CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Influence of Molecular Size on the Electrochemical Oxidation of Fractioned Cork Boiling Wastewater

Fernandes, Annabel, Gomes, Arlindo C., Pereira, Christopher, Magdziak, Anna, Pacheco, Maria J., Ciríaco, Lurdes, Simões, Rogério, Lopes, Ana·2019·ChemElectroChem
DOI 10.1002/celc.201801750
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The performance of electrochemical oxidation (EO) using a boron doped diamond (BDD) anode was assessed for cork boiling wastewater (CBW) molecular size fractions of >100 kDa, 50–100 kDa, 20–50 kDa, 10–20 kDa and <10 kDa, obtained through sequential use of ultrafiltration (UF) membranes. The best EO results were found in the experiments performed with no addition of supporting electrolyte and at the lowest applied stirring speed, the more economical and environmentally friendly conditions. The highest EO treatment efficiency was observed for the fraction >100 kDa, which presented also the highest organic load. EO treatment led to an increase in the biodegradability of the fraction >100 kDa and to a decrease in the biodegradability of the fraction <10 kDa. Moreover, samples toxicity was not affected by the EO process, suggesting that the treated samples can be forwarded to biological post‐treatment processes. UF fractionation showed to be advantageous in combination with EO, since it enables the selective use of EO where it is more effective regarding biodegradability and current efficiency.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/celc.201801750

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The pH increase during EO can be attributed to cathode side reactions, to sulfate oxidation through hydroxyl radicals, and to formation of carbonates and bicarbonates from reaction of hydroxide ions with CO2 generated during oxidation of organic pollutants.

    “This increase in pH during the EO process is well described in the literature and can be attributed to: (i) side reactions that occur at the cathode, such as the reaction described in Equation ( 7); (ii) sulfate oxidation through hydroxyl radicals (Equations ( 4) and ( 5)); and (iii) formation of carbonates and bicarbonates, from the reaction between the hydroxide ions and the CO 2 generated”

    From Reuse of Textile Dyeing Wastewater Treated by Electrooxidation (2022) · cites this paper as [34]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Insa S., 2006, J. Chromatogr. A, 1122, 215, 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.04.022 · DOI
  2. Pena-Neira A., 2000, Eur. Food Res. Technol., 211, 257, 10.1007/s002170000193 · DOI
  3. Benítez F. J., 2006, Sep. Purif. Technol., 50, 354, 10.1016/j.seppur.2005.12.010 · DOI
  4. Gomes A. C., 2018, Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
  5. Benítez F., 2003, Water Res., 37, 4081, 10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00350-6 · DOI
  6. Marques I. P., 2014, Biotechnol. Biofuels, 7, 67, 10.1186/1754-6834-7-67 · DOI
  7. Gomes A. C., 2018, Chemosphere, 207, 430, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.123 · DOI
  8. Papoutsaki S., 2016, Chem. Eng. J., 304, 890, 10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.021 · DOI
  9. Gomes A. C., 2013, Water Sci. Technol., 68, 2214, 10.2166/wst.2013.478 · DOI
  10. Silva C. A., 2004, Chemosphere, 55, 19, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.018 · DOI
  11. Torres-Socías E., 2013, Chem. Eng. J., 234, 232, 10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.072 · DOI
  12. Fernandes A., 2015, Environ. Technol., 36, 26, 10.1080/09593330.2014.934743 · DOI
  13. Ponces-Robles L., 2017, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 24, 6317, 10.1007/s11356-016-7274-0 · DOI
  14. Santos D. C., 2013, Bioresour. Technol., 147, 143, 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.154 · DOI
  15. Brillas E., 2015, Appl. Catal. B, 166, 603, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.11.016 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fernandes A., 2015, Appl. Catal. B, 176, 183, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.03.052 · DOI
  17. Wang F., 2006, Water Res., 40, 463, 10.1016/j.watres.2005.11.038 · DOI
  18. Galanakis C. M., 2013, Sep. Purif. Technol., 107, 245, 10.1016/j.seppur.2013.01.034 · DOI
  19. Mingshu L., 2006, J. Basic Microbiol., 46, 68, 10.1002/jobm.200510600 · DOI
  20. Lingbo L., 2005, Chemosphere, 60, 467, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.01.012 · DOI
  21. Castro-Muñoz R., 2016, Food Chem., 213, 753, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.030 · DOI
  22. Conidi C., 2015, Beverages, 1, 341, 10.3390/beverages1040341 · DOI
  23. Nilsson A., 1973, J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 1, 0, 2337, 10.1039/P19730002337 · DOI
  24. Dias-Machado M., 2006, Chemosphere, 64, 455, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.11.067 · DOI
  25. Chen Q., 2018, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 13, 7301, 10.20964/2018.08.59 · DOI
  26. Sun J., 2012, Sep. Purif. Technol., 88, 116, 10.1016/j.seppur.2011.12.022 · DOI
  27. Vilar V., 2009, Water Res., 43, 4050, 10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.019 · DOI
  28. Barbosa J., 2016, Clean: Soil, Air, Water, 44, 1242
  29. Panizza M., 2001, J. Electroanal. Chem., 507, 206, 10.1016/S0022-0728(01)00398-9 · DOI
  30. Panizza M., 2009, Chem. Rev., 109, 6541, 10.1021/cr9001319 · DOI
  31. Morão A., 2004, Electrochim. Acta, 49, 1587, 10.1016/j.electacta.2003.11.020 · DOI
  32. Fajardo A. S., 2017, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int., 24, 7521, 10.1007/s11356-017-8431-9 · DOI
  33. Martínez-Huitle C. A., 2009, Appl. Catal. B, 87, 105, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2008.09.017 · DOI
  34. Pacheco M. J., 2007, Electrochim. Acta, 53, 629, 10.1016/j.electacta.2007.07.024 · DOI
  35. Pablos M. V., 2011, Waste Manage., 31, 1841, 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Cañizares P., 2006, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 81, 352, 10.1002/jctb.1402 · DOI
  37. Eaton A., 2005, Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater
  38. Makkar H., 1993, J. Sci. Food Agric., 61, 161, 10.1002/jsfa.2740610205 · DOI
  39. Ghosh P., 2017, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 141, 259, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.03.023 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fernandes, A., Gomes, A. C., Pereira, C., Magdziak, A., Pacheco, M. J., Ciríaco, L., Simões, R., & Lopes, A.
Affiliations
  • FibEnTech-UBI and Department of Chemistry Universidade da Beira Interior 6201-001 Covilhã Portugal
  • Faculty of Chemistry Rzeszów University of Technology Powstańców Warszawy 12 35–959 Rzeszów Poland
ORCID
Venue
ChemElectroChem
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-24
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
1722-1731
ISSN
2196-0216
DOI
10.1002/celc.201801750
Cited by
3
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Funders
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
  • FibEnTech-UBI Research Unit (UID/Multi/00195/2013, SFRH/BPD/103615/2014)
  • Erasmus+ Mobility for Traineeships Programme (2017-1-PL01-KA103-035613)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review