4.7 Article

Electro-oxidation of Ofloxacin antibiotic by dimensionally stable Ti/RuO2 anode: Evaluation and mechanistic approach

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 193, 期 -, 页码 685-694

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.065

关键词

Ofloxacin; Ti/RuO2 electrode; TOC; Mineralization current efficiency; Pseudo-first-order kinetic; Transformation products

资金

  1. University Grants Commission of India [MANF-2014-15-SIK-PUN-43596]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Present study investigates the potential of Ti/RuO2 electrode for degradation and mineralization of Ofloxacin (OFLX) antibiotic from synthetic wastewater by electro-oxidation (EO) method, not reported earlier. Effects of various EO parameters such as applied current (I), initial pH, initial OFLX concentration (C-0) and supporting electrolyte concentration on %OFLX removal efficiency and %TOC removal efficiency were systematically studied and reported. Decay kinetics of OFLX by varying C-0 and applied I were also studied. Additionally, mineralization current efficiency and specific energy consumption of OFLX mineralization were evaluated. Moreover, mode of oxidation method involved (direct and/or indirect oxidation) was also explored. Major OFLX transformation products during EO were identified using UPLC-Q-TOF-MS, and possible degradation reaction mechanism was proposed. Furthermore, operating cost analysis was performed to check the economic feasibility of the EO process. The optimum pH and current (I) were found to be approximate to 6.8 (natural pH of OFLX wastewater) and 1 A, respectively. Mineralization current efficiency decreased from 7.8% to 4.9% with increase in I value from 0.25 to 1 A. approximate to 80% of OFLX removal in 30 min of electrolysis and 463% TOC removal in 240 min of electrolysis at I = 1 A were observed. Pseudo-first-order kinetic model best fitted the experimental data showing R-2 value approximate to 0.99 for all the C-0 and applied I studied. (C) 2017 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