Theoretical Study of the Reduction of Uranium(VI) Aquo Complexes on Titania Particles and by Alcohols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide insights into the adsorption and photoreduction of uranium(VI) on TiO(2), we have studied the structural and electronic properties of uranium(VI) aquo complexes adsorbed on stoichiometric and defected TiO(2) surfaces and nanoparticles. Plane wave calculations with the pure PBE density functional and the PBE+U approach were used to study U(VI) complexes on a periodic rutile (110) slab. In addition, a nanoparticulate Ti(38)O(76) cluster was used to simulate anatase nanoparticles. The electronic structures of the adsorbed U(VI) complexes indicate that the photoreduction process is a consequence of the photocatalytic properties of TiO(2). The reduction of the adsorbed complexes can only occur if the energy of the incident photon exceeds the semiconductor band gap. The gap states induced by single or neighboring hydrogen atoms and oxygen vacancies at the rutile (110) surface cannot reduce adsorbed U(VI) complexes as the unoccupied 5f orbitals are found deeper in the conduction band. In the absence of a solid substrate, photoreduction proceeds by abstraction of a hydrogen atom from water or organic molecules present in solution. Photoreduction by chlorophenol results in lower product yield than reduction by aliphatic alcohols. This is because the triplet uranyl-chlorophenol complex is much more stable than similar complexes formed with methanol and ethanol. In the case of water, the hydroxyl photoproduct easily re-oxidizes the pentavalent species formed. In addition, it is easier for the triplet uranyl-water complex to decompose to the photoreactants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".