Mechanism and kinetics of H‐acid degradation in TiO<sub>2</sub>/O<sub>3</sub>/UV process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mechanism and kinetics of synergetic effect in TiO2/O3/UV process on H‐acid degradation were investigated. The experimental results showed that H‐acid removal rate of TiO2/O3/UV process was the highest among TiO2/UV, O3/UV and TiO2/O3/UV processes. The investigation of reactions with suitable active species scavengers confirmed that H‐acid was mainly oxidised by ozone and holes on TiO2 in the TiO2/O3/UV process. The recombination between holes and electrons in TiO2 reduced in the presence of ozone, as indicated by fluorescence emission spectra. Moreover, the intermediates generated during H‐acid oxidation in various processes were analysed by LC/MSD trap. It is proposed that H‐acid was oxidised to polyhydroxy aromatics, benzene carboxylic acids and quinoids in the first step. Then, saturated aliphatics carboxylic acids were formed and mineralised to inorganic compounds through the Photo‐Kolbe reaction. Finally, a kinetic study on TiO2/UV, O3/UV and TiO2/O3/UV processes was conducted and it was confirmed that both ozonation and photocatalytic activity were improved in TiO2/O3/UV process because of the synergetic effect.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".