4.7 Article

Response surface optimization of acid red 119 dye from simulated wastewater using Al based waterworks sludge and polyaluminium chloride as coagulant

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 92, Issue 4, Pages 1284-1291

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.015

Keywords

Coagulation/flocculation; Dye removal; Polyaluminium chloride; Response surface methodology; Waterworks sludge

Funding

  1. Amirkabir University of Technology [15/3153]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this research, the performance of Polyaluminium Chloride (PAC) and Polyaluminium Chloride sludge (PACS) as coagulants for acid red 119 (AR119) dye removal from aqueous solutions were compared. The sample of PACS was collected from Baba Sheikh Ali water treatment plant (Isfahan, Iran) where PAC is used as a coagulant in the coagulation/flocculation process. A response surface methodology was applied to evaluate the simple and combined effects of the operating variables including initial pH, coagulant dosage and initial dye concentration and to optimize the operating conditions of the treatment process. Results reveal that the optimal conditions for dye removal were initial pH 3.42, coagulant dosage of 4.55 g dried PACS/L and initial dye concentration of 140 mg/L for PACS, while the optimal initial pH, coagulant dosage and initial dye concentration for PAC were 3.8, 57 mg/L and 140 mg/L, respectively. Under these optimal values of process parameters, the dye removal efficiency of 94.1% and 95.25% was observed for PACS and PAC, respectively. Although lower amount of PAC in comparison with PACS was needed for specific dye removal, the reuse of PACS as a low-cost material can offer some advantages such as high efficiency for AR119 dye removal and economic savings on overall water and wastewater treatment plant operation costs. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available