4.7 Article

Performance of (in)active anodic materials for the electrooxidation of phenolic wastewaters from cashew-nut processing industry

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 201, 期 -, 页码 740-748

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.037

关键词

Anodic oxidation; Wastewater treatment; Electrochemical degradation; Active chlorine; Boron doped diamond; Dimensionally stable anode

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [446846/2014-7, 401519/2014-7]
  2. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the anodic oxidation of phenolic wastewater generated by cashew-nut processing industry (CNPI) using active (Ti/RuO2-TiO2) and inactive (boron doped diamond, BDD) anodes. During electrochemical treatment, various operating parameters were investigated, such as current density, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total phenols, O-2 production, temperature, pH, as well as current efficiency and energy consumption. After electrolysis under optimized working conditions, samples were evaluated by chromatography and toxicological tests against L sativa. When both electrode materials were compared under the same operating conditions, higher COD removal efficiency was achieved for BDD anode; achieving lower energy requirements when compared with the values estimated for TV RuO2-TiO2. The presence of Cl- in the wastewater promoted the electrogeneration of strong oxidant species as chlorine, hypochlorite and mainly hypochlorous acid, increasing the efficiency of degradation process. Regarding the temperature effect, BDD showed slower performances than those achieved for Ti/RuO2-TiO2. Chromatographic and phytotoxicity studies indicated formation of some by-products after electrolytic process, regardless of the anode evaluated, and phytotoxic action of the effluent. Results encourage the applicability of the electrochemical method as wastewater treatment process for the CNPI, reducing depuration time. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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