Architecture Dictates the Activity of Hollow TiO<sub>2</sub> Nanospheres in Photocatalytic Solar Energy Conversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant progress has been achieved in elucidating the relationship between the architecture of heterogeneous photocatalysts and their catalytic activity. Notably, it is recognized that hollow nanospheres exhibit superior catalytic activity compared with their filled nanoparticle counterparts. Yet, the impact of diameter and shell thickness on photocatalytic activity remains unclear. Here, we designed hollow TiO 2 nanospheres with varying thicknesses and diameters. Our study reveals that disparities in catalytic activity, for processes such as H 2 production, N 2 reduction, or dye degradation, defy simple attribution to defects, surface facets, surface area, or variations in exciton lifetimes. Intriguingly, a decrease in catalytic activity was observed with an increase in the external diameter or shell thickness. The absorption and scattering of a single hollow nanosphere increase with particle diameter and shell thickness. However, at a given concentration, nanospheres with lower shell thickness and external diameter are in greater numbers, thus resulting in overall greater absorption and scattering for hollow nanospheres with lower diameter and diameter. We envision that this study will provide a foundation for the rational design of nanomaterials with enhanced photoactivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".