The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficient degradation of sulfamethoxazole by the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC) coupled PMS system: Optimization, degradation pathways and toxicity evaluation
Abstract
Abstract The CuO@Al2O3 (EPC) (prepared by an electroless plating and calcining method) was used to activate peroxymonosulfate (PMS) for advanced oxidation of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) in deionized water, and effects of three key parameters of its all parameters (i.e., CuO@Al2O3 (EPC) dosage, PMS dosage, and initial solution pH) on the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS system were studied. Under the optimal conditions (i.e., [catalyst]0 = 0.5 g/L, [PMS]0 = 0.4 mM and initial solution pH of 6.2), the SMX removal efficiency obtained by the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS process was 99%, while the SMX removal efficiency were 76% and 72% in CuO@Al2O3 (IC) (prepared by an impregnation-calcination method)/PMS and CuO/PMS system respectively. Adding H2PO4− into CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS system decreased the SMX removal efficiency, while the degradation efficiency was improved when Cl− was introduced the oxidation system. Furthermore, five possible degradation pathways of SMX were proposed according to the analysis results of intermediates detected by UPLC-QTOF-MS/MS. The biological toxicities of the degraded SMX solution were evaluated by activated sludge inhibition experiments. What is more, it was found that three radicals (i.e. SO4 −, OH and O2 −) made contributions to SMX degradation in the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS system according to radicals scavenging experiments. Residual PMS, and generated SO4 − and OH radicals were quantified in CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS system, and the electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) was used to detect the generation of radicals. Finally, the mechanism of the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC)/PMS system was proposed according to analysis data of XPS and radical scavenging experiments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wang, J., & Wang, S. (2018) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.11.059 · Cited by 4,087
Yang, Y., Lu, X., Jiang, J., Ma, J., Liu, G., Cao, Y., Liu, W., Li, J., Pang, S., Kong, X., et al. (2017) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.054 · Cited by 637
Self-citationJi, Y., Fan, Y., Liu, K., Kong, D., & Lu, J. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.09.005 · Cited by 439
Cited by
Wang, X., Zhou, Y., Wang, N., Zhang, J., & Zhu, L. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jes.2022.09.018 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Yan, J., Li, J., Peng, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., & Lai, B.
- Venue
- Chemical Engineering Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 359
- Pages
- 1097-1110
- ISSN
- 1385-8947 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901370525
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficient degradation of sulfamethoxazole by the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC) coupled PMS system: Optimization, degradation pathways and toxicity evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cej.2018.11.074
- The paper
- Yan, J., Li, J., Peng, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., & Lai, B. (2019). Efficient degradation of sulfamethoxazole by the CuO@Al2O3 (EPC) coupled PMS system: Optimization, degradation pathways and toxicity evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.11.074
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.