{"title":"重述高铁酸盐(VI)活化:为什么增强反应性会破坏消毒","authors":"Zepei Tang, and , Yang Deng*, ","doi":"10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Activated ferrate(VI) can enhance the degradation of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) due to the <i>in situ</i> formation of more reactive intermediates, primarily Fe(V)/Fe(IV) and possibly free radicals. However, disinfection under ferrate(VI) activation conditions remains underexplored. This study investigated the role of sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>) in SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>-activated ferrate(VI) for bacterial inactivation. Laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to degrade sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and remove bacterial indicators using ferrate(VI) alone and with sulfite at varying [Fe(VI)]:[SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>]. Bacterial adsorption onto ferrate(VI)-derived iron oxide particles was experimentally ruled out, validating the dominance of chemical oxidation in bacterial removal. In lake water, activation was observed at [Fe(VI)]:[ SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>] = 1:2, achieving 60% SMX degradation, compared to 42% by ferrate(VI) alone ([SMX] = 0.8 μM, [Fe(VI)] = 25 μM). However, log removals of total coliform and <i>E. coli</i> declined from 2.86 and 3.28 (ferrate(VI) alone) to 1.17–2.76 and 2.11–3.11, respectively, within [Fe(VI)]:[SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>] = 4:1–1:4. Similar trends were also observed in the secondary wastewater effluent. Furthermore, log removals exhibited two-phase linear relationships with ferrate(VI) exposure, regardless of activation state, underscoring the importance of time-integrated ferrate(VI) concentration. This study demonstrates the limitations of CT values in assessing ferrate(VI) activation-based disinfection and highlights the need to re-evaluate implementation strategies for ferrate(VI) activation in water treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":37,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Technology Letters Environ.","volume":"12 8","pages":"1095–1101"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Ferrate(VI) Activation: Why Enhanced Reactivity Undermines Disinfection\",\"authors\":\"Zepei Tang, and , Yang Deng*, \",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Activated ferrate(VI) can enhance the degradation of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) due to the <i>in situ</i> formation of more reactive intermediates, primarily Fe(V)/Fe(IV) and possibly free radicals. However, disinfection under ferrate(VI) activation conditions remains underexplored. This study investigated the role of sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>) in SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>-activated ferrate(VI) for bacterial inactivation. Laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to degrade sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and remove bacterial indicators using ferrate(VI) alone and with sulfite at varying [Fe(VI)]:[SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>]. Bacterial adsorption onto ferrate(VI)-derived iron oxide particles was experimentally ruled out, validating the dominance of chemical oxidation in bacterial removal. In lake water, activation was observed at [Fe(VI)]:[ SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>] = 1:2, achieving 60% SMX degradation, compared to 42% by ferrate(VI) alone ([SMX] = 0.8 μM, [Fe(VI)] = 25 μM). However, log removals of total coliform and <i>E. coli</i> declined from 2.86 and 3.28 (ferrate(VI) alone) to 1.17–2.76 and 2.11–3.11, respectively, within [Fe(VI)]:[SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2–</sup>] = 4:1–1:4. Similar trends were also observed in the secondary wastewater effluent. Furthermore, log removals exhibited two-phase linear relationships with ferrate(VI) exposure, regardless of activation state, underscoring the importance of time-integrated ferrate(VI) concentration. This study demonstrates the limitations of CT values in assessing ferrate(VI) activation-based disinfection and highlights the need to re-evaluate implementation strategies for ferrate(VI) activation in water treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Technology Letters Environ.\",\"volume\":\"12 8\",\"pages\":\"1095–1101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Technology Letters Environ.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Technology Letters Environ.","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Activated ferrate(VI) can enhance the degradation of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) due to the in situ formation of more reactive intermediates, primarily Fe(V)/Fe(IV) and possibly free radicals. However, disinfection under ferrate(VI) activation conditions remains underexplored. This study investigated the role of sulfite (SO32–) in SO32–-activated ferrate(VI) for bacterial inactivation. Laboratory-scale experiments were conducted to degrade sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and remove bacterial indicators using ferrate(VI) alone and with sulfite at varying [Fe(VI)]:[SO32–]. Bacterial adsorption onto ferrate(VI)-derived iron oxide particles was experimentally ruled out, validating the dominance of chemical oxidation in bacterial removal. In lake water, activation was observed at [Fe(VI)]:[ SO32–] = 1:2, achieving 60% SMX degradation, compared to 42% by ferrate(VI) alone ([SMX] = 0.8 μM, [Fe(VI)] = 25 μM). However, log removals of total coliform and E. coli declined from 2.86 and 3.28 (ferrate(VI) alone) to 1.17–2.76 and 2.11–3.11, respectively, within [Fe(VI)]:[SO32–] = 4:1–1:4. Similar trends were also observed in the secondary wastewater effluent. Furthermore, log removals exhibited two-phase linear relationships with ferrate(VI) exposure, regardless of activation state, underscoring the importance of time-integrated ferrate(VI) concentration. This study demonstrates the limitations of CT values in assessing ferrate(VI) activation-based disinfection and highlights the need to re-evaluate implementation strategies for ferrate(VI) activation in water treatment.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Technology Letters serves as an international forum for brief communications on experimental or theoretical results of exceptional timeliness in all aspects of environmental science, both pure and applied. Published as soon as accepted, these communications are summarized in monthly issues. Additionally, the journal features short reviews on emerging topics in environmental science and technology.