TiO2 nanotubes immobilized on polyurethane foam as a floating photocatalyst for water treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the photocatalytic activity of TiO2 nanoparticles (TiO2-NPs) and TiO2 nanotubes (TiO2-NTs) supported on a floating polyurethane (PU) foam for removing Bisphenol A (BPA) as a model pollutant. We fabricated TiO2-NPs by the sol-gel method and TiO2-NTs by the ultrasound-assisted hydrothermal method. Subsequently, the photocatalysts were immobilized onto the PU foam through the wet chemical deposition process. The synthesized photocatalysts were characterized by contact angle, SEM-EDS, TEM, XRD, DRS, and BET analyses. TiO2-NPs and TiO2-NTs were successfully deposited onto the PU foam, creating floating photocatalysts denoted as TiO2-NPs@PU and TiO2-NTs@PU. Our findings indicated that the nanotubular structure of floating TiO2 photocatalysts enhanced the removal efficiency of BPA relative to the nanoparticles, resulting in the complete removal of the pollutant over 180 min of simulated sunlight irradiation. TiO2-NTs@PU was also stable after five reuse cycles. Moreover, h+ was the main scavenging reactive species during the photocatalysis of BPA with TiO2-NTs@PU.
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 | 0.001 | 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".