Effect of physical chemistry parameters in photocatalytic properties of TiO2 nanocrystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a new synthesis of TiO 2 anatase 6 nm nanocrystals prepared at room temperature (Hegazy and Prouzet, 2012 [10]) to explore the influence of different physical-chemical parameters on photocatalysis, and bench-tested the material against two commercial powders made of either pure anatase (Sigma™), or composite anatase–rutile particles (P25 Degussa™). The initial as-synthesised material demonstrates a low photocatalytic activity, which is greatly improved after thermal activation as a result of improved crystallinity without any drastic change in crystal size. The influence of several other parameters was studied, the resulting tests being compared with commercial products. The cumulative improvement provided by these different parameters led finally to a material that exhibits a higher photocatalysis compared to commercial anatase, and similar to the commercial material usually used for reference (P25). This study, which can apply to other titania materials, illustrates how the post-treatment and process adaptation can help to optimise an initial material.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".