Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:568 | Cite as

Photo-catalytic reactor and detention pond integration: a novel technique for surface water quality enhancement via nano-TiO2

  • Xiaobing Chen
  • Saeed RadEmail author
  • Gan Lei
  • Dai Junfeng
  • Asfandyar Shahab
  • Shaohong You
  • Kaihua Bai
  • Mohd Raihan Taha
Original Article


Integration possibility and performance of a fixed-bed photo-catalytic reactor, merged with a detention pond, were examined at scale model. The focus of this study is to overcome the key issues of the conventional detention ponds and provide an enhanced surface water quality via nano-TiO2 as a novel hybrid technology. Photo-degradation of detained water nutrients in newly designed fixed-bed reactor pond (FRP) was studied to observe the impacts of heterogeneous reactions under ultraviolet irradiation. Immobilization of nano-titanium dioxide as catalyst, covering the FRP internal surface, was practiced for comparison and control. Rutile with anatase forms of TiO2 nano-powder (P25) was replaced in cement (white cement as well as Portland) at three dosages (30, 10, and 3%) for optimization purpose. Biodegradable pollutant elimination capability of FRP underpinned by the results for lower nitrate (16%), orthophosphate (25%), and COD (18%) in 2 days retention time, comparatively. Within 21 days, detaining time 26%, 58%. and 47% higher elimination was achieved, respectively. Improved catalyst surface area to reactor volume as well as an optimized retention time, based on streamflow pollution level, were achieved via splitting the FRP into two parts using a divider. FRP inlet was equipped with a flow switcher to capture and detain the first flush from the stormwater separately, while the balance is directed to the second part with a different required holding period. The divider walls were coated with cement-based nano-TiO2 and it also retrofitted applying filter media inside, for sediment-bound pollutant omission which the technique emerged with a greater TSS removal potency of up to 43%.


Wet detention pond Reactor Heterogeneous photo-catalytic Nano-titanium dioxide Quality enhancement Surface water First flush 



This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Codes: 41701248; 41501230) and Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (Codes: 2017GXNSFBA198102; 2016GXNSFAA380197).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Abidi M, Ali ZI, Zariri M (2017) Impact of treated wastewater on ground water quality: case of a phreatic aquifer in a semi-arid region. J Eng Technol 6:297–310. (Special issue on Technology Innovations and Applications) Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed S, Rasul M et al (2011) Influence of parameters on the heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of pesticides and phenolic contaminants in wastewater: a short review. J Environ Manage 92(3):311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold JA, Line DE, Coffey SW, Spooner J (1993) Stormwater management guidance manual. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  4. Attia AJ, Kadhim SH et al (2008) Photocatalytic degradation of textile dyeing wastewater using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. J Chem 5(2):219–223Google Scholar
  5. Bahnemann D (2004) Photocatalytic water treatment: solar energy applications. Sol Energy 77(5):445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behrendt F, Deutschmann O et al (1996) Simulation of heterogeneous reaction systems. Springer, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertrand-Krajewski JL, Chebbo G et al (1998) Distribution of pollutant mass vs volume in stormwater discharges and the first flush phenomenon. Water Res 32(8):2341–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourlakis MA, Weightman PW (2004) Food supply chain management. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  9. Braslavsky SE, Braun AM et al (2011) Glossary of terms used in photocatalysis and radiation catalysis (IUPAC Recommendations 2011). Pure Appl Chem 83(4):931–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown RA, Line DE et al (2010) Comparison of low impact development treatment, traditional stormwater treatment, and no stormwater treatment for commercial shopping centers in North Carolina. Low impact development 2010@ sredefining water in the City. ASCE, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunet L, Lyon DY et al (2009) Comparative photoactivity and antibacterial properties of C60 fullerenes and titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 43(12):4355–4360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bundy L, Cabrera M et al (2006) Best management practices to minimize agricultural phosphorus impacts on water quality. USDA-ARS, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassar L, Pepe C et al. (2003) White cement for architectural concrete, possessing photocatalytic properties. 11th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Durban. CongressGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaabene AB, Ouelhaz K, Sellami A (2018) Following control of MIMO uncertain systems application to a water desalination system supplied by photovoltaic source. J Eng Technol 6(1):1–12Google Scholar
  15. Daniels BK, Fisher AT et al. (2014) Hydrologic response to climate change in California: Observational and Modeling Studies, Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis B, Birch G (2009) Catchment-wide assessment of the cost-effectiveness of stormwater remediation measures in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy 12(1):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis J, Wang A et al (2010) Nanomaterial case studies: nanoscale titanium dioxide in water treatment and in topical sunscreen. US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  18. Denr N (1997) Stormwater Best management practices manual, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Environment and Environmental Resourcesâ. Division of Water QualityGoogle Scholar
  19. Echols SP (2002) Split-flow Stormwater Management Strategy: Development: Design feasibility and cost comparison. Virginia Polytechnic, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Edmondson W (1970) Phosphorus, nitrogen, and algae in Lake Washington after diversion of sewage. Science 169(3946):690–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. El-Mufleh Amelène et al (2014) Review on physical and chemical characterizations of contaminated sediments from urban stormwater infiltration basins within the framework of the French observatory for urban hydrology (SOERE URBIS). Environ Sci Pollut Res 21(8):5329–5346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fink J, Nancollis AP et al. (2014). US Patent No. 8,900,448. Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark OfficeGoogle Scholar
  23. Folli A, Macphee DE (2010) Photocatalytic cement: influence of TiO2 particle size on photocatalytic performances. 8th Fib Phd Symposium in Kgs, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  24. Fujishima A (2000) Photocatalitic and self clinging functions of TiO2 coatings. Third Asia-Pacific Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environmental Technologies, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  25. Fujishima A, Zhang X et al (2007) Heterogeneous photocatalysis: from water photolysis to applications in environmental cleanup. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32(14):2664–2672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregory, Haig J(2004) Stormwater infiltration at the scale of an individual residential lot in North Central Florida. Diss. University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  27. Guo Y (2001) Hydrologic design of urban flood control detention ponds. J Hydrol Eng 6(6):472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hafizah N et al (2009) TiO2 powder photocatalyst from sol–gel route and its immobilization with cement for photocatalytic phenol removal. J Inst Eng 70(4):49–56Google Scholar
  29. Hashimoto K, Irie H et al (2005) TiO2 photocatalysis: a historical overview and future prospects. Jpn J Appl Phys 44(12):8269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haygarth PM, Sharpley A (2000) Terminology for phosphorus transfer. J Environ Qual 29(1):10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heredia M, Duffy J (2007) Photocatalytic destruction of water pollutants using a TiO2 film in pet bottles. Proceedings of the Solar Conference, American Solar Energy Society; American Institute of ArchitectsGoogle Scholar
  32. Hüsken GBH (2008) Air purification by cementitious materials: Evaluation of air purifying properties. International Conference on Construction and Building Technology, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Kellems BL, Johnson R, Sanchez F (2003) Design of emerging technologies for control and removal of stormwater pollutants. In: World water & environmental resources congress 2003, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  34. Khan SU, Al-Shahry M et al (2002) Efficient photochemical water splitting by a chemically modified n-TiO2. Science 297(5590):2243–2245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kostedt IV WL, Mazyck DW (2006) Evaluation of a photocatalytic water treatment process. Fl Water Resour J 58(11):44–48Google Scholar
  36. Kwon S, Fan M et al (2008) Photocatalytic applications of micro-and nano-TiO2 in environmental engineering. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 38(3):197–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larry W, Mays (eds) (2001) Stormwater collection systems design handbook. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu Z, Liu Y (2018) Does anthropogenic land use change play a role in changes of precipitation frequency and intensity over the Loess Plateau of China? Remote Sens 10(11):1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Motahhari A, Khoo YH, Kamarei M (2018) Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: survey influence of clay with magnetic water on soil dam. J Eng Technol 6(1):566–569Google Scholar
  40. Mukherjee PS, Ray AK (1999) Major challenges in the design of a large-scale photocatalytic reactor for water treatment. Chem Eng Technol 22(3):253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nazari A, Riahi S et al (2010) Improvement the mechanical properties of the cementitious composite by using TiO2 nanoparticles. J Am Sci 6(4):98–101Google Scholar
  42. Newman J, Choo BS (2003) Advanced concrete technology set. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Ochiai T, Fukuda T et al (2010a) Photocatalytic inactivation and removal of algae with TiO2-coated materials. J Appl Electrochem 40(10):1737–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ochiai T, Nakata K et al (2010b) Development of solar-driven electrochemical and photocatalytic water treatment system using a boron-doped diamond electrode and TiO2 photocatalyst. Water Res 44(3):904–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ohtani B, Prieto-Mahaney O et al (2010) What is degussa (Evonik) P25? crystalline composition analysis, reconstruction from isolated pure particles and photocatalytic activity test. J Photochem Photobiol 216(2):179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Othman Zalina, Bhatia Subhash, Ahmad Abdul Latif (2011) Influence of the settleability parameters for palm oil mill effluent(POME) pretreatment by using moringa oleifera seeds as an environmental friendly coagulant. J Mater Sci Eng 5(3):332–340Google Scholar
  47. Pitt R (2004) Detention pond design and analysis CE 378 water resources engineering. Tech Release 55:42–52Google Scholar
  48. Plan RWS (2006) Water resources special report. Southwest Florida Water Management District.
  49. Price FA, Yonge DR (1995) Enhancing contaminant removal in stormwater detention basins by coagulation. Transp Res Rec 1483:105–111Google Scholar
  50. Priya SS, Premalatha M et al (2008) Solar photocatalytic treatment of phenolic wastewater potential, challenges and opportunities. J Eng Appl Sci 3(6):36–41Google Scholar
  51. Prodanoff JHA, Mascarenhas FCB (2010) Urban water quality after flooding 161:176–178Google Scholar
  52. Rad S, Shamsudin S et al (2014) First flush phenomena establishments in detention pond new design concepts. Life Sci J 11(12):47–54Google Scholar
  53. Rad S, Shamsudin S et al (2015) Tropical stormwater nutrient degradation using nano TiO2 in photocatalytic reactor detention pond. Water Sci Technol 73:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rad S et al (2018) Sustainable water resources using corner pivot lateral, a novel sprinkler irrigation system layout for small scale farms. Appl Sci 8(12):2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rengaraj S, Li X (2007) Enhanced photocatalytic reduction reaction over Bi3 + TiO2 nanoparticles in presence of formic acid as a hole scavenger. Chemosphere 66(5):930–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodgers M, Walsh G et al (2011) Different depth intermittent sand filters for laboratory treatment of synthetic wastewater with concentrations close to measured septic tank effluent. J Environ Sci Health 46(1):80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schaal SP (2006) Water quality enhancement assessment of an existing flood control detention facility in the city of Tulsa. Oklahoma State University, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  58. Song H-Y, Jiang H-F et al (2006) Nano TiO2 deposited on crude mineral and the photoactivity to the degradation of chloroform. Am J Environ Sci 2(2):60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stefanakis AI, Becker JA (2016) A review of emerging contaminants in water: classification, sources, and potential risks. In: Impact of water pollution on human health and environmental sustainability. IGI Global, pp 55–80.
  60. Strategy INR (2013) A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico. Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  61. Tebbutt THY (1997) Principles of water quality control. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Toma F-L, Bertrand G et al (2006) Nanostructured photocatalytic titania coatings formed by suspension plasma spraying. J Therm Spray Technol 15(4):587–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Underwood LW, Ryan RE (2007) NASA's potential contributions for remediation of retention ponds using solar ultraviolet radiation and photocatalysis.
  64. USEPA (1999a) Storm water technology fact sheet: sand filters. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. USEPA (1999b) Storm water technology fact sheet, ponds, wet detention pond. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, USAGoogle Scholar
  66. USEPA (2000) National menu of best management practices: factsheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, USAGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Buren M, Watt W et al (1996) Enhancing the removal of pollutants by an on-stream pond. Water Sci Technol 33(4):325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vincent J, Kirkwood AE (2014) Variability of water quality, metals and phytoplankton community structure in urban stormwater ponds along a vegetation gradient. Urban Ecosyst 17(3):839–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wada K, Nishikawa M et al (2011) Control approach to non-biodegradable organic matter in roadway runoff. Water Pract Technol 6(1):1–2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. WHO (2006) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: first addendum, vol 1, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva. (Recommendations) Google Scholar
  71. World Health Organization (2014) Preventing diarrhea through better water, sanitation, and hygiene: exposures and impacts in low- and middle income countries. World Health Organization, pp 1–2.
  72. Zaimes GN, Schultz RC (2002) Phosphorus in agricultural watersheds a literature review, vol 2. Iowa State University, Ames, p 34. (Department of Forestry) Google Scholar
  73. Zhang TC et al (2009) Nanotechnologies for water environment applications. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control Theory and TechnologyGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinChina
  2. 2.Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Water Pollution Control and Safety in Karst AreaGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinChina
  3. 3.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinChina
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI)University Kebangsaan MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations