Agrivina Abel Novira1, Subriyer Nasir This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.2, and Fitri Hadiah2

1Chemical Engineering Graduate Program, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Sriwijaya, Jl. Srijaya Negara Palembang 30139 South Sumatra Indonesia
2Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Sriwijaya, Jl. Raya Palembang-Prabumulih, Ogan Ilir 30662 Indonesia


 

Received: January 14, 2022
Accepted: May 1, 2022
Publication Date: June 11, 2022

 Copyright The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.


Download Citation: ||https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.202303_26(3).0011  


ABSTRACT


A cylindrical tube shape ceramic filter made from a mixture of the residue catalytic cracking (RCC) unit spent catalyst, natural clay, and gadung (Dioscorea hispida Dennst) starch was employed for produced water (PW) treatment. The parameter of produced water characterized were total dissolved solids (TDS), phenol, and barium concentration. Two types of ceramic filters were made using activated, and non-activated RCC spent catalysts in various compositions. Produced water transferred to the ceramic filter at operating times of 30, 60, 90 min, respectively, and applied pressures into the ceramic filter were set as 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7 kg/cm2 followed by a reverse osmosis (RO) membrane. The results showed that at contact time 90 min and applied pressure 2.7 kg/cm2 ceramic filter D (25% activated RCC, 70% natural clay, 5% gadung starch) could reduce TDS, phenol, and barium by 43.21%, 68.69%, 26.21%, respectively and followed by 86.68% TDS, 82.40% phenol, and 93.33% barium in RO permeate. Different results were obtained using ceramic filter B (70% activated RCC spent catalyst, 25% natural clay, and 5% gadung starch) could reduce TDS, phenol, and barium as 34.11%, 71.84%, and 38.30%, respectively and in RO permeates were 67.93%, 91.77%, and 82.92%, respectively. From these results, activation of the RCC spent catalyst will increase the total removal of TDS, phenol, and barium from PW. The ceramic filter made from the activated RCC spent catalyst could be a pretreatment before RO processes.


Keywords: Ceramic filter, Clay, Produced water, Reverse osmosis, RCC Spent catalyst


REFERENCES


  1. [1] R. Yousef, H. Qiblawey, and M. H. El-Naas, (2020) “Adsorption as a process for produced water treatment: A review" Processes 8(12): 1–22. DOI: 10.3390/pr8121657.
  2. [2] J. Vilcáez, (2020) “Reactive transport modeling of produced water disposal into dolomite saline aquifers: Controls of barium transport" Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 233: 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2020.103600.
  3. [3] E. T. Igunnu and G. Z. Chen, (2014) “Produced water treatment technologies" International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 9(3): 157–177. DOI: 10.1093/ijlct/cts049.
  4. [4] J. M. Dickhout, J. Moreno, P. M. Biesheuvel, L. Boels, R. G. Lammertink, and W. M. de Vos, (2017) “Produced water treatment by membranes: A review from a colloidal perspective" Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 487: 523–534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2016.10.013.
  5. [5] PT Pertamina (Persero) Refinery Unit III. Laporan Keberlanjutan. Tech. rep. Palembang: PT Pertamina (Persero) Refinery Unit III Plaju, 2017, 1–148.
  6. [6] B. Herbudiman, A. Setyaning, and P. Kemala, (2011) “The Use Of Spent Catalyst RCC-15 As Powder On Environmental- Friendly High-Performance Self-Compacting Concrete": 89–94.
  7. [7] H. Elomari, B. Achiou, A. Karim, M. Ouammou, A. Albizane, and J. Bennazha, (2017) “Influence of starch content on the properties of low cost microfiltration membranes" Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies 5(3): 313–319. DOI: 10.1016/j.jascer.2017.06.004.
  8. [8] M. K. Camarillo, J. K. Domen, and W. T. Stringfellow, (2016) “Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment" Journal of Environmental Management 183: 164–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.065.
  9. [9] E. Jang, S. Jeong, and E. Chung, (2017) “Application of three different water treatment technologies to shale gas produced water" Geosystem Engineering 20(2): 104–110. DOI: 10.1080/12269328.2016.1239553.
  10. [10] U. Ipek, (2004) “Phenol removal capacity of RO with and without pre-treatment" Filtration and Separation 41(7): 39–40. DOI: 10.1016/S0015-1882(04)00321-0.
  11. [11] S. Alzahrani, A.W. Mohammad, N. Hilal, P. Abdullah, and O. Jaafar, (2013) “Comparative study of NF and RO membranes in the treatment of produced water-Part I: Assessing water quality" Desalination 315: 18–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.12.004.
  12. [12] A. A. Olajire, (2020) “Recent advances on the treatment technology of oil and gas produced water for sustainable energy industry-mechanistic aspects and process chemistry perspectives" Chemical Engineering Journal Advances 4(October): 1–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2020.100049.
  13. [13] H. P. Shivaraju, H. Egumbo, P. Madhusudan, K. M. Anil Kumar, and G. Midhun, (2019) “Preparation of affordable and multifunctional clay-based ceramic filter matrix for treatment of drinking water" Environmental Technology (United Kingdom) 40(13): 1633–1643. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2018.1430853.
  14. [14] S. Jose, L. Mishra, S. Debnath, S. Pal, P. K. Munda, and G. Basu, (2019) “Improvement of water quality of remnant from chemical retting of coconut fibre through electrocoagulation and activated carbon treatment" Journal of Cleaner Production 210: 630–637. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.011.
  15. [15] M. K. Uddin, (2017) “A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade" Chemical Engineering Journal 308: 438–462. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.029.
  16. [16] A. Amari, H. Gannouni, M. I. Khan, M. K. Almesfer, A. M. Elkhaleefa, and A. Gannouni, (2018) “Effect of structure and chemical activation on the adsorption properties of green clay minerals for the removal of cationic dye" Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 8(11): DOI: 10.3390/app8112302.
  17. [17] S. Nasir and S. Faizal, (2016) “Ceramic Filters And Their Application For Cadmium Removal From Pulp Industry Effluent" International Journal of Technology 5: 786–794.
  18. [18] Z. Karm, A. D. Subhi, and R. S. Hamied, (2020) “Comparison study of produced water treatment using electrocoagulation and adsorption" Revista de Chimie 71(11): 22–29. DOI: 10.37358/RC.20.11.8370.
  19. [19] U. E. Ekpunobi, S. U. Agbo, and V. I. Ajiwe, (2019) “Evaluation of the mixtures of clay, diatomite, and sawdust for production of ceramic pot filters for water treatment interventions using locally sourced materials" Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 7(1): DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2018.11.036.
  20. [20] M. Malakootian, A. H. Mahvi, H. J. Mansoorian, and N. Khanjani, (2018) “Agrowaste based ecofriendly bioadsorbent for the removal of phenol: Adsorption and kinetic study by acacia tortilis pod shell" Chiang Mai Journal of Science 45(1): 355–368.
  21. [21] M. Achak, A. Hafidi, N. Ouazzani, S. Sayadi, and L. Mandi, (2009) “Low cost biosorbent "banana peel" for the removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater: Kinetic and equilibrium studies" Journal of Hazardous Materials 166(1): 117–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.036.
  22. [22] M. Scimeca, S. Bischetti, H. K. Lamsira, R. Bonfiglio, and E. Bonanno, (2018) “Energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) microanalysis: A powerful tool in biomedical research and diagnosis" European Journal of Histochemistry 62(1): 89–99. DOI: 10.4081/ejh.2018.2841.
  23. [23] R. Singh and M. K. Purkait, (2017) “Role of poly(2-acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid) in the modification of polysulfone membranes for ultrafiltration" Journal of Applied Polymer Science 134(37): 1–16. DOI: 10.1002/app.45290.
  24. [24] R. Singh, V. S. Yadav, and M. K. Purkait, (2019) “Cu2O photocatalyst modified antifouling polysulfone mixed matrix membrane for ultrafiltration of protein and visible light driven photocatalytic pharmaceutical removal" Separation and Purification Technology 212: 191–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.029.


    
 

0.9
2021CiteScore
 
 
42nd percentile
Powered by  Scopus

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Enter your name and email below to receive latest published articles in Journal of Applied Science and Engineering.