| Literature DB >> 29594834 |
Nahid Khoshnamvand1,2, Ferdos Kord Mostafapour2, Amir Mohammadi3, Maryam Faraji4.
Abstract
Ciprofloxacin (CIP) antibiotic is considered as an emerging and biological resistant pollutant. This study aimed to improve of the removal of CIP from synthetic aqueous solutions in photocatalytic process through copper oxide nanoparticles as catalyst (CuO/UV). The effect of CIP concentration (10-200 mg/l), catalyst dosage included CuO (0.01-0.1 g/l) and pH (3-11) as independent variables on the COD removal efficiency as response in photocatalytic process using UV-C lamps with three different powers of 8, 15 and 30-W were optimized through the central composite design in response surface method using design-expert software. A second order model was selected as the best model with R2 values and lack of fit as 0.85 and 0.06 for lamp 8-W, 0.89 and 0.11 for lamp 15-W, and 0.86 and 0.19 for lamp 30-W, respectively. Optimum conditions were obtained in CIP concentration of 11.2 (mg/l), CuO dosage of 0.08 (g/l), and pH value of 8.17. In this condition, predicted maximum COD removal was respectively found 83.79, 93.18, and 98.90% for lamps 8, 15 and 30-W. According to the results, photocatalytic process using copper oxide nanoparticles can effectively compose CIP in aqueous solutions.Entities:
Keywords: Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs); Antibiotics; Central composite design; Copper oxide nanoparticles; Emerging pollutants
Year: 2018 PMID: 29594834 PMCID: PMC5874226 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-018-0579-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Chemical structure of ciprofloxacin (C17H18FN3O3)
Fig. 2SEM image (a) and XRD pattern (b) of CuO nanoparticles
Independent variables and their ranges
| Independent variables | Symbol | Levels of variables |
|---|---|---|
| Cipro concentration (mg/l) | X1 | 10–200 |
| CuO dosage (g/l) | X2 | 0.01–0.1 |
| pH | X3 | 3–11 |
Fig. 3Schematic diagram of photocatalytic reactor
Central composite design (CCD) and observed responses
| Run order | Actual variables | Response (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | ||||||||
| Cipro | CuO | pH | Lamp 8 W | Lamp 15 W | Lamp 30 W | Lamp 8 W | Lamp 15 W | Lamp 30 W | |
| 1 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 7.1 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 12.5 |
| 2 | 48.5 | 0.03 | 4.6 | 8.9 | 9.9 | 17.8 | 14.6 | 14.3 | 20.5 |
| 3 | 48.5 | 0.08 | 4.6 | 47.9 | 53.8 | 68 | 51.8 | 58.5 | 70.9 |
| 4 | 161.5 | 0.03 | 4.6 | 19.1 | 23.2 | 23.1 | 12.4 | 17.8 | 17.6 |
| 5 | 161.5 | 0.08 | 4.6 | 48.2 | 58.3 | 69.2 | 42.6 | 54.4 | 64.5 |
| 6 | 10.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 82.3 | 85.1 | 87.2 | 68.6 | 73.2 | 78.2 |
| 7 | 105.0 | 0.01 | 7.0 | 25.5 | 32.4 | 37 | 25.1 | 32.9 | 38.1 |
| 8 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 46.8 | 50.8 | 62.8 | 51.2 | 53.0 | 64.1 |
| 9 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 45.7 | 60.2 | 69.3 | 51.2 | 53.0 | 64.1 |
| 10 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 45.4 | 48.9 | 58.9 | 51.2 | 53.0 | 64.1 |
| 11 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 58.3 | 45.9 | 55.8 | 51.2 | 53.0 | 64.1 |
| 12 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 48.7 | 52.8 | 67.2 | 51.2 | 53.0 | 64.1 |
| 13 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 56.8 | 47.3 | 57.3 | 41.9 | 37.0 | 46.9 |
| 14 | 105.0 | 0.10 | 7.0 | 59.5 | 68.2 | 83.5 | 59.9 | 66.8 | 83.8 |
| 15 | 200.0 | 0.06 | 7.0 | 21.8 | 27.9 | 32.9 | 35.4 | 38.6 | 42.7 |
| 16 | 48.5 | 0.03 | 9.4 | 38.7 | 44.1 | 48.8 | 42.7 | 47.8 | 51.2 |
| 17 | 48.5 | 0.08 | 9.4 | 59.7 | 65.4 | 75.9 | 64.9 | 70.4 | 79.1 |
| 18 | 161.5 | 0.03 | 9.4 | 29.2 | 35 | 40 | 23.5 | 29.7 | 35.8 |
| 19 | 161.5 | 0.08 | 9.4 | 46.1 | 50.4 | 65.3 | 38.7 | 44.8 | 60.2 |
| 20 | 105.0 | 0.06 | 11.0 | 29.4 | 36 | 46 | 29.9 | 36.8 | 46.4 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the fitted polynomial model for COD removal using photocatalytic process with lamp 8-W
| Lamp 8 | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cipro concentration | 607.65 | 1 | 607.65 | 5.32 | 0.05 |
| CuO dosage | 2066.08 | 1 | 2066.08 | 18.09 | 0.00 |
| pH | 623.99 | 1 | 623.99 | 5.46 | 0.04 |
| pH2 | 1453.75 | 1 | 1453.75 | 12.73 | 0.01 |
| Residual | 1027.80 | 9 | 114.20 | ||
| Lack of fit | 906.60 | 5 | 181.32 | 5.98 | 0.06 |
| Pure error | 121.20 | 4 | 30.30 |
Adjusted R2: 0.8530, p-value: 0.0280
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the fitted polynomial model for COD removal using photocatalytic process with lamp 15-W
| Lamp 15 | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cipro concentration | 370.40 | 1 | 370.40 | 4.61 | 0.04 |
| CuO dosage | 2646.92 | 1 | 2646.92 | 32.96 | 0.00 |
| pH | 1054.37 | 1 | 1054.37 | 13.13 | 0.01 |
| pH2 | 899.84 | 1 | 899.84 | 11.21 | 0.01 |
| Residual | 722.71 | 9 | 80.30 | ||
| Lack of fit | 594.71 | 5 | 118.94 | 3.72 | 0.11 |
| Pure error | 128.00 | 4 | 32.00 |
Adjusted R2: 0.8961, p-value: 0.0178
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the fitted polynomial model for COD removal using photocatalytic process with lamp 30-W
| Lamp 30 | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cipro concentration | 359.08 | 1 | 359.08 | 5.46 | 0.04 |
| CuO dosage | 4212.77 | 1 | 4212.77 | 64.02 | < 0.0001 |
| pH | 1254.09 | 1 | 1254.09 | 19.06 | 0.0018 |
| pH2 | 1095.90 | 1 | 1095.90 | 16.65 | 0.0028 |
| Residual | 592.28 | 9 | 65.81 | ||
| Lack of fit | 453.48 | 5 | 90.70 | 2.61 | 0.19 |
| Pure error | 138.80 | 4 | 34.70 |
Adjusted R2: 0.8618, p-value: 0.0096
Fig. 4Effect of Cipro concentration and CuO dosage on COD removal efficiency
Optimization results for independent variables and responses in predicted and experimental values
| Optimum condition | COD removal (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted | Experimentala | |||||||
| Cipro conc. | CuO dosage | pH | Lamp 8 W | Lamp 15 W | Lamp 30 W | Lamp 8 W | Lamp 15 W | Lamp 30 W |
| 11.2 | 0.08 | 8.17 | 83.79 | 93.18 | 98.90 | 82.23 ± 1.23 | 92.96 ± 1.47 | 96.58 ± 1.04 |
aMean ± standard deviation (n = 3)
Fig. 5Effect of Cipro concentration and solution pH on COD removal efficiency
Fig. 6Effect of CuO dosage and solution pH on COD removal efficiency