World Journal of Environmental Engineering
ISSN (Print): 2372-3076 ISSN (Online): 2372-3084 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/wjee Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
World Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2015, 3(4), 126-132
DOI: 10.12691/wjee-3-4-4
Open AccessArticle

Optimization and Modeling of Glyphosate Removal by Nanofiltration at a Pilot Scale, Using Response Surface Methodology

Javier Rigau1 and Hugo Saitua1,

1Facultad de Química, Bioquímica y Farmacia-Universidad Nacional de San Luis, Chacabuco 915, 5700 - San Luis, Argentina

Pub. Date: January 08, 2016

Cite this paper:
Javier Rigau and Hugo Saitua. Optimization and Modeling of Glyphosate Removal by Nanofiltration at a Pilot Scale, Using Response Surface Methodology. World Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2015; 3(4):126-132. doi: 10.12691/wjee-3-4-4

Abstract

The removal of glyphosate by nanofiltration of contaminated water with a glyphosate commercial formulation at a pilot scale was studied. The combined effect of glyphosate concentration in feed [Gly], pH and the transmembrane pressure (TMP) at 20 °C was investigated and optimized for the first time using Response Surface Methodology. The optimum values of these factors were 160 mg/L, 10 and 4 bar respectively. A rejection of glyphosate of 99.6% was estimated and verified under these optimal conditions. Glyphosate remaining in permeate was below the limit established by the U.S. EPA (0.7 mg/L). The acute toxicity tests with fish in permeate showed that the rest of the toxic components of the glyphosate formulation were also removed. The high rejections of glyphosate despite its molecular weight below the molecular weight cut-off of the membrane were related to the combined effect of Donnan Exclusion and Dielectric Exclusion. The adjusted model was adequate with an R2 = 0.96. The linear and quadratic effects of pH and [Gly] factors were statistically significant (pvalue <0.05), as well as the antagonistic interaction between the two factors. The pH was the factor with major effect on rejection, followed by [Gly], the TMP effects were not relevant from the practical point of view.

Keywords:
glyphosate nanofiltration modeling optimization design of experiments response surface methodology

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Coupe, R., Kalkhoff, S., Capel, P., and Gregoire, C., Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basin, Pest. Manag. Sci. 68 16-30, Jun 2012.
 
[2]  Binimelis, R., Pengue, W., and Monterroso, I., Transgenic treadmill: responses to the emergent and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnongrass in Argentina, Geoforum 40 (4) 623-633. Jul 2009.
 
[3]  Sanchis, J., Kantiani, L., Llorca, M., Rubio, F., Ginebreda, A., Fraile, J., Garrido, T., and Farré, M., Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 402 (2) 2335-2345, Aug 2012.
 
[4]  Villeneuve, A., Larroudé, S., and Humbert, J., Herbicide contamination of freshwater ecosystems: impact on microbial communities. Stoytcheva M. Pesticides - Formulations, Effects, Fate. InTech Open. 285-312 Feb 2011 Available: http://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ bioemco-00567203 [Accessed Oct. 27, 2015].
 
[5]  Scribner, E.; Battaglin,W.; Gilliom,R.; Meyer, M., Concentrations of glyphosate, its degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid, and glufosinate in ground- and surface-water, rainfall, and soil samples collected in the United States, 2001-06. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5122, 111 p. Aug 2007 Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5122/index.html [Accessed Oct. 27, 2015].
 
[6]  Mohsen Nourouzi, M., Chuah, T., and Choong, T., Adsorption of glyphosate onto activated carbon derived from waste newspaper, Desalin Water Treat 24 321-326, Jan 2010.
 
[7]  Giesy, J., Dobson, S., and Solomon, K., Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide, Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Springer, New York 167 35-120, 2000 Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-1156-3_2 [Accessed Oct. 27, 2015].
 
[8]  Tsui, M., and Chu, L., Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors, Chemosphere, 52 1189-1197, Aug 2003.
 
[9]  SERA, Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, SERA TR-052-22-03b, 313 p March 2011, Available: http://www.fs.fed.us [Accessed Oct. 27, 2015].
 
[10]  Guyton, K., Loomis, D., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Scoccianti, C., Mattock, H., and Straif, K., Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate, The Lancelet Oncology, 16 (5) 490-491, May 2015.
 
[11]  Xie, M., Liu, Z., and Xu, Y., Removal of glyphosate in neutralization liquor from the glycine-dimethylphosphit process by nanofiltration, J. Hazard. Mater. 181 (1-3), 975-980, Sept 2010.
 
[12]  Xie, M.; Xu, Y. Partial desalination and concentration of glyphosate liquor by nanofiltration, J. Hazard. Mater. 186 (1), 960-964, Feb 2011.
 
[13]  Song, J., Li, X-M., Figoli, A., Huang, H., Pan, C., He, T., and Jiang, B., Composite hollow fiber nanofiltration membranes for recovery of glyphosate from saline wastewater, Water Research, 47 (6) 2065-2074, Jan 2013.
 
[14]  Saitúa, H., Giannini, F., and Perez Padilla, A., Drinking water obtaining by nanofiltration from waters contaminated with glyphosate formulations: Process evaluation by means of toxicity tests and studies on operating parameters, J. Hazard. Mater. 227-228, 204-210, May 2012.
 
[15]  Box, G. and Draper N., Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
 
[16]  Myers, R., Montgomery, M., and Anderson-Cook, C., Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2009.
 
[17]  Box, G., Hunter, J,, and Hunter, W., Statistics for Experimenters, Design, Innovation, and Discovery, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
 
[18]  Johnson, W.; Finley, M. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates: summaries of toxicity tests conducted at Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory, 1965-78. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 98 p. 1980.
 
[19]  Pérez Padilla, A.; Saitua, H., Performance of simultaneous arsenic, fluoride and alkalinity (bicarbonate) rejection by pilot-scale nanofiltration, Desalination 257 16-21, April 2010.
 
[20]  Box, G., and Behnken, D., Some New Three-Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables, Technometrics 2(4) 455-475, 1960.
 
[21]  Montgomery, D. and Runger, G. Probabilidad y Estadística Aplicadas a la Ingeniería, McGraw-Hill, México, 1996.
 
[22]  Yaroshchuk, A. Non-steric mechanisms of nanofiltration: Superposition of Donnan and dielectric exclusion. Sep. Purif. Technol., 22-23 143-158, Mar 2001.
 
[23]  Vezzani, D.; Bandini, S. Donnan equilibrium and dielectric exclusion for characterization of nanofiltration membranes. Desalination, 149 477-483, Sept 2002.
 
[24]  A. Szymczyk, P. Fievet, Investigating transport properties of nanofiltration membranes by means of a steric, electric and dielectric exclusion model, J. Membr. Sci. 252 77-88, Apr 2005.
 
[25]  Braeken L, Ramaekers R, Zhang Y, Maes G, Van der Bruggen B, and Vandecasteele C. Influence of hydrophobicity on retention in nanofiltration of aqueous solutions containing organic compounds, J. Membr. Sci. 252 (1-2) 195-203, Apr 2005.
 
[26]  Childress, A., and Elimelech, M., Effect of solution chemistry on the surface charge of polymeric reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes, J.Membr. Sci. 119 253-268, Oct 1996.
 
[27]  Childress, A., and Elimelech, M., Relating nanofiltration membrane performance to membrane charge (electrokinetic) characteristics, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 3710-3716, Jul 2000.
 
[28]  Nghiem, L., Schäfer, A., and Elimelech, M., Role of electrostatic interactions in the retention of pharmaceutically active contaminants by a loose nanofiltration membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 286 52-59, Dec 2006.
 
[29]  Zhao, K., and Ni, G., Dielectric analysis of nanofiltration membrane in electrolyte solutions: Influences of permittivity of wet membrane and volume charge density on ion permeability, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 661 226-238, Oct 2011.
 
[30]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National. Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004. 2009, Available: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ [Accessed Oct. 27, 2015].