Abstract
In the current work, the Electro-Fenton (EF) based Reactive Orange 16 (RO16) dye treatment was studied and compared with central composite (CC) and Taguchi design (TD) statistical optimization tools. Color removal (RC) and COD decay (RCOD) were chosen responses for the effect of pH (A), electrolysis time (B), initial dye concentration (C), and current density (D). The facecentred CC design and L16 orthogonal array were used in the experimental procedures. At optimal conditions, the coefficient of determination (R2) values of 0.99 for CC and 0.97 for TD suggest statistical significance and good model agreement. The results of the ANOVA and Prob. > F values supported the model’s successful experimental data fitting. Taguchi method was found as an appropriate methodology for parameter percentage contributions with fewer experimental runs. Moreover, the S/N ratio charts proved to be a successful CC design replacement. The current density and pH were found to be the most important factors for the EF process. A higher biodegradability (BOD5/COD) and minimum iron concentration (0.45 mg/L) in the effluent sludge demonstrated good environmental disposal suitability. In the last, the effect of various inhibitors/scavengers (SO4 −2, PO4 −3, EDTA, etc.) on the EF process performance was also carried out.
Keywords: Central composite design, Taguchi design method, optimization, biodegradability, scavengers effects, electro-fenton.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126513] [PMID: 32203784]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111523] [PMID: 33120279]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150665] [PMID: 34597540]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110594] [PMID: 32335392]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2021.100110] [PMID: 36160694]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4491/eer.2022.231]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100209]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2022-0045]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/722/1/012032]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117639]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12010102]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1RA04049A] [PMID: 35480678]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4491/eer.2022.204]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-1986-y]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0783-x]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.02.019]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2016.1170635]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12112101] [PMID: 37297347]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7324/JAPS.2022.120806]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2021.190] [PMID: 34185690]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2016.05.001]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/374/1/012054]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2023.05.021]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma16114082] [PMID: 37297216]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104782]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1123-5]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11144-018-1410-4]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.04.022]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128381] [PMID: 33182108]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.011]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.028] [PMID: 28865309]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.22059/poll.2018.249210.364]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2142-3_10]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.26132]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.179] [PMID: 31241484]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147416] [PMID: 33964782]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2965/jwet.2013.21]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.987171]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.22104/AET.2022.5547.1502]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0011.7313]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/EHEM.2016.12]
![Wayfinder Image](/images/wayfinder.jpg)