4.7 Article

Developing a high-quality catalyst from the pyrolysis of anaerobic granular sludge: Its application for m-cresol degradation

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 255, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126939

关键词

Sludge carbon; Anaerobic granular sludge; Pyrolysis; Catalytic wet peroxide oxidation; M-cresol

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878643]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, China [201901D211029]
  3. Shanxi Science and Technology Innovation Project of Higher School, China [2019L0315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a novel approach for utilizing granular sludge discharged from anaerobic reactors to prepare an effective and stable catalyst for the removal of refractory contaminants in catalytic wet peroxide oxidation (CWPO). By implementing the response surface methodology, the experimental conditions for m-cresol degradation in CWPO with a HNO3-modified sludge carbon (GSC-M) as catalyst were explored. The removal efficiencies for m-cresol and total organic carbon (TOC) were 100% and 91.4%, respectively, at the optimal conditions of 60 degrees C for 120 min with a pH of 3, H2O2 dosage of 1.85 g/L, and catalyst dosage of 0.75 g/L. A continuous experiment was conducted for 6 d to investigate the durability and catalytic performance of GSC-M, resulting in a TOC removal above 90% with the catalyst maintaining its original morphology. GSC-M catalyst exhibited excellent stability and low iron leaching (0.34%). The high catalytic degradation could be attributed to a high content of iron species, various types of surface functional groups, porous structures, and the pi-pi interaction between aromatic clusters in sludge carbon and the benzene ring of m-cresol. Interestingly, GSC-M catalyst exhibited magnetic properties which are beneficial for recycling. Based on the identified intermediates, a possible degradation pathway of m-cresol was proposed. (C) 2020 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

4.7
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