color removal
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental EngineeringCENG 4539: Senior Project
Fall Semester 2013
Faculty Advisor: Dr. George Fu
Team Leader: Matthew Usry
Group Members: Abel Sualevai Andrew Waters
Taylor VailBernard Scott
Presentation Outline Introduction Objectives and Scope Materials and Methods Results & Discussion Conclusions Further Studies
Color Removal from Pulp Mill Effluent using Coal Ash produced from Georgia
Coal Combustion Power Plants
**Images obtained from Georgia Power
Introduction Georgia Power plants
produce an immense amount of coal/fly ash
Physical properties of fly ash that provide means for filtration/treatment of some types of wastewaters, such as pulp mill effluent produced at the Weyerhaeuser plant.
Pulp Mill Effluent Effects of the
effluent on the Environment :• Harms liver function
in fish• Decrease levels of
dissolved oxygen• Loss of aesthetic
beauty• High concentration
of pollutants
Objectives
• To determine if coal ash is an effective adsorbent for color removal from pulp mill effluent
• Complete data analysis in order to provide insight into large scale application
Scope of Task The focus will be on such affection
factors for color removal efficiency:• The dosage of ash• Shake speed• Contact Time
Kinetic Study to determine equilibrium time
Isotherm study performed to model the adsorption mechanism
Materials and Methods Thus far only the Batch Absorption
experiment has been run. The procedure for this is as follows:
1. Coal ash is added into conical flasks with raw pulp mill effluent.
2. The mixture is shaken in a rotary shaker for a certain time period.
3. The mixture of pulp mill effluent and coal ash will then be separated using a vacuum filter.
4. The color of raw pulp mill effluent and the filtrate will be tested using Spectrophotometer in order to calculate the color removal efficiency.
Materials and Methods
Sieve Analysi
s
Initial pH Test
Massing of Coal
Ash
Materials and Methods
Thermo Scientific
Shaker Table
Millipore Vacuum
Membrane Filtration (.45µm)
DR 5000 Spectrophotom
eter
Materials and Methods
Vial Color Comparison and Storage
Results (Batch 1) Dosage Optimization
Dose = 20 g/LMeasurement Shake Speed = 300 RPM
Mass (g) Shake Time = 720 min
Initial Diluted Color Reading (Pt-Co)
405 317 404 362 404.5 339.5Notes:
Dilution Factor 4 4 4 4 4 4
Initial Color (Pt-Co) 1620 1268 1616 1448 1618 1358
Final Diluted Color Reading (Pt-Co)
309 307 312 308 310.5 307.5
Dilution Factor 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Color (Pt-Co) 1236 1228 1248 1232 1242 1230
% Removed 23.70 3.15 22.77 14.92 23.24 9.43
Initial pH
Final pH
Initial COD (mg/L)Final COD (mg/L)
8.1 8.06 8.08
430 442 436
Preliminary Screening __9/18___Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
2.0267 2.0204 2.02355
**Initial color reading were after 2 times (5mL:5mL) diltuion. COD is
measure of raw effl uent. Mass noted was added to 100 mL of effl uent
7.9 7.9 7.9
Results (Batch 1- cont’d)Dosage Optimization
92.78 20086.95 15060.67 10026.47 5016.33 20
Concentration (g/L)% Color
Removal
Results (Batch 2)Shake Speed determination
Dose = 100 g/LMeasurement Shake Speed = 150 RPM
Mass (g) Shake Time = 720 min
Initial Diluted Color Reading (Pt-Co)
374 371 382 378 378 374.5
Notes:
Dilution Factor 4 4 4 4 4 4
Initial Color (Pt-Co)
1496 1484 1528 1512 1512 1498
Final Diluted Color Reading (Pt-Co)
459 489 464 479 461.5 484
Dilution Factor 2 2 2 2 2 2
Final Color (Pt-Co) 918 978 928 958 923 968
% Removed 38.64 34.10 39.27 36.64 38.96 35.38
Initial pH
Final pH
Initial COD (mg/L)Final COD (mg/L)
Preliminary Screening __9/18___Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
2.0267 2.0204 2.02355
**Initial color reading were after 2 times (5mL:5mL) diltuion. COD is
measure of raw effl uent. Mass noted was added to 100 mL of effl uent
8.106 7.987 8.0465
7.9 7.9 7.9
Results (Batch 2 – cont’d)92.64 20090.10 17579.63 15052.60 12537.17 100
Concentration % Color
Results (Batch 2 – cont’d)RPM Comparison, 150 vs. 300
% Color Removal Concentration (g/L) % Color Removal Concentration (g/L)92.7752 200 92.64065 200
86.94526 150 90.10023 17560.66714 100 79.62828 15026.47189 50 52.59843 125
16.3321 20 37.16777 100
Batch 1 (300 RPM)Color Removal Comparison by RPM
Batch 2 (150 RPM)
Dosage• Optimal dosage
range was determine to be between 150 g/L and 175 g/L
• The increase in color removal hit a plateau as dosage increased past 200 g/L
Shake Speed• 150 RPM was
determined to be the most efficient shake speed
• Due to the marginal increase in color removal at high dosages for 300 RPM
• Cost effective
Results Finalization of Dosage and Shake Speed
Results (Batch 3)pH Alteration @ 175 g/L (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12)
pH2 98.984 95.936 94.878 86.9510 75.3512 74.21
%color removal
Results (Batch 3)Impact of Initial pH on color removal
Dose = 100g/LShake Speed= 300RPMShake Time = 720 min
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Affection Factor Adjustment (Batch #4)
Raw EffluentWith Coal Ash (100g/L)pH adj. only
pH
Colo
r U
nit
s (
Pt-
Co)
Dosage = 175 g/LRPM of shaker = 150Shake Time = 12 hours
Results (Batch 4)Impact of Initial pH on color removal
It was determined that pH adjustment was not an appropriate catalyst for color removalRequired large volume of acid/base
to adjust pH of effluentHarsh nature of extreme pH levelspH adjustment provided too large of
an initial color level change No pH adjustment was performed
on Kinetic and Isotherm Studies
Results Conclusion regarding effective pH
Kinetic Study Properties of the
adsorption processHow quickly color
can be removed by coal ash
Determine equilibrium contact time
Kinetic Study
5 98710 96215 94930 90260 865120 719240 660360 597720 348.75
1440 345.752880 322
Time (min)
Final Color Reading (Pt-Co)
As shown, equilibrium contact time is approx. 12 hours
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
200
400
600
800
1000
1200Color Units vs Time
Time (Hours)
Colo
r U
nit
s (
Pt-
Co)
12 hr
Isotherm Study Determination of equilibrium at
different dosages Equilibrium models based on
Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherm patterns
Describe the nature in which the adsorptive process takes place
Equilibrium ModelingLangmuir
Process: Relates the adsorption of
mono-layer molecules onto a solid surface area to concentration of adsorbate
Langmuir Isotherm Equation is:
1/qe 1/Ce0.097491 0.000730.019339 0.0010710.014456 0.0017180.013972 0.0026770.014126 0.0048780.015801 0.0055630.017695 0.005814 mg/g -2.72919.72386588
Expected Asorption Rate (q) b
[Linear]
[non-linear]
*note: linear Langmuir equation is in y=mx+b form
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.0070
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
f(x) = − 7.22752841287096 x + 0.0507360883129053R² = 0.258298097121113
Langmuir Isotherm Model
Concentration of Color at Equilibrium (Ce)
1/a
dsorp
tion c
apacit
y (
1/q
e)
Equilibrium ModelingFreundlich
Process: Relation of concentration
of a solute on the surface of the media to the concentration of solute left in liquid
o Freundlich Isotherm Equation is:
log (qe) Log Ce
1.011 3.1364031.714 2.9703471.840 2.7649231.855 2.5722911.850 2.3117541.801 2.2546691.752 2.235528
K 1/n3.153 -0.5617
[Linear]
[non-linear]
*note: linear Freundlich equation is in y=mx+b form, but on log scale
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.30.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
f(x) = − 0.56168523627979 x + 3.15302743630778R² = 0.449399377664806
Freundlich Isotherm Model
Log Ce
log (
qe)
Equilibrium ModelingSummary
Langmuir Based on the intercept of the best fit linear regression line, the
expected adsorption capacity of about 19 mg of color units per g of coal ash
FreundlichFreundlich constants (K and 1/n) represent the adsorption
capacity and intensity, respectivelyThe expected adsorption capacity for this method was about
3.1 mg/g and the intensity of the reaction was very low at -.56
Based on the very low value of correlation coefficient R2, we could conclude that:
the mechanism of color removal by coal ash could be more complicated than physical adsorption
chemical reaction could also play an important role.
Conclusion Dosage optimization was first performed and was
found to be approx. 175 g/L Optimal shake speed was found to be 150 RPM as
the difference in color removal of 300 RPM was marginally greater
Equilibrium contact time was determined to be approximately 12 hours (720 min) from the Kinetic Study
The Isotherm models suggested that the adsorptive process taking place was not efficient and could be more complicated than physical adsorption and chemical reaction could also play an important role
Further Studies Received Georgia Southern Undergraduate
Research Grant Submitted complete abstract of our
research for the “National Conference of Undergraduate Research at Columbus University” in Columbus, GA
Plan to submit abstract and poster for Undergraduate Research Symposium on our campus Spring 2014
Further Studies Adsorption in terms of COD levels
before and after mixing Fixed-bed Continuous Column Study
Column Study Diagram
Questions???