DOI:
10.1039/D5TA00194C
(Paper)
J. Mater. Chem. A, 2025,
13, 29092-29100
A triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenerator enhancing electrochemical oxidation for organic pollutant degradation†
Received
8th January 2025
, Accepted 25th April 2025
First published on 16th July 2025
Abstract
The electrochemical oxidation process's efficacy in wastewater treatment is contingent upon advanced electrode materials and substantial power input. This research introduces a novel hybrid methodology that synergizes high-efficiency anodic electrochemical oxidation with the superior energy harvesting and conversion capabilities of a self-powered system. By employing anodic oxidation and subsequent electrochemical reduction, a Ti substrate was incorporated with reduced TiO2 nanotubes (Blue-Ti) to enhance its adhesion with the doped catalytic materials. Electrodeposition of a SnO2 interlayer and thermal coating techniques were employed to create a titanium-based copper and antimony doped tin oxide (Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO) electrode. This electrode exhibits remarkable electrochemical performance and excels in degrading organic pollutants. Utilizing the triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenerator (TE-HNG), we achieved a self-sustained organic dye wastewater degradation rate of 95.5% within 1.5 hours, independent of external electricity sources. This study presents an innovative, cost-efficient strategy for wastewater treatment, integrating the modified Ti/NATO electrode with a self-powered electrochemical oxidation process.
1. Introduction
The rapid expansion of the global economy and various industries has led to a significant increase in industrial wastewater, characterized by elevated levels of organic pollutants and complex mixtures from sectors such as printing,1 petrochemicals,2 and pharmaceuticals.3 This wastewater often exhibits a high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and contains biologically toxic substances.4,5 The direct discharge of untreated wastewater into aquatic environments poses a substantial threat to water quality and aquatic ecosystems.6,7 Conventional treatment methods, which include physical, chemical, and biological technologies, often face challenges such as high energy consumption, limited effectiveness, and the potential for secondary pollution.8–10
Electrochemical oxidation technology surpasses conventional methods by offering superior redox capabilities, facilitating the complete oxidation and decomposition of organic compounds.11 In practical applications, the synergy between electrochemistry and oxidation processes enhances treatment efficacy through the precise adjustment of parameters such as potential, current density, and reaction time.12 The selection of anode materials is pivotal in electrochemical oxidation technology.13,14 A titanium-based nickel and antimony doped tin oxide (Ti/NATO) anode has gained recognition as an effective material for degrading various wastewater types, owing to its simple preparation process and cost-efficiency.15–17 However, its limited lifespan and low activity pose significant challenges to its widespread adoption in practical applications.18–20 In this study, electrodeposition was initially utilized to apply a SnO2 interlayer onto a modified Ti/TiO2 nanotube substrate, significantly enhancing the adhesion between the substrate and the catalytic layer, thereby extending the electrode's operational lifespan. Subsequently, a Cu-ATO catalytic layer was deposited onto the SnO2 surface (Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO) through a thermal coating process, resulting in a notable improvement in the catalyst's electrochemical performance.
Natural wind energy exhibits low-frequency, random, and dispersed characteristics, resulting in low harvesting efficiency with traditional electromagnetic generators (EMGs), which limits its applications. Therefore, developing novel energy-capturing technologies for low-frequency conditions is crucial. In recent years, triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs) have demonstrated significant potential in wind energy harvesting due to their ability to convert mechanical energy into electricity. However, the electrical power generated by TENGs remains insufficient for many practical applications. Due to their high internal resistance, TENGs typically produce high-voltage but low-current outputs, whereas EMGs, with their low internal resistance, generate high-current but low-voltage outputs. By coupling TENGs with EMGs, not only can continuous energy harvesting be achieved, but stable voltage and higher current outputs are also obtained. This hybrid nanogenerator produces a greater electrical output than individual units, thereby meeting the demands of a wider range of applications.21–23
Additionally, traditional electrochemical oxidation technologies typically require an external power source, leading to significant energy consumption in wastewater treatment processes.24,25 Mechanical energy, a common form of renewable energy, is widely available in various environmental contexts.26–29 While electromagnetic generators can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy to support the electrochemical oxidation process, conventional generators often struggle with inefficiencies in capturing low-frequency energy.30–33 The triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenerator (TE-HNG) integrates the principles of triboelectrification and electromagnetic induction.34,35 As an innovative energy harvesting technology, it has gained extensive application in the domain of water treatment.36–41 Therefore, to further optimize the system's energy efficiency, TE-HNG technology was incorporated into the electrochemical oxidation process for wastewater treatment.
Fig. 1 demonstrates the TE-HNG's ability to generate electricity by harnessing natural water and wind energy, which subsequently facilitates the catalytic oxidation of organics in wastewater treatment. Compared to traditional power sources, the TE-HNG significantly reduces the energy consumption for wastewater treatment. Experimental results indicated that, under the operating conditions of a TE-HNG system with a rotational speed of 70 rpm and an output current of 10 mA cm−2, the degradation rate of methylene blue reached 95.5% after 1.5 hours. In conclusion, the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO electrode exhibits superior electrochemical performance and organic pollutant degradation capabilities, with its practical service life meeting industrial standards. By integrating electrochemical oxidation with the TE-HNG, a self-powered organic pollutant degradation process was achieved, with the entire system demonstrating zero energy consumption and substantial application potential.
 |
| Fig. 1 Schematic of the TE-HNG coupled electrochemical oxidation degradation process of organic pollutants. | |
2. Experimental section
2.1. Fabrication and evaluation of the TE-HNG
The nanogenerator consists of a stator and a rotor. Further details about the device can be found in the supporting literature (ESI 1.1†).
2.2. Synthesis of the electrode
2.2.1. Synthesis of the Ti/TiO2-NT electrode.
In the electrochemical oxidation process, an etched titanium mesh served as the anode, while nickel foam functioned as the cathode. The procedure involved applying a constant voltage of 15 V in a 0.5% HF solution for a duration of 30 minutes to synthesize Ti/TiO2 nanotubes (TiO2-NTs). The resultant Ti/TiO2-NTs, characterized by an anatase structure, were subsequently obtained through heat treatment at 500 °C for 3 hours. For a comprehensive understanding of the methodology, please refer to ESI 1.2 and 1.3.†
2.2.2. Synthesis of the reduced Ti/TiO2-NT (Blue-Ti) electrode.
The Blue-Ti electrode was fabricated through the electrochemical reduction process to increase the conductivity of the Ti electrode, by utilizing a Pt electrode as the anode and a TiO2-NT electrode as the cathode. This procedure was conducted in a 0.1 M Na2SO4 solution, maintaining a current density of 10 mA cm−2 for a duration of 5 minutes.
2.2.3. Synthesis of the Blue-Ti/SnO2 electrode.
The Blue-Ti electrode underwent electrodeposition of a SnO2 interlayer for a duration of 30 minutes, utilizing a current density of 5 mA cm−2, under water bath heating conditions maintained at 80 °C. The electrolyte solution comprised 20 g L−1 of Na2SnO3·3H2O, 10 g L−1 of NaOH, and 10 g L−1 of CH3COONa, all dissolved in ultrapure water. Subsequent to the electrodeposition, a SnO2 intermediate layer was formed, characterized by a load of 0.7 mA cm−2, achieved through heat treatment at 500 °C for 30 minutes.
2.2.4. Doping SnO2–Sb–Cu and SnO2–Sb–Ni (Cu-ATO, Ni-ATO) catalyst layers on the Blue-Ti/SnO2 electrode.
The catalytic layer was fabricated using a thermal coating technique. The titanium mesh underwent multiple cycles of impregnation and extraction in the coating solution, followed by drying at 105 °C for 30 minutes until the electrode surface was free of visible droplets and no white smoke was emitted. The formulation of the coating solution is documented in the literature (ESI 1.4.1†). Subsequently, the samples were annealed at 500 °C for 10 minutes in a muffle furnace. This sequence of impregnation, extraction, drying, and sintering was repeated six times, with the final sintering conducted at 500 °C for 2 hours to ensure uniform catalyst distribution on the electrode material. The resulting electrodes, Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO and Blue-Ti/SnO2/Ni-ATO, were produced. The electrode preparation process was reiterated, and the electrodes were categorized based on varying Sn
:
Sb
:
Cu molar ratios in the Cu-ATO catalytic layer and differing catalytic layer loadings (ESI 1.4.2†).
2.3. Electrochemical analytical methods
The LSV test was conducted using an electrochemical workstation (CHI-660E, Chenhua, Shanghai) as detailed in ESI 1.5.† The electrode's actual service life was evaluated via an accelerated life test, referenced in ESI 1.6.† The COD test and analytical methods for various organic pollutants are documented in ESI 1.7.†
2.4. The characterization of the electrode
The characterization of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO electrodes with varying Cu doping ratios was conducted by using XRD, SEM and XPS, as detailed in ESI 1.8.†
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Output performance of the TE-HNG
As demonstrated in Fig. 2a, wind-induced sliding between PTFE and nylon triggered electron transfer, generating surface potential differences that drove charge accumulation and current (Fig. 2a). For the EMG, rotating magnets altered the magnet–coil distance, varying magnetic flux to induce alternating current in the copper coil through continuous rotor motion (Fig. 2b). The TE-HNG device setup for autonomous organic pollutant removal is illustrated in Fig. 2c. It comprises a rotor and a stator, with the rotor constructed from acrylic, a magnet and PTFE film, and the stator incorporating nylon, metal electrodes, and copper coils. Initially, the device captures wind energy to rotate the windmill blades, effectively converting this energy into electrical power. A rectifier is then utilized to convert the alternating current (AC) signal into a direct current (DC) signal, which powers the subsequent electrocatalytic reaction unit, as depicted in Fig. 2d. The EMG's output power is proportional to the square of frequency, and it is suitable for harvesting high-frequency energy. For low-frequency energy below 5 Hz, the TENG holds greater advantages. Combining the TENG with the EMG through coupling can indeed integrate their respective advantages. The TE-HNG simultaneously utilizes the TENG's high-voltage characteristics and the EMG's high-current properties, thereby enhancing overall energy output efficiency.
 |
| Fig. 2 The construction and performance of the TE-HNG. (a) Working principle of the TENG. (b) Working principle of the EMG. (c) Illustration of the TE-HNG model. (d) The circuit diagram of the TE-HNG based self-powered system. (e) Short-circuit current generated by the EMG. (f) Open-circuit voltage generated by the TENG. (g) Rectified open-circuit voltage of the TE-HNG. (h) Rectified short-circuit current of the TE-HNG. (i) Output voltage of the TE-HNG under load resistance with current. (j) Power density curve. (k) The charging voltage of capacitors with different capacitances. | |
As the velocity of the TE-HNG escalates, there is a notable and consistent augmentation in both the electromagnetic open-circuit voltage (Voc) and the triboelectric short-circuit current (Isc). At a rotor speed of 90 rpm, the electromagnetic generator (EMG) achieves a Voc of 8.8 V, while the triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) reaches an Isc of 4.2 μA, as demonstrated in Fig. 2e and f. For the TE-HNG, the Voc and Isc values similarly exhibit an upward trajectory with increasing rotor speed. Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 2g and h, when the rotor speed attains 90 rpm, the voltage and current values of the self-powered system reach 125.4 V and 9.8 mA, respectively, representing increases of 1.9-fold and 4.9-fold compared to the values recorded at 50 rpm.
To assess the output power of the TE-HNG, a comprehensive analysis was performed on the voltage and current across a resistance range from 10 Ω to 103 kΩ, as depicted in Fig. 2i. At a rotational speed of 90 rpm, the voltage exhibited a direct correlation with the load resistance, while the current showed an inverse correlation. The power calculations, derived from the measured voltage and current, are illustrated in Fig. 2j. The power initially rises and then falls as a function of the external resistance, achieving a peak instantaneous power density of 48.8 mW at an external resistance of 102.8 Ω. Fig. 2k demonstrates the effective charge storage capacity of the capacitance, showing the charging process of a 1.0 μF capacitor to 12.5 V within 7 seconds at a rotational speed of 90 rpm. An increase in capacitance results in a significant reduction in the voltage across the capacitors, along with an extended charging duration.
3.2. Characterization of the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1/2/4/8-ATO electrode
The SEM analysis of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO electrodes with varying Cu doping ratios reveals that an increase in Cu content results in a thicker catalytic layer (Fig. 3a–h), transitioning from a sparse to a dense structure, with a notable reduction in catalytic layer spacing. High-magnification SEM images indicate that the catalytic layer consists of aggregated metal nanospheres arranged in clusters (Fig. 3b, d, f and h). The results indicate that overly loose and aggregated catalytic layers hinder the formation of electrochemically active sites, thereby diminishing the electrode's organic degradation efficiency.42 Notably, the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode, with a Sn
:
Sb
:
Cu ratio of 250
:
8
:
2, exhibits a uniformly distributed catalytic layer with consistent thickness, which is advantageous for active site formation and enhances the electrochemical reaction rate.
 |
| Fig. 3 Morphology characterization of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1-ATO, Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO, Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu4-ATO and Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu8-ATO anodes. SEM images of (a) and (b) Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1-ATO. (c) and (d) Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO. (e) and (f) Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu4-ATO. (g) and (h) Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu8-ATO. (i) XRD diffraction patterns. The XPS spectra of the full survey spectrum. (j) Sb 3d peaks of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO. (k) Cu 2p peaks of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO. (l) Sn 3d peaks of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO. | |
The X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1/2/4/8-ATO electrode reveal that the Sn, Sb, Cu, and Ti elements within the catalytic layer are present as eutectic oxides (Fig. 3i). An analysis of the Cu-related oxide peaks indicates that an increase in the Cu doping ratio within the catalytic layer results in a marked enhancement of the peak intensities, thereby confirming the augmented Cu content in the electrode's catalytic layer. Furthermore, the XPS analysis of the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1/2/4/8-ATO electrode for Sb, Cu, and Sn elements demonstrates that the binding energies for Sb3+ and Sb5+ are at 530.75 eV and 540.48 eV, respectively (Fig. 3j, k and l). The binding energies for Cu+ and Cu2+ are at 933.02 eV and 952.68 eV, while Sn4+ exhibits binding energies at 486.81 eV and 495.18 eV. Notably, as the Cu doping ratio increases, the binding energies of Cu+ and Cu2+ remain relatively unchanged; however, their XPS peak intensities are significantly enhanced, indicating a substantial increase in the Cu content within the electrode's catalytic layer.43,44
3.3. Optimization of the doping ratio and loading of the catalytic layer on the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode
The doping ratio of the catalytic layer has an important influence on the activity of the electrode. Table 1 and Fig. S1† present the oxygen evolution potential, leachates' COD degradation, reaction rate constant and actual life of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Ni1-ATO and Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1/2/4/8-ATO electrodes. The Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode works at 2.3 V (vs. Ag/AgCl), which improves oxygen evolution potential and pollutant degradation efficiency.45 In the leachate with a COD of 316 mg L−1, the COD degradation rate of the electrode reached 85.5% within 1.5 hours. Its actual service life is more than 720 days, which meets the requirements of industrial applications.
Table 1 Comprehensive performance comparison of the electrodes
Electrode |
Oxygen evolution potential (V vs. Ag/AgCl) |
COD degradation of leachate in 1.5 h (%) |
The reaction rate constant k (min−1) |
Actual life (day) |
Blue-Ti/SnO2/Ni1-ATO |
1.75 |
75.9 |
0.015 |
730 |
Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu8-ATO |
1.92 |
81.8 |
0.019 |
721 |
Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu4-ATO |
2.15 |
84.6 |
0.023 |
755 |
Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO |
2.33 |
85.5 |
0.025 |
763 |
Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1-ATO |
1.95 |
81.2 |
0.018 |
738 |
In the process of electrooxidation, the loading of the catalytic layer is the key factor affecting the electrooxidation performance of the electrode. The analysis indicates that the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode exhibits an optimal performance at a catalytic layer loading of 1.9 mg cm−2, achieving inapplicable oxygen evolution potential and a COD degradation rate of 85.5% after 90 minutes (Fig. 4a and b). Furthermore, an increase in catalytic layer loading enhances the electrode's service life significantly. At a current density of 500 mA cm−2, the anode voltage of each electrode reached 10 V after 250, 420, 490, and 580 minutes, corresponding to actual lifetimes of 490, 747, 868, and 1007 days, respectively (Fig. 4c and d). At the same time, we also explored the effect of different loading catalyst layers on the activity of Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1-ATO and Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu4-ATO electrodes (Fig. S2 and S3†). Experiments have identified the optimal catalytic layer composition as Sn
:
Sb
:
Cu = 250
:
8
:
2, with a loading of 1.9 mg cm−2 for the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode. This configuration not only optimizes leachate degradation but also extends the service life to 747 days, indicating strong potential for industrial applications.
 |
| Fig. 4 Characterization of the loading capacity of the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode. (a) J–V curves. (b) COD degradation rate in 90 min. (c) Anode voltage change. (d) Actual life. | |
3.4. Energy consumption and degradation of various organic pollutants by the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode
Improving treatment efficiency and reducing energy consumption are the core objectives of industrial wastewater treatment. In order to verify the industrial application potential of the material, we used this electrode to treat three typical pollutants. First of all, we have carried out activity test experiments on several electrodes, and the performance of the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode is the best (Fig. S4†). This is due to its unique microstructure, higher oxygen evolution potential, and longer service life, enabling it to generate a large number of free radicals to mineralize organic pollutants. The analysis of Fig. 5a and S5† indicates that an increase in current density significantly enhances the COD degradation rate of the water sample. At a current of 5 mA cm−2, the COD degradation effect is suboptimal. However, when the current is increased to 10 mA cm−2 and 15 mA cm−2, the COD degradation rate exceeds 90% within 4 hours. As shown in Fig. 5b, compared to other previous studies, our energy consumption is only 25.91 kWh m−3 (10 mA cm−2).46–48
 |
| Fig. 5 The energy consumption and COD degradation rate of various organic pollutants by Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO at different current densities. Degradation of (a) phenol within 4 hours. (b) Comparison of phenol treatment with the literature. (c) Carbamazepine within 30 minutes. (d) Comparison of carbamazepine treatment with the literature. (e) Landfill leachate within 2 hours. (f) Comparison of landfill leachate treatment with the literature. | |
The study indicates that carbamazepine degradation is effective at all applied current densities (from 5 to 10 mA cm−2), with an accelerated degradation rate and increased energy consumption as current density rises (Fig. 5c and S6†). The optimal current density for carbamazepine was identified as 7.5 mA cm−2, achieving over 80% degradation after 30 minutes with an energy consumption of 4.87 kWh m−3. We also explored the effects of solution pH and electrolyte on the degradation of carbamazepine (Fig. S7†). As shown in Fig. 5d, compared with previous articles, the initial concentration of our water sample is higher and the degradation effect is better.49–53 Similarly, leachate degradation improves with increased current density, with a linear increase in the 2 hour COD degradation rate at 5, 7.5, and 10 mA cm−2, and comparable energy consumption (Fig. 5e and S8†). However, beyond 10 mA cm−2, the COD degradation rate does not significantly increase, while energy consumption rises sharply. The higher the initial COD of landfill leachate, the greater the amount of refractory organic matter, and the required degradation time and energy consumption are increased (Fig. S9†). As shown in Fig. 5f, compared with other landfill leachate treatment studies, this study has the lowest energy consumption and good treatment efficiency and has industrial application potential.46,54,55 As shown in Fig. S10,† the COD degradation rate of leachate reached more than 88% after 120 min degradation in 0–8 cycles. The Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode exhibits a good leachate degradation effect and stability.
3.5. Electrochemical oxidation for organic pollutant removal by the self-powered TE-HNG
The investigation focused on the impact of the TE-HNG system's rotational velocity on methylene blue degradation. Fig. 6a illustrates a marked enhancement in the degradation rate with an increased rotational speed. At 50 rpm and an output current of 5 mA cm−2, the degradation rate reached 62.3% over 3 hours. This rate exceeded 90% when the speed was elevated to 70 rpm (10 mA cm−2) and 90 rpm (15 mA cm−2) within the same duration. Fig. 6b demonstrates that the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu1/2-ATO electrode outperformed the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Ni1-ATO electrode in degradation efficiency, with the Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu2-ATO electrode achieving the highest performance. After 3 hours, the degradation rate reached 91.4%, with a first-order degradation rate constant (K) of 0.82 h−1.
 |
| Fig. 6 Self-powered electrochemical oxidation organic pollutant degradation system. Degradation of methylene blue through electrochemical oxidation with the TE-HNG at different (a) rotation rates. (b) Anodes at 70 rpm. (c) pH at 70 rpm. (d) Electrolyte at 70 rpm; the inset shows the reaction rate constant k. (e) Electrochemical oxidative degradation of methylene blue was compared with the literature. | |
The study investigated the impact of solution pH on the electrochemical oxidation of methylene blue. The results indicated that neutral solutions yielded the highest degradation efficiency, achieving a 91.2% degradation rate within 3 hours, with a K of 0.81 h−1. Conversely, alkaline conditions resulted in the lowest degradation efficiency, with a 76.8% rate over 5 hours (Fig. 6c). The choice of electrolyte significantly influenced the outcomes; using NaCl markedly enhanced the degradation rate, reducing methylene blue concentration to below 5 mg L−1 after 90 minutes. A mixed Na2SO4 and NaCl electrolyte slightly reduced the degradation rate, achieving a 5 mg L−1 concentration after 120 minutes (Fig. 6d). This technology shows significant potential for industrial wastewater treatment, which typically contains both sulfate and chloride ions. As shown in Fig. 6e, compared to other studies, this self-powered system not only efficiently degraded dye wastewater, but also used clean energy to solve the power demand of electrochemical oxidation processes.56–60
4. Conclusion
This study illustrates the efficacy of self-driven electrochemical oxidation technology in eliminating a broad spectrum of refractory organic pollutants from wastewater. The Blue-Ti/SnO2/Cu-ATO electrode exhibits remarkable electrochemical performance, superior organic matter degradation capabilities, and exceptional stability throughout the reaction process. It efficiently degrades refractory organic wastewater, including phenol, carbamazepine, and landfill leachate, with high efficiency and minimal energy consumption, underscoring its significant industrial application potential. Additionally, the electrical energy produced by the triboelectric-electromagnetic hybrid nanogenerator fully satisfies the system's electrochemical oxidation reaction requirements, facilitating efficient methylene blue degradation and achieving a zero-energy degradation process.
Data availability
The data supporting this article have been included as part of the ESI.†
Conflicts of interest
The authors affirm the absence of any financial conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The research is funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2022YFB3205602), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52372174, 52270115, 52236003, and 21777080), Carbon Neutrality Research Institute Fund (CNIF20230204), Special Project of Strategic Cooperation between China National Petroleum Corporation and China University of Petroleum (Beijing) (ZLZX-2020-04) and the State Key Laboratory of Heavy Oil Processing at the China University of Petroleum.
References
- J. Chen, M. Wang, J. Han and R. Guo, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2020, 562, 313–321 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Zhao, X. Linghu, Y. Shu, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, Y. Wu, D. Shan and B. Wang, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2022, 10, 108077 CrossRef CAS.
- C. Wang, Y. Luo, X. Liu, Z. Cui, Y. Zheng, Y. Liang, Z. Li, S. Zhu, J. Lei, X. Feng and S. Wu, Bioact. Mater., 2022, 13, 200–211 CAS.
- O. Lefebvre and R. Moletta, Water Res., 2006, 40, 3671–3682 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. J. Chan, M. F. Chong, C. L. Law and D. G. Hassell, Chem. Eng. J., 2009, 155, 1–18 CrossRef CAS.
- M. Klavarioti, D. Mantzavinos and D. Kassinos, Environ. Int., 2009, 35, 402–417 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Yang, X. Lu, J. Jiang, J. Ma, G. Liu, Y. Cao, W. Liu, J. Li, S. Pang, X. Kong and C. Luo, Water Res., 2017, 118, 196–207 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- X. Zheng, X. Niu, D. Zhang, M. Lv, X. Ye, J. Ma, Z. Lin and M. Fu, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 429, 132323 CrossRef CAS.
- Y. Luo, W. Guo, H. H. Ngo, L. D. Nghiem, F. I. Hai, J. Zhang, S. Liang and X. C. Wang, Sci. Total Environ., 2014, 473–474, 619–641 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Q. Bi, Z. Zhang, Y. Sun, S. Jiang, Z. Wang, Y. Li and J. Xue, J. Alloys Compd., 2021, 889, 161657 CrossRef.
- C. A. Martínez-Huitle and E. Brillas, Appl. Catal., B, 2009, 87, 105–145 CrossRef.
- X. Duan, D. Ren, S. Wang, M. Zhang, Y. Sun, S. Sun, Z. Huo and N. Zhang, Carbon Resour. Convers., 2023, 6, 262–273 CAS.
- S. Chen, X. Wang, X. Shi, S. Li, L. Yang, W. Yan and H. Xu, Chemosphere, 2024, 354, 141754 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- H. Guo, L. Zhou, K. Huang, Y. Li, W. Hou, H. Liao, C. Lian, S. Yang, D. Wu, Z. Lei, Z. Liu and L. Wang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2024, 34, 2402650 CrossRef CAS.
- C. Qu, Y.-g. Li, S.-j. Meng, X.-h. Li, S.-j. Zhang and D.-w. Liang, J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 434, 128923 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. He, C. Qu, N. Ren and D. Liang, Chin. Chem. Lett., 2024, 35, 109262 CrossRef CAS.
- J. Xie, J. Ma, C. Zhang, X. Kong, Z. Wang and T. D. Waite, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2020, 54, 5227–5236 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Wang, L. Li, Y. Wang, H. Shi, L. Wang and Q. Huang, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 431, 133929 CrossRef CAS.
- D. B. Miklos, C. Remy, M. Jekel, K. G. Linden, J. E. Drewes and U. Hübner, Water Res., 2018, 139, 118–131 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- B. N. Zwane, B. O. Orimolade, B. A. Koiki, N. Mabuba, C. Gomri, E. Petit, V. Bonniol, G. Lesage, M. Rivallin, M. Cretin and O. A. Arotiba, Water, 2021, 13, 2772 CrossRef CAS.
- M. T. Rahman, S. M. S. Rana, M. Salauddin, P. Maharjan, T. Bhatta and J. Y. Park, Adv. Energy Mater., 2020, 10, 1903663 CrossRef CAS.
- S. M. S. Rana, M. T. Rahman, M. Salauddin, P. Maharjan, T. Bhatta, H. Cho and J. Y. Park, Nano Energy, 2020, 76, 105025 CrossRef CAS.
- S. M. S. Rana, M. Salauddin, M. Sharifuzzaman, S. H. Lee, Y. D. Shin, H. Song, S. H. Jeong, T. Bhatta, K. Shrestha and J. Y. Park, Adv. Energy Mater., 2022, 12, 2202238 CrossRef CAS.
- F. Deng, J. Xie, O. Garcia-Rodriguez, B. Jing, Y. Zhu, Z. Chen, J.-P. Hsu, J. Jiang, S. Bai and S. Qiu, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2022, 10, 192–208 RSC.
- J. Xie, J. Ma, S. Zhao and T. D. Waite, Water Res., 2021, 200, 117259 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- C. Yang, S. Shang and X.-y. Li, J. Hazard. Mater., 2022, 436, 129212 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- H. Feng, C. X. Liu, W. Wang, Z. Dai, H. Zhang, H. Ma, Y. Yalikun, B. Zhang, C. Shang, Y.-C. Lai and Y. Yang, Nano Energy, 2024, 132, 110365 CrossRef.
- Y. Wang, G. Zhang, H. Wu and B. Sun, Adv. Energy Mater., 2021, 11, 2100578 CrossRef CAS.
- X. Liang, S. Liu, S. Lin, H. Yang, T. Jiang and Z. L. Wang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2023, 13, 2300571 CrossRef CAS.
- P. An, Y. Lv, H. Xiu, J. Chen, P. Ren, Y. Bai, C. Tao, C. Ao, C. Yang, J. Wu, D. Luo and Y. Wang, Nano Energy, 2025, 134, 110589 CrossRef CAS.
- C. Chen, D. Guo, L. Tuo, Y. Wen, J. Li, H. Qu, H. Wen, L. Wan, G. Liu and H. Guo, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2024, 34, 2406775 CrossRef CAS.
- C. Zhang, W. Yuan, B. Zhang, J. Yang, Y. Hu, L. He, X. Zhao, X. Li, Z. L. Wang and J. Wang, Small, 2023, 19, 2304412 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Zhang, K. Fan, J. Zhu, S. Wu, S. Zhang, T. Cheng and Z. L. Wang, Nano Energy, 2022, 104, 107867 CrossRef CAS.
- W. Liu, L. Xu, T. Bu, H. Yang, G. Liu, W. Li, Y. Pang, C. Hu, C. Zhang and T. Cheng, Nano Energy, 2019, 58, 499–507 CrossRef CAS.
- T. X. Xiao, T. Jiang, J. X. Zhu, X. Liang, L. Xu, J. J. Shao, C. L. Zhang, J. Wang and Z. L. Wang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 3616–3623 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Q. Zhang, M. He, X. Pan, D. Huang, H. Long, M. Jia, Z. Zhao, C. Zhang, M. Xu and S. Li, Nano Energy, 2022, 103, 107810 CrossRef CAS.
- J. Dai, X. Xia, D. Zhang, S. He, D. Wan, F. Chen and Y. Zi, Water Res., 2024, 252, 121185 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- S. Ding, H. Zhai, X. Tao, P. Yang, Z. Liu, S. Qin, Z. Hong, X. Chen and Z. L. Wang, Small, 2024, 20, 2403879 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Z. Wang, X. Liang, Z. Liu, T. Huang, S. Wang, S. Yao, Y. Ding, J. Zhang, X. Wan, Z. L. Wang and L. Li, Nano Res., 2023, 16, 2192–2198 CrossRef CAS.
- F. Dong, P. Zhang, J. Cheng, J. Chen, T. Liu, X. Ma, S. Song and S. Nie, Nano Energy, 2023, 118, 108977 CrossRef CAS.
- D. Liu, L. Zhou, Y. Gao, D. Liu, W. Qiao, J. Shi, X. Liu, Z. Zhao, Z. L. Wang and J. Wang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2024, 14, 2401958 CrossRef CAS.
- S. Lu, X. Li, Y. Cheng, J. Zhou and G. Zhang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2023, 120, e2306835120 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- B. Yuan, J. Zhang, R. Zhang, H. Shi, N. Wang, J. Li, F. Ma and D. Zhang, Sens. Actuators, B, 2016, 222, 632–637 CrossRef CAS.
- X. Li, S. Lu, T. Zhou, Y. Cheng, J. Zhou and G. Zhang, Appl. Catal., B, 2024, 357, 124325 CrossRef CAS.
- H. Qin, X. Wei, Z. Ye, X. Liu and S. Mao, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2022, 56, 5753–5762 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- C. Qu, S. Lu, D. Liang, S. Chen, Y. Xiang and S. Zhang, J. Hazard. Mater., 2019, 364, 468–474 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- E. Weiss, K. Groenen-Serrano and A. Savall, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2008, 38, 329–337 CrossRef CAS.
- L. Hurtado, D. Amado-Piña, G. Roa-Morales, E. Peralta-Reyes, E. Martin del Campo and R. Natividad, J. Chem., 2016, 2016, 4108587 Search PubMed.
- B. Yang, T. Wei, K. Xiao, J. Deng, G. Yu, S. Deng, J. Li, C. Zhu, H. Duan and Q. Zhuo, Electrochim. Acta, 2018, 290, 203–210 CrossRef CAS.
- E. A. Hernández-Rodríguez, L. A. Castillo-Suárez, E. A. Teutli-Sequeira, V. Martínez-Miranda, G. Vázquez Mejía, I. Linares-Hernández, F. Santoyo-Tepole and A. Benavides, Sep. Sci. Technol., 2022, 57, 465–483 CrossRef.
- L. Xu, J. Niu, H. Xie, X. Ma, Y. Zhu and J. Crittenden, J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 402, 123530 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- S. Sun, H. Yao, W. Fu, F. Liu, X. Wang and W. Zhang, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2021, 9, 104501 CrossRef CAS.
- L. Zhang, X. Zhao, C. Niu, N. Tang, H. Guo, X. Wen, C. Liang and G. Zeng, Chem. Eng. J., 2019, 362, 851–864 CrossRef CAS.
- Z. Li, S. Yuan, C. Qiu, Y. Wang, X. Pan, J. Wang, C. Wang and J. Zuo, Electrochim. Acta, 2013, 102, 174–182 CrossRef CAS.
- Y. Wang, X. Li, L. Zhen, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang and C. Wang, J. Hazard. Mater., 2012, 229–230, 115–121 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
- Y. Zhou, Z. Li, C. Hao, Y. Zhang, S. Chai, G. Han, H. Xu, J. Lu, Y. Dang, X. Sun and Y. Fu, Electrochim. Acta, 2020, 333, 135535 CrossRef CAS.
- M. Xu, Y. Mao, W. Song, X. OuYang, Y. Hu, Y. Wei, C. Zhu, W. Fang, B. Shao, R. Lu and F. Wang, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2018, 823, 193–202 CrossRef CAS.
- E. O. Nwanebu, X. Liu, E. Pajootan, V. Yargeau and S. Omanovic, Catalysts, 2021, 11, 793 CrossRef CAS.
- X. Li, H. Xu and W. Yan, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2016, 163, D592–D602 CrossRef CAS.
- X. Teng, J. Li, Z. Wang, Z. Wei, C. Chen, K. Du, C. Zhao, G. Yang and Y. Li, RSC Adv., 2020, 10, 24712–24720 RSC.
|
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.