Figure 2.

In vitro sono/chemo‐dynamic performance of single‐atom Cu/TiO₂ nanosonosensitizers and density functional theory calculations. a) Schematic illustration of synergistically enhanced ROS generation of single‐atom Cu/TiO₂ nanosonosensitizers under US irradiation. b) Time‐course absorbance of TMB to assess the ·OH generation capability of TiO₂ and Cu/TiO₂ through UV–vis measurement. c,d) UV–vis absorbance of TMB to evaluate the ·OH generation of Cu/TiO₂ without c) or with d) US irradiation at different concentrations (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 ppm). e) UV–vis absorbance of Cu/TiO₂ containing DPBF exposure to US irradiation for different durations (0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, and 12.5 min). f) UV–vis absorbance of Cu/TiO₂ containing DPBF exposure to US irradiation (power density: 1.0 W cm⁻², duty cycle: 50%, 5 min) at different concentrations (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ppm). g) Relative absorption of DPBF after co‐incubation with Cu/TiO₂ or TiO₂ under US irradiation for different durations. h) BMPO and i) TEMP spin‐trapping ESR spectra of Cu/TiO₂ under different conditions. j) Schematics and k) charge densities of pure TiO₂(001) facet and Cu‐doped TiO₂(001) facet (TiO₂(001)‐Cu). l) The POD‐like activity catalytic mechanism and m) the energy diagram of the Cu‐doped TiO₂(001) surface. The purple, orange, red, and white balls indicate the Ti, Cu, O, and H atoms, respectively. *P< 0.05, **P< 0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001 and ns for non‐significant.