Startseite Optimization of multiple parameters of coking wastewater (CWW): catalytic thermolysis (CT) at high pressure reactor (HPR)
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Optimization of multiple parameters of coking wastewater (CWW): catalytic thermolysis (CT) at high pressure reactor (HPR)

  • Vibha Verma EMAIL logo , Parmesh Kumar Chaudhari und Bidyut Mazumdar
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 22. April 2020
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Present study deals with the treatment of coking waste water (CWW) for the reduction of pollutants COD, phenol and cyanide using catalytic thermolysis (CT). For screening of catalyst and optimization of pH the CT was performed at 100 °C, pH = 3–11 using catalyst mass loading Cw = 3 g/L. In this study Cu (NO3)2 gave best performance. Further, CT was carried out using Cu (NO3)2 catalyst in high pressure reactor (HPR). The investigated parameters range were initial pH (pHi) = 3–11, Cw = 1–5 g/L, temperature (T) = 100–160 °C and treatment time (tR) = 6 h. The maximum percentage reduction for COD, phenol and cyanide were 83.33, 80.57 and 97.61%, respectively at pH = 9, Cw = 4 g/L, T = 140 °C and tR = 6 h. The CT did not give complete reduction of pollutant; therefore it was further treated using adsorption process as second stage treatment. The initial value of COD = 610 mg/L, phenol = 70.58 mg/L and cyanide = 0.45 mg/L were further reduced to 98.85, 100.00 and 55.55%, respectively, when adsorption process was performed at pH = 9, adsorbents dose Aw = 4 g/L, tR = 2 h. The response surface methodology (RSM) was performed through central composite design (CCD) for the designing of experiments and optimization of both the process. The kinetics studies of CT at HPR showed first order with respect to COD and phenol, and 0.24–0.608 order with respect to CW.

Highlights

  1. Thermolysis and adsorption process were applied for the treatment of coking wastewater (CWW).

  2. The parameters like, pH, catalyst amount, time and temperature were studied for removal of pollutants by thermolysis process.

  3. In adsorption process, the effect of pH, adsorbent dosage and treatment time were studied for removal of pollutants.

  4. The two stage treated effluent have COD = 8 mg/L, phenol = 0.00 mg/L and cyanide = 0.2 mg/L.

  5. The treated effluent can be used in same industry for various purposes thus gives zero discharge.


Corresponding author: Vibha Verma,Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, 492010, Raipur, India, E-mail:

Acknowledgement

Present work was carried out under the support of Bhilai steel plant, (C. G.) for providing the coke oven effluent. The research was supported by NIT, Raipur for providing required facilities.

  1. Author contribution: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

Nomenclature
COD

Chemical oxygen demand, (kg/m3)

CA

Concentration of organic matter expressed as COD, phenol (kg/m3)

C0

Initial concentration of organic matter in the effluent expressed as COD, phenol (kg/m3)

Cw

Catalyst mass loading, (kg/m3)

E

Apparent activation energy, (kJ/mol)

k

Specific first-order reaction rate constant, (min−1)

k1

First-order reaction rate constant for fast thermolysis step, (min−1)

k2

First-order reaction rate constant for slow thermolysis step, (min−1)

kc

Specific nth order reaction rate constant, (mol1−n m3n min−1)

m

Order with respect to catalyst mass loading

n

Order with respect to organic matter concentration, COD and phenol

P

Self (autogenous) pressure

pH0

Initial pH

R

Universal gas constant, 8.314 J(mole K)−1

tR

Treatment time, min, h

XA

Conversion of organic matter = 1 − (COD) = (COD)0

References

An, G., Y. Sun, T. Zhu, and X. Yan. 2011. “Degradation of Phenol in Mists by a Non-thermal Plasma Reactor.” Chemosphere 84: 1296–300.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.05.007Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Burmistrz, P., A. Rozwadowski, M. Burmistrz, and A. Karcz. 2014. “Coke Dust Enhance Coke Plant Wastewater Treatment.” Chemosphere 117: 278–84.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.025Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Chaudhari, P. K., S. Chand, and I. M. Mishra. 2005. “Catalytic Thermal Treatment (Catalytic Thermolysis) of a Biodigester Effluent of an Alcohol Distillery Plant.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 44 (15): 5518–25.10.1021/ie048861uSuche in Google Scholar

Chaudhari, P. K., S. Chand, and I. M. Mishra. 2008. “Effluent Treatment for Alcohol Distillery: Catalytic Thermal Pretreatment (Catalytic Thermolysis) with Energy Recovery.” Chemical Engineering Journal 136: 14–24.10.1016/j.cej.2007.03.006Suche in Google Scholar

Chaudhari, P. and R. K. Choudhary. 2019. System and Method for Treating Coking Wastewater. Indian Patent No 326392.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, T. and K. Huang. 2013. “Effect of Operating Parameters on Electrochemical Degradation of Estriol (E3).” International Journal of Electrochemical Science 8: 6343–53.10.1016/S1452-3981(23)14766-3Suche in Google Scholar

Choudhary, R. K., G. Jyoti, P. Ghosh, A. N. Sawarkar, and P. K. Chaudhari. 2017. “Electrocoagulation Process to Remove Contaminants of Coking Wastewater Using Aluminum Electrode.” Desalination and Water Treatment 86: 68–79.10.5004/dwt.2017.20922Suche in Google Scholar

Dhoble, Y. N., and S. Ahmed. 2019. “Treatment of Wastewater Generated from Coke Oven by Adsorption on Steel Making Slag and Its Effect on Cementations Properties.” Current Science 116: 8.10.18520/cs/v116/i8/1346-1355Suche in Google Scholar

Draper, N. and J. A. John. 1988. “Response Surface Design for Quantitative and Qualitative Variables.” Technometrics 30: 423–8.10.1080/00401706.1988.10488437Suche in Google Scholar

Garg, A., S. Chand, and I. M. Mishra. 2005. “Thermochemical Precipitation as a Pretreatment Step for the Chemical Oxygen Demand and Color Removal from Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 447: 2016–26.10.1021/ie048990aSuche in Google Scholar

Gupta, V. K. 1998. “Equilibrium Uptake, Sorption Dynamics Process Development and Column Operations for the Removal of Copper and Nickel from Aqueous Solutions and Wastewater Using Activated Slag, a Low Cost Adsorbent.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 37: 192–202.10.1021/ie9703898Suche in Google Scholar

Korzenowski, C., M. Minhalma, A. M. Bernardes, and J. Z., Ferreira. 2011. “Removed: Nanofiltration for the Treatment of Coke Plant Ammoniacal Wastewaters.” Separation and Purification Technology 76 (3): 303–7.10.1016/j.proeng.2012.08.941Suche in Google Scholar

Lai, P., H. Z. Zhao, M. Zeng, and J. Ni. 2009. “Study on Treatment of Coking Wastewater by Bioflim Reactors Combined with Zero- Valent Iron Process.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 162: 1423–9.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.034Suche in Google Scholar

Maranon, E., I. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, L. Castrillon, Y. Fernandez, and H. Lopez. 2008. “Treatment of Coke Wastewater in a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) at Pilot Plant Scale.” Bioresource Technology 99: 4192–8.10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.081Suche in Google Scholar

Mishra, V. S., V. V. Mahajani, and B. Joshi. 1995. “Wet Air Oxidation.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 34: 2–48.10.1021/ie00040a001Suche in Google Scholar

Ogutveren, U. B., E. Teoru, and S. Koparal. 1999. “Removal of Cyanide by Anodic Oxidation for Wastewater Treatment.” Water Research 33: 1851–6.10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00362-5Suche in Google Scholar

Oulego, P., S. Collado, A. Laca, and M. Diaz. 2014. “Simultaneous Oxidation of Cyanide and Thiocyanate at High Pressure and Temperature.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 280: 570–8.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.08.051Suche in Google Scholar

Rafatullah, M., O. Sulaiman, R. Hashim, and A. Ahmad. 2010. “Adsorption of Methylene Blue on Low-cost Adsorbents: A Review.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 177: 70–80.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.047Suche in Google Scholar

Rice, E.W., R. B. Baired, A. D. Eaton, and L. S. Clesceri. 2012. APHA, AWWA and WEF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Suche in Google Scholar

Smol, M., D. Wloka, and M. W. Makula. 2018. “Influence of Intergrated Membrane Treatment on the Phytotoxicity of Wastewater from the Coke Industry.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 229: 154.10.1007/s11270-018-3794-1Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, W., Y. Qu, and Q. Yu. 2008. “Adsorption of Organic Pollutants from Coking and Paper Making Wastewaters by Bottom Ash.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 154: 595–601.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.063Suche in Google Scholar

Tyagi, R. and S. K. Srivastava. 1995. “Competitive Adsorption of Substituted Phenols by Activated Carbon Developed from the Fertilizer Waste Slurry.” Water Resource 29: 483–8.10.1016/0043-1354(94)00182-7Suche in Google Scholar

Wu, Z., and L. Zhu. 2012. “Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Phenols from Coking Wastewater by Simultaneously Synthesized Organobentonite in a One-Step Process.” Journal of Environmental Sciences 24 (2): 248–53.10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60780-8Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-12-11
Accepted: 2020-03-24
Published Online: 2020-04-22

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 16.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijcre-2019-0221/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen