MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411575600 · doi:10.3390/pr13071983

Enhancing the Removal Efficiency of Rhodamine B by Loading Pd onto In2O3/BiVO4 Under Visible Light Irradiation

2025· article· en· W4411575600 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanchen Zhu, Shiqian Li, Xiangchao Meng, Zisheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhodamine BIrradiationVisible spectrumPhotochemistryRhodamineMaterials scienceChemistryNuclear chemistryOptoelectronicsChemical engineeringPhotocatalysisOpticsFluorescenceOrganic chemistryCatalysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple method for synthesizing novel Pd-In2O3/BiVO4 composites by using a hydrothermal technique is proposed. The synthesized samples showed a monoclinic phase and featured homogeneously dispersed Pd and BiVO4 dopants on In2O3, as confirmed by XRD, SEM, and XPS analyses. The Pd-In2O3/BiVO4 composite exhibited notable improvements, such as broadened visible-light absorption (up to 596.1 nm) and a narrowed band gap (2.08 eV vs. 2.82 eV for pure In2O3), a more compact and integrated morphology observed by SEM, which are expected to promote improved light harvesting and facilitate charge separation during photocatalysis. Under visible-light irradiation, the optimized 1 wt% Pd-In2O3/BiVO4 achieved 99% degradation of Rhodamine B (10 mg/L) within 40 min, while pure In2O3 showed less than 10% removal after 60 min—highlighting the strong synergistic effect of dual doping. Additionally, the composite demonstrated excellent stability and reusability over multiple cycles. A plausible photocatalytic mechanism for this process is proposed, providing insights into the design of efficient photocatalysts for wastewater treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207