Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1230–1240 | Cite as

Investigation on the reaction of phenolic pollutions to mono-rhamnolipid micelles using MEUF

  • Zhifeng Liu
  • Mingda Yu
  • Guangming Zeng
  • Min Li
  • Jiachao Zhang
  • Hua Zhong
  • Yang Liu
  • Binbin Shao
  • Zhigang Li
  • Zhiquan Wang
  • Guansheng Liu
  • Xin Yang
Research Article

Abstract

Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) processes of resorcinol, phenol, and 1-Naphthol with rhamnolipid as an anionic biosurfactant were investigated using polysulfone membrane. The effects of retentate/permeate concentration of phenolic pollutants (C R/C P), distribution coefficient of phenolic pollutions (D), concentration ratios of phenolic pollutions (α P) and rhamnolipids (α R) and adsorption capacity of the membrane (N m) were studied by operating pressure, pH condition, feed surfactant, and phenolic pollution concentrations. Results showed that C R (with pH) increased and ranked in the following order: resorcinol > phenol > 1-Naphthol, which is same with C R (with pressure), C R (with surfactant), C R/C P (with pollution), α,P and D, while C P (with pH), C P (with pressure), and C P (with surfactant) ranked in the reverse order. The operating pressure increased the solubility of phenolic from 0 to 0.1 MPa and then decreased slowly above 0.1 MPa. The concentration ratio of rhamnolipid was nearly at 2.0 and that of phenolic pollution was slightly above 1.0. D of phenolic pollutants reached the maximum at phenolic pollution concentration of 0.1 mM and the feed rhamnolipid concentration at 1 CMC. Moreover, zeta potential in feed stream and retentate stream and membrane adsorption of phenolic pollutions were firstly investigated in this article; the magnitudes of zeta potential with the feed stream of three phenolic pollutions were nearly the same and slightly lower than those with the retentate stream. The adsorption capacity of the membrane (N m) was calculated and compared to the former research, which showed that rhamnolipid significantly decreases the membrane adsorption of phenolic pollutions at a relatively lower concentration. It was implied that rhamnolipid can be substituted for chemical surfactants.

Keywords

Mono-rhamnolipid Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration Phenolic pollutions Hydrophobicity Membrane adsorption 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was financially supported by the Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (IRT-13R17) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51308200, 51378192, 51521006, and 51378190). Thanks to Xiazhen Wang and Fenglan Liu for the aid of polishing the language.

References

  1. Abbasi-Garravand E, Mulligan CN (2014) Using micellar enhanced ultrafiltration and reduction techniques for removal of Cr(VI) and Cr(III) from water. Sep Purif Technol 132:505–512. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2014.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad AL, Puasa SW, Zulkali MMD (2006) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for removal of reactive dyes from an aqueous solution. Desalination 191:153–161. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.07.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alargova R, Ivanova V, Kralchevsky P, Mehreteab A, Broze G (1998) Growth of rod-like micelles in anionic surfactant solutions in the presence of Ca 2+ counterions. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 142:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banat F, Al-Bashir B, Al-Asheh S, Hayajneh O (2000) Adsorption of phenol by bentonite. Environ Pollut 107:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayramoglu G, Gursel I, Tunali Y, Arica MY (2009) Biosorption of phenol and 2-chlorophenol by Funaliatrogii pellets. Bioresour Technol 100:2685–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budavari S (1996) An encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs and biologicals. The Merck index; 12 th Edn. Merck & Co Inc, Whitehouse Station, NJ, p. 146Google Scholar
  7. Champion JT, Gilkey JC, Lamparski H, Retterer J, Miller RM (1995) Electron microscopy of rhamnolipid (biosurfactant) morphology: effects of pH, cadmium, and octadecane. J Colloid Interface Sci 170:569–574. doi: 10.1006/jcis.1995.1136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comninellis C, Nerini A (1995) Anodic oxidation of phenol in the presence of NaCl for wastewater treatment. J Appl Electrochem 25:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Comninellis C, Pulgarin C (1991) Anodic oxidation of phenol for waste water treatment. J Appl Electrochem 21:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Der Yang R, Humphrey AE (1975) Dynamic and steady state studies of phenol biodegradation in pure and mixed cultures. Biotechnol Bioeng 17:1211–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dharaiya N, Bahadur P (2012) Phenol induced growth in Triton X-100 micelles: effect of pH and phenols’ hydrophobicity. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 410:81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2012.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Naas MH, Al-Muhtaseb SA, Makhlouf S (2009) Biodegradation of phenol by Pseudomonas putida immobilized in polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) gel. J Hazard Mater 164:720–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gurol MD, Vatistas R (1987) Oxidation of phenolic compounds by ozone and ozone+ UV radiation: a comparative study. Water Res 21:895–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gzara L, Dhahbi M (2001) Removal of chromate anions by micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration using cationic surfactants. Desalination 137:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han D-H, Cha S-Y, Yang H-Y (2004) Improvement of oxidative decomposition of aqueous phenol by microwave irradiation in UV/H 2 O 2 process and kinetic study. Water Res 38:2782–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang C, Dong C, Tang Z (1993) Advanced chemical oxidation: its present role and potential future in hazardous waste treatment. Waste Manag 13:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang J, Zeng G, Xu K, Fang Y (2005) Removal of cadmium ions from aqueous solution via micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 15:184–189Google Scholar
  18. Huang J-H et al (2010) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of methylene blue from dye wastewater via a polysulfone hollow fiber membrane. J Membr Sci 365:138–144. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang J-H et al (2012) Separation of phenol from various micellar solutions using MEUF. Sep Purif Technol 98:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2012.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang J-H et al. (2015) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for the solubilization of various phenolic compounds with different surfactantsGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishigami Y, Gama Y, Nagahora H, Yamaguchi M, Nakahara H, Kamata T (1987) The pH-sensitive conversion of molecular aggregates of rhamnolipid biosurfactant. Chem Lett 16:763–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan W, van Barneveld H, Gerlich O, Kleine-Boymann M, Ullrich J (1991) Phenol Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistryGoogle Scholar
  23. Juang R-S, Xu Y-Y, Chen C-L (2003) Separation and removal of metal ions from dilute solutions using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. J Membr Sci 218:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamble S, Marathe K (2005) Membrane characteristics and fouling study in MEUF for the removal of chromate anions from aqueous streams. Sep Sci Technol 40:3051–3070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu Z-F, Zeng G-M, Wang J, Zhong H, Ding Y, Yuan X-Z (2010) Effects of monorhamnolipid and Tween 80 on the degradation of phenol by Candida tropicalis. Process Biochem 45:805–809. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2010.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu Z-F et al (2012a) Effect of dirhamnolipid on the removal of phenol catalyzed by laccase in aqueous solution. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu Z et al (2012b) Influence of rhamnolipids and Triton X-100 on adsorption of phenol by Penicillium simplicissimum. Bioresour Technol 110:468–473. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu S, Somasundaran P (2007) Intermolecular packing of sugar-based surfactant and phenol in a micellar phase. Langmuir 23:9960–9966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Materna K, Goralska E, Sobczynska A, Szymanowski J (2004) Recovery of various phenols and phenylamines by micellar enhanced ultrafiltration and cloud point separation. Green Chem 6:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathialagan T, Viraraghavan T (2009) Biosorption of pentachlorophenol from aqueous solutions by a fungal biomass. Bioresour Technol 100:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monteiro ÁA, Boaventura RA, Rodrigues AE (2000) Phenol biodegradation by Pseudomonas putida DSM 548 in a batch reactor. Biochem Eng J 6:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Monticone V, Mannebach M, Treiner C (1994) Coadsorption of 2-naphthol and cetylpyridinium chloride at a silica/water interface in relation with the micellar solubilization effect. Langmuir 10:2395–2398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oppenländer T, Gliese S (2000) Mineralization of organic micropollutants (homologous alcohols and phenols) in water by vacuum-UV-oxidation (H 2 O-VUV) with an incoherent xenon-excimer lamp at 172 nm. Chemosphere 40:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Özkaya B (2006) Adsorption and desorption of phenol on activated carbon and a comparison of isotherm models. J Hazard Mater 129:158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Purkait MK, DasGupta S, De S (2004) Removal of dye from wastewater using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration and recovery of surfactant. Sep Purif Technol 37:81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2003.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanchez M, Aranda FJ, Espuny MJ, Marques A, Teruel JA, Manresa A, Ortiz A (2007) Aggregation behaviour of a dirhamnolipid biosurfactant secreted by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in aqueous media. J Colloid Interface Sci 307:246–253. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2006.11.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shin KH, Kim KW, Kim JY, Lee KE, Han SS (2008) Rhamnolipid morphology and phenanthrene solubility at different pH values. J Environ Qual 37:509–514. doi: 10.2134/jeq2007.0258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vibhandik AD, Marathe KV (2014) Removal of Ni (II) ions from wastewater by micellar enhanced ultrafiltration using mixed surfactants. Front Chem Sci Eng 8:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xiong Y (2013) Effect of various surfactant micelle on separation efficiency of phenol in micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration [D]. Hunan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu K (2008) Performance, mechanism and application research on solibilization and retention of aqueous phenol by using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration [D]. Hunan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang C, Qian Y, Zhang L, Feng J (2006) Solvent extraction process development and on-site trial-plant for phenol removal from industrial coal-gasification wastewater. Chem Eng J 117:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu M et al (2015) Characteristics of mannosylerythritol lipids and their environmental potential. Carbohydr Res 407:63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2014.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yuan X-z et al (2012) Effect of rhamnolipids on cadmium adsorption by Penicillium simplicissimum. J Cent South Univ 19:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yurlova L, Kryvoruchko A, Kornilovich B (2002) Removal of Ni (II) ions from wastewater by micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Desalination 144:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeng G-M, Xu K, Huang J-H, Li X, Fang Y-Y, Qu Y-H (2008) Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration of phenol in synthetic wastewater using polysulfone spiral membrane. J Membr Sci 310:149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.10.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeng G et al (2011a) Effect of monorhamnolipid on the degradation of n-hexadecane by Candida tropicalis and the association with cell surface properties. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 90:1155–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeng GM et al (2011b) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of cadmium and methylene blue in synthetic wastewater using SDS. J Hazard Mater 185:1304–1310. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeng G, Chen M, Zeng Z (2013) Risks of neonicotinoid pesticides. Science 340:1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang Y et al (2012) Effect of Triton X-100 on the removal of aqueous phenol by laccase analyzed with a combined approach of experiments and molecular docking. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 97:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhong H (2008) Adsorption of rhamnolipid biosurfactant on microorgaisms and the effect of adsorption on cell surface hydrophobicity [D]. Hunan UniversityGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhong H et al (2015) Effect of low-concentration rhamnolipid on adsorption of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027 on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces. J Hazard Mater 285:383–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.11.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhou M-F, Yuan X-Z, Zhong H, Liu Z-F, Li H, Jiang L-L, Zeng G-M (2011) Effect of biosurfactants on laccase production and phenol biodegradation in solid-state fermentation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 164:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhifeng Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mingda Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guangming Zeng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Min Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiachao Zhang
    • 3
  • Hua Zhong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yang Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Binbin Shao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhigang Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhiquan Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guansheng Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xin Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringHunan UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Environmental Biology and Pollution Control (Hunan University)Ministry of EducationChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.College of Resources and EnvironmentHunan Agricultural UniversityChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations