| Literature DB >> 32051866 |
Bruno B Garcia1, G Lourinho1, P Romano1, P S D Brito1.
Abstract
Heterogeneous photocatalysis is a promising technology to treat many industrial wastewaters. To date, this potential has not been proven with wastewaters from agricultural origins, such as swine wastewater. In this work, the photocatalytic degradation of swine wastewater was studied by applying a response surface methodology based on the Box-Behnken design. The interactive effects of the variation of factors such as photocatalyst dosage (X1), wastewater concentration (X2), and irradiation time (X3) were analyzed to identify the optimal operating conditions for COD reduction. A second-order polynomial accurately represented organics degradation with a high adjusted R-squared (0.9666). The main effects of factor X2 and the quadratic effects of factors X2 and X3 were the most significant for COD reduction. The optimal conditions for COD degradation were 1.16 g L-1 for photocatalyst dosage, 1.68% for wastewater concentration, and irradiation time of 9.2 h. These results have been validated in a confirmation experiment and COD removal reached 91.7% (98.1 % predicted). Based on the Langmuir-Hinshelwood model, the reaction rate constant was 3.9×10-3 min-1. Besides, FTIR analysis indicated that Aeroxide® TiO2 reusability may be possible, especially for low wastewater concentrations. Heterogeneous photocatalysis can be applied as a technology for the integrated treatment of industrial wastewaters resulting from swine production.Entities:
Keywords: Heterogeneous catalysis; Kinetics; Optimization; Photocatalysis; Swine wastewater; Titanium dioxide; Waste treatment; Wastewater management; Water treatment
Year: 2020 PMID: 32051866 PMCID: PMC7002861 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Coded and actual values used for the photocatalysis optimization via the Box-Behnken design.
| Variables | Coded and actual values | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | |
| X1: Photocatalyst dosage (g L−1) | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 |
| X2: Wastewater concentration (%) | 3.125 | 6.250 | 9.375 |
| X3: Irradiation Time | 6 | 9 | 12 |
Figure 1The emission spectrum of OSRAM HQL 125 W mercury vapor lamp used in the study. Reproduced with permission from [27]. Copyright Elsevier.
Figure 2The light distribution curve of the SBP Jolly 2/S light fixture.
Design matrix, observed response, and predicted values for the removal of COD from swine wastewater using heterogeneous photocatalysis.
| Run | Independent Variables | Response (Y, %) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 (g L−1) | X2 (%) | X3 (h) | Experimental | Predicted | Difference | |
| COD removal (%) | ||||||
| 1 | 1.5 | 3.125 | 9 | 85.6 | 88.5 | (2.90) |
| 2 | 1 | 9.375 | 6 | 41.5 | 43.2 | (1.70) |
| 3 | 0.5 | 3.125 | 9 | 76.9 | 77.7 | (0.80) |
| 4 | 1 | 9.375 | 12 | 45.0 | 47.0 | (2.00) |
| 5 | 1 | 6.25 | 9 | 61.4 | 62.0 | (0.60) |
| 6 | 1 | 6.25 | 9 | 64.0 | 62.0 | 2.00 |
| 7 | 0.5 | 6.25 | 6 | 51.1 | 52.3 | (1.20) |
| 8 | 1 | 6.25 | 9 | 60.5 | 62.0 | (1.50) |
| 9 | 0.5 | 6.25 | 12 | 52.7 | 53.6 | (0.90) |
| 10 | 1 | 3.125 | 6 | 75.6 | 73.6 | 2.00 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 6.25 | 6 | 55.8 | 54.9 | 0.90 |
| 12 | 1.5 | 6.25 | 12 | 62.7 | 61.5 | 1.20 |
| 13 | 1.5 | 9.375 | 9 | 53.2 | 52.4 | 0.80 |
| 14 | 0.5 | 9.375 | 9 | 55.7 | 52.8 | 2.90 |
| 15 | 1 | 3.125 | 12 | 79.4 | 77.7 | 1.70 |
ANOVA for the quadratic model used for the analysis of COD decay using BBD design.
| df | Sum of squares | Mean square | F-value | p-value | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FO (X1,X2,X3) | 3 | 1949.36 | 649.79 | 74.5695 | 0.0001428 | Significant |
| TWI (X1,X2,X3) | 3 | 38.41 | 12.80 | 1.4691 | 0.3291343 | Non-significant |
| PQ (X1,X2,X3) | 3 | 307.30 | 102.43 | 11.7552 | 0.0105660 | Significant |
| Residuals | 5 | 43.57 | 8.71 | |||
| Lack of fit | 3 | 36.96 | 12.32 | 3.728 | 0.2186005 | Non-significant |
| Pure error | 2 | 6.61 | 3.30 |
Multiple R-squared: 0.9814, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9478. F-statistic: 29.26 on 9 and 5 DF, p-value: 0.000842. FO: first order; TWI: two-way interaction; PQ: pure quadratic.
Figure 3Actual versus predicted values for COD removal using Box-Behnken design.
Figure 4Response surface plot showing the interaction between X1 (Photocatalyst dosage) and X3 (Irradiation time) with the remaining factor fixed at the center level.
Figure 5Response surface plot showing the interaction between X1 (Photocatalyst dosage) and X2 (Wastewater concentration) with the remaining factor fixed at the center level.
Figure 6Response surface plot showing the interaction between X2 (Wastewater concentration) and X3 (Irradiation time) with the remaining factor fixed at the center level.
Figure 7COD removal as a function of time in optimal conditions. Inset: Langmuir-Hinshelwood model of the photocatalytic degradation of SWW.
Figure 8FTIR spectra of recovered Aeroxide® TiO2 samples. Inset: FTIR spectrum of raw swine wastewater.