ArticleScientific reports2026
Efficient removal of Cs
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional polysaccharide-based biosorbents as efficient green alternatives for radionuclide removal from radioactive waste: a review.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Bioengineered ZnScientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of long-lived radionuclides such as Cs⁺ and Sr²⁺ in aquatic systems poses serious environmental and health risks, necessitating the development of highly efficient and practically applicable sorbents. Although various materials have been explored for radionuclide removal, most continue to suffer from slow kinetics, limited selectivity, and difficult recovery. In this study, titanate nanotubes (TNTs) were synthesized hydrothermally and further incorporated into a biodegradable alginate matrix (T/G composite) via ionic gelation to improve handling and solid–liquid separability. The physicochemical features of TNTs and T/G before and after adsorption were examined using XRD, FTIR, FESEM-EDX, zeta potential and N2 adsorption/desorption isotherm analyses to better elucidate structural behavior and adsorption mechanisms. Batch experiments evaluated the effects of pH, dosage, initial ion concentration, and contact time. TNTs exhibited rapid adsorption, reaching equilibrium within 15–30 min, with removal efficiencies of 90% for Cs⁺ and 97% for Sr²⁺ at pH 8 and 0.075 g dose. Isotherm fitting using eleven nonlinear models, supported by comprehensive error analysis revealed that both Cs⁺ and Sr²⁺ adsorption followed both Sips and Langmuir–Freundlich models, reflecting heterogeneous and multilayer adsorption behavior. Kinetic results indicated that chemisorption dominated the process, as suggested by the agreement of experimental data with PFO, PSO, MFSO, and Avrami models. The error analysis revealed that the initial concentration of Cs⁺ and Sr²⁺ play a significant role in the adsorption kinetics. The T/G beads achieved removal efficiencies 45–70% Cs⁺ and 70–90% Sr²⁺. Although embedding TNTs in alginate reduced adsorption capacity due to the lower active TNT ratio, it offers excellent mechanical stability and ease of separation. The adsorption mechanism combines electrostatic attraction, surface complexation, and partial ion exchange between Cs⁺/Sr²⁺ and Na⁺ in titanate layers. Regeneration studies demonstrated that TNTs retained over 90% of their initial performance after five cycles, while T/G maintained above 85%, confirming the materials’ reusability. The rapid kinetics, high capacity, and simple regeneration procedure highlight the potential scalability of TNT-based systems for radionuclide removal. However, practical deployment may still require optimization of TNT loading within the alginate matrix and evaluation under real wastewater conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.