Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 4367–4380 | Cite as

How does intensification influence the operational and environmental performance of photo-Fenton processes at acidic and circumneutral pH

  • Luis Miguel Salazar
  • Claudia Mildred Grisales
  • Dorian Prato GarciaEmail author
Advanced Oxidation Technologies: State-of-the-Art in Ibero-American Countries

Abstract

This study evaluates the technical, economical, and environmental impact of sodium persulfate (Na2S2O8) as an enhancing agent in a photo-Fenton process within a solar-pond type reactor (SPR). Photo-Fenton (PF) and photo-Fenton intensified with the addition of persulfate (PFPS) processes decolorize 97% the azo dye direct blue 71 (DB71) and allow producing a highly biodegradable effluent. Intensification with persulfate allowed reducing treatment time in 33% (from 120 to 80 min) and the consumption of chemical auxiliaries needed for pH adjustment. Energy, reagents, and chemical auxiliaries are still and environmental hotspot for PF and PFPS; however, it is worth mentioning that their environmental footprint is lower than that observed for compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)-type reactors. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) confirms that H2O2, NaOH, and energy consumption are the variables with the highest impact from an environmental standpoint. The use of persulfate reduced the relative impact in 1.2 to 12% in 12 of the 18 environmental categories studied using the ReCiPe method. The PFPS process emits 1.23 kg CO2 (CO2-Eqv/m3 treated water). On the other hand, the PF process emits 1.28 kg CO2 (CO2-Eqv/m3 treated water). Process intensification, chemometric techniques, and the use of SPRs minimize the impact of some barriers (reagent and energy consumption, technical complexity of reactors, pressure drops, dirt on the reflecting surfaces, fragility of reactor materials), limiting the application of advanced oxidation systems at an industrial level, and decrease treatment cost as well as potential environmental impacts associated with energy and reagents consumption. Treatment costs for PF processes (US$0.78/m3) and PFPS processes (US$0.63/m3) were 20 times lower than those reported for photo-Fenton processes in CPC-type reactors.

Keywords

Chemometric Economic analysis Intensification Persulfate Photo-Fenton Solar pond reactor Life cycle assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Program of Projects to Strengthen Research, Creativity, and Innovation in Graduate Studies of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2016–2018 (Project HERMES 35797).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2388_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 78 kb)

References

  1. APHA, AWWA, WPCF (2005) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty-first ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Arvesen A, Hauan IB, Bolsøy BM, Hertwich EG (2015) Life cycle assessment of transport of electricity via different voltage levels: a case study for Nord-Trøndelag county in Norway. Appl Energy 157:144–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanco J, Malato S (2003) Solar detoxification. UNESCO Publishing, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Behnajady MA, Modirshahla N, Ghanbary F (2007) A kinetic model for the decolorization of C.I. Acid yellow 23 by Fenton process. J Hazard Mater 148:98–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belalcázar-Saldarriaga A, Prato-Garcia D, Vasquez-Medrano RC (2018) Photo-Fenton processes in raceway reactors: technical, economic, and environmental implications during treatment of colored wastewaters. J Clean Prod 182:818–829.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boumaza S, Kaouah F, Hamane D, Trari M, Omeiri S, Bendjama Z (2014) Visible light assisted decolorization of azo dyes: direct red 16 and direct blue 71 in aqueous solution on the p-CuFeO2/n-ZnO system. J Mol Catal A Chem 393:156–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcata.2014.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brink A, Sheridan CM, Harding KG (2017) The Fenton oxidation of biologically treated paper and pulp mill effluents: a performance and kinetic study. Process Saf Environ Prot 107:206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calza P, Sakkas VA, Medana C, Vlachou AD, Dal Bello F, Albanis TA (2013) Chemometric assessment and investigation of mechanism involved in photo-Fenton and TiO2 photocatalytic degradation of the artificial sweetener sucralose in aqueous media. Appl Catal B Environ 129:71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2012.08.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carra I, Santos-Juanes L, Acién FG, Malato S, Sánchez JA (2014) New approach to solar photo-Fenton operation. Raceway ponds as tertiary treatment technology. J Hazard Mater 279:322–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carra I, Sirtori C, Ponce-Robles L, Sánchez JA, Malato S, Agüera A (2015) Degradation and monitoring of acetamiprid, thiabendazole and their transformation products in an agro-food industry effluent during solar photo-Fenton treatment in a raceway pond reactor. Chemosphere 130:73–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatzisymeon E, Foteinis S, Mantzavinos D, Tsoutsos T (2013) Life cycle assessment of advanced oxidation processes for olive mill wastewater treatment. J Clean Prod 54:229–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chavaco LC, Arcos CA, Prato-Garcia D (2017) Decolorization of reactive dyes in solar pond reactors: perspectives and challenges for the textile industry. J Environ Manag 198:203–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiu SLH, Lo IMC (2018) Identifying key process parameters for uncertainty propagation in environmental life cycle assessment for sewage sludge and food waste treatment. J Clean Prod 174:966–976.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cui X, Hong J, Gao M (2012) Environmental impact assessment of three coal-based electricity generation scenarios in China. Energy 45:952–959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhaka S, Kumar R, Khan MA, Paeng KJ, Kurade MB, Kim SJ, Jeon BH (2017) Aqueous phase degradation of methyl paraben using UV-activated persulfate method. Chem Eng J 321:11–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dulova N, Kattel E, Trapido M (2017) Degradation of naproxen by ferrous ion-activated hydrogen peroxide, persulfate and combined hydrogen peroxide/persulfate processes: the effect of citric acid addition. Chem Eng J 318:254–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Expósito AJ, Monteagudo JM, Díaz I, Durán A (2016) Photo-Fenton degradation of a beverage industrial effluent: intensification with persulfate and the study of radicals. Chem Eng J 306:1203–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fthenakis V, Kim HC (2009) Land use and electricity generation: a life-cycle analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:1465–1474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foteinis S, Monteagudo JM, Durán A, Chatzisymeon E (2018) Environmental sustainability of the solar photo-Fenton process for wastewater treatment and pharmaceuticals mineralization at semi-industrial scale. Sci Total Environ 612:605–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Herrero I, Margallo M, Onandía R, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2017) Environmental challenges of the chlor-alkali production: seeking answers from a life cycle approach. Sci Tot Environ 580:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García-Montaño J, Ruiz N, Muñoz I, Domènech X, García-Hortal J, Torrades F, Peral J (2006) Environmental assessment of different photo-Fenton approaches for commercial reactive dye removal. J Hazard Mater 138:218–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia-Segura S, Bellotindos LM, Huang YH, Brillas E, Lu MC (2016) Fluidize-bed Fenton process as alternative wastewater treatment technology–a review. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 67:211–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2016.07.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giménez J, Bayarri B, González O, Malato S, Peral J, Esplugas S (2015) Advanced oxidation processes at laboratory scale: environmental and economic impacts. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 3:3188–3196.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. first ed. Report I: CharacterizationGoogle Scholar
  25. Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Habibi MH, Mikhak M (2012) Titania/zinc oxide nanocomposite coatings on glass or quartz substrate for photocatalytic degradation of direct blue 71. Appl Surf Sci 258:6745–6752.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.03.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (2018) Life cycle assessment. Theory and practice. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang YF, Huang YH (2009) Identification of produced powerful radicals involved in the mineralization of bisphenol a using a novel UV-Na2S2O8/H2O2-Fe(II, III) two-stage oxidation process. J Hazard Mater 162:1211–1216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ioannou-Ttofa L, Foteinis S, Chatzisymeon E, Fatta-Kassinos D (2016) The environmental footprint of a membrane bioreactor treatment process through life cycle analysis. Sci Total Environ 568:306–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ioannou-Ttofa L, Foteinis S, Chatzisymeon E, Michael-Kordatou I, Fatta-Kassinos D (2017) Life cycle assessment of solar-driven oxidation as a polishing step of secondary-treated urban effluents. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 92:1315–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2003) Reference document on best available techniques for the textiles industry. In: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  32. Jolliet O, Saadé-Sbeih M, Shaked S, Jolliet A, Crettaz P (2016) Environmental life cycle assessment. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  33. Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA). A guide to best practice. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li H, Guo J, Yang L, Lan Y (2014) Degradation of methyl orange by sodium persulfate activated with zero-valent zinc. Sep Purif Technol 132:168–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2014.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li M, Yang X, Wang D, Yuan J (2017) Enhanced oxidation of erythromycin by persulfate activated iron powder–H2O2 system: role of the surface Fe species and synergistic effect of hydroxyl and sulfate radicals. Chem Eng J 317:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manenti DR, Soares PA, Silva TFCV, Módenes AN, Espinoza-Quiñones FR, Bergamasco R, Boaventura RAR, Vilar VJP (2015) Performance evaluation of different solar advanced oxidation processes applied to the treatment of a real textile dyeing wastewater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:833–845.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2767-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martins RC, Lopes RJG, Quinta-Ferreira RM (2010) Lumped kinetic models for single ozonation of phenolic effluents. Chem Eng J 165:678–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.09.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martínez L, Hodaifa G, Rodríguez S, Giménez JA, Ochando J (2011) Degradation of organic matter in olive-oil mill wastewater through homogeneous Fenton-like reaction. Chem Eng J 173:503–510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.08.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matzek LW, Carter KE (2016) Activated persulfate for organic chemical degradation: a review. Chemosphere 151:178–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Michael I, Panagi A, Ioannou LA, Frontistis Z, Fatta-Kassinos D (2014) Utilizing solar energy for the purification of olive mill wastewater using a pilot-scale photocatalytic reactor after coagulation-flocculation. Water Res 60:28–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mirzaei A, Chen Z, Haghighat F, Yerushalmi L (2017) Removal of pharmaceuticals from water by homo/heterogonous Fenton-type processes—a review. Chemosphere 174:665–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Monteagudo JM, Durán A, González R, Expósito AJ (2015) In situ chemical oxidation of carbamazepine solutions using persulfate simultaneously activated by heat energy, UV light, Fe2+ ions, and H2O2. Appl Catal B Environ 176–177:120–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.03.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Torrades F, Peral J, Domènech X (2005) Environmental assessment of different solar driven advanced oxidation processes. Sol Energy 79:369–375.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Muñoz I, Peral J, Ayllón JA, Malato S, Passarinho P, Domènech X (2006) Life cycle assessment of a coupled photocatalytic-biological process for wastewater treatment. Water Res 40:3533–3540.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson CM (2009) Response surface methodology. Process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  46. Nachiappan S, Muthukumar K (2010) Intensification of textile effluent chemical oxygen demand reduction by innovative hybrid methods. Chem Eng J 163:344–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nogueira RF, Oliveira MC, Paterlini WC (2005) Simple and fast spectrophotometric determination of H2O2 in photo-Fenton reactions using metavanadate. Talanta 66:86–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2004.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2010) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals: activated sludge, respiration inhibition test. OECD no. 209. In: ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Pignatello JJ, Oliveros E, MacKay A (2006) Advanced oxidation processes for organic contaminant destruction based on the Fenton reaction and related chemistry. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 36:1–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380500326564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pliego G, Zazo JA, García-Muñoz P, Munoz M, Casas JA, Rodriguez JJ (2015) Trends in the intensification of the Fenton process for wastewater treatment: an overview. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45:2611–2692.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2015.1025646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pouran SR, Abdul Aziz AR, Wan Daud WMA (2015) Review on the main advances in photo-Fenton oxidation system for recalcitrant wastewaters. J Ind Eng Chem 21:53–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prato-Garcia D, Buitrón G (2012) Evaluation of three reagent dosing strategies in a photo-Fenton process for the decolorization of azo dye mixtures. J Hazard Mater 217–218:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.03.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ramirez JH, Vicente MA, Madeira LM (2010) Heterogeneous photo-Fenton oxidation with pillared clay-based catalysts for wastewater treatment: a review. Appl Catal B Environ 98:10–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodríguez-Garcia G, Molinos-Senante M, Hospido A, Hernández-Sancho F, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2011) Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 45:5997–6010.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodrigues CSD, Madeira LM, Boaventura RAR (2013) Optimization and economic analysis of textile wastewater treatment by photo-Fenton process under artificial and simulated solar radiation. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:13313–13324.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie401301h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodríguez R, Espada JJ, Pariente MI, Melero JA, Martínez F, Molina R (2016) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study of heterogeneous and homogenous Fenton processes for the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater. J Clean Prod 124:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saien J, Soleymani AR (2007) Degradation and mineralization of direct blue 71 in a circulating upflow reactor by UV/TiO2 process and employing a new method in kinetic study. J Hazard Mater 144:506–512.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.10.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saien J, Soleymani AR, Sun JH (2011) Parametric optimization of individual and hybridized AOPs of Fe2+/H2O2 and UV/S2O8 2− for rapid dye destruction in aqueous media. Desalination 279:298–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salazar LM, Grisales CM, Prato-Garcia D (2017) Intensification of Fenton and photo-Fenton processes: How the economic and environmental performance can affect large-scale applications in textile industry. In: Book of abstracts 5th European Conference on Environmental Applications of Advanced Oxidation Processes (EAAOP5), Prague, pp 320Google Scholar
  60. Samanta C (2008) Direct synthesis of hydrogen peroxide from hydrogen and oxygen: an overview of recent developments in the process. Appl Catal A Gen 350:133–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2008.07.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santos-Juanes L, Ballesteros MM, Ortega E, Cabrera A, Román IM, Casas JL, Sánchez JA (2011) Economic evaluation of the photo-Fenton process. Mineralization level and reaction time: the keys for increasing plant efficiency. J Hazard Mater 186:1924–1929.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sathishkumar P, Pugazhenthiran N, Viswanathan R, Asiri AM, Anandan S (2013) ZnO supported CoFe2O4 nanophotocatalysts for the mineralization of Direct Blue 71 in aqueous environments. J Hazard Mater 252–253:171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.02.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Silva TFCV, Fonseca A, Saraiva I, Boaventura RAR, Vilar VJP (2016) Scale-up and cost analysis of a photo-Fenton system for sanitary landfill leachate treatment. Chem Eng J 283:76–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.07.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spasiano D, Marotta R, Malato S, Fernandez-Ibañez P, Di Somma I (2015) Solar photocatalysis: materials, reactors, some commercial, and pre-industrialized applications. A comprehensive approach. Appl Catal B Environ 170–171:90–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.12.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tokomura M, Znad HT, Kawase Y (2008) Decolorization of dark brown colored coffee effluent by solar photo-Fenton reaction: effect of solar light dose on decolorization kinetics. Water Res 42:4665–4673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsitonaki A, Petri B, Crimi M, Mosbaek H, Siegrist RL, Bjerg PL (2010) In situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater using persulfate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 40:55–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380802039303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tunç S, Gürkan T, Duman O (2012) On-line spectrophotometric method for the determination of optimum operation parameters on the decolorization of acid red 66 and direct blue 71 from aqueous solution by Fenton process. Chem Eng J 181–182:431–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.11.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vaiano V, Iervolino G, Sannino D, Rizzo L, Sarno G, Ciambelli P, Isupova LA (2015) Food azo-dyes removal from water by heterogeneous photo-Fenton with LaFeO3 supported on honeycomb corundum monoliths. J Environ Eng 141:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wacławek S, Lutze HV, Grübel K, Padil VVT, Černík M, Dionysiou DD (2017) Chemistry of persulfates in water and wastewater treatment: a review. Chem Eng J 330:44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.07.132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang N, Zheng T, Zhang G, Wang P (2016) A review on Fenton-like processes for organic wastewater treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 4:762–787.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Xu XR, Li XZ (2010) Degradation of azo dye Orange G in aqueous solutions by persulfate with ferrous ion. Sep Purif Technol 72:105–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2010.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ingeniería y AdministraciónUniversidad Nacional de Colombia−Sede PalmiraPalmiraColombia

Personalised recommendations