4.6 Article

Chemical degradation and toxicity reduction of 4-chlorophenol in different matrices by gamma-ray treatment

期刊

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
卷 80, 期 3, 页码 487-490

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2010.09.005

关键词

Acute toxicity; Chlorophenol; Daphnia magna; Gamma-ray; Radiocatalysis

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2009-0078350]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2009-0078350] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gamma-ray treatment of 4-chlorophenol (4-CP) in different matrices was studied in terms of both chemical degradation and toxicity reduction. Degradation of 4-CP in a complex effluent matrix was less efficient than that in ultrapure water. This is most likely due to the consumption of reactive radicals by matrix components, such as dissolved organic matter in effluents. The matrix effect caused much more profound changes in toxicity. Gamma-ray treatment of 4-CP in ultrapure water abruptly increased acute toxicity toward Daphnia magna while slightly decreased toxicity of 4-CP in effluent. In the presence of ZrO2 catalyst, degradation of 4-CP as well as toxicity reduction was substantially improved mostly by adsorption of 4-CP onto the nanoparticles. It was found that benzoquinone, hydroquinone and 4-chlorocatechol were generated for ultrapure water sample while only 4-chlorocatechol was formed for effluent samples by gamma-ray treatment. As determined in this work, EC50 values of benzoquinone (0.46 mu M), hydroquinone (0.61 mu M) and chlorocatechol (8.87 mu M) were much lower than those of 4-CP (31.50 mu M), explaining different toxicity changes of 4-CP in different matrices by gamma-ray treatment. The observed toxicity of gamma-ray treated 4-CP was well correlated with the one calculated from individual toxicity based on EC50 value. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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