Research ArticleCombined Application of CoagulationFlocculationSedimentation and Membrane Separation for the Treatment ofLaundry Wastewater
Camila O C Nascimento 1 Marcia T Veit1 Soraya M Palacio1 Gilberto C Gonccedilalves2
and Marcia R Fagundes-Klen 1
1Department of Chemical Engineering Western Parana State University-UNIOESTE Campus of Toledo Rua da Faculdade 645Jd Santa Maria 85903-000 Toledo PR Brazil2Federal Technological University of Parana-UTFPR Rua Cristo Rei 19 Vila Becker 87020-900 Toledo PR Brazil
Correspondence should be addressed to Camila O C Nascimento camilacardo01hotmailcom
Received 24 November 2018 Revised 11 February 2019 Accepted 14 February 2019 Published 7 March 2019
Academic Editor Antonio Brasiello
Copyright copy 2019 Camila O C Nascimento et al is is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in anymedium provided the original work isproperly cited
ewastewater from industrial laundries has a high quantity of contaminants from the washing process as well as chemical additivesAiming at the treatment of this type of wastewater the present study evaluated the performance of a combined coagulationflocculationsedimentation process (CFS) and membrane separation to treat laundry wastewater in relation to physicochemicalparameters of water quality For this purpose a Doehlert experimental design was applied to the CFS step using the naturalcoagulant Tanfloc POPreg with maximum color and turbidity removal efficiency obtained of 8027 and 8650 respectively underconditions of pH of 64 and a coagulant concentration of 110mgmiddotLminus1e supernatant from the CFS step was used in the sequentialmicrofiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) experiments e maximum values of color total nitrogen dissolved solids andturbidity removal were similar to MF and UF membranes at transmembrane pressure of 14 bar with the greatest flow of permeates(922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) presented by the MF membrane at 14 bar e total efficiency of the combined CFS-MF process indicated thequality of the treated wastewater since it reduced 984 of the color 991 of turbidity 717 of the surfactants and more than 55of the total dissolved solids (TDS) chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC) from the industrial laundrywastewater is study showed that the CFS-MF combined process could be an efficient treatment of laundry wastewater
1 Introduction
In the industrial activities water consumption is usuallyhigh resulting in a large volume of wastewater that must betreated before the release into the water systems Suchwastewater if untreated or inadequately treated might poserisks to the aquatic environment since the molecules of thecontaminants may have carcinogenic and mutagenicproperties or lead to mutagenic actions in the living beingspresent in the medium [1]
e wastewater from industrial laundries has in itscomposition different levels of suspended solids tur-bidity COD salts and nutrients [2] due to the pres-ence of dirt and residues from detergents and softeners
that are used during the washing process [3] e mainchemical additive found in this class of wastewater is thedetergent which has surfactants as one of the mainconstituents that assist in the removal of dirt related tofood debris body residues and the environment from thefabric [4]
e methods applied to efficiently treat the wastewaterfrom industrial laundries are usually based on the com-bination of biological physical and chemical processessuch as electrocoagulation [5 6] membrane separationprocesses [7ndash10] membrane bioreactors [11] adsorption[12] photolysis [13] electrocoagulationelectroflotation[14] coagulation [15] coagulationmembranes [16ndash18]and coagulationadsorption [19]
HindawiInternational Journal of Chemical EngineeringVolume 2019 Article ID 8324710 13 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520198324710
Among the used methods the CFS process has beenhighlighted due to the high efficiency in removing the or-ganic matter and its low operating cost Moreover there is agreat variety of natural or inorganic coagulants available fortreating wastewater [13 20]
e inorganic coagulants present some advantages re-garding the efficiency of turbidity removal and their largeavailability [21] Nevertheless they show many disadvan-tages such as the low level of biodegradability and toxicityposing a risk to the human health [22] Toxic effects fromseveral substances in the water and wastewater might beevaluated according to ecotoxicity tests using microorgan-isms plants fish and invertebrates [23]
e aluminum sulfate inorganic coagulant is widely usedin water treatment [24] and its presence after the processeven in residual amounts has been linked to the accumu-lation of aluminum salts in the human body leading todisorders such as anemia Alzheimerrsquos disease loss ofmemory and headaches [25 26]
Due to the disadvantages of the use of inorganic co-agulants (aluminum and iron salts) a promising alternativeis the use of natural coagulants extracted from biologicalmaterials (seeds and shells) that are usually nontoxic [21]renewable and biodegradable presenting a great efficiencywhen removing turbidity [26] surfactants and dyes fromindustrial wastewater [15]
In general the conventional wastewater treatmentprocesses usually result in an incomplete removal of toxinsmicroorganisms and other contaminants present in thewastewater is fact has been stimulating studies that applymembrane separation processes (MSP) to obtain a superiorquality of the treated water [27ndash29]
e MSP present some advantages over conventionalprocesses such as a high standard performance reduction ofthe environmental impact caused by the wastewater and thecompliance regarding the environmental regulations for thedischarge of wastewater into the water bodies [7]
In this context the use of natural coagulant in CFS stepcombined with MSP in sequence has been providing aninteresting alternative to obtain treated water with a higherquality When applying the CFS process as a primarytreatment there is a removal of bigger particles and organicmatter and consequently a reduction of fouling on themembrane increasing the total efficiency of the process [29]
e Doehlert experimental design is applied to opti-mized variables and has been highlighted in applications tooptimized variables in different methods [30ndash37] is de-sign is more efficient than others like BoxndashBehnken andcentral composite designs because the advantages ofselecting the order of variables can be large or small numberof levels requiring fewer experiments and be more efficient[38 39]
us the objective of this study was to evaluate the totalefficiency of the combined CFS-MSP regarding thephysicochemical parameters of the laundry wastewater usingthe optimized pH and coagulant concentration obtainedfrom the optimized conditions of Doehlert experimentaldesign membrane type and transmembrane pressureconditions
2 Materials and Methods
21 Wastewater and Analytical Determinations e waste-water was collected from the equalization tank whichreceives and stores all the water used in the washing step atan industrial laundry located in the west of Parana Brazile wastewater was stored in polyethylene tanks with acapacity of 20 liters and kept refrigerated
ree collections were carried out on different days withdifferent destinations batch 1 was used for the CFS assaysto determine the optimum pH value and coagulant con-centration batch 2 was employed in the combined CFS andmembrane separation (MF and UF) processes to determinethe best transmembrane pressure and batch 3 was used inthe experiments for the best experimental conditions ob-tained in the two previous steps for the selected membrane
e characterization of the wastewater (batch 1 2 and3) the supernatant collected in the best condition of the CFS step and the permeate obtained from the combined CFS-MF process followed the procedures described in Table 1e assays were performed in duplicate e analyses ofresidual chlorine and thermotolerant coliforms were carriedout only for the permeate collected in the best experimentalcondition of the CFS-MF process Toxicity assays using thelyophilized Vibrio fischeri bacteria (BIOLUXreg LYO5Umwelt) were performed for the wastewater sample and forthe permeate obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) in the best experimental condition
22 Evaluation of CFS Parameters For the CFS step itwas used the natural coagulant Tanfloc POPreg producedfrom the black wattle bark (Acacia mearnsii De Wild) andprovided by TANAC SA
e Doehlert experimental design for the CFS assays(batch 1) was applied for two variables (pH and coagulantconcentration) to determine the experimental condition withhigher efficiency in the removal of color and turbidity For thecoagulant concentration and pH three (60 120 and180mgmiddotLminus1) and five levels (46 55 63 72 and 80) weretested respectively All the assays were performed in duplicate
e experiments were performed in a jar test (JT102-Milan) containing one liter of the wastewater in each tankwith different concentrations of coagulant (mg Lminus1) with twostirring periods (based on preliminary tests) one at 120 rpmfor 2minutes and another one at 20 rpm for 2minutesfollowed by 10minutes of settling Blank experiments werealso performed (without adding the coagulant) e pH ofthe wastewater was adjusted according to the value de-termined from the experimental design by adding NaOH1molmiddotLminus1 and HCl 01molmiddotLminus1 solutions meeting the pHrange required by the coagulants (45ndash8) [45] e assayswere carried out in duplicate and at room temperature(25degC) e collected samples of supernatant were evaluatedregarding the removal of color and turbidity and de-termining the pH as well
Experiments complementary to the design were alsoperformed at a pH value of 64 and coagulant concentrationsof 100 110 120 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 It was conducted to
2 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
determine the minimum coagulant concentration that canbe used without changing the color and turbidity removale statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistica7reg software and considering a significance level of 5
23 Evaluation of theMSP Parameters e wastewater fromthe second batch underwent the CFS process in the bestcondition (pH and coagulant concentration) according tothe complementary assays after applying the Doehlert de-sign e resulting supernatant from this step was used asfeed in the microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF)membrane separation processes e characteristics of theevaluated membranes are presented in Table 2 [46]
e filtration experiments were carried out in duplicateusing a microfiltration membrane (MF) in experimentalbench unit [46] based on the cross-flow filtration principle Arepresentation of the experimental unit is shown in Figure 1
e module was operated as a batch system with a totalrecycle of concentrates and permeates to the feed tank eexperiments were performed at room temperature (asymp25degC)with a flow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1 for the MF membrane and08 Lmiddotminminus1 for the UF membrane and different trans-membrane pressures (06 10 and 14 bar) e volumetricpermeate flow _m (L hminus1) was measured at different timeintervals of 10minutes during the filtration process and thepermeation flux (J) (L hminus1middotmminus2) was determined by equation(1) where A is the membrane area (m2)
J _m
A (1)
When the permeate flux became constant 200mL of thepermeate was collected for determining the color turbidityTOC COD TDS and surfactants
At the end of each experiment the wastewater wasdrained and replaced by deionized water measuring the fluxof deionized water from the permeate of the dirt membranee flux decline (FF-) was calculated according to thefollowing equation where J0 and Jd are the membrane flux(L hminus1middotmminus2) obtained with deionized water before and afterthe operation respectively [47]
FF () 1minusJd
J01113888 1113889 times 100 (2)
After each experimental assay the membrane wassubmitted to a physical and chemical cleaning process untilreturning 90 of the initial flux (new membrane) ephysical cleaning consisted of recirculating deionized waterin the filtration module for approximately 2minutes beingsubsequently discarded en the chemical cleaning con-sisted of recirculating a NaOH 3 solution during40minutes to remove the organic salts and other com-pounds that can cause incrustations is procedure wasfollowed by a rinsing step with deionized water during5minutes Afterwards another chemical cleaning processwas performed with a citric acid 2 solution (C6H8O7) for20minutes followed again by a rinsing step with deionizedwater for 10minutes [48 49] After finishing the cleaningprocess the permeation flux using deionized water wasmeasured and compared to the initial value (newmembrane)
e performance of the MF and UF membranes wasevaluated regarding the removal efficiency of color TOCCOD total nitrogen TDS surfactants and turbidity isparameter was calculated according to the following equa-tion where R is the removal of the parameter () and Ca andCp are the values of the parameters measured in the feed andpermeate samples respectively [50]
R () Ca minusCp
Catimes 100 (3)
24 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-arationProcess in theBest ExperimentalConditions In orderto simulate the proposed treatment the third batch of thelaundry wastewater was used in the assay combining thebest experimental conditions obtained from the CFS(coagulant concentration and pH) and membrane filtra-tion (type of membrane and transmembrane pressure)processes e analyzed parameters in this experiment
Table 1 Physicochemical parameters evaluated for the charac-terization of the laundry wastewater determination methods andanalytical protocols
Parameter Unit ProcedureTotal organiccarbon (TOC) mgCLminus1 5310C [40]
Free residual chlorine mg Lminus1 4500-Cl A e G [41]ermotolerantcoliforms NMP100mL ISO 9308-12014 [42]
Conductivity μS cmminus1 2510B [40]Apparent color mgPt-Co Lminus1 8025 [40]Biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) mgO2 Lminus1 5210 A e B [41]
Chemical oxygendemand (COD) mgO2 Lminus1 5220D [40]
Total nitrogen mg Lminus1 D5176 [43]pH 4500-H+ B [41]Total dissolvedsolids (TDS) mg Lminus1 2540C [40]
Total solids (TS) mg Lminus1 2540B [40]Surfactants mg Lminus1MBAS 5540C [40]Temperature degC 2550B [40]Turbidity NTU 2130B [40]Toxicity NBR 15411-3 [44]MBAS methylene blue active substances
Table 2 Parameters of the ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration(MF) membranes
were the thermotolerant coliforms residual chlorinecolor turbidity TOC total nitrogen COD TDS andsurfactants determining the removal eciency accordingto equation (3)
3 Results and Discussion
31 Characterization of the LaundryWastewater e valuesof the laundry wastewater physicochemical parameterscharacterized for each of the three collected batches arepresented in Table 3
e results presented in Table 3 demonstrate variablephysicochemical characteristics for the analyzed parametersis variation among the obtained values can be related tothe dirtiness present in the pieces of clothing within theperiod that the wastewater was collected since the higher thedirtiness the higher the consumption of chemicals in thewashing process
e evaluated total organic carbon (TOC) values variedbetween 545 and 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 a parameter that representsthe quantity of contaminating organic matter in the medium[51] For color the values ranged from 365 to 425 mgPt-CoLminus1 is behavior might be related to the type of items thatwere washed on the dierent collection days since the fabriccan lose the color during the washing step
e BOD values ranged from 58 to 87mgO2 Lminus1whereas the COD values from 245 to 587mgO2 Lminus1Ciabatti et al [8] and Delforno et al [52] obtained for theraw laundry wastewater COD mean values of602mgO2 Lminus1 and 1603mgO2 Lminus1 respectively Accordingto the authors the presence of anionic surfactants andbrous materials in the wastewater might contribute to theincrease in the COD value
e total nitrogen parameter presented values within 29and 71mgmiddotLminus1 which are lower than the one found by Bragaand Varesche [3] when characterizing laundry wastewater(324mgmiddotLminus1) According to Lens et al [53] the laundrywastewater has low quantities of nitrogen since it is acomponent hardly found in laundry additives
e pH values measured in the present work were ap-proximately 10 According to Kim et al [17] and Delfornoet al [52] laundry wastewaters usually have high pH valuesdue to the chemical additives used during the washingprocess such as softeners bleach and disinfectants esame authors obtained pH values of 125 and 10 re-spectively when characterizing the laundry wastewater
e quantity of anionic surfactant in the wastewatervaried from 117 to 196mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS According to Del-forno et al [52] these values are related to the concentrationand dosage of detergent used in the washing process eauthors obtained 181mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS of anionic surfactantswhen characterizing commercial laundry wastewater As aresult they highlighted the relevance of treating this type ofwastewater to reduce this parameter since a high quantity ofsurfactants can lead to the formation of foam and aect thewater quality besides occasioning toxicity
According to Ahmad and El-Dessouky [2] the value oftotal dissolved solids (TDS) and total solids (TS) can berelated to the presence of soaps and additives used in thewashing process In their work the authors obtained a valueof 504mgmiddotLminus1 for the TDS of a laundry wastewater a value
Table 3 Mean values (plusmnstandard deviation) of the parametersanalyzed when characterizing the laundry wastewater
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of microultraltration system (MFUF cross-centow hollow ber membrane module B1 pump R1 feed tankF1 F2 centowmeter V6 back pressure valve V1ndashV6 valves PG1 PG2 pressure gauge)
4 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
that is close to the ones obtained in this study whencharacterizing the wastewater (TDS 359 to 473mgmiddotLminus1 andTS 456 to 532mgmiddotLminus1)
e temperature of the wastewater obtained in thedifferent batches was the room temperature (234 to 254degC)is parameter is relevant since high temperatures reducethe quantity of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waterbodies consequently affecting the aquatic fauna
e obtained turbidity ranged from 52 to 64 NTUesevalues were lower than the one obtained by Nicolaidis andVirydes [11] when characterizing laundry wastewater (92NTU) According to Huang et al [54] the turbidity value is aquality indicator of colloidal substances present in thewastewater
e results obtained from the industrial laundrywastewater characterization indicate the necessity toremove the organic matter and other contaminants beforethe discharge into the water bodies For this purpose theutilization of a CFS treatment to remove the solids insuspension associated with a membrane separation pro-cess is in agreement with the reduction of the content ofthese contaminants and their harmful effects in theecosystem
32 Determination of the CFS Optimized ParametersTable 4 presents the values of the response variables colorremoval () and turbidity () for each CFS condition(batch 1) predicted in the Doehlert design
With a coagulant concentration of 60mgmiddotLminus1 whenreducing the pH from 72 to 55 the efficiency of color andturbidity removal increased to 345 and 289 re-spectively e same behavior was not obtained with theconcentration of 120mgmiddotLminus1 and reducing the pH from 80to 63 resulting in an increase of approximately 11 of theremoval of both parameters Nevertheless the removal ef-ficiencies did not change whenmodifying the wastewater pHto 46 With the highest coagulant concentration(180mgmiddotLminus1) the pH reduction from 72 to 55 also provideda decrease in the color (asymp27) and turbidity (asymp24) re-moval According to Beltran-Heredia et al [55] there is aprecise coagulant dosage in which the formation of flocseffectively occurs due to their cationic nature erefore asobserved for the concentrations of 60 and 120mgmiddotLminus1 thecationic nature of the coagulant results in higher removal ofcolor and turbidity with acidic pH values (55 and 63)
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows the evaluationof the performance of the regression model and its vali-dation is determined by the F-test Table 5 presents theanalysis of variance (ANOVA) for the removal of color andturbidity of the wastewater
e F-test for the model presented a Ftable value lowerthan the Fcalc for the color (311lt 27399) and turbidity(311lt 3396) responses indicating that the regression fittedto the proposed model for both parameters (color andturbidity) e FcalcFtable ratio was 8809 for color and 1091for turbidity indicating a high correlation value for theproposed model According to Montgomery [56] when theFcalcFtable ratio is higher than 4 the model is statistically
significant whereas for values higher than 10 in addition tosignificant the model is predictive
For the color and turbidity responses the residual plots(not shown) did not indicate the presence of outliers (out ofthe interval minus2 to 2) ie the points were randomly dis-tributed around zero therefore confirming the normaldistribution for color and turbidity
e regression coefficients for the proposed Doehlertexperimental design are presented in Table 6
From the analysis of effects (Table 6) it can be verifiedthat only the quadratic term of the pH for turbidity pre-sented a p value higher than 005 and it was not significantHowever as the value 00517 is close to 005 this term wasconsidered for validating the model e other variableswere significant (p valuelt 005)
As the proposed model was validated the equations (4)and (5) were applied for determining the percentage ofremoval of color and turbidity respectively where [CC] isthe coagulant concentration
color removal () 914583minus 20450[pH]minus 12933[pH]2
+ 263[CC]minus 16415[CC]2
+ 1565[pH][CC]
(4)
turbidity removal () 938917minus 23121[pH]
minus13504[pH]2
+ 40263[CC]
minus143875[CC]2+132362[pH][CC]
(5)
where 60leCCle 180mgmiddotLminus1 and 45le pHle 8In order to determine the best operating ranges for
pH and coagulant concentration that provide the highestremoval () of color and turbidity the response surfacemethodology and contour plots were evaluated (Figure 2)
e response surface represents the influence of the pHand coagulant concentration on the removal of color(Figure 2(a)) and turbidity (Figure 2(b)) of the wastewater Asimilar behavior was observed for both responses in whichthe plots were saddle-shaped and the central points wereclose to the best experimental condition For pH values closeto the neutrality (7 to 8) and high coagulant concentrations(140 to 180mgmiddotLminus1) as well as for low pH values (46 to 55)and concentrations (60 to 120mgmiddotLminus1) the results indicatedthe maximum removal of color and turbidity Neverthelessconsidering that the initial wastewater pH is approximately10 this implies that lower pH values require a higher quantityof the acidic solution in order to adjust it just as alkaline pHvalues that require a higher quantity of coagulant conse-quently increasing the cost of the processerefore to obtainan efficient and cost-effective CFS process intermediary pHvalues and coagulant concentrations can be applied
e critical values obtained from the statistical model withthe pH varying from 46 to 8 and coagulant concentrationsvarying from 60 to 180mgmiddotLminus1 for the response of color andturbidity were a pH of 64 and concentrations of 1295mgmiddotLminus1and 1321mgmiddotLminus1 respectively e values determined for the
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 5
Table 5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the Doehlert design for the removal () of color and turbidity (α 005)
Source of variationColor Turbidity
SQ DF MS Fcalc SQ DF MS FcalcRegression (d) 3328979 5 665796 27399 254889 5 50978 3396Lack of t (a) 2430 1 2430 02685 15075 1 15075 10045Pure error (b) 99551 11 9050 165082 11 15007Residues (a+ b c) 101981 12 8498 180158 12 15013Total (c+ d) 3532942 17 2729051 17SQ sum of squares DF degrees of freedom MSmean of squares Fcalc F calculated Color Ftable (5 12 005) 311 R2 097 R2
model 0957 TurbidityFtable (5 12 005) 311 R2 0934 R2
model 0906
Table 6 Eects for the removal of color and turbidity of the wastewater (batch 1)
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
Among the used methods the CFS process has beenhighlighted due to the high efficiency in removing the or-ganic matter and its low operating cost Moreover there is agreat variety of natural or inorganic coagulants available fortreating wastewater [13 20]
e inorganic coagulants present some advantages re-garding the efficiency of turbidity removal and their largeavailability [21] Nevertheless they show many disadvan-tages such as the low level of biodegradability and toxicityposing a risk to the human health [22] Toxic effects fromseveral substances in the water and wastewater might beevaluated according to ecotoxicity tests using microorgan-isms plants fish and invertebrates [23]
e aluminum sulfate inorganic coagulant is widely usedin water treatment [24] and its presence after the processeven in residual amounts has been linked to the accumu-lation of aluminum salts in the human body leading todisorders such as anemia Alzheimerrsquos disease loss ofmemory and headaches [25 26]
Due to the disadvantages of the use of inorganic co-agulants (aluminum and iron salts) a promising alternativeis the use of natural coagulants extracted from biologicalmaterials (seeds and shells) that are usually nontoxic [21]renewable and biodegradable presenting a great efficiencywhen removing turbidity [26] surfactants and dyes fromindustrial wastewater [15]
In general the conventional wastewater treatmentprocesses usually result in an incomplete removal of toxinsmicroorganisms and other contaminants present in thewastewater is fact has been stimulating studies that applymembrane separation processes (MSP) to obtain a superiorquality of the treated water [27ndash29]
e MSP present some advantages over conventionalprocesses such as a high standard performance reduction ofthe environmental impact caused by the wastewater and thecompliance regarding the environmental regulations for thedischarge of wastewater into the water bodies [7]
In this context the use of natural coagulant in CFS stepcombined with MSP in sequence has been providing aninteresting alternative to obtain treated water with a higherquality When applying the CFS process as a primarytreatment there is a removal of bigger particles and organicmatter and consequently a reduction of fouling on themembrane increasing the total efficiency of the process [29]
e Doehlert experimental design is applied to opti-mized variables and has been highlighted in applications tooptimized variables in different methods [30ndash37] is de-sign is more efficient than others like BoxndashBehnken andcentral composite designs because the advantages ofselecting the order of variables can be large or small numberof levels requiring fewer experiments and be more efficient[38 39]
us the objective of this study was to evaluate the totalefficiency of the combined CFS-MSP regarding thephysicochemical parameters of the laundry wastewater usingthe optimized pH and coagulant concentration obtainedfrom the optimized conditions of Doehlert experimentaldesign membrane type and transmembrane pressureconditions
2 Materials and Methods
21 Wastewater and Analytical Determinations e waste-water was collected from the equalization tank whichreceives and stores all the water used in the washing step atan industrial laundry located in the west of Parana Brazile wastewater was stored in polyethylene tanks with acapacity of 20 liters and kept refrigerated
ree collections were carried out on different days withdifferent destinations batch 1 was used for the CFS assaysto determine the optimum pH value and coagulant con-centration batch 2 was employed in the combined CFS andmembrane separation (MF and UF) processes to determinethe best transmembrane pressure and batch 3 was used inthe experiments for the best experimental conditions ob-tained in the two previous steps for the selected membrane
e characterization of the wastewater (batch 1 2 and3) the supernatant collected in the best condition of the CFS step and the permeate obtained from the combined CFS-MF process followed the procedures described in Table 1e assays were performed in duplicate e analyses ofresidual chlorine and thermotolerant coliforms were carriedout only for the permeate collected in the best experimentalcondition of the CFS-MF process Toxicity assays using thelyophilized Vibrio fischeri bacteria (BIOLUXreg LYO5Umwelt) were performed for the wastewater sample and forthe permeate obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) in the best experimental condition
22 Evaluation of CFS Parameters For the CFS step itwas used the natural coagulant Tanfloc POPreg producedfrom the black wattle bark (Acacia mearnsii De Wild) andprovided by TANAC SA
e Doehlert experimental design for the CFS assays(batch 1) was applied for two variables (pH and coagulantconcentration) to determine the experimental condition withhigher efficiency in the removal of color and turbidity For thecoagulant concentration and pH three (60 120 and180mgmiddotLminus1) and five levels (46 55 63 72 and 80) weretested respectively All the assays were performed in duplicate
e experiments were performed in a jar test (JT102-Milan) containing one liter of the wastewater in each tankwith different concentrations of coagulant (mg Lminus1) with twostirring periods (based on preliminary tests) one at 120 rpmfor 2minutes and another one at 20 rpm for 2minutesfollowed by 10minutes of settling Blank experiments werealso performed (without adding the coagulant) e pH ofthe wastewater was adjusted according to the value de-termined from the experimental design by adding NaOH1molmiddotLminus1 and HCl 01molmiddotLminus1 solutions meeting the pHrange required by the coagulants (45ndash8) [45] e assayswere carried out in duplicate and at room temperature(25degC) e collected samples of supernatant were evaluatedregarding the removal of color and turbidity and de-termining the pH as well
Experiments complementary to the design were alsoperformed at a pH value of 64 and coagulant concentrationsof 100 110 120 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 It was conducted to
2 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
determine the minimum coagulant concentration that canbe used without changing the color and turbidity removale statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistica7reg software and considering a significance level of 5
23 Evaluation of theMSP Parameters e wastewater fromthe second batch underwent the CFS process in the bestcondition (pH and coagulant concentration) according tothe complementary assays after applying the Doehlert de-sign e resulting supernatant from this step was used asfeed in the microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF)membrane separation processes e characteristics of theevaluated membranes are presented in Table 2 [46]
e filtration experiments were carried out in duplicateusing a microfiltration membrane (MF) in experimentalbench unit [46] based on the cross-flow filtration principle Arepresentation of the experimental unit is shown in Figure 1
e module was operated as a batch system with a totalrecycle of concentrates and permeates to the feed tank eexperiments were performed at room temperature (asymp25degC)with a flow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1 for the MF membrane and08 Lmiddotminminus1 for the UF membrane and different trans-membrane pressures (06 10 and 14 bar) e volumetricpermeate flow _m (L hminus1) was measured at different timeintervals of 10minutes during the filtration process and thepermeation flux (J) (L hminus1middotmminus2) was determined by equation(1) where A is the membrane area (m2)
J _m
A (1)
When the permeate flux became constant 200mL of thepermeate was collected for determining the color turbidityTOC COD TDS and surfactants
At the end of each experiment the wastewater wasdrained and replaced by deionized water measuring the fluxof deionized water from the permeate of the dirt membranee flux decline (FF-) was calculated according to thefollowing equation where J0 and Jd are the membrane flux(L hminus1middotmminus2) obtained with deionized water before and afterthe operation respectively [47]
FF () 1minusJd
J01113888 1113889 times 100 (2)
After each experimental assay the membrane wassubmitted to a physical and chemical cleaning process untilreturning 90 of the initial flux (new membrane) ephysical cleaning consisted of recirculating deionized waterin the filtration module for approximately 2minutes beingsubsequently discarded en the chemical cleaning con-sisted of recirculating a NaOH 3 solution during40minutes to remove the organic salts and other com-pounds that can cause incrustations is procedure wasfollowed by a rinsing step with deionized water during5minutes Afterwards another chemical cleaning processwas performed with a citric acid 2 solution (C6H8O7) for20minutes followed again by a rinsing step with deionizedwater for 10minutes [48 49] After finishing the cleaningprocess the permeation flux using deionized water wasmeasured and compared to the initial value (newmembrane)
e performance of the MF and UF membranes wasevaluated regarding the removal efficiency of color TOCCOD total nitrogen TDS surfactants and turbidity isparameter was calculated according to the following equa-tion where R is the removal of the parameter () and Ca andCp are the values of the parameters measured in the feed andpermeate samples respectively [50]
R () Ca minusCp
Catimes 100 (3)
24 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-arationProcess in theBest ExperimentalConditions In orderto simulate the proposed treatment the third batch of thelaundry wastewater was used in the assay combining thebest experimental conditions obtained from the CFS(coagulant concentration and pH) and membrane filtra-tion (type of membrane and transmembrane pressure)processes e analyzed parameters in this experiment
Table 1 Physicochemical parameters evaluated for the charac-terization of the laundry wastewater determination methods andanalytical protocols
Parameter Unit ProcedureTotal organiccarbon (TOC) mgCLminus1 5310C [40]
Free residual chlorine mg Lminus1 4500-Cl A e G [41]ermotolerantcoliforms NMP100mL ISO 9308-12014 [42]
Conductivity μS cmminus1 2510B [40]Apparent color mgPt-Co Lminus1 8025 [40]Biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) mgO2 Lminus1 5210 A e B [41]
Chemical oxygendemand (COD) mgO2 Lminus1 5220D [40]
Total nitrogen mg Lminus1 D5176 [43]pH 4500-H+ B [41]Total dissolvedsolids (TDS) mg Lminus1 2540C [40]
Total solids (TS) mg Lminus1 2540B [40]Surfactants mg Lminus1MBAS 5540C [40]Temperature degC 2550B [40]Turbidity NTU 2130B [40]Toxicity NBR 15411-3 [44]MBAS methylene blue active substances
Table 2 Parameters of the ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration(MF) membranes
were the thermotolerant coliforms residual chlorinecolor turbidity TOC total nitrogen COD TDS andsurfactants determining the removal eciency accordingto equation (3)
3 Results and Discussion
31 Characterization of the LaundryWastewater e valuesof the laundry wastewater physicochemical parameterscharacterized for each of the three collected batches arepresented in Table 3
e results presented in Table 3 demonstrate variablephysicochemical characteristics for the analyzed parametersis variation among the obtained values can be related tothe dirtiness present in the pieces of clothing within theperiod that the wastewater was collected since the higher thedirtiness the higher the consumption of chemicals in thewashing process
e evaluated total organic carbon (TOC) values variedbetween 545 and 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 a parameter that representsthe quantity of contaminating organic matter in the medium[51] For color the values ranged from 365 to 425 mgPt-CoLminus1 is behavior might be related to the type of items thatwere washed on the dierent collection days since the fabriccan lose the color during the washing step
e BOD values ranged from 58 to 87mgO2 Lminus1whereas the COD values from 245 to 587mgO2 Lminus1Ciabatti et al [8] and Delforno et al [52] obtained for theraw laundry wastewater COD mean values of602mgO2 Lminus1 and 1603mgO2 Lminus1 respectively Accordingto the authors the presence of anionic surfactants andbrous materials in the wastewater might contribute to theincrease in the COD value
e total nitrogen parameter presented values within 29and 71mgmiddotLminus1 which are lower than the one found by Bragaand Varesche [3] when characterizing laundry wastewater(324mgmiddotLminus1) According to Lens et al [53] the laundrywastewater has low quantities of nitrogen since it is acomponent hardly found in laundry additives
e pH values measured in the present work were ap-proximately 10 According to Kim et al [17] and Delfornoet al [52] laundry wastewaters usually have high pH valuesdue to the chemical additives used during the washingprocess such as softeners bleach and disinfectants esame authors obtained pH values of 125 and 10 re-spectively when characterizing the laundry wastewater
e quantity of anionic surfactant in the wastewatervaried from 117 to 196mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS According to Del-forno et al [52] these values are related to the concentrationand dosage of detergent used in the washing process eauthors obtained 181mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS of anionic surfactantswhen characterizing commercial laundry wastewater As aresult they highlighted the relevance of treating this type ofwastewater to reduce this parameter since a high quantity ofsurfactants can lead to the formation of foam and aect thewater quality besides occasioning toxicity
According to Ahmad and El-Dessouky [2] the value oftotal dissolved solids (TDS) and total solids (TS) can berelated to the presence of soaps and additives used in thewashing process In their work the authors obtained a valueof 504mgmiddotLminus1 for the TDS of a laundry wastewater a value
Table 3 Mean values (plusmnstandard deviation) of the parametersanalyzed when characterizing the laundry wastewater
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of microultraltration system (MFUF cross-centow hollow ber membrane module B1 pump R1 feed tankF1 F2 centowmeter V6 back pressure valve V1ndashV6 valves PG1 PG2 pressure gauge)
4 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
that is close to the ones obtained in this study whencharacterizing the wastewater (TDS 359 to 473mgmiddotLminus1 andTS 456 to 532mgmiddotLminus1)
e temperature of the wastewater obtained in thedifferent batches was the room temperature (234 to 254degC)is parameter is relevant since high temperatures reducethe quantity of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waterbodies consequently affecting the aquatic fauna
e obtained turbidity ranged from 52 to 64 NTUesevalues were lower than the one obtained by Nicolaidis andVirydes [11] when characterizing laundry wastewater (92NTU) According to Huang et al [54] the turbidity value is aquality indicator of colloidal substances present in thewastewater
e results obtained from the industrial laundrywastewater characterization indicate the necessity toremove the organic matter and other contaminants beforethe discharge into the water bodies For this purpose theutilization of a CFS treatment to remove the solids insuspension associated with a membrane separation pro-cess is in agreement with the reduction of the content ofthese contaminants and their harmful effects in theecosystem
32 Determination of the CFS Optimized ParametersTable 4 presents the values of the response variables colorremoval () and turbidity () for each CFS condition(batch 1) predicted in the Doehlert design
With a coagulant concentration of 60mgmiddotLminus1 whenreducing the pH from 72 to 55 the efficiency of color andturbidity removal increased to 345 and 289 re-spectively e same behavior was not obtained with theconcentration of 120mgmiddotLminus1 and reducing the pH from 80to 63 resulting in an increase of approximately 11 of theremoval of both parameters Nevertheless the removal ef-ficiencies did not change whenmodifying the wastewater pHto 46 With the highest coagulant concentration(180mgmiddotLminus1) the pH reduction from 72 to 55 also provideda decrease in the color (asymp27) and turbidity (asymp24) re-moval According to Beltran-Heredia et al [55] there is aprecise coagulant dosage in which the formation of flocseffectively occurs due to their cationic nature erefore asobserved for the concentrations of 60 and 120mgmiddotLminus1 thecationic nature of the coagulant results in higher removal ofcolor and turbidity with acidic pH values (55 and 63)
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows the evaluationof the performance of the regression model and its vali-dation is determined by the F-test Table 5 presents theanalysis of variance (ANOVA) for the removal of color andturbidity of the wastewater
e F-test for the model presented a Ftable value lowerthan the Fcalc for the color (311lt 27399) and turbidity(311lt 3396) responses indicating that the regression fittedto the proposed model for both parameters (color andturbidity) e FcalcFtable ratio was 8809 for color and 1091for turbidity indicating a high correlation value for theproposed model According to Montgomery [56] when theFcalcFtable ratio is higher than 4 the model is statistically
significant whereas for values higher than 10 in addition tosignificant the model is predictive
For the color and turbidity responses the residual plots(not shown) did not indicate the presence of outliers (out ofthe interval minus2 to 2) ie the points were randomly dis-tributed around zero therefore confirming the normaldistribution for color and turbidity
e regression coefficients for the proposed Doehlertexperimental design are presented in Table 6
From the analysis of effects (Table 6) it can be verifiedthat only the quadratic term of the pH for turbidity pre-sented a p value higher than 005 and it was not significantHowever as the value 00517 is close to 005 this term wasconsidered for validating the model e other variableswere significant (p valuelt 005)
As the proposed model was validated the equations (4)and (5) were applied for determining the percentage ofremoval of color and turbidity respectively where [CC] isthe coagulant concentration
color removal () 914583minus 20450[pH]minus 12933[pH]2
+ 263[CC]minus 16415[CC]2
+ 1565[pH][CC]
(4)
turbidity removal () 938917minus 23121[pH]
minus13504[pH]2
+ 40263[CC]
minus143875[CC]2+132362[pH][CC]
(5)
where 60leCCle 180mgmiddotLminus1 and 45le pHle 8In order to determine the best operating ranges for
pH and coagulant concentration that provide the highestremoval () of color and turbidity the response surfacemethodology and contour plots were evaluated (Figure 2)
e response surface represents the influence of the pHand coagulant concentration on the removal of color(Figure 2(a)) and turbidity (Figure 2(b)) of the wastewater Asimilar behavior was observed for both responses in whichthe plots were saddle-shaped and the central points wereclose to the best experimental condition For pH values closeto the neutrality (7 to 8) and high coagulant concentrations(140 to 180mgmiddotLminus1) as well as for low pH values (46 to 55)and concentrations (60 to 120mgmiddotLminus1) the results indicatedthe maximum removal of color and turbidity Neverthelessconsidering that the initial wastewater pH is approximately10 this implies that lower pH values require a higher quantityof the acidic solution in order to adjust it just as alkaline pHvalues that require a higher quantity of coagulant conse-quently increasing the cost of the processerefore to obtainan efficient and cost-effective CFS process intermediary pHvalues and coagulant concentrations can be applied
e critical values obtained from the statistical model withthe pH varying from 46 to 8 and coagulant concentrationsvarying from 60 to 180mgmiddotLminus1 for the response of color andturbidity were a pH of 64 and concentrations of 1295mgmiddotLminus1and 1321mgmiddotLminus1 respectively e values determined for the
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 5
Table 5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the Doehlert design for the removal () of color and turbidity (α 005)
Source of variationColor Turbidity
SQ DF MS Fcalc SQ DF MS FcalcRegression (d) 3328979 5 665796 27399 254889 5 50978 3396Lack of t (a) 2430 1 2430 02685 15075 1 15075 10045Pure error (b) 99551 11 9050 165082 11 15007Residues (a+ b c) 101981 12 8498 180158 12 15013Total (c+ d) 3532942 17 2729051 17SQ sum of squares DF degrees of freedom MSmean of squares Fcalc F calculated Color Ftable (5 12 005) 311 R2 097 R2
model 0957 TurbidityFtable (5 12 005) 311 R2 0934 R2
model 0906
Table 6 Eects for the removal of color and turbidity of the wastewater (batch 1)
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
determine the minimum coagulant concentration that canbe used without changing the color and turbidity removale statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistica7reg software and considering a significance level of 5
23 Evaluation of theMSP Parameters e wastewater fromthe second batch underwent the CFS process in the bestcondition (pH and coagulant concentration) according tothe complementary assays after applying the Doehlert de-sign e resulting supernatant from this step was used asfeed in the microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF)membrane separation processes e characteristics of theevaluated membranes are presented in Table 2 [46]
e filtration experiments were carried out in duplicateusing a microfiltration membrane (MF) in experimentalbench unit [46] based on the cross-flow filtration principle Arepresentation of the experimental unit is shown in Figure 1
e module was operated as a batch system with a totalrecycle of concentrates and permeates to the feed tank eexperiments were performed at room temperature (asymp25degC)with a flow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1 for the MF membrane and08 Lmiddotminminus1 for the UF membrane and different trans-membrane pressures (06 10 and 14 bar) e volumetricpermeate flow _m (L hminus1) was measured at different timeintervals of 10minutes during the filtration process and thepermeation flux (J) (L hminus1middotmminus2) was determined by equation(1) where A is the membrane area (m2)
J _m
A (1)
When the permeate flux became constant 200mL of thepermeate was collected for determining the color turbidityTOC COD TDS and surfactants
At the end of each experiment the wastewater wasdrained and replaced by deionized water measuring the fluxof deionized water from the permeate of the dirt membranee flux decline (FF-) was calculated according to thefollowing equation where J0 and Jd are the membrane flux(L hminus1middotmminus2) obtained with deionized water before and afterthe operation respectively [47]
FF () 1minusJd
J01113888 1113889 times 100 (2)
After each experimental assay the membrane wassubmitted to a physical and chemical cleaning process untilreturning 90 of the initial flux (new membrane) ephysical cleaning consisted of recirculating deionized waterin the filtration module for approximately 2minutes beingsubsequently discarded en the chemical cleaning con-sisted of recirculating a NaOH 3 solution during40minutes to remove the organic salts and other com-pounds that can cause incrustations is procedure wasfollowed by a rinsing step with deionized water during5minutes Afterwards another chemical cleaning processwas performed with a citric acid 2 solution (C6H8O7) for20minutes followed again by a rinsing step with deionizedwater for 10minutes [48 49] After finishing the cleaningprocess the permeation flux using deionized water wasmeasured and compared to the initial value (newmembrane)
e performance of the MF and UF membranes wasevaluated regarding the removal efficiency of color TOCCOD total nitrogen TDS surfactants and turbidity isparameter was calculated according to the following equa-tion where R is the removal of the parameter () and Ca andCp are the values of the parameters measured in the feed andpermeate samples respectively [50]
R () Ca minusCp
Catimes 100 (3)
24 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-arationProcess in theBest ExperimentalConditions In orderto simulate the proposed treatment the third batch of thelaundry wastewater was used in the assay combining thebest experimental conditions obtained from the CFS(coagulant concentration and pH) and membrane filtra-tion (type of membrane and transmembrane pressure)processes e analyzed parameters in this experiment
Table 1 Physicochemical parameters evaluated for the charac-terization of the laundry wastewater determination methods andanalytical protocols
Parameter Unit ProcedureTotal organiccarbon (TOC) mgCLminus1 5310C [40]
Free residual chlorine mg Lminus1 4500-Cl A e G [41]ermotolerantcoliforms NMP100mL ISO 9308-12014 [42]
Conductivity μS cmminus1 2510B [40]Apparent color mgPt-Co Lminus1 8025 [40]Biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) mgO2 Lminus1 5210 A e B [41]
Chemical oxygendemand (COD) mgO2 Lminus1 5220D [40]
Total nitrogen mg Lminus1 D5176 [43]pH 4500-H+ B [41]Total dissolvedsolids (TDS) mg Lminus1 2540C [40]
Total solids (TS) mg Lminus1 2540B [40]Surfactants mg Lminus1MBAS 5540C [40]Temperature degC 2550B [40]Turbidity NTU 2130B [40]Toxicity NBR 15411-3 [44]MBAS methylene blue active substances
Table 2 Parameters of the ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration(MF) membranes
were the thermotolerant coliforms residual chlorinecolor turbidity TOC total nitrogen COD TDS andsurfactants determining the removal eciency accordingto equation (3)
3 Results and Discussion
31 Characterization of the LaundryWastewater e valuesof the laundry wastewater physicochemical parameterscharacterized for each of the three collected batches arepresented in Table 3
e results presented in Table 3 demonstrate variablephysicochemical characteristics for the analyzed parametersis variation among the obtained values can be related tothe dirtiness present in the pieces of clothing within theperiod that the wastewater was collected since the higher thedirtiness the higher the consumption of chemicals in thewashing process
e evaluated total organic carbon (TOC) values variedbetween 545 and 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 a parameter that representsthe quantity of contaminating organic matter in the medium[51] For color the values ranged from 365 to 425 mgPt-CoLminus1 is behavior might be related to the type of items thatwere washed on the dierent collection days since the fabriccan lose the color during the washing step
e BOD values ranged from 58 to 87mgO2 Lminus1whereas the COD values from 245 to 587mgO2 Lminus1Ciabatti et al [8] and Delforno et al [52] obtained for theraw laundry wastewater COD mean values of602mgO2 Lminus1 and 1603mgO2 Lminus1 respectively Accordingto the authors the presence of anionic surfactants andbrous materials in the wastewater might contribute to theincrease in the COD value
e total nitrogen parameter presented values within 29and 71mgmiddotLminus1 which are lower than the one found by Bragaand Varesche [3] when characterizing laundry wastewater(324mgmiddotLminus1) According to Lens et al [53] the laundrywastewater has low quantities of nitrogen since it is acomponent hardly found in laundry additives
e pH values measured in the present work were ap-proximately 10 According to Kim et al [17] and Delfornoet al [52] laundry wastewaters usually have high pH valuesdue to the chemical additives used during the washingprocess such as softeners bleach and disinfectants esame authors obtained pH values of 125 and 10 re-spectively when characterizing the laundry wastewater
e quantity of anionic surfactant in the wastewatervaried from 117 to 196mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS According to Del-forno et al [52] these values are related to the concentrationand dosage of detergent used in the washing process eauthors obtained 181mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS of anionic surfactantswhen characterizing commercial laundry wastewater As aresult they highlighted the relevance of treating this type ofwastewater to reduce this parameter since a high quantity ofsurfactants can lead to the formation of foam and aect thewater quality besides occasioning toxicity
According to Ahmad and El-Dessouky [2] the value oftotal dissolved solids (TDS) and total solids (TS) can berelated to the presence of soaps and additives used in thewashing process In their work the authors obtained a valueof 504mgmiddotLminus1 for the TDS of a laundry wastewater a value
Table 3 Mean values (plusmnstandard deviation) of the parametersanalyzed when characterizing the laundry wastewater
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of microultraltration system (MFUF cross-centow hollow ber membrane module B1 pump R1 feed tankF1 F2 centowmeter V6 back pressure valve V1ndashV6 valves PG1 PG2 pressure gauge)
4 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
that is close to the ones obtained in this study whencharacterizing the wastewater (TDS 359 to 473mgmiddotLminus1 andTS 456 to 532mgmiddotLminus1)
e temperature of the wastewater obtained in thedifferent batches was the room temperature (234 to 254degC)is parameter is relevant since high temperatures reducethe quantity of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waterbodies consequently affecting the aquatic fauna
e obtained turbidity ranged from 52 to 64 NTUesevalues were lower than the one obtained by Nicolaidis andVirydes [11] when characterizing laundry wastewater (92NTU) According to Huang et al [54] the turbidity value is aquality indicator of colloidal substances present in thewastewater
e results obtained from the industrial laundrywastewater characterization indicate the necessity toremove the organic matter and other contaminants beforethe discharge into the water bodies For this purpose theutilization of a CFS treatment to remove the solids insuspension associated with a membrane separation pro-cess is in agreement with the reduction of the content ofthese contaminants and their harmful effects in theecosystem
32 Determination of the CFS Optimized ParametersTable 4 presents the values of the response variables colorremoval () and turbidity () for each CFS condition(batch 1) predicted in the Doehlert design
With a coagulant concentration of 60mgmiddotLminus1 whenreducing the pH from 72 to 55 the efficiency of color andturbidity removal increased to 345 and 289 re-spectively e same behavior was not obtained with theconcentration of 120mgmiddotLminus1 and reducing the pH from 80to 63 resulting in an increase of approximately 11 of theremoval of both parameters Nevertheless the removal ef-ficiencies did not change whenmodifying the wastewater pHto 46 With the highest coagulant concentration(180mgmiddotLminus1) the pH reduction from 72 to 55 also provideda decrease in the color (asymp27) and turbidity (asymp24) re-moval According to Beltran-Heredia et al [55] there is aprecise coagulant dosage in which the formation of flocseffectively occurs due to their cationic nature erefore asobserved for the concentrations of 60 and 120mgmiddotLminus1 thecationic nature of the coagulant results in higher removal ofcolor and turbidity with acidic pH values (55 and 63)
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows the evaluationof the performance of the regression model and its vali-dation is determined by the F-test Table 5 presents theanalysis of variance (ANOVA) for the removal of color andturbidity of the wastewater
e F-test for the model presented a Ftable value lowerthan the Fcalc for the color (311lt 27399) and turbidity(311lt 3396) responses indicating that the regression fittedto the proposed model for both parameters (color andturbidity) e FcalcFtable ratio was 8809 for color and 1091for turbidity indicating a high correlation value for theproposed model According to Montgomery [56] when theFcalcFtable ratio is higher than 4 the model is statistically
significant whereas for values higher than 10 in addition tosignificant the model is predictive
For the color and turbidity responses the residual plots(not shown) did not indicate the presence of outliers (out ofthe interval minus2 to 2) ie the points were randomly dis-tributed around zero therefore confirming the normaldistribution for color and turbidity
e regression coefficients for the proposed Doehlertexperimental design are presented in Table 6
From the analysis of effects (Table 6) it can be verifiedthat only the quadratic term of the pH for turbidity pre-sented a p value higher than 005 and it was not significantHowever as the value 00517 is close to 005 this term wasconsidered for validating the model e other variableswere significant (p valuelt 005)
As the proposed model was validated the equations (4)and (5) were applied for determining the percentage ofremoval of color and turbidity respectively where [CC] isthe coagulant concentration
color removal () 914583minus 20450[pH]minus 12933[pH]2
+ 263[CC]minus 16415[CC]2
+ 1565[pH][CC]
(4)
turbidity removal () 938917minus 23121[pH]
minus13504[pH]2
+ 40263[CC]
minus143875[CC]2+132362[pH][CC]
(5)
where 60leCCle 180mgmiddotLminus1 and 45le pHle 8In order to determine the best operating ranges for
pH and coagulant concentration that provide the highestremoval () of color and turbidity the response surfacemethodology and contour plots were evaluated (Figure 2)
e response surface represents the influence of the pHand coagulant concentration on the removal of color(Figure 2(a)) and turbidity (Figure 2(b)) of the wastewater Asimilar behavior was observed for both responses in whichthe plots were saddle-shaped and the central points wereclose to the best experimental condition For pH values closeto the neutrality (7 to 8) and high coagulant concentrations(140 to 180mgmiddotLminus1) as well as for low pH values (46 to 55)and concentrations (60 to 120mgmiddotLminus1) the results indicatedthe maximum removal of color and turbidity Neverthelessconsidering that the initial wastewater pH is approximately10 this implies that lower pH values require a higher quantityof the acidic solution in order to adjust it just as alkaline pHvalues that require a higher quantity of coagulant conse-quently increasing the cost of the processerefore to obtainan efficient and cost-effective CFS process intermediary pHvalues and coagulant concentrations can be applied
e critical values obtained from the statistical model withthe pH varying from 46 to 8 and coagulant concentrationsvarying from 60 to 180mgmiddotLminus1 for the response of color andturbidity were a pH of 64 and concentrations of 1295mgmiddotLminus1and 1321mgmiddotLminus1 respectively e values determined for the
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 5
Table 5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the Doehlert design for the removal () of color and turbidity (α 005)
Source of variationColor Turbidity
SQ DF MS Fcalc SQ DF MS FcalcRegression (d) 3328979 5 665796 27399 254889 5 50978 3396Lack of t (a) 2430 1 2430 02685 15075 1 15075 10045Pure error (b) 99551 11 9050 165082 11 15007Residues (a+ b c) 101981 12 8498 180158 12 15013Total (c+ d) 3532942 17 2729051 17SQ sum of squares DF degrees of freedom MSmean of squares Fcalc F calculated Color Ftable (5 12 005) 311 R2 097 R2
model 0957 TurbidityFtable (5 12 005) 311 R2 0934 R2
model 0906
Table 6 Eects for the removal of color and turbidity of the wastewater (batch 1)
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
were the thermotolerant coliforms residual chlorinecolor turbidity TOC total nitrogen COD TDS andsurfactants determining the removal eciency accordingto equation (3)
3 Results and Discussion
31 Characterization of the LaundryWastewater e valuesof the laundry wastewater physicochemical parameterscharacterized for each of the three collected batches arepresented in Table 3
e results presented in Table 3 demonstrate variablephysicochemical characteristics for the analyzed parametersis variation among the obtained values can be related tothe dirtiness present in the pieces of clothing within theperiod that the wastewater was collected since the higher thedirtiness the higher the consumption of chemicals in thewashing process
e evaluated total organic carbon (TOC) values variedbetween 545 and 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 a parameter that representsthe quantity of contaminating organic matter in the medium[51] For color the values ranged from 365 to 425 mgPt-CoLminus1 is behavior might be related to the type of items thatwere washed on the dierent collection days since the fabriccan lose the color during the washing step
e BOD values ranged from 58 to 87mgO2 Lminus1whereas the COD values from 245 to 587mgO2 Lminus1Ciabatti et al [8] and Delforno et al [52] obtained for theraw laundry wastewater COD mean values of602mgO2 Lminus1 and 1603mgO2 Lminus1 respectively Accordingto the authors the presence of anionic surfactants andbrous materials in the wastewater might contribute to theincrease in the COD value
e total nitrogen parameter presented values within 29and 71mgmiddotLminus1 which are lower than the one found by Bragaand Varesche [3] when characterizing laundry wastewater(324mgmiddotLminus1) According to Lens et al [53] the laundrywastewater has low quantities of nitrogen since it is acomponent hardly found in laundry additives
e pH values measured in the present work were ap-proximately 10 According to Kim et al [17] and Delfornoet al [52] laundry wastewaters usually have high pH valuesdue to the chemical additives used during the washingprocess such as softeners bleach and disinfectants esame authors obtained pH values of 125 and 10 re-spectively when characterizing the laundry wastewater
e quantity of anionic surfactant in the wastewatervaried from 117 to 196mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS According to Del-forno et al [52] these values are related to the concentrationand dosage of detergent used in the washing process eauthors obtained 181mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS of anionic surfactantswhen characterizing commercial laundry wastewater As aresult they highlighted the relevance of treating this type ofwastewater to reduce this parameter since a high quantity ofsurfactants can lead to the formation of foam and aect thewater quality besides occasioning toxicity
According to Ahmad and El-Dessouky [2] the value oftotal dissolved solids (TDS) and total solids (TS) can berelated to the presence of soaps and additives used in thewashing process In their work the authors obtained a valueof 504mgmiddotLminus1 for the TDS of a laundry wastewater a value
Table 3 Mean values (plusmnstandard deviation) of the parametersanalyzed when characterizing the laundry wastewater
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of microultraltration system (MFUF cross-centow hollow ber membrane module B1 pump R1 feed tankF1 F2 centowmeter V6 back pressure valve V1ndashV6 valves PG1 PG2 pressure gauge)
4 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
that is close to the ones obtained in this study whencharacterizing the wastewater (TDS 359 to 473mgmiddotLminus1 andTS 456 to 532mgmiddotLminus1)
e temperature of the wastewater obtained in thedifferent batches was the room temperature (234 to 254degC)is parameter is relevant since high temperatures reducethe quantity of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waterbodies consequently affecting the aquatic fauna
e obtained turbidity ranged from 52 to 64 NTUesevalues were lower than the one obtained by Nicolaidis andVirydes [11] when characterizing laundry wastewater (92NTU) According to Huang et al [54] the turbidity value is aquality indicator of colloidal substances present in thewastewater
e results obtained from the industrial laundrywastewater characterization indicate the necessity toremove the organic matter and other contaminants beforethe discharge into the water bodies For this purpose theutilization of a CFS treatment to remove the solids insuspension associated with a membrane separation pro-cess is in agreement with the reduction of the content ofthese contaminants and their harmful effects in theecosystem
32 Determination of the CFS Optimized ParametersTable 4 presents the values of the response variables colorremoval () and turbidity () for each CFS condition(batch 1) predicted in the Doehlert design
With a coagulant concentration of 60mgmiddotLminus1 whenreducing the pH from 72 to 55 the efficiency of color andturbidity removal increased to 345 and 289 re-spectively e same behavior was not obtained with theconcentration of 120mgmiddotLminus1 and reducing the pH from 80to 63 resulting in an increase of approximately 11 of theremoval of both parameters Nevertheless the removal ef-ficiencies did not change whenmodifying the wastewater pHto 46 With the highest coagulant concentration(180mgmiddotLminus1) the pH reduction from 72 to 55 also provideda decrease in the color (asymp27) and turbidity (asymp24) re-moval According to Beltran-Heredia et al [55] there is aprecise coagulant dosage in which the formation of flocseffectively occurs due to their cationic nature erefore asobserved for the concentrations of 60 and 120mgmiddotLminus1 thecationic nature of the coagulant results in higher removal ofcolor and turbidity with acidic pH values (55 and 63)
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows the evaluationof the performance of the regression model and its vali-dation is determined by the F-test Table 5 presents theanalysis of variance (ANOVA) for the removal of color andturbidity of the wastewater
e F-test for the model presented a Ftable value lowerthan the Fcalc for the color (311lt 27399) and turbidity(311lt 3396) responses indicating that the regression fittedto the proposed model for both parameters (color andturbidity) e FcalcFtable ratio was 8809 for color and 1091for turbidity indicating a high correlation value for theproposed model According to Montgomery [56] when theFcalcFtable ratio is higher than 4 the model is statistically
significant whereas for values higher than 10 in addition tosignificant the model is predictive
For the color and turbidity responses the residual plots(not shown) did not indicate the presence of outliers (out ofthe interval minus2 to 2) ie the points were randomly dis-tributed around zero therefore confirming the normaldistribution for color and turbidity
e regression coefficients for the proposed Doehlertexperimental design are presented in Table 6
From the analysis of effects (Table 6) it can be verifiedthat only the quadratic term of the pH for turbidity pre-sented a p value higher than 005 and it was not significantHowever as the value 00517 is close to 005 this term wasconsidered for validating the model e other variableswere significant (p valuelt 005)
As the proposed model was validated the equations (4)and (5) were applied for determining the percentage ofremoval of color and turbidity respectively where [CC] isthe coagulant concentration
color removal () 914583minus 20450[pH]minus 12933[pH]2
+ 263[CC]minus 16415[CC]2
+ 1565[pH][CC]
(4)
turbidity removal () 938917minus 23121[pH]
minus13504[pH]2
+ 40263[CC]
minus143875[CC]2+132362[pH][CC]
(5)
where 60leCCle 180mgmiddotLminus1 and 45le pHle 8In order to determine the best operating ranges for
pH and coagulant concentration that provide the highestremoval () of color and turbidity the response surfacemethodology and contour plots were evaluated (Figure 2)
e response surface represents the influence of the pHand coagulant concentration on the removal of color(Figure 2(a)) and turbidity (Figure 2(b)) of the wastewater Asimilar behavior was observed for both responses in whichthe plots were saddle-shaped and the central points wereclose to the best experimental condition For pH values closeto the neutrality (7 to 8) and high coagulant concentrations(140 to 180mgmiddotLminus1) as well as for low pH values (46 to 55)and concentrations (60 to 120mgmiddotLminus1) the results indicatedthe maximum removal of color and turbidity Neverthelessconsidering that the initial wastewater pH is approximately10 this implies that lower pH values require a higher quantityof the acidic solution in order to adjust it just as alkaline pHvalues that require a higher quantity of coagulant conse-quently increasing the cost of the processerefore to obtainan efficient and cost-effective CFS process intermediary pHvalues and coagulant concentrations can be applied
e critical values obtained from the statistical model withthe pH varying from 46 to 8 and coagulant concentrationsvarying from 60 to 180mgmiddotLminus1 for the response of color andturbidity were a pH of 64 and concentrations of 1295mgmiddotLminus1and 1321mgmiddotLminus1 respectively e values determined for the
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 5
Table 5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the Doehlert design for the removal () of color and turbidity (α 005)
Source of variationColor Turbidity
SQ DF MS Fcalc SQ DF MS FcalcRegression (d) 3328979 5 665796 27399 254889 5 50978 3396Lack of t (a) 2430 1 2430 02685 15075 1 15075 10045Pure error (b) 99551 11 9050 165082 11 15007Residues (a+ b c) 101981 12 8498 180158 12 15013Total (c+ d) 3532942 17 2729051 17SQ sum of squares DF degrees of freedom MSmean of squares Fcalc F calculated Color Ftable (5 12 005) 311 R2 097 R2
model 0957 TurbidityFtable (5 12 005) 311 R2 0934 R2
model 0906
Table 6 Eects for the removal of color and turbidity of the wastewater (batch 1)
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
that is close to the ones obtained in this study whencharacterizing the wastewater (TDS 359 to 473mgmiddotLminus1 andTS 456 to 532mgmiddotLminus1)
e temperature of the wastewater obtained in thedifferent batches was the room temperature (234 to 254degC)is parameter is relevant since high temperatures reducethe quantity of dissolved oxygen in the receiving waterbodies consequently affecting the aquatic fauna
e obtained turbidity ranged from 52 to 64 NTUesevalues were lower than the one obtained by Nicolaidis andVirydes [11] when characterizing laundry wastewater (92NTU) According to Huang et al [54] the turbidity value is aquality indicator of colloidal substances present in thewastewater
e results obtained from the industrial laundrywastewater characterization indicate the necessity toremove the organic matter and other contaminants beforethe discharge into the water bodies For this purpose theutilization of a CFS treatment to remove the solids insuspension associated with a membrane separation pro-cess is in agreement with the reduction of the content ofthese contaminants and their harmful effects in theecosystem
32 Determination of the CFS Optimized ParametersTable 4 presents the values of the response variables colorremoval () and turbidity () for each CFS condition(batch 1) predicted in the Doehlert design
With a coagulant concentration of 60mgmiddotLminus1 whenreducing the pH from 72 to 55 the efficiency of color andturbidity removal increased to 345 and 289 re-spectively e same behavior was not obtained with theconcentration of 120mgmiddotLminus1 and reducing the pH from 80to 63 resulting in an increase of approximately 11 of theremoval of both parameters Nevertheless the removal ef-ficiencies did not change whenmodifying the wastewater pHto 46 With the highest coagulant concentration(180mgmiddotLminus1) the pH reduction from 72 to 55 also provideda decrease in the color (asymp27) and turbidity (asymp24) re-moval According to Beltran-Heredia et al [55] there is aprecise coagulant dosage in which the formation of flocseffectively occurs due to their cationic nature erefore asobserved for the concentrations of 60 and 120mgmiddotLminus1 thecationic nature of the coagulant results in higher removal ofcolor and turbidity with acidic pH values (55 and 63)
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) allows the evaluationof the performance of the regression model and its vali-dation is determined by the F-test Table 5 presents theanalysis of variance (ANOVA) for the removal of color andturbidity of the wastewater
e F-test for the model presented a Ftable value lowerthan the Fcalc for the color (311lt 27399) and turbidity(311lt 3396) responses indicating that the regression fittedto the proposed model for both parameters (color andturbidity) e FcalcFtable ratio was 8809 for color and 1091for turbidity indicating a high correlation value for theproposed model According to Montgomery [56] when theFcalcFtable ratio is higher than 4 the model is statistically
significant whereas for values higher than 10 in addition tosignificant the model is predictive
For the color and turbidity responses the residual plots(not shown) did not indicate the presence of outliers (out ofthe interval minus2 to 2) ie the points were randomly dis-tributed around zero therefore confirming the normaldistribution for color and turbidity
e regression coefficients for the proposed Doehlertexperimental design are presented in Table 6
From the analysis of effects (Table 6) it can be verifiedthat only the quadratic term of the pH for turbidity pre-sented a p value higher than 005 and it was not significantHowever as the value 00517 is close to 005 this term wasconsidered for validating the model e other variableswere significant (p valuelt 005)
As the proposed model was validated the equations (4)and (5) were applied for determining the percentage ofremoval of color and turbidity respectively where [CC] isthe coagulant concentration
color removal () 914583minus 20450[pH]minus 12933[pH]2
+ 263[CC]minus 16415[CC]2
+ 1565[pH][CC]
(4)
turbidity removal () 938917minus 23121[pH]
minus13504[pH]2
+ 40263[CC]
minus143875[CC]2+132362[pH][CC]
(5)
where 60leCCle 180mgmiddotLminus1 and 45le pHle 8In order to determine the best operating ranges for
pH and coagulant concentration that provide the highestremoval () of color and turbidity the response surfacemethodology and contour plots were evaluated (Figure 2)
e response surface represents the influence of the pHand coagulant concentration on the removal of color(Figure 2(a)) and turbidity (Figure 2(b)) of the wastewater Asimilar behavior was observed for both responses in whichthe plots were saddle-shaped and the central points wereclose to the best experimental condition For pH values closeto the neutrality (7 to 8) and high coagulant concentrations(140 to 180mgmiddotLminus1) as well as for low pH values (46 to 55)and concentrations (60 to 120mgmiddotLminus1) the results indicatedthe maximum removal of color and turbidity Neverthelessconsidering that the initial wastewater pH is approximately10 this implies that lower pH values require a higher quantityof the acidic solution in order to adjust it just as alkaline pHvalues that require a higher quantity of coagulant conse-quently increasing the cost of the processerefore to obtainan efficient and cost-effective CFS process intermediary pHvalues and coagulant concentrations can be applied
e critical values obtained from the statistical model withthe pH varying from 46 to 8 and coagulant concentrationsvarying from 60 to 180mgmiddotLminus1 for the response of color andturbidity were a pH of 64 and concentrations of 1295mgmiddotLminus1and 1321mgmiddotLminus1 respectively e values determined for the
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 5
Table 5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the Doehlert design for the removal () of color and turbidity (α 005)
Source of variationColor Turbidity
SQ DF MS Fcalc SQ DF MS FcalcRegression (d) 3328979 5 665796 27399 254889 5 50978 3396Lack of t (a) 2430 1 2430 02685 15075 1 15075 10045Pure error (b) 99551 11 9050 165082 11 15007Residues (a+ b c) 101981 12 8498 180158 12 15013Total (c+ d) 3532942 17 2729051 17SQ sum of squares DF degrees of freedom MSmean of squares Fcalc F calculated Color Ftable (5 12 005) 311 R2 097 R2
model 0957 TurbidityFtable (5 12 005) 311 R2 0934 R2
model 0906
Table 6 Eects for the removal of color and turbidity of the wastewater (batch 1)
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
maximum removal of color (9414) and turbidity (9150)were obtained using equations (4) and (5) e mean criticalvalues obtained from the coagulant concentration and theresponse of color and turbidity were 1308mgmiddotLminus1 and a pH of64 According to these results new CFS experiments withthe laundry wastewater were carried out varying the coagulantconcentration between 100 and 130mgmiddotLminus1 in a pH of 64 Itwas performed to reach the highest removal eciency withthe lowest coagulant concentration
e results regarding the removal of color and turbiditywere evaluated through the analysis of variance (not shown)demonstrating that there was a signicant dierence(p-valuelt 005) between the treatments (coagulant con-centration) for the color parameter Since the turbidityparameter is not incentuenced by the coagulant concentration(p valuegt 005) a comparison of means was performed toidentify the treatments that presented the same means onlyfor color removal
e percentages of removal of color and turbidity andthe comparison of means (Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the colorparameter using dierent concentrations of the TancentocPOPreg coagulant are presented in Table 7
e results demonstrated that the concentrations of 120and 130mgmiddotLminus1 presented dierent means of color removalHowever this increase in the concentration resulted in anincrement of only 35 in the removal of color (Table 7)requiring a higher quantity of coagulant and increasing thecost of the process For the concentration of 100mgmiddotLminus1 theminimum removal of color (6692) was obtained in-dicating an insucient coagulant concentration
For the concentrations of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and 120mgmiddotLminus1there was no signicant dierence (p-valuegt 005) amongthe color removal means erefore aiming at an ecientand cost-eective process a coagulant concentration of110mgmiddotLminus1 (8027 of color 8650 of turbidity) waschosen for the combined CFS and membrane separationprocess
33 Evaluation of MSP Parameters For the membraneseparation experiments the supernatant from the secondbatch was used after submitting it to the CFS processapplying 110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant and a pH of 64
Figure 3 shows the behavior of the permeation centux (J) asa function of time for theMF and UFmembranes at dierentpressures as well as their standard deviations
e permeation curves for both membranes presented asimilar behavior It can be observed a fast reduction of thepermeation centux in the rst 10minutes of ltration andthen it slowly reduces until the stabilization from90minutes to 50minutes for the MF and UF membranesrespectively is reduction of the permeation centux is due tothe fouling process which occurs because of the interactionamong the material of the membrane and the othercomponents in the wastewater that deposit on its surface[8 20 57]
Samples of the permeate were collected in 110minutes ofltration and then analyzed regarding color TOC CODtotal nitrogen pH TDS surfactants and turbidity Table 8presents the quantied physicochemical parameters of thefeeding samples (supernatant obtained after the CFSprocess using batch 2) removal eciencies () averagepermeation centux and fouling from the membranes for eachexperimental condition
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(c)
Coag
ulan
t dos
age (
mgmiddot
Lndash1)
180
160
140
120
100
60
80
5045 55 60 65 70 75 80pH
1008060
4020
(d)
Figure 2 Response surface for removal () of color (a) and turbidity (b) and contour plots for the removal () of color (c) and turbidity (d)of the laundry wastewater by Tancentoc POPreg
Table 7 Removal of color and turbidity and comparison of means(Fisherrsquos LSD test) for the color parameter
100 6692c 8223110 8027b 8650120 8027b 8583130 8376a 8976Same letters indicate the same means for the removal of color among thetreatments (p valuegt 005)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 7
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
A linear increase of the permeation centuxwas observed withthe increment of the transmembrane pressure for bothmembranes (MF and UF) (Table 8) e values of the per-meation centux for theMFmembrane were higher than the onesfor the UFmembrane since the rst presents larger poresemean permeability estimated between 06 and 14 bar was7573 and 999 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2middotbarminus1 for the MF and UF mem-branes respectively With the pressure of 14 bar the highestpermeation centuxes were obtained (MF 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 andUF125 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) According to these results it can be veriedthat an increase of the transmembrane pressure results in ahigher driving force allowing the liquid to easily cross thepores of the membrane [57]
e fouling values observed for the assays with the UFmembrane were higher than the ones with the MF (Table 8)e increase in the transmembrane pressure also resulted inan increase of the fouling values for bothmembranes In factthe ltration of the wastewater containing material in sus-pension causes its decomposition on the surface of themembrane which implies in higher values for the centuxdecline [58 59]
ese results support the ones obtained by Peter-Varbanets et al [60] when treating river water with theUF membrane (004 015 025 and 050 bar) e authorsobserved an increase in the fouling values with the in-crement of the operating pressure
e pH of the permeate samples presented a variationbetween 02 and 05 when compared to the feeding pH values(64) A similar behavior was obtained by Ciabattia et al [8]when treating laundry wastewater by UF and using mem-branes manufactured from polyvinylidene centuoride (PVDF)For these authors the pH value of the permeate (73) waspractically unchanged compared to the feeding value (72)
e other parameters analyzed in the present studypresented a reduction when compared to the feeding values(supernatant from the CFS process) conrming the e-ciency of the membrane separation process (Table 8) whentreating the laundry wastewater e increase of the oper-ating pressure resulted in a higher removal of the evaluatedparameters with the exception of the TOC and total ni-trogen for both membranes and surfactants for the MFmembrane
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(a)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
06 bar10 bar14 bar
(b)
Figure 3 Permeation centux (J) as a function of time for dierent transmembrane pressures (a) MF membrane (centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1) and (b)UF membrane (centow of 08 Lmiddotminminus1)
Table 8 Performance of the MF and UF membranes in the experiments with dierent transmembrane pressures (batch 2)
06 bar 10 bar 14 bar 06 bar 10 bar 14 barColor (mgPt-ComiddotLminus1) 1130plusmn 14 93 94 98 88 88 90TOC (mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) 531plusmn 14 372 53 42 526 473 566COD (mgmiddotO2middotLminus1) 219plusmn 8 73 73 77 52 67 92Total nitrogen (mgmiddotTNmiddotLminus1) 69plusmn 0 361 455 446 38 435 401TDS (mgmiddotLminus1) 431plusmn 6 84 437 495 271 474 505Surfactants (mg Lminus1MBAS) 95plusmn 1 58 89 58 278 309 361Turbidity (NTU) 119plusmn 01 95 97 97 91 93 96pH 64 68 68 66 68 68 69lowastMean centux (Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) mdash 539plusmn 03 715plusmn 03 922plusmn 05 73plusmn 02 89plusmn 01 125plusmn 01Fouling () mdash 553 594 602 731 774 767lowastMean centuxes obtained between 90 and 110min (MF) and between 50 and 110min (UF) lowastlowastCharacteristics of the wastewater after the CFS process
8 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
e color and turbidity parameters were the ones thatpresented the highest removal efficiencies (between 88 and98) even when applying the lowest pressure (06 bar) forthe MF and UF membranes e treated color can be furtherimproved using nanofiltration [61]
e performance of the membranes regarding the re-moval of COD increased with the filtration pressureobtaining the maximum values of 77 for the MF and 92for the UF (Table 8) Regarding the laundry wastewatertreatment performed by Manouchehri and Kargari [10] andapplying the MF acrylic membrane (Plexiglasstrade) removalbetween 734 and 898 of COD was obtained within apressure range of 02 to 15 bar e authors verified thehighest removal (898 CODinitial 2538mgO2 Lminus1) withthe operating pressure of 05 bar
e TOC parameter presented removal between 372and 566 using the MF and UF membranes at the testedpressures (Table 8) In the study conducted by Guilbaud et al[9] treating a laundry wastewater on board a ship (withclothes tablecloths bath towels napkins etc) the removalof TOC was 98 (TOCinitial 503mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 TOCpermeate10mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) using only the nanofiltration (NF) process atthe pressure of 35 bar Nevertheless it should be consideredthat the NF process is more restrictive regarding the transferof the components present in the wastewater and demandsmore energy in order to operate erefore the TOC valuesfor the permeate (asymp23mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) obtained with the MF andUF membranes after the CFS process demonstrated to besatisfactory considering the characteristics of the laundrywastewater evaluated and the energy costs
e removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (Table 8) afterthe treatment steps were similar comparing the samepressures between the MF and UF membranes e maxi-mum total nitrogen removal regarding the feeding con-centration (69mgmiddotLminus1) was 455 for the MF and 435 forthe UF at 10 bar In the research work of Sostar-Turk et al[7] also treating laundry wastewater samples the authorsobtained a removal of 989 for total nitrogen(Cinitial 275mgmiddotLminus1) using a ceramic UF membrane with acut diameter between 20 and 400 kDa with pressures from 3to 5 bar In a different way in this research work the UFmembrane utilized was the polymeric one (poly-ethersulfone) with a cut diameter of 50 kDa and a morereduced operating pressure (10 bar) Along with thewastewater characteristics these conditions influenced theperformance of the process
e membrane separation step presented the maximumremoval of surfactants (Table 8) at the pressure of 10 bar fortheMFmembrane (95 for 865mgmiddotLminus1 89) and 14 bar forthe UF (95 for 607mgmiddotLminus1 361) is value was close tothe removal of surfactants obtained by Sostar-Turk et al [7]utilizing the UF (1006 for 702mgmiddotLminus1)
e TDS value (431mgmiddotLminus1) reduced with the increase ofthe operating pressure for the MF and UF membranes(Table 8) reaching removal of approximately 50 at14 bar Manouchehri and Kargari [10] also evaluated theTDS reduction for the laundry wastewater treatment ap-plying MF and obtained 252 of removal at the pressure of10 bar e value of this parameter (TDS) is relevant since it
provides the quantity of organic and inorganic substances inthe wastewater in the form of suspensions even after thetreatments [62]
e MF membrane at a pressure of 14 bar presented forthe most part with the exception of surfactants the highestremoval efficiencies for the parameters in general as well asthe highest mean permeation flux (922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2) (Table 8)an aspect that is required by the industry
34 Evaluation of the Combined CFS and Membrane Sep-aration Process at the Best Experimental Conditions elaundry wastewater (batch 3) was submitted to the combinedCFS-MF process at the optimized experimental conditionspreviously obtained from the CFS steps for 10minutes ofsedimentation (110mgmiddotLminus1 of coagulant pH of 64) andmembrane separation (14 bar)
e removal efficiencies of the physicochemical pa-rameters for each treatment step are presented in Table 9 aswell as the total removal efficiencies that are related to thefinal removal obtained from the combined process (CFS-MF) regarding the raw wastewater
e TOC parameter (Table 9) reduced roughly 50 inthe CFS step and 13 in the membrane filtration (MF)reaching the value of 376mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 for the permeate Moziaet al [63] treated a laundry wastewater from hotels by acombined biological process followed by UVO3 oxidationandUF (150 kDa) and obtained a TOC removal of 29 in theUF step at 2 bar (79mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 in the permeate) and 95(TOCinitial 172mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) by the combined process It isimportant to notice that the total efficiency obtained for theTOC removal (563 TOCinitial 86mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1) for the in-dustrial laundry wastewater studied was related to a loweroperating time (CFS 10minutes of sedimentation) for thestep that precedes the MF when compared to the oxidativeprocess (12 hours)
e color and turbidity parameters presented removal of833 and 913 in the CFS step and 901 and 893 in theMF step respectively e total removal for color was 984and 991 for turbidity ese results demonstrated that thecombined process (CFS-MF) for treating the industriallaundry wastewater was efficient in removing these pa-rameters resulting in treated water with better qualityShang et al [18] treated laundry wastewater (initial turbidityof 735 NTU) by a combined CFS-MF process and obtaineda removal of 90 for turbidity in the CFS step utilizing apolymer as coagulant and 100 after the MF process withPVDF membranes
e COD value (245mgO2 Lminus1) for the raw wastewaterreduced to 83mgO2 Lminus1 (661) after utilizing the CFS stepand in the MF process the permeate presented 77mgO2Lminus1reaching a total efficiency of 686 of COD removal isresult satisfies the value required by the legislation of Paranastate (CEMAIAP 702009) [64] of 200mgO2 Lminus1 for thedischarge of laundry wastewater Authors for example Shanget al [18] reached removal of 50 for COD by the CFSprocess (CODinitial 1196mgO2 Lminus1) for the laundry waste-water and after the MF process a total efficiency of 55 to 65with the maximum pressure of 137 bar
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 9
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
e total nitrogen parameter of the raw wastewater was48mg Lminus1 and met the values required by the federal leg-islation (CONAMA) No 4302011 [65] with a maximumvalue for the discharge of 20mgmiddotLminus1 After applying thecombined process (CFS-MF) this parameter reduced188 in the CFS step and 103 in the MF demonstratingthat the proposed process for treating the laundry waste-water was efficient
e pH value of the raw wastewater (109) was adjustedto 64 before the CFS treatment presenting a variation of03 units after the combined process (CFS-MF) is resultshows that there is no need to adjust the pH before thedischarge of the treated wastewater since it met the valuesrequired by the federal legislation (5 to 9) [65]
e surfactant parameter had a total reduction of 717(wastewater 159mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS) and presented a value of45mgmiddotLminus1 MBAS in the permeate after the combinedprocess (CFS-MF) Ciabattia et al [8] obtained a removalof 93 of anionic surfactants after the total flotationozonationfiltration (activated carbon) and filtration witha PVDF membrane (20 kDa) when treating laundrywastewater (878mgmiddotLminus1 of total surfactants)
e TDS value (wastewater 473mgmiddotLminus1) after applyingthe combined process was 210mgmiddotLminus1 e removal of thisparameter was higher in theMF step (517) in relation to theCFS process (8) confirming that the membrane separa-tion process is more efficient for TDS removal Sumisha et al[66] studied the treatment of laundry wastewater applyingonly the UF process with polymeric membranes (10 kDa) andobtained TDS removal of 82 (TDSinitial 6033mgmiddotLminus1) withthe operating pressure of 5 bar
e permeate collected after the CFS-MF process wasanalyzed regarding the free residual chlorine (024mgmiddotLminus1)and thermotolerant coliforms (lt1 MPN100mL) whichpresented low values demonstrating the quality of thepermeate obtained after the combined treatment
e value of the toxicity factor (TF) obtained for the rawwastewater and the permeate (MF) was 2 demonstratingthat the sample needs to be diluted twice to obtain a re-duction in the luminescence of the Vibrio fischeri bacteriainferior to 20 is result showed that there was nomodification of the toxicity of the studied wastewater for this
microorganism meeting the requirements established bystate regulations [64] with a TF value of 8 for the discharge ofwastewater into water bodies
erefore the COD total nitrogen pH and toxicityparameters analyzed after the combined process (CFS-MF)met the values established by the Brazilian state [64] andfederal regulations [65] for the discharge of wastewaters intowater bodies e combined treatment was also responsiblefor the reduction of the other parameters providing treatedwater with high quality since it removed 984 of color991 of turbidity 717 of surfactants and more than 55of TDS and TOC of the laundry wastewater
In general the most parts of the analyzed parametersof the supernatant from batch 3 (Table 9) presented valueslower than the ones from the supernatant obtained frombatch 2 (Table 8) is fact contributed to the performanceof the membrane e permeation flux of the wastewaterin relation to time for MF at 14 bar is presented inFigure 4
e permeation flux reduced from 2035 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 to1558 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 in the first 10minutes of operation (Figure 4)remaining constant after 40minutes of microfiltration in1460 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2is value for the permeation flux was higherthan the one obtained for the same membrane (MF) andpressure (14 bar) utilizing the wastewater from the secondbatch which started with an initial flux of 2018 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2with the stabilization of the permeation flux in 922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2ese results show that the characteristics of the wastewaterare relevant to theMF since for the wastewater containing theleast amount of organic matter in the supernatant (batch 3)(TOC 433mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 83mgO2 Lminus1 Table 9) it wasobtained the best membrane permeation compared to thewastewater collected in a different period (batch 2TOC 531mgmiddotCmiddotLminus1 COD 219mgO2 Lminus1 Table 8)
Another parameter that should be considered is theturbidity which causes the reduction of the permeation fluxvalue because it is an indicator of the number of particles insuspension in the filter medium [17] In this case the tur-bidity value obtained from the supernatant of batch 3 (56NTU) was lower compared to the one from the second batch(119 NTU) which confirms the results obtained for thefouling values of 55 and 602 respectively
Table 9 Physicochemical parameters analyzed for the raw wastewater (batch 3) treated by CFS and microfiltration (MF) and removalefficiencies ()
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
ese data demonstrate the relevance of the un-derstanding of the wastewater characteristics as well as theutilization of a pretreatment (CFS step) before MF in orderto remove the highest quantity of organic matter It can bejustied by the fact that the lower the organic particulatematter in the medium to be ltered the lower the value forfouling and consequently the higher the operating life of themembrane and permeation centux in the process
4 Conclusion
In the CFS process of the laundry wastewater the utili-zation of the Tancentoc POPreg natural coagulant demonstratedits eciency with the dosage of 110mgmiddotLminus1 and a wastewaterpH of 64 according to the statistical analyses e super-natant from the CFS process obtained in this experimentalcondition was submitted to the membrane separationprocess (MF and UF) resulting in removal eciencies of thephysicochemical parameters (color total nitrogen TDS andturbidity) with an operating pressure of 14 bar in a similarway for both membranes but distinct values for the per-meation centux e MF membrane operating at 14 bar pre-sented the best performance with a permeation centux of922 Lmiddothminus1middotmminus2 implying in a treatment with a higher vol-ume of wastewater over time e CFS step utilizing thenatural coagulant and the separation of components by MFsignicantly enhanced the quality parameters of the treatedwastewater demonstrating the eciency of the combinedprocess proposed for treating laundry wastewater
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no concenticts of interest
Acknowledgments
e authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian researchfunding agency CAPES (Federal Agency for the Support and
Improvement of Higher Education) for the nancial supportof this work
References
[1] T L Silva A Ronix O Pezoti et al ldquoMesoporous activatedcarbon from industrial laundry sewage sludge adsorptionstudies of reactive dye Remazol Brilliant Blue Rrdquo ChemicalEngineering Journal vol 303 pp 467ndash476 2016
[2] J Ahmad andH EL-Dessouky ldquoDesign of a modied low costtreatment system for the recycling and reuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 52 no 7pp 973ndash978 2008
[3] J K Braga and M B a Varesche ldquoCommercial laundry watercharacterisationrdquo American Journal of Analytical Chemistryvol 5 no 1 pp 8ndash16 2014
[4] T Ramcharan and A Bissessur ldquoAnalysis of linear alkyl-benzene sulfonate in laundry wastewater by HPLC-UV andUV-vis spectrophotometryrdquo Journal of Surfactants and De-tergents vol 19 no 1 pp 209ndash218 2016
[5] J Ge J Qu P Lei and H Liu ldquoNew bipolarelectrocoagulation-electrocentotation process for the treatmentof laundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purication Tech-nology vol 36 no 1 pp 33ndash39 2004
[6] F Janpoor A Torabian and V Khatibikamal ldquoTreatment oflaundry waste-water by electrocoagulationrdquo Journal ofChemical Technology and Biotechnology vol 86 no 8pp 1113ndash1120 2011
[7] S Sostar-Turk I Petrinic and M Simonic ldquoLaundrywastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane l-trationrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 44 no 2pp 185ndash196 2005
[8] I Ciabattia F Cesaro L Faralli E Fatarella and F TognottildquoDemonstration of a treatment system for purication andreuse of laundry wastewaterrdquo Desalination vol 245 no 1ndash3pp 451ndash459 2009
[9] J Guilbaud A Masse Y Andres F Combe and P JaouenldquoLaundry water recycling in ship by direct nanoltration withtubular membranesrdquo Resources Conservation and Recyclingvol 55 no 2 pp 148ndash154 2010
[10] M Manouchehri and A Kargari ldquoWater recovery fromlaundry wastewater by the cross centowmicroltration process astrategy for water recycling in residential buildingsrdquo Journalof Cleaner Production vol 168 pp 227ndash238 2017
[11] C Nicolaidis and I Vyrides ldquoClosing the water cycle forindustrial laundries an operational performance and techno-economic evaluation of a full-scale membrane bioreactorsystemrdquo Resources Conservation and Recycling vol 92pp 128ndash135 2014
[12] N Schouten L G J van der Ham G-J W Euverink andA B de Haan ldquoSelection and evaluation of adsorbents for theremoval of anionic surfactants from laundry rinsing waterrdquoWater Research vol 41 no 18 pp 4233ndash4241 2007
[13] E L Terechova G Zhang J Chen N A Sosnina andF Yang ldquoCombined chemical coagulation-centocculationultraviolet photolysis treatment for anionic surfactants inlaundry wastewaterrdquo Journal of Environmental ChemicalEngineering vol 2 no 4 pp 2111ndash2119 2014
[14] C-T Wang W-L Chou and Y-M Kuo ldquoRemoval of CODfrom laundry wastewater by electrocoagulationelectro-centotationrdquo Journal of Hazardous Materials vol 164 no 1pp 81ndash86 2009
[15] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and M C Gomez-Muntildeoz ldquoNew coagulant agents from tannin extracts
130140150160170180190200210220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Perm
eate
flow
rate
(L h
ndash1middotm
ndash2)
Time (min)
Figure 4 Permeation centux of the wastewater obtained at 14 bar forthe MF membrane (volumetric centow of 05 Lmiddotminminus1)
International Journal of Chemical Engineering 11
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
preliminary optimisation studiesrdquo Chemical EngineeringJournal vol 162 no 3 pp 1019ndash1025 2010
[16] J-D Lee S-H Lee M-H Jo P-K Park C-H Lee andJ-W Kwak ldquoEffect of coagulation conditions on membranefiltration characteristics in Coagulation-Microfiltration pro-cess for water treatmentrdquo Environmental Science and Tech-nology vol 34 no 17 pp 3780ndash3788 2000
[17] H-C Kim X Shang J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoTreating laundry waste water cationic polymers for removalof contaminants and decreased fouling in microfiltrationrdquoJournal of Membrane Science vol 456 pp 167ndash174 2014
[18] X Shang H-C Kim J-H Huang and B A DempseyldquoCoagulation strategies to decrease fouling and increasecritical flux and contaminant removal in microfiltration oflaundry wastewaterrdquo Separation and Purification Technologyvol 147 pp 44ndash50 2015
[19] S M Mohan ldquoUse of naturalized coagulants in removinglaundry waste surfactant using various unit processes in lab-scalerdquo Journal of Environmental Management vol 136pp 103ndash111 2014
[20] A Y Zahrim C Tizaoui and N Hilal ldquoCoagulation withpolymers for nanofiltration pre-treatment of highly concen-trated dyes a reviewrdquoDesalination vol 266 no 1ndash3 pp 1ndash162011
[21] S Y Choy K N Prasad T Y Wu M E Raghunandan andR N Ramanan ldquoPerformance of conventional starches asnatural coagulants for turbidity removalrdquo Ecological Engi-neering vol 94 pp 352ndash364 2016
[22] N Graham F Gang G Fowler and M Watts ldquoCharacter-isation and coagulation performance of a tannin-based cat-ionic polymer a preliminary assessmentrdquo Colloids andSurfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects vol 327no 1ndash3 pp 9ndash16 2008
[23] E Jurado M Fernandez-Serrano J Nuntildeez Olea M LechugaJ L Jimenez and F Rıos ldquoAcute toxicity of alkylpolyglu-cosides to vibrio fischeri daphnia magna and microalgae acomparative studyrdquo Bulletin of Environmental Contaminationand Toxicology vol 88 no 2 pp 290ndash295 2012
[24] C Sun J Sun F Qiu W Li Z Chang and L Zhang ldquoefluorescent property of 3-[(2-hydroxy-1-naphthyl) methyl-ideneamino]benzoic acid and its application as fluorescentchemosensor for Hg2+ and Al3+ ionsrdquo Spectrochimica ActaPart A Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy vol 188pp 1ndash7 2018
[25] L K Kumawat N Mergu M Asif and V K Gupta ldquoNovelsynthesized antipyrine derivative based ldquoNaked eyerdquo colori-metric chemosensors for Al 3+ and Cr 3+rdquo Sensors andActuators B Chemical vol 231 pp 847ndash859 2016
[26] G Muthuraman and S Sasikala ldquoRemoval of turbidity fromdrinking water using natural coagulantsrdquo Journal of Industrialand Engineering Chemistry vol 20 no 4 pp 1727ndash1731 2014
[27] S Wang C Liu and Q Li ldquoFouling of microfiltrationmembranes by organic polymer coagulants and flocculantscontrolling factors and mechanismsrdquoWater Research vol 45no 1 pp 357ndash365 2011
[28] D P Zagklis P G Koutsoukos and C A Paraskeva ldquoAcombined coagulationflocculation and membrane filtrationprocess for the treatment of paint industry wastewatersrdquoIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry Research vol 51 no 47pp 15456ndash15462 2012
[29] W L Ang A W Mohammad N Hilal and C P Leo ldquoAreview on the applicability of integratedhybrid membraneprocesses in water treatment and desalination plantsrdquo De-salination vol 363 pp 2ndash18 2015
[30] M Franceschi A Girou A M Carro-diaz M T Mauretteand E Puech-costes ldquoOptimisation of the coagulation-flocculation process of raw water by optimal designmethodrdquoWater Research vol 36 no 14 pp 3561ndash3572 2002
[31] A Alinsafi M Khemis M N Pons et al ldquoElectro-coagulationof reactive textile dyes and textile wastewaterrdquo ChemicalEngineering and Processing Process Intensification vol 44no 4 pp 461ndash470 2005
[32] L Liu B Li Z He C Zhang and D Fu ldquoDegradation ofbromoamine acid by BDD technology-Use of Doehlert designfor optimizing the reaction conditionsrdquo Separation and Pu-rification Technology vol 146 pp 15ndash23 2015
[33] S Hammami A Ouejhani N Bellakhal and M DachraouildquoApplication of Doehlert matrix to determine the optimalconditions of electrochemical treatment of tannery effluentsrdquoJournal of Hazardous Materials vol 163 no 1 pp 251ndash2582009
[34] S Hammami N Oturan N Bellakhal M Dachraoui andM A Oturan ldquoOxidative degradation of direct orange 61 byelectro-Fenton process using a carbon felt electrode ap-plication of the experimental design methodologyrdquo Journalof Electroanalytical Chemistry vol 610 no 1 pp 75ndash842007
[35] C A Manassero S R Vaudagna A M Sancho M C Antildeonand F Speroni ldquoCombined high hydrostatic pressure andthermal treatments fully inactivate trypsin inhibitors andlipoxygenase and improve protein solubility and physicalstability of calcium-added soymilkrdquo Innovative Food Scienceand Emerging Technologies vol 35 pp 86ndash95 2016
[36] S El Hajjaji C Cros and L Aries ldquoOptimization of con-version treatment on austenitic stainless steel using experi-mental designsrdquo International Journal of Metals vol 2013Article ID 757049 7 pages 2013
[37] Y E Maguana N Elhadiri M Bouchdoug M Benchanaaand A Boussetta ldquoOptimization of preparation conditions ofnovel adsorbent from sugar scum using response surfacemethodology for removal of methylene bluerdquo Journal ofChemistry vol 2018 Article ID 2093654 10 pages 2018
[38] S Ferreira W N L Dos Santos C M Quintella B B Netoand J M Bosque-Sendra ldquoDoehlert matrix a chemometrictool for analytical chemistryreviewrdquo Talanta vol 63 no 4pp 1061ndash1067 2004
[39] L F S Caldas C E R De Paula D M Brum andR J Cassella ldquoApplication of a four-variables Doehlert designfor the multivariate optimization of copper determination inpetroleum-derived insulating oils by GFAAS employing thedilute-and-shot approachrdquo Fuel vol 105 pp 503ndash511 2013
[40] APHA APHA Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater Washington DC USA 1998
[41] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater Washington DC USA 2012
[42] ISO 9308-1 2014Water QualitymdashEnumeration of Escherichiacoli and Coliform BacteriamdashPart 1 Membrane FiltrationMethod for Waters with Low Bacterial Background flora ISOGeneva Switzerland 2014
[43] ASTM International ASTM D5176-08 Standard Test Methodfor Total Chemically Bound Nitrogen inWater by Pyrolysis andChemiluminescence Detection West Conshohocken Vol 11West Conshohocken PA USA 2015
[44] ABNT NBR-15411-3 Ecotoxicologia AquaticandashDeterminaccedilatildeodo Efeito Inibitorio de Amostras Aquosas Sobre a Emissatildeo deLuz de Vibrio Fischeri (Ensaio de Bacteria Luminescente)Parte 3 Metodo Utilizando Bacterias Liofilizadas p 23ABNT Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
12 International Journal of Chemical Engineering
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi
wwwhindawicom Volume 2018
Advances in
Multimedia
Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom
[45] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and G Frutos-BlancoldquoSchinopsis balansae tannin-based flocculant in removingsodium dodecyl benzene sulfonaterdquo Separation and Purifi-cation Technology vol 67 no 3 pp 295ndash303 2009
[46] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Manual deOperaccedilatildeo da Unidade de Bancada de MFUF Pam-Membranas Seletivas Ltd Rio de Janeiro Brazil 2012
[47] C Astudillo J Parra S Gonzalez and B Cancino ldquoA newparameter for membrane cleaning evaluationrdquo Separationand Purification Technology vol 73 no 2 pp 286ndash293 2010
[48] L S F Neta A C Habert and C P Borges ldquoCervejaMicrofiltrada Processo e Qualidade Beer MicrofiltrationProcess and Qualityrdquo Brazilian Journal of Food Technologypp 130ndash137 2005
[49] X Shi G Tal N P Hankins and V Gitis ldquoFouling andcleaning of ultrafiltration membranes a reviewrdquo Journal ofWater Process Engineering vol 1 pp 121ndash138 2014
[50] G Zakrzewska-Trznadel ldquoAdvances in membrane technol-ogies for the treatment of liquid radioactive wasterdquo De-salination vol 321 pp 119ndash130 2013
[51] M Zeng A Soric and N Roche ldquoCalibration of hydrody-namic behavior and biokinetics for TOC removal modeling inbiofilm reactors under different hydraulic conditionsrdquo Bio-resource Technology vol 144 pp 202ndash209 2013
[52] T P Delforno A G L Moura D Y Okada andM B A Varesche ldquoEffect of biomass adaptation to thedegradation of anionic surfactants in laundry wastewaterusing EGSB reactorsrdquo Bioresource Technology vol 154pp 114ndash121 2014
[53] P Lens G Zeeman and G L Ettinga Decentralised Sani-tation and Reuse IWA Publishing London UK 2001
[54] G Huang F Meng X Zheng et al ldquoBiodegradation behaviorof natural organic matter (NOM) in a biological aerated filter(BAF) as a pretreatment for ultrafiltration (UF) of riverwaterrdquo Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology vol 90 no 5pp 1795ndash1803 2011
[55] J Beltran-Heredia J Sanchez-Martın and C Gomez-MuntildeozldquoPerformance and characterization of a new tannin-basedcoagulantrdquo Applied Water Science vol 2 no 3 pp 199ndash208 2012
[56] D C Montgomery Design and Analysis of Experiments JohnWiley and Sons New York NY USA 4th edition 1997
[57] T Mohammadi M Kazemimoghadam and M SaadabadildquoModeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverseosmosis during separation of oil in water emulsionsrdquo De-salination vol 157 no 1ndash3 pp 369ndash375 2003
[58] A C Habert C P Borges and R Nobrega Processos deSeparaccedilatildeo por Membranas E-Papers Rio de Janeiro Brazil2006
[59] Y S Li L Yan C B Xiang and L J Hong ldquoTreatment of oilywastewater by organic-inorganic composite tubular ultrafil-tration (UF) membranesrdquo Desalination vol 196 no 1ndash3pp 76ndash83 2006
[60] M Peter-Varbanets F Hammes M Vital and W PronkldquoStabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressureultrafiltrationrdquoWater Research vol 44 no 12 pp 3607ndash36162010
[61] A Y Zahrim N Hilal and C Tizaoui ldquoTubular nanofiltrationof highly concentrated CI Acid Black 210 dyerdquoWater Scienceand Technology vol 67 no 4 pp 901ndash906 2013
[62] X Sun C Wang Y Li W Wang and J Wei ldquoTreatment ofphenolic wastewater by combined UF and NFRO processesrdquoDesalination vol 355 pp 68ndash74 2015
[63] S Mozia M Janus P Brozek et al ldquoA system coupling hybridbiological method with UVO3 oxidation and membraneseparation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundrywastewaterrdquo Environmental Science and Pollution Researchvol 23 no 19 pp 19145ndash19155 2016
[64] Resoluccedilatildeo No 702009ndashCEMA 2009[65] Resoluccedilatildeo Conama 4302011 2011[66] A Sumisha G Arthanareeswaran Y Lukka uyavan
A F Ismail and S Chakraborty ldquoTreatment of laundrywastewater using polyethersulfonepolyvinylpyrollidone ul-trafiltration membranesrdquo Ecotoxicology and EnvironmentalSafety vol 121 pp 174ndash179 2015
