4.8 Article

Catalytic ozonation for the degradation of acetylsalicylic acid in aqueous solution by magnetic CeO2 nanometer catalyst particles

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 686-693

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.05.072

关键词

Catalytic ozonation; Rare earth; Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 nanoparticles; Magnetic catalyst; Reaction mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21306175]
  2. Project of Science and Technology Office of Zhejiang Province [2008C13014-6]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY13E080017]
  4. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20113317120004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A magnetic core/shell CeO2 nanometer catalyst particle of Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 for ozonation was prepared and the catalytic activity was evaluated by the degradation of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). The characterizations of the magnetic nanoparticles, such as TEM, XRD and EDX, showed that Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 had a ternary structure with a Fe3O4 magnetic core, a silica membrane mid-layer and CeO2 outer layer. The catalysts of Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 showed an obviously high efficiency in catalytic ozonation on the degradation of ASA, and thus could also enhance the TOC removal. The ASA removal with Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 catalyst at 60 min could reach 81.0%, while 67.3% with Fe3O4@SiO2, 66.1% with Fe3O4 and only 64.1% with ozonation alone. Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 catalysts could also enhance the ozone utilization during the reaction. The effect of radical scavengers showed that the high removal efficiency of catalytic ozonation over Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 may be mainly attributed to surface reactions. According to stability and recyclability test of the Fe3O4@SiO2@CeO2 catalysts, the results showed that the catalysts would be helpful in the separation and magnetic recyclability. In addition, based on the intermediates detected by GC/MS, a possible degradation pathway of ASA was proposed. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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