Advertisement

Optimization, modeling and uncertainty investigation of phenolic wastewater treatment by photocatalytic process in cascade reactor

  • F. Azizpour
  • F. QaderiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Wastewater containing phenol is one of the problems that environmental engineering tries to solving it. Cascade reactors are used in water treatment to increase the dissolved oxygen. In this study, this reactor is used for increasing the removal efficiency of phenol treatment in the photocatalytic process. The parameters studied in this research are the initial phenol concentration, UV source power, retention time and flow rate. For the first time, the individual, simultaneous and interactive effects of these four parameters were examined in cascade photocatalytic reactor using the response surface methodology. In this research, a predictive model was presented based on response surface methodology, and the phenol treatment conditions were optimized by this method. According to the results, the optimum removal efficiency occurred at 4.93619 h, with the flow rate of 5.19626 L/min, the initial phenol concentration of 34.7437 mg/L and the UV source power of 40 W. Analysis of variance was done on the experimental data, and its result showed that the UV source power had the most significant effect and that the flow rate had the least significant effect on the removal efficiency. So that by increasing the UV source power from 35 to 55 W, the removal efficiency increased from 54% to approximately 78%. But by increasing the flow rate from 5 to 8 L/min, the removal efficiency increased from about 63% to approximately less than 70%. Prediction of removal efficiency has an uncertainty because of simultaneous and interactive effects of the independent variables on the process; therefore, in this research, Monte Carlo calculations were used to determine the uncertainty of the efficiency prediction. Based on Mont Carlo result, the efficiency will be at the range of 37.542–91.898% at the confidence level of 5–95%. According to the results, this reactor can be used for the treatment of phenolic wastewater.

Keywords

Phenol Cascade photocatalytic reactor TiO2 Response surface methodology Monte Carlo 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support of this research prepared was done by the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology (Grant No.: BNUT/393016/97), and the authors are grateful for this support.

References

  1. Akach, J., & Ochieng, A. (2018). Monte Carlo simulation of the light distribution in an annular slurry bubble column photocatalytic reactor. Chemical Engineering Research and Design,129, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aljuboury, D. A. D. A., Palaniandy, P., Abdul Aziz, H. B., & Feroz, S. (2017). Treatment of petroleum wastewater by conventional and new technologies—A review. Global Nest Journal,19(3), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Muhtaseb, A. H., & Khraisheh, M. (2015). Photocatalytic removal of phenol from refinery wastewater: Catalytic activity of Cu-doped titanium dioxide. Journal of Water Process Engineering,8, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amado-Piña, D., Roa-Morales, G., Barrera-Díaz, C., Balderas-Hernandez, P., Romero, R., Martín del Campo, E., et al. (2017). Synergic effect of ozonation and electrochemical methods on oxidation and toxicity reduction: phenol degradation. Fuel,198, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amiri, H., Ayati, B., & Ganjidoust, H. (2016). Textile dye removal using photocatalytic cascade disk reactor coated by ZnO nanoparticles. Journal of Marine Science and Chemical Engineering,4(12), 29–38.Google Scholar
  6. APHA. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edition edited by Rice E.W., Baird R.B., Eaton A.D., Clesceri L.S.. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF), Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Atkinson, Kendall A. (1989). An Introduction to Numerical Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Ba, D., & Boyaci, I. H. (2007). Modeling and optimization I: Usability of response surface methodology. Journal of Food Engineering,78(3), 836–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baylar, A., Emiroglu, M. E., & Bagatur, T. (2009). Influence of chute slope on oxygen content in stepped waterways. Gazi University Journal of Science,22(4), 325–332.Google Scholar
  10. Behnajady, M. A., Modirshahla, N., Daneshvar, N., & Rabbani, M. (2007). Photocatalytic degradation of an azo dye in a tubular continuous-flow photoreactor with immobilized TiO2 on glass plates. Chemical Engineering Journal,127(1–3), 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Behnajady, M. A., Modirshahla, N., Mirzamohammady, M., Vahid, B., & Behnajady, B. (2008). Increasing photoactivity of titanium dioxide immobilized on glass plate with optimization of heat attachment method parameters. Journal of Hazardous Materials,160(2–3), 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bezerra, M. A., Santelli, R. E., Oliveira, E. P., Villar, L. S., & Escaleira, L. A. (2008). Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta,76(5), 965–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bizerea Spiridon, O., Preda, E., Botez, A., & Pitulice, L. (2013). Phenol removal from wastewater by adsorption on zeolitic composite. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,20(9), 6367–6381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cao, F., Li, H., Chao, H., Zhao, L., & Guo, L. (2014). Optimization of the concentration field in a suspended photocatalytic reactor. Energy,74(C), 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapra, S. C. (2008). Surface water-quality modeling. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Chatterjee, S., Kumar, A., Basu, S., & Dutta, S. (2012). Application of response surface methodology for methylene blue dye removal from aqueous solution using low cost adsorbent. Chemical Engineering Journal,181–182, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cho, W. K. T., & Liu, Y. Y. (2018). Sampling from complicated and unknown distributions: Monte Carlo and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for redistricting. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,506, 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewidar, H., Nosier, S. A., & El-Shazly, A. H. (2017). Photocatalytic degradation of phenol solution using zinc oxide/UV. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2017.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emam, E. A., & Aboul-Gheit, N. A. K. (2014). Photocatalytic degradation of oil-emulsion in water/seawater using titanium dioxide. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects,36(10), 1123–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farajnezhad, H., & Gharbani, P. H. (2012). Coagulation treatment of wastewater in petroleum industry using poly aluminium chloride and ferric chloride. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences,13, 306–310.Google Scholar
  21. Fishman, G. S. (1999). MonteCarlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. Springer Series in Operations Research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Gali, V. S., Kumar, P., & Mehrotra, I. (2006). Biodegradation of phenol with wastewater as a cosubstrate in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket. Journal of Environmental Engineering,132(11), 1539–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentle, J. (2002). Elements of computational statistics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Girish, C. R., & Ramachandra Murty, V. (2012). Review of various treatment methods for the abatement of phenolic compounds from wastewater. Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering,54, 306–316.Google Scholar
  25. Hao, S., Jie, Y., Dan, L., Qi, L., Bing, L., et al. (2017). Removal of phenols from coal gasification wastewater through polypropylene hollow fiber supported liquid membrane. Chemical Engineering Research and Design,123, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison, R. L. (2010). Introduction to Monte Carlo simulation robert. AIP Conference Proceedings,1204, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jafari Kojour, M., Dabir, B., Sohrabi, M., & Royaee, S. J. (2017). Evaluation and optimization of a new design photocatalytic reactor using impinging jet stream on a TiO2 coated disc. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification,121, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jafari Kojour, M., Dabir, B., Sohrabi, M., & Royaee, S. J. (2018). Application of a new immobilized impinging jet stream reactor for photocatalytic degradation of phenol: Reactor evaluation and kinetic modelling. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2018.03.043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jou, C. G., & Huang, G. (2003). A pilot study for oil refinery wastewater treatment using a fixed-film bioreactor. Advances in Environmental Research,7, 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahil, M., & Seif, H. (2014). Natural wastewater treatment in mountain areas in Lebanon. European Scientific Journal,10(14), 122–135.Google Scholar
  31. Karimifard, S., & Alavi Moghaddam, M. R. (2018). Application of response surface methodology in physicochemical removal of dyes from wastewater: A critical review. Science of the Total Environment,640–641, 772–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khaksar, A. M., Nazif, S., Taebi, A., & Shahghasemi, E. (2017). Treatment of phenol in petrochemical wastewater considering turbidity factor by backlight cascade photocatalytic reactor. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry,348, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, H., Kannan, P., Shoaibi, A., & Srinivasakannan, C. (2019). Phenol degradation catalyzed by metal oxide supported porous carbon matrix under UV irradiation. Journal of Water Process Engineering,31, 100869.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ling, H., Kim, K., Liu, Z., Shi, J., Zhu, Z., & Huang, J. (2015). Photocatalytic degradation of phenol in water on as-prepared and surface modified TiO2 nanoparticles. Catalysis Today,258, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahmoodi, V., & Sargolzaei, J. (2014). Optimization of photocatalytic degradation of naphthalene using nano-TiO2/UV system: statistical analysis by a response surface methodology. Desalination and Water Treatment,52(34–36), 6664–6672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehrotra, I., Kumar, P., & Gali, V. (2003). Treatment of phenolic wastewater using upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. In Proceedings of national conference on biological treatment of wastewater and waste air, Regional Research Laboratory (CSIR), Trivandrum, India.Google Scholar
  37. Mirzaei, M., Jafarikojour, M., Dabir, B., & Dadvar, M. (2017). Evaluation and modeling of a spinning disc photoreactor for degradation of phenol: Impact of geometry modification. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry,346, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mirzaei, A., Yerushalmi, L., Chen, Z., Haghighat, F., & Guo, J. (2018). Enhanced photocatalytic degradation of sulfamethoxazole by zinc oxide photocatalyst in the presence of fluoride ions: Optimization of parameters and toxicological evaluation. Water Research,132, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mohammadi, S., Kargari, A., Sanaeepur, H., Abbassian, K., Najafi, A., & Mofarrah, E. (2014). Phenol removal from industrial wastewaters: A short review. Desalination and Water Treatment,53(8), 2215–2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neshat, A., Pradhan, B., & Javadi, S. (2015). Computers, environment and urban systems risk assessment of groundwater pollution using Monte Carlo approach in an agricultural region: An example from Kerman Plain, Iran. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,50, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nguyen, A. T., Hsieh, C., & Juang, R. (2016). Substituent effects on photodegradation of phenols in binary mixtures. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers,62, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pasetto, D., Guadagnini, A., & Putti, M. (2011). POD-based Monte Carlo approach for the solution of regional scale groundwater flow driven by randomly distributed recharge. Advances in Water Resources,34(11), 1450–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Popchev, I., & Velinova, N. (2003). Application of Monte Carlo simulation in pricing of options. Institute of Information Technologies,3(2), 74–91.Google Scholar
  44. Rathinakumar, V., Dhinakaran, G., & Suribabu, C. R. (2014). Assessment of aeration capacity of stepped cascade system for selected geometry. International Journal of Chem Tech Research,6(1), 254–262.Google Scholar
  45. Singh, R., Kumar, V., Verma, A., Sobti, A., & Toor, A. P. (2019). Photocatalytic activity of Bi-doped TiO2 for phenol degradation under UV and sunlight conditions. In A. Agnihotri, K. Reddy, & A. Bansal (Eds.), Sustainable engineering. Lecture notes in civil engineering (Vol. 30). Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6717-5_20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sohrabi, S., & Akhlaghian, F. (2016). Modeling and optimization of phenol degradation over copper-doped titanium dioxide photocatalyst using response surface methodology. Process Safety and Environmental Protection,99, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun, Y., Wei, J., Zhang, J. P., & Yang, C. (2016). Optimization using response surface methodology and kinetic study of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis using SiO2 supported bimetallic Co–Ni catalyst. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,28, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tye, Y. Y., Lee, K. T., Abdullah, W. N. W., & Leh, C. P. (2015). Effects of process parameters of various pretreatments on enzymatic hydrolysability of Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn. (Kapok) fibre: A response surface methodology study. Biomass and Bioenergy,75, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vaiano, V., Matarangolo, M., Murcia, J. J., Rojas, H., Navio, J. A., & Hidalgo, M. C. (2018). Enhanced photocatalytic removal of phenol from aqueous solutions using ZnO modified with Ag. Applied Catalysis, B: Environmental,225, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Varshney, G., Kanel, S. R., Kempisty, D., Varshney, V., & Agrawal, A. (2016). Nanoscale TiO2 films and their application in remediation of organic pollutants. Coordination Chemistry Reviews,306(P1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veeresh, G. S., Kumar, P., & Mehrotra, I. (2005). Treatment of phenol and cresols in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process: A review. Water Research,39(1), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vezzoli, M., Martens, W. N., & Bell, J. M. (2011). Investigation of phenol degradation: True reaction kinetics on fixed film titanium dioxide photocatalyst. Applied Catalysis, A: General,404(1–2), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yilleng, M. T., Gimba, E. C., Ndukwe, G. I., Bugaje, I. M., Rooney, D. W., & Manyar, H. G. (2018). Batch to continuous photocatalytic degradation of phenol using TiO2 and Au–Pd nanoparticles supported on TiO2. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering,6, 6382–6389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zainudin, N. F., Abdullah, A. Z., & Mohamed, A. R. (2010). Characteristics of supported nano-TiO2/ZSM-5/silica gel (SNTZS): Photocatalytic degradation of phenol. Journal of Hazardous Materials,174(1–3), 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zazouli, M. A., & Taghavi, M. (2012). Phenol removal from aqueous solutions by electrocoagulation technology using iron electrodes: Effect of some variables. Journal of Water Resource and Protection,4, 980–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, W., Bao, L., Zhang, X., He, J., & Wei, G. (2012). Electropolymerization treatment of phenol wastewater and the reclamation of phenol. Water Environment Research,84(11), 2028–2036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao, L., Ji, Y., Yao, J., Long, S., Li, D., & Yang, Y. (2017). Quantifying the fate and risk assessment of different antibiotics during wastewater treatment using a Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Cleaner Production,168, 626–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zou, X. L. (2015). Treatment of heavy oil wastewater by UASB-BAFs using the combination of yeast and bacteria. Environmental Technology (United Kingdom),36(18), 2381–2389.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran

Personalised recommendations