4.7 Article

Electrochemical degradation of the antibiotic sulfachloropyridazine by hydroxyl radicals generated at a BDD anode

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 91, 期 9, 页码 1304-1309

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.02.058

关键词

BDD anode; Electra-oxidation; Mineralization; Sulfachloropyridazine; Toxicity assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The treatment of aqueous solutions of the antibiotic sulfachloropyridazine (SCP) was carried out at the natural pH of the solution (pH 4.5) with hydroxyl radicals ((OH)-O-center dot) generated at a BDD anode surface by electro-oxidation using an undivided electrochemical cell equipped with a three-dimensional carbon-felt cathode. Hydroxyl radicals are powerful oxidants and react with the antibiotic leading to its overall mineralization. The kinetic study showed that oxidative degradation of SCP follows pseudo first-order reaction kinetics, with a relatively short degradation time. The degree of mineralization of SCP solutions increased with the applied current, being higher than 95% after 8 h of electrolysis at 350 mA or higher current. To determine the degradation pathway upon the action of hydroxyl radicals, the cyclic and aliphatic by-products, as well as the released inorganic ions, were identified and quantified over electrolysis time. The values of the rate constants of reactions between (OH)-O-center dot and the SCP and its intermediates were determined by the competition kinetics method using p-hydroxybenzoic acid. The absolute rate constant for the (OH)-O-center dot-mediated degradation of SCP was found to be 1.92 x 10(9) M-1 s(-1). Toxicity assessment by the Microtox (R) method during the electro-oxidation of SCP solutions revealed the formation of compounds that can be more toxic than the parent molecule, but the overall results confirm the effectiveness of this electrochemical process for the removal of the antibiotic SCP and its by-products from aqueous media. (C) 2013 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