2022
DOI: 10.1007/s11696-022-02320-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimizing and control of effective synthesize parameters for Fe3O4 nanoparticles using response surface methodology

Abstract: To control Fe3O4 nanoparticles (Fe3O4 NPs) size, different molar ratio of Fe2+ and Fe3+ as well as ammonium hydroxide (pH) was used to synthesize Fe3O4 NPs through co-precipitation method. The Box–Behnken design was selected to explore the interaction between process parameters (factors) such as Fe2+ molar ion, Fe3+ molar ion and pH on the final size. The interactive effect between the process variables was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The quadratic model predicted by the Box–Behnken design was s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 36 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to evaluate the reliability of the quadratic model, the F value in the S9 analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the SI table was used for analysis. The F value of the model was 39, and the p value was < 0.001, indicating that the model had a significant effect on the response 71 . Table 5 showed that the R 2 value of the model was 0.9701, indicating that 97.01% of the model was consistent with the experimental data, and only 2.99% of the data did not match the model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In order to evaluate the reliability of the quadratic model, the F value in the S9 analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the SI table was used for analysis. The F value of the model was 39, and the p value was < 0.001, indicating that the model had a significant effect on the response 71 . Table 5 showed that the R 2 value of the model was 0.9701, indicating that 97.01% of the model was consistent with the experimental data, and only 2.99% of the data did not match the model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%