Overall CEL795 Term

Paper Summary Slides

November 15th 2012
 Group members :

Karishma Bhatnagar 2012CEV2274 (Group Leader)

Megha Kanoje 2012CEV2283
Shailvee 2012CEV2273
SreelakshmiBabu 2012CEV2267
MeenakshiKayesth 2011CET3585
 The main objective of this study is to investigate the removal of pesticides by
NF and RO membranes and to study the effect of Membrane characteristics,
Pesticide properties, Feed water and Membrane fouling.
The presentation includes :
Basic information about Nano Filtration and Reverse Osmosis.
Factors affecting the performance of NF/RO system.
Benefits of using NF/RO system over other conventional methods

Nano filtration is a process in which membranes with Nano size pores are used
to separate solutes or salts based on size/and or charge. It can effectively remove
multivalent ions, pesticides, pathogens, hardness and nitrates.

RO membranes are effectively non-porous and thus are very effective in removal of
particles with low molar mass species.
 Summary of factors to be considered while designing a NF/RO system

NF/RO System

Membrane Properties Feed water composition Pesticide Properties

MWCO Water pH Molecular
weight Membrane Porosity Solute Concentration
Molecular Size
Membrane material Ionic Strength Chemical
property Organic matter
Polarity
Study on three different membranes NF90, NF270 and NTR7250 for
removal of Atrazine

Parameters Effects on all three membrane

Feed Concentration Negligible effect
Pressure Retention increased with increased pressure
pH Best retention at 7; reduces at 4 and 10
Humic Acid Rejection increased
Flux decreased
TiO2 Rejection increased
Flux decreased
 Property Comments
Membrane molecular weight Most effective membranes are in range of 200 to 400 Da
cut-off
Membrane porosity Micro-porous membranes are most effective
Membrane material Synthetic organic polymers are more efficient than ceramic
and metallic membranes.
Composite Polyamide (PA) are more effective than
Cellulose Acetate (CA)
Poly Vinyl Alcohol membranes are more effective than
SulfonatedPolyehtesulfone Poly Vinyl Alcohol membranes.

Property Comments
WATER pH Higher pH values - reduced removal rates.
Reason-ion adsorption on membrane surface.
SOLUTE CONCENTRATION No significant effect on removal.
IONIC ENVIRONMENT High ionic concentrations - Better removal.
Reason - reduction in electrostatic forces inside
membrane.
PRESENCE OF ORGANIC Presence of natural OM - Increased removal.
MATTER(OM) Reason - Binding between pesticides and humic
substances.
 Property Comments
Higher the molecular size, higher will
Molecular size
be the rejection
works in positive direction for
Physical Properties Molecular Length removal
of Pesticides of organic compound
Molecular Width Better indicators for removal of
alcohols
Mean molecular Size
and carbohydrates
Higher the sorpotion capacity, higher
Sorption Capacity
will be the rejection
Hydrogen bonding between hydrogen
component of pesticide and hydrogen
Pesticides chemical Hydrogen Bonding component of membranes works in
properties positive direction for removal of
pesticides
hydrophobic interactions are mostly
Hydrophobic
responsible for pesticides adsorption
interactions
on membrane
Pesticide polarity Dipole moment Solute rejection decreases
TANNERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
THROUGH DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
TOXICOLOGICAL EXPOSURE TO THE
ENVIRONMENT

Submitted by:

Nidhi Gera 2011CEV3063

Varsha Singh 2011CEV3064
Swati Sharma 2011CEV3065
Vikas Agrawal 2009TT10835
 introduction
A significant number of operations within a tannery are wet operations consuming large
amounts of water, chemicals and energy and leading to large amounts of polluted water.
The uncontrolled release of tannery effluents to natural water bodies increases health risks
for human beings and environmental pollution. Effluents from raw hide processing
tanneries produce wet blue, finished leather, contain compounds of trivalent chromium
(Cr3+) ,sulphides (S2-) and colour. Organic and other ingredients are responsible for high
BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)and TSS values and
represent an immense pollution load, causing technical problems, sophisticated
technologies and high costs in concern with effluent treatment. Through this term paper
we will demonstrate that by means of a combination of biological and physico-chemical
treatment technologies, complex tannery wastewater can be effectively and efficiently
treated with high reduction rates.
 methodology
Sr. Different Treatment Treatment Technologies
No. Process
1 Primary treatment ( involves Metal Primary settling tank is used for removing almost half of suspended solids.
grating, shortening the retention
time).

2 Secondary treatment activated sludge

• Aerobic Treatment
•Anaerobic Treatment
trickling filter - for biological Treatment
oxidation ponds
Chlorination - applied for disinfection
UASB- for Anaerobic treatment of wastewater converts the organic pollutants
into a small amount of sludge and large amount of biogas as methane and
carbon dioxide

3 Tertiary treatment (involves a - Coagulation

series of additional steps to -
Filtration
further reduce organics, turbidity, -
Activated carbon adsorption of organics Physiochemical Process
N, P, metals, colour and -
Disinfection
pathogens)

4 Sludge Treatment -Thickening

- Digestion
- Dewatering
-Incineration
-Final Disposal
 Results : Different Technologies for effective removal of
pollutants
Sr Technologies
No.
1 Electro coagulation and
Electro-Fenton methods
2 Catalytic oxidation
3 Chemical oxidation using
manganese oxide (IV)
4 Wet Oxidation
5 Galvanostatic electrolysis
6 Batch Settling
7 Constructed wetland
system
Removal of Chromium
8
from Tannery Effluents.
•By Adsorption/Biological/
Chemical techniques
9 Electrodialysis
Efficiency/ Effectiveness (on the basis of data available through experiments)
EF Process is much efficient than the EC process in terms of COD and sulfide removal.
Aeration is required in Catalytic Oxidation of almost 7 n half with 98% removal efficiency of sulfide
to maintain the optimum concentrations of the catalysts. With no catalyst used in the process, the
sulfide removal was found to be 80% effective with an 8-hour aeration period.
The amount of sulphides and the pH of solution have an influence on oxidation process duration; it
is longer when the sulphide amount and pH in WW is higher.
The pre-treatment is favoured by the fact in wet oxidation that it contains high amounts of NaCI:
0.25-4.6%.which reduces the phenolic compound/ ammonium Nitrogen/ oxidation of sulfides.
Higher current densities resulted in a faster COD removal due to a greater electro generation of
active chlorine.
Effective in removal of Suspended solids and Total solids and helps in removal of MLSS.
This study is carried out with Pilot units which is vegetated with plants like Canna indica, Typha
latifolia for surface water/ ground water in which it was shown that horizontal subsurface flow can
be a viable alternative for reducing the organic matter content from tannery wastewater.
-Cr3+ around 98-99% get precipitated as cr (0H) 3. Cr (VI) can be removed by biological treatment.
Cr(VI) concentration decreases until reach nil after 96hr in all isolates except (S46).-
- In Adsorption, chromium removal is controlled by degree of stirring. As rate of stirring increased
the removal.
Dimensional stability of membrane (MTS ,MCS) is used which increases as the polymer affinity for
water decreases.The membranes had higher resistance due to the residual organic matter present
in the effluent, which might have caused the membranes fouling, hindering the transport, and
consequently increasing electric resistance thus helping in removal of color.
 summary
 The extent of pollution created by tanneries required different
biological/chemical /Physical treatment and disposal of effluent wastewater for
effective removal of unwanted toxicological exposure to plants and living
beings.

 Biological treatment methods is a better choice for removal of organic and

certain inorganic content yet the process efficiency is questioned.

 It is generally accepted that anaerobic treatment is less energy intensive and

superior in most respect for the tannery wastewater treatment than the aerobic
treatment.

 The application of combined process of physical or chemical with biological

process to treat tannery wastewater would give satisfactory results compared
to individual treatment processes.
 INTRODUCTION
 Nanotechnology manipulates matter at the nanoscale
(1–100 nm) producing nanoproducts and nanomaterials
-physicochemical properties
 The Woodrow Wilson Database lists- 1015 consumer
products in market incorporating NPs -259 containing
silver nanoparticles (AgNPs)- largest and fastest
growing class of NMs in product applications

Sources of Silver Nanoparticles present in sludge:

 Silver is used as an antimicrobial agent in ointments
and creams.
 Manufacturers add silver nanoparticles to hundreds of
consumer products, including food storage containers,
computer keyboards, cosmetics, pillows, cell phones,
and medical appliances.
 Manufacturers of clothing articles exploit its
antimicrobial property to produce novel items like ‘No
stink socks’.
 Effect of Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs):
Silver is water soluble, unwanted AgNPs are
formed in the sludge produce by sewage treatment
plants.
These antimicrobial nanoparticles could adversely
impact desirable microorganisms that decompose
waste in sewage treatment plants. For instance,
they affect many nitrifying bacteria responsible for
biological oxidation of ammonia with oxygen into
nitrite followed by the oxidation of these nitrite into
nitrates.
Nanosized silver sulphide applied to agricultural
land could oxidize in soils and release toxic silver
ions that kill beneficial soil microorganisms.
Occurrence of bio magnification of silver
nanoparticles along the food chain.
High exposures to silver compounds can cause
Argyria, an irreversible condition in which the
deposition of Ag in the body tissue results in the
skin turning bluish in colour.
 OBJECTIVE

To find the different types of microorganisms which

biosynthesize Silver nanoparticles under controlled
laboratory conditions.
To analyse different factors affecting Silver
nanoparticle synthesis.
To quantify field study and lab studies done on
Silver nanoparticles in the past 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

The term paper was prepared by referring to

journals available on published scientific research
sites like ScienceDirect.
Research papers were thoroughly studied -detailed
analysis was done on our understanding.
DATA
INTERPRETATION:
Microorganisms which biosynthesize Silver nanoparticles
under controlled laboratory conditions

Incubation
Conditions
Name of micro Size of
organisms which Amount NPs
Sl. reduce silver nano of AgNO₃ Temp Time Absorbtion synthesis Referenc
No. particles added (˚C) (Hr) pH (nm) ed (nm) e
1 Shewanella oneidensis 1mM 30 48 410 9±3.5 1
2 Fusarium oxysporum 1mM 72 413 5 to 50 4
3 Escherichia coli 1mM 27 24 390 to 410 35 to 45 6
4 Bacillus subtilis 1mM 40 120 8.5 410 5 to 50 7 & 23
5 Penicillium fellutanum 1mM 5 24 6 430 5 to 25 8
Pseudomonas 0 to 30
6 aeruginosa mg/l 37 24 5-9 425 43 23
0 to 30
7 Micrococcus luteus mg/l 37 24 5-9 425 43 23
0 to 30
8 Bacillus barbaricus mg/l 37 24 5-9 425 43 23
Klebsiella 0 to 30
9 pneumoniae. mg/l 37 24 5-9 425 43 23
Various factors affecting the biosorption and toxicity of silver
nanoparticles
◦ pH
◦ salt concentration
Maximum adsorption and toxicity of AgNPs on bacterial species was
observed at pH 5, and NaCl concentration of <0.5 M but, very less
adsorption was observed at pH 9 and NaCl concentration >0.5 M,
resulting in less toxicity.

It was also seen that Zeta potential plays an important role in

adsorption of nanoparticles by microorganisms.

In our research on the types of study done on silver

nanoparticles it was found that the laboratory work on
concentration of nanoparticles have been widely done in the
past 5 years but the field study on environmental concerns
over harmful effects of AgNPs in the wastewaters has paced in last
three years.
 CEL 795
TERM PAPER

M.Tech ENVIRONMENT
Ist Sem
 TOPIC
REMOVAL OF ARSENIC FROM WATER USING
ADSORPTION AND OXIDATION TECHNIQUES
 SWAGAT DAS 2012CEV2275
GOVIND NARAIN 2012CEV2280
DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY 2012CEV2284
ARNAV KUMAR GUHA 2012CEV2268
NANDAN 2011CEZ8473
FATEMEH ZAHER 2012CE19042


Group Members
1) REMOVAL OF ARSENIC BY SOLAR OXIDATION AND ADSORPTION-
 The removal of arsenic by solar oxidation in individual units (SORAS) is
currently being explored as a possible economic and simple technology to treat
groundwater in Bangladesh and India.
 Light plays the role of accelerating the oxidation of As(III) to As(V), and
also affects the nature of the solid and, hence, its sorptive properties.
 The efficiency of As removal depends on-
 the mechanism of formation of the solid iron (hydr)oxide,
 the rate of As(III) oxidation, and
 the possibility to include As(V) in the growing solid.
 Given enough Fe and alkalinity, As may be removed by the simple dark
flocculation.

2) REMOVAL OF ARSENIC BY OFF-LINE COUPLED ELECTROCAT

OXIDATION AND LIQUID PHASE POLYALYTIC MER BASED RETENTION
(EO-LPR)-
 Electrochemistry and membrane ultrafiltration methods (electro-oxidation and
liquid phase polymer based retention technique, LPR, respectively) were off-line
coupled to remove As(III) inorganic species from aqueous solutions to achieve
an efficient extraction of arsenic species by associating a polymer-assisted
liquid phase retention procedure, based on the As(V) adsorption properties of
cationic water-soluble polymers ,with an electrocatalytic oxidation process of
Methodology studied

As(III) into its more easily removable analogue As(V)
Treatment by the liquid phase polymer based retention technique of aqueous
arsenic solutions previously submitted to an electrocatalytic oxidation to
convert arsenic(III) to arsenic (V) species quantitatively removes hazardous
arsenic from these aqueous solutions.
3) REMOVAL OF ARSENIC BY SAND-ADSORPTION AND ULTRA-
FILTRATION-
 in situ precipitated ferric and manganese binary oxides (FMBO)
adsorption, sand filtration, and ultra-filtration (UF) for arsenic removal
 FMBO shows higher capability of removing arsenic than hydrous ferric
precipitate (HFO) and hydrous manganese oxide (HMO)
 This is ascribed to the combined effects of oxidizing As(III) and
adsorbing As(V) for FMBO. The continuous experiments indicate that
this process is effective for arsenic removal.
 The rate of arsenic adsorbing onto FMBO is fast, and most arsenic is
removed by the sand filter. UF increases the arsenic removal to a
certain extent.

4) REMOVAL OF ARSENIC FROM DRINKING WATER USING

ADSORPTION BY MODIFIED NATURAL ZEOLITE-
 The structure of modified and unmodified clinoptilolite samples from the
Gördes–Manisa deposit was studied. The elemental composition and
specific surface areas of zeolitic samples were also determined.
 Iron concentrations in the solution to modify clinoptilolite play important
role in the arsenate adsorption. However arsenate adsorption kinetics
was slightly affected by them.
 At lower initial arsenate concentration, arsenate exhibited greater
removal rates and best removed when the Fe1-GC was used for
adsorbent. Thus, iron modified zeolite can be used as an efficient and
economic adsorbent for arsenate removal.
5)REMOVAL OF ARSENIC FROM WATER USING PINE LEAVES
 use of Chir pine leaves (Pinus roxburghii) to remove As(V) ions from
aqueous solutions.
 Maximum adsorption has taken place at pH 4.0 while equilibrium was
achieved in 35 min.
 Langmuir, Freundlich, Temkin, Elovich, Dubinin–Radushkevich and Flory–
Huggins isotherm models were used to explain the phenomenon.
 Maximum adsorption capacity of P. roxburghii was 3.27 mg/g that was
compared with the capacities of some previous adsorbents used for arsenic
removal.
 Adsorption mechanism was explored by Pseudo first- and second-order
kinetic models, and it was found that the process followed second order
kinetics. The study concluded that the Chir pine leaves can be a good
adsorbent for removing As(V) from water owing to the fine adsorption
capacity.

6)ARSENIC ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE OF HYDROUS OXIDE

NANOPARTICLES:
 exceptional arsenic removal performance on both As(III) and As(V)species.
 At near neutral pH environment, the maximum adsorption capacity of HCO
nanoparticles is over 170 mg/g on As(III), and 107 mg/g on As(V). Under
very low equilibrium arsenic concentrations,
 the amount of arsenic adsorbed by HCO nanoparticles is over 13 mg/g (Ce
at 10 ~g/L) and over 40 mg/g (Ce at 50 ~g/L).
 Over awide pH range from 3 to 11, HCO nanoparticles demonstrated an
unique capability to readily remove As(III), which was not observed
previously and is beneficial to their applications for water bodies with
various conditions.
 HCO nanoparticles demonstrated fast arsenic removal rate and high
adsorption capability without the need of pre-oxidation and/or pH
adjustment, which is very attractive for their real application.
BIOREMEDIATION FOR THE
REMOVAL OF URANIUM
Submiteed to –Dr. ArunFROM
Kumar
GROUND WATER

Neha Mehta-2012 cev2271

Neeraj Golhani-2012cev2281
Samarpreet Singh- 2012cev 2270
Swati Srivastava- 2012cev3043
 bioremediation is the use of living organisms, primarily microorganisms, to
degrade the environmental contaminants into less toxic forms.
Bioremediation techniques prove to be
 more ecofriendly,
 low cost and easy technique as it uses naturally occurring bacteria and
fungi or plants to degrade or detoxify substances hazardous to human
health and/or the environment.
 The bioremediation techniques prove to be much better in comparison to
conventional remediation methods especially at low concentrations i.e. high
efficiency in detoxifying very dilute effluent and also generate less sludge at
the end of the treatment (minimum ratio of disposable chemical and/or
biological sludge volume).
 OBJECTIVE
 Reduction of uranium present in ground water into less harmful by-
products by using bio-remediation techniques.
 If possible complete removal of uranium from affected water by using
microbes.
 Converting soluble uranium compounds to insoluble forms to treat water
containing uranium.
PATHWAYS OF URANIUM TO WATER-
 Uranium can enter ground water because of its presence in earth’s crust.
Introduction
 Due to radioactive wastes from nuclear industry.
 Due to institutional use of radioisotopes(medicine, industry, agriculture,
research reactors and test facilities)
Methods used
 Bioremediation of uranium through reduction of the metal-
Microbial reduction of soluble U (VI) to insoluble U (IV) plays an
important role in the geochemical cycle of uranium and also serves
as a mechanism for the bioremediation of uranium-contaminated
waters. Enzymatic U (VI) reduction converts dissolved U (VI) to an
extracellular precipitate of the U (IV) mineral uraninite (UO).
Thus this has provided a possible mechanism for the removal of
contaminating uranium from groundwaters.
 Bioremediation through rhizofiltration-
Rhizofiltration is a type of phytoremediation, which refers to the
method of using cultivated plant roots to remediate contaminated
water through absorption, concentration, and precipitation
of pollutants. In this, suitable plants with stable root systems are
supplied with contaminated water to acclimate the plants. These
plants are then transferred to the contaminated site to collect the
contaminants, and once the roots are saturated, they are
harvested.
 Biomineralization-
The term biomineralization refers to the process of production of
minerals by biological organisms. The complex mineral produced
not only includes metallic or mineral part but also organic part of
organism.
 Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of
substances, such as pesticides, or other organic
chemicals in an organism. Bioaccumulation occurs
when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a
rate greater than that at which the substance is
lost.

 Bioremediation of uranium through

biosorption-
Biosorption is a physiochemical process that
occurs naturally in certain biomass which allows it
to passively concentrate and bind contaminants
onto its cellular structure. The chemical tolerance
of microbes to radionuclides/heavy metals rather
than radiation tolerance is therefore preferable for
remediation of metal contamination.
 Reduction of uranium from U (VI) to less toxic, insoluble U (VI) has
been the method of choice for many scientists. Since this reaction
is performed by bacteria, the results are obtained generally at a
fast rate and with more efficiency. Handling bacteria both at lab
scale and in fields is easier as their growth rate is high and short if
optimum conditions are provided. Bacteria and few algae are able
to use a number of metals as electron acceptors e.g. Uranium.
Many a times the change in the redox state alters the toxicity or
solubility of the metals.
 Bioaccumulation processes are under study, for removal of
uranium, and researches show that bioaccumulation processes are
used In acidic medium only.
 application of biosorption by the brown alga in purification of
wastewater for the removal of uranium ions from industrial
wastewaters can be suitable for large-scale exploitation. More
studies are needed to optimize the system from the regeneration
point of view and economic variance
 Adsorption of uranium ions was quite sensitive to pH of the
medium and the maximum biosorption was obtained at acidic pH
Results
between 4.5 and 5.5. Temperature has not a favourable effect on
biosorption capacity of fungal biomass in the range of 5–35 ◦C.
 Rhizofiltration allows in-situ treatment, minimizing disturbance to the
environment. Various plant species have been found to effectively remove toxic
metals such as cadmium, zinc, uranium etc.
Bioremediation can provide final treatment to the contaminated water by
reducing uranium levels upto 20 µg/L which is even lower than the US EPA
guideline.
Limitations-
•cases include where the metal removal by means of algae was not feasible in
practice even though it showed satisfactory results under lab study.
•Sometimes the living organism is able to intake or tolerates uranium upto a
certain concentration only. Beyond which uranium proves toxic to the organism
as well.
•If substantial portion of the U(VI) is strongly associated with the sediments
then it cannot be reduced microbially..
In all the methods , efficiency of processes is highly dependent on pH of the
system, and efficiency may drasticlly reduce in basic or alkaline mediums.
Considering the abundance and diversity of microorganisms in the natural
domain, it is of immense importance to identify and characterize microbial
strains with high metal accumulation capacity and specificity, Understanding
and exploring potential of microbe–metal interaction.
A potential of Biosorption
derived for removal of Arsenic
from contaminated water
The experiment was conducted for banana
peel due to its natural, renewable,
abundance and thus cost effective
biomass.
Maximum efficiency found to be 82% at pH
7, contact time 90 minute, dosage 8g,
temperature 35 degree and 10 mg/L ion
concentration of arsenic.

INTRODUCTION
% removal of As increased with pH of
solution and reached optimum value of 86%
at pH 7.
If pH value is lowered below 7, electrostatic
repulsion between metal ions and H+
increased and removal of As was seen.
If pH is above then 7, electrostatic repulsion
decreases and metal adsorption process
enhances and it is found to be maximum at a
range of 6-8 i.e. at neutral condition.

Effect of pH
% removal increases with the increase in
temperature but upto 35 degree and then
decreases due to breaking down of bond
on the surface of biomass at higher
temperature.

Effect of temperature
Maximum removal is observed at 8 g/L.
It is observed that increase in biosorbent
dose results in increase in the number of
active sites, which lead to increase in the
percentage removal of As ion.
However no significant increase in the
percentage removal was observed with the
increase in biosorbent concentration
beyond 8g/L.

Effect of dosage
At initial stage of removal there is rapid
removal of As ion and later on removal
becomes slow and reaches optimum stage
at 90 minutes. Further time won’t
significantly effect %removal due to the
accumulation arsenic species.

Effect of contact time