory partition of an undirected graph and showed that for a given undirected graph with n vertices, a satisfactory partition (if any exists) can be computed recursively with a recursion tree of depth O(lnn) in expectation. Likewise, we showed that a satisfactory partition for those undirected graphs, with recursion tree depth meeting the expectation, can be computed in time O(n32O(lnn)). However, in the general case, we note that the algorithm runs in time O(n32n), as it is known that the problem of computing a satisfactory partition is NP-complete.

    The author declares no conflict of interest.



    [1] Ahmadi S, Chia CH, Zakaria S, et al. (2012) Synthesis of Fe3O4 nanocrystals using hydrothermal approach. J Magn Magn Mater 324: 4147–4150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2012.07.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2012.07.023
    [2] Montoro VNCE (1938) Miscibilita fra gli ossidi salini di ferro e di manganese. Gaz Chim Ital 68: 728–733.
    [3] Cotar AI, Grumezescu AM, Huang KS, et al. (2013) Magnetite nanoparticles influence the efficacy of antibiotics against biofilm embedded Staphylococcus aureus cells. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 3: 559–565. Available from: http://grumezescu.com/?corpo_portfolio = magnetite-nanoparticles-influence-the-efficacy-of-antibiotics-against-biofilm-embeddedstaphylococcus-aureus-cells.
    [4] Gu T, Zhang Y, Khan SA, et al. (2019) Continuous flow synthesis of superparamagnetic nanoparticles in reverse miniemulsion systems. Colloid Interface Sci Commun 28: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colcom.2018.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.colcom.2018.10.005
    [5] Ma J, Lee SMY, Yi C, et al. (2017) Controllable synthesis of functional nanoparticles by microfluidic platforms for biomedical applications—A review. Lab Chip 17: 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6LC01049K doi: 10.1039/C6LC01049K
    [6] Mohammadi H, Nekobahr E, Akhtari J, et al. (2021) Synthesis and characterization of magnetite nanoparticles by co-precipitation method coated with biocompatible compounds and evaluation of in-vitro cytotoxicity. Toxicol Rep 8: 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.01.012
    [7] Soleymani M, Khalighfard S, Khodayari S, et al. (2020) Effects of multiple injections on the efficacy and cytotoxicity of folate-targeted magnetite nanoparticles as theranostic agents for MRI detection and magnetic hyperthermia therapy of tumor cells. Sci Rep 10: 1695. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58605-3 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58605-3
    [8] Chircov C, Grumezescu AM, Holban AM (2019) Magnetic particles for advanced molecular diagnosis. Materials 12: 2158. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12132158 doi: 10.3390/ma12132158
    [9] López YC, Antuch M (2020) Morphology control in the plant-mediated synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles. Curr Opin Green Sustainable Chem 24: 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.02.001
    [10] Zhao CX, He L, Qiao SZ, et al. (2011) Nanoparticle synthesis in microreactors. Chem Eng Sci 66: 1463–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2010.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2010.08.039
    [11] Ficai D, Grumezescu V, Fufă OM, et al. (2018) Antibiofilm coatings based on PLGA and nanostructured cefepime-functionalized magnetite. Nanomaterials 8: 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano8090633 doi: 10.3390/nano8090633
    [12] Sirivat A, Paradee N (2019) Facile synthesis of gelatin-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticle: Effect of pH in single-step co-precipitation for cancer drug loading. Mater Design 181: 107942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107942 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107942
    [13] Taufiq A, Nikmah A, Hidayat A, et al. (2020) Synthesis of magnetite/silica nanocomposites from natural sand to create a drug delivery vehicle. Heliyon 6: e03784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03784
    [14] Ladole MR, Pokale PB, Patil SS, et al. (2020) Laccase immobilized peroxidase mimicking magnetic metal organic frameworks for industrial dye degradation. Bioresour Technol 317: 124035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124035 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124035
    [15] De Queiroz DF, de Camargo ER, Martines MU (2020) Synthesis and characterization of magnetic nanoparticles of cobalt ferrite coated with silica. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 10: 4908–4913. https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC101.908913 doi: 10.33263/BRIAC101.908913
    [16] Gao G, Liu X, Shi R, et al. (2010) Shape-controlled synthesis and magnetic properties of monodisperse Fe3O4 nanocubes. Crystal Growth Design 10: 2888–2894. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/cg900920q
    [17] Amendola V, Riello P, Meneghetti M (2011) Magnetic nanoparticles of iron carbide, iron oxide, iron@iron oxide, and metal iron synthesized by laser ablation in organic solvents. J Phys Chem C 115: 5140–5146. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jp109371m
    [18] Novoselova LY (2021) Nanoscale magnetite: New synthesis approach, structure and properties. Appl Surf Sci 539: 148275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.148275 doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.148275
    [19] Kolchanov DS, Slabov V, Keller K, et al. (2019) Sol–gel magnetite inks for inkjet printing. J Mater Chem C 7: 6426–6432. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TC00311H doi: 10.1039/C9TC00311H
    [20] Menard MC, Takeuchi KJ, Marschilok AC, et al. (2013) Electrochemical discharge of nanocrystalline magnetite: Structure analysis using X-ray diffraction and X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15: 18539–18548. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3CP52870G doi: 10.1039/C3CP52870G
    [21] Zhang S, Li W, Tan B, et al. (2015) One-pot synthesis of ultra-small magnetite nanoparticles on the surface of reduced graphene oxide nanosheets as anodes for sodium-ion batteries. J Mater Chem A 3: 4793–4798. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA06708H doi: 10.1039/C4TA06708H
    [22] Zaidi SDA, Wang C, Gyö rgy B, et al. (2020) Iron and silicon oxide doped/PAN-based carbon nanofibers as free-standing anode material for Li-ion batteries. J Colloid Interface Sci 569: 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2020.02.059 doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.02.059
    [23] Li J, Li Y, Chen X, et al. (2019) Selective synthesis of magnetite nanospheres with controllable morphologies on CNTs and application to lithium-ion batteries. Phys Status Solidi A 216: 1800924. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201800924 doi: 10.1002/pssa.201800924
    [24] Sajid M, Płotka-Wasylka J (2020) Nanoparticles: Synthesis, characteristics, and applications in analytical and other sciences. Microchem J 154: 104623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.104623 doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2020.104623
    [25] Mohamed G, Hassan N, Shahat A, et al. (2021) Synthesis and characterization of porous magnetite nanosphere iron oxide as a novel adsorbent of anionic dyes removal from aqueous solution. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 11: 13377–13401. https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC115.1337713401 doi: 10.33263/BRIAC115.1337713401
    [26] Masuku M, Ouma L, Pholosi A, et al. (2021) Microwave-assisted synthesis of oleic acid-modified magnetite nanoparticles for benzene adsorption. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag 15: 100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100429 doi: 10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100429
    [27] Jalil MA, Halim AFMF, Moniruzzaman M, et al. (2023) Nano materials in textile processing, In: Rahman MM, Mashud M, Rahman MM, Advanced Technology in Textiles. Textile Science and Clothing Technology, Singapore: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2142-3_12
    [28] Saif S, Tahir A, Chen Y, et al. (2016) Green synthesis of iron nanoparticles and their environmental applications and implications. Nanomaterials 6: 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano6110209 doi: 10.3390/nano6110209
    [29] Bruschi ML, de Toledo LDAS (2019) Pharmaceutical applications of iron-oxide magnetic nanoparticles. Magnetochemistry 5: 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/magnetochemistry5030050 doi: 10.3390/magnetochemistry5030050
    [30] Ghazanfari MR, Kashefi M, Shams SF, et al. (2016) Perspective of Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles' role in biomedical applications. Biochem Res Int 2016: 7840161. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7840161 doi: 10.1155/2016/7840161
    [31] Gao G, Shi R, Qin W, et al. (2010) Solvothermal synthesis and characterization of size-controlled monodisperse Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles. J Mater Sci 45: 3483–3489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-010-4378-7 doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4378-7
    [32] Satvekar RK, Rohiwal SS, Tiwari AP, et al. (2015) Sol–gel derived silica/chitosan/Fe₃O₄ nanocomposite for direct electrochemistry and hydrogen peroxide biosensing. Mater Res Express 2: 015402. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/2/1/015402 doi: 10.1088/2053-1591/2/1/015402
    [33] Manikandan A, Vijaya JJ, Mary JA, et al. (2014) Structural, optical, and magnetic properties of Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles prepared by a facile microwave combustion method. J Ind Eng Chem 20: 2077–2085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.09.035 doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2013.09.035
    [34] Kalantari K, Ahmad MB, Shameli K, et al. (2013) Synthesis of talc/Fe₃O₄ magnetic nanocomposites using the chemical co-precipitation method. Int J Nanomedicine 8: 1817–1823. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S43693 doi: 10.2147/IJN.S43693
    [35] Wu S, Sun A, Zhai F, et al. (2011) Fe₃O₄ magnetic nanoparticles synthesis from tailings by ultrasonic chemical co-precipitation. Mater Lett 65: 1882–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2011.03.065 doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2011.03.065
    [36] Osman AI, Zhang Y, Farghali M, et al. (2024) Synthesis of green nanoparticles for energy, biomedical, environmental, agricultural, and food applications: A review. Environ Chem Lett 22: 841–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01682-3 doi: 10.1007/s10311-023-01682-3
    [37] Sánchez-López E, Gomes D, Esteruelas G, et al. (2020) Metal-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents: An overview. Nanomaterials 10: 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020292 doi: 10.3390/nano10020292
    [38] Kumar PSR, Alexis SJ (2019) Synthesized carbon nanotubes and their applications, In: Yaragalla S, Mishra R, Thomas S, et al. Carbon-Based Nanofillers and Their Rubber Nanocomposites, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813248-7.00004-3
    [39] Singh P, Kim YJ, Zhang D, et al. (2016) Biological synthesis of nanoparticles from plants and microorganisms. Trends Biotechnol 34: 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.02.006 doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.02.006
    [40] Mihai AD, Chircov C, Grumezescu AM, et al. (2020) Magnetite nanoparticles and essential oil systems for advanced antibacterial therapies. Int J Mol Sci 21: 7355. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21197355 doi: 10.3390/ijms21197355
    [41] Prabhu NN (2018) Green synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles (IONPs) and their nanotechnological applications. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access 6: 260–262. https://doi.org/10.15406/jbmoa.2018.06.00215 doi: 10.15406/jbmoa.2018.06.00215
    [42] López YC, Antuch M (2020) Morphology control in the plant-mediated synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles. Curr Opin Green Sustainable Chem 24: 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.02.001
    [43] Rathinavel S, Priyadharshini K, Panda D (2021) A review on carbon nanotube: An overview of synthesis, properties, functionalization, characterization, and the application. Mater Sci Eng B 268: 115095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mseb.2021.115095 doi: 10.1016/j.mseb.2021.115095
    [44] Ma Z, Mohapatra J, Wei K, et al. (2021) Magnetic nanoparticles: Synthesis, anisotropy, and applications. Chem Rev 123: 3904–3943. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00860 doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00860
    [45] Rattan S, Derek Fawcett D, Poinern GEJ, et al. (2021) Williamson-Hall-based X-ray peak profile evaluation and nano-structural characterization of rod-shaped hydroxyapatite powder for potential dental restorative procedures. AIMS Mater Sci 8: 359–372. https://doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2021023 doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021023
    [46] Ayeshamariam A, Sanjeeviraja C, Jayachandran M, et al. (2011) Synthesization, characterization, and gas sensing properties of SnO₂ nanoparticles. Int J Chem Anal Sci 2: 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1166/jno.2013.1471 doi: 10.1166/jno.2013.1471
    [47] Cullity BD, Smoluchowski R (1957) Elements of X‐ray diffraction. Phys Today 10: 50. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3060306 doi: 10.1063/1.3060306
    [48] Aly KA, Khalil NM, Algamal Y, et al. (2016) Lattice strain estimation for CoAl₂O₄ nanoparticles using Williamson-Hall analysis. J Alloys Compd 676: 606–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.03.213 doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.03.213
    [49] Harjo S, Tomota Y, Torii S, et al. (2002) Residual thermal phase stresses in α–γ Fe–Cr–Ni alloys measured by a neutron diffraction time-of-flight method. Mater Trans 43: 1696–1702. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.43.1696 doi: 10.2320/matertrans.43.1696
    [50] Biju V, Sugathan N, Vrinda V, et al. (2008) Estimation of lattice strain in nanocrystalline silver from X-ray diffraction line broadening. J Mater Sci 43: 1175–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-007-2300-8 doi: 10.1007/s10853-007-2300-8
    [51] Ravinder D, Alivelumanga T (1998) Composition dependence of elastic behaviour of mixed manganese–zinc ferrites. Mater Lett 37: 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-577X(98)00062-7 doi: 10.1016/S0167-577X(98)00062-7
    [52] Yusefi M, Shameli K, Ali RR, et al. (2020) Evaluating anticancer activity of plant-mediated synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles using Punica granatum fruit peel extract. J Mol Struct 1204: 127539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127539 doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127539
    [53] Izadiyan Z, Shameli K, Miyake M, et al. (2020) Cytotoxicity assay of plant-mediated synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles using Juglans regia green husk extract. Arab J Chem 13: 2011–2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2018.02.019 doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2018.02.019
    [54] Hearmon RFS (1956) The elastic constants of anisotropic materials—Ⅱ. Adv Phys 5: 323–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.1956.tADP0323 doi: 10.1080/00018732.1956.tADP0323
    [55] Chaki SH, Malek TJ, Chaudhary MD, et al. (2015) Magnetite Fe3O4 nanoparticles synthesis by wet chemical reduction and their characterization. Adv Nat Sci Nanosci Nanotechnol 6: 035009. https://doi.org/10.1088/2043-6262/6/3/035009 doi: 10.1088/2043-6262/6/3/035009
    [56] Yusoff AHM, Salimi MN, Jamlos MF (2017) Dependence of lattice strain of magnetite nanoparticles on precipitation temperature and pH of solution. J Phys Conf Ser 908: 012065. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/908/1/012065 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/908/1/012065
    [57] Kushwaha P, Chauhan P (2021) Microstructural evaluation of iron oxide nanoparticles at different calcination temperature by Scherrer, Williamson-Hall, Size-Strain Plot and Halder-Wagner methods. Phase Transit 94: 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411594.2021.1969396 doi: 10.1080/01411594.2021.1969396
    [58] Ilyas S, Abdullah B, Tahir D (2019) X-ray diffraction analysis of nanocomposite Fe3O4/activated carbon by Williamson-Hall and size-strain plot methods. Nano Struct Nano Objects 20: 100396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoso.2019.100396 doi: 10.1016/j.nanoso.2019.100396
    [59] Yusefi M, Shameli K, Ali RR, et al. (2020) Evaluating anticancer activity of plant-mediated synthesized iron oxide nanoparticles using Punica granatum fruit peel extract. J Mol Struct 1204: 127539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127539 doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127539
    [60] Vives S, Gaffet E, Meunier C (2004) X-ray diffraction line profile analysis of iron ball milled powders. Mater Sci Eng A 366: 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00572-0 doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00572-0
    [61] Jafari A, Farjami Shayesteh S, Salouti M, et al. (2015) Dependence of structural phase transition and lattice strain of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on calcination temperature. Indian J Phys 89: 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-014-0627-y doi: 10.1007/s12648-014-0627-y
    [62] Zak AK, Majid WA, Abrishami ME, et al. (2011) X-ray analysis of ZnO nanoparticles by Williamson-Hall and size–strain plot methods. Solid State Sci 13: 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2010.11.024 doi: 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2010.11.024
    [63] Rana G, Johri UC (2014) Correlation between the pH value and properties of magnetite nanoparticles. Adv Mater Lett 5: 280–286. https://doi.org/10.5185/amlett.2014.10563 doi: 10.5185/amlett.2014.10563
    [64] Gholizadeh A (2017) A comparative study of physical properties in Fe3O4 nanoparticles prepared by coprecipitation and citrate methods. J Am Ceram Soc 100: 3577–3588. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.14896 doi: 10.1111/jace.14896
    [65] Suppiah DD, Abd Hamid SB (2016) One step facile synthesis of ferromagnetic magnetite nanoparticles. J Magn Magn Mater 414: 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2016.04.072 doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2016.04.072
    [66] Da'na E, Taha A, Afkar E (2018) Green synthesis of iron nanoparticles by Acacia nilotica pods extract and its catalytic, adsorption, and antibacterial activities. Appl Sci 8: 1922. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8101922 doi: 10.3390/app8101922
    [67] Van Ommen JR, Valverde JM, Pfeffer R (2012) Fluidization of nanopowders: A review. J Nanopart Res 14: 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0737-4 doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0737-4
    [68] Bassim S, Mageed AK, AbdulRazak AA, et al. (2022) Green synthesis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles and its applications in wastewater treatment. Inorganics 10: 260. https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics10120260 doi: 10.3390/inorganics10120260
    [69] Wei R, Li H, Lin Y, et al. (2020) Reduction characteristics of iron oxide by the hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin components of biomass. Energy Fuels 34: 8332–8339. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00377 doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00377
    [70] Laid TM, Abdelhamid K, Eddine LS, et al. (2021) Optimizing the biosynthesis parameters of iron oxide nanoparticles using central composite design. J Mol Struct 1229: 129497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.129497 doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.129497
    [71] Anukam AI, Berghel J, Famewo EB, et al. (2020) Improving the understanding of the bonding mechanism of primary components of biomass pellets through the use of advanced analytical instruments. J Wood Chem Technol 40: 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773813.2019.1652324 doi: 10.1080/02773813.2019.1652324
    [72] Ramesh AV, Rama Devi D, Mohan Botsa S, et al. (2018) Facile green synthesis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles using aqueous leaf extract of Zanthoxylum armatum DC. for efficient adsorption of methylene blue. J Asian Ceram Soc 6: 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/21870764.2018.1459335 doi: 10.1080/21870764.2018.1459335
    [73] Netala VR, Kotakadi VS, Nagam V, et al. (2015) First report of biomimetic synthesis of silver nanoparticles using aqueous callus extract of Centella asiatica and their antimicrobial activity. Appl Nanosci 5: 801–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13204-014-0374-6 doi: 10.1007/s13204-014-0374-6
    [74] Awwad AM, Salem NM (2012) A green and facile approach for synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles. Nanoscience Nanotechnol 2: 208–213. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.nn.20120206.09 doi: 10.5923/j.nn.20120206.09
    [75] Arokiyaraj S, Saravanan M, Prakash NU, et al. (2013) Enhanced antibacterial activity of iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles treated with Argemone mexicana L. leaf extract: An in vitro study. Mater Res Bull 48: 3323–3327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2013.05.059 doi: 10.1016/j.materresbull.2013.05.059
    [76] Rahmani R, Gharanfoli M, Gholamin M, et al. (2020) Plant-mediated synthesis of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) using aloe vera and flaxseed extracts and evaluation of their cellular toxicities. Ceram Int 46: 3051–3058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.10.005
    [77] Rahmayanti M, Syakina AN, Fatimah I, et al. (2022) Green synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles using peel extract of jengkol (Archidendron pauciflorum) for methylene blue adsorption from aqueous media. Chem Phys Lett 803: 139834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2022.139834 doi: 10.1016/j.cplett.2022.139834
    [78] Ghoohestani E, Samari F, Homaei A, et al. (2024) A facile strategy for preparation of Fe₃O₄ magnetic nanoparticles using Cordia myxa leaf extract and investigating its adsorption activity in dye removal. Sci Rep 14: 84. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50550-1 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-50550-1
    [79] Hasan K, Shehadi IA, Al-Bab ND, et al. (2019) Magnetic chitosan-supported silver nanoparticles: A heterogeneous catalyst for the reduction of 4-nitrophenol. Catalysts 9: 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal9100839 doi: 10.3390/catal9100839
    [80] Halim AF, Poinern GE, Fawcett D, et al. (2024) Green biogenic synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles from indigenous Banksia ashbyi leaf for enhanced sonochemical dye degradation. Mater Res Express. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ad8ca0
    [81] Yusefi M, Shameli K, Yee OS, et al. (2021) Green synthesis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles stabilized by a Garcinia mangostana fruit peel extract for hyperthermia and anticancer activities. Int J Nanomed 16: 2515. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S284134 doi: 10.2147/IJN.S284134
    [82] Yuvakkumar R, Hong SI (2014) Green synthesis of spinel magnetite iron oxide nanoparticles. Adv Mater Res 1051: 39–42. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1051.39 doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1051.39
    [83] Murugappan K, Silvester DS, Chaudhary D, et al. (2014) Electrochemical characterization of an oleyl-coated magnetite nanoparticle-modified electrode. ChemElectroChem 1: 1211–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201402012 doi: 10.1002/celc.201402012
    [84] Mishra AK, Ramaprabhu S (2011) Nano magnetite decorated multiwalled carbon nanotubes: A robust nanomaterial for enhanced carbon dioxide adsorption. Energy Environ Sci 4: 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EE00076K doi: 10.1039/C0EE00076K
    [85] Konon M, Brazovskaya EY, Kreisberg V, et al. (2023) Novel inorganic membranes based on magnetite-containing silica porous glasses for ultrafiltration: Structure and sorption properties. Membranes 13: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13030341 doi: 10.3390/membranes13030341
    [86] Taha AB, Essa MS, Chiad BT (2023) Iron oxide nanoparticles preparation by using homemade hydrothermal pyrolysis technique with different reaction times. J Metastable Nanocryst Mater 35: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4028/p-cbng1t doi: 10.4028/p-cbng1t
    [87] Sheng-Nana S, Chaoa W, Zan-Zanb Z, et al. (2014) Magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Synthesis and surface coating techniques for biomedical applications. Chin Phys B 23: 037503–037519. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/23/3/037503 doi: 10.1088/1674-1056/23/3/037503
    [88] Yew YP, Shameli K, Miyake M, et al. (2016) Green synthesis of magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles using seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii) extract. Nanoscale Res Lett 11: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-016-1498-2 doi: 10.1186/s11671-016-1498-2
    [89] Das C, Sen S, Singh T, et al. (2020) Green synthesis, characterization, and application of natural product coated magnetite nanoparticles for wastewater treatment. Nanomaterials 10: 1615. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10081615 doi: 10.3390/nano10081615
    [90] Basavegowda N, Magar KBS, Mishra K, et al. (2014) Green fabrication of ferromagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles and their novel catalytic applications for the synthesis of biologically interesting benzoxazinone and benzthioxazinone derivatives. New J Chem 38: 5415–5420. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4NJ01155D doi: 10.1039/C4NJ01155D
    [91] Basavegowda N, Mishra K, Lee YR (2014) Sonochemically synthesized ferromagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles as a recyclable catalyst for the preparation of pyrrolo[3, 4-c]quinoline-1, 3-dione derivatives. RSC Adv 4: 61660–61666. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA11623B doi: 10.1039/C4RA11623B
    [92] Afzal S, Khan R, Zeb T, et al. (2018) Structural, optical, dielectric, and magnetic properties of PVP coated magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 29: 20040–20050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-0134-6 doi: 10.1007/s10854-018-0134-6
    [93] Khan R, Rahman MU, Iqbal Z (2016) Variation of structural, dielectric, and magnetic properties of PVP coated γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 27: 12490–12498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-016-5634-7 doi: 10.1007/s10854-016-5634-7
    [94] Mirza I, Sarfraz A, Hasanain S (2014) Effect of surfactant on magnetic and optical properties of α-Fe2O3 nanoparticles. Acta Phys Pol A 126: 1280–1287. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.126.1280 doi: 10.12693/APhysPolA.126.1280
    [95] Attallah OA, Al-Ghobashy MA, Nebsen M, et al. (2018) Assessment of pectin-coated magnetite nanoparticles in low-energy water desalination applications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25: 18476–18483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2060-9 doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2060-9
    [96] Basavaiah K, Kahsay MH, Rama Devi D (2018) Green synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles using aqueous pod extract of Dolichos lablab L for efficient adsorption of crystal violet. Emergent Mater 1: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42247-018-0005-1 doi: 10.1007/s42247-018-0005-1
    [97] Awwad AM, Salem NM (2012) A green and facile approach for synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles. Nanosc Nanotechnol 2: 208–213. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.nn.20120206.09 doi: 10.5923/j.nn.20120206.09
    [98] ISO 14040: 2006. Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (accessed August 25, 2021).
    [99] ISO 14044: 2006. Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (accessed August 25, 2021).
    [100] Al-Hazeef MS, Aidi A, Hecini L, et al. (2024) Valorizing date palm spikelets into activated carbon-derived composite for methyl orange adsorption: Advancing circular bio-economy in wastewater treatment—A comprehensive study on its equilibrium, kinetics, thermodynamics, and mechanisms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34581-3
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Qiguang Li, Yulin Zhuang, Xiaokai Liu, Fangmin Xu, Yunbi Zhang, Mingyi Sun, A novel method for flow soft measurement of pipeline impact force using Swin-CLG algorithm, 2025, 106, 09555986, 102933, 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2025.102933
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1101) PDF downloads(83) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(7)  /  Tables(11)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog