Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Which route to take for diclofenac removal from water: Hydroxylation or direct photolysis?

dc.contributor.authorLeydy Katherine Ardila, Pinto
dc.contributor.authorda Silva, Bianca Ferreira [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSpadoto, Mariângela
dc.contributor.authorClarice Maria Rispoli, Botta
dc.contributor.authorAzevedo, Eduardo Bessa
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T16:32:52Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T16:32:52Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-01
dc.description.abstractThis study aimed at comparing the performance of hydroxylation and direct photolysis for removing diclofenac from water. Several parameters were assessed: degradation kinetics, mineralization degree, lipophilicity (log D)of the identified initial intermediates, acute ecotoxicity analyses (Daphnia similis and Lactuca sativa), and chronic ecotoxicity predictions (ECOSAR 1.11). Hydroxylation was achieved by TiO2-assisted photodegradation. Direct photolysis experiments were performed in the same reaction system, but with no TiO2 addition. At least initially (up to 10 min), both processes followed a zero order kinetics, but direct photolysis was faster than hydroxylation: k = (1.4 ± 0.038)× 10−1 μg L−1 min−1 (R2 = 0.991)and (8.7 ± 0.29)× 10−2 μg L−1 min−1 (R2 = 0.996), respectively. No mineralization was observed up to 30 min. During TiO2-assisted photodegradation, only hydroxylated intermediates were detected. Direct photolysis proceeded via carbazoles formation. Only direct photolysis was capable of forming hydrophilic products (log D < 0). Acute ecotoxicity analyses (Daphnia similis and Lactuca sativa)showed that DCF toxicity was successfully removed and no additional ecotoxicity was produced by the degradation products. Chronic ecotoxicity predictions (fish, daphnids, and algae)showed that direct photolysis would produce less toxic substances. In summary, the results point out that direct photolysis is a better choice for removing diclofenac from water, in comparison to TiO2-induced hydroxylation.en
dc.description.affiliationUniversity of São Paulo Institute of Chemistry of São Carlos Laboratório de Desenvolvimento de Tecnologias Ambientais LDTAmb, Avenida Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, Centro, P. O. Box: 780
dc.description.affiliationUNESP Institute of Chemistry of Araraquara Analytical Chemistry Department NDCOM, Rua Prof. Francisco Degni, 55, Quitandinha
dc.description.affiliationUniversity of São Paulo São Carlos School of Engineering Centro de Ciências da Engenharia Aplicadas ao Meio Ambiente CCEAMA, Avenida Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, Centro, P.O. Box: 292
dc.description.affiliationUnespUNESP Institute of Chemistry of Araraquara Analytical Chemistry Department NDCOM, Rua Prof. Francisco Degni, 55, Quitandinha
dc.description.sponsorshipConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.111879
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, v. 382.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.111879
dc.identifier.issn1010-6030
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85066453928
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/189191
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAOP
dc.subjectDiclofenac
dc.subjectEcotoxicity
dc.subjectLipophilicity
dc.subjectPhotolysis
dc.subjectTiO2
dc.titleWhich route to take for diclofenac removal from water: Hydroxylation or direct photolysis?en
dc.typeArtigo
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-9750-2725[3]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Química, Araraquarapt
unesp.departmentQuímica Analítica - IQARpt

Arquivos