Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal?
For decades, “Which treatment process is the best?” has been the primary question for many researchers worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to optimize the treatment models using the Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) to achieve a techno-economical comparison of biological, adsorption, electro...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Water Resources and Industry |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371722000245 |
| _version_ | 1797996832631029760 |
|---|---|
| author | M. Taheri N. Fallah B. Nasernejad |
| author_facet | M. Taheri N. Fallah B. Nasernejad |
| author_sort | M. Taheri |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | For decades, “Which treatment process is the best?” has been the primary question for many researchers worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to optimize the treatment models using the Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) to achieve a techno-economical comparison of biological, adsorption, electrocoagulation (EC), and bio-adsorption processes as examples in Acid Orange 7 (AO 7) and Acid Red 18 (AR 18) removal. Membrane Sequencing Batch Reactor (MSBR), Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), and GAC-MSBR were selected as biological, adsorbent, and biological-adsorption processes, respectively. MSBR was the cheapest (0.02–0.08 US$/m3) followed by GAC (0.03–0.63 US$/m3). Although MSBR permeates may not be of desirable quality, GAC and GAC-MSBR permeate offer the best quality. In addition to high operating costs in EC (≥1 US$/m3), the electrodes should be changed after several usages, which cost approximately 550 US$/m3. In this research, GAC-MSBR, as an effective process, had 80–100% AR 18 removal efficiency (0.14–0.16 US$/m3). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T10:23:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6eb45e0cf370496a8729a94286828b64 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2212-3717 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T10:23:45Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Water Resources and Industry |
| spelling | doaj.art-6eb45e0cf370496a8729a94286828b642022-12-22T04:29:40ZengElsevierWater Resources and Industry2212-37172022-12-0128100191Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal?M. Taheri0N. Fallah1B. Nasernejad2Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Hafez Ave., Tehran, 15875-4413, Iran; Corresponding author.Chemical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Hafez Ave., Tehran, 15875-4413, IranChemical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (AUT), Hafez Ave., Tehran, 15875-4413, IranFor decades, “Which treatment process is the best?” has been the primary question for many researchers worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to optimize the treatment models using the Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) to achieve a techno-economical comparison of biological, adsorption, electrocoagulation (EC), and bio-adsorption processes as examples in Acid Orange 7 (AO 7) and Acid Red 18 (AR 18) removal. Membrane Sequencing Batch Reactor (MSBR), Granular Activated Carbon (GAC), and GAC-MSBR were selected as biological, adsorbent, and biological-adsorption processes, respectively. MSBR was the cheapest (0.02–0.08 US$/m3) followed by GAC (0.03–0.63 US$/m3). Although MSBR permeates may not be of desirable quality, GAC and GAC-MSBR permeate offer the best quality. In addition to high operating costs in EC (≥1 US$/m3), the electrodes should be changed after several usages, which cost approximately 550 US$/m3. In this research, GAC-MSBR, as an effective process, had 80–100% AR 18 removal efficiency (0.14–0.16 US$/m3).http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371722000245Acid orange 7 (AO 7)Acid red 18 (AR 18)Activated carbonAdsorptionElectrocoagulationMembrane bioreactor (MBR) |
| spellingShingle | M. Taheri N. Fallah B. Nasernejad Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? Water Resources and Industry Acid orange 7 (AO 7) Acid red 18 (AR 18) Activated carbon Adsorption Electrocoagulation Membrane bioreactor (MBR) |
| title | Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? |
| title_full | Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? |
| title_fullStr | Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? |
| title_short | Which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation, biological, adsorption, and bio-adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal? |
| title_sort | which treatment procedure among electrocoagulation biological adsorption and bio adsorption processes performs best in azo dyes removal |
| topic | Acid orange 7 (AO 7) Acid red 18 (AR 18) Activated carbon Adsorption Electrocoagulation Membrane bioreactor (MBR) |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371722000245 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mtaheri whichtreatmentprocedureamongelectrocoagulationbiologicaladsorptionandbioadsorptionprocessesperformsbestinazodyesremoval AT nfallah whichtreatmentprocedureamongelectrocoagulationbiologicaladsorptionandbioadsorptionprocessesperformsbestinazodyesremoval AT bnasernejad whichtreatmentprocedureamongelectrocoagulationbiologicaladsorptionandbioadsorptionprocessesperformsbestinazodyesremoval |