Table 2 Comparison of TNT removal methods in aqueous matrices.
Method | Conditions | cTNT/mg L-1 | Matrix | Sample volume/mL | Control technique | Time/h | TNT removal/% | Analysis of by-products | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electrolysis and H2O2 | Voltage = 10 V, H2O2 = 300 mg L−1, Fe2+ = 2.52 mmol L−1 | 149 – 202 | Wastewater ammunition destroyed scrap | 700 | UV–vis spectrophotometer | 2 | ~ 70 | no | |
Ultrasonic irradiation combined with UV/TiO2 | Ultrasonic power = 110 W cm−2, T = 288 K, UV intensity = 96 W, TiO2 = 3000 mg L−1, O2 = 300 mL min−1 | 350 (DNT and TNT) | Industrial wastewater | 700 | TOC analyser equipped with UV reactor and NDIR detector | 8 | ~ 99 | yes | |
Adsorption on Fe/SiO2 nanocomposite | Room temperature | 50 | DI water | 100 | UV–vis spectrophotometer | nd | 24.8 | yes | |
Combined zero-valent iron and Fenton processes | 0.8 g of wool metallic iron, pH = 3.0, Fe2+ = 100 mg L−1, H2O2 = 500 mg L−1 | 156 | Industrial wastewater | 250 | HPLC–PDA | 0.5 | 100 | no | |
Electro-Fenton treatment | j = 55 mA cm−2, 0.2 mM Fe2+, pH = 3.0 | 45 | NaClO4 + HClO4 | 250 | HPLC–ESI–MS/MS | 0.33 | 99 | yes | |
Photocatalytic with TiO2 –borosilicate glass | UV intensity = 125 W | 2 | Diluted industrial wastewater | 400 | UV–vis spectrophotometer | 2 | 80 | no | |
Advanced oxidation | j = 50 mA cm−2 | 50 | Marine water, wastewater sample | 500 | HPLC–PDA | 2 | > 92 | yes | This work |
6 | > 99.9 |
