4.7 Article

Mechanisms of persulfate activation on biochar derived from two different sludges: Dominance of their intrinsic compositions

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 408, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124454

关键词

Sludge deposition; Persulfate activation; Biochar; PFRs; Structure-activity relationship

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51578391]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse Foundation [PCRRK18007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that higher organic and nitrogen content in sludge led to more functional groups and carbon layer polymerization in SDBC, which increased the efficiency of PS activation.
Sludge-derived biochar (SDBC) has been regarded as persulfate (PS) activator during the remediation of organic contamination. However, the complexity of sludge composition makes it difficult to predict the activity of SDBC and the efficacy of PS. To improve the understanding of how the composition of sludge regulated activity of its parent SDBC towards PS activation, we used two SDBCs derived from different sludges with significantly different organic compositions and metals. Results indicated the higher content of organic and nitrogen content in sludge led to higher polymerization and condensation of carbon layer and more moieties in SDBC1, whereas more Fe species (e.g. Fe-O, Fe2+ and Fe3+) formed in SDBC2. According to the results of phenol (PN) degradation in SDBC/PS, the apparent rate constants (k(obs)) of SDBC2-700 (0.0037 min(-1)) was 2 folds higher than that of SDBC1-700 (0.0016 min(-1)), whereas the SDBC1-500 (6.0 x 10(-4) min(-1)) exhibited higher k(obs) than that of SDBC2-500 (4.9 x 10(-4) min(-1)). The difference of PS activation by different SDBCs mainly relied on generated reactive oxygen species (ROS). The persistent free radicals (PFRs) and Fe species acted as redox sites for generated ROS, which were depended on the organic compositions and involved metals in used sludges.

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