TY - JOUR
T1 - Revisiting Ferrate(VI) Activation
T2 - Why Enhanced Reactivity Undermines Disinfection
AU - Tang, Zepei
AU - Deng, Yang
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society
PY - 2025/8/12
Y1 - 2025/8/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - chemical oxidation
KW - contaminant of emerging concerns (CECs)
KW - ferrate(VI)
KW - oxidant exposure
KW - sulfite
KW - wastewater treatment
KW - water treatment
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105016456296
U2 - 10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716
DO - 10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00716
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105016456296
SN - 2328-8930
VL - 12
SP - 1095
EP - 1101
JO - Environmental Science and Technology Letters
JF - Environmental Science and Technology Letters
IS - 8
ER -