4.5 Article

Electrochemical removal of carbamazepine in water with Ti/PbO2 cylindrical mesh anode

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 73, 期 5, 页码 1155-1165

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2015.591

关键词

carbamazepine; electrooxidation; hydrogen peroxide; reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA)
  2. National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is one of the most frequently detected organic compounds in the aquatic environment. Due to its bio-persistence and toxicity for humans and the environment its removal has become an important issue. The performance of the electrochemical oxidation process and in situ production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as O-3 and H2O2, for CBZ removal have been studied using Ti/PbO2 cylindrical mesh anode in the presence of Na2SO4 as supporting electrolyte in a batch electrochemical reactor. In this integrated process, direct oxidation at anode and indirect oxidation by in situ electrogenerated ROS can occur simultaneously. The effect of several factors such as electrolysis time, current intensity, initial pH and oxygen flux was investigated by means of an experimental design methodology, using a 2(4) factorial matrix. CBZ removal of 83.93% was obtained and the most influential parameters turned out to be electrolysis time, current intensity and oxygen flux. Later, the optimal experimental values for CBZ degradation were obtained by means of a central composite design. The best operating conditions, analyzed by Design Expert (R) software, are the following: 110 min of electrolysis at 3.0 A, pH = 7.05 and 2.8 L O-2/min. Under these optimal conditions, the model prediction (82.44%) fits very well with the experimental response (83.90 +/- 0.8%). Furthermore, chemical oxygen demand decrease was quantified. Our results illustrated significant removal efficiency for the CBZ in optimized condition with second order kinetic reaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据