High-Pressure CO2 Photoreduction, Flame Spray Pyrolysis and Type-II Heterojunctions: A Promising Synergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, three catalysts, TiO2, WO3 and TiO2/WO3, have been synthesized through flame spray pyrolysis synthesis (FSP) and have been tested for CO2 photoreduction. The catalysts were fully characterized by XRD, DRS UV–Vis, N2 physisorption and SEM. Experimental tests were performed in a one-of-a-kind high-pressure reactor at 18 bar. TiO2 P25 was used as a benchmark to compare the productivities of the newly synthetized catalysts. The two single oxides showed comparable productivities, both slightly lower than the P25 reference value (ca. 17 mol/kgcat·h). The mixed oxide, TiO2/WO3, instead showed an impressive productivity of formic acid with 36 mol/kgcat·h, which is around 2.5 times higher than both of the single oxides alone. The formation of a type-II heterojunction has been confirmed through DRS analysis. The remarkable productivity demonstrates how FSP synthesis can be a crucial tool to obtain highly active and stable photocatalysts. This approach has already been successfully scaled up for the industrial production of various catalysts, showcasing its versatility and efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".