Cited by 40Ultrasound and Cavitation PhenomenaAdvanced oxidation water treatmentMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques

Ultrasound based AOP for emerging pollutants: From degradation to mechanism

Rayaroth, Manoj P., Aravind, Usha K., Aravindakumar, Charuvila T.·2017·Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Abstract

Ultrasound is known to degrade organic compounds by pyrolysis and by the reaction of free radicals. In this work, sonolytic degradation of an identified water pollutant, coomassie brilliant blue (CBB), has been carried out in pure water as well as in river water. In the case of pure water, 90 % degradation was obtained after 30 min of sonication (350 kHz frequency, 60 W power), whereas in river water, the same efficiency was achieved only after 90 min. The degradation was also performed in the presence of varying concentration of (10-100 mg L-1) inorganic ions such as chloride, sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate, and carbonate ions which were detected in the river water sample. Higher concentration of chloride enhanced the degradation due to the salting out mechanism. The enhancement of degradation in the presence of nitrate is mainly due to the change in the surface potential at the interface of the cavitating bubble. Bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion enhanced the degradation due to the involvement of carbonate radicals. A possible degradation mechanism is proposed based on the product profile determined by LC-Q-ToF-MS. The low efficiency of degradation in river water compared to that in pure water is likely due to the increased rate of bubble dissolution or escape of bubbles (degassing effect), and the scavenging of •OH by the organic content (high chemical oxygen demand (COD)).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11356-016-6606-4

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rayaroth, M. P., Aravind, U. K., & Aravindakumar, C. T.
Affiliations
Mahatma Gandhi University (IN)
Corresponding author
Aravindakumar, Charuvila T.
Venue
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Published
2016-04-14
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
6261-6269
ISSN
  • 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-7499
OpenAlex
W2335863220
Cited by
40
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (IN)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Ultrasound and Cavitation Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Advanced oxidation water treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Minerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Keywords
sonolysis, Coomassie Brilliant Blue, emerging contaminants, river water, salting-out, nitrate, carbonate radical, hydroxyl radical scavenging, degradation mechanism, chemical oxygen demand
MeSH terms
Ultrasonic Waves, Carbonates, Chlorides, Nitrates, Oxidation-Reduction, Rosaniline Dyes, Sonication, Sulfates, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Purification, Rivers, Biological Oxygen Demand Analysis

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