CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of disperse and reactive dye removals by chemical coagulation and Fenton oxidation

Kim, Tak-Hyun, Park, Chulhwan, Yang, Jeongmok, Kim, Sangyong·2004·Journal of Hazardous Materials
DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.04.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The composition of wastewater from the dyeing and textile processes is highly variable depending on the dyestuff type and typically has high COD and color. This study examined the decolorization of some of the most commonly used disperse and reactive dyestuffs by combination of chemical coagulation and Fenton oxidation. In addition, performances between Fe3+ coagulation and Fenton oxidation of dye solutions were compared by measuring COD and dye removals, distributions of zeta potential, concentration of suspended solid were investigated. Fenton oxidation in combination with Fe3+ coagulation has shown to effectively remove COD and dye. About 90% of COD and 99% of dye removals were obtained at the optimum conditions. Compared to reactive dyes, disperse dyes have lower solubility, higher suspended solids concentrations and lower SCOD/TCOD ratios. The COD and dye removed per unit Fe3+ coagulant added for disperse dye solutions were higher than those for reactive dye solutions. Therefore, the disperse dye solutions are more easily decolorized by chemical coagulation than reactive dye solutions. Conversely, reactive dye solutions have higher applicability of Fenton oxidation than disperse dye solutions due to their higher solubility, lower suspended solids concentrations and higher SCOD/TCOD ratios. The COD and dye removed per Fe2+ Fenton reagent added for reactive dye solutions are respectively higher than those for disperse dye solutions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.04.008

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?

  • Stand-alone coagulation/flocculation/precipitation in treating textile/dye waste is relatively ineffective; only 50% removal was achieved using either alum or ferrous sulfate for an azo reactive yellow dye.

    “Their stand alone application in treating textile/dye waste is, however, relatively ineffective 79,101,163 , for example, only 50% removal was achieved using either alum or ferrous sulfate for an azo reactive yellow dye.79”

    From Hybrid Treatment Systems for Dye Wastewater (2007) · cites this paper as [101]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Al-Degs, 2000, Water Res., 34, 927, 10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00200-6 · DOI
  2. Sarasa, 1998, Water Res., 32, 2721, 10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00030-X · DOI
  3. Lin, 1996, Water Res., 30, 587, 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00210-3 · DOI
  4. Hsu, 1997, J. Environ. Sci. Health, 32, 1921
  5. Ahn, 1999, Process Biochem., 34, 429, 10.1016/S0032-9592(98)00111-3 · DOI
  6. Dhale, 2000, Waste Manage., 20, 85, 10.1016/S0956-053X(99)00276-7 · DOI
  7. Chen, 1999, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 38, 1837, 10.1021/ie980617d · DOI
  8. Arslan, 2000, Desalination, 130, 61, 10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00074-6 · DOI
  9. Chu, 2000, Water Res., 34, 3153, 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00043-9 · DOI
  10. Lin, 2000, Water Res., 34, 763, 10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00214-6 · DOI
  11. Sun, 1997, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 36, 808, 10.1021/ie9603833 · DOI
  12. Kim, 2002, Desalination, 150, 165, 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00941-4 · DOI
  13. Dutta, 2001, J. Hazard. Mater. B, 84, 57, 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00202-3 · DOI
  14. Solozhenko, 1995, Water Res., 29, 2206, 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00042-J · DOI
  15. Arslan, 1999, Dyes and Pigments, 43, 95, 10.1016/S0143-7208(99)00048-0 · DOI
  16. Sarria, 2002, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 1251, 1
  17. Zhu, 2001, Water Res., 35, 2087, 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00462-0 · DOI
  18. Szpyrkowicz, 2001, Water Res., 35, 2129, 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00487-5 · DOI
  19. Tang, 1996, Chemosphere, 32, 947, 10.1016/0045-6535(95)00358-4 · DOI
  20. Swaminathan, 2003, Chemosphere, 50, 619, 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00615-X · DOI
  21. Zhu, 1996, Water Res., 30, 2949, 10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00197-2 · DOI
  22. Lin, 1997, Water Res., 31, 2050, 10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00024-9 · DOI
  23. Mcginnis, 2000, Water Res., 34, 2346, 10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00387-5 · DOI
  24. J.H. Montgomery, Water Treatment Principles and Design, Wiley/Interscience, New York, 1985.
  25. Bustamante, 2001, Water Res., 35, 3179, 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00044-6 · DOI
  26. Zouboulis, 2000, Colloids Surf., 172, 153, 10.1016/S0927-7757(00)00561-6 · DOI
  27. Yu, 1998, Chemosphere, 37, 487, 10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00064-2 · DOI
  28. Kang, 2002, Chemosphere, 46, 923, 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00159-X · DOI
  29. Kang, 1997, Water Sci. Technol., 36, 215, 10.2166/wst.1997.0450 · DOI
  30. Raghavacharya, 1997, Chem. Eng. World, 32, 53
  31. Shen, 2001, J. Hazard. Mater. B, 84, 107, 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00201-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kim, T.-H., Park, C., Yang, J., & Kim, S.
Venue
Journal of Hazardous Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
112
Issue
1-2
Pages
95-103
ISSN
0304-3894
DOI
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.04.008
Cited by
321
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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