4.4 Article

Comparative Electrochemical Oxidation of Bisphenol A Using BDD, PbO2, and IrO2 Anodes: Identification of Active Free Radicals

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.20964/2022.11.01

关键词

Electrochemical oxidation; BDD; PbO2; IrO2; Radicals

资金

  1. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LQ20B070004]
  2. Zhejiang provincial students' scientific and technological innovation activity plan (new talent plan) project [2022R461A016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electrochemical oxidation efficiency of bisphenol A (BPA) was compared using boron doped diamond (BDD), PbO2, and IrO2 anodes. It was found that the BDD anode showed complete BPA removal and had a higher COD removal efficiency. The oxidation on the BDD anode was mainly driven by center dot OH, while other mechanisms were responsible for the PbO2 and IrO2 anodes.
The comparative electrochemical oxidation efficiency of bisphenol A (BPA) was explored using boron doped diamond (BDD), PbO2, and IrO2 anodes. Several parameters were optimized using the BDD anode. The optimal conditions were a current density of 60 mA center dot cm(-2), Na2SO4 concentration of 4 g center dot L-1, agitation rate of 600 rpm, and BPA concentration of 50 mg center dot L-1. The BPA removal efficiencies for the BDD, PbO2, and IrO2 anodes were 100%, 79.9%, and 19.5%, respectively; only the BDD anode showed complete BPA removal. Similarly, the COD removal efficiencies with the BDD, PbO2, and IrO2 anodes were 81.8%, 37.0%, and 6.73%, respectively. Oxidation with the BDD anode was realized mainly by center dot OH, accounting for approximately 85.6%. In addition, SO4 center dot- oxidation and direct oxidation accounted for approximately 7.7% and 6.7%, respectively. In the PbO2 anode, center dot OH oxidation, SO4 center dot- oxidation, and direct oxidation accounted for approximately 51.0%, 8.2%, and 40.8%, respectively. In the IrO2 anode, oxidation was dependent mainly on direct oxidation, and no center dot OH and SO4 center dot- were generated.

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

4.4
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