Screening techniques as a preliminary diagnostic tool for advanced oxidative processes on a laboratory scale
Larissa Pinheiro de Souza , Flávio Olimpio Sanches-Neto , Júlio César de Oliveira Ribeiro , Bruno Ramos , Valter H. Carvalho-Silva , Antonio Carlos Silva Costa Teixeira
Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. ›› 2025, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (2) : 13
Screening techniques as a preliminary diagnostic tool for advanced oxidative processes on a laboratory scale
This study introduces an innovative screening approach to evaluate advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) as a preliminary diagnostic tool for degrading emerging contaminants (EC). It includes the design, prototyping, and cost-benefit analysis of circular photochemical reactors with flat and spiral internal geometries. Three-dimensional (3D) printing was used for reactor prototyping, providing flexibility and economy, and this stage was assisted by the hydrodynamic analysis of the prototypes based on residence time distribution (RTD) and macromixing models. The research evaluates the degradation of a model contaminant of emerging concern, fluoxetine (FLX) hydrochloride, using the solar/persulfate (PS) process in two water matrices (i.e., ultrapure water and sewage treatment plant effluent) to optimize reactor performance. The study also proposes primary theoretical pathways for fluoxetine degradation involving hydroxyl and sulfate radicals, as well as predicting the toxicity of the parent compound and its primary metabolites using quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models. The spiral reactor exhibits improved hydrodynamic behavior, closely resembling continuous stirred and plug flow reactors in series. Despite a slightly lower specific degradation rate in real wastewater, the solar/PS process remains effective for both matrices. By-products generated via the sulfate radical pathway are expected to be less toxic than those formed by hydroxyl radicals (HO·) attack.
emerging contaminants / advanced oxidation process / three-dimensional printed reactor / quantum chemical calculations / toxicity
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
Leeuwen K. Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, 2003 |
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
Higher Education Press
Supplementary files
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |