MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889363142 · doi:10.14447/jnmes.v17i1.439

Synthesis of Nanoporous TiO2 Thin Films for Photocatalytic Degradation of Methylene Blue

2014· article· en· W2889363142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Estrada, Carmen Reza, J. Salmones, J.A. Wang, M.E. Manríquez, J. M. Mora, M. L. Hernández, Arturo Zuñiga, J.L. Contreras

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotocatalysisNanoporousAnataseMethylene blueThin filmMaterials scienceX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyChemical engineeringScanning electron microscopeAnodizingTetragonal crystal systemNanocrystalline materialNanotechnologyPhase (matter)ChemistryComposite materialCatalysisOrganic chemistryAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work reports a structure and photocatalytic activity of nanoporous titania (TiO2) thin films by an anodizing approach. Xray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM) studies showed that tetragonal anatase was the main phase in the thin films that consisted of countless disordered nanopores in the order of 10 to 15 nm. In the photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue, the titania thin films showed a good photocatalytic activity. 82.2 % methylene blue could be photodegraded by titania thin films with UV radiation. XPS results indicate that during the degradation of methylene blue, some Ti3+ may be partially oxidized to Ti4+ in the TiO2 films and the surface hydroxyls directly participate in the reaction. Our nanoporous titania thin films is commensurable to Degussa-25 TiO2 powders because the latter requires filtration in each treatment; it is also much superior to the direct photolysis approach with respect to photoactivity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Materials for Electrochemical SystemsSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207