Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of response surface methods for the optimization of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater

  • Chollom, Martha Noro (Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Department of Chemical Engineering, Durban University of Technology) ;
  • Rathilal, Sudesh (Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Department of Chemical Engineering, Durban University of Technology) ;
  • Swalaha, Feroz Mohammed (Faculty of Applied science, Department of Biotechnology and Food Technology, Durban University of Technology) ;
  • Bakare, Babatunde Femi (Faculty of Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Mangosuthu University of Technology) ;
  • Tetteh, Emmanuel Kweinor (Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Department of Chemical Engineering, Durban University of Technology)
  • Received : 2018.10.18
  • Accepted : 2019.02.16
  • Published : 2020.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was aimed at using the Central Composite Design (CCD) and Box-Behnken Design (BBD) to compare the efficiency and to elucidate the main interacting parameters in the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, namely: Organic Loading Rate (OLR), Hydraulic Retention Times (HRT) and pH at a constant temperature of 35℃. Optimum HRT (15 h), OLR (3.5 kg.m-3.d-1) and pH (7) resulted in biogas production of 5,800 mL/d and COD removal of 80.8%. BBD produced a higher desirability efficiency of 94% as compared to the CCD which was 92%. The regression quadratic models developed with high R2 values of 0.961 and 0.978 for both CCD and BBD, respectively, demonstrated that the interaction models could be used to pilot the design space. BBD model developed was more reliable with a higher prediction of biogas production (5,955.4 ± 225.3 mL/d) and COD removal (81.5 ± 1.014%), much close to the experimental results at a 95% confidence level. CCD model predictions was greater in terms of COD removal (82.6 ± 1.06% > 80.8%) and biogas production (4,636.31 mL/d ± 439.81 < 5,800 mL/d) which was less than the experimental results. Therefore, RSM can be adapted for optimizing various wastewater treatment processes.

Keywords

References

  1. Tetteh EK, Rathilal S, Chollom MN. Treatment of industrial mineral oil wastewater-optimisation of coagulation flotation process using response surface methodology (RSM). Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017;12:13084-13091.
  2. Dasgupta J, Sikder J, Chakraborty S, Curcio S, Drioli E. Remediation of textile effluents by membrane based treatment techniques: A state of the art review. J. Environ. Manage. 2015;147:55-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.08.008
  3. Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira EP, Villar LS, Escaleira LA. Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 2008;76:965-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.05.019
  4. Ibrahim S, Wahab NA, Anuar AN, Bob M. Parameter optimisation of aerobic granular sludge at high temperature using response surface methodology. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017;7:1522-1529. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v7i3.pp1522-1529
  5. Najib T, Solgi M, Farazmand A, Heydarian SM, Nasernejad B. Optimization of sulfate removal by sulfate reducing bacteria using response surface methodology and heavy metal removal in a sulfidogenic UASB reactor. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017;5:3256-3265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.06.016
  6. Zolgharnein J, Shahmoradi A, Ghasemi JB. Comparative study of Box-Behnken, central composite, and Doehlert matrix for multivariate optimization of Pb(II) adsorption onto Robinia tree leaves. J. Chemometr. 2013;27:12-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.2487
  7. Bashir MJ, Amr SSA, Aziz SQ, Aun NC, Sethupathi S. Wastewater treatment processes optimization using response surface methodology (RSM) compared with conventional methods: Review and comparative study. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2015;3:244-252.
  8. Bashir MJ, Aziz HA, Aziz SQ, Amr SA. An overview of wastewater treatment processes optimization using response surface methodology (RSM). In: The 4th International Engineering Conference-Towards engineering of 21st century, 15-16 January 2012; Gaza.
  9. Pambi R, Musonge P. Application of response surface methodology (RSM) in the treatment of final effluent from the sugar industry using Chitosan. In:WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment; 27-29 June 2016; Venice. p. 209-219.
  10. Amr SSA, Aziz HA, Bashir MJ. Application of response surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of semi-aerobic landfill leachate treatment using ozone. Appl. Water Sci. 2014;4:231-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0156-z
  11. Chong S, Sen TK, Kayaalp A, Ang HM. The performance enhancements of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge treatment - A state-of-the-art review. Water Res. 2012;46:3434-3470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.066
  12. Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M. Treatment of an actual slaughterhouse wastewater by integration of biological and advanced oxidation processes: Modeling, optimization, and cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 2016;182:651-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.044
  13. Phanduang O, Lunprom S, Salakkam A, Reungsang A. Anaerobic solid-state fermentation of bio-hydrogen from microalgal Chlorella sp. biomass. Int. J. Hydrog. Energ. 2017;42:9650-9659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.084
  14. Jha P, Kana EBG, Schmidt S. Can artificial neural network and response surface methodology reliably predict hydrogen production and COD removal in an UASB bioreactor? Int. J. Hydrog. Energ. 2017;42:18875-18883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.063
  15. Lettinga G, Pol LH. UASB-process design for various types of wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 1991;4:87-107. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1991.0220
  16. Rezaee S, Zinatizadeh AA, Asadi A. High rate CNP removal from a milk processing wastewater in a single ultrasound augmented up-flow anaerobic/aerobic/anoxic bioreactor. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2015;23:289-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.10.018
  17. Chollom M, Rathilal S, Swalaha F, Bakare B, Tetteh E. Study of the start-up of an upflow laboratory-scale anaerobic sludge blanket for the treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater.In 4th Water and Society internatioanl conference; 4-6 June 2017; Seville, Spain.
  18. Torkian A, Eqbali A, Hashemian SJ. The effect of organic loading rate on the performance of UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse effluent. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003;40:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00021-1
  19. Ruiz I, Veiga M, Santiago PD, Blazquez R. Treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater in a UASB reactor and an anaerobic filter. Bioresour. Technol. 1997;60:251-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00020-5

Cited by

  1. Modeling methods used in bioenergy production processes: A review vol.5, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/acd.2020.5.3.323
  2. Modeling and Optimization of Aqueous Mineral Carbonation for Cement Kiln Dust Using Response Surface Methodology Integrated with Box-Behnken and Central Composite Design Approaches vol.37, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00222-9
  3. Statistical Comparison of Response Surface Methodology-Based Central Composite Design and Hybrid Central Composite Design for Paper Mill Wastewater Treatment by Electrocoagulation vol.4, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-020-00123-w
  4. Optimization of immobilized Lactobacillus pentosus cell fermentation for lactic acid production vol.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-020-00305-x
  5. Optimización mediante el método de superficie de respuesta de una disolución de zinc metálico obtenido a partir de la disolución en ácido nítrico de ba vol.57, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3989/revmetalm.191
  6. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment: A Review on Recycling and Reuse Possibilities vol.13, pp.22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223175
  7. Simulation and Optimization of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Palm Oil Mill Effluent for Biogas Production vol.13, pp.24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413665