# A Sustainable Electrochemical-Based Solution for Removing Acetamiprid from Water
## 4 Conclusions  
In this study, we investigated the electrocatalytic activity of Ti/TiO\({}_{2}\)-RuO\({}_{2}\)-IrO\({}_{2}\) (active anode) and BDD (non-active anode) in the EO of ACT insecticide in a synthetic effluent. In general, the two electrodes presented good oxidative performance, whereas BDD showed better results in degradation time and COD removal. These results can be explained by the fact that non-active anodes have higher oxygen potentials than active anodes, and this characteristic causes the evolution of oxygen to start at higher potentials, and consequently, produce electrochemically more hydroxyl radicals than that generated at the DSA electrode.  
On the one hand, when working with a concentration of 30 mg L\({}^{-1}\), it was observed that when the removal time was compared, the BDD and DSA anodes presented different degradation performance times of about 30 and 120 min, respectively, by applying lower \(j\) (30 mA cm\({}^{-2}\)) and having the BDD electrode benefit in degradation time. However, when \(j\) was increased, the degradation time gradually decreased at both anodes, with BDD being superior to the DSA anode. On the other hand, when the insecticide concentration was 300 mg L\({}^{-1}\), and \(j\) was 90 mA cm\({}^{-2}\), COD removal efficiencies of about 71.4% and 47.5% were achieved, respectively, at the BDD and DSA anodes. Within this framework, at lower COD, ACT removal depends on the mass-transport conditions [44] and the nature of the anode material. However, no limitations were observed at higher ACT concentrations, removing more efficiently the pollutant from synthetic effluent. However, the use of BDD implies high treatment costs, which can be further investigated if the treatment strategy demonstrated here is pursued for actual implementation.  
Figure 8: Proposed ACT degradation mechanisms [44]. The color arrows indicate the different degradation mechanisms.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.V.d.S., C.A.M.-H., S.S.L.d.C. and J.J.F.A.; methodology, A.M.N.d.M. and D.M.A.; formal analysis, D.M.A. and A.M.N.d.M.; resources, I.D.B.S., A.M.N.d.M., D.M.A. and C.A.M.-H.; data curation, E.V.d.S., C.A.M.-H., I.D.B.S., D.M.A. and S.S.L.d.C.; writing--original draft preparation, A.M.N.d.M. and I.D.B.B.S.; writing--review and editing, I.D.B.S., E.V.d.S., C.A.M.-H., D.M.A. and J.J.F.A.; funding acquisition, S.S.L.d.C., I.D.B.S., E.V.d.S., C.A.M.-H. and D.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (Brazil), grant number 152760/2022-9 and 116925/2022-1, and Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil), grant numbers 2014/50945-4 and 2019/13113-4.  
**Infrared Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Data available on request due to restrictions eg., privacy or ethical.  
**Acknowledgments:** Financial supports from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq-152760/2022-9 and 116925/2022-1) and Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil) (FAPESP 2014/50945-4 and 2019/13113-4) are gratefully acknowledged.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.