Optimisation of Photo-Fenton-Like Degradation of Aqueous Polyacrylic Acid Using Box-Behnken Experimental Design
Optimisation of Photo-Fenton-Like Degradation of Aqueous Polyacrylic Acid Using Box-Behnken Experimental Design
Optimisation of Photo-Fenton-Like Degradation of Aqueous Polyacrylic Acid Using Box-Behnken Experimental Design
The effectiveness of photoFentonlike process to degrade aqueous polyacrylic acid (PAA) is investigated in a batch recirculation system using two
photoreactors in series. The response surface methodology (RSM) using the BoxBehnken experimental design combined with quadratic
programming is employed for the experimental design, the statistical analysis and the optimisation. The effects of the initial concentration of PAA, the
initial concentration of H2O2:Fe3, pH and the recirculation rate on the percent removal of total organic carbon (TOC)and the pseudosecond order
rate constant as the process responses are studied. The statistical analysis of the results indicates a satisfactory prediction of the system behaviour by
the developed quadratic models. Optimum operating conditions to maximise the percent TOC removal are also determined.
Keywords: photoFentonlike, polyacrylic acid, TOC removal, statistical analysis, process optimisation, advanced oxidation technologies
INTRODUCTION
Fe3 H2 O ! Fe2 OH H
hv
H2 O2 ! 2 OH
H2 O2 ! Fe
HO2
1
2
hv
97
Materials
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup in batch recirculation mode. (1) Reservoir tank, (2) Pump, (3) Flow meter, (4) UV photoreactor,
(5) Heat exchanger, (6) Cooling water inlet, (7) Water outlet, (8) Bypass and (9) UV photoreactor.
98
Table 1. Independent variables and their coded levels based on BoxBehnken design
Coded Levels
Independent variable
1
[PAA]o (mg L )
[H2O2:Fe3]o (mg L1:(mg L1))
pH
Recirculation rate (L min1)
Symbol
X1
X2
X3
X4
10
400:4
3
1
30
900:6
5
6
50
1600:8
7
10
k
X
i1
bi X i
k
X
bii X 2i
i1
k1 X
k
X
bij X i X j e
i1 j2
where Y, bo, bi, bii and bij are the predicted response, the constant
coefcient (intercept term), the linear coefcients, the quadratic
coefcients and the interaction coefcients, respectively. The
parameters Xi and Xj are independent variables, where k (in this
case, k 4) and e are the number of factors and the residual term
allowing uncertainties between observed and predicted values,
respectively. The statistical softwares, STATISTICA (trial version
10.0) and DesignExpert (trial version 8.0) were used for the
regression analysis and the parameter estimation of the response
functions, respectively. The statistical signicance of the model
equations was completely analysed using analysis of variance
(ANOVA) at 95% condence intervals. Threedimensional response surface plots and twodimensional contour plots were
developed while holding a variable constant in the quadratic
model. The experimental and predicted values were compared to
validate the developed models. The optimal operating conditions
to maximise the percent TOC removal were also determined
using a numerical technique built in the software DesignExpert
8.0. The pseudosecond order rate constant was calculated at the
determined optimal conditions. Also, another experimental trial
was carried out to verify the obtained optimal conditions by the
developed models for both response functions.
H2 O2 HO2 ! OH H2 O O2
Figure 2. Proles of TOC removal in: (a) one photoreactor; and (b) two
photoreactors in series for UV, UV/H2O2, UV/Fe3 and UV/H2O2/Fe3
processes ([PAA]o 30 mg L1, [H2O2]:[Fe3] 900:30 mg L1:mg L1,
pH 3 and recirculation rate 4 L min1).
99
HO2 ! O
2 H
H2 O2 O
2 ! OH O2 OH
TOC OH ! ! CO2 H2 O
10
dTOC
kobs TOC2
dt
11
100
Figure 3. Pseudosecond order kinetic t for experimentally achieved TOC in 27 experimental trials. (See Table 2 for the conditions of each experimental
trial.)
and 5b. Since the points on the plot follow a straight line, it could
be concluded that the residuals are normally distributed. Also,
as the Sshaped curve is not formed in Figures 4b and 5b,
the response transformations are not needed.[30] Therefore, it
101
Table 2. Fourfactor BoxBehnken design for RSM and the observed and predicted responses
Independent coded variables
Run
X1
X2
X3
X4
Observed
Predicted
Observed
Predicted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
89.98
87.55
80.98
95.13
90.30
95.65
88.21
87.53
87.86
80.17
89.26
91.20
89.86
83.34
88.97
91.94
79.49
92.68
82.89
92.35
93.66
77.91
91.34
72.61
88.44
90.70
89.71
91.08
87.18
80.84
92.82
92.16
94.46
88.02
85.40
85.30
80.27
89.63
93.14
91.02
82.35
89.63
92.94
77.27
92.20
84.10
93.21
94.10
81.18
90.55
74.62
87.42
89.26
89.30
24
21
14
69
24
74
22
13
13
14
19
67
55
18
19
35
12
62
29
36
32
6
29
4
15
19
17
29
24
18
62
29
76
16
14
15
10
19
64
55
17
19
35
7
58
40
34
35
7
28
9
17
19
14
1
1
0
0
1
SSa
dfb
MSc SS/df
Fvalue
761.57
160.60
56.03
469.63
0.55
6.33
4.71
0.28
0.59
0.43
0.023
4.39
1.15
51.21
0.43
51.81
0.66
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
2
54.40
160.60
56.03
469.63
0.55
6.33
4.71
0.28
0.59
0.43
0.023
4.39
1.15
51.21
0.43
4.32
0.33
12.60
37.20
12.98
108.77
0.13
1.47
1.09
0.064
0.14
0.099
5.21E003
1.02
0.27
11.86
0.10
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0036
<0.0001
0.7283
0.2494
0.3169
0.8048
0.7192
0.7580
0.9436
0.3331
0.6156
0.0049
0.7569
Sum of squares.
Degree of freedom.
c
Mean square.
d
P < 0.05 is considered as signicant.
b
102
SSa
dfb
MSc SS/df
Fvalue
9625.94
6580.08
216.75
1240.33
40.33
1.00
256.00
6.25
2.25
9.00
20.25
1134.26
13.37
7.79
94.45
426.58
0.000
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
2
687.57
6580.08
216.75
1240.33
40.33
1.00
256.00
6.25
2.25
9.00
20.25
1134.26
13.37
7.79
94.45
35.55
0.000
19.34
185.10
6.10
34.89
1.13
0.028
7.20
0.18
0.063
0.25
0.57
31.91
0.38
0.22
2.66
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0295
<0.0001
0.3078
0.8696
0.0199
0.6824
0.8056
0.6240
0.4650
0.0001
0.5511
0.6481
0.1290
Sum of squares.
Degree of freedom.
Mean square.
d
P < 0.05 is considered as signicant.
b
c
103
Figure 4. Validation of models for the TOC percent removal using different
plots of: (a) observed experimental data versus predicted values and (b)
normal probability.
are presented while all others are at xed levels. The 3D response
surface plots are formed based on the quadratic model Equations (12) and (13) while the relationship between the model
factors and the response functions are illustrated by corresponding
contour plots. The nonlinear nature of all 3D response surfaces in
Figures 6 and 7 show considerable interactions between independent variables and their corresponding response functions.
Moreover, the nonlinear contour plots in Figures 6 and 7 demontrate that there is no direct linear relationship among the selected
independent variables. Figures 6a and 7a present the inuence of
the initial concentration of PAA (X1) and the initial concentration
of H2O2:Fe3 (X2) on the percent TOC removal and pseudosecond
order rate constant in photoFentonlike process, respectively. As is
evident in these gures, higher initial concentrations of PAA have
negative effects on the response functions while higher H2O2:Fe3
dosage results in higher TOC removal and higher rate constant. The
high negative coefcient of X1 in the response functions(Equations 12 and 13) also conrms the antagonistic effect of the initial
concentrations of PAA on the response functions. Furthermore, as
shown in these gures, the effect of the initial concentration of PAA
is more inuential than the other factor as it is in agreement
with the signicance of these two process parameters on the basis
of Pvalues (Tables 3 and 4). However, as shown by the ANOVA
results (Tables 3 and 4), the interaction between the initial
concentrations of PAA and the oxidant ratio (H2O2:Fe3) does not
show a signicant effect on the response functions.
104
Figure 6. Interaction effects of different parameters on the percent TOC removal using 3D response surface and 2D contours. (a) [PAA]o and [H2O2:Fe3]o;
(b) [PAA]o and pH; (c) [PAA]o and recirculation rate; (d) [H2O2:Fe3]o and pH; (e) [H2O2:Fe3]o and recirculation rate; (f) pH and recirculation rate.
X1 [PAA]o, X2 [H2O2:Fe3]o, X3 pH and X4 recirculation rate.
this gure, the pH changes are more important than the other factor
while in Figure 7d, both factors show small changes on the
pseudosecond order rate constant (Figure 7d). Figure 6e also
conrms the signicant effect of the oxidants concentration (H2O2:
Fe3) on the percent TOC removal while Figure 7e shows that
the changes of the oxidant concentration are less important in the
105
Figure 7. Interaction effects of different parameters on the pseudosecond order rate constant using 3D response surface and 2D contours. (a) [PAA]o and
[H2O2:Fe3]o; (b) [PAA]o and pH; (c) [PAA]o and recirculation rate; (d) [H2O2:Fe3]o and pH; (e) [H2O2:Fe3]o and recirculation rate; (f) pH and recirculation
rate. X1 [PAA]o, X2 [H2O2:Fe3]o, X3 pH and X4 recirculation rate.
106
residual term
Fisher test value
number of factors
pseudosecond order rate constant (M1 s1)
molecular weight (g mol1)
probability value
regression coefficient
adjusted regression coefficient
time (min)
independent variables
initial concentration of PAA (mg L1)
initial concentration of H2O2:Fe3 (mg L1:mg L1)
pH
recirculation rate (L min1)
response function
percent TOC removal (%)
pseudosecond order rate constant (M1 s1)
Greek Symbols
bo
bi
bii
bij
intercept term
linear coefficient
quadratic coefficient
interaction coefficient
Acronyms
2D
3D
ANOVA
AOT
df
MS
PAA
RSM
SS
TOC
twodimensional
threedimensional
analysis of variance
advanced oxidation technology
degree of freedom
mean square
polyacrylic acid
response surface methodology
sum of square
total organic carbon
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The nancial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Ryerson University are
gratefully appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] A. C. Bnard, V. Darcos, C. Drakides, C. Casellas, J. Coudane,
M. Vert, J. Polym. Environ. 2011, 19, 40.
[2] M. H. AlRashed, M. Lemanowicz, A. T. Gierczycki, Int. J.
Miner. Process 2012, 104105, 1.
[3] F. Hassouna, G. Mailhot, S. MorlatThrias, J. L. Gardette, J.
Photochem. Photobiol. A 2011, 218, 239.
[4] G. E. Luckachan, C. K. S. Pillai, J. Polym. Environ. 2011, 19,
637.
[5] J. A. Giroto, A. C. S. C. Teixeira, C. A. O. Nascimento, R.
Guardani, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 3200.
[6] M. Mehrvar, W. A. Anderson, M. MooYoung, Int. J.
Photoenergy 2000, 2, 67.
[7] M. Mehrvar, W. A. Anderson, M. MooYoung, Int. J.
Photoenergy 2001, 3, 187.
[8] S. H. Venhuis, M. Mehrvar, J. Environ. Sci. Heal 2005, A40,
1731.
[9] M. B. Johnson, M. Mehrvar, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47,
6525.
[10] J. M. Poyatos, M. M. Munio, M. C. Almecija, J. C. Torres, E.
Hontoria, F. Osorio, Water Air Soil Pollut. 2010, 205, 187.
[11] W. Cao, M. Mehrvar, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89, 1136.
[12] M. Barrera, M. Mehrvar, K. A. Gilbride, L. H. McCarthy, A. E.
Laursen, V. Bostan, R. Pushchak, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2012,
90, 1335.
[13] S. Ghafoori, M. Mehrvarand, P. K. Chan, Iran. Polym. J. 2012,
21, 869.
[14] S. Ghafoori, M. Mehrvar, P. K. Chan, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2012, 51, 14980.
[15] M. Mohajerani, M. Mehrvar, F. EinMozaffari, Can. J. Chem.
Eng. 2012, 90, 719.
[16] M. Mohajerani, M. Mehrvar, F. EinMozaffari, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 2012, 90, 173.
107
108