Polypyrrole- and polyaniline-supported TiO<sub>2</sub> for removal of pollutants from water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, the modification of titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) as a well-known photocatalyst with different strategies, such as morphological change, doping and supported substrate, has been investigated. The main goals of the modification process can be described as (a) enhancing titanium dioxide performance and (b) providing a situation that uses titanium dioxide under visible or sunlight radiation. Different types of materials have been used for titanium dioxide support, among them polymers; in particular, polypyrrole (PPy) and polyaniline (Pan), that seem to be very effective due to considerable chemical and environmental stability in the aqueous phase. Meanwhile, by combining PPy and Pan with titanium dioxide, the energy of the band gap of supported titanium dioxide may be reduced and the photocatalytic process can be carried out under visible light illumination. This review demonstrates different strategies (their mechanisms and drawbacks) for enhancing titanium dioxide performance. In the field of PPy- and Pan-supported titanium dioxide, photocatalysts present a comprehensive study on their synthesis and application for removal of dye and organic pollutants. The effects of various parameters on the photocatalytic performance of PPy/titanium dioxide and Pan/titanium dioxide are also demonstrated. The main mechanisms of organic contaminants’ photodegradation by PPy/titanium dioxide and Pan/titanium dioxide in water (via an aqueous solution) are also investigated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".