| Literature DB >> 34234156 |
Chaofei Song1, Yue Lv1, Xia Qin2, Chengrui Guo1, Jiaxin Cui1, Wendkuuni Steve-Harold Kaghembega1.
Abstract
The degradation efficiency of fulvic acid (FA) was investigated in the catalytic wet oxidation process (CWPO) by zero-valent copper chitosan activated carbon ball (ZVC/CTS-ACB). Characterization of ZVC/CTS-ACB shows that zero-valent copper was loaded successfully on the chitosan activated carbon. Plackett-Buiman (PB) design and response surface methodology (RSM) were employed to determine the influence factors and the optimum processing parameters. The model was well fitted to the actual data and the correlation coefficients of R2 and R2-adj were 0.9359 and 0.9039, respectively. Under the obtained optimum conditions for FA degradation: temperature = 94 °C and pH 3.8, the average FA removal by three replicate experiments was 93.02%, which has a high consistency to the RSM optimal target response of 93.86%. The comparison of catalytic performance showed that the addition of catalyst ZVC/CTS-ACS could increase the removal rate of FA, color number (CN) and TOC by 93.6%, 83.5% and 81.9% respectively. The high TOC removal rate indicated the good performance of the catalyst to FA mineralization. Additionally, the ICP analysis of copper ion leaching was only 0.08 mg/l after 5 repeated recycles of the catalyst, demonstrating the high stability of ZVC/CTS-ACB that is beneficial for the actual application.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34234156 PMCID: PMC8263760 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92789-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The methods of FA removal.
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
| Coagulation and flocculation | Removing macromolecular colloidal organics effectively; low operation cost | Requires using more chemicals, leading to the generation of more sludge |
| Adsorption | Convenience, ease of operation, and simplicity of design; removing organic matter with molecular weight of 500–3000 da effectively | Macromolecular organic compounds are easy to block the pore structure of adsorbent; not suitable for high concentration wastewater |
| Membrane filtration | Removing organic matter, salt and pathogenic microorganisms in water effectively | Causing irreversible membrane fouling by pore narrowing and the formation of loose cake layer; the membrane concentrate should be treated further |
| Advanced oxidation processes | Removing all kinds of organic matter effectively without selectivity | High operating costs |
Factors of PB design experiment.
| Variable | X1:A | X2:B | X3:C | X4:D | X5:E | X6:F | X7:G | X8, X9, X10, X11 (H, I, J, K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | Temperature/°C | Initial volume/ml | Initial FA concentration/mg/L | Time/min | H2O2/mmol | (ZVC/CTS-ACB)/g/L | Acidity | – |
| High level (+) | 90 | 250 | 100 | 45 | 10 | 3 | 4 | – |
| Low level (−) | 60 | 500 | 200 | 90 | 20 | 5 | 7 | – |
Figure 1(a) XRD pattern of ZVC/CTS-ACB. (b) XPS of ZVC/CTS-ACB. (c) FT-IR of ZVC/CTS-ACB.
Figure 2(a) SEM of outer surface is magnified 2000 times of ZVC/CTS-ACB. (b) SEM of outer surface is magnified 5000 times of ZVC/CTS-ACB. (c) SEM of inner cut surface is magnified 2000 times of ZVC/CTS-ACB. (d) SEM of inner cut surface is magnified 8000 times of ZVC/CTS-ACB.
PB design and response values.
| Run | Factor: A | Factor: B | Factor: C | Factor: D | Factor: E | Factor: F | Factor: G | Response (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | − | + | − | − | + | − | + | 37.77 |
| 2 | + | + | − | + | + | + | − | 84.59 |
| 3 | + | − | + | + | − | − | + | 51.13 |
| 4 | + | + | − | − | + | − | + | 48.41 |
| 5 | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | 45.59 |
| 6 | − | + | + | + | − | + | + | 34.38 |
| 7 | − | − | + | − | + | + | − | 74.54 |
| 8 | + | − | + | + | + | − | − | 83.11 |
| 9 | − | − | − | + | + | + | + | 41.07 |
| 10 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | 73.32 |
| 11 | − | + | − | + | − | − | − | 78.29 |
| 12 | + | + | + | − | − | + | − | 81.26 |
ANOVA results.
| Source | Mean square | F value | Value | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 525.97 | 51.46 | 0.0040 | Significant |
| A | 197.94 | 19.37 | 0.0218 | Significant |
| B | 1.66 | 0.16 | 0.7141 | Not significant |
| C | 6.21 | 0.61 | 0.4926 | Not significant |
| D | 8.32 | 0.81 | 0.4357 | Not significant |
| E | 2.18 | 0.21 | 0.6753 | Not significant |
| F | 8.32 | 0.81 | 0.4335 | Not significant |
| G | 338.98 | 37.13 | 0.0041 | Significant |
CCD experimental design table.
| Run | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor A: temperature (°C) | 90 | 90 | 70 | 50 | 70 | 70 | 98 | 42 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 50 |
| Factor B: acidity | 5.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| Response: removal rate of FA (%) | 80.78 | 44.03 | 84.78 | 34.89 | 30.44 | 62.99 | 91.80 | 41.45 | 80.56 | 74.94 | 84.78 | 80.80 | 46.60 |
ANOVA for the regression quadratic model of CCD design.
| Source | Sum of squares | Df | Mean square | F value | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 5405.22 | 4 | 1351.31 | 29.21 | < 0.0001 | Significant |
| A-temperature | 2029.59 | 1 | 2029.59 | 43.87 | 0.0002 | |
| B-acidity | 2208.68 | 1 | 2208.68 | 47.74 | 0.0001 | |
| A2 | 311.26 | 1 | 311.26 | 6.73 | 0.0319 | |
| B2 | 2679.40 | 1 | 2679.40 | 57.92 | < 0.0001 | |
| Residual | 370.11 | 8 | 46.26 | |||
| Lack of fit | 304.72 | 4 | 76.18 | 4.66 | 0.0826 | Not significant |
| R-squared | 0.9359 | |||||
| Adj R-squared | 0.9039 | |||||
Figure 33D response surface graph and contour plot.
Figure 4Desirable slope for numerical optimization of the CWPO conditions.
RSM system optimized solution.
| Solution | Temperature | Acidity | FA removal rate (%) | Desirability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 94.07 | 3.8 | 93.8643 | 1.000 |
| 2 | 93.99 | 3.8 | 93.8622 | 1.000 |
| Prediction | 94 | 3.8 | 93.8633 | 1.000 |
Figure 5Optimized 3D surface graph and contour plots.
Optimum value of the process parameter for maximum efficiency.
| Parameter | Y (removal efficiency, %) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Times | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Single | 92.45 | 92.82 | 93.78 |
| Average | 93.02 | ||
| Prediction | 93.86 | ||
Figure 6Catalyst and oxidant controlled trials (FA = 100 mg/l, temperature = 94 °C, time = 90 min, pH 3.8, CTS-ACB and ZVC/CTS-ACB = 4 g/l, H2O2 = 20 mmol).