Evaluating the hydrothermal synthesis of quasi-one-dimensional TiO2 nanomaterials for the photocatalysis of selected organic chemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) nanomaterials have attracted attention in photocatalytic applications because of their high oxidative potential coupled with increasing active sites. In this study, Q1D TiO 2 samples with different phase structure, crystal size, and specific surface area were produced using a hydrothermal method by varying the reaction conditions (temperature, alkaline concentration, and the TiO 2 precursor concentration). A three-factor three-level Box–Behnken design (BBD) with three replicates (15 conditions) at the center point was employed to evaluate and optimize the hydrothermal synthesis factors in terms of photocatalysis of rhodamine B (RhB), phenol, methyl orange, and methylene blue. The BBD demonstrated that the temperature and the NaOH concentration significantly affected the Q1D TiO 2 crystal size, phase structure, bandgap, and photocatalytic activity. A reduce temperature at 120°C and a low NaOH concentration at 5 M were favorable in producing a biphasic anatase–rutile structure with optimum photocatalytic activity. Under a higher temperature of 190°C and with ≥ 10 M NaOH concentration, the presence of TiO 2 -B phase resulted in the lowest photocatalytic activity.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".