The general methodology consists of an experimental part and a modeling section including model fitting (parameter estimation), that are detailed in the following sections.
Experimental
The experimental step provides the data that will be used in the final optimization procedure to estimate the kinetic constants of the proposed model.
Reagent and chemicals
Paracetamol 98% purity purchased from Sigma-Aldrich was used as model pollutant. Reagent-grade hydrogen peroxide 33% w/v from Panreac and iron sulfate (FeSO4·7H2O) from Merck adopted as the ferrous ion (Fe2+) source, were used to perform all the experiments. HPLC gradient grade methanol, MeOH, purchased from J.T. Baker and filtered Milli Q grade water were used as HPLC mobile phases. High-purity (> 99%) ascorbic acid from Riedel de Haën, 0.2% 1,10-phenanthroline from Scharlab, and sodium acetate anhydrous and 95%–98% sulfuric acid, both from Panreac, were used to perform iron species measurements. In order to adjust the initial pH to the optimal one (2.8 ± 0.1), hydrogen chloride HCl 37% from J.T. Baker was used. Distilled water was used as water matrix in all experiments.
Analytical determinations
Measurements of PCT, total organic carbon (TOC), H2O2, and iron species concentrations were performed. TOC concentration (CTOC) was measured with a Shimadzu VCHS/CSN TOC analyzer and samples were taken each 15 min until the end of the experiment. PCT concentration (CPCT) was determined using an HPLC Agilent 1200 series with UV-DAD. The measurement method is the one described by Yamal-Turbay et al. (2014). All the samples, taken at 0, 1.5, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, and 15 min, were treated with 0.1 M methanol (in proportion 50:50) to stop reaction and further degradation of PCT. Hydrogen peroxide concentration (\( {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2} \)) was determined with a Hitachi U-2001 UV-VIS spectrophotometer and using the spectrophotometric technique described by Nogueira et al. (2005). This technique is based on the measurement of the absorption at 450 nm of the complex formed after reaction of H2O2 with ammonium metavanadate. In this case, samples were taken each 5 min until a reaction time of 30 min and then each 15 min until the end of the assay.
The iron species (Fe2+, FeTOT) were analyzed using the 1,10-phentranoline method following ISO 6332 (ISO 6332:1988), based on the absorbance measurements of the Fe2+-phenantroline complex at 510 nm. To measure total iron concentration (\( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{\mathrm{TOT}}} \)), ascorbic acid must be used so to convert all the ferric ions (Fe3+) to ferrous ions (Fe2+). Then, for difference, ferric ion concentration could be determined (\( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}} \) = \( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{\mathrm{TOT}}} \)-\( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}} \)). In this case, samples were taken each 5 min until a reaction time of 30 min and then each 15 min until the end of the assay.
Table 1 shows the experimental errors evaluated for all measurement techniques and for a PCT concentration range of [0–40] mg L−1, a total carbon (TC) concentration range of [0–50] mg L−1, an inorganic carbon (IC) concentration range of [0–10] mg L−1, and a H2O2 concentration range of [0–150] mg L−1.
Table 1 Experimental errors of the measurement techniques Experimental set-up
A 15-L system composed by a 9-L glass jacketed reservoir tank and a 6-L glass annular photoreactor equipped with an Actinic BL TL-DK 36 W/10 1SL lamp (UVA-UVB) was used to perform Fenton and photo-Fenton experiments; the irradiated volume is 10% of the total volume (that is 1.5 L). The incident photon power, E = 3.36 × 10−4 Einstein min−1 (300 and 420 nm) was measured by Yamal-Turbay et al., 2014 using potassium ferrioxalate actinometry (Murov et al. 1993). In addition, the experimental device is also equipped with a pH sensor and a flowmeter for the control of the recirculation flow rate and a thermostatic bath for the temperature control, which is measured by a temperature sensor placed inside the 9-L tank. In Fig. 1, a schematic view (Fig. 1a) and a picture of the experimental set-up (Fig. 1b) with its specifications (Table 2) are shown. For more details of the experimental system, you can refer to Yamal-Turbay et al. (2014).
Table 2 Experimental device specifications Experimental procedure
Fenton and photo-Fenton assays were performed in batch mode with recirculation, changing initial concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (\( {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}^{t0} \)) and ferrous ion (\( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}^{t0} \)) for the same value of the initial concentration of PCT (\( {C}_{\mathrm{PCT}}^{t0} \)).
The value of the initial PCT concentration was set to 40 mg L−1 in order to investigate Fenton and photo-Fenton treatment of a real paracetamol wastewater characterized by higher PCT concentrations (Dalgic et al. (2017)).
The maximum value of the initial concentration of Fe2+ was set taking into account the maximum legal value in wastewaters in Spain (DOGC, 2003), 10 mg L−1, while half of such value was set as the minimum value to be investigated.
Also, to select the initial concentration of H2O2, the stoichiometric dose to achieve total mineralization when H2O2 is considered to be the only oxidant in the media (Eq. (1)) and when \( {C}_{\mathrm{PCT}}^{t0} \) = 40 mg L−1, was calculated and resulted in a value of 189 mg L−1. Then, a range between half and twice the stoichiometric dose (94.5 and 378 mg L−1, respectively) was selected.
$$ {\mathrm{C}}_8{\mathrm{H}}_9{\mathrm{NO}}_2+21{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2\to 8{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}}_2+25{\mathrm{H}}_2\mathrm{O}+{\mathrm{H}}^{+}+{\mathrm{NO}}_3^{-} $$
(1)
Eighteen experiments were carried out (Table 3) by testing three different values of \( {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}^{t0} \) (94.5, 189, and 378 mg L−1) and \( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}^{t0} \)(5, 7.5, and 10 mg L−1), for the same value of \( {C}_{\mathrm{PCT}}^{t0} \) set to 40 mg L−1 (corresponding to \( {C}_{\mathrm{TOC}}^{t0} \) = 25.40 mg L−1) and under dark and irradiated conditions. Hence, three hydrogen peroxide to paracetamol initial molar ratios (R = 10.5, 21, 42) were investigated.
Table 3 Design of experiments Regarding the experimental protocol, the glass reservoir was first filled with 10 L of distilled water and then, after 15 min of recirculation, 4.9 L of distilled water in which PCT was previously dissolved, were added. Once pH was adjusted to 2.8 ± 0.1, the remaining 0.1 L of distilled water, in which Fe2+ was previously dissolved, were filled and the light was switched on (in case of experiments performed under irradiated conditions). Finally, H2O2 was added and the initial sample was taken. The total reaction time was fixed to 120 min. To ensure perfect mixing conditions, according to the results obtained by Yamal-Turbay et al. (2014), the recirculation flow rate was set to 12 L min−1.
Modeling
The modeling section starts by proposing a kinetic model followed by the reactor model that allows describing, by the means of a set of ODEs, the mass balances into the photoreactor (isothermal conditions).
Kinetic model
The kinetic model proposed for the Fenton and photo-Fenton degradation of PCT (see Table 4) is based on the general Fenton/photo-Fenton reaction scheme proposed by Sun and Pignatello (1993a,b); Brillas et al.(2000); and Pignatello et al.(2006).
Table 4 Reaction mechanism of Fenton and photo-Fenton PCT degradation Where \( \overline{\ \varPhi } \) refers to the wavelength-averaged primary quantum yield that was taken from Bossmann et al. (1998) and Pi represents the generic intermediate compound generated by the hydroxyl radical (HO∙) attack to PCT.
The proposed model is based on the following assumptions (Conte et al. 2012):
-
i.
only the hydroxyl radicals (HO∙) are taken into account as oxidant species;
-
ii.
the steady-state approximation (SSA) can be applied to the highly reactive species (HO∙);
-
iii.
low ferrous ion concentrations were selected so the hydroxyl radical attack to Fe2+ can be neglected;
-
iv.
the radical-radical termination steps are negligible compared to the propagation steps;
-
v.
the oxygen concentration is always in excess.
Hence, the kinetic constants accounting for Fenton and Fenton-like reactions,and the hydroxyl radical attack to hydrogen peroxide and paracetamol (k1, k3, k4, and k5, respectively) were the parameters to be estimated. Subsequently, the following reaction rates for the reactive species PCT, H2O2, Fe2+, and Fe3+ were derived:
$$ \left[\begin{array}{c}{R}_{\mathrm{PCT}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}{R^T}_{\mathrm{PCT}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R^T}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R^T}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R^T}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\end{array}\right]+\overline{\varPhi}\sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}-\frac{1}{\delta}\\ {}-\frac{1}{\rho}\\ {}\kern1em 1\\ {}-1\end{array}\right] $$
(2)
Where
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\ \\ {}\delta =\frac{k_4}{k_{12}}\frac{\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}}{\ {C}_{\mathrm{PCT}}}\kern0.75em +1\end{array}} $$
(3)
$$ \rho =\frac{k_5}{k_4}\frac{\ {C}_{\mathrm{PCT}}}{\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}}\kern0.75em +1 $$
(4)
Here, \( \overline{\ \varPhi } \) is the wavelength-averaged primary quantum yield,\( \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) \) the LVRPA extended to polychromatic radiation by performing the integration over all useful wavelengths λ (300–420 nm), and \( \underset{\_}{x} \) the position vector accounting for the radius and axial coordinates of the reactor.
It should be noted that the general reaction rate expression can be expressed as follows (in matrix notation):
$$ \left[\boldsymbol{R}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right]=\left[{\boldsymbol{R}}^T\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right]+\overline{\varPhi}\sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\boldsymbol{\tau} \left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) $$
(5)
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) corresponds to the thermal reaction rate that gives the i-component degradation by the Fenton reaction, taking place in the total volume VT, and is given by Eqs. (6) and (7):
$$ \left[\begin{array}{c}{R}_{\mathrm{PCT}}^T\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}^T\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}^T\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\\ {}{R}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}}^T\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\end{array}\right]={k}_1\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}\left[\begin{array}{c}\kern1.25em -\frac{1}{\delta}\\ {}-\left(1+\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\\ {}\kern0.75em -1\\ {}\kern0.75em +1\end{array}\right]+\gamma \left[\begin{array}{c}\kern2em 0\kern1.25em \\ {}-1\\ {}+1\\ {}-1\end{array}\right] $$
(6)
where:
$$ \gamma ={k}_2\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}}\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2} $$
(7)
On the other hand, the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) corresponds to the i-component degradation by the radiation-activated reaction occurring inside the irradiated liquid volume (VIRR).
Reactor model
The mass balances and initial conditions for the well-stirred annular photoreactor are given by the following set of first order, ordinary differential equations:
$$ \frac{d\boldsymbol{C}}{dt}={\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)+\frac{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}{V_T}\overline{\varPhi}{\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}\boldsymbol{\tau} \left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) $$
(8)
With the initial conditions:
$$ \boldsymbol{C}={\boldsymbol{C}}^0\kern0.5em {t}_0=0 $$
(9)
Note that the required reaction rate expressions to be replaced in Eq. (8) are given by Eqs. (2)–(4) and Eqs. (6)–(7).
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, the following ODEs system gives the mass balance equations of the reactor model for each species (PCT, H2O2, Fe2+, and Fe3+):
$$ \frac{d{C}_{PCT}}{dt}=\left[\left({k}_1\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}\left(-\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\right)\right]+\left[\frac{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}{V_T}\left(\overline{\varPhi}{\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}\right)\right] $$
(10)
$$ \frac{d{C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}}{dt}=\left[\left({k}_1\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}\left(-\left(1+\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\right)-\gamma \right)\right]+\left[\frac{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}{V_T}\left(\overline{\varPhi}{\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}\right)\right] $$
(11)
$$ \frac{d{C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}}{dt}=\left[\left(-{k}_1\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}\ {C}_{{\mathrm{H}}_2{\mathrm{O}}_2}+\gamma \right)\right]+\left[\frac{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}{V_T}\left(\overline{\varPhi}{\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}\right)\right] $$
(12)
$$ \frac{d{C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}}}{dt}=-\frac{d\ {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{2+}}}{dt} $$
(13)
Here, \( {\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}} \) is the LVRPA averaged over the irradiated reactor volume (VIRR). The latter depends on the spatial photon distribution within the annular photoreactor and, consequently, on the physical properties and the geometrical characteristics of the lamp-reactor system. To compute it, a radiation model must be previously introduced. Specifically, a line source model with spherical and isotropic emission (LSSE model) was adopted (Alfano et al. 1986; Braun et al. 2004). The LSSE model allows calculating LVRPAVIRR as a function of the radiation absorbing specie.
First, the following equation for the evaluation of the LVRPA for cylindrical coordinates has been solved using the numerical integration function in MATLAB:
$$ {e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)={\upkappa}_{\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\frac{P_{\lambda, s}}{2\pi {L}_L}{\int}_{\uptheta_1}^{\uptheta_2}\mathit{\exp}\left[-\frac{\upkappa_{T,\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\left({r}_i-{r}_{int}\right)}{\cos \uptheta}\right] d\theta $$
(14)
where Pλ, s is the lamp spectral power emission (provided by the lamp supplier), \( {\upkappa}_{\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) \) is the volumetric absorption coefficient of the reacting species, \( {\upkappa}_{T,\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) \) is the volumetric absorption coefficient of the medium, r is the radius, and LL is the useful length of the lamp. To compute the radiation absorbed in a generic point I = I(r,z) (located at \( \underset{\_}{x} \)) inside the reactor, it was necessary to estimate the limiting angles of integration (trigonometrically defined), that is:
$$ {\theta}_1={\tan}^{-1}\left(\frac{r_i}{L_L-{z}_i}\right)\kern0.75em \mathrm{and}\kern0.5em {\theta}_2={\tan}^{-1}\left(\frac{-{r}_i}{z_i}\right) $$
(15)
To solve Eq. (14), it was considered that ferric ions present in solution as ferric ion complex (Fe(OH)2+) are the dominant ferric species at pH 2.8 and the principal absorbing specie; here it was also assumed that radiation absorption of hydrogen peroxide and ferrous ion is negligible for wavelengths greater than 300 nm. Under these hypotheses, \( {\upkappa}_{T,\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right) \) can be calculated as follows:
$$ {\upkappa}_{T,\lambda}\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)=\sum \limits_i{\alpha}_{i,\lambda }{C}_i\overset{\sim }{=}{\alpha}_{\mathrm{Fe}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}^{2+},\lambda }\ {C}_{\mathrm{Fe}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}^{2+}} $$
(16)
where \( {\alpha}_{\mathrm{Fe}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}^{2+},\lambda } \) is the molar absorptivity of ferric ion complex (Fe(OH)2+) and \( {C}_{\mathrm{Fe}{\left(\mathrm{OH}\right)}^{2+}} \) is the concentration of the latter that can be considered equal to the concentration of Fe3+.
Finally, after evaluating LVRPA at each point inside the irradiated volume, it is possible to compute the averaged value of the LVRPA over the irradiated reactor volume and polychromatic radiation, solving the following equation:
$$ {\left\langle \sum \limits_{\lambda }{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\right\rangle}_{V_{IRR}}=\frac{2\pi }{V_{\mathrm{IRR}}}{\int}_0^L{\int}_{r_{int}}^{r_{ext}}{e}_{\lambda}^a\left(\underset{\_}{x},t\right)\ r\ dr\ dz $$
(17)
where rint and rext are the internal and external radius of the annular photoreactor. Also in this case, the numerical integration function in MATLAB was used to solve Eq. (17).
In this way, it was possible to estimate the value of LVPRA averaged over the irradiated reactor volume for a specific set of values of \( {C}_{{\mathrm{Fe}}^{3+}} \) (Table 5).
Table 5 Values of LVRPA averaged over the irradiated reactor volume, calculated for a specific set of iron concentration Model fitting and parameter estimation
A nonlinear multivariate and multiparameter optimization procedure was implemented in MATLAB in order to minimize the sum of the squared differences between the experimental and model values of PCT and H2O2 normalized concentrations.
The first step is to solve numerically the ODE system given by Eqs. (8)–(9). For this purpose, an ordinary differential equation (ODE) solver in MATLAB was used. Especially, ode15s solver stiff differential equations which is a variable-step, variable-order (VSVO) solver based on the numerical differentiation formulas (NDFs), was selected. Then, the values of the kinetic constants (k1, k3, k4, and k5) were estimated minimizing the sum of the squared differences between the model values (calculated by solving the ODEs system) and the experimental values of PCT and H2O2. For this purpose, the Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares algorithm available in the optimization toolbox of MATLAB was used. The whole set of experimental data (E1-E18, Table 3) was used for the parameter estimation. Additionally, the root mean square errors (RMSE) were calculated to test model reliability (see Fig. 2).