Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 425

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 processes in the degradation of PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater: Kinetics, radical mechanism and energy requirements

Guo, Kaiheng, Wu, Zihao, Yan, Shuwen, Yao, Bo, Song, Weihua, Hua, Zhechao, Zhang, Xuewen, Kong, Xiujuan, Li, Xuchun, Fang, Jingyun·2018·Water Research

Abstract

The degradation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) by the UV/H2O2 and UV/chlorine processes was compared at practical concentrations in simulated drinking water and wastewater. In pure water, the UV/chlorine process performed better than the UV/H2O2 process for the degradation of 16 PPCPs among the investigated 28 PPCPs under neutral conditions. Interestingly, the UV/chlorine approach was superior to the UV/H2O2 approach for the removal of all PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater at the same molar oxidant dosage. The radical sink by oxidants and/or H2O was 2-3 orders of magnitude higher in UV/chlorine than UV/H2O2 in pure water. Thus, the UV/chlorine process was less affected by the water and wastewater matrices than UV/H2O2. In UV/chlorine, the concentration of ClO• was calculated to be ∼3 orders of magnitude greater than that of HO• in pure water, and the reactivities of ClO• with some PPCPs were as high as > 108 M-1 s-1. ClO• was mainly scavenged by the effluent organic matter (EfOM) with a rate constant of 1.8 × 104 (mg L-1)-1 s-1 in wastewater. Meanwhile, secondary radicals such as Br•, Br2•-, ClBr•- and CO3•- further contributed to PPCP degradation by the UV/chlorine process in wastewater, whose concentrations were at least 2 orders of magnitude higher than that in UV/H2O2. Compared with the UV/H2O2 process, the UV/chlorine process saved 3.5-93.5% and 19.1%-98.1% electrical energy per order (EE/O) for PPCP degradation in simulated drinking water and wastewater, respectively.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.048

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 425

Metadata

Authors
Guo, K., Wu, Z., Yan, S., Yao, B., Song, W., Hua, Z., Zhang, X., Kong, X., Li, X., & Fang, J.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
147
Pages
184-194
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2889527838
Cited by
425
References
3
FWCI
12.84
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: Comparison of the UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 processes in the degradation of PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater: Kinetics, radical mechanism and energy requirements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.048
The paper
Guo, K., Wu, Z., Yan, S., Yao, B., Song, W., Hua, Z., Zhang, X., Kong, X., Li, X., & Fang, J. (2018). Comparison of the UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 processes in the degradation of PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater: Kinetics, radical mechanism and energy requirements. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.048

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.