| Literature DB >> 25258741 |
Anam Asghar1, Abdul Aziz Abdul Raman1, Wan Mohd Ashri Wan Daud1.
Abstract
In the present study, a comparison of central composite design (CCD) and Taguchi method was established for Fenton oxidation. [Dye]ini, Dye:Fe(+2), H2O2:Fe(+2), and pH were identified control variables while COD and decolorization efficiency were selected responses. L 9 orthogonal array and face-centered CCD were used for the experimental design. Maximum 99% decolorization and 80% COD removal efficiency were obtained under optimum conditions. R squared values of 0.97 and 0.95 for CCD and Taguchi method, respectively, indicate that both models are statistically significant and are in well agreement with each other. Furthermore, Prob > F less than 0.0500 and ANOVA results indicate the good fitting of selected model with experimental results. Nevertheless, possibility of ranking of input variables in terms of percent contribution to the response value has made Taguchi method a suitable approach for scrutinizing the operating parameters. For present case, pH with percent contribution of 87.62% and 66.2% was ranked as the most contributing and significant factor. This finding of Taguchi method was also verified by 3D contour plots of CCD. Therefore, from this comparative study, it is concluded that Taguchi method with 9 experimental runs and simple interaction plots is a suitable alternative to CCD for several chemical engineering applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25258741 PMCID: PMC4167450 DOI: 10.1155/2014/869120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Flow chart for optimization.
Figure 2Central composite design flow diagram.
Figure 3Taguchi orthogonal array.
Experimental range and levels of process variables.
| Independent numerical variables | Coded | Low actual value | High actual value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dye (mg/L) |
| 100 | 300 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 (wt/wt) |
| 5 | 25 |
| Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) |
| 10 | 50 |
| pH |
| 2 | 9 |
Experimental design matrix, experimental runs, and predicted values on COD removal and decolorization efficiency.
| Independent variables ( | Dependent variables ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual values | Predicted values | |||||||
| Run | Dye (mg/L) | H2O2 : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | pH | COD (%) | Decolorization (%) | COD (%) | Decolorization (%) |
| 1 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 75.3 | 95.4 | 73.2 | 95.1 |
| 2 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 76.4 | 95.4 | 73.2 | 95.1 |
| 3 | 300 | 25 | 50 | 9 | 62.8 | 96.8 | 60.9 | 95.7 |
| 4 | 200 | 25 | 30 | 5.5 | 73.4 | 98.1 | 69.8 | 97.5 |
| 5 | 300 | 5 | 50 | 9 | 34.8 | 80.0 | 35.1 | 79.8 |
| 6 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 73.4 | 95.5 | 73.2 | 95.1 |
| 7 | 100 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 66.5 | 55.8 | 63.4 | 59.7 |
| 8 | 100 | 25 | 50 | 2 | 87.7 | 99.2 | 85.3 | 100.0 |
| 9 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 9 | 65.8 | 78.9 | 67.3 | 80.3 |
| 10 | 300 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 78.3 | 94.5 | 80.2 | 98.6 |
| 11 | 100 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 77.1 | 90.1 | 73.9 | 86.7 |
| 12 | 100 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 67.0 | 93.4 | 66.1 | 92.2 |
| 13 | 100 | 5 | 50 | 9 | 30.2 | 56.1 | 32.9 | 54.4 |
| 14 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 74.5 | 95.4 | 73.2 | 95.1 |
| 15 | 300 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 77.9 | 89.1 | 79.4 | 85.9 |
| 16 | 200 | 5 | 30 | 5.5 | 60.8 | 84.3 | 63.3 | 85.6 |
| 17 | 100 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 48.0 | 67.9 | 50.51 | 65.1 |
| 18 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 70.3 | 94.6 | 73.20 | 95.1 |
| 19 | 300 | 25 | 10 | 2 | 67.4 | 98.9 | 63.6 | 98.3 |
| 20 | 300 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 61.4 | 95.2 | 62.5 | 95.6 |
| 21 | 100 | 25 | 10 | 2 | 50.3 | 97.6 | 53.1 | 99.9 |
| 22 | 200 | 15 | 10 | 5.5 | 67.7 | 98.2 | 67.7 | 97.7 |
| 23 | 300 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 80.4 | 84.4 | 80.5 | 86.3 |
| 24 | 300 | 25 | 50 | 2 | 75.5 | 99.4 | 81.8 | 97.7 |
| 25 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 2 | 74.1 | 98.3 | 79.1 | 97.5 |
| 26 | 100 | 25 | 50 | 9 | 44.7 | 73.6 | 44.9 | 75.4 |
| 27 | 200 | 15 | 50 | 5.5 | 62.7 | 93.5 | 61.6 | 94.7 |
| 28 | 200 | 15 | 30 | 5.5 | 73.4 | 96.6 | 73.2 | 95.1 |
| 29 | 100 | 5 | 50 | 2 | 72.1 | 76.5 | 73.4 | 76.7 |
| 30 | 300 | 5 | 50 | 2 | 61.2 | 78.9 | 55.9 | 79.4 |
Figure 4Predicted and actual value for (a) COD and (b) decolorization efficiency.
ANOVA results for CCD.
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
| Prob > |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD removal | |||||
| Model | 4902.21 | 12 | 408.52 | 32.41 | <0.0001 |
| Dye | 173.73 | 1 | 173.73 | 32.41 | 0.0017 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 | 188.48 | 1 | 188.48 | 13.94 | 0.0012 |
| Dye : Fe+2 | 168.36 | 1 | 168.36 | 14.95 | 0.002 |
| pH | 620.39 | 1 | 620.39 | 13.36 | <0.0001 |
| Color Removal | |||||
| Model | 4310.88 | 14 | 307.92 | 49.73 | <0.0001 |
| Dye | 635.94 | 1 | 635.94 | 102.70 | <0.0001 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 | 631.55 | 1 | 631.55 | 102 | <0.0001 |
| Dye : Fe+2 | 38.90 | 1 | 38.90 | 6.28 | 0.0242 |
| pH | 1331.97 | 1 | 1331.97 | 215.12 | <0.0001 |
Interaction of operating parameters for COD removal efficiency.
| COD (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effects | Dye | Dye : Fe+2
| H2O2 : Fe+2
| pH | COD (%) | Reason |
| Effect of Dye : Fe+2 ratio (Figure A.4) | 100 | 10–23 | 15 | 3 | 65–72.5 (increased) | At low dye concentrations, increase in Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) results in a decrease in Fe+2 concentration and increase in H2O2 addition (H2O2 : Fe+2) which increases the production of HO• radical for dye degradation |
| 35–50 | 15 | 3 | 72–65 (decreased) | Scavenging of HO• radical by H2O2 at low concentrations of Fe+2 and high concentrations of H2O2 [ | ||
| 250–300 | 10–25 | 15 | 3 | 80 (increased) | Optimum amounts of H2O2 and Fe+2 result in the production of HO• radical adequate enough for maximum dye degradation | |
|
| ||||||
| Effect of H2O2 : Fe+2 ratio (Figure A.5) | 100 | 30 | 5–10 | 3 | 70–72 | |
| 100–150 | 30 | 5 | 3 | 73–68 (decreased) | Less availability of HO• | |
| 100 | 30 | 20–25 | 3 | 73–68 (decreased) | Scavenging of HO• radical by excess amount of H2O2 | |
| 300 | 30 | 10–25 | 3 | 74–80 (increased) | COD removal efficiency increases from 74% to 80% because of the proportionate amount of HO• radical production | |
|
| ||||||
| pH | 100–300 | 10–50 | 5–25 | 3 | 80 | 80% COD removal efficiency because of the availability of Fe+2 and H2O2 in aqueous medium (optimum conditions of other variables) |
|
| ||||||
| (Figure A.6) | 100–300 | 10–50 | 5–25 | 9 | 60 | Decomposition of H2O2 to H2O and O2 at pH above 4 [ |
Optimized operating parameters.
| Dye (mg/L) | Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | H2O2 : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | pH | Predicted responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD (%) | Decolorization (%) | Desirability | ||||
| 300 | 25.92 | 19.15 | 3 | 81.64 | 99.40 | 0.972 |
Factors and levels of orthogonal array.
| Parameters | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Dye] | 100 | 200 | 300 |
| Dye : Fe+2 | 10 | 30 | 50 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 | 5 | 15 | 25 |
| pH | 2 | 5.5 | 9 |
L 9 orthogonal designs, Levels of four factors, and experimental results obtained.
| Dye (mg/L) | Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | H2O2 : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | pH | Actual values |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD (%) | Decolorization (%) | COD | Decolorization | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 74.8603 | 98.9496 | 36.53 | 39.90 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 53.0726 | 97.9920 | 34.50 | 39.82 |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 36.3128 | 89.5582 | 32.67 | 39.04 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 32.6996 | 83.6843 | 30.97 | 38.45 |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 80.9886 | 99.1548 | 37.92 | 39.92 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 42.9658 | 93.8547 | 28.50 | 39.45 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 69.0217 | 99.7837 | 36.78 | 39.98 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 34.7826 | 94.8740 | 30.62 | 39.54 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 57.8804 | 99.8905 | 35.25 | 39.99 |
Response table for signal to noise (S/N) ratio.
| Level | Dye | Dye : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | H2O2 : Fe+2 (wt/wt) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD removal | ||||
| 1 | 34.72 | 35.06 | 33.87 | 37.96 |
| 2 | 33.84 | 34.75 | 34.12 | 34.77 |
| 3 | 34.94 | 33.69 | 35.52 | 30.77 |
| Delta | 1.10 | 1.37 | 1.65 | 7.19 |
| Rank | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|
| ||||
| Decolorization | ||||
| 1 | 39.59 | 39.45 | 39.63 | 39.94 |
| 2 | 39.28 | 39.76 | 39.42 | 39.75 |
| 3 | 39.84 | 39.49 | 39.65 | 39.01 |
| Delta | 0.56 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.93 |
| Rank | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
ANOVA results.
| Factors | Degree of freedom | Sum of squares | Mean Square |
|
| Percent contribution (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD (%) | ||||||
| Dye | 2 | 45 | 45 | 0.04 | 0.961 | 1.32 |
| Dye : Fe+2 | 2 | 167 | 167 | 0.15 | 0.860 | 4.89 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 | 2 | 211 | 211 | 0.20 | 0.826 | 6.17% |
| pH | 2 | 2995.3 | 2995.3 | 21.23 | 0.002 | 87.62 |
| Decolorization (%) | ||||||
| Dye | 2 | 53.3 | 26.7 | 0.83 | 0.482 | 21.6 |
| Dye : Fe+2 | 2 | 18.8 | 9.4 | 0.25 | 0.789 | 7.61 |
| H2O2 : Fe+2 | 2 | 9.6 | 4.8 | 0.12 | 0.888 | 3.87 |
| pH | 2 | 165.1 | 82.6 | 6.07 | 0.036 | 66.2 |
Figure 5Mean S/N ratio for (a) COD removal and (b) decolorization.
Optimized values for COD removal and decolorization.
| Dye | Dye : Fe+2 | H2O2 : Fe+2 | pH | Predicted | Actual | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD removal | 300 | 10 | 25 | 3 | 79.06 | 81.2 |
| Decolorization | 300 | 15 | 25 | 3 | 99.31 | 99.04 |