## 3 Results
### Catalytic Performance of CuFeNPs@TWM for the Elimination of CECs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Catalyst** & **q (ASA, mg g\({}^{-1}\))** & **q (NAP, mg g\({}^{-1}\))** & **q (IBU, mg g\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline TWM & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 1.39 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ CuFeNPs & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 1.30 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 \\ CuFeNPs@TWM & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 14.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 9.39 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline Catalyst dosage *** (mg L\({}^{-1}\)) & q (ASA, mg g\({}^{-1}\)) & q (NAP, mg g\({}^{-1}\)) & q (IBU, mg g\({}^{-1}\)) \\ \hline
10 & 4.01 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 12.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 9.97 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\
20 & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 14.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 9.39 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\
50 & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 7.69 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 4.09 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Adsorption capacity reached after 30 min of equilibrium. ** Catalyst dosage used was 20 mg L\({}^{-1}\). *** CuFeNPs@TWM was used as catalyst.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Adsorption capacity of different catalysts, and for different catalysts dosage using CuFeNPs@TWM *. Figure 7: Concentration decay of each CEC using different materials as catalysts for heterogeneous EF process: (a) TWM, (b) CuFeNPs, and (c) CuFeNPs@TWM. Experimental conditions: Catalyst load, 20 mg L\({}^{-1}\); applied current, 20 mA; electrolyte, Na\({}_{2}\)SO\({}_{4}\) 50 mmol L\({}^{-1}\); pH, 3.0.  
of the CuFe nanoparticles and the TWM support. While the first enhances the chemical interaction with the CECs, the latter increases the surface area available for adsorption, as was previously reported by [PERSON] and coworkers [77]. Additionally, when CuFeNPs@TWM was used, complete degradation of three contaminants within 15 min of the electrochemical process was reached. This enhancement of the effectiveness could be attributed to the deagglomeration of the nanoparticles on the TWM surface, which increases the available area of the catalyst to react with the H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) electrogenerated to produce \({}^{\bullet}\)OH efficiently by Fe and Cu sites (Fenton-like reactions). In addition, some functional groups on the carbon surface of TWM, including carbonyl, carboxyl, and quinone groups, may activate the H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) generated and help with the catalyst recovery, along with Cu sites [78; 79]. Key parameters of the heterogeneous EF process were studied using the binary catalyst, such as applied current and catalyst concentration. Figure 8 shows the elimination of the CECs by applying different currents. When no current was applied (Figure 8a), the emotion ranges from 11 to 29% after 30 min of adsorption. However, after 60 min, compared with the electrochemical process, the adsorption process reached 29.4%, 40.2%, and 42.5% of ASA, NAP, and IBU, respectively. This elimination was only attributed to an adsorption process due to the absence of electrogeneration of oxidants. By applying 10 mA (Figure 8b), an increase in the elimination rate was observed, achieving remotion of 79.1%, 91%, and 98.7% for ASA, NAP, and IBU, respectively, within 30 min of the electrochemical process. This improvement of the remotion is explained by the electrogeneration of strong oxidants, such as H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) and \({}^{\bullet}\)OH, by applying a current [80; 81]. An increase in the elimination rate was obtained when applied 20 mA (Figure 8c), achieving eliminations of 99.6%, 98.9%, and 100% for ASA, NAP, and IBU, respectively, within 15 min of the process. However, when 50 mA was applied (Figure 8c), a slight increase in the removal rate was found for NAP and IBU, achieving a complete elimination within 10 min, but for ASA, the total elimination was reached at 20 min of the EF treatment. As can be seen, there was not a significative increase in the elimination rate compared to that obtained between 20 and 50 mA, which could be attributed to the favoring of secondary reactions such as O\({}_{2}\) evolution, reduction in H\({}^{+}\), and recombination of two adjacent \({}^{\bullet}\)OH to produce H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\)[82].