| Literature DB >> 24735555 |
Reza Rezaee1, Afshin Maleki2, Ali Jafari3, Sajad Mazloomi3, Yahya Zandsalimi2, Amir H Mahvi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this research, the removal of natural organic matter from aqueous solutions using advanced oxidation processes (UV/H2O2) was evaluated. Therefore, the response surface methodology and Box-Behnken design matrix were employed to design the experiments and to determine the optimal conditions. The effects of various parameters such as initial concentration of H2O2 (100-180 mg/L), pH (3-11), time (10-30 min) and initial total organic carbon (TOC) concentration (4-10 mg/L) were studied.Entities:
Keywords: Natural organic matter; Response surface methodology; Total organic carbon; UV/H2O2
Year: 2014 PMID: 24735555 PMCID: PMC3999503 DOI: 10.1186/2052-336X-12-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Independent variables and experimental levels
| H2O2 concentration | X1 | mg/L | 100 | 140 | 180 |
| pH | X2 | - | 3 | 7 | 11 |
| Time | X3 | min | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| Initial TOC | X4 | mg/L | 4 | 7 | 10 |
The Box–Behnken design matrix for variables along with Experimental and predicted values response
| 1 | 180 | 7 | 20 | 4 | 84 | 82 |
| 2 | 180 | 7 | 30 | 7 | 80 | 78.65 |
| 3 | 140 | 3 | 20 | 4 | 78 | 79.79 |
| 4 | 140 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 70 | 69.73 |
| 5 | 140 | 7 | 30 | 10 | 53 | 54.15 |
| 6 | 100 | 7 | 30 | 7 | 69 | 67.04 |
| 7 | 140 | 3 | 20 | 10 | 52 | 49.40 |
| 8 | 140 | 7 | 30 | 4 | 82 | 79.54 |
| 9 | 140 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 47 | 49.99 |
| 10 | 140 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 35 | 33.56 |
| 11 | 180 | 7 | 20 | 10 | 61 | 58.99 |
| 12 | 140 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 70 | 71.50 |
| 13 | 140 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 71.5 | 71.50 |
| 14 | 100 | 7 | 20 | 10 | 48.5 | 51.73 |
| 15 | 100 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 64 | 64.37 |
| 16 | 100 | 7 | 20 | 4 | 71.8 | 74.26 |
| 17 | 100 | 11 | 20 | 7 | 40 | 37.62 |
| 18 | 140 | 11 | 30 | 7 | 38 | 40.73 |
| 19 | 100 | 3 | 20 | 7 | 68 | 66.29 |
| 20 | 140 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 66 | 63.73 |
| 21 | 180 | 3 | 20 | 7 | 72 | 74 |
| 22 | 140 | 3 | 30 | 7 | 69 | 70.89 |
| 23 | 180 | 11 | 20 | 7 | 41 | 43.24 |
| 24 | 180 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 66 | 66.99 |
| 25 | 140 | 11 | 20 | 4 | 40 | 41.62 |
| 26 | 140 | 11 | 20 | 10 | 30 | 27.24 |
| 27 | 140 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 73 | 71.50 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results of quadratic model for TOC removal efficiency (Y)
| Model | 6336.57 | 14 | 452.61 | 46.56 | < 0.0001 | Significant |
| X1 | 151.94 | 1 | 151.94 | 15.63 | 0.0019 | |
| X2 | 2730.08 | 1 | 2730.08 | 280.84 | < 0.0001 | |
| X3 | 154.08 | 1 | 154.08 | 15.85 | 0.0018 | |
| X4 | 1503.04 | 1 | 1503.04 | 154.62 | < 0.0001 | |
| X1 X2 | 2.25 | 1 | 2.25 | 0.23 | 0.6391 | |
| X1 X3 | 20.25 | 1 | 20.25 | 2.08 | 0.1745 | |
| X1 X4 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.023 | 2.315E-003 | 0.9624 | |
| X2 X3 | 0.000 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.0000 | |
| X2 X4 | 64.00 | 1 | 64.00 | 6.58 | 0.0247 | |
| X3 X4 | 9.00 | 1 | 9.00 | 0.93 | 0.3549 | |
| X12 | 1.47 | 1 | 1.47 | 0.15 | 0.7042 | |
| X22 | 1454.20 | 1 | 1454.20 | 149.59 | < 0.0001 | |
| X32 | 40.70 | 1 | 40.70 | 4.19 | 0.0633 | |
| X42 | 159.87 | 1 | 159.87 | 16.45 | 0.0016 | |
| Residual | 116.65 | 12 | 9.72 | | | |
| Lack of fit | 112.15 | 10 | 11.22 | 4.98 | 0.1786 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 4.50 | 2 | 2.25 | | | |
| Cor total | 6453.22 | 26 |
Note: R2 = 0.9819; Adj- R2 = 0.9608; C.V% = 5.13 and PRESS = 656.13.
Figure 1Normal probability plot, TOC removal efficiency (Y).
Figure 2Comparison between the experimental values and the predicted values of RSM model, TOC removal efficiency (Y).
Figure 3Three-dimensional response surface plots for TOC removal versus independent variables. (a) H2O2 concentration and initial TOC (b) pH and time (c) Initial TOC and pH (d) H2O2 concentration and pH.
Optimum value of the process variables for maximum TOC removal efficiency and Predicted and experimental value for the responses at optimum conditions
| 100 | 6.12 | 22.42 | 4 | 78.02 | 76.50 |