注册 English

Percarbonate activation catalyzed by nanoblocks of basic copper molybdate for antibiotics degradation: High performance, degradation pathways and mechanism

Xiaotao Jin ,  Yanlan Wang ,  Yingping Huang ,  Di Huang ,  Xiang Liu

downloadPDF
Citation:  Xiaotao Jin, Yanlan Wang, Yingping Huang, Di Huang, Xiang Liu. Percarbonate activation catalyzed by nanoblocks of basic copper molybdate for antibiotics degradation: High performance, degradation pathways and mechanism[J]. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(10): 109499. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2024.109499 shu

Percarbonate activation catalyzed by nanoblocks of basic copper molybdate for antibiotics degradation: High performance, degradation pathways and mechanism

English

  • Currently, medicine residues (peculiarly antibiotics) has aroused wide concern because of their omnipresent emergence and potential harmful impact on the water eco-environment [1–4]. The predictability of future results show the world consumption of antibiotics will grow rapidly to 110,000 tons in 2030 [5–9]. These abused antibiotics are widely found in a variety of water environment, including rivers, lakes, groundwater and effluent from sewage treatment plant, even our drinking water [10–16]. Among antibiotics, oxytetracycline (OTC), a type of tetracycline antibiotics, is comprehensively applied for veterinary and human medicine [17–24]. In fact, the OTC concentration in groundwater and surface water was detected to be ng/L to µg/L level, which could pose a significant threat to the public health and ecosystem even at trace concentration [25–27]. As a result, it is of high importance to exploit the efficient and green methods for achieving effective antibiotics removal [28–32].

    The Fenton process via H2O2 activation is deemed as the most promising process for degrading antibiotics by reason of its high-efficiency [33–37]. However, its full-scale and practical application was restricted by some unavoidable detriments, such as the high transportation cost and explosibility of H2O2, iron sludge problem and narrow pH ranges (2.5–3.0) of Fenton process [38–41]. Recent, sodium percarbonate (Na2CO3·1.5H2O2, SPC) has been extensively employed as a solid substitute of H2O2 for Fenton process in water treatment, because of its high stability during the production, transport, storage and usage [42–48]. In addition, SPC can be applied in a wider range of work pH, it is also applied as a buffer in Fenton reaction for preventing a drop in pH [49–53]. As part of our group’s current interest on the sewage remediation [54], herein, we have first synthesized basic copper molybdate (BCM) nanoblocks with the molecular formula of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 as an efficient and heterogeneous catalyst for antibiotics degradation via percarbonate activation. First, the structure and morphology of BCM nanoblocks was investigated by fully physical characterizations. Then, the performance, degradation pathways and mechanism of OTC degradation catalyzed by BCM nanoblocks via percarbonate activation were investigated.

    As demonstrated in Fig. S1 (Supporting information), BCM nanoblocks was synthesized by hydrothermal reaction of Na2MoO4 and Cu(NO3)2·xH2O at 150 ℃ for 6 h. The nature crystalline phase of BCM nanoblocks was evaluated by XRD. The characteristic diffraction peaks of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 (020), (021), (101), (130) and (200) lattice planes clearly appeared in Fig. S2a (Supporting information), illustrating the synthesis of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 [55]. In Fig. S2b (Supporting information), texture structure of BCM nanoblocks was checked by BET. BCM nanoblocks exhibited a mean pore diameter of 0.697 nm, total pore volume of 0.048 cm3/g and BET surface area of 6.683 m2/g, suggesting a micropore structure [56]. As shown in Fig. S2c (Supporting information), the sum XPS of BCM nanoblocks exhibited that the co-existence of Cu, Mo and O. The pair peaks of 934.70 eV and 954.53 eV appeared in Fig. S2d (Supporting information), illustrating the presence of Cu(Ⅱ) [57]. In Fig. S2e (Supporting information), the Mo 3d was divided into two peaks of 232.31 eV (Mo 3d5/2) and 235.45 eV (Mo 3d3/2), which was assigned to MoⅥ [58–60]. As presented in Fig. S2f (Supporting information), the O 1s was divided into two peaks of lattice oxygen (Olatt, 530.36 eV) and adsorbed oxygen (Oads, 531.56 eV) [55]. Furthermore, the morphology and nanostructure of BCM nanoblocks was also determined by scanning electron microscope (SEM), transmission electron microscope (TEM), and high resolution TEM (HRTEM). As shown in Figs. 1a-e, BCM nanocomposite exhibited a structure of nanoblocks. As demonstrated in Fig. 1f, Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 (101) and (130), whose lattice distances were 0.41 nm resp. 0.36 nm, were recorded in BCM nanoblocks, further confirming the formation of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 [61]. In addition, the precise localization of Cu, Mo and O elements in BCM nanoblocks was also measured by EDX elements mapping. In Figs. 2a-e and Fig. S3 (Supporting information), it is clear that BCM nanoblocks was composed of Cu, Mo and O elements, suggesting the formation of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (a-d) SEM, (e) TEM and (f) HRTEM of BCM nanoblocks.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (a) STEM, (b) combined Cu, Mo and O, (c) Cu, (d) Mo, (e) O compositional mapping.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    For studying the catalytic activity of BCM nanoblocks in OTC degradation by percarbonate activation, OTC degradation over Fe2(MoO4)3, NiMoO4 and BCM nanoblocks were tested in Fig. S4 (Supporting information). First, NiMoO4 and Fe2(MoO4)3 were synthesized under the same process as BCM nanoblocks. Then, Fe2(MoO4)3 and NiMoO4 were measured by XRD and SEM. Figs. S5 and S6 (Supporting information) exhibited that the successful formation of Fe2(MoO4)3 and NiMoO4 in XRD. The SEM result exhibited that Fe2(MoO4)3 and NiMoO4 possessed a nanoblock (Fig. S7 in Supporting information) and nanorod (Fig. S8 in Supporting information) structure, respectively. The OTC degradation was conducted by 20 mg/L of OTC, 0.2 g/L of sodium percarbonate, 0.25 g/L of catalyst and 50 mL of deionized water at 30 ℃. The order of OTC degradation efficiency as follow: BCM nanoblocks (80.01%) > Fe2(MoO4)3 (59.99%) > NiMoO4 (12.12%), highlighting the key role of BCM nanoblocks in activating SPC to degrade OTC.

    As BCM nanoblocks presented the superior catalytic activity in OTC degradation, its kinetic study, including BCM nanoblocks concentration, SPC concentration, initial OTC concentration and degradation temperature, had been further investigated. First, OTC degradation was carried out with various BCM nanoblocks concentrations from 0.1 g/L to 0.49 g/L. Fig. 3a elucidated that OTC degradation rate was positive correlation, where the slope is 0.3, with BCM nanoblocks concentrations. Next, the impression of SPC concentration on OTC degradation was also tested in Fig. 3b, OTC removal efficiency was heightened, with slope of 0.27, as the increase of SPC concentration. Then, OTC degradation was carried out with different initial OTC concentrations from 10 mg/L to 50 mg/L. Fig. 3c illustrated that OTC removal efficiency decreased with the increase of initial OTC concentrations. In Fig. 3d, it is clear that OTC degradation efficiency rose as the enhancement of degradation temperature. Based on the Arrhenius law, the Ea was found to be 55.79 kJ/mol, Moreover, tetracycline (TC) and chlorotetracycline (CTC) had been also degraded by BCM/SPC system in 40 min (Fig. S9 in Supporting information).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  Influences of (a) BCM nanoblocks, (b) SPC concentration, (c) initial OTC concentration, (d) degradation temperature, (e) stability of BCM nanoblocks, (f) pH, (g) humic acid on OTC degradation. (h) Effect of BQ (0.2 mmol/L), NaN3 (0.2 mmol/L), EtOH (1.6 mol/L) and PhOH (3.98 mmol/L) on OTC degradation over BCM/SPC. (i) EPR spectra of BCM/SPC system. Reaction Condition: 20 mg/L of OTC, 0.25 g/L of BCM, 0.2 g/L of SPC at 30 ℃.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    The stability of BCM nanoblocks in OTC degradation via percarbonate activization was also tested for further practical application [62]. When OTC degradation was over, BCM nanoblocks was re-obtained and recycled by filtration for the next degradation. As demonstrated in Fig. 3e, BCM nanoblocks had been successfully reused 5 times in OTC degradation without any efficiency decrease. Then, 5th reused BCM nanoblocks was measured by XRD and SEM, the result exhibited that 5th reused BCM nanoblocks remained the same crystalline state (Fig. S10 in Supporting information) and morphology (Fig. S11 in Supporting information) as the fresh one. In addition, the Cu concentration in the solution, after completion of OTC degradation, was less than 1 ppm upon by ICP, confirming BCM was a true heterogeneous catalyst on OTC degradation.

    As pH played a key parameter on the OTC degradation, OTC removal over BCM/SPC system was further conducted at various initial pH from 3 to 11. Fig. 3f described that BCM/SPC system played the highly catalytic performance in OTC removal at pH 3-11. This result confirmed that BCM/SPC system could work in a much wider pH range, compared with H2O2 [63]. The effect of humic acids (HA), as the common natural organic matter, on OTC degradation catalyzed by BCM/SPC system was also measured in Fig. 3g [64]. It is clear that HA played a negligible role on OTC degradation, even at 50 mg/L of HA, indicating that the BCM/SPC system owned an excellent anti-interference ability for natural organic matter in OTC degradation.

    For revealing the mechanism of OTC degradation via percarbonate activation, the reactive oxygen species (ROS) in BCM/SPC system had been identified by quenching experiments. Explicitly PhOH, benzoquinone (BQ), NaN3 and EtOH were used for quenching ·CO3−, ·O2−, 1O2 and ·OH, respectively [65]. As presented in Fig. 3h, it is clear that all of PhOH (3.98 mmol/L), BQ (0.2 mmol/L), NaN3 (0.2 mmol/L) and EtOH (1.6 mol/L) exhibited an inhibitory effect on OTC degradation. This result indicated the co-presence of ·CO3−, ·O2−, 1O2 and ·OH in BCM/SPC system, which was also confirmed by EPR analysis (Fig. 3i). Then, the dosage of PhOH, BQ, NaN3, or EtOH was reduced to 0.2 mmol/L. As shown in Fig. S12 (Supporting information), the result indicated that only BQ played a inhibitory effect on OTC degradation, suggesting ·O2− was the major ROS in BCM/SPC system. For investigating the possible OTC degradation pathways, the total content of organic carbon (TOC) and high resolution mass spectrum (HR-MS) were employed to measure the degraded OTC solution for determining its mineralization rate and degradation intermediates. The TOC analysis indicated 15.62% of OTC were completely mineralized into CO2 and H2O. As it can been seen in Fig. S13 (Supporting information), OTC molecule peak of m/z 461 disappeared in HR-MS, suggesting that OTC molecules were degraded into small intermediates. In Fig. S14 (Supporting information), fourteen kinds of intermediates had been confirmed by Mass library [66,67]. Based on quenching tests, EPR result, HR-MS analysis and relevant literature [68,69], a plausible mechanism of OTC degradation over BCM/SPC system was proposed in Fig. 4. First, OTC and SPC molecules wereanchored at the surface of BCM nanoblocks. Immediately, SPC molecules were decomposed into ·CO3−, ·O2−, 1O2 and ·OH by BCM nanoblocks. Then, OTC molecules, after the attack of multiple reactive oxygen species, were degraded into short-chain intermediates, which were further mineralized into CO2 and H2O.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  Mechanism of SPC activation and OTC degradation on BCM.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    In addition, this BCM/SPC system’s catalytic performance with other catalytic systems for OTC degradation was also compared in Table S1 (Supporting information) [66,70–76]. The result shown that BCM exhibited the superior catalytic performance in activating SPC for OTC degradation.

    In summary, basic copper molybdate (BCM) nanoblock with the molecular formula of Cu3(MoO4)2(OH)2 has been synthesized as an efficient and heterogeneous catalyst for antibiotics degradation via percarbonate activation. First, fully physical characterizations confirmed BCM nanocomposite exhibited a structure of nanoblocks. Compared with other molybdates, the order of OTC degradation efficiency as follow: BCM nanoblocks (80.01%) > Fe2(MoO4)3 (59.99%) > NiMoO4 (12.12%), highlighting the key role of BCM nanoblocks in activating SPC to degrade OTC. We also found that BCM/SPC system could work in a much wider pH range, compared with H2O2. Then, BCM/SPC presented a high anti-interference ability for natural organic matter in OTC removal. EPR results and Quenching tests demonstrated that the co-presence of ·CO3−, ·O2−, 1O2 and ·OH in BCM/SPC system. This study provides an excellent Mo-based catalyst for activating percarbonate in antibiotics removal.

    Declaration of competing interest

    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

    Acknowledgments

    Financial support from the NSFC (Nos. 21972073, 22136003, 21805166 and 22206188), the 111 Project of China (No. D20015) and Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province, China (No. 2022CFB275) is gratefully acknowledged, and the authors thank eceshi (www.eceshi.com) for TEM analysis.

    Supplementary materials

    Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.cclet.2024.109499.


    1. [1]

      Y. Li, H. Dong, L. Li, et al., Water Res. 202 (2021) 117451. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117451

    2. [2]

      R. Tian, H. Dong, J. Chen, R. Li, Q. Xie, Sep. Purif. Technol. 250 (2020) 117246. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117246

    3. [3]

      S. Singla, S. Sharma, S. Basu, N.P. Shetti, T.M. Aminabhavi, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (2021) 33696–33717. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.187

    4. [4]

      R. Koutavarapu, C.V. Reddy, K. Syed, et al., Chemosphere 267 (2021) 128559. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128559

    5. [5]

      T. Van-Boeckel, C. Brower, M. Gilbert, et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (2015) 5649–5654. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503141112

    6. [6]

      B. Wang, B. Ni, Z. Yuan, J. Guo, Water Res. 173 (2020) 115592. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.115592

    7. [7]

      H. Zhang, C. Zhou, H. Zeng, L. Deng, Z. Shi, J. Hazard. Mater. 395 (2020) 122613. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122613

    8. [8]

      C. Du, Z. Zhang, G. Yu, et al., Chemosphere 272 (2021) 129501. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129501

    9. [9]

      M. Srinivas, R.C. Venkata, R.R. Kakarla, et al., Res. Express. 6 (2019) 125502. doi: 10.1088/2053-1591/ab5328

    10. [10]

      L. Jia, R. Chen, J. Xu, et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 413 (2021) 125296. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125296

    11. [11]

      Y. Shao, Y. Wang, Y. Yuan, Y. Xie, Sci. Total Environ. 798 (2021) 149205. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149205

    12. [12]

      P. Tan, H. Fu, X. Ma, Nano Today 39 (2021) 101229. doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2021.101229

    13. [13]

      J. He, M. Shi, Y. Liang, B. Guo, Chem. Eng. J. 394 (2020) 124888. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124888

    14. [14]

      Q. Li, J. Ruan, X. Zhang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 479 (2024) 147555. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.147555

    15. [15]

      Z. Hao, W. Hou, C. Fang, Y. Huang, X. Liu, J. Hazard. Mater. 439 (2022) 129618. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129618

    16. [16]

      R. Hassandoost, A. Kotb, Z. Movafagh, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 431 (2022) 133851. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.133851

    17. [17]

      Q. Chen, S. Wu, Y.J. Xin, Chem. Eng. J. 302 (2016) 377–387. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.05.076

    18. [18]

      Y. Liu, X. He, X. Duan, Y. Fu, D. Dionysiou, Chem. Eng. J. 276 (2015) 113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.04.048

    19. [19]

      W. Jo, S. Kumar, M. Isaacs, A. Lee, S. Karthikeyan, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 201 (2017) 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.08.022

    20. [20]

      H. Zhang, J. Wang, B. Zhou, et al., Environ. Pollut. 243 (2018) 1550–1557. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.122

    21. [21]

      Y. Liu, X. He, Y. Fu, D. Dionysios, J. Hazard. Mater. 305 (2016) 229–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.11.043

    22. [22]

      Y. Yang, G. Zeng, D. Huang, C. Zhang, et al., Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 272 (2020) 118970. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118970

    23. [23]

      N. Lia, L. Zhou, X. Jin, G. Owens, Z. Chen, J. Hazard. Mater. 366 (2019) 563–572. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.047

    24. [24]

      H. Zhang, Y. Mei, F. Zhu, et al., Chemosphere 306 (2022) 135635-135635. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135635

    25. [25]

      Y. Peng, M. Cui, Z. Zhang, et al., ACS Catal. 12 (2019) 10803–10811.

    26. [26]

      J. Wang, R. Zhuan, Sci. Total Environ. 701 (2020) 135023. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135023

    27. [27]

      N. Shetti, S. Malode, R. Malladi, Microchem. J. 146 (2019) 387–392. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2019.01.033

    28. [28]

      F. Zhu, Q. Ji, Y. Lei, et al., Chemosphere 291 (2022) 132765. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132765

    29. [29]

      M. Moradi, B. Kakavandi, A. Bahadoran, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 285 (2022) 120313. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2021.120313

    30. [30]

      J. Zhou, H. Cheng, J. Ma, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 261 (2021) 18290.

    31. [31]

      F. Zhu, S. Zhou, M. Sun, et al., Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131647. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131647

    32. [32]

      M. Rani, U. Shanker, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8 (2020) 104040. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104040

    33. [33]

      L. Peng, Y. Shang, B. Gao, X. Xu, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 282 (2021) 119484. doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119484

    34. [34]

      Y. Shang, X. Xu, B. Gao, S. Wang, X. Duan, Chem. Soc. Rev. 50 (2021) 5281–5322. doi: 10.1039/D0CS01032D

    35. [35]

      S. Wang, Y. Lin, B. Shao, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 57 (2023) 9332–9341. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01850

    36. [36]

      S. Wang, J. Qian, B. Zhang, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 57 (2023) 1907–1918. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06077

    37. [37]

      L. Li, J. Huang, X. Hu, et al., Chemosphere 215 (2019) 647–656. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.047

    38. [38]

      C. Hung, C. Huang, C. Chen, et al., Environ. Pollut. 265 (2020) 114914. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114914

    39. [39]

      T. Zhang, Y. Chen, T. Wang, et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 448 (2023) 130875. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130875

    40. [40]

      Y. Liu, Y. Xia, Y. Xiong, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 322 (2023) 124256. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.124256

    41. [41]

      Z. Mo, Z. Tan, J. Liang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 457 (2023) 141150. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.141150

    42. [42]

      X. Xu, Y. Zhou, S. Li, et al., J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10 (2022) 108702. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.108702

    43. [43]

      M. Che, J. Xiao, C. Shan, et al., Water Res. 243 (2023) 120420. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120420

    44. [44]

      V.N. Rao, P. Ravi, M. Sathish, et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 415 (2021) 125588. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125588

    45. [45]

      K. Kyere-Yeboah, X. Qiao, Chemosphere 336 (2023) 139246. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139246

    46. [46]

      J. Liang, Z. Tan, L. Zhang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 465 (2023) 142863. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.142863

    47. [47]

      H. Xue, J. Li, G. Zhang, et al., Chemosphere 329 (2023) 138681. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138681

    48. [48]

      U. Farooq, F. Wang, J. Shang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 454 (2023) 139996. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.139996

    49. [49]

      H. Gao, H. Yu, Y. Jun, et al., Chemosphere 311 (2023) 137131. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137131

    50. [50]

      Z. Shangguan, X. Yuan, C. Qin, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 457 (2023) 141046. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.141046

    51. [51]

      K. Fedorov, M. Rayaroth, N. Shah, G. Boczkaj, Chem. Eng. J. 456 (2023) 141027. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.141027

    52. [52]

      X. Sheng, Y. Liu, R. Yang, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 326 (2023) 124772. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.124772

    53. [53]

      C. Fang, Z. Hao, Y. Wang, et al., J. Clean. Prod. 405 (2023) 136912. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136912

    54. [54]

      V.N. Rao, V. Preethi, U. Bhargav, et al., Environ. Res. 199 (2021) 111323. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111323

    55. [55]

      J. Liao, Y. Wu, Y. Feng, et al., Catalysts 12 (2022) 426. doi: 10.3390/catal12040426

    56. [56]

      X. Zhu, Y. Liu, F. Qian, et al., Bioresource Technol. 154 (2014) 209–214. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.019

    57. [57]

      R. Liu, X. He, M. Miao, S. i. Cao, X. Feng, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 112 (2022) 202–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2021.09.055

    58. [58]

      X. Yu, H. Liu, Q. Wang, et al., ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 13176–13187. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c03420

    59. [59]

      H. Zhang, C. Lu, H. Hou, Y. Ma, S. Yuan, Chem. Eng. J. 370 (2019) 400–408. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.03.168

    60. [60]

      Z. Li, M. Wang, C. Jin, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 392 (2020) 123789. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123789

    61. [61]

      W. Jiang, J. Fang, Z. Fan, et al., J. Inorg. Chem. 26 (2011) 438–442.

    62. [62]

      X. Zheng, X. Niu, D. Zhang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 429 (2022) 132323. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.132323

    63. [63]

      X. Wang, J. Jing, M. Zhou, R. Dewil, Chin. Chem. Lett. 34 (2023) 107621. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.06.044

    64. [64]

      Y. Li, R. Baghi, J. Filip, et al., ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7 (2019) 8099–8108. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b05257

    65. [65]

      Y. Li, H. Dong, J. Xiao, et al., J. Hazard. Mater. 442 (2023) 130014. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130014

    66. [66]

      X. Liu, Y. Pei, M. Cao, H. Yang, Y. Li, Chem. Eng. J. 450 (2022) 138194. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.138194

    67. [67]

      X. Shu, H. Bi, J. Wang, et al., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 80399–80410. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21355-y

    68. [68]

      S. Oh, H. Nguyen, Environ. Res. 236 (2023) 116832. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116832

    69. [69]

      G. Jiao, H. Zhou, X. Li, J. Liu, D. She, Bioresource Technol. 384 (2023) 129357. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129357

    70. [70]

      Y. Tang, J. Kang, M. Wang, et al., J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021) 105864. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2021.105864

    71. [71]

      M. Wang, C. Jin, J. Kang, et al., Chem. Eng. J. 416 (2021) 128118. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.128118

    72. [72]

      S. Gao, Z. Wang, H. Wang, et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 599 (2022) 153917. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.153917

    73. [73]

      L. He, H. Li, J. Wang, Q. Gao, X. Li, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 39249–39265. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-18929-1

    74. [74]

      S. Pan, W. Jiang, L. Tian, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 312 (2023) 123452. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123452

    75. [75]

      J. Wu, H. Su, Z. Wang, et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 297 (2022) 121487. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.121487

    76. [76]

      W. Huang, X. Jin, Q. Li, et al., ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 6 (2023) 12497–12506. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.3c02260

  • Figure 1  (a-d) SEM, (e) TEM and (f) HRTEM of BCM nanoblocks.

    下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片

    Figure 2  (a) STEM, (b) combined Cu, Mo and O, (c) Cu, (d) Mo, (e) O compositional mapping.

    下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片

    Figure 3  Influences of (a) BCM nanoblocks, (b) SPC concentration, (c) initial OTC concentration, (d) degradation temperature, (e) stability of BCM nanoblocks, (f) pH, (g) humic acid on OTC degradation. (h) Effect of BQ (0.2 mmol/L), NaN3 (0.2 mmol/L), EtOH (1.6 mol/L) and PhOH (3.98 mmol/L) on OTC degradation over BCM/SPC. (i) EPR spectra of BCM/SPC system. Reaction Condition: 20 mg/L of OTC, 0.25 g/L of BCM, 0.2 g/L of SPC at 30 ℃.

    下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片

    Figure 4  Mechanism of SPC activation and OTC degradation on BCM.

    下载: 全尺寸图片 幻灯片
  • 加载中
WeChat 扫一扫看文章
计量
  • PDF下载量:  0
  • 文章访问数:  53
  • HTML全文浏览量:  5
文章相关
  • 发布日期:  2024-10-15
  • 收稿日期:  2023-09-27
  • 接受日期:  2024-01-02
  • 修回日期:  2023-12-13
  • 网络出版日期:  2024-01-10
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

/

返回文章

All Rights Reserved by the Chinese Chemical Society   中国化学会 版权所有 京ICP备05002797号

本系统由北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司开发    技术支持: info@rhhz.net