4.7 Article

Optimization of electro-kinetic process for remediation of soil contaminated with phenanthrene using response surface methodology

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 1006-1017

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10495-8

关键词

Phenanthrene; Soil contamination; Electro-kinetic remediation; RSM

资金

  1. Shahroud University of Medical Sciences [9901]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the modification of soil contaminated with phenanthrene by electro-kinetic remediation using response surface methodology. The experiment identified the optimal conditions for PHE removal and found that a first-order kinetic model was the best fit for the process.
The objective of this work was to investigate the modification of soil contaminated with phenanthrene (PHE) by electro-kinetic remediation (EKR) process using response surface methodology (RSM). The soil sample was obtained from the subgrades (0-30 cm) of an area close to Shahroud City, Northeast of Iran. The effect of variables such as initial pH, voltage, electrolyte concentration, and reaction time on PHE removal was studied. Based on the results obtained from the central composite design (CCD) experiment, the highest and lowest amount of PHE removal was 97 and 20%, respectively. In this study, the variables A, B, C, AB, AC, and C(2)with apvalue < 0.05 were significant model terms and the parameter of the lack of fit was not significant (pvalue = 0.0745). Findings indicated that the predicted R-squared of 0.9670 was in reasonable agreement with the adj R-squared of 0.9857 and the plot of residual followed a normal distribution and approximately linear. Also, the kinetic rates of the removal PHE by the EKR process best fitted with a first-order kinetic model (R-2: 0.926). Results of the investigation of the effective variables showed that in values of pH 3, time of 168 h, voltage of 3 V, and electrolyte concentration of 4 mg/L, the removal efficiency of PHE reached 96.6%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据