Advertisement

Optimization of Fenton and Photo-Fenton-Based Advanced Oxidation Processes for COD Reduction of Petrochemical Wastewater: Application of Response Surface Methodology

  • Maryam Nazrifar
  • Nader BahramifarEmail author
  • Habibollah Younesi
Original Paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Two advance oxidation processes (AOPs), namely Fenton and photo-Fenton, was used to purify the Karun Petrochemical wastewater. In order to optimize the maximum chemical oxygen demand (COD) reduction, the effects of initial pH, H2O2, and FeSO4·7H2O doses and the exposure contact time of UV light were investigated during the purification process using response surface methodology (RSM) under the central composite design (CCD). The results revealed the fact that the optimum conditions for the photo-Fenton were obtained to be at initial pH of 4, H2O2 dose of 8 ml/l and FeSO4·7H2O dose of 2.33 g/l and time of 93.75 min. Under these circumstances, the highest COD removal of 83.51% was obtained. In the Fenton process, the optimum conditions at initial pH of 4, H2O2 dose of 8 ml/l, FeSO4·7H2O dose of 3.25 g/l, and UV exposure time of 92.39 min were achieved. Under these conditions, the COD removal was 73.09%.

Keywords

Petrochemical industries wastewater treatment Advanced oxidation Fenton Photo-Fenton 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelwahab O, Amin NK, El-Ashtoukhy EZ (2009) Electrochemical removal of phenol from oil refinery wastewater. J Hazard Mater 163(2):711–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmadi M, Vahabzadeh F, Bonakdarpour B, Mofarrah E, Mehranian M (2005) Application of the central composite design and response surface methodology to the advanced treatment of olive oil processing wastewater using Fenton's peroxidation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 123(1):187–195Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmadi M, Vahabzade F, Moffarrah E, Aliabadi M (2004) Application of advanced oxidation of dephenolization of olive oil mill wastewater processing by fentons reagent. In Proc. 9th National Congress of Chem. Eng (pp. 23–25)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akhbari A, Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohammadi P, Irandoust M, Mansouri Y (2011) Process modeling and analysis of biological nutrients removal in an integrated RBC-AS system using response surface methodology. Chem Eng J 168(1):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amini M, Younesi H (2009) Biosorption of Cd (II), Ni (II) and Pb (II) from aqueous solution by dried biomass of Aspergillus niger: application of response surface methodology to the optimization of process parameters. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water 37(10):776–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amini M, Younesi H, Bahramifar N, Lorestani AAZ, Ghorbani F, Daneshi A, Sharifzadeh M (2008) Application of response surface methodology for optimization of lead biosorption in an aqueous solution by Aspergillus niger. J Hazard Mater 154(1):694–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    APHA (1999) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Attiogbe FK, Glover-Amengor M, Nyadziehe KT (2007) Correlating biochemical and chemical oxygen demand of effluents–A case study of selected industries in Kumasi, Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 11(1):45722Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Babuponnusami A, Muthukumar K (2014) A review on Fenton and improvements to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment. J Environ Chem Eng 2(1):557–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbusiński K, Filipek K (2000) Aerobic sludge digestion in the presence of chemical oxidizing agents part II. Fenton’s reagent. Pol J Environ Stud 9(3):145–149Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Da Costa PRF, Da Silva DR, Martínez-Huitle CA, Garcia-Segura S (2016) Fuel station effluent treatment by electrochemical technology. J Electroanal Chem 763:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diya’uddeen BH, Daud WMAW, Aziz AA (2011) Treatment technologies for petroleum refinery effluents: a review. Process Saf Environ Prot 89(2):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia-Segura S, Bellotindos LM, Huang YH, Brillas E, Lu MC (2016) Fluidized-bed Fenton process as alternative wastewater treatment technology—a review. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 67:211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgiou D, Melidis P, Aivasidis A, Gimouhopoulos K (2002) Degradation of azo-reactive dyes by ultraviolet radiation in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. Dyes Pigments 52(2):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghaly MY, Härtel G, Mayer R, Haseneder R (2001) Photochemical oxidation of p-chlorophenol by UV/H 2 O 2 and photo-Fenton process. A comparative study. Waste Manag 21(1):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hird W (2006) Recycled water—case study: BlueScope steel, Port Kembla steelworks. Desalination 188(1–3):97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishak AR, Hamid FS, Mohamad S, Tay KS (2017). Removal of organic matter from stabilized landfill leachate using Coagulation-Flocculation-Fenton coupled with activated charcoal adsorption. Waste Management & Research, 35(7),739–746.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kang YW, Hwang KY (2000) Effects of reaction conditions on the oxidation efficiency in the Fenton process. Water Res 34(10):2786–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karimi B, Ehrampoush MH, Ebrahimi A, Mokhtari M (2013) The study of leachate treatment by using three advanced oxidation process based wet air oxidation. Iranian journal of environmental health science & engineering, 10(1):1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kavitha V, Palanivelu K (2004) The role of ferrous ion in Fenton and photo-Fenton processes for the degradation of phenol. Chemosphere 55(9):1235–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klamerth N, Malato S, Agüera A, Fernández-Alba A (2013) Photo-Fenton and modified photo-Fenton at neutral pH for the treatment of emerging contaminants in wastewater treatment plant effluents: a comparison. Water Res 47(2):833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kušić H, Koprivanac N, Božić AL, Selanec I (2006) Photo-assisted Fenton type processes for the degradation of phenol: a kinetic study. J Hazard Mater 136(3):632–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin M, Huang H, Liu Z, Liu Y, Ge J, Fang Y (2013). Growth–dissolution–regrowth transitions of Fe3O4 nanoparticles as building blocks for 3D magnetic nanoparticle clusters under hydrothermal conditions. Langmuir, 29(49), 15433-15441.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lipczynska-Kochany E, Kochany J (2008) Effect of humic substances on the Fenton treatment of wastewater at acidic and neutral pH. Chemosphere 73(5):745–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ma F, Guo JB, Zhao LJ, Chang CC, Cui D (2009) Application of bioaugmentation to improve the activated sludge system into the contact oxidation system treating petrochemical wastewater. Bioresour Technol 100(2):597–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malato S, Blanco J, Vidal A, Richter C (2002) Photocatalysis with solar energy at a pilot-plant scale: an overview. Appl Catal B Environ 37(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malato S, Fernández-Ibáñez P, Maldonado MI, Blanco J, Gernjak W (2009) Decontamination and disinfection of water by solar photocatalysis: recent overview and trends. Catal Today 147(1):1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mamane H, Shemer H, Linden KG (2007) Inactivation of E. coli, B. subtilis spores, and MS2, T4, and T7 phage using UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation. Journal of hazardous materials, 146(3):479–486Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meriç S, Selcuk H, Gallo M, Belgiorno V (2005) Decolourisation and detoxifying of Remazol red dye and its mixture using Fenton's reagent. Desalination 173(3):239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Montgomery DC (2001). Design and analysis of experiments Fifth Edition. By John Wiley & Sons. Inc. All rights reservedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nousheen R, Batool A, Rehman MSU, Ghufran MA, Hayat MT, Mahmood T (2014) Fenton-biological coupled biochemical oxidation of mixed wastewater for color and COD reduction. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 45(4):1661–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pardeshi SK, Patil AB (2008) A simple route for photocatalytic degradation of phenol in aqueous zinc oxide suspension using solar energy. Sol Energy 82(8):700–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pérez JF, Llanos J, Sáez C, López C, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA (2017) Treatment of real effluents from the pharmaceutical industry: a comparison between Fenton oxidation and conductive-diamond electro-oxidation. Journal of environmental management, 195: 216-223.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sponza DT, Gök O (2010). Effect of rhamnolipid on the aerobic removal of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and COD components from petrochemical wastewater. Bioresource technology, 101(3):914-924Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Singh SK, Tang WZ (2013) Statistical analysis of optimum Fenton oxidation conditions for landfill leachate treatment. Waste Manag 33(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sponza D, Karaoǧlu N (2002) Environmental geochemistry and pollution studies of Aliaǧa metal industry district. Environ Int 27(7):541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Su CC, Chang AT, Bellotindos LM, Lu MC (2012) Degradation of acetaminophen by Fenton and electro-Fenton processes in aerator reactor. Sep Purif Technol 99:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verma M, Ghaly AE (2008) Treatment of Remazol Brilliant Blue dye effluent by advanced photo oxidation process in TiO2/UV and H2O2/UV reactors. Am. J. Engg. & Applied Sci, 1(3):230–240Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Xu M, Wu C, Zhou Y (2017) Advanced treatment of petrochemical secondary effluent by Fenton: performance and organics removal characteristics. Water Sci Technol 75(6):1431–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural ResourcesTarbiat Modares UniversityNoorIran

Personalised recommendations