MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560045399 · doi:10.1680/jenes.16.00016

Photocatalytic degradation of red dye: optimisation using RSM

2016· article· en· W2560045399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mona Ossman, Rania Farouq, Marwa Abdelfattah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicAdvanced Photocatalysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotocatalysisZincMaterials scienceTitanium dioxideCatalysisGraphitic carbon nitrideZinc nitrateCarbon nitrideZinc ferriteChemical engineeringScanning electron microscopeNitrideOxideInorganic chemistryNuclear chemistryChemistryComposite materialMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this research was to apply experimental design methodology to the optimisation of the photocatalytic degradation of red dye present in waste water. This paper reports the broad range of several photocatalyst composite efficiencies for photocatalytic degradation of red dye in waste water samples from textile industries. Three composites, which were graphitic carbon nitride (g-carbon nitride (C 3 N 4 ))/zinc oxide (ZnO), g-carbon nitride/titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) and zinc oxide nanoparticles, were prepared using different precursors (zinc chloride, zinc nitrate etc.). The catalysts were characterised by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. The catalytic performance of different photocatalysts was tested using different variables such as dosage, stirring speed, composite structure and dye concentration. Two methods were used to optimise the operating conditions. The results indicate that the photocatalytic degradation of the red dye solution at the resulting optimum condition, which was found to be after 90 min of ultraviolet irradiation, can reach 68, 57 and 53% when using zinc oxide nanoparticles, titanium dioxide/carbon nitride and zinc oxide/carbon nitride, respectively, as catalysts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicAdvanced Photocatalysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207