SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Chemistry / 2021 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1

Process optimization and mechanism study of acid red G degradation by electro-Fenton-Feox process as an in situ generation of H2O2

Hailong SUN
Yingwu YAO
Feng WEİ
Qiang ZHAO
Baichen LİU
Liman ZHANG
Pages
5–16
Publication Date
2021-02-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was concluded that under the optimal conditions of current density = 20 mA cm(-2), pH = 3 and initial Na2SO4 concentration = 0.2 M, the removal rate of acid red G (ARG) with an initial concentration of 300 mg L-1 could reach 94.05% after 80 min of electrolysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Dye-contaminated wastewaters are industrial wastewaters that are difficult to treat using traditional biochemical and physicochemical methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It was concluded that under the optimal conditions of current density = 20 mA cm(-2), pH = 3 and initial Na2SO4 concentration = 0.2 M, the removal rate of acid red G (ARG) with an initial concentration of 300 mg L-1 could reach 94.05% after 80 min of electrolysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, the removal rate of ARG is consistent with first-order reaction kinetics.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Electro-Fenton · dyeing wastewater · acid red G

Abstract

Dye-contaminated wastewaters are industrial wastewaters that are difficult to treat using traditional biochemical and physicochemical methods. In the present work, the acid red G was removed as a model pollutant by the electro-Fenton process for the first time. The anode and cathode used by the electro-Fenton process were iron plate and graphite felt, respectively. It was concluded that under the optimal conditions of current density = 20 mA cm(-2), pH = 3 and initial Na2SO4 concentration = 0.2 M, the removal rate of acid red G (ARG) with an initial concentration of 300 mg L-1 could reach 94.05% after 80 min of electrolysis. This reveals that the electro-Fenton-Feox process used in this work has an excellent removal efficiency on acid red G. The required reagents (Fe2+ and H2O2) were generated by the electrode reaction, while the optimal generation conditions and mechanism of center dot OH, H2O2, and Fe2+ were investigated. By testing center dot OH, H2O2, and Fe2+ agents at different pH and current densities, it was revealed that the electro-Fenton reaction was most efficient when the current density was 20 mA cm(-2), and the pH was 3. Moreover, the removal rate of ARG is consistent with first-order reaction kinetics.

🔖

Cite This Article

SUN, H., YAO, Y., WEİ, F., ZHAO, Q., LİU, B., ZHANG, L. (2021). Process optimization and mechanism study of acid red G degradation by electro-Fenton-Feox process as an in situ generation of H2O2. Turkish Journal of Chemistry, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 5–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/201327

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Acisli O, 2017, ULTRASON SONOCHEM, V35, P210, DOI 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.09.020 Arellano M, 2020, SEP PURIF TECHNOL, V233, DOI 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115990 Bello MM, 2019, PROCESS SAF ENVIRON, V126, P119, DOI 10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.028 Cao PK, 2020, J HAZARD MATER, V382, DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121102 Cao ZQ, 2018, CHEM ENG J, V337, P256, DOI 10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.104 Contreras MBC, 2019,
  2. CHEMOSPHERE, V237, DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124447 Casado J, 2019, J ENVIRON CHEM ENG, V7, DOI 10.1016/j.jece.2018.102823 Changotra R, 2019, J PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO A, V376, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.02.029 Chen S, 2019, SCI TOTAL ENVIRON, V670, P921, DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.086 Chen YS, 2019, WATER RES, V152, P181, DOI [10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.035, 10.2495/BIM190161] Choe YJ, 2021, CATAL TODAY, V359, P16, DOI 10.1016/j.cattod.2019.06.062 Colades JI, 2020, J ELECTROANAL CHEM, V856, DOI 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.113639 Dang XG, 2019, INT J BIOL MACROMOL, V121, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.012 Das R, 2017, ULTRASON SONOCHEM, V37, P600, DOI 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2017.02.022 Diez AM, 2020, SEP PURIF TECHNOL, V230, DOI 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115880 Emami F, 2010,
  3. DESALINATION, V257, P124, DOI 10.1016/j.desal.2010.02.035 Feng JT, 2014, SYNTHETIC MET, V191, P66, DOI 10.1016/j.synthmet.2014.02.013 Gao Y, 2020, ELECTROCHIM ACTA, V330, DOI 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.135206 Garcia-Segura S, 2015, J HAZARD MATER, V283, P551, DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.10.003 Khataee A, 2016, J TAIWAN INST CHEM E, V58, P366, DOI 10.1016/j.jtice.2015.06.015 Kourdali S, 2018, J ENVIRON MANAGE, V226, P106, DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.038 Kubo D, 2018, J CLEAN PROD, V203, P685, DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.231 Lei JN, 2020, J ENVIRON CHEM ENG, V8, DOI 10.1016/j.jece.2020.103773 Murrieta MF, 2020,
  4. CHEMOSPHERE, V246, DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125697 Panizza M, 2009, WATER RES, V43, P339, DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2008.10.028 Pignatello JJ, 1999, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V33, P1832, DOI 10.1021/es980969b Rutely CBC, 2018, RSC ADV, V8, P5321, DOI 10.1039/c7ra13209c Salazar R, 2012, WATER AIR SOIL POLL, V223, P4199, DOI 10.1007/s11270-012-1184-7 Solano AMS, 2015, APPL CATAL B-ENVIRON, V168, P559, DOI 10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.01.019 SELLERS RM, 1980,
  5. ANALYST, V105, P950, DOI 10.1039/an9800500950 Sennaoui A, 2019, J ENVIRON CHEM ENG, V7, DOI 10.1016/j.jece.2019.103033 Shemer H, 2006,
  6. CHEMOSPHERE, V63, P269, DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.07.029 Shoorangiz M, 2019, PROCESS SAF ENVIRON, V132, P