CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Study of the Reuse of Industrial Wastewater After Electrochemical Treatment of Textile Effluents without External Addition of Chloride

Orts, F., del Río, A.I., Molina, J., Bonastre, J., Cases, F.·2019·International Journal of Electrochemical Science
DOI 10.20964/2019.02.27
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The interference of human beings in the environment is causing rapid intense environmental damage which is particularly evident in the depletion of natural resources. Research into powerful practical treatments to decolorize and degrade colored textile wastewater is an important challenge nowadays for the textile industry due to environmental considerations, along with the potential water saving. It has been verified, in previous studies, that electrochemical oxidation-reduction treatment with doped SnO 2 anodes was effective. In particular, those belonging to a trychromy (mix of three reactive dyes) achieved a significant reduction in Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC), as well as the decolorization of the treated solutions. Subsequently, the next step is to proceed to study and verify that these treated waters can be reused in subsequent dyes and that acceptable values of color equalization in the dyed fabrics can be achieved. The color differences obtained in the dyed fabrics in the four studied reuses are below the threshold of acceptance of color differences in the textile industry, which is one unit. The only electrolyte used was sodium sulphate. Chloride was not added externally in order to avoid as far as possible indirect oxidation. This allows a true test of the electrooxidantion power of the anodes. In these conditions, the Ti/SnO 2 -Sb-Pt DSA electrode is stable. The degree of mineralization is evaluated by measurements of TOC and COD. The…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.20964/2019.02.27

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?

  • EO has the advantage of not producing sludge or concentrates, and the high salinity of textile wastewater may be an advantage for dyeing wastewater reuse [13-15].

    “It has also the advantage of not producing sludge or concentrates and, in this case, the high salinity of the textile wastewater may be an advantage for the dyeing wastewater reuse [13][14][15].”

    From Reuse of Textile Dyeing Wastewater Treated by Electrooxidation (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Arun Prasad, 2010, Global J. Biotech. & Biochem., 5, 80
  2. Elmoubarki, 2015, Water Resour. Ind., 9, 16, 10.1016/j.wri.2014.11.001 · DOI
  3. Carneiro, 2005, Chemosphere, 59, 431, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.10.043 · DOI
  4. European Commission, 2003, Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Large Volume Organic Chemical Industry February 2003, Integr. Pollut. Prev. Control, 1, 267
  5. Guaratini, 2001, Electroanalysis, 13, 1535, 10.1002/1521-4109(200112)13:18<1535::AID-ELAN1535>3.0.CO;2-H · DOI
  6. Guaratini, 2001, Dyes and Pigments, 50, 211, 10.1016/S0143-7208(01)00050-X · DOI
  7. Vacchi, 2017, Sci. Total Environ., 601, 230, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.103 · DOI
  8. Sharma, 2007, Chemosphere, 69, 48, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.086 · DOI
  9. Ulson de Souza, 2007, J. Hazard. Mater., 147, 1073, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Forgacs, 2004, Environ. Int., 30, 953, 10.1016/j.envint.2004.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Robinson, 2001, Bioresource Technol., 77, 247, 10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00080-8 · DOI · Paper page
  12. dos Santos, 2007, Bioresource Technol., 98, 2369, 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.013 · DOI
  13. Saxe, 2006, Water Environ. Res., 78, 26, 10.2175/106143005X84486 · DOI
  14. Galindo, 2001, Chemosphere, 45, 997, 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00118-7 · DOI
  15. Zhang, 2013, Chem. Eng. J., 233, 14, 10.1016/j.cej.2013.07.098 · DOI
  16. Brillas, 2015, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 166, 603, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.11.016 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Nossol, 2016, Quim. Nova, 39, 686
  18. Labiadh, 2015, J. Hazard. Mater., 297, 34, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.04.062 · DOI
  19. Vasconcelos, 2016, J. Electroanal. Chem., 765, 179, 10.1016/j.jelechem.2015.07.040 · DOI
  20. Punzi, 2015, Chem. Eng. J., 270, 290, 10.1016/j.cej.2015.02.042 · DOI
  21. Gonçalves, 2008, Bioresour. Technol., 99, 8207, 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.022 · DOI
  22. Malpass, 2008, J. Hazard. Mater., 156, 170, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.12.017 · DOI
  23. Mohan, 2007, J. Hazard. Mater., 147, 644, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.01.063 · DOI
  24. Vicent, 1998, J. Appl. Electrochem., 28, 607, 10.1023/A:1003250118996 · DOI
  25. Del Río, 2010, Electrochim. Acta, 55, 7282, 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.07.008 · DOI
  26. del Río, 2009, Chemosphere, 75, 1329, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.02.063 · DOI
  27. del Río, 2009, J. Hazard. Mater., 172, 187, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.147 · DOI
  28. del Río, 2012, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 7, 13074, 10.1016/S1452-3981(23)16609-0 · DOI
  29. Orts, 2018, J. Electroanal. Chem., 808, 387, 10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.06.051 · DOI
  30. del Río, 2011, Desalination, 273, 428, 10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.070 · DOI
  31. Montilla, 2002, Electrochim. Acta, 47, 3509, 10.1016/S0013-4686(02)00318-3 · DOI
  32. Comninellis, 1991, J. Appl. Electrochem, 21, 703, 10.1007/BF01034049 · DOI
  33. Andrade, 2008, J. Hazard. Mater., 153, 252, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.08.046 · DOI
  34. Iniesta, 2001, Electrochim. Acta, 46, 3573, 10.1016/S0013-4686(01)00630-2 · DOI
  35. Rajkumar, 2005, Chem. Eng. Technol., 28, 98, 10.1002/ceat.200407002 · DOI
  36. Sáez, 2007, J. Chem. Technol. Biot, 82, 575, 10.1002/jctb.1703 · DOI
  37. Riera-Torres, 2012, Sep. Purif. Technol., 98, 375, 10.1016/j.seppur.2012.08.005 · DOI
  38. Subba Rao, 2014, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 21, 3197, 10.1007/s11356-013-2313-6 · DOI
  39. Buscio, 2016, Materials, 9, 490, 10.3390/ma9060490 · DOI
  40. Brillas, 2017, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 202, 217, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.08.037 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Feng, 2000, Chemosphere, 41, 1233, 10.1016/S0045-6535(99)00538-X · DOI
  42. Galindo, 2000, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem., 130, 35, 10.1016/S1010-6030(99)00199-9 · DOI
  43. Stylidi, 2004, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 47, 189, 10.1016/j.apcatb.2003.09.014 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Orts, F., del Río, A. I., Molina, J., Bonastre, J., & Cases, F.
Venue
International Journal of Electrochemical Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
1733-1750
ISSN
1452-3981
DOI
10.20964/2019.02.27
Cited by
25
References
0
Language
en
Licence

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