The Effective Factors on SO2 Removal by Using Two Series Non-Thermal Plasma Reactors Combined with TiO2 and ZnO Photocatalysts

The Effective Factors on SO2 Removal by Using Two Series Non-Thermal Plasma Reactors Combined with TiO2 and ZnO Photocatalysts | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Effective Factors on SO 2 Removal by Using Two Series Non-Thermal Plasma Reactors Combined with TiO 2 and ZnO Photocatalysts dariush shahbazi, Seyed Alireza Hajiseyed Mirzahosseini, Shahrooz Saviz, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 31 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract SO 2 is one of the major air pollutants affecting both the environment and human health. Controlling its emissions has become a critical goal for many countries. Various technologies exist for SO 2 removal, among which non-thermal plasma systems combined with photocatalysts stand out as particularly effective. This study evaluates the performance of a combined system utilizing non-thermal plasma and photocatalysts for SO 2 removal, with data analyzed through SPSS and R software. In this method, SO 2 was diluted with dry air and nano-photocatalysts of TiO 2 and ZnO were used in IPC form to remove the pollutant. The study examined the effects of multiple variables – including concentration, flow rate, voltage, specific input energy, and residence time – on removal efficiency, as well as their interactions. ANOVA results showed that both systems were highly effective at removing SO 2 , though the non-thermal plasma system paired with TiO 2 photocatalyst performed slightly better. At a concentration of 500 ppm, SO 2 removal efficiency reached 97.32% in the TiO 2 -based system and 94.3% in the ZnO-based one. The best efficiency for both methods was achieved at a voltage of 15 kV and a flow rate of 3 Lit/Min. Results revealed this approach highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective for SO 2 removal. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards Air Pollution Non thermal plasma Nano photo Catalyst Sulfur dioxide TiO2 Nano photocatalyst ZnO photocatalyst Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) is one of the most significant air pollutants worldwide, with numerous harmful effects on both human health and the environment. 1 – 4 It contributes to acid rain, photochemical smog, and various ecological damages, establishing SO 2 as one of the most critical environmental issues of our time. 5 , 6 The pollutant is also highly corrosive, especially to materials used in thermal power plants, increasing maintenance and repair costs. 2 The negative impacts of this pollutant are extensive – human exposure to SO 2 can lead to reduced lung function, respiratory diseases, and even death. 3 , 7 According to the most recent OSHA revision, the permissible exposure limit for SO 2 is set at 5 ppm. 8 Wet scrubbers are commonly used for high-efficiency SO 2 removal. 6 Other desulfurization methods)FGD( for post-combustion gas streams including seven methods of Alkaline absorbents with regeneration, Alkaline absorbents without regeneration, Direct injection of reactants into furnaces, Catalytic conversion of SO 2 to SO 3 followed by sulfuric acid production, Regenerable solid absorbents, Regenerable organic absorbents, and Combined wet-dry systems. 9 , 10 Despite the decent removal efficiency and various benefits of these methods, they come with significant drawbacks such as large space requirements, high costs, high energy consumption, generation of hazardous byproducts, excessive water usage, formation of wet sludge, water contamination risks, and insufficient removal rates for modern demands. 9 , 11 To overcome these challenges, non-thermal plasma (NTP) has emerged in recent decades as a promising technology for removing environmental pollutants, including SO 2 . 6 Plasma-based removal methods have been under study since the 1980s. Plasma – often described as the fourth state of matter – is a highly prevalent form of matter (comprising around 99% of visible matter in the universe), consisting of fully or partially ionized gases including electrons, ions, radicals, atoms, and molecules. 12 – 14 This method offers advantages such as high chemical activity, short reaction time, low operational costs, and simple design. 11 These benefits distinguish non-thermal plasma from conventional methods like thermal decomposition, catalytic oxidation, and adsorption, which have been widely used in recent years. 15 , 16 There are several forms of non-thermal plasma applied for removing environmental pollutants, including surface discharge, 17 dielectric barrier discharge (DBD), 4 , 15 , 18 corona discharge, 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 and microwave discharge. 21 Among these, the dielectric barrier discharge method (DBD) has seen the most widespread use. 22 In recent years, many researchers have employed various technologies to eliminate sulfur dioxide from ambient air, with non-thermal plasma systems proving to be one of the most effective methods. 6 , 20 , 23 , 24 These systems remove pollutants through electrical discharge. Electrical discharge is a phenomenon in which free electrons are generated and accelerated under the influence of an electric field. Through collisions with gas molecules, these electrons trigger excitation, ionization, and molecular dissociation, forming atoms and unstable compounds. 11 This results in the creation of atoms and reactive species that give the electrical discharge a unique chemical environment, making it highly suitable for chemical processing. 6 Compared to thermal plasma systems, non-thermal plasma (NTP) demonstrates higher selectivity and is a highly active research area, particularly focused on enhancing chemical processes and reducing environmental pollution. 25 The key and distinctive advantage of NTP lies in its high efficiency for removing a wide range of pollutants from air, water, and soil, as well as its rapid reactions at room temperature and atmospheric pressure through the action of abundant radicals and high-energy electrons. 14 ,262727–30 Reviewing the results of studies by Obradović, Han, Huang, and others on SO 2 removal via NTP demonstrates that the efficiency of this method alone is not particularly high. Achieving significant removal percentages requires high voltage inputs to generate sufficient energy. Besides, NTP technology has low selectivity for gas pollutant byproducts, and other drawbacks include the generation of unwanted secondary products and low energy efficiency. 23 , 31 – 34 Accordingly, combining NTP with other pollutant removal methods – such as the use of Nano-photocatalysts – has shown a strong synergistic effect. One major benefit of this combination is the increased resistance of catalysts to sulfur poisoning, which, along with the need to improve energy efficiency, provides a compelling rationale for employing plasma-catalyst hybrid systems. Moreover, using photocatalysts in tandem with cold plasma reduces energy consumption and cuts pollutant removal costs. 4 , 35 , 36 Numerous studies have employed photocatalysts alongside NTP to boost SO 2 removal efficiency. 37 Removing large volumes of SO 2 in non-thermal plasma reactors is highly challenging, and using photocatalysts with high adsorption efficiency is an effective way to overcome this barrier. 37 , 38 Properties such as alkalinity, polarity, large surface area, high porosity, and the presence of oxygen-containing functional groups can significantly influence SO 2 removal efficiency. 39 , 40 In recent years, extensive research has been conducted on SO 2 removal using the combined NTP-photocatalyst process. Niloufar Damyar et al. succeeded in removing 80.69% of sulfur dioxide from air using this hybrid method. 4 Huang, Liu, et al, used non-thermal plasma with ZnO and CaCO 3 photocatalysts to remove SO 2 . 33 Nanosava et al. noted in a study that simultaneous removal efficiency for NO and SO 2 is lower than removing either pollutant individually. 36 Pham and Kim found that increasing peak voltage, residence time, or pulse frequency – and lowering initial NO and SO 2 concentrations – enhanced removal efficiency. 41 Saveliev et al. highlighted the critical role of chemically active species, especially atomic oxygen and OH radicals, as key factors in optimizing the removal process. 42 In another study, Chen et al. examined the role and impact of the materials used and the various reactor designs on the removal of NOx and SO 2 . 6 Their objective was to reduce overall costs, accelerate pollutant removal, expand the range of removable pollutants, enhance flexibility, and decrease residence time by using simple cold plasma systems and inexpensive, readily available photocatalysts – all to achieve the highest possible removal efficiency. Two reactors were used in series configuration to increase the removal efficiency. Moreover, the current research investigated the key factors affecting SO 2 removal efficiency in the combined process of NTP with TiO 2 and ZnO photocatalysts. Materials and Methods . Plasma Reactor A schematic representation of the cold plasma (DBD) setup is shown in Fig. 1 . The plasma reactors used in this study included two cylindrical units, with one configuration involving two reactors arranged in series. The first reactor was a cylindrical type with a Pyrex dielectric: the outer tube was 36 cm in length, 44 mm in diameter, and 1.6 mm in thickness. The inner tube measured 40 cm in length, 34 mm in diameter, and 1.4 mm in thickness. The dielectric material was Pyrex; the central electrode was made of stainless steel with a diameter of 1 mm, and the outer electrode was copper wire. The second reactor was cylindrical as well, with a stainless steel inner tube: the outer tube was 38 cm long, 40 mm in diameter, and 3 mm thick; the inner tube was 47 cm long, 30 mm in diameter, and 5 mm thick. The two reactor configurations described above were used in series, with photocatalysts loaded into the second reactor. The SO 2 concentration exiting the reactor was measured using a Testo 350 continuous gas analyzer made in Germany. The required voltage was provided by a DC power system, adjustable between 1 and 30 kilovolts. A variac device was used for voltage control. All experiments were conducted using a frequency of 50 to 60 Hz. Before entering the non-thermal plasma reactor, SO 2 was diluted with air. The SO 2 and air mixture was passed through a mixing chamber where it was homogenized and diluted to the desired level. Two high-precision air flow controllers were used to regulate gas flow, and another controller was installed after the mixing chamber to ensure stable input flow. To eliminate laboratory and equipment errors, all measurements were repeated three times. A 10-minute stabilization period was allowed for the plasma to reach steady state, after which air containing SO 2 was injected into the reactor for another 10 minutes. 6 The removal efficiency (ηSO 2 , %), specific Energy density (SED, j/l), and energy efficiency (EY, gr/kWh) were calculated as follows. 1) ηSO 2 = C in − C out/ C in×100 2) SED(j/l) = P(w) ×60/Q (lpm) 3) EY(g/kWh) = C in − C out/ SED(j/l) where C in is regarded as the input concentration when the reactor is off in ppm and C out is considered as the output concentration when the reactor is on in ppm. In addition, P indicates the discharge power in watts and Q represents the airflow rate inside the reactor (L/min).The experiments were conducted at ambient temperature and pressure. The maximum recorded temperature was 32°C. The residence time of pollutant-laden air in the reactor depended on several factors, such as reactor length and flow rate, ranging between 0.45 and 1.1 seconds. Statistical Analysis This study was experimental and conducted on a laboratory scale. It assessed the effects of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD), series configuration, series configuration with titanium dioxide photocatalyst, and series configuration with zinc oxide photocatalyst on research outcomes such as sulfur dioxide removal efficiency, pollutant concentration, energy efficiency, specific energy density, and overall system performance. These analyses were conducted based on variations in input concentration, flow rate, voltage, and residence time using ANOVA on 45 final data points. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey’s post hoc test. In addition, the Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were applied to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All collected data were analyzed using SPSS and R version 4.3.2 software. Results and Discussion Statistical analysis was performed on 45 data points obtained from various experiments. Mean differences among the study data were evaluated individually and in combined form for each method: DBD, Series, Series + TiO 2 , and Series + ZnO. Due to the small number of data points per method, non-parametric tests were used to compare means. For the overall case, considering all 45 data points, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed. It is noteworthy that medians were reported for individual method comparisons, while means were reported for the overall case. Overall Results of Sulfur Dioxide Removal Methods The average SO 2 removal efficiency for Series + TiO 2 and Series + ZnO was relatively similar, with the highest averages recorded at 97.3% and 94.3%, respectively. Pairwise comparisons – except for these two – were statistically significant (Fig. 2a). The mean outlet concentrations for Series + TiO 2 and Series + ZnO were also similar, with the lowest means at 13 ppm and 24.7 ppm, respectively. For outlet concentration, only comparisons with the DBD method showed statistically significant differences (Fig. 2b). In terms of energy efficiency, the ascending order of average values was: DBD at 4.9 g/kWh, Series at 5.1 g/kWh, Series + ZnO at 6.9 g/kWh, and Series + TiO 2 at 7.2 g/kWh. In this context, pairwise comparisons involving DBD were statistically significant or close to significance (Fig. 2c). While it was expected that higher specific energy density would lead to increased pollutant removal, the mean specific energy densities across all methods did not show major differences in pollutant reduction. Specific energy densities for Series, Series + TiO 2 , and Series + ZnO were identical at 40.5 J/L, and nearly the same as DBD, which registered at 39 J/L (Fig. 2d). The comparative means of all methods across various outcomes are illustrated in Fig. 2. Sulfur dioxide removal in the IPC (In Plasma Catalyst) system is the result of plasma–catalyst discharge interaction and the synergistic interplay between them. In this interaction, plasma can regenerate the catalyst. Under ideal conditions, the regenerated catalyst oxidizes SO 2 into elemental sulfur. In combined plasma-photocatalyst processes, high-energy electrons are accompanied by additional reaction pathways for pollutant molecules. Given that ozone is produced during the cold plasma process and possesses strong oxidative power, ozone molecules act as the primary oxidizing agents. These can be decomposed by the catalyst to generate high-energy oxygen atoms. On the other hand, photocatalytic compounds exhibit a strong capacity for adsorbing pollutants, which increases the residence time of pollutants within the active plasma region. This extended residence time enhances the likelihood of pollutant molecules interacting with reactive plasma species. Input Concentration At first, as the input concentration increased, the average SO 2 removal efficiency showed a slight downward trend. However, both the average outlet concentration (p001/0›) and energy efficiency (p001/0›) increased significantly and more steeply with increasing input concentration. This is because more SO 2 molecules require more reactive plasma species for effective removal. In other words, with more gas molecules present, a lower proportion of average electron energy and reactive plasma species is available per molecule, slowing the rate of gas molecule decomposition. 4 , 43 These increases were observed in pairwise comparisons of different input concentrations. Ultimately, the specific energy density remained constant across all input concentrations at 39.6 J/L. Flow Rate A flow rate of 3 liters per minute achieved the highest SO 2 removal efficiency, with an average of 71% (p001/0›), statistically significant differences in removal efficiency were found between flow rates of 3 and 2 L/min (p001/0›), and 3 and 4 L/min (p001/0›). Furthermore, the 3 L/min flow rate resulted in the lowest outlet concentration, with an average of 93 ppm – clearly distinct from the others (p›0/009). Significant statistical differences in outlet concentration were also observed between 3 and 2 L/min (p›0/037) and 3 and 4 L/min (p›0/029). In terms of energy efficiency, the 3 L/min flow rate had the highest average at 5.2 g/kWh. Besides the significant differences between 3 and 2 L/min (p›0/001) and 3 and 4 L/min (p›0/031), a significant difference was also observed between 2 and 4 L/min (p›0/043). Moreover, a statistically significant effect of flow rate on specific energy density was observed (p›0/001). As flow rate increased, specific energy density sharply declined – reaching an average of 27 J/L at 4 L/min. The differences in mean values across all pairwise flow rate comparisons were evident in specific energy density as well. In conclusion, increasing the flow rate and thereby reducing the pollutant’s residence time resulted in a decrease in removal efficiency. This was due to two factors: first, increased turbulence of the pollutant-laden air within the plasma discharge zone, and second, reduced pollutant residence time in the discharge region, which lowered the collision rate between gas molecules and high-energy electrons as well as reactive plasma species. 4 , 43 Voltage Initially, increasing voltage led to a rising trend and a statistically significant improvement in SO 2 removal efficiency (p001/0›). These differences were notable when comparing the mean voltages of 9 with 12 kV (p001/0›), and 9 with 15 kV (p001/0›). Increased voltage enhances the impact of electrons and the activity of radicals, thus boosting pollutant removal. 15 In contrast, a completely opposite trend was seen in outlet concentration. As voltage increased, outlet concentration showed a significant decreasing trend (p›0/018), particularly between 9 and 15 kV (p›0/022). Energy efficiency showed near-significant changes with increasing voltage (p›0/086). Finally, specific energy density exhibited a meaningful upward trend across pairwise voltage comparisons (p›0/001), rising from a mean of 29.2 to 37.5 and eventually to 46.9 J/L. Correlation Between Sulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency and Other Experimental Factors In a one-way experimental design, statistically significant relationships were observed between SO 2 removal efficiency and other studied factors, including flow rate(p›0/001), voltage(p›0/001), residence time(p›0/001), and the methods used(p›0/001). The only factor that did not show a statistically significant correlation was input concentration (p›0/779). Among all the tested combinations, the highest average SO 2 removal efficiencies were seen in the Series + TiO 2 (97.3%) and Series + ZnO (94.3%) methods. In contrast, the lowest average removal efficiency was observed at 9 kV, with only 19.57%. Based on the pairwise comparison test, SO 2 removal efficiency remained consistent across different input concentrations. The 3 L/min flow rate yielded the highest efficiency, while the 9 kV voltage condition showed the lowest – both being statistically distinct from the others. A residence time of 1.1 seconds yielded the highest average removal efficiency by a significant margin, owing to the favorable duration it provided for reactions and collisions between gas molecules and high-energy electrons. 36 , 44 Furthermore, based on pairwise comparison, Series + TiO 2 and Series + ZnO were classified within the same performance tier, DBD was placed in the lowest tier, and the Series method ranked from mid- to high-tier. Additional details, including descriptive statistics, significance levels, and Tukey’s post hoc test results, can be found in Table 1 . Table 1 The effect of each subgroup of the study on the efficiency of sulfur dioxide removal: analysis of variance and subsequent paired test Variable Sub Group Repeat The Experiment Mean and standard deviation Statistical Indicators F- Distribution Degree Of Freedom P-Value Input Concentration PPM100 15 (A)*20/31 ± 67/58 23/0 44 799/0 PPM 300 15 (A)49/30 ± 57/55 PPM 500 15 (A)61/28 ± 31/51 Flow Rate lpm2 9 (A)16/11 ± 59/32 38/16 44 001/0 › 3 lpm 27 (B)67/27 ± 99/70 4 lpm 9 (A)57/9 ± 37/30 Voltage kV9 9 (A)18/2 ± 57/19 94/12 44 001/0 › kV 12 18 (B)27/27 ± 69/60 kV 15 18 (B)61/25 ± 48/67 Residence Time Second45/0 9 (A)57/9 ± 37/30 69/75 44 001/0 › Second 7/0 9 (A)09/12 ± 83/36 Second 85/0 9 (A)16/11 ± 59/32 Second 1/1 18 (B)27/13 ± 59/88 Methods DBD 27 (A)91/10 ± 26/33 4/121 44 001/0 › Series 6 (B)68/10 ± 57/72 Series + TiO2 6 (C)15/4 ± 32/97 Series + ZnO 6 (C)43/4 ± 30/94 * Groups with the same alphabet letters have almost similar averages. By changing the Latin alphabet letters from A to C, the average sulfur dioxide removal efficiency in the experimental groups increased. Sulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency over Time Based on the Applied Methods The temporal trend of SO 2 removal efficiency over a 10-minute period for DBD, Series, Series + TiO 2 , and Series + ZnO methods is illustrated in Fig. 3 . This scenario involved an input concentration of 500 ppm, a flow rate of 3 L/min, and a voltage of 15 kV. As Fig. 3 indicates, the Series + TiO 2 plasma reactor system had the greatest impact on the increasing trend in SO 2 removal, rising to over 90% before stabilizing. The Series + TiO 2 method showed only a slight difference from the Series + ZnO system, but a much larger difference compared to DBD. It is worth noting that the increasing trend in removal efficiency continued for all methods up to 120 seconds, after which the results stabilized. 4 It is important to reiterate that SO 2 removal in the IPC system occurs due to the interaction between plasma discharge and the catalyst, with a synergistic effect between the two. One of the key features of this method is that plasma can regenerate the catalyst. Under ideal conditions, the regenerated catalyst oxidizes SO 2 into elemental sulfur. In plasma–photocatalyst hybrid processes, in addition to high-energy electrons, multiple reactive pathways become available for pollutant molecules. Given the generation of ozone in the cold plasma process and its strong oxidative potential, ozone acts as the primary oxidizer. It can be decomposed by the catalyst to produce high-energy oxygen atoms. Moreover, photocatalytic compounds have a high capacity to adsorb pollutants, which increases the residence time of contaminants in the plasma's active zone. This extended residence time provides more opportunities for pollutant molecules to collide with reactive plasma species. Conclusion The present study compares the efficiency of SO 2 removal using a combined system of non-thermal plasma and photocatalysts. The system used was an IPC configuration, incorporating TiO 2 and ZnO as the catalysts. The influence of various factors – including concentration, flow rate, residence time, voltage, specific input energy, and energy effectiveness – on the performance of both systems was investigated. In the plasma discharge zone, high-energy electrons directly break molecular bonds and generate reactive radicals such as O, OH, and O₃. Once these radicals enter the reaction zone, they mix and react with SO 2 . 31 , 35 ANOVA results demonstrated that the experimental factors had significant effects on SO 2 removal. According to the findings, SO 2 removal efficiency increases with voltage. Higher voltage enhances electron activity and radical reactions, as the electrons gain more energy to generate radicals, leading to greater radical concentration and more SO 2 removal. 1533 Increased flow rate leads to decreased removal efficiency. Flow rate is inversely related to residence time in the reactor. As flow rate increases, the residence time of the pollutant decreases, thereby reducing the opportunity for reactions between SO 2 and radicals. 31 , 33 , 36 It is worth noting that in the current study, increasing the flow rate improved removal efficiency only up to a certain point – beyond that, further increases led to a drop in efficiency. Variations in input concentration did not significantly affect removal efficiency, although higher concentrations resulted in a slight decrease.Under optimal conditions, the highest removal efficiency – 97.32% – was achieved at a concentration of 500 ppm using the combined system of non-thermal plasma and TiO 2 photocatalyst. Although the difference in performance between the two hybrid systems was minimal, the system with TiO 2 showed slightly better results. The study also found that pollutant removal efficiency was higher in the dual-reactor series configuration compared to a single reactor. At 500 ppm, the series-configured dual reactor Without the presence of nanophotocatalysts achieved 75.2% removal, while the single DBD reactor achieved only 46.2%. The total reaction time allotted for SO 2 removal in these experiments was ten minutes, with removal efficiency stabilizing after the second minute and remaining nearly constant thereafter. This indicates that effective removal is achievable in a short time, minimizing human exposure to pollutants. 4 Given the short time required for removal, the low cost of constructing small-scale reactors, the use of simple, accessible, and inexpensive photocatalysts, and the improved removal efficiency achieved through the combined cold plasma and photocatalyst dual-reactor setup compared to either method alone and According to the results obtained and the comparison of this method with other removal methods, it seems that the approach presented here is a suitable and efficient method for SO 2 removal. However, limitations of this study include: difficulty in process control Because cold plasma is very sensitive to various parameters such as gas pressure, plasma current, applied voltage, time, and temperature, precise control of these parameters is essential to achieve desirable and repeatable results. 4 increased costs when scaling up reactor size to remove more contamination due to the increase in raw material and energy costs. complexity in pollutant dilution procedures Due to the need to create a constant flow containing contaminants and air, as well as the use of pressure relief valves in capsules and precise mass flow controllers at very low flow rates 4 , 15 , 23 and the need to prevent formation of hazardous byproducts Such as ozone as a strong oxidizer and sulfuric acid due to the presence of water vapor. 45 Declarations Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments : Not applicable Author Contributions: “All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Dariush Shahbazi], [ Seyed Alireza Hajiseyed Mirzahosseini ],[Shahruz Saviz] and [Homayon Ahmadpanahi]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Dariush Shahbazi] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.” Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests . Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable Consent for publication: Not applicable References Li, P. et al. Effects of sulfur dioxide pollution on the translocation and accumulation of heavy metals in soybean grain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 18 , 1090–1097 (2011). Mathieu, Y. et al. Adsorption of SOx by oxide materials: A review. Fuel Process. Technol. 114 , 81–100 (2013). Valente, J. S. & Quintana-Solorzano, R. Novel SO x removal catalysts for the FCC process: Manufacture method, characterization, and pilot-scale testing. Energy Environ. Sci. 4 , 4096–4107 (2011). Damyar, N. et al. Removal of sulfur dioxide from air using a packed-bed DBD plasma reactor (PBR) and in-plasma catalysis (IPC) hybrid system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 , 42821–42836 (2021). Kim, H., Han, J., Kawaguchi, I. & Minami, W. Simultaneous removal of NOx and So2 by a nonthermal plasma hybrid reactor. Energy and Fuels 21 , 141–144 (2007). Chen, Z. & Mathur, V. K. Nonthermal plasma for gaseous pollution control. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41 , 2082–2089 (2002). XU, F. et al. Simultaneous oxidation of NO, SO2 and Hg0 from flue gas by pulsed corona discharge. J. Environ. Sci. 21 , 328–332 (2009). ACGIH. No TitleTLVs and BEIs Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices. 54 (2015). Wang, Z. et al. Sulfur trioxide removal by a Non-Base adsorbent from coal combustion flue gas. Fuel 370 , (2024). Comission, E. 済無No Title No Title No Title. Air Pollut. Eng. Man. 4 , 1–23 (2016). Akdemir, M. & Hansu, F. Effect of Dielectric Barrier Discharges on the Elimination of Some Flue Gases. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 48 , 1030–1034 (2020). Ikaunieks, J. et al. Non-thermal Plasma for VOC Treatment in Flue Gases. Environ. Clim. Technol. 6 , 31–37 (2011). Subrahmanyam, C. Catalytic non-thermal plasma reactor for total oxidation of volatile organic compounds. Indian J. Chem. - Sect. A Inorganic, Phys. Theor. Anal. Chem. 48 , 1062–1068 (2009). Kim, H. H. Nonthermal plasma processing for air-pollution control: A historical review, current issues, and future prospects. Plasma Process. Polym. 1 , 91–110 (2004). Nasonova, A. & Kim, K. S. Effects of TiO2 coating on zeolite particles for NO and SO 2 removal by dielectric barrier discharge process. Catal. Today 211 , 90–95 (2013). Mok, Y. S., Lee, H. W., Hyun, Y. J., Ham, S. W. & Nam, I. S. Determination of Decomposition Rate Constants of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitric Oxide in a Pulsed Corona Discharge Reactor. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 18 , 711–718 (2001). Oda, T., Yamashita, R., Haga, I., Takahashi, T. & Masuda, S. Decomposition of gaseous organic contaminants by Surface Discharge Induced Plasma Chemical Processing-SPCP. Conf. Rec. - IAS Annu. Meet. (IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc. 1992 - Janua , 1570–1574 (1992). Ogata, A. et al. Effect of coexisting components on aromatic decomposition in a packed-bed plasma reactor. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 236 , 9–15 (2002). Sobacchi, M. G., Saveliev, A. V., Fridman, A. A., Gutsol, A. F. & Kennedy, L. A. Experimental Assessment of Pulsed Corona Discharge for Treatment of VOC Emissions. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 23 , 347–370 (2003). Insulation, E., Phenomena, D., Dong, M. & Chi, X. C. Plasma chemical reaction for. Sci. Technol. 440–443 (2003). Kim, S. S., Lee, H., Na, B. K. & Song, H. K. Reaction pathways of methane conversion in dielectric-barrier discharge. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20 , 869–872 (2003). Anaghizi, S. J., Talebizadeh, P., Rahimzadeh, H. & Ghomi, H. The Configuration Effects of Electrode on the Performance of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor for NOx Removal. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science vol. 43 1944–1953 at https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2015.2422779 (2015). Obradović, B. M., Sretenović, G. B. & Kuraica, M. M. A dual-use of DBD plasma for simultaneous NOx and SO2 removal from coal-combustion flue gas. J. Hazard. Mater. 185 , 1280–1286 (2011). Ma, H., Chen, P., Zhang, M., Lin, X. & Ruan, R. Study of SO2 Removal Using Non-thermal Plasma Induced by Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD). Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 22 , 239–254 (2002). Vaiano, V. & Iervolino, G. Non-thermal plasma-assisted catalytic reactions for environmental protection. Catalysts 11 , 3–6 (2021). Abbas, Y. et al. Remediation of pyrene contaminated soil by double dielectric barrier discharge plasma technology: Performance optimization and evaluation. Environ. Pollut. 260 , 113944 (2020). Neyts, E. C., Ostrikov, K., Sunkara, M. K. & Bogaerts, A. Plasma Catalysis: Synergistic Effects at the Nanoscale. Chem. Rev. 115 , 13408–13446 (2015). Liu, L. J. et al. Application of combined plasma-catalytic method for carbon particulate matter (PM) removal. RSC Adv. 5 , 40012–40017 (2015). Hosseini, M. S., Asilian Mahabadi, H. & Yarahmadi, R. Removal of Toluene from Air Using a Cycled Storage-Discharge (CSD) Plasma Catalytic Process. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 39 , 125–142 (2019). Najafpoor, A. A., Jonidi Jafari, A., Hosseinzadeh, A., Khani Jazani, R. & Bargozin, H. Optimization of non-thermal plasma efficiency in the simultaneous elimination of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylene from polluted airstreams using response surface methodology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 , 233–241 (2018). Han, S., Zhang, Q. & Chen, Z. Non-thermal plasma and catalyst system for simultaneously oxidizing SO2 and NOx. in Advanced Materials Research vols 634–638 864–868 (2013). Kim, H., Han, J., Sakaguchi, Y. & Minami, W. Simultaneous oxidization of NOx and SO2 by a new non-thermal plasma reactor enhanced by catalyst and additive. Plasma Sci. Technol. 10 , 53–56 (2008). Huang, L. & Dang, Y. Removal of SO2 and NOx by pulsed corona combined with in situ Ca(OH)2 absorption. Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 19 , 518–522 (2011). YU, Q., YANG, H. min, ZENG, K. si, ZHANG, Z. wei & YU, G. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2 from dry gas stream using non-thermal plasma. J. Environ. Sci. 19 , 1393–1397 (2007). Jun, H., Kim, H., Sakaguchi, Y. & Hong, Y. Reduction of NOx and SO2 in a non-thermal plasma reactor combined with catalyst and methanol. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 41 , (2008). Nasonova, A., Kim, D. J., Kim, W. S. & Kim, K. S. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2 in a plasma reactor packed with TiO2-coated glass beads. Res. Chem. Intermed. 34 , 309–318 (2008). Razavi, Z., Mirghaffari, N., Alemrajabi, A. A., Davar, F. & Soleimani, M. Adsorption and photocatalytic removal of SO2 using natural and synthetic zeolites-supported TiO2 in a solar parabolic trough collector. J. Clean. Prod. 310 , 127376 (2021). Piera, E., Ayllón, J., Doménech, X. & Peral, J. TiO2 deactivation during gas-phase photocatalytic oxidation of ethanol. Catalysis Today vol. 76 259–270 at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(02)00224-9 (2002). Krishnan, P., Zhang, M. H., Cheng, Y., Riang, D. T. & Yu, L. E. Photocatalytic degradation of SO2 using TiO2- containing silicate as a building coating material. Construction and Building Materials vol. 43 197–202 at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.012 (2013). Chen, X. F. & Kou, S. C. Sulfur dioxide degradation by composite photocatalysts prepared by recycled fine aggregates and nanoscale titanium dioxide. Nanomaterials vol. 9 at https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9111533 (2019). Pham, H. C. & Kim, K. S. Effect of TiO2 thin film thickness on NO and SO2 removals by dielectric barrier discharge-photocatalyst hybrid process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 , 5296–5301 (2013). Saveliev, A. B., Pietsch, G. J., Murtazin, A. R. & Fried, A. SO2 removal from air with dielectric barrier discharges. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 16 , 454–469 (2007). Vandenbroucke, A. M. et al. Combination of non-thermal plasma and Pd/LaMnO3 for dilute trichloroethylene abatement. Chem. Eng. J. 283 , 668–675 (2016). Cui, S., Zhong, Z., Liao, Y., Qi, L. & Fu, D. Simultaneous Removal of NO and SO2 via an Integrated System of Nonthermal Plasma Combined with Catalytic Oxidation and Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Energy and Fuels 33 , 10078–10089 (2019). Tezuka, M. Anodic Hydrogen Evolution in Contact Glow-Discharge Electrolysis of Sulfuric Acid Solution. Denki Kagaku 61 , 794 (1993). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 31 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 02 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 06 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 04 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6755248","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":469755056,"identity":"bd93412b-6de9-4c49-a7ac-e0bc35ed6b5f","order_by":0,"name":"dariush shahbazi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"dariush","middleName":"","lastName":"shahbazi","suffix":""},{"id":469755057,"identity":"0f1edb79-7dcf-4fb4-89b9-b822bc8a838b","order_by":1,"name":"Seyed Alireza Hajiseyed Mirzahosseini","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seyed","middleName":"Alireza Hajiseyed","lastName":"Mirzahosseini","suffix":""},{"id":469755058,"identity":"57bde982-b731-4cbe-bea9-f12854a04b38","order_by":2,"name":"Shahrooz Saviz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shahrooz","middleName":"","lastName":"Saviz","suffix":""},{"id":469755059,"identity":"2fb8416f-9d55-408d-9065-78ffdaf2d512","order_by":3,"name":"Homayon Ahmadpanahi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Homayon","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmadpanahi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-27 04:38:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16633-x","type":"published","date":"2025-08-31T15:57:34+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84571116,"identity":"f0733ec7-78f5-4302-bc5b-af5025828a98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 15:25:48","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101733,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCompressor 2. SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e Cylinder 3. Silica Gel 4. Mass Flow Controller (MFC) 5. Mix Chamber 6. Reactor 1 7. Reactor 2 8. High Voltage Probe 9. High Voltage Power Supply 10. Variac 11. Testo 350 12. Personal Sampling Pump 13. Cassette and Filter 14. Ion chromatography\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6755248/v1/891e3a536508f537bf0b6cb3.png"},{"id":84572119,"identity":"8ac7eb87-fa97-493e-a309-97255cf925ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 15:41:49","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1166464,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of sulfur dioxide removal efficiency (a), output concentration (b), energy efficiency (c) and specific energy density (d) in various methods used\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6755248/v1/b20c5c20bd98442bebc528e8.png"},{"id":84571117,"identity":"1ab5fffd-cae7-4d71-ab75-97346476fcd6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-13 15:25:48","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":96800,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSulfur dioxide removal efficiency over time by different types of methods in special conditions including inlet concentration of 500 ppm, flow rate of 3 liters per minute and voltage of 15 kV\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6755248/v1/c73e59b22e0298015b1b4fc7.png"},{"id":90345142,"identity":"7d3e3055-c6ae-4d02-933c-c23f99616c10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-01 16:10:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2350903,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6755248/v1/78b3fd01-e58a-40d5-8e78-38b843490b38.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Effective Factors on SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e Removal by Using Two Series Non-Thermal Plasma Reactors Combined with TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and ZnO Photocatalysts\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSulfur dioxide (SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) is one of the most significant air pollutants worldwide, with numerous harmful effects on both human health and the environment.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e It contributes to acid rain, photochemical smog, and various ecological damages, establishing SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e as one of the most critical environmental issues of our time.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The pollutant is also highly corrosive, especially to materials used in thermal power plants, increasing maintenance and repair costs.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The negative impacts of this pollutant are extensive \u0026ndash; human exposure to SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e can lead to reduced lung function, respiratory diseases, and even death.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e According to the most recent OSHA revision, the permissible exposure limit for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is set at 5 ppm.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Wet scrubbers are commonly used for high-efficiency SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Other desulfurization methods)FGD( for post-combustion gas streams including seven methods of Alkaline absorbents with regeneration, Alkaline absorbents without regeneration, Direct injection of reactants into furnaces, Catalytic conversion of SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e to SO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e followed by sulfuric acid production, Regenerable solid absorbents, Regenerable organic absorbents, and Combined wet-dry systems.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Despite the decent removal efficiency and various benefits of these methods, they come with significant drawbacks such as large space requirements, high costs, high energy consumption, generation of hazardous byproducts, excessive water usage, formation of wet sludge, water contamination risks, and insufficient removal rates for modern demands.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e To overcome these challenges, non-thermal plasma (NTP) has emerged in recent decades as a promising technology for removing environmental pollutants, including SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Plasma-based removal methods have been under study since the 1980s. Plasma \u0026ndash; often described as the fourth state of matter \u0026ndash; is a highly prevalent form of matter (comprising around 99% of visible matter in the universe), consisting of fully or partially ionized gases including electrons, ions, radicals, atoms, and molecules.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e This method offers advantages such as high chemical activity, short reaction time, low operational costs, and simple design.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e These benefits distinguish non-thermal plasma from conventional methods like thermal decomposition, catalytic oxidation, and adsorption, which have been widely used in recent years.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e There are several forms of non-thermal plasma applied for removing environmental pollutants, including surface discharge,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e dielectric barrier discharge (DBD),\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e corona discharge,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and microwave discharge.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Among these, the dielectric barrier discharge method (DBD) has seen the most widespread use.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e In recent years, many researchers have employed various technologies to eliminate sulfur dioxide from ambient air, with non-thermal plasma systems proving to be one of the most effective methods.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e These systems remove pollutants through electrical discharge. Electrical discharge is a phenomenon in which free electrons are generated and accelerated under the influence of an electric field. Through collisions with gas molecules, these electrons trigger excitation, ionization, and molecular dissociation, forming atoms and unstable compounds.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e This results in the creation of atoms and reactive species that give the electrical discharge a unique chemical environment, making it highly suitable for chemical processing.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Compared to thermal plasma systems, non-thermal plasma (NTP) demonstrates higher selectivity and is a highly active research area, particularly focused on enhancing chemical processes and reducing environmental pollution.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The key and distinctive advantage of NTP lies in its high efficiency for removing a wide range of pollutants from air, water, and soil, as well as its rapid reactions at room temperature and atmospheric pressure through the action of abundant radicals and high-energy electrons.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,262727\u0026ndash;30\u003c/sup\u003e Reviewing the results of studies by Obradović, Han, Huang, and others on SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal via NTP demonstrates that the efficiency of this method alone is not particularly high. Achieving significant removal percentages requires high voltage inputs to generate sufficient energy. Besides, NTP technology has low selectivity for gas pollutant byproducts, and other drawbacks include the generation of unwanted secondary products and low energy efficiency.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR32 CR33\" citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Accordingly, combining NTP with other pollutant removal methods \u0026ndash; such as the use of Nano-photocatalysts \u0026ndash; has shown a strong synergistic effect. One major benefit of this combination is the increased resistance of catalysts to sulfur poisoning, which, along with the need to improve energy efficiency, provides a compelling rationale for employing plasma-catalyst hybrid systems. Moreover, using photocatalysts in tandem with cold plasma reduces energy consumption and cuts pollutant removal costs.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Numerous studies have employed photocatalysts alongside NTP to boost SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Removing large volumes of SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in non-thermal plasma reactors is highly challenging, and using photocatalysts with high adsorption efficiency is an effective way to overcome this barrier.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Properties such as alkalinity, polarity, large surface area, high porosity, and the presence of oxygen-containing functional groups can significantly influence SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e In recent years, extensive research has been conducted on SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal using the combined NTP-photocatalyst process. Niloufar Damyar et al. succeeded in removing 80.69% of sulfur dioxide from air using this hybrid method.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Huang, Liu, et al, used non-thermal plasma with ZnO and CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e photocatalysts to remove SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Nanosava et al. noted in a study that simultaneous removal efficiency for NO and SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is lower than removing either pollutant individually.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Pham and Kim found that increasing peak voltage, residence time, or pulse frequency \u0026ndash; and lowering initial NO and SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e concentrations \u0026ndash; enhanced removal efficiency.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Saveliev et al. highlighted the critical role of chemically active species, especially atomic oxygen and OH radicals, as key factors in optimizing the removal process.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e In another study, Chen et al. examined the role and impact of the materials used and the various reactor designs on the removal of NOx and SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Their objective was to reduce overall costs, accelerate pollutant removal, expand the range of removable pollutants, enhance flexibility, and decrease residence time by using simple cold plasma systems and inexpensive, readily available photocatalysts \u0026ndash; all to achieve the highest possible removal efficiency. Two reactors were used in series configuration to increase the removal efficiency. Moreover, the current research investigated the key factors affecting SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency in the combined process of NTP with TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and ZnO photocatalysts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e. \u003cb\u003ePlasma Reactor\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA schematic representation of the cold plasma (DBD) setup is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The plasma reactors used in this study included two cylindrical units, with one configuration involving two reactors arranged in series.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first reactor was a cylindrical type with a Pyrex dielectric: the outer tube was 36 cm in length, 44 mm in diameter, and 1.6 mm in thickness. The inner tube measured 40 cm in length, 34 mm in diameter, and 1.4 mm in thickness. The dielectric material was Pyrex; the central electrode was made of stainless steel with a diameter of 1 mm, and the outer electrode was copper wire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second reactor was cylindrical as well, with a stainless steel inner tube: the outer tube was 38 cm long, 40 mm in diameter, and 3 mm thick; the inner tube was 47 cm long, 30 mm in diameter, and 5 mm thick.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two reactor configurations described above were used in series, with photocatalysts loaded into the second reactor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e concentration exiting the reactor was measured using a Testo 350 continuous gas analyzer made in Germany. The required voltage was provided by a DC power system, adjustable between 1 and 30 kilovolts. A variac device was used for voltage control. All experiments were conducted using a frequency of 50 to 60 Hz. Before entering the non-thermal plasma reactor, SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e was diluted with air. The SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and air mixture was passed through a mixing chamber where it was homogenized and diluted to the desired level. Two high-precision air flow controllers were used to regulate gas flow, and another controller was installed after the mixing chamber to ensure stable input flow. To eliminate laboratory and equipment errors, all measurements were repeated three times. A 10-minute stabilization period was allowed for the plasma to reach steady state, after which air containing SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e was injected into the reactor for another 10 minutes.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe removal efficiency (ηSO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, %), specific Energy density (SED, j/l), and energy efficiency (EY, gr/kWh) were calculated as follows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1) ηSO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C in \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;C out/ C in\u0026times;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2) SED(j/l)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;P(w) \u0026times;60/Q (lpm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3) EY(g/kWh)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C in \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;C out/ SED(j/l)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere C in is regarded as the input concentration when the reactor is off in ppm and C out is considered as the output concentration when the reactor is on in ppm. In addition, P indicates the discharge power in watts and Q represents the airflow rate inside the reactor (L/min).The experiments were conducted at ambient temperature and pressure. The maximum recorded temperature was 32\u0026deg;C. The residence time of pollutant-laden air in the reactor depended on several factors, such as reactor length and flow rate, ranging between 0.45 and 1.1 seconds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was experimental and conducted on a laboratory scale. It assessed the effects of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD), series configuration, series configuration with titanium dioxide photocatalyst, and series configuration with zinc oxide photocatalyst on research outcomes such as sulfur dioxide removal efficiency, pollutant concentration, energy efficiency, specific energy density, and overall system performance. These analyses were conducted based on variations in input concentration, flow rate, voltage, and residence time using ANOVA on 45 final data points. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey\u0026rsquo;s post hoc test. In addition, the Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk and Kolmogorov\u0026ndash;Smirnov tests were applied to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All collected data were analyzed using SPSS and R version 4.3.2 software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis was performed on 45 data points obtained from various experiments. Mean differences among the study data were evaluated individually and in combined form for each method: DBD, Series, Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO. Due to the small number of data points per method, non-parametric tests were used to compare means. For the overall case, considering all 45 data points, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed. It is noteworthy that medians were reported for individual method comparisons, while means were reported for the overall case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOverall Results of Sulfur Dioxide Removal Methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency for Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO was relatively similar, with the highest averages recorded at 97.3% and 94.3%, respectively. Pairwise comparisons \u0026ndash; except for these two \u0026ndash; were statistically significant (Fig. 2a). The mean outlet concentrations for Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO were also similar, with the lowest means at 13 ppm and 24.7 ppm, respectively. For outlet concentration, only comparisons with the DBD method showed statistically significant differences (Fig. 2b). In terms of energy efficiency, the ascending order of average values was: DBD at 4.9 g/kWh, Series at 5.1 g/kWh, Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO at 6.9 g/kWh, and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e at 7.2 g/kWh. In this context, pairwise comparisons involving DBD were statistically significant or close to significance (Fig. 2c). While it was expected that higher specific energy density would lead to increased pollutant removal, the mean specific energy densities across all methods did not show major differences in pollutant reduction. Specific energy densities for Series, Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO were identical at 40.5 J/L, and nearly the same as DBD, which registered at 39 J/L (Fig. 2d). The comparative means of all methods across various outcomes are illustrated in Fig. 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSulfur dioxide removal in the IPC (In Plasma Catalyst) system is the result of plasma\u0026ndash;catalyst discharge interaction and the synergistic interplay between them. In this interaction, plasma can regenerate the catalyst. Under ideal conditions, the regenerated catalyst oxidizes SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e into elemental sulfur. In combined plasma-photocatalyst processes, high-energy electrons are accompanied by additional reaction pathways for pollutant molecules. Given that ozone is produced during the cold plasma process and possesses strong oxidative power, ozone molecules act as the primary oxidizing agents. These can be decomposed by the catalyst to generate high-energy oxygen atoms. On the other hand, photocatalytic compounds exhibit a strong capacity for adsorbing pollutants, which increases the residence time of pollutants within the active plasma region. This extended residence time enhances the likelihood of pollutant molecules interacting with reactive plasma species.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInput Concentration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt first, as the input concentration increased, the average SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency showed a slight downward trend. However, both the average outlet concentration (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;) and energy efficiency (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;) increased significantly and more steeply with increasing input concentration. This is because more SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e molecules require more reactive plasma species for effective removal. In other words, with more gas molecules present, a lower proportion of average electron energy and reactive plasma species is available per molecule, slowing the rate of gas molecule decomposition.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e These increases were observed in pairwise comparisons of different input concentrations. Ultimately, the specific energy density remained constant across all input concentrations at 39.6 J/L.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFlow Rate\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA flow rate of 3 liters per minute achieved the highest SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency, with an average of 71% (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;), statistically significant differences in removal efficiency were found between flow rates of 3 and 2 L/min (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;), and 3 and 4 L/min (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;). Furthermore, the 3 L/min flow rate resulted in the lowest outlet concentration, with an average of 93 ppm \u0026ndash; clearly distinct from the others (p\u0026rsaquo;0/009). Significant statistical differences in outlet concentration were also observed between 3 and 2 L/min (p\u0026rsaquo;0/037) and 3 and 4 L/min (p\u0026rsaquo;0/029). In terms of energy efficiency, the 3 L/min flow rate had the highest average at 5.2 g/kWh. Besides the significant differences between 3 and 2 L/min (p\u0026rsaquo;0/001) and 3 and 4 L/min (p\u0026rsaquo;0/031), a significant difference was also observed between 2 and 4 L/min (p\u0026rsaquo;0/043). Moreover, a statistically significant effect of flow rate on specific energy density was observed (p\u0026rsaquo;0/001). As flow rate increased, specific energy density sharply declined \u0026ndash; reaching an average of 27 J/L at 4 L/min. The differences in mean values across all pairwise flow rate comparisons were evident in specific energy density as well. In conclusion, increasing the flow rate and thereby reducing the pollutant\u0026rsquo;s residence time resulted in a decrease in removal efficiency. This was due to two factors: first, increased turbulence of the pollutant-laden air within the plasma discharge zone, and second, reduced pollutant residence time in the discharge region, which lowered the collision rate between gas molecules and high-energy electrons as well as reactive plasma species.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVoltage\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitially, increasing voltage led to a rising trend and a statistically significant improvement in SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;). These differences were notable when comparing the mean voltages of 9 with 12 kV (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;), and 9 with 15 kV (p001/0\u0026rsaquo;). Increased voltage enhances the impact of electrons and the activity of radicals, thus boosting pollutant removal.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e In contrast, a completely opposite trend was seen in outlet concentration. As voltage increased, outlet concentration showed a significant decreasing trend (p\u0026rsaquo;0/018), particularly between 9 and 15 kV (p\u0026rsaquo;0/022). Energy efficiency showed near-significant changes with increasing voltage (p\u0026rsaquo;0/086). Finally, specific energy density exhibited a meaningful upward trend across pairwise voltage comparisons (p\u0026rsaquo;0/001), rising from a mean of 29.2 to 37.5 and eventually to 46.9 J/L.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCorrelation Between Sulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency and Other Experimental Factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a one-way experimental design, statistically significant relationships were observed between SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency and other studied factors, including flow rate(p\u0026rsaquo;0/001), voltage(p\u0026rsaquo;0/001), residence time(p\u0026rsaquo;0/001), and the methods used(p\u0026rsaquo;0/001). The only factor that did not show a statistically significant correlation was input concentration (p\u0026rsaquo;0/779). Among all the tested combinations, the highest average SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiencies were seen in the Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (97.3%) and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO (94.3%) methods. In contrast, the lowest average removal efficiency was observed at 9 kV, with only 19.57%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the pairwise comparison test, SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency remained consistent across different input concentrations. The 3 L/min flow rate yielded the highest efficiency, while the 9 kV voltage condition showed the lowest \u0026ndash; both being statistically distinct from the others. A residence time of 1.1 seconds yielded the highest average removal efficiency by a significant margin, owing to the favorable duration it provided for reactions and collisions between gas molecules and high-energy electrons.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Furthermore, based on pairwise comparison, Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO were classified within the same performance tier, DBD was placed in the lowest tier, and the Series method ranked from mid- to high-tier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional details, including descriptive statistics, significance levels, and Tukey\u0026rsquo;s post hoc test results, can be found in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of each subgroup of the study on the efficiency of sulfur dioxide removal: analysis of variance and subsequent paired test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepeat The Experiment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean and standard deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical Indicators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eF- Distribution\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDegree Of Freedom\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP-Value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInput Concentration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePPM100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)*20/31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;67/58\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e23/0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e799/0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePPM 300\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)49/30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;57/55\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePPM 500\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)61/28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31/51\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlow Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003elpm2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)16/11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;59/32\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e38/16\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e001/0 \u0026rsaquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3 lpm\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e27\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(B)67/27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;99/70\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4 lpm\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)57/9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;37/30\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVoltage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ekV9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)18/2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;57/19\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e94/12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e001/0 \u0026rsaquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ekV 12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(B)27/27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;69/60\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ekV 15\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(B)61/25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;48/67\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResidence Time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSecond45/0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)57/9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;37/30\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e69/75\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e001/0 \u0026rsaquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSecond 7/0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)09/12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;83/36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSecond 85/0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)16/11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;59/32\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSecond 1/1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(B)27/13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;59/88\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDBD\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e27\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(A)91/10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26/33\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4/121\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e001/0 \u0026rsaquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSeries\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(B)68/10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;57/72\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSeries\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(C)15/4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;32/97\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSeries\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(C)43/4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;30/94\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e* Groups with the same alphabet letters have almost similar averages. By changing the Latin alphabet letters from A to C, the average sulfur dioxide removal efficiency in the experimental groups increased.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency over Time Based on the Applied Methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe temporal trend of SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency over a 10-minute period for DBD, Series, Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO methods is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. This scenario involved an input concentration of 500 ppm, a flow rate of 3 L/min, and a voltage of 15 kV. As Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e indicates, the Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e plasma reactor system had the greatest impact on the increasing trend in SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal, rising to over 90% before stabilizing. The Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e method showed only a slight difference from the Series\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ZnO system, but a much larger difference compared to DBD. It is worth noting that the increasing trend in removal efficiency continued for all methods up to 120 seconds, after which the results stabilized.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to reiterate that SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal in the IPC system occurs due to the interaction between plasma discharge and the catalyst, with a synergistic effect between the two. One of the key features of this method is that plasma can regenerate the catalyst. Under ideal conditions, the regenerated catalyst oxidizes SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e into elemental sulfur. In plasma\u0026ndash;photocatalyst hybrid processes, in addition to high-energy electrons, multiple reactive pathways become available for pollutant molecules. Given the generation of ozone in the cold plasma process and its strong oxidative potential, ozone acts as the primary oxidizer. It can be decomposed by the catalyst to produce high-energy oxygen atoms. Moreover, photocatalytic compounds have a high capacity to adsorb pollutants, which increases the residence time of contaminants in the plasma's active zone. This extended residence time provides more opportunities for pollutant molecules to collide with reactive plasma species.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study compares the efficiency of SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal using a combined system of non-thermal plasma and photocatalysts. The system used was an IPC configuration, incorporating TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and ZnO as the catalysts. The influence of various factors \u0026ndash; including concentration, flow rate, residence time, voltage, specific input energy, and energy effectiveness \u0026ndash; on the performance of both systems was investigated. In the plasma discharge zone, high-energy electrons directly break molecular bonds and generate reactive radicals such as O, OH, and O₃. Once these radicals enter the reaction zone, they mix and react with SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e ANOVA results demonstrated that the experimental factors had significant effects on SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal. According to the findings, SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency increases with voltage. Higher voltage enhances electron activity and radical reactions, as the electrons gain more energy to generate radicals, leading to greater radical concentration and more SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal.\u003csup\u003e1533\u003c/sup\u003e Increased flow rate leads to decreased removal efficiency. Flow rate is inversely related to residence time in the reactor. As flow rate increases, the residence time of the pollutant decreases, thereby reducing the opportunity for reactions between SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and radicals.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e It is worth noting that in the current study, increasing the flow rate improved removal efficiency only up to a certain point \u0026ndash; beyond that, further increases led to a drop in efficiency. Variations in input concentration did not significantly affect removal efficiency, although higher concentrations resulted in a slight decrease.Under optimal conditions, the highest removal efficiency \u0026ndash; 97.32% \u0026ndash; was achieved at a concentration of 500 ppm using the combined system of non-thermal plasma and TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e photocatalyst. Although the difference in performance between the two hybrid systems was minimal, the system with TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e showed slightly better results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study also found that pollutant removal efficiency was higher in the dual-reactor series configuration compared to a single reactor. At 500 ppm, the series-configured dual reactor Without the presence of nanophotocatalysts\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eachieved 75.2% removal, while the single DBD reactor achieved only 46.2%. The total reaction time allotted for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal in these experiments was ten minutes, with removal efficiency stabilizing after the second minute and remaining nearly constant thereafter. This indicates that effective removal is achievable in a short time, minimizing human exposure to pollutants.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Given the short time required for removal, the low cost of constructing small-scale reactors, the use of simple, accessible, and inexpensive photocatalysts, and the improved removal efficiency achieved through the combined cold plasma and photocatalyst dual-reactor setup compared to either method alone and According to the results obtained and the comparison of this method with other removal methods, it seems that the approach presented here is a suitable and efficient method for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, limitations of this study include: difficulty in process control Because cold plasma is very sensitive to various parameters such as gas pressure, plasma current, applied voltage, time, and temperature, precise control of these parameters is essential to achieve desirable and repeatable results.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e increased costs when scaling up reactor size to remove more contamination due to the increase in raw material and energy costs. complexity in pollutant dilution procedures Due to the need to create a constant flow containing contaminants and air, as well as the use of pressure relief valves in capsules and precise mass flow controllers at very low flow rates\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and the need to prevent formation of hazardous byproducts Such as ozone as a strong oxidizer and sulfuric acid due to the presence of water vapor.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u003c/strong\u003e The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Dariush Shahbazi], [\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeyed Alireza Hajiseyed Mirzahosseini\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e],[Shahruz Saviz] and [Homayon Ahmadpanahi]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Dariush Shahbazi] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no competing interests\u003ca href=\"https://danrc.com/\"\u003e.\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e No funding was received for conducting this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, P. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Effects of sulfur dioxide pollution on the translocation and accumulation of heavy metals in soybean grain. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Pollut. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 1090\u0026ndash;1097 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathieu, Y. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Adsorption of SOx by oxide materials: A review. \u003cem\u003eFuel Process. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e114\u003c/strong\u003e, 81\u0026ndash;100 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValente, J. S. \u0026amp; Quintana-Solorzano, R. Novel SO x removal catalysts for the FCC process: Manufacture method, characterization, and pilot-scale testing. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Environ. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 4096\u0026ndash;4107 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamyar, N. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Removal of sulfur dioxide from air using a packed-bed DBD plasma reactor (PBR) and in-plasma catalysis (IPC) hybrid system. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Pollut. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 42821\u0026ndash;42836 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H., Han, J., Kawaguchi, I. \u0026amp; Minami, W. Simultaneous removal of NOx and So2 by a nonthermal plasma hybrid reactor. \u003cem\u003eEnergy and Fuels\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 141\u0026ndash;144 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Z. \u0026amp; Mathur, V. K. Nonthermal plasma for gaseous pollution control. \u003cem\u003eInd. Eng. Chem. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e, 2082\u0026ndash;2089 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXU, F. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Simultaneous oxidation of NO, SO2 and Hg0 from flue gas by pulsed corona discharge. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 328\u0026ndash;332 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eACGIH. No TitleTLVs and BEIs Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents \u0026amp; Biological Exposure Indices. 54 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Sulfur trioxide removal by a Non-Base adsorbent from coal combustion flue gas. \u003cem\u003eFuel\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e370\u003c/strong\u003e, (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eComission, E. 済無No Title No Title No Title. \u003cem\u003eAir Pollut. Eng. Man.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;23 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkdemir, M. \u0026amp; Hansu, F. Effect of Dielectric Barrier Discharges on the Elimination of Some Flue Gases. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e, 1030\u0026ndash;1034 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIkaunieks, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Non-thermal Plasma for VOC Treatment in Flue Gases. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Clim. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 31\u0026ndash;37 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSubrahmanyam, C. Catalytic non-thermal plasma reactor for total oxidation of volatile organic compounds. \u003cem\u003eIndian J. Chem. - Sect. A Inorganic, Phys. Theor. Anal. Chem.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e, 1062\u0026ndash;1068 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H. H. Nonthermal plasma processing for air-pollution control: A historical review, current issues, and future prospects. \u003cem\u003ePlasma Process. Polym.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e, 91\u0026ndash;110 (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasonova, A. \u0026amp; Kim, K. S. Effects of TiO2 coating on zeolite particles for NO and SO 2 removal by dielectric barrier discharge process. \u003cem\u003eCatal. Today\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e211\u003c/strong\u003e, 90\u0026ndash;95 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMok, Y. S., Lee, H. W., Hyun, Y. J., Ham, S. W. \u0026amp; Nam, I. S. Determination of Decomposition Rate Constants of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitric Oxide in a Pulsed Corona Discharge Reactor. \u003cem\u003eKorean J. Chem. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 711\u0026ndash;718 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOda, T., Yamashita, R., Haga, I., Takahashi, T. \u0026amp; Masuda, S. Decomposition of gaseous organic contaminants by Surface Discharge Induced Plasma Chemical Processing-SPCP. \u003cem\u003eConf. Rec. - IAS Annu. Meet. (IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1992\u003c/strong\u003e-\u003cstrong\u003eJanua\u003c/strong\u003e, 1570\u0026ndash;1574 (1992).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgata, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Effect of coexisting components on aromatic decomposition in a packed-bed plasma reactor. \u003cem\u003eAppl. Catal. A Gen.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e236\u003c/strong\u003e, 9\u0026ndash;15 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSobacchi, M. G., Saveliev, A. V., Fridman, A. A., Gutsol, A. F. \u0026amp; Kennedy, L. A. Experimental Assessment of Pulsed Corona Discharge for Treatment of VOC Emissions. \u003cem\u003ePlasma Chem. Plasma Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e, 347\u0026ndash;370 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInsulation, E., Phenomena, D., Dong, M. \u0026amp; Chi, X. C. Plasma chemical reaction for. \u003cem\u003eSci. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e 440\u0026ndash;443 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, S. S., Lee, H., Na, B. K. \u0026amp; Song, H. K. Reaction pathways of methane conversion in dielectric-barrier discharge. \u003cem\u003eKorean J. Chem. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 869\u0026ndash;872 (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnaghizi, S. J., Talebizadeh, P., Rahimzadeh, H. \u0026amp; Ghomi, H. The Configuration Effects of Electrode on the Performance of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor for NOx Removal. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Plasma Science\u003c/em\u003e vol. 43 1944\u0026ndash;1953 at https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2015.2422779 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObradović, B. M., Sretenović, G. B. \u0026amp; Kuraica, M. M. A dual-use of DBD plasma for simultaneous NOx and SO2 removal from coal-combustion flue gas. \u003cem\u003eJ. Hazard. Mater.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e185\u003c/strong\u003e, 1280\u0026ndash;1286 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, H., Chen, P., Zhang, M., Lin, X. \u0026amp; Ruan, R. Study of SO2 Removal Using Non-thermal Plasma Induced by Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD). \u003cem\u003ePlasma Chem. Plasma Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e, 239\u0026ndash;254 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaiano, V. \u0026amp; Iervolino, G. Non-thermal plasma-assisted catalytic reactions for environmental protection. \u003cem\u003eCatalysts\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 3\u0026ndash;6 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbas, Y. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Remediation of pyrene contaminated soil by double dielectric barrier discharge plasma technology: Performance optimization and evaluation. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Pollut.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e260\u003c/strong\u003e, 113944 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeyts, E. C., Ostrikov, K., Sunkara, M. K. \u0026amp; Bogaerts, A. Plasma Catalysis: Synergistic Effects at the Nanoscale. \u003cem\u003eChem. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e115\u003c/strong\u003e, 13408\u0026ndash;13446 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, L. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Application of combined plasma-catalytic method for carbon particulate matter (PM) removal. \u003cem\u003eRSC Adv.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 40012\u0026ndash;40017 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHosseini, M. S., Asilian Mahabadi, H. \u0026amp; Yarahmadi, R. Removal of Toluene from Air Using a Cycled Storage-Discharge (CSD) Plasma Catalytic Process. \u003cem\u003ePlasma Chem. Plasma Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e, 125\u0026ndash;142 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNajafpoor, A. A., Jonidi Jafari, A., Hosseinzadeh, A., Khani Jazani, R. \u0026amp; Bargozin, H. Optimization of non-thermal plasma efficiency in the simultaneous elimination of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylene from polluted airstreams using response surface methodology. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Pollut. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 233\u0026ndash;241 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan, S., Zhang, Q. \u0026amp; Chen, Z. Non-thermal plasma and catalyst system for simultaneously oxidizing SO2 and NOx. in \u003cem\u003eAdvanced Materials Research\u003c/em\u003e vols 634\u0026ndash;638 864\u0026ndash;868 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H., Han, J., Sakaguchi, Y. \u0026amp; Minami, W. Simultaneous oxidization of NOx and SO2 by a new non-thermal plasma reactor enhanced by catalyst and additive. \u003cem\u003ePlasma Sci. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 53\u0026ndash;56 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang, L. \u0026amp; Dang, Y. Removal of SO2 and NOx by pulsed corona combined with in situ Ca(OH)2 absorption. \u003cem\u003eChinese J. Chem. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 518\u0026ndash;522 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYU, Q., YANG, H. min, ZENG, K. si, ZHANG, Z. wei \u0026amp; YU, G. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2 from dry gas stream using non-thermal plasma. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 1393\u0026ndash;1397 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJun, H., Kim, H., Sakaguchi, Y. \u0026amp; Hong, Y. Reduction of NOx and SO2 in a non-thermal plasma reactor combined with catalyst and methanol. \u003cem\u003eJ. Phys. D. Appl. Phys.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e, (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasonova, A., Kim, D. J., Kim, W. S. \u0026amp; Kim, K. S. Simultaneous removal of NO and SO2 in a plasma reactor packed with TiO2-coated glass beads. \u003cem\u003eRes. Chem. Intermed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 309\u0026ndash;318 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRazavi, Z., Mirghaffari, N., Alemrajabi, A. A., Davar, F. \u0026amp; Soleimani, M. Adsorption and photocatalytic removal of SO2 using natural and synthetic zeolites-supported TiO2 in a solar parabolic trough collector. \u003cem\u003eJ. Clean. Prod.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e310\u003c/strong\u003e, 127376 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePiera, E., Ayll\u0026oacute;n, J., Dom\u0026eacute;nech, X. \u0026amp; Peral, J. TiO2 deactivation during gas-phase photocatalytic oxidation of ethanol. \u003cem\u003eCatalysis Today\u003c/em\u003e vol. 76 259\u0026ndash;270 at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5861(02)00224-9 (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrishnan, P., Zhang, M. H., Cheng, Y., Riang, D. T. \u0026amp; Yu, L. E. Photocatalytic degradation of SO2 using TiO2- containing silicate as a building coating material. \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e vol. 43 197\u0026ndash;202 at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.012 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, X. F. \u0026amp; Kou, S. C. Sulfur dioxide degradation by composite photocatalysts prepared by recycled fine aggregates and nanoscale titanium dioxide. \u003cem\u003eNanomaterials\u003c/em\u003e vol. 9 at https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9111533 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePham, H. C. \u0026amp; Kim, K. S. Effect of TiO2 thin film thickness on NO and SO2 removals by dielectric barrier discharge-photocatalyst hybrid process. \u003cem\u003eInd. Eng. Chem. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e52\u003c/strong\u003e, 5296\u0026ndash;5301 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaveliev, A. B., Pietsch, G. J., Murtazin, A. R. \u0026amp; Fried, A. SO2 removal from air with dielectric barrier discharges. \u003cem\u003ePlasma Sources Sci. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 454\u0026ndash;469 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVandenbroucke, A. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Combination of non-thermal plasma and Pd/LaMnO3 for dilute trichloroethylene abatement. \u003cem\u003eChem. Eng. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e283\u003c/strong\u003e, 668\u0026ndash;675 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCui, S., Zhong, Z., Liao, Y., Qi, L. \u0026amp; Fu, D. Simultaneous Removal of NO and SO2 via an Integrated System of Nonthermal Plasma Combined with Catalytic Oxidation and Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. \u003cem\u003eEnergy and Fuels\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 10078\u0026ndash;10089 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTezuka, M. Anodic Hydrogen Evolution in Contact Glow-Discharge Electrolysis of Sulfuric Acid Solution. \u003cem\u003eDenki Kagaku\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e61\u003c/strong\u003e, 794 (1993).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Air Pollution, Non thermal plasma, Nano photo Catalyst, Sulfur dioxide, TiO2 Nano photocatalyst, ZnO photocatalyst","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e is one of the major air pollutants affecting both the environment and human health. Controlling its emissions has become a critical goal for many countries. Various technologies exist for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal, among which non-thermal plasma systems combined with photocatalysts stand out as particularly effective. This study evaluates the performance of a combined system utilizing non-thermal plasma and photocatalysts for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal, with data analyzed through SPSS and R software. In this method, SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e was diluted with dry air and nano-photocatalysts of TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and ZnO were used in IPC form to remove the pollutant. The study examined the effects of multiple variables \u0026ndash; including concentration, flow rate, voltage, specific input energy, and residence time \u0026ndash; on removal efficiency, as well as their interactions. ANOVA results showed that both systems were highly effective at removing SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, though the non-thermal plasma system paired with TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e photocatalyst performed slightly better. At a concentration of 500 ppm, SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal efficiency reached 97.32% in the TiO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-based system and 94.3% in the ZnO-based one. The best efficiency for both methods was achieved at a voltage of 15 kV and a flow rate of 3 Lit/Min. Results revealed this approach highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective for SO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e removal.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Effective Factors on SO2 Removal by Using Two Series Non-Thermal Plasma Reactors Combined with TiO2 and ZnO Photocatalysts","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-13 15:25:44","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6755248/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-02T06:51:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-28T17:33:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"78309882720519364670602492174200107624","date":"2025-06-18T12:08:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-18T07:50:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"70533803516927004246983033778949322028","date":"2025-06-13T08:33:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-11T07:29:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-06T05:36:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-04T10:56:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2025-06-04T10:51:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2fd8475b-e840-4dc7-8da3-df066ddd8fce","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":50008441,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental sciences"},{"id":50008442,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-01T16:06:58+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6755248","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16633-x","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2025-08-31 15:57:34","publishedOnDateReadable":"August 31st, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-13 15:25:44","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-025-16633-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16633-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6755248","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6755248","identity":"rs-6755248","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}