| Literature DB >> 25834738 |
Masoumeh Ravanipour1, Roshanak Rezaei Kalantary2, Anoushiravan Mohseni-Bandpi3, Ali Esrafili2, Mahdi Farzadkia2, Samireh Hashemi-Najafabadi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of bioremediation systems for PAH-contaminated soil may be constrained by physicochemical properties of contaminants and environmental factors. Information on what is the most effective factor in bioremediation process is essential in the decision of what stimulations can be taken to assist the biodegradation efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: Bioremediation; Nutrient; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Response Surface Method; Tween80
Year: 2015 PMID: 25834738 PMCID: PMC4381363 DOI: 10.1186/s40201-015-0178-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Actual values coded and of variables used in the full factorial (2 ) design
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||||
| R1 | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R2 | 200 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R3 | 0 (−1) | 13 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R4 | 200 (1) | 13 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R5 | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 2 (1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R6 | 200 (1) | 0 (−1) | 2 (1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R7 | 0 (−1) | 13 (1) | 2 (1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R8 | 200 (1) | 13 (1) | 2 (1) | 0.000132 (−1) | 0.000103 (−1) | 0.0017 (−1) |
| R9 | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R10 | 200 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R11 | 0 (−1) | 13 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R12 | 200 (1) | 13 (1) | 0 (−1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R13 | 0 (−1) | 0 (−1) | 2 (1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R14 | 200 (1) | 0 (−1) | 2 (1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R15 | 0 (−1) | 13 (1) | 2 (1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
| R16 | 200 (1) | 13 (1) | 2 (1) | 0.8 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 1 (1) |
Experimental matrix for central composite design for optimization
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| R1 | 0(−1)* | 5(−1) | 0.4(−1) | 0.1(−1) | 0.5(−1) | 196.4 | 190.67 |
| R2 | 150(+1)* | 5(−1) | 0.4(−1) | 0.1(−1) | 0.5(−1) | 222 | 213.63 |
| R3 | 0(−1) | 13(+1) | 0.4(−1) | 0.1(−1) | 0.5(−1) | 208.4 | 214.23 |
| R4 | 150(+1) | 13(+1) | 0.4(−1) | 0.1(−1) | 0.5(−1) | 275.7 | 274.69 |
| R5 | 0(−1) | 5(−1) | 0.8(+1) | 0.2(+1) | 1(+1) | 332.1 | 331.61 |
| R6 | 150(+1) | 5(−1) | 0.8(+1) | 0.2(+1) | 1(+1) | 342.8 | 335.47 |
| R7 | 0(−1) | 13(+1) | 0.8(+1) | 0.2(+1) | 1(+1) | 380.8 | 387.67 |
| R8 | 150(+1) | 13(+1) | 0.8(+1) | 0.2(+1) | 1(+1) | 424.8 | 429.03 |
| R9 | 0(−1) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 247.6 | 281.05 |
| R10 | 150(+1) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 260.8 | 313.21 |
| R11 | 75(0)* | 5(−1) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 283.6 | 267.85 |
| R12 | 75(0) | 13(+1) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 380 | 326.41 |
| R13 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.4(−1) | 0.1(−1) | 0.5(−1) | 234.2 | 223.31 |
| R14 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.8(+1) | 0.2(+1) | 1(+1) | 394.41 | 370.95 |
| R15 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 340 | 297.13 |
| R16 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 279 | 297.13 |
| R17 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 285.2 | 297.13 |
| R18 | 75(0) | 9(0) | 0.6(0) | 0.15(0) | 0.75(0) | 260.5 | 297.13 |
*Low Level: (−1); Middle: (0); High Level: (−1).
Figure 1The phenanthrene removal percentage from Soil in 16 run of complete factorial design samples in comparison to similar controls (Response).
Figure 2Standardization (P = 95%) main effects Pareto chart for the complete factorial design: A, HA— humic acid (mg/kg); B, Su—Tween 80 (μL/L); C, Sal— salinity (%W/V); D, Nut— nutrients (g/L), Red line is Bonferroni limitation line.
Figure 3Perturbation plots for phenanthrene removal (mg/kg) in screening phase: A, HA— humic acid (mg/kg); B, Su—Tween 80 (μL/L); C, Sal— salinity (%W/V); D, Nut— nutrients (g/L).
Figure 4(a) Predicted versus actual and (b) Normal plot of phenanthrene in optimization phase.
Figure 5Response surface plot for phenanthrene removal as function of; (a) HA and nutrient, (b) HA and surfactant, (c) Nutrient and surfactant interactions.