Next Article in Journal
Variation of Diatoms at Different Scales in the Brazilian Pantanal Basin
Next Article in Special Issue
Extraction and Purification of Phosphorus from the Ashes of Incinerated Biological Sewage Sludge
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrodynamic Forces Exerting on an Oscillating Cylinder under Translational Motion in Water Covered by Compressed Ice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimal Solutions for the Use of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Lands
Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Efficiency and Energy Demand in Polishing Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants Effluents: Photoelectrocatalysis vs. Photocatalysis and Photolysis

1
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
2
Interdepartmental Centre for Water Research, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
3
Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, 20131 Milano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Sergi Garcia-Segura
Water 2021, 13(6), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060821
Received: 22 February 2021 / Revised: 9 March 2021 / Accepted: 10 March 2021 / Published: 17 March 2021
Photoelectrocatalysis (PEC), photolysis (PL), and photocatalysis (PC) were applied to increase the biodegradability of wastewaters effluents sampled from a plant collecting both municipal wastewaters and aqueous waste. In PEC, the catalyst was a porous TiO2 photoanode obtained by plasma electrolytic oxidation and electrically polarized during operation. In PC a dispersion of TiO2 powders was used. The same irradiation shielding, and similar catalyst surface areas were set for PC and PEC, allowing a straightforward evaluation of the catalytic effect of the electrical polarization of TiO2 during operation. Results showed that the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and color removal rates follow the order: PEC > PL and PEC > PC. The specific biodegradability rate (SBR) increased following the same order, the PEC process allowing SBR values more than twice higher than PL and PC. The operating costs were calculated based on the electrical energy per order of COD, color, and SBR values, demonstrating that at the laboratory scale the energy demand of PEC is significantly lower than the other two tested processes. View Full-Text
Keywords: photoelectrocatalysis; titanium dioxide; color removal; biodegradability; plasma electrolytic oxidation photoelectrocatalysis; titanium dioxide; color removal; biodegradability; plasma electrolytic oxidation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Collivignarelli, M.C.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Arab, H.; Bestetti, M.; Franz, S. Efficiency and Energy Demand in Polishing Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants Effluents: Photoelectrocatalysis vs. Photocatalysis and Photolysis. Water 2021, 13, 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060821

AMA Style

Collivignarelli MC, Carnevale Miino M, Arab H, Bestetti M, Franz S. Efficiency and Energy Demand in Polishing Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants Effluents: Photoelectrocatalysis vs. Photocatalysis and Photolysis. Water. 2021; 13(6):821. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060821

Chicago/Turabian Style

Collivignarelli, Maria C.; Carnevale Miino, Marco; Arab, Hamed; Bestetti, Massimiliano; Franz, Silvia. 2021. "Efficiency and Energy Demand in Polishing Treatment of Wastewater Treatment Plants Effluents: Photoelectrocatalysis vs. Photocatalysis and Photolysis" Water 13, no. 6: 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060821

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop