4.7 Article

The destruction of benzene by calcium peroxide activated with Fe(II) in water

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 302, 期 -, 页码 187-193

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.05.016

关键词

Calcium peroxide; Benzene; Ferrous iron; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41373094, 21577033, 51208199]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai [16ZR1407200]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M570341]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [222201514339, 22A201514057]
  5. NIEHS Superfund Research Program [P42 ES04940]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of Fe(II)-activated calcium peroxide (CaO2) to remove benzene is examined with a series of batch experiments. The results showed that benzene concentrations were reduced by 20-100% within 30 min. The magnitude of removal was dependent on the CaO2/Fe(II)/Benzene molar ratio, with much greater destruction observed for ratios of 4/4/1 or greater. An empirical equation was developed to quantify the destruction rate dependence on reagent composition. The presence of oxidative hydroxyl radicals (HO) and reductive radicals (primarily O-2(center dot-)) was identified by probe compound testing and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) tests. The results of the EPR tests indicated that the application of CaO2/Fe(II) enabled the radical intensity to remain steady for a relatively long time. The effect of initial solution pH was also investigated, and CaO2/Fe(II) enabled benzene removal over a wide pH range of 3.0-9.0. The results of radical scavenging tests showed that benzene removal occurred primarily by HO oxidation in the CaO2/Fe(II) system, although reductive radicals also contributed. The intermediates in benzene destruction were identified to be phenol and biphenyl. The results indicate that Fe(II)-activated CaO2 a feasible approach for treatment of benzene in contaminated groundwater remediation. (C) 2016 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

4.7
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