4.8 Article

Photochemistry of Hydrochar: Reactive Oxygen Species Generation and Sulfadimidine Degradation

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 19, 页码 11278-11287

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02740

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholars [21425728]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [51472100]
  3. 111 Project [B17019]
  4. CCNU from the Colleges' Basic Research and Operation of MOE [CCNU14Z01001]
  5. Central China Normal University [2016YBZZ037]
  6. CAS Interdisciplinary Innovation Team of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biochar, mainly including pyrochar produced via pyrolysis of biomass at moderate temperatures of 350-700 degrees C and hydrochar formed by hydrothermal carbonization in a range of 150-350 degrees C, has received increasing attention because of its significant environmental impacts. It is known that pyrochar can generate reactive oxygen species even in the dark owing to the presence of persistent free radicals, but hydrochar is far less studied. In this study, we systematically investigate the photochemistry of hydrochar and check its effects on the sulfadimidine degradation. Different from pyrochar derived from the same biomass, hydrochar could generate much more H2O2 and center dot OH under daylight irradiation, which could enhance the sulfadimidine degradation rate six times more than that found in the dark. Raman spectroscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, electron paramagnetic resonance, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were employed to elucidate this interesting phenomenon. Characterization results revealed that the higher reactive oxygen species generation ability of hydrochar under solar light irradiation was attributed to its abundant photoactive surface oxygenated functional groups. This study clarifies the differences of pyrochar and hydrochar on organic pollutant degradation, and also sheds light on environmental effects of hydrochar.

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

4.8
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