4.7 Article

A kinetic approach to the effect of catalytic systems on the degradation of CI Reactive Blue 160

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR LIQUIDS
卷 325, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2020.115151

关键词

Reactive Blue 160; Reaction kinetics; Dye degradation; Advanced oxidation processes

资金

  1. CNPq
  2. PIPe/FURB
  3. PIBIC/CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the degradation of dye RB160 using various catalytic systems, finding that while efficiency values were similar, the kinetics behavior varied significantly among different catalytic systems. Additionally, it demonstrated the possibility of efficiently degrading RB160 without the addition of a catalyst.
This paper describes the application of the catalytic systems H2O2 combined with NaOH, UV-light and Fenton-based in order to study their influence on the degradation kinetics of C.I. Reactive Blue 160 (RB160). Several variables were evaluated including temperature, amount of oxidant, effect of initial pH and nature of the catalyst. Under optimal conditions, decolorization efficiencies of 94.8% (30% H2O2/NaOH, 60 degrees C, 120 min), 77.1% (30% H2O2/UV, 50 degrees C, 120 min), 93.3% (30% H2O2/NaOH/UV, 50 degrees C, 120 min) and 95.5% (0.3% H2O2, [Fe2+] = 0.8 mM, 30 degrees C, 20 min) were obtained. Although the efficiency values were similar for most catalytic systems, the kinetics behavior was very different, furnishing rate constants (k(obs)) in the range of 11.8-266.0 x 10(-3) min(-1). This demonstrates that the nature of the catalytic system strongly affects the reaction kinetics.This study also demonstrated the possibility to degrade RB160 without the addition of a catalyst, with an efficiency of 95.7%, k(obs) = 68.8 x 10(-3) min(-1) and half-life time (t(1/2)) = 10.1 min (30% H2O2, 60 degrees C, 120 min). These kinetics parameters are comparable to those obtained with the NaOH-catalyzed system (k(obs) = 72.7 x 10(-3) min(-1), t(1/2) = 9.5 min). (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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