| Literature DB >> 35557921 |
Abeer El Shahawy1, Ghada Heikal2.
Abstract
Low cost adsorbents such as P. australis have received considerable interest owing to their low cost and easy availability. The aim of the present study was the evaluation of the removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended and dissolved solids (TSS and TDS) using dried P. australis in influent wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant. The results of the COD and BOD concentration reduction with P. australis at optimum operating conditions were determined for maximum reduction and adsorption isotherms. The maximum reduction of COD, BOD, TSS and TDS concentrations under the optimum operating conditions was 92.27%, 93.89%, 94.38% and 91.61%, respectively. The results demonstrate that the new dried biosorbent is able to adsorb all the aforementioned contamination. It achieved an adsorption capacity for COD of 72.5 mg g-1 and an adsorption capacity for BOD of 43.93 mg g-1. The results were well fitted by the pseudo-second order model with R 2 = 0.984. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35557921 PMCID: PMC9091435 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra07221c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
The characteristics of the studied wastewater parameters
| Parameter | Average value | Maximum allowable |
|---|---|---|
| pH | 6.8–7 | 6–9 |
| BOD (ppm) | 645–655 | 40 |
| COD (ppm) | 1000–1100 | 80 |
| TSS (ppm) | 442–445 | 50 |
| TDS (ppm) | 828–834 | 2000 |
Egyptian code of Environmental Regulations (1982): (4/1994).
Compositional analysis of raw lignocelluloses from raw Phragmites australis biomass (%w/w)a
| Proximate analysis (wt%) | Leaves | Stems | Lignocellulosic composition (wt%) | Leaves | Stems |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ash | 4.50 ± 0.02 | 5.10 ± 0.026 | Cellulose | 39.50 ± 1.75 | 42.70 ± 1.83 |
| Moisture | 3.70 ± 0.15 | 4.20 ± 0.11 | Lignin | 29.69 ± 3.15 | 27.27 ± 2.38 |
| Volatile | 42.00 ± 0.23 | 36.10 ± 0.21 | Hemicellulose | 23.61 ± 0.52 | 23.73 ± 0.41 |
| Fixed carbon | 49.80 ± 0.36 | 54.60 ± 0.32 | Extractives | 7.20 ± 0.74 | 6.30 ± 0.89 |
All values are the mean ± SD mean for three replicates.
Fig. 1FTIR spectrum of Phragmites australis dried biomass before and after biosorption.
Surface functional groups observed on Phragmites australis before and after COD, BOD, TSS and TDS biosorption using FTIR
| Band position (cm−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before biosorption | After biosorption | Differences | Functional groups |
| 3848.20 | 3752.8–3745.08 | 95.4 | |
| 3433.64 | 3434.6 | −0.96 | Alcohol (O–H) stretch, H-bonded |
| Amine (N–H) stretch | |||
| Amide (N–H) stretch | |||
| 2923.56 | 2923.5 | 0.06 | Alkane (C–H) stretch |
| 2362.37 | 2212.9 | 149.47 | Alkyne (–C |
| Nitrile (–C | |||
| 1627.63 | 1622.8 | 4.83 | Alkene (C |
| Amide (N–H) bending | |||
| 1551.45 | 1437.7–1375.9 | 113.75 | Alkane (–C–H) bending |
| Aromatic (C | |||
| Nitro (N–O) stretch | |||
| Amide (N–H) bending | |||
| 1098.3 | 1103.08 | −4.78 | Alcohol (C–O) stretch |
| Alkyl halide (C–F) stretch | |||
| Amine (C–N) stretch | |||
| Ether (C–O) stretch | |||
| Ester (C–O) stretch | |||
| 794.528 | 793.56 | 0.97 | Alkene ( |
| Alkyl halide (C–Cl) stretch | |||
| 602.646 | 461.808 | 140.78 | Alkyl halide (C–Cl) stretch |
Fig. 2(A) and (B) SEM micrographs of raw dried P. australis biomass at magnification power of 2500×. (C) and (D) SEM micrographs of dried P. australis biomass after adsorption at magnification power of 1000× and 2500×, respectively.
Fig. 3Effect of absorbent dose on the removal of efficiency and adsorption capacity for BOD, COD, TSS and TDS with a contact time of 20 min at pH 4 and agitation speed of 150 rpm.
Fig. 4Effect of contact time on the removal of efficiency of BOD, COD, TSS and TDS at an absorbent dose of 3.5 g. pH 4, and agitation speed of 150 rpm.
Fig. 5Effect of contact time on the adsorption capacity of BOD, COD, TSS and TDS at an absorbent dose of 3.5 g. pH 4, and agitation speed of 150 rpm.
Parameters of the reaction kinetics (pseudo-first-order, pseudo-second-order) for COD, BOD, TSS and TDS biosorption using Phragmites australis (at room temperature of 25.00 ± 3.00 °C)
| Reaction kinetics | Linear equation | Parameters |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudo-first-order |
|
| 0.825 |
|
|
| 0.844 | |
|
|
| 0.886 | |
|
|
| 0.889 | |
| Pseudo-second-order |
|
| 0.984 |
|
|
| 0.992 | |
|
|
| 0.983 | |
|
|
| 0.961 |
Fig. 6Effect of pH on the removal efficiency and the adsorption capacity of BOD, COD, TSS and TDS at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, contact time of 120 min, and agitation speed of 150 rpm.
Fig. 7Effect of agitation speed on the removal efficiency and the adsorption capacity of BOD, COD, TSS and TDS at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, contact time of 120 min, and pH 7.
Fig. 8(a) Effect of initial concentration on the removal efficiency and adsorption capacity of COD at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, pH 7, contact time of 120 min and agitation speed of 150 rpm. (b) Effect of initial concentration on the removal efficiency and adsorption capacity of BOD at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, pH 7, contact time of 120 min and agitation speed of 150 rpm. (c) Effect of initial concentration on the removal efficiency and adsorption capacity of TSS at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, pH 7, contact time of 120 min and agitation speed of 150 rpm. (d) Effect of contact time on the removal efficiency and adsorption capacity of TDS at an adsorbent dose of 3.5 g, pH 7, contact time of 120 min and agitation speed of 150 rpm.
Parameters of the isotherm study (Langmuir and Freundlich models) for COD, BOD, oil and grease biosorption using Phragmites australis (at room temperature of 25.00 ± 3.00 °C)
| Reaction kinetics | Linear equation | Parameters |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Langmuir isotherm |
|
| 0.9948 |
|
| |||
|
|
| 0.9594 | |
|
| |||
|
|
| 0.9912 | |
|
| |||
|
|
| 0.9985 | |
|
| |||
| Freundlich isotherm |
| 1/ | 0.9920 |
|
| 1/ | 0.9970 | |
|
| 1/ | 0.9980 | |
|
| 1/ | 0.9890 |
Comparison between the present study and previous studies for the biosorption of COD from point of view of operating parameters
| Type | Material | Variables pH, temperature, COD conc., water type | Amount of COD removed (mg g−1) | COD removal (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite adsorbent | Derived from rice husk ash waste (0.5 h) | pH 5, 25 °C (room temperature), 7330–9530 landfill leachate | 2.2578 | 13.64–27.61 |
|
| Commercial adsorbent | Activated carbon (0.5 h) | pH 5, 25 °C (room temperature), 7330–9530 landfill leachate | 0.7351 | 24.20–36.48 | |
| Avocado peel carbon | APC (70 min) | pH: 7, 25 °C (room temperature) initial COD and BOD: 12 000 mg L−1 coffee processing 24 000 plant | 590.1, 297.54 | COD, BOD 98.20% and 99.18% |
|
| CAC (70 min) | pH: 7, 25 °C (room temperature) COD, BOD: 22 000/12 000 mg L−1 coffee processing plant | 594.61, 298.05 | COD, BOD 99.02% and 99.35% | ||
| Activated cow dung ash (120 minute) | pH 6.0 using 20 g L−1 dose in 30 °C leachate | 79.0 |
| ||
| Cow dung ash (120 minute) | pH 8.0, 30 °C leachate dung ash (CA) shows 66% in 120 minutes | 68 | |||
| Charcoal | 30 °C leachate | 89.9 | |||
| Agricultural waste materials | Coconut shell carbon (48 h) | pH 6.0, temp. 10, 25 and 40 °C, industrial waste water | 47–72 |
| |
| Activated rice husk carbon (48 h) | 45–73 | ||||
| Coconut shell carbon | 50–74 | ||||
| Activated date nut carbon (180 min) | Neutral pH, ambient temperature 32 ± 1 °C, COD 100 to 800, effluent from sugar industry | 73 |
| ||
| Tamarind nut carbon (180 min) | 74 | ||||
| Metakaolin (180 min) | 80 | ||||
| Bamboo-based activated carbon (10 h) | pH 3, 30 °C, COD 251.65, dyeing effluent from a cotton textile mill | 75.21 |
| ||
| Activated carbon | Rice husk (4 h) | pH 5.3, particular temperature, COD 3167, landfill leachate | 70 |
| |
| Lignite activated coke (360 min) | pH 8.483, COD = 354.6 to 67.71 mg L−1; temperature = 293, 303 and 313 ± 0.2 K, super heavy oil wastewater | 244.7 to 43.75 | 63.5 |
| |
| Activated carbon derived from peanut shells (236 min) | pH 4, 15 °C, COD 1012.6, soil eluent containing explosive contaminants | 32.07 | 92.74 |
| |
| 1# granular activated carbon (GAC) | pH 6.28, 20 °C, | 85.3 |
| ||
| 2# GAC | 10.4 | ||||
| RS-50B adsorption resin | 136 | ||||
| Granular active carbon from lignite AC (3 h) | 60.5 | 64.8 | |||
| Active coke (480 min) | pH 9 to 8, 50 °C, COD 424.6, contaminated soil eluate | 19.553 | 88.92 |
| |
| Chitosan-coated bentonite (CCB) (20.32 h) | pH 4.0, 30 °C, COD 1348, real thin-film transistor liquid-crystal display wastewater | 73.34 |
| ||
| Commercial adsorbent | Walnut shell (WS) (5 minutes) | Room temperature (20 °C ± 1 °C) 1319.36 mg L−1 ± 4.18, synthetic produced water with different organic compounds | 4.9 | 35.46 |
|
| Residual biomass sources | Palm shell (PS) | 5.6 | 28.21 | ||
| Orange peel (OP) (5 minutes) | Discarded adsorbents | No removal | |||
| Banana peel (BP) (5 minutes) | No removal | ||||
| Passion fruit peel (PP) (5 minutes) | No removal | ||||
| Cocoa beans (CB) (5 minutes) | No removal | ||||
| Sawdust (SD) (5 minutes) | 33 | 23.15 | |||
| Sodic soil | COD 8000, industrial sugar manufacture wastewater | Maximum, minimum and average COD removal: 45, 28 and 35 |
| ||
| Saline-sodic | 47 and 32 | ||||
| Sugarcane bagasse fly ash (24 h) | pH from 6.5 initial to 8.82, room temperature 25 ± 1 °C, COD 5089.56, BOD1581, combined waste water sugar industry | 13.94 | 27.4 |
| |
| 79.22 | |||||
| Marlstone | pH 5–9, room temperature (22 °C), COD 550, real wastewater from milk processing | 45.7 |
| ||
| Biosorbent | Water hyacinth (40 minutes) | pH 7.5–8.5, COD 2850, dairy wastewater | 65.4 |
| |
| Chitosan flakes (3 h) | pH 4.0, ambient temperature (25–30 °C), BOD, COD 1234–1968, 21, 429–31 118, biodiesel wastewater | 4503, 236 | 90 |
| |
| 76 | |||||
| Dried biomass |
| Room temp. (25 °C) pH 7, COD 200 : 1100, BOD 100 : 655, TSS 89 : 445, TDS 166 : 834 mg L−1 | 86.9565 | COD 97.5 : 92.27 | This study |
| 33.0033 | BOD 98.9 : 93.89 | ||||
| 30.8642 | TSS 98.48 : 94.38 | ||||
| 54.57 | TDS 88.41 : 91.61 |
Comparison between the present study and previous studies for the biosorption of COD from point of view of isotherm models
| Adsorbent | Langmuir | Freundlich | Ref. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Chitosan-coated bentonite | 47.62 | 0.048 | 0.9821 | 28.05 | 0.075 | 0.296 |
|
| Walnut shell | 5.638 | 0.0013 | 0.9861 | 0.0561 | 0.57 | 0.9972 |
|
| Palm shell | 4.924 | 0.0042 | 0.9994 | 0.187 | 0.469 | 0.868 | |
| Saw dust | 32.7869 | 0.0033 | 0.9896 | 2.2129 | 2.8329 | 0.9265 | |
| Peanut shells | 32.07 | 0.0022 | 0.823 | 0.13 | 0.813 | 0.954 |
|
|
| 86.957 | 0.0377 | 0.9948 | 5.6701 | 0.5905 | 0.992 | This study |
Comparison between the present study and previous studies for the biosorption of COD from point of view of kinetics models
| Adsorbent | Pollutant | Model |
|
|
|
| Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marlstone particles | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.9826 | 1.496 | — | — |
|
| Marlstone particles | Pseudo-second order | 0.9984 | — | 1.1998 | — | ||
| Peanut shells | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.806 | 0.0173 | — | — |
|
| Peanut shells | Pseudo-second order | 0.999 | — | 0.0526 | — | ||
| Supermagnetic nanoparticles | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.9661 | 0.00585 | — | — |
|
| Supermagnetic nanoparticles | Pseudo-second order | 0.944 | — | 0.0000166 | — | ||
| Palm shell | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.9919 | 0.3652 | — | — |
|
| Palm shell | Pseudo-second order | 0.6985 | — | 0.0029 | — | ||
| Walnut shell | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.9992 | 0.1991 | — | — | |
| Walnut shell | Pseudo-second order | 0.6616 | — | 0.0343 | — | ||
| Chitosan-coated bentonite | COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.8661 | 0.17 | — | — |
|
| Pseudo-second order | 0.998 | — | 0.09 | — | |||
| Weber and Morris | 0.8091 | — | — | 0.69 | |||
|
| COD | Pseudo-first order | 0.825 | 0.076 | — | — | This study |
| Pseudo-second order | 0.984 | — | 0.000377 | — | |||
| Weber and Morris | 0.844 | — | — | 3.7032 | |||
|
| BOD | Pseudo-first order | 0.844 | 0.0702 | — | — | |
| Pseudo-second order | 0.922 | — | 0.00767 | — | |||
| Weber and Morris | 0.841 | — | — | 2.7803 | |||
|
| TSS | Pseudo-first order | 0.886 | 0.0663 | — | — | |
| Pseudo-second order | 0.983 | — | 0.001158 | — | |||
| Weber and Morris | 0.786 | — | — | 1.8366 | |||
|
| TDS | Pseudo-first order | 0.889 | 0.746 | — | — | |
| Pseudo-second order | 0.961 | — | 0.000534 | — | |||
| Weber and Morris | 0.768 | — | — | 3.4028 |
t Statistics and p-values for coefficients of a pure-quadratic regression model (for COD)
| Estimate | Standard Error |
| Prob. > | | Effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −21.4504 | 24.45549 | −0.87712 | 0.389118 | Insignificant |
|
| 16.98549 | 5.864011 | 2.896564 | 0.007924 | Significant |
|
| 0.009623 | 0.022559 | 0.426552 | 0.673508 | Insignificant |
|
| 1.042557 | 0.077829 | 13.39546 | 1.24 × 10−12 | Significant |
|
| 0.010994 | 0.19712 | 0.055774 | 0.955983 | Insignificant |
|
| 5.255743 | 4.959888 | 1.05965 | 0.299853 | Insignificant |
|
| −1.82942 | 1.321684 | −1.38416 | 0.179047 | Insignificant |
|
| −1.40 × 10−5 | 1.57 × 10−5 | −0.89384 | 0.380283 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.00397 | 0.000425 | −9.33486 | 1.85 × 10−9 | Significant |
|
| −0.00037 | 0.000463 | −0.80724 | 0.427458 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.3677 | 0.40982 | −0.89723 | 0.37851 | Insignificant |
t Statistics and p-values for coefficients of a pure-quadratic regression model (for BOD)
| Estimate | Standard error |
| Prob. > | | Effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −27.6128 | 24.52864 | −1.12574 | 0.271409 | Insignificant |
|
| 17.52678 | 6.095145 | 2.875532 | 0.008325 | Significant |
|
| 0.016085 | 0.020162 | 0.797794 | 0.432814 | Insignificant |
|
| 1.06009 | 0.08001 | 13.24944 | 1.57 × 10−12 | Significant |
|
| 0.012168 | 0.197795 | 0.061517 | 0.951457 | Insignificant |
|
| 4.532874 | 4.929535 | 0.919534 | 0.366967 | Insignificant |
|
| −1.49156 | 1.421889 | −1.049 | 0.304628 | Insignificant |
|
| −1.91 × 10−5 | 1.36 × 10−5 | −1.40589 | 0.172573 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.00404 | 0.000432 | −9.33989 | 1.83 × 10−9 | Significant |
|
| −0.00037 | 0.000465 | −0.79977 | 0.431687 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.31415 | 0.407606 | −0.77072 | 0.448394 | Insignificant |
t Statistics and p-values for coefficients of a pure-quadratic regression model (for TSS)
| Estimate | Standard error |
| Prob. > | | Effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 42.63803 | 40.51244 | 1.052468 | 0.303517 | Insignificant |
|
| 21.73281 | 9.60698 | 2.26219 | 0.033442 | Significant |
|
| 0.041681 | 0.099458 | 0.419078 | 0.679047 | Insignificant |
|
| 1.04609 | 0.127516 | 8.203627 | 2.78 × 10−8 | Significant |
|
| −0.13051 | 0.322946 | −0.40413 | 0.689852 | Insignificant |
|
| −7.29601 | 8.185479 | −0.89134 | 0.381979 | Insignificant |
|
| −3.27631 | 2.165309 | −1.51309 | 0.143877 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.00013 | 0.000169 | −0.77049 | 0.448854 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.00409 | 0.000696 | −5.87471 | 5.48 × 10−6 | Significant |
|
| −0.0003 | 0.000759 | −0.39118 | 0.699264 | Insignificant |
|
| 0.558893 | 0.675577 | 0.827282 | 0.416578 | Insignificant |
t Statistics and p-values for coefficients of a pure-quadratic regression model (for TDS)
| Estimate | Standard error |
| Prob. > | | Effect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 9.378485 | 40.71209 | 0.230361 | 0.819848 | Insignificant |
|
| 22.33025 | 9.656334 | 2.312497 | 0.030047 | Significant |
|
| 0.027089 | 0.053133 | 0.509829 | 0.615029 | Insignificant |
|
| 1.057796 | 0.128171 | 8.253026 | 2.50 × 10−8 | Significant |
|
| −0.062 | 0.324605 | −0.191 | 0.850202 | Insignificant |
|
| −3.35297 | 8.22849 | −0.40748 | 0.687421 | Insignificant |
|
| −3.27465 | 2.176433 | −1.5046 | 0.146038 | Insignificant |
|
| −3.02 × 10−5 | 4.83 × 10−5 | −0.62578 | 0.53762 | Insignificant |
|
| −0.00419 | 0.0007 | −5.98465 | 4.21 × 10−6 | Significant |
|
| −0.00046 | 0.000763 | −0.60708 | 0.549747 | Insignificant |
|
| 0.272288 | 0.679115 | 0.400945 | 0.692161 | Insignificant |