MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255420813 · doi:10.1515/iupac.71.0001

Terminology, Relative Photonic Efficiencies and Quantum Yields in Heterogeneous Photocatalysis. Part I: Suggested ProtocolA draft version of this paper was published previously in part in [J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem., J. Adv. Oxid. Technol.; IAPS Newsletter and EPA Newsletter] to solicit comments and critiques from the scientific and engineering community. Moreover, during the preparation the draft proposal was submitted to a number of distinguished photochemists and photocatalycists to obtain their views.

2016· dataset· en· W4255420813 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Serpone, Angela Trovato Salinaro

Bibliographic record

VenueIUPAC Standards Online · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysis and Oxidation Reactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotocatalysisQuantumQuantum yieldPhotonTerminologyProcess (computing)Simple (philosophy)Yield (engineering)Computer sciencePhotonicsChemistryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsCatalysisEpistemologyThermodynamicsPhilosophyOrganic chemistryFluorescence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term photocatalysis is one amongst several in a quagmire of labels used to describe a photon-driven catalytic process; a simple description of photocatalysis is proposed herein. Other labels such as quantum yield and/or quantum efficiency used in solid/liquid and solid/gas heterogeneous photocatalytic systems to express process efficiencies have come to refer (incorrectly) to the ratio of the rate of a given event to the rate of incident photons impinging on the reactor walls and typically for broadband radiation. There is no accord on the expression for process efficiency. At times quantum yield is defined; often, it is ill-defined and more frequently how it was assessed is not described. This has led to much confusion in the literature, not only because of its different meaning from homogeneous photochemistry, but also because the description of photon efficiency precludes comparison of results from different laboratories owing to variations in light sources, reactor geometries, and overall experimental conditions. The previously reported quantum yields are in fact apparent quantum yields, i.e. lower limits of the true quantum yields. We address this issue and argue that any reference to quantum yields or quantum efficiencies in a heterogeneous medium is inadvisable until the number of photonsabsorbed by the light harvester (the photocatalyst) is known. A practical and simple alternative is proposed for general use and in particular for processes employing complex reactor geometries: the concept ofrelative photonic ef ficiency (ξr) is useful to compare process efficiencies using a given photocatalyst material and a given standard test molecule. A quantum yield can subsequently be calculated since Ф = ξr Фphenol, where Фphenol denotes the quantum yield for the photocatalyzed oxidative transformation of phenol used as the standard secondary actinometer and Degussa P-25 TiO2 as the standard photocatalyst. For heterogeneous suspensions (only), an additional method to determine quantum yields Ф is also proposed.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUPAC Standards OnlineSame topicCatalysis and Oxidation ReactionsFrench-language works237,207