journal article·2024-05-15Open access

OPTIMIZATION OF A PHOTOCATALYTIC PROCESS FOR REMOVAL OF PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS FROM WASTEWATER GENERATED IN THE PRODUCTION OF CELLULOSE FROM PINUS RADIATA AND EUCALYPTUS GRANDIS WOOD

Science Faculty, Environmental Chemistry Department, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Concepción, Chile, MARÍA C. YEBER, LILIAN SUÁREZ, Science Faculty, Environmental Chemistry Department, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera 2850, Concepción, Chile

Cellulose Chemistry and Technology· Volume 58· Issue 3-4

Abstract

This study aimed to improve the sustainability of the kraft pulp production process by recovering Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus grandis wastewater generated during the bleaching process. The effluents were obtained from the first alkaline extraction stage (E0) of the ECF bleaching sequence used to produce white Kraft cellulose, considering that this stage is where the highest contamination by phenolic compounds occurs and the effluent exhibits an intense color. A photochemical oxidation system, utilizing TiO2/S2O82-/UV, was implemented to generate in situ two highly oxidizing radical species, with high redox potential, a hydroxyl radical (HO• 2.8 eV ) and a sulfate radical (SO4•- 2.5-3.1 eV), which promote rapid degradation of contaminants. To obtain the optimal response, we employed the 2n model to construct a matrix of 15 experiments, utilizing the Box-Behnken design. According to the experimental variables studied, phenolic compounds were completely removed from the Eucalyptus effluent (0.0312 min-1) and 80% of them were removed from the pine effluent (0.0102 min-1), at pH 5.0 with 0.6 gL-1 of persulfate and 1.0 gL-1 of titanium dioxide. Under these conditions, the bioavailability of effluents from Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus grandis increases from 0.16 and 0.26 to 0.90, after the treatment. The excellent bioavailability of the effluents obtained after the treatment demonstrates that the process used is efficient in recovering wastewater from the pulp industry and that the treated water could be reused in the same process or returned to the ecosystem, without harming the environment.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced oxidation water treatment · Enzyme-mediated dye degradation · Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (51)

Show source-provided references
1. "1 V. Kumar and P. Verma, Desalination, 236, 116728 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.11672810.1016/j.envres.2023.116728 ↗
2. 2 D. Balabanič, M. Filipič, A. Klemenčič and B. Žegura, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett., 794, 148489 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.14848910.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148489 ↗
3. 3 D. Buchanan, Water Environ. Res., 89, 1417 (2017), https://doi.org/10.2175/106143017X1502377627049410.2175/106143017X15023776270494 ↗
4. 4 H. Elnakar and I. Buchanan, Water Environ. Res., 91, 1069 (2019), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.1002/wer.117910.1002/wer.1179 ↗
5. 5 M. Procházková, M. Touš, D. Horňák, V. Miklas, M. Vondra et al., J. Clean. Prod., 426, 139037 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.13903710.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139037 ↗
6. 6 S. Mazhar, A. Ditta, L. Bulgariu, I. Ahmad, M. Ahmed et al., Chemosphere, 227, 256 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.02210.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.022 ↗
7. 7 O. Ashrafi, L. Yerushalmi and F. Haghighat, J. Environ. Manag., 198, 510 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.01010.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.010 ↗
8. 8 K. Lee, N. Morad, T. Teng and B. Poh, Chem. Eng. J., 203, 370 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.06.10910.1016/j.cej.2012.06.109 ↗
9. 9 R. Li, B. Gao, J. Sun, Q. Yue, Y. Wang et al., Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad., 113, 334 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2016.02.00210.1016/j.ibiod.2016.02.002 ↗
10. 10 H. Rong, B. Gao, R. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Yue et al., Chem. Eng. J., 243, 169 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.12.00510.1016/j.cej.2013.12.005 ↗
11. 11 P. Asaithambi, R. Aziz and W. Daud, Chem. Eng. Process: Process Intensif., 105, 92 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2016.03.01310.1016/j.cep.2016.03.013 ↗
12. 12 N. Jaafarzadeh, M. Omidinasab and F. Ghanbari, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 102, 462 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.04.01910.1016/j.psep.2016.04.019 ↗
13. 13 M. Haghighi, F. Rahmani, F. Kariminejad and A. Sene, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 122, 48 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.11.02010.1016/j.psep.2018.11.020 ↗
14. 14 Y. Zhang and W. Chu, Chemosphere, 286, 131797 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.13179710.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131797 ↗
15. 15 H. Munir, N. Feroze, N. Ramzan, M. Sagir, M. Babar et al., Chemosphere, 297, 134031 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.13403110.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134031 ↗
16. 16 A. Panahi, A. Meshkinian, S. Ashrafi, M. Khan, A. Naghizadeh et al., Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 17, 93 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02324-410.1007/s13762-019-02324-4 ↗
17. 17 M. Gea, Z. Hua, J. Weib, Q. Hea and Z. Hea, J. Alloys Compd., 888, 161625 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.16162510.1016/j.jallcom.2021.161625 ↗
18. 18 S. Jorfi and Z. Ghaedrahmat, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energ., 40, 13531 (2021), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.1002/ep.1353110.1002/ep.13531 ↗
19. 19 R. Toczyłowska-Mamińska, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 78, 764 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.02110.1016/j.rser.2017.05.021 ↗
20. 20 D. Kaur, N. Bhardwaj and K. Lohchab, Cellulose, 26, 7469 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-019-02616-510.1007/s10570-019-02616-5 ↗
21. 21 K. Singh, A. Kumar and R. Chandra, Bioresour. Technol. Rep., 20, 101250 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2022.10125010.1016/j.biteb.2022.101250 ↗
22. 22 D. Kanaujiya, T. Paul, A. Sinharoy and K. Pakshirajan, Curr. Pollut. Rep., 5, 112 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-019-00110-x10.1007/s40726-019-00110-x ↗
23. 23 H. Shabanizadeh and M. Taghavijeloudar, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 170, 1217 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.01.00410.1016/j.psep.2023.01.004 ↗
24. 24 Ch. Dykstra, H. Giles, S. Banerjee and S. Pavlostathis, Water Res., 68, 589 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.03010.1016/j.watres.2014.10.030 ↗
25. 25 L. Cordova, N. Mashhadi, M. Chen, D. Mukherjee, K. Taylor et al., Curr. Pollut. Rep., 2, 157 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-016-0035-310.1007/s40726-016-0035-3 ↗
26. 26 D. Balabanič, M. Filipič, A. Klemenčič and B. Žegura, Sci. Total Environ., 574, 78 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.03010.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.030 ↗
27. 27 L. Souza, A. Zanuncio, J. Colodette, A. Carvalho and V. Castro, J. Trop. For. Sci., 33, 88 (2021), https://doi.org/10.26525/jtfs2021.33.1.8810.26525/jtfs2021.33.1.88 ↗
28. 28 R. W. Allison, P. N. Mcfarlane and M. C. Judd, Pap. Puu-Pap. Tim., 74, 404 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10331-110.1007/s10661-022-10331-1 ↗
29. 29 J. Rueda-Márquez, M. Sillanpää, P. Pocostales, A Acevedo and M. Manzano, Water Res., 71, 85 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.05410.1016/j.watres.2014.12.054 ↗
30. 30 S. Camcioglu, B. Ozyurt and H. Hapoglu, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 111, 300 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.01410.1016/j.psep.2017.07.014 ↗
31. 31 P. R. Shukla, S. B. Wang, H. M. Ang and M. O. Tadé, Sep. Purif. Technol., 70, 338 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.10.01810.1016/j.seppur.2009.10.018 ↗
32. 32 Q. Tang, X. An, H. Lan, H. Liu and J. Qu, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 268, 118394 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.11839410.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118394 ↗
33. 33 M. Zu, S. Zhang, Ch. Liu, P. Liu, D. Li et al., Sci. China Mater., 64, 1952 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40843-020-1599-210.1007/s40843-020-1599-2 ↗
34. 34 Y. X. Gao, W. R. Gao, H. N. Zhu, H. R. Chen, S. S. Yan et al., Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19, 14805 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19221480510.3390/ijerph192214805 ↗
35. 35 S. Y. Guvenc, E. Can-Güven and G. Varank, Sep. Sci. Technol., 57, 1151 (2022), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.1080/01496395.2021.196739310.1080/01496395.2021.1967393 ↗
36. 36 Z. Yu, B. Liu, Q. Peng, D. Lid, H. Xu et al., Mater. Lett., 325, 132848 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2022.13284810.1016/j.matlet.2022.132848 ↗
37. 37 X. Lu, X. J. Wei, Y. B. Shang, Y. T. Qi, J. Shi et al., Sep. Purif. Technol., 322, 124303 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.12430310.1016/j.seppur.2023.124303 ↗
38. 38 N. Thuy, N. Hoang, V. Thuy, N. Huy, C. Tien et al., Clean, 1 (2023), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.1002/clen.202300024
39. 39 S. Ghafoori, A. Mowla, R. Jahani, M. Mehrvar and P. Chan, J. Environ. Manag., 150, 128 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.01110.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.011 ↗
40. 40 P. Vijayaraghavan, T. Srikrishnaperumal, G. Rajan and P. V. Nidheesh, J. Dispers. Sci. Technol., 41, 592 (2020), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.1080/01932691.2019.1595640
41. 41 H. Iboukhoulef, A. Amrane and H. Kadi, Environ. Eng. Manag. J., 17, 1267 (2018), https://doi-org.dti.sibucsc.cl/10.30638/eemj.2018.12510.30638/eemj.2018.125 ↗
42. 42 M. Antonopoulou, V. Papadopoulos and I. Konstantinou, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 87, 1 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.375510.1002/jctb.3755 ↗
43. 43 J. Guateque, E. Serna, J. Silva, Y. Avila and R. Torres, Data Brief, 31, 105692 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.10569210.1016/j.dib.2020.105692 ↗
44. 44 Y. L. Zhang and W. Chu, Chemosphere, 286, 131797 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.13179710.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131797 ↗
45. 45 M. Ge, Z. Hu, J. Wei, Q. He and Z. He, J. Alloys Compd., 888, 161625 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.16162510.1016/j.jallcom.2021.161625 ↗
46. 46 M. Arlos, M. Hatat, R. Liang, L. Bragg, N. Zhou et al., Water Res., 101, 351 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.07310.1016/j.watres.2016.05.073 ↗
47. 47 M. Drosos, M. Ren, H. Fritz and F. Frimmel, Appl. Catal. B, 165, 328 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.10.01710.1016/j.apcatb.2014.10.017 ↗
48. 48 M. Ali and T. Sreekrishnan, Adv. Environ. Res., 5, 175 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(00)00055-110.1016/S1093-0191(00)00055-1 ↗
49. 49 R. Chandra, A. Raj, S. Yadav and D. Kumar, Environ. Monit. Assess., 155, 1 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0413-410.1007/s10661-008-0413-4 ↗
50. 50 Mandeep, H. Liu, J. Luo and P. Shukla, J. Hazard. Mater., 398, 122998 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.12299810.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122998 ↗
51. "