TY - JOUR
T1 - Degradation of aliphatic halogenated contaminants in water by UVA/Cu–TiO2 and UVA/TiO2 photocatalytic processes
T2 - Structure-activity relationship and role of reactive species
AU - Yin, Ran
AU - Ling, Li
AU - Lu, Senhao
AU - Li, Haoran
AU - Li, Chenchen
AU - Shang, Chii
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - This study investigated the degradation of eight aliphatic halogenated contaminants (one brominated flame retardant and seven disinfection by-products) in synthetic drinking water by the UVA/TiO2 and UVA/Cu–TiO2 processes. The degradation rate constants of 2,2-bis(bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol and trichloromethane in the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process were 10.1 and 1.29 times, respectively, higher than those in the UVA/TiO2 process. In contrast, the degradation rate constants of dichloroacetaldehyde, monochloroacetonitrile, monobromoacetonitrile and dibromonitromethane in the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process were 8.15, 2.33, 2.84 and 1.80 times, respectively, lower than those in the UVA/TiO2 process. The degradation rate constants of monobromonitromethane and dichloronitromethane were comparable in the two processes. The relationships between the degradation rate constants and the structural characteristics of the selected contaminants were examined to explain the different degradation efficacies of the contaminants in the two processes. As suggested by a quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model, the UVA/TiO2 process favored the degradation of contaminants with more polar electron-withdrawing moieties and higher degrees of chlorination. While the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process favored the degradation of hydrophilic unsaturated contaminants with multiple bonds. The concentrations of the reactive species (e.g., HO[rad] and e−) generated in the two photocatalytic processes were quantified using competition kinetics. The UVA/Cu–TiO2 process generated >10 times higher concentrations of HO[rad] than the UVA/TiO2 process, suggesting that the former process was more suitable for the degradation of contaminants that are reactive towards HO[rad], while e− and e−-derived superoxide radicals were non-negligible contributors to contaminant degradation in the UVA/TiO2 process.
AB - This study investigated the degradation of eight aliphatic halogenated contaminants (one brominated flame retardant and seven disinfection by-products) in synthetic drinking water by the UVA/TiO2 and UVA/Cu–TiO2 processes. The degradation rate constants of 2,2-bis(bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol and trichloromethane in the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process were 10.1 and 1.29 times, respectively, higher than those in the UVA/TiO2 process. In contrast, the degradation rate constants of dichloroacetaldehyde, monochloroacetonitrile, monobromoacetonitrile and dibromonitromethane in the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process were 8.15, 2.33, 2.84 and 1.80 times, respectively, lower than those in the UVA/TiO2 process. The degradation rate constants of monobromonitromethane and dichloronitromethane were comparable in the two processes. The relationships between the degradation rate constants and the structural characteristics of the selected contaminants were examined to explain the different degradation efficacies of the contaminants in the two processes. As suggested by a quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model, the UVA/TiO2 process favored the degradation of contaminants with more polar electron-withdrawing moieties and higher degrees of chlorination. While the UVA/Cu–TiO2 process favored the degradation of hydrophilic unsaturated contaminants with multiple bonds. The concentrations of the reactive species (e.g., HO[rad] and e−) generated in the two photocatalytic processes were quantified using competition kinetics. The UVA/Cu–TiO2 process generated >10 times higher concentrations of HO[rad] than the UVA/TiO2 process, suggesting that the former process was more suitable for the degradation of contaminants that are reactive towards HO[rad], while e− and e−-derived superoxide radicals were non-negligible contributors to contaminant degradation in the UVA/TiO2 process.
KW - Aliphatic halogenated contaminants
KW - Hydroxyl radicals
KW - Photocatalytic
KW - QSAR
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000575197000105
UR - https://openalex.org/W3042915591
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85088092542
U2 - 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127644
DO - 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127644
M3 - Journal Article
C2 - 32758766
SN - 0045-6535
VL - 260
JO - Chemosphere
JF - Chemosphere
M1 - 127644
ER -