4.5 Article

Kinetic degradation of amoxicillin by using the electro-Fenton process in the presence of a graphite rods from used batteries

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 183-190

出版社

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY PRESS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjche.2020.08.032

关键词

Wastewater; Amoxicillin; Electro-Fenton; Pharmaceuticals; Solid waste recovery; Kinetic modelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the removal of amoxicillin in aqueous media using the electro-Fenton process with a graphite cathode recovered from used batteries. Optimal values for current intensity, temperature, initial AMX concentration, and initial ferrous ions concentration were determined, leading to high degradation and mineralization efficiencies. The study also found that the energy consumption under optimal conditions was comparable to previous findings, highlighting the cost effectiveness of the electrodes used.
This study reports the removal of amoxicillin (AMX) in aqueous media using the electro-Fenton process in the presence of a graphite cathode recovered from used batteries. The impact of the relevant parameters on the electro-Fenton process, namely the applied current intensity, the temperature, the initial concentration of AMX and the initial concentration of ferrous ions were investigated. The results showed that the optimal values were: I = 600 mA, T = 25 degrees C, [AMX](0) = 0.082 mmol.L-1 and [Fe2+] = 1 mmol.L-1, leading to 95% degradation and 74% mineralization. The model parameters of AMX mineralization were determined using nonlinear methods, showing that it follows a pseudo-second-order kinetic. The Energy consumption (EC) calculated under the optimal values was found to be 0.79 kW.h.g(-1), which was of the same order of magnitude of those reported in other findings; while it is noteworthy that the electrodes used in our study are of a lower cost. (C) 2021 The Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China, and Chemical Industry Press Co., 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

4.5
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