Solar Light Photoactive Floating Polyaniline/TiO2 Composites for Water Remediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the development of innovative polyurethane-polyaniline/TiO2 modified floating materials applied in the sorption and photodegradation of rhodamine B from water matrix under solar light irradiation is reported. All the materials were fabricated with inexpensive and easy approaches and were properly characterized. The effect of the kind of polyaniline (PANI) dopant on the materials’ behavior was investigated, as well as the role of the conducting polymer in the pollutant abatement on the basis of its physico-chemical characteristics. Rhodamine B is removed by adsorption and/or photodegradation processes depending on the type of doping agent used for PANI protonation. The best materials were subjected to recycle tests in order to demonstrate their stability under the reaction conditions. The main transformation products formed during the photodegradation process were identified by ultraperformance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS). The results demonstrated that photoactive floating PANI/TiO2 composites are useful alternatives to common powder photocatalysts for the degradation of cationic dyes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".