MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047011035 · doi:10.3390/nano10081543

Comparison of Enhanced Photocatalytic Degradation Efficiency and Toxicity Evaluations of CeO2 Nanoparticles Synthesized Through Double-Modulation

2020· article· en· W3047011035 on OpenAlexaff
Jang Hyun Choi, Jung-A Hong, Ye Rim Son, Jian Wang, Hyun Sung Kim, Hansol Lee, Hangil Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Nanomaterials in Catalysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsHaCaTToxicityPhotocatalysisNanoparticleDegradation (telecommunications)Transmission electron microscopyNeutral redBromideNuclear chemistryViability assayMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeBiophysicsNanotechnologyChemical engineeringChemistryCytotoxicityCellBiochemistryInorganic chemistryIn vitroBiologyCatalysisOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrated that Fe/Cr doped and pH-modified CeO2 nanoparticles (NPs) exhibit enhanced photocatalytic performance as compared to bare CeO2 NPs, using photocatalytic degradation. To assess the toxicity level of these double-modified CeO2 NPs on the human skin, they were introduced into HaCaT cells. The results of our conventional cellular toxicity assays (neutral red uptake and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide for assays) indicated that Cr@CeOx NPs prompt severe negative effects on the viability of human cells. Moreover, the results obtained by scanning transmission X-ray microscopy and bio-transmission electron microscope analysis showed that most of the NPs were localized outside the nucleus of the cells. Thus, serious genetic toxicity was unlikely. Overall, this study highlights the need to prevent the development of Cr@CeOx NP toxicity. Moreover, further research should aim to improve the photocatalytic properties and activity of these NPs while accounting for their stability issues.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicAdvanced Nanomaterials in CatalysisFrench-language works237,207