Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 4300–4311 | Cite as

Treatment of synthetic dye baths by Fenton processes: evaluation of their environmental footprint through life cycle assessment

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


Inorganic and organic constituents present in textile effluents have a noticeable effect on the performance of Fenton processes. However, studies have been focused on simple wastewater matrices that do not offer enough information to stakeholders to evaluate their real potential in large-scale facilities. Chemical auxiliaries, commonly present in textile wastewaters (NaCl = 30 g/L, Na2CO3 = 5 g/L, and CH3COONa = 1 g/L), affect both the economic and environmental performance of the process because they increase the treatment time (from 0.5 to 24 h) and the consumption of H2SO4 (657%) and NaOH (148%) during conditioning steps. The life cycle assessment (LCA) performed with the IPCC-2013 method revealed that dyeing auxiliaries increase from 1.06 to 3.73 (252%) the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-Eqv/m3). Electricity consumption can be considered an environmental hotspot because it represents 60% of the carbon footprint of the Fenton process. Also, the presence of auxiliaries is critical for the process because it results in the increase of the relative impact (between 50 and 80%) in all environmental categories considered by the ReCiPe-2008 method. Chemical auxiliaries increased the costs of the treatment process in 178% (US$2.22/m3) due to the higher energy consumption and the additional reagent requirements. It is worthwhile mentioning that the technical simplicity of the Fenton process and its low economic and environmental costs turn this process into an attractive alternative for the treatment of textile effluents in emerging economies.


Azo Decolorization Dye baths Fenton Life cycle assessment Cost analysis 


Funding information

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

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2757_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1446 kb)


  1. Althaus H, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, Jungbluth N, Osses M, Primas A (2007) Life cycle inventories of chemicals. Ecoinvent report No. 8, v2.0. EMPA Dübendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashar NG, Golwalkar KR (2013) A practical guide to the manufacture of sulfuric acid, oleums, and sulfonating agents. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babuponnusami A, Muthukumar K (2014) A review on Fenton and improvements to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 2:557–572. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bacardit J, Stötzner J, Chamarro E, Esplugas S (2007) Effect of salinity on the photo-Fenton process. Ind Eng Chem Res 46:7615–7619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bae W, Won H, Hwang B, de Toledo RA, Chung J, Kwon K, Shim H (2015) Characterization of refractory matters in dyeing wastewater during a full-scale Fenton process following pure-oxygen activated sludge treatment. J Hazard Mater 287:421–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bello MM, Raman AAA, Purushothaman M (2017) Applications of fluidized bed reactors in wastewater treatment—a review of the major design and operational parameters. J Clean Prod 141:1492–1514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanco J, Malato S (2003) Solar detoxification. UNESCO Publishing, FranceGoogle Scholar
  11. Boustead I, Fawer M (1996) Ecoprofile of hydrogen peroxide. European Chemical Industry CouncilGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruckner T, Basmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H et al (2014) Energy systems. In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassano D, Zapata A, Brunetti G, Del Moro G, Di Laconi C, Oller I, Malato S, Mascolo G (2011) Comparison of several combined/integrated biological-AOPs setups for the treatment of municipal landfill leachate: minimization of operating costs and effluent toxicity. Chem Eng J 172:250–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chong MN, Sharma AK, Burn S, Saint CP (2012) Feasibility study on the application of advanced oxidation technologies for decentralised wastewater treatment. J Clean Prod 35:230–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Torres-Socías E, Prieto-Rodríguez L, Zapata A, Fernández-Calderero I, Oller I, Malato S (2015) Detailed treatment line for a specific landfill leachate remediation. Brief economic assessment. Chem Eng J 261:60–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Design Expert (2009) Design Expert V10 Trial Version, User’s GuideGoogle Scholar
  20. Devi LG, Munikrishnappa C, Nagaraj B, Rajashekhar KE (2013) Effect of chloride and sulfate ions on the advanced photo Fenton and modified photo Fenton degradation process of Alizarin Red S. J Mol Catal A Chem 374–375:125–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dong Y, Chen J, Li C, Zhu H (2007) Decoloration of three azo dyes in water by photocatalysis of Fe (III)–oxalate complexes/H2O2 in the presence of inorganic salts. Dyes Pigment 73:261–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farré MJ, García-Montaño J, Ruiz N, Muñoz I, Domènech X, Peral J (2007) Life cycle assessment of the removal of diuron and linuron herbicides from water using three environmentally friendly technologies. Environ Technol 28:819–830. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foteinis S, Monteagudo JM, Durán A, Chatzisymeon (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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garcia-Herrero I, Margallo M, Onandía R, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2017) Life cycle assessment model for the chlor-alkali process: a comprehensive review of resources and available technologies. Sustain Prod Consum 12:44–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García-Montaño J, Ruiz N, Muñoz I, Domènech X, García-Hortal JA, Torrades F, Peral J (2006) Environmental assessment of different photo-Fenton approaches for commercial reactive dye removal. J Hazard Mater 138:218–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giannakis S, Jovic M, Gasilova N, Gelabert MP, Schindelholz S, Furbringer JM, Girault H, Pulgarin C (2017) Iohexol degradation in wastewater and urine by UV-based Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs): process modeling and by-products identification. J Environ Manag 195:174–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goedkoop M, 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
  29. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) 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
  30. Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  31. Gumy D, Fernández-Ibáñez P, Malato S, Pulgarin C, Enea O, Kiwi J (2005) Supported Fe/C and Fe/Nafion/C catalysts for the photo-Fenton degradation of Orange II under solar irradiation. Catal Today 101:375–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hai FI, Yamamoto K, Fukushi K (2007) Hybrid treatment systems for dye wastewater. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 37:315–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (2018) Life cycle assessment. Theory and practice. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. He H, Chen Y, Li X, Cheng Y, Yang C, Zeng G (2017) Influence of salinity on microorganisms in activated sludge processes: a review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 119:520–527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holkar CR, Jadhav AJ, Pinjari DV, Mahamuni NM, Pandit AB (2016) A critical review on textile wastewater treatments: possible approaches. J Environ Manag 182:351–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hong J, Chen W, Wang Y, Xu C, Xu X (2014) Life cycle assessment of caustic soda production: a case study in China. J Clean Prod 66:113–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huijbregts MA, Steinmann ZJ, Elshout PM et al (2016) ReCiPe 2016 A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: CharacterizationGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2003) Reference document on best available techniques for the textiles industry. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  40. Jorge RS, Hawkins TR, Hertwich EG (2012) Life cycle assessment of electricity transmission and distribution—part 2: transformers and substation equipment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:184–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karthikeyan S, Titus A, Gnanamani A, Mandal AB, Sekaran G (2011) Treatment of textile wastewater by homogeneous and heterogeneous Fenton oxidation processes. Desalination 281:438–445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Khatri A, Peerzada MH, Mohsin M, White M (2015) A review on developments in dyeing cotton fabrics with reactive dyes for reducing effluent pollution. J Clean Prod 87:50–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klöpffer W, Grahl B (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to best practice. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lefebvre O, Moletta R (2006) Treatment of organic pollution in industrial saline wastewater: a literature review. Water Res 40:3671–3682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lu MC, Chang YF, Chen IM, Huang YY (2005) Effect of chloride ions on the oxidation of aniline by Fenton’s reagent. J Environ Manag 75:177–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Metcalf L, Eddy HP (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Moraes JEF, Quina FH, Nascimiento CAO, Silva DN, Chiavone-Filho O (2004) Treatment of saline wastewater contaminated with hydrocarbons by the photo-Fenton process. Environ Sci Technol 38:1183–1187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muñoz I, Peral J, Ayllón JA, Malato S, Passarinho P, Domènech X (2006) Life cycle assessment of a coupled solar photocatalytic-biological process for wastewater treatment. Water Res 40:3533–3540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neoh CH, Noor ZZ, Mutamin NSA, Lim CK (2016) Green technology in wastewater treatment technologies: integration of membrane bioreactor with various wastewater treatment systems. Chem Eng J 283:582–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pliego G, Zazo JA, Casas JA, Rodríguez JJ (2013) Case study of the application of Fenton process to highly polluted wastewater from power plant. J Hazard Mater 252–253:180–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rawat D, Mishra V, Sharma RS (2016) Detoxification of azo dyes in the context of environmental processes. Chemosphere 155:591–605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittmann BE, McCarty PL (2001) Environmental biotechnology: principles and applications. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Salazar LM, Grisales CM, Garcia DP (2018) How does intensification influence the operational and environmental performance of photo-Fenton processes at acidic and circumneutral pH. Environ Sci Pollut Res.
  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. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Semrany S, Favier L, Djelal H, Taha S, Amrane A (2012) Bioaugmentation: possible solution in the treatment of bio-refractory organic compounds (bio-ROCs). Biochem Eng J 69:75–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Serra A, Domènech X, Brillas E, Peral J (2011) Life cycle assessment of solar photo-Fenton and solar photoelectro-Fenton processes used for the degradation of aqueous α-methylphenylglycine. J Environ Monit 13:167–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spasiano D, Marotta R, Malato S, Fernández-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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tisa F, Raman AAA, Wan Daud WMA (2014) Applicability of fluidized bed reactor in recalcitrant compound degradation through advanced oxidation processes: a review. J Environ Manag 146:260–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. WEC World Energy Council (2016) World energy resources. Hydropower. In: World energy resourcesGoogle Scholar
  69. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sede Palmira, Facultad de Ingeniería y AdministraciónUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaPalmiraColombia

Personalised recommendations