Parametric study of electro-Fenton treatment for real textile wastewater, disposal study and its cost analysis

Abstract

Treatment of real textile wastewater by electro-Fenton method was investigated using Ti/RuO 2 electrodes. The performance of the treatment process was evaluated in terms of %chemical oxidation demand removal; %color removal; and energy consumed, at three electro-Fenton process parameters: current, electrolysis time and ferrous sulfate concentration. To determine the optimum operating conditions, multiple responses optimization based on Box-Behnken design with desirability function was used. The optimum value of parameters were found to be current= 0.32 A, time = 90 min and ferrous sulfate concentration = 0.53 mM. Box-Behnken design suggested the %chemical oxidation demand removal; %color removal; and energy consumed were 100%, 90.30% and 1.27 Wh, respectively at optimized process parameters. The predicted performance parameters agree well with the experimental data. Second-order kinetic model was fitted to the experimental data, at optimum conditions. GC-MS analysis confirmed that dye components were totally eliminated after electro-Fenton treatment of textile effluent. To determined the toxicity of the treated textile effluent bioassay analysis was performed. It was identified that the generated by-products were non-toxic in nature. The total cost to treat the 1 m 3 of real textile wastewater by electro-Fenton at optimum conditions was $ 3.13.

Physicochemical, Microbial and Ecotoxicological Characteristics of Textile Effluent Collected in the Southeast Region of Brazil

“…Textile effluents typically contains a large range of organic compounds that may exhibit a certain degree of toxicity. These compounds, with functional groups as phenols, amines, alcohols, ethers, alkanes, are mainly derived from the dye molecules, auxiliary reagents, solvents and organochlorine products used in pest control (Gardiner and Borne 1978;Correia et al 1994;Ghaly et al 2014;Castro et al 2018;Dolez and Benaddi 2018;Liang et al 2018;Kaur et al 2019;Sivaram et al 2019). Fortunately, the sample did not indicate the presence of cyanide, organochlorines and aromatic hydrocarbons, such as chloroform, dichloroethane, trichlorethylene, phenols, benzene, styrene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene (Table 2).…”

“…These compounds were seen to cause inhibitory effects on the activity of microorganisms in conventional biological treatments and may be harmful to the environment (Beltrame 2000;Sivaram et al 2019). Oxidative methods such as the electrochemical, photocatalytic and ozonation have demonstrated success in the removal of organic compounds from textile effluents (Ahmed et al 2011;Malik et al 2018;Silva et al 2018;Kaur et al 2019). Other removal proposals include the development of new designs of reactors in biological treatments, the use of adapted microorganisms and catalytic enzymes (Husain 2006;Chanwala et al 2019;Meerbergen et al 2018;Xu et al 2018).…”

Optimization of process parameters in coagulation of landfill leachate by Al2(SO4)3 and PACl

“…Thus, a better alternative such as response surface methodology (RSM) comes into prominence. Box-Behnken experimental design is one of the RSM designs and it provides to determine the interactive effects of variables and their impact factor [15]. Among the RSM designs, the minimum number of experimental sets is provided by applying the Box-Behnken design [16,17].…”

Cross-linking of poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) by phytic acid: pH-responsive adsorbent for high-efficiency removal of cationic and anionic dyes

“…4 Various techniques, for example, adsorption, membrane separation, occulation, electrolysis, oxidation, and electro-coagulation, have been used to treat dye pollution. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Among the above-mentioned methods, adsorption is an advanced and prospective technique due to its low cost, simple operation, and high selectivity, which will not cause secondary pollution aer removing pollutants from industrial wastewater. 11 Activated carbon is the most commonly adopted adsorbent for the treatment of dye waste now, but traditional activated carbon has the disadvantages of low efficiency and high cost.…”