| Literature DB >> 29671083 |
Ali Toolabi1, Mohammad Malakootian2,3, Mohammad Taghi Ghaneian4, Ali Esrafili5, Mohammad Hassan Ehrampoush1, Mohsen AskarShahi6, Maesome Tabatabaei7.
Abstract
In this study, modeling and degradation of diazinon from contaminated water by advanced oxidation process together with a new test for effluent bioassay using E. coli were investigated. The experiments were designed based on response surface methodology. Nanoparticles (NPs) were synthesized using the sol-gel method. The shape characteristics and specifications of elements in the nanoparticles were characterized using scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive X-ray, respectively. Diazinon was measured using high performance liquid chromatography device and by-products due to its decomposition were identified by gas chromatography-mass (GC-MS). In the present study, effluent bioassay tests were conducted by defining the rate of dehydrogenase enzyme reducing alamar blue method. According to statistical analyses (R2 = 0.986), the optimized values for pH, dose of NPs, and contact time were found to be 6.75, 775 mg/L, and 65 min, respectively. At these conditions, 96.06% of the diazinon was removed. Four main by-products, diazoxon, 7-methyl-3-octyne, 2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4pyrimidinol and diethyl phosphonate were detected. According to the alamar blue reducing (ABR) test, 50% effective concentration, no observed effect concentration, and 100% effective concentration (EC100) for the mortality rate of E. coli were obtained as 2.275, 0.839, and 4.430 mg/L, respectively. Based on the results obtained, it was found that mentioned process was high efficiency in removing diazinon, and also a significant relationship between toxicity assessment tests were obtained (P < 0.05).Entities:
Keywords: Dehydrogenase enzyme; Diazinon; Effluent bioassay; Modeling
Year: 2018 PMID: 29671083 PMCID: PMC5906421 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-018-0589-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Properties of diazinon and alamar blue
The levels of variables central composite statistical experiment design
| Factor | Variables | Low actual | High actual | Mean | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | pH | 2.012 | 7.500 | 9.75 | 5.25 |
| B | Contact time (min) | 24.597 | 65.000 | 92.50 | 37.50 |
| C | Concentration of diazinon(mg/L) | 8.721 | 20.500 | 30.25 | 10.75 |
| D | Dose of NPs (mg/L) | 201.246 | 550.000 | 775.00 | 325.00 |
Fig. 1The results of SEM images of a Fe3O4 nanoparticles and b Fe3O4/SiO2/TiO2 nanoparticles
Fig. 2EDX spectrum of a Fe3O4/SiO2 and b Fe3O4/SiO2/TiO2 nanoparticles
Results of the experimental runs based on the central composite design
| Run | A:PH | B:Contact time (min) | C:Concentration of diazinon (mg/L) | D:Dosage of nanoparticles (mg/L) | Removal efficiency (%) | Predicted value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 88.90 | 89.26 |
| 2 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 88.68 | 89.26 |
| 3 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 87.99 | 89.26 |
| 4 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 88.39 | 89.26 |
| 5 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 90.91 | 89.26 |
| 6 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 90.70 | 89.26 |
| 7 | 5.250 | 37.50 | 10.75 | 325.0 | 83.60 | 83.67 |
| 8 | 9.750 | 37.50 | 10.75 | 325.0 | 77.24 | 76.92 |
| 9 | 5.250 | 92.50 | 10.75 | 325.0 | 84.10 | 85.02 |
| 10 | 9.750 | 92.50 | 10.75 | 325.0 | 77.33 | 77.19 |
| 11 | 5.250 | 37.50 | 30.25 | 325.0 | 76.30 | 76.86 |
| 12 | 9.750 | 37.50 | 30.25 | 325.0 | 70.10 | 69.36 |
| 13 | 5.250 | 92.50 | 30.25 | 325.0 | 81.17 | 79.52 |
| 14 | 9.750 | 92.50 | 30.25 | 325.0 | 71.23 | 70.93 |
| 15 | 5.250 | 37.50 | 10.75 | 775.0 | 90.00 | 90.52 |
| 16 | 9.750 | 37.50 | 10.75 | 775.0 | 84.00 | 84.99 |
| 17 | 5.250 | 92.50 | 10.75 | 775.0 | 90.20 | 90.28 |
| 18 | 9.750 | 92.50 | 10.75 | 775.0 | 84.00 | 83.66 |
| 19 | 5.250 | 37.50 | 30.25 | 775.0 | 83.00 | 82.47 |
| 20 | 9.750 | 37.50 | 30.25 | 775.0 | 76.90 | 76.20 |
| 21 | 5.250 | 92.50 | 30.25 | 775.0 | 83.00 | 83.54 |
| 22 | 9.750 | 92.50 | 30.25 | 775.0 | 76.91 | 76.18 |
| 23 | 3.000 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 78.81 | 78.33 |
| 24 | 12.00 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 63.30 | 64.22 |
| 25 | 7.500 | 10.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 78.39 | 78.25 |
| 26 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 550.0 | 79.00 | 79.59 |
| 27 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 1.000 | 550.0 | 96.06 | 94.95 |
| 28 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 40.00 | 550.0 | 79.10 | 80.66 |
| 29 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 100.0 | 77.20 | 77.78 |
| 30 | 7.500 | 65.00 | 20.50 | 1000 | 90.00 | 89.87 |
Fig. 3The relationship between real values and predicted values
The results of Statistics Model
| Source | Std. Dev | R2 | Adjusted R2 | Predicted R2 | PRESS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear | 5.313 | 0.5397 | 0.4660 | 0.3788 | 952.3 |
| 2FI | 6.056 | 0.5455 | 0.3063 | 0.2559 | 1141 |
| Quadratic | 1.174 | 0.9865 | 0.9739 | 0.9438 | 86.20 |
| Cubic | 1.135 | 0.9941 | 0.9756 | 0.8630 | 210.0 |
ANOVA of Response Surface Quadratic Model
| Source | Sum of squares | Df | Mean | F | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1512 | 14 | 108 | 78.32 | < 0.0001 significant |
| A | 298.8 | 1 | 298.8 | 216.6 | < 0.0001 |
| B | 2.680 | 1 | 2.680 | 1.943 | 0.1836 |
| C | 306.6 | 1 | 306.2 | 222.3 | < 0.0001 |
| D | 219.3 | 1 | 219.3 | 159.0 | < 0.0001 |
| AB | 1.177 | 1 | 1.177 | 0.853 | 0.3702 |
| AC | 0.562 | 1 | 0.562 | 0.407 | 0.5327 |
| AD | 1.488 | 1 | 1.480 | 1.079 | 0.3154 |
| BC | 1.703 | 1 | 1.703 | 1.235 | 0.2840 |
| BD | 2.544 | 1 | 2.540 | 1.844 | 0.1945 |
| CD | 1.513 | 1 | 1.513 | 1.097 | 0.3154 |
| A2 | 554.4 | 1 | 554.4 | 401.9 | < 0.0001 |
| B2 | 183.4 | 1 | 183.4 | 133.0 | < 0.0001 |
| C2 | 3.645 | 1 | 3.646 | 2.643 | 0.1248 |
| D2 | 50.70 | 1 | 50.70 | 36.76 | < 0.0001 |
| Residual | 20.69 | 15 | 1.379 | – | – |
| Lack of fit | 13.06 | 10 | 1.306 | 0.855 | 0.617 not significant |
| Pure error | 7.63 | 5 | 1.526 | – | – |
| Cor total | 1533 | 29 | – | – | – |
Df Degree of freedom
Fig. 4Contour model and 3-D response for removal of diazinon with interactions among factors, a contact time = 65 min and dose of NPs = 775 mg/L, b dose of NPs = 775 mg/L, concentrations of diazinon = 10.75 mg/L, c concentration of diazinon = 10.75 mg/L and contact time = 65 min, d pH = 6.5 and contact time = 65 min, e pH = 6.5 and dose of NPs = 775 mg/L, f concentration of diazinon = 10.75 mg/L and pH = 6.5
Fig. 5Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry of diazinon
The characteristics of by-products identification due to diazinon decomposition
| Compound name | Molecular formula | Retention time (min) | Molecular weight (g/mol) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diazoxon | C12H21N2O4P | 2.15 | 288.284 |
| 2-isopropyl-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol (IMP) | C8H12N2O | 3.25 | 152.197 |
| 7-Methyl-3-octyne | C9H16 | 7.65 | 124.223 |
| Diethyl phosphonate | C4H10O3P+ | 15.75 | 137.095 |
The result of diazinon effect concentration in ABR and CFU tests by using E. coli
| Parameters | Type of test | Bottom limit | Upper limit | Typical value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC5 (mg/L) | ABR | 0.316 | 0.329 | 0.324 |
| EC10 (mg/L) | ABR | 0.519 | 0.533 | 0.530 |
| EC15 (mg/L) | ABR | 0.817 | 0.829 | 0.823 |
| EC20 (mg/L) | ABR | 0.959 | 1.000 | 0.968 |
| EC25 (mg/L) | ABR | 1.287 | 1.297 | 1.293 |
| EC30 (mg/L) | ABR | 1.502 | 1.513 | 1.510 |
| EC35 (mg/L) | ABR | 1.612 | 1.630 | 1.619 |
| EC40 (mg/L) | ABR | 1.826 | 1.831 | 1.826 |
| EC45 (mg/L) | ABR | 2.030 | 2.041 | 2.034 |
| EC50 (mg/L) | ABR | 2.230 | 2.265 | 2.255 |
| EC55 (mg/L) | ABR | 2.360 | 2.372 | 2.363 |
| EC60 (mg/L) | ABR | 2.584 | 2.591 | 2.587 |
| EC65(mg/L) | ABR | 2.719 | 2.732 | 2.724 |
| EC70 (mg/L) | ABR | 2.932 | 2.961 | 2.951 |
| EC75 (mg/L) | ABR | 3.100 | 3.125 | 3.111 |
| EC80 (mg/L) | ABR | 3.329 | 3.343 | 3.335 |
| EC85 (mg/L) | ABR | 3.742 | 3.659 | 3.652 |
| EC90(mg/L) | ABR | 3.878 | 3.888 | 3.881 |
| EC95 (mg/L) | ABR | 4.000 | 4.116 | 4.080 |
| NOEC (mg/L) | ABR | 0.884 | 0.893 | 0.890 |
| EC100(mg/L) | ABR | 4.010 | 4.300 | 4.128 |
The result of COD Removal, ORP and bioassay test to determination of effluent toxicity in different Runs
| Run | COD removal % | ORP (mv) | Residuals of diazinon (mg/L) | Rate of EC, NOEC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABR test | CFU test | ||||
| 1 | 94.50 | 333 | 2.275 | EC50 | EC49 |
| 2 | 96.00 | 330 | 2.320 | EC55 | EC56 |
| 3 | 94.40 | 325 | 2.462 | EC62 | EC59 |
| 4 | 95.30 | 322 | 2.585 | EC65 | EC56 |
| 5 | 96.00 | 339 | 1.863 | EC40 | EC37 |
| 6 | 95.70 | 337 | 1.906 | EC42 | EC38 |
| 7 | 93.90 | 338 | 1.763 | EC41 | EC35 |
| 8 | 92.80 | 327 | 2.446 | EC58 | EC53 |
| 9 | 94.00 | 341 | 1.709 | EC37 | EC33 |
| 10 | 92.80 | 331 | 2.437 | EC55 | EC50 |
| 11 | 92.10 | – | 7.169 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 12 | 88.90 | – | 9.044 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 13 | 93.50 | – | 5.683 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 14 | 90.00 | – | 8.702 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 15 | 96.90 | 349 | 1.075 | EC22 | EC19 |
| 16 | 96.00 | 340 | 1.720 | EC39 | EC35 |
| 17 | 93.80 | 350 | 1.075 | EC20 | EC18 |
| 18 | 91.50 | 340 | 1.720 | EC40 | EC37 |
| 19 | 93.50 | – | 5.142 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 20 | 92.00 | – | 6.987 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 21 | 93.80 | – | 5.142 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 22 | 92.00 | – | 6.985 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 23 | 93.20 | – | 4.434 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 24 | 85.00 | – | 7.523 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 25 | 93.00 | – | 4.430 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 26 | 94.00 | 301 | 4.305 | EC98 | EC96 |
| 27 | 99.20 | 360 | 0.839 | NOEC | NOEC |
| 28 | 94.50 | – | 8.396 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 29 | 92.40 | – | 4.674 | EC100 | EC100 |
| 30 | 96.50 | 335 | 2.050 | EC44 | EC43 |
Characteristics of raw water of Seymareh Rive
| Parameters | Value (average) |
|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | 16.3 |
| Turbidity (NTU) | 105 |
| Oxygen dissolve (mg/L) | 6.2 |
| BOD (mg/L) | 35 |
| COD (mg/L) | 55 |
| Concentration of diazinon (mg/L) | 1.17 |