Advanced treatment of phenol by H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>/UV/activated carbon coupling: Influence of homogeneous and heterogeneous phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, a heterogeneous catalytic wet peroxide process combining activated carbon (AC) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)/ultraviolet radiation was applied for the aqueous‐phase removal of phenol. The influence of the pH and peroxide concentration were determined according to a factorial plan. The kinetic contribution of radical mechanisms ( ) was estimated using a radical scavenger (tert‐butyl alcohol). The degradation kinetics was modelled by a global pseudo‐first‐order kinetic model based on the sum of the effects during the treatment process. The results showed that these two variables significantly affected the percentage removal. The peroxide concentration exerted a positive effect (i.e., as the H2O2 concentration increased, the percentage removal also increased). Additionally, as the pH value increased, the degradation accelerated, and the kinetic constant (khomogeneous) increased from 0.00938 min−1 to 0.02772 min−1. The results obtained in the presence of AC demonstrated the ability of AC to ameliorate the degradation of phenol; for example, was 45.69 % to 41.35 %.
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 | 0.000 | 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".