화학공학소재연구정보센터
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol.19, No.4, 1325-1330, July, 2013
A comparison of fenton oxidation and photocatalyst reaction efficiency for humic acid degradation
E-mail:
There have been many studies on the use of photocatalysts as an advanced oxidation process (AOP) to oxidize and degrade organic-based contaminants. This research group has previously reported a production process of Ti based spherical activated carbon and the characteristics of the product. This paper further examines the process of fenton oxidation and the process of Ti-spherical carboneous material (Ti-SCM) photolysis to evaluate their respective advantages and disadvantages. Nonbiodegradable humic acid (HA) was chosen for the purpose of the study to observe the degradation. It is demonstrated that fenton oxidation is fast and efficient in a low organic viscous solvent. Ti-SCM is not greatly affected by variation of the pH level and the process is also fast and efficient. Moreover, the process’s retention rate of catalysts and its reusability were greater than that of fenton oxidation, which required pH balancing and produced sludge.
  1. Lim H, Namkung KC, Yoon J, J. Korean Ind. Eng. Chem., 16(1), 9 (2005)
  2. Bray WC, Gorin MH, Journal of the American Chemical Society., 54, 2124 (1932)
  3. Oh DK, Yoon TI, Chem. Ind. Technol., 11(3), 157 (1993)
  4. Weiss J, Journal of Chemical Physics., 21, 1419 (1953)
  5. Walling C, Goosen A, Journal of the American Chemical Society., 95, 2987 (1973)
  6. Siedlecka EM, Wieckowska A, Stepnowski P, J. Hazard. Mater., 147(1-2), 497 (2007)
  7. Kaneko M, Okura I, Photocatalysis Science and Technology, Kodansha, Springer, 185 (2002)
  8. Yang JK, Davis AP, Environmental Science & Technology A., 34, 3789 (2000)
  9. Yang JK, Davis AP, Environmental Science & Technology B., 34, 3796 (2000)
  10. Wisziowski J, Robert D, Surmacz-Gorska J, Milksch K, Weber J, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry., 152, 267 (2009)
  11. Lee JJ, Suh JK, Hong JS, Park JW, Lee JM, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 44(4), 375 (2006)
  12. Lee JM, Kim JH, Chang YY, Chang YS, Journal of Hazardous Materials., 163, 222 (2006)
  13. Hou MF, Liao L, Zhang WD, Tang XY, Wan HF, Yin GC, Chemosphere., 83, 1279 (2001)
  14. Barbusin´ ski K, Filipek K, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies., 12(1), 35 (2003)
  15. Gogate PR, Pandit AB, Advances in Environmental Research., 8, 501 (2004)
  16. Park S, Yoon TI, Desalination, 208(1-3), 181 (2007)
  17. Kim YS, Kong SH, Bae SY, Hwang GC, Journal of Korean Industrial and Engineering Chemistry., 12(7), 756 (2001)
  18. Cho YH, Kwon JH, Korean Journal of Environmental Health and Society., 28, 51 (2002)
  19. Bhatkhande DS, Pangarkar VG, Beenackers AACM, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 77(1), 102 (2002)
  20. Aruldoss U, Kennedy LJ, Vijaya JJ, Sekaran G, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science., 35, 204 (2011)
  21. Vescovi T, Coleman HM, Amal R, J. Hazard. Mater., 182(1-3), 75 (2010)
  22. Tsai WT, Lee MK, Su TY, Chang YM, J. Hazard. Mater., 168(1), 269 (2009)
  23. Loudon GM, Organic Chemistry, Benjamin/Cummings, Publishing Co. Inc., Boca Raton (1988)