MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128324843 · doi:10.1039/d0dt04320f

The synthesis of a novel titanium oxide aerogel with highly enhanced removal of uranium and evaluation of the adsorption mechanism

2021· article· en· W3128324843 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Liao, Yong Zhang, Xiaoshan He, Lin Zhang, Zhibing He

Bibliographic record

VenueDalton Transactions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
FundersSouthwest University of Science and Technology
KeywordsAerogelAdsorptionUraniumTitaniumMaterials scienceChemical engineeringTitanium oxideOxideInorganic chemistryNanotechnologyChemistryMetallurgyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A TiO2 aerogel with a high removal percentage and adsorption capacity was manufactured via template synthesis. Subsequently, the as-prepared TiO2 aerogel was characterized by various techniques and applied as an adsorbent for the removal of U(vi). The results revealed that the U(vi) adsorption was very rapid and reached apparent equilibrium within 100 min. The maximum removal percentage was 97.1%, which was calculated using the pseudo-second-order kinetic model (T = 298 K, t = 180 min, pH = 5, m/V = 0.1 g L-1 and C0 = 10 mg g-1). The Langmuir isotherm model was used to determine the maximum adsorption capacity and it achieved 638.0 mg g-1 (T = 298 K, pH = 5 and m/V = 0.1 g L-1). In addition, the removal of U(vi) on the TiO2 aerogel was relatively good in acidic solution and the removal behavior was independent of the influence of ionic strength. The removal percentage of the as-prepared TiO2 aerogel was higher than 90% after five cycles. Due to these excellent properties such as easy recovery, fast adsorption kinetics, high adsorption capacity and high removal percentage, the TiO2 aerogel might become an extremely employable adsorbent for the extraction of U(vi) in seawater.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalton TransactionsSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207