A review on selected heterogeneous photocatalysts for hydrogen production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, visible light-driven heterogeneous photocatalysts for hydrogen production are comparatively assessed based on technical, environmental, and cost criteria. The photocatalysis systems are compared with respect to their (i) rate of hydrogen generation per gram; (ii) rate of hydrogen generation per m2 of the specific surface area; and (iii) the band gap energy. The photocatalysis systems are also compared and discussed in terms of flammability, reactivity, and their impact on living systems' health. Furthermore, the costs of the required components of the photocatalysis systems are ranked. In addition to individual photocatalyst comparison, seven photocatalyst groups are ranked and compared. The results show that TiO2-C-362 and Ag0.03Mn0.40Cd0.60S show the highest in terms of µmol/h-gcat and µmol/h-m2cat, respectively, and TiO2-C-362 has the highest overall rankings. The Zn/In/S-based photocatalyst groups show the highest hydrogen production rate in terms of µmol/h-gcat and µmol/h-m2cat. Overall, Cd/S/Zn has the highest rankings when cost and health and environmental impact criteria are taken into account. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".