Next Article in Journal
Preparation of Molecularly Imprinted Magnetic Stir Bar for Bisphenol A and Its Analysis on Trace Bisphenol A in Actual Water Samples
Next Article in Special Issue
Biopolymer Gellan-Gum-Based TiO2: A Green Alternative Photocatalyst Approach for Removal of Pollutants
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Coupling Relationship between Carbon Emission from Sewage Treatment and Economic Development in Industrial Parks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/w15193360
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating the Efficacy of Oily Water Treatment at a De-Oiling Facility in the Northern Industrial Center of CINA, Hassi Messaoud: A Statistical Physics Assessment

by
Asma Nour El Houda Sid
1,
Fedoua Mokrane
2,
Mimoune Hadj
3,
Nihad Chagour
4,
Amira Atamnia
4,
Meriem Boudoukhani
5,
Hichem Tahraoui
6,7,*,
Mohammed Kebir
8,
Jie Zhang
9 and
Abdeltif Amrane
10,*
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Processes, University of Salah Boubnider Constantine 3, Constantine 25000, Algeria
2
SONATRACH XP DP, Hassi R’mel 03000, Algeria
3
Department of Refening, Faculty of Hydrocarbons and Chemistry, University Boumerdes, Boumerdes 35000, Algeria
4
Department of Engineering Processes, Faculty of Technology, University of 20 Aout 1955, Skikda 21000, Algeria
5
LME—Material and Environmental Laboratory, University of Medea, Medea 26001, Algeria
6
Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés Chimiques, Department of Process Engineering, University of Ferhat Abbas, Setif 19000, Algeria
7
Laboratory of Biomaterials and Transport Phenomena, University of Medea, Medea 26000, Algeria
8
Research Unit on Analysis and Technological Development in Environment (URADTE-CRAPC), Bou-Ismail 42000, Algeria
9
School of Engineering, Merz Court, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
10
Univ Rennes, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Rennes, CNRS, ISCR—UMR6226, F-35000 Rennes, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(19), 3360; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193360
Submission received: 1 September 2023 / Revised: 19 September 2023 / Accepted: 21 September 2023 / Published: 25 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Control and Treatment of Emerging Contaminants in Water Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental protection is becoming a primary objective when choosing processes and technologies for treating oily waters resulting from hydrocarbon production. The focus of treating oily waters is to eliminate contaminants from effluents before discharging them into the receiving environment while adhering to discharge standards. Our work aims to analyze the treatment process for oily waters in the API unit of the North Industrial Center (CINA), which involves a physical–chemical treatment using activated silica and Kurifix. The study aims to improve the treatment process used for oily water treatment to ensure water conservation for reuse. To enhance the CINA-HMD oily water treatment process, we created coagulants with different doses (C1–C6) using sodium silicate, activated silicate (sodium silicate + sulfuric acid), distilled water, Kurifix, and an oxygen scavenger while measuring pH, HC (hydrocarbon), and SS (suspended solids) levels. Coagulation and flocculation processes were used to remove suspended solids and hydrocarbons from the water. The results show that the coagulant used reduces suspended matter and hydrocarbon content and increases pH. The best treatment is achieved with a coagulant prepared with distilled water, 5% sodium silicate, and 2% sulfuric acid. The optimal dose of coagulant is 16 ppm. Automatic dosing provides better efficiency than manual dosing. The study recommends continuous verification of chemical preparation and injection, periodic cleaning of settling tanks, and monitoring of oily water entering the station.

1. Introduction

For a long time, water has been considered a natural resource, a “gift from the sky” that is easy to exploit, cheap, and almost valueless [1,2]. However, the spectacular evolution of urban and industrial environments has made the issue of water increasingly worrying in many countries [3,4,5]. Since the discovery of oil and natural gas, humans have sought to exploit their potential and have begun to develop and implement large industrial complexes to process oil and gas and transfer them to other materials that can be used in various fields [6,7,8]. During their production and refining operations, the oil and petrochemical industries generate significant amounts of oily water loaded with various types of pollutants such as organic, mineral, and physical matter [9,10,11]. The discharge of such effluents into the environment is the cause of numerous surface and groundwater contaminations, soil erosion, disturbance of the ecosystem, and risks to human health [12,13,14].
In fact, environmental protection has become a major issue in economic development [15]. Through global awareness, polluting emissions, industrial waste, water contamination, climate disruptions, and health impacts are now sensitive topics in which the oil industry is often accused [16,17]. Water treatment is the process of improving the quality of water to make it safe and suitable for its intended use. Water treatment involves a series of physical, chemical, and biological processes to remove contaminants, such as suspended solids, organic matter, bacteria, viruses, and minerals from water; the type and extent of the treatment required depend on the source of water, the intended use, and the regulatory standards for water quality [3,18,19,20]. Water treatment typically involves several stages, including coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, [21,22,23] flotation, biological treatment, membrane separation technology, combined technologies, advanced oxidation processes, and sometimes additional treatment steps, such as reverse osmosis, ion exchange, or activated carbon treatment [24]. Coagulation and flocculation involve adding chemicals, such as coagulants and flocculants, to the water to cause particles and impurities to clump together and form larger particles that can be more easily removed [25,26]. Sedimentation involves allowing the larger particles to settle to the bottom of a tank or basin so that the clearer water can then be drawn off from the top [27,28]. Filtration involves passing the water through layers of sand, gravel, or other media to remove the remaining particles and impurities [29]. Disinfection involves adding chemicals, such as chlorine or ozone, to kill bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms [30]. Disinfection involves adding chemicals, such as chlorine or ozone, to remove bacteria or radionuclides [31]. Overall, SONATRACH’s commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development is a reflection of its long-term vision and strategy to balance economic growth with social and environmental responsibility. By implementing a comprehensive environmental management system and working closely with stakeholders, the company aims to minimize its impact on the environment and contribute to a sustainable future for all.
The use of activated silica and Kurifix in the treatment process is founded on their remarkable capability to efficiently eliminate pollutants from oily water [32]. These substances have proven to be highly effective in remediation efforts due to their unique properties and mechanisms of action. Activated silica, also known as activated silica gel or activated silica adsorbent, is a porous material that possesses a large surface area and a high affinity for hydrophobic compounds; when added to oily water, activated silica acts as an adsorbent, attracting and binding to organic contaminants such as oil and grease [33]. This process helps to separate the pollutants from the water, resulting in cleaner and clearer effluent. Kurifix, on the other hand, is a specific type of coagulant commonly used in the treatment of oily water. It works by destabilizing and aggregating fine particles and emulsified oil droplets, allowing them to form larger flocs or clumps. These clumps can then be more easily separated from the water through processes such as sedimentation or filtration [34]. Kurifix’s coagulation properties help to enhance the overall efficiency of the treatment process, facilitating the removal of contaminants and improving the quality of the treated water [35]. By incorporating activated silica and Kurifix into the treatment process, operators can effectively target and remove the contaminants present in oily water. This not only helps to meet regulatory standards for discharged water quality but also contributes to environmental conservation efforts by minimizing the release of harmful substances into natural ecosystems. The use of these substances underscores the importance of advanced treatment techniques and underscores the commitment to sustainable water management practices [36].
The coagulation and flocculation processes work through several mechanisms. Firstly, the coagulant neutralizes the negative charges on suspended particles, allowing them to come closer together and form flocs [37,38,39]. Secondly, the process of flocculation helps to increase the size and weight of the flocs, making them settle more rapidly during subsequent sedimentation or filtration steps [40,41,42,43].
Overall, the coagulation and flocculation processes are fundamental in the removal of suspended solids and hydrocarbons from water. They are integral components of many water treatment systems and are crucial for achieving the desired water quality standards, protecting the environment, and ensuring the safety of water resources for various applications [44,45,46,47].
Many studies in the literature have discussed the use of coagulants and flocculants in the de-oiling process. Pan et al. [48] found that the degreasing effectiveness of polyanionic cellulose (PAC) and polyacrylamide (PAM) in treating tightly emulsified oily wastewater is compromised due to the inadequate sedimentation of these flocs, resulting in a lower efficiency compared with treating regular emulsions. Bruno et al. [49] optimized the results of a jar test by evaluating a continuous bench-scale plant designed for treating challenging slop wastewater. Chaouch and Chaouki [50] cited that the application of a coagulant consisting of an activated silicate blended with sulfuric acid, along with the use of Kurifix as a flocculant, yields encouraging outcomes in the treatment process. Sellami et al. [51] found that the substantial 5 cm thick layer of dune sand, along with the presence of fine particles, effectively eliminates the majority of the remaining oil. The results of Al Battashi et al. [52] showed that using ceramic membrane (100 nm pore size) managed to completely remove oil from produced water for high and low oil-in-water concentrations. This study introduces innovation by improving the oily water treatment process in order to conserve and reuse water resources. It uses coagulation and flocculation with a proprietary coagulant blend, resulting in lower suspended particles, lower hydrocarbon content, and higher pH. The study emphasizes continuous monitoring, tank maintenance, and vigilant water quality assessment, distinguishing it as an innovative contribution to environmental protection and resource conservation.
The study aims to improve oily water treatment for water conservation. It uses coagulation and flocculation to reduce suspended solids and hydrocarbons while increasing the pH. The ideal coagulant is 5% sodium silicate and 2% sulfuric acid in distilled water with 16 ppm dosage. Automatic dosing is more efficient than manual. The study recommends continuous process monitoring, tank cleaning, and quality checks for incoming oily water.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals

In order to enhance the treatment process implemented at the CINA-HMD oily water treatment unit, several coagulants based on sodium silicate were prepared. These coagulants were formulated using a combination of activated silicate (sodium silicate + sulfuric acid), distilled water, Kurifix CP 606 (a commercial product) (Netsun Korea Company, Seoul, Republic of Korea), and an oxygen scavenger. The activated silica refers to a silica-based material that is used as a coagulant in the oily water treatment process. It is essential in the removal of suspended solids and hydrocarbons from water. Another component used in the treatment process is “Kurifix”, which is used in conjunction with activated silica. These substances work together to improve the overall efficiency of the coagulation and flocculation processes that are required for treating and remediating oily water. The specific recommendations and proportions for each component are detailed in Table 1 provided.

2.2. Methods

The water sample to be treated is taken from the outlet of the tri-phase tank of the oily water treatment unit CINA (Northern Industrial Center of the Production Division of SONATRACH-HMD (National Company for Research, Production, Transportation, Transformation, and Marketing of Hydrocarbons, Hassi Messaoud)). A control sample after final treatment by the CINA unit was taken and analyzed in the laboratory in order to compare it with our proposed treatment tests.
To prepare a solution, first weigh 0.1 g of Kurifix. Then, transfer the solid into a 100 mL volumetric flask, using a funnel if necessary. Rinse the funnel and watch glass with distilled water, allowing the rinse water to flow into the flask. Fill the flask with distilled water up to about 3/4 of its volume. Agitate the flask to accelerate the dissolution of the solid and homogenize the solution. Add more distilled water until the solution reaches the calibration mark and adjust precisely to the mark using a dropper with distilled water. Finally, place the flask on a magnetic stirrer to accelerate the dissolution of the solute and homogenize the solution.
The methodology uses a methodical process to establish the ideal concentration of activated silica. Initially, the jar test method was used to disperse equal amounts of the oily water sample into five 800 mL beakers. Then, each beaker received progressive additions of six previously prepared coagulant solutions (4 mL, 8 mL, 12 mL, 16 mL, and 20 mL). After 1 min of vigorous agitation at 100–150 rpm, 1 mL of Kurifix was added and the stirring speed was reduced to 25–30 rpm to encourage floc formation. Decantation, also known as stopping agitation, is the act of letting the flocs to spontaneously settle for 30 to 45 min. In order to effectively treat the oily water samples and achieve the necessary water quality characteristics, the ideal concentration of activated silica was then established based on the intended criteria, including hydrocarbon (HC) reduction, suspended solids (SS) removal, and pH correction.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. pH Results

pH is a measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution. It is defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in the solution [53]. pH plays an important role in many chemical and biological processes, such as enzyme activity, cell metabolism, and the solubility of minerals and nutrients in soil [54].
According to the results (Table 2), it is noted that the variation in pH at the inlet and outlet of the API unit does not comply with the required standards (ISO 14001).

3.2. HC Results

Hydrocarbons are organic compounds composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms. They are the primary constituents of crude oil and other petroleum products and are commonly found in oily water. Hydrocarbons can be classified into two major types: aliphatic and aromatic. Aliphatic hydrocarbons are chains of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms attached to them, whereas aromatic hydrocarbons are cyclic molecules with alternating double bonds between carbon atoms [31]. In oily water, hydrocarbons can have a range of negative impacts on the environment, including toxicity to aquatic organisms, bioaccumulation in the food chain, and contamination of drinking water sources [55]. Hydrocarbons are also highly flammable and can pose a risk of fire and explosion if not properly handled [56]. Therefore, the accurate identification and quantification of hydrocarbons in oily water is essential for effective pollution control and environmental management.
The table below (Table 3) provides some results (in terms of HC content) of the water analysis.

3.3. Suspended Solids Results

Suspended solids are a common problem in the treatment of oily waters. Suspended solids can include organic and inorganic particles as well as non-dissolved oils. If these materials are not effectively removed from the water flow, they can cause problems such as pipe blockages, equipment wear, and a decrease in the overall effectiveness of water treatment. Common methods for removing suspended solids in oily waters include filtration, gravity separation, flotation, and the use of chemicals to coagulate or flocculate the suspended solids. Each treatment method can be adapted to meet the specific needs of each application, depending on the quantity and nature of the suspended solids present in the water. In general, the choice of treatment method will depend on the complexity of the suspended solids, the concentration of oil and other contaminants, as well as the quantity of water to be treated. Table 4 presents the analysis of TSS (total suspended solids) of water at the inlet and outlet (API). The samples before the injection of the coagulant are presented in Figure 1.
The concentration of activated silica can have a significant impact on the treatment of oily waters. Activated silica, also known as fumed silica, is a finely divided form of silicon dioxide that is commonly used as a coagulant aid in water treatment processes. When added to oily water, activated silica can help to destabilize and coagulate suspended solids, allowing them to be more easily removed from the water.
The effectiveness of activated silica as a coagulant aid is highly dependent on its concentration. If the concentration of activated silica is too low, it may not be able to effectively coagulate the suspended solids in the water. On the other hand, if the concentration of activated silica is too high, it can lead to excessive coagulation and the formation of large flocs that can be difficult to separate from the water (see Figure 2).

3.4. Water Treatment by Coagulation

3.4.1. Coagulant 1

The results of the study on the influence of the dose of coagulant C1 on the treatment process are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3 represents the evolution of the suspended solids (SS) rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH as a function of the dose of coagulant C1.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C1 on the pH, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate.
The first statement indicates that the addition of 8 mL of coagulant C1 caused an increase in pH from 5.27 to 6.04. This suggests that coagulant C1 may act as a pH regulator and can be used to adjust the pH of the system to the desired level.
The second statement highlights the effect of coagulant C1 on the elimination of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content decreased by 15.2 ppm at a dose of 4 mL of coagulant C1 and continued to decrease with increasing doses, reaching 5.4 ppm at 20 mL of coagulant C1. This indicates that coagulant C1 can be effective in reducing hydrocarbon contamination in the system.
The third statement reveals that a dose of 4 mL of coagulant C1 caused a significant reduction in the SS rate from 417 to 37 ppm. This indicates that coagulant C1 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids and organic matter in the system, leading to improved water quality.
Overall, these observations suggest that coagulant C1 can be a useful tool for managing water quality by regulating pH, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate.

3.4.2. Coagulant 2

Figure 4 represents the evolution of the suspended solids (SS) rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH as a function of the dose of coagulant C2.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C2 on the pH, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate.
The first statement indicates that different doses of coagulant C2 can increase the pH of the system from 5.36 to 5.82. This suggests that coagulant C2 may be used as a pH regulator to adjust the pH level to an optimal range.
The second statement highlights the effectiveness of coagulant C2 in reducing the hydrocarbon content in the system. At a dose of 4 mL of coagulant C2, the hydrocarbon content decreased by 18.6 ppm; this reduction continued as the dose was increased, reaching 7.1 ppm at 20 mL of coagulant C2. This indicates that coagulant C2 can be effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination from the system.
The third statement reveals that a dose of 8 mL of coagulant C2 led to a significant reduction in the SS rate, from 417 to 52 ppm. This suggests that coagulant C2 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids and organic matter in the system, leading to improved water quality.
In summary, coagulant C2 can be a useful tool for managing water quality by adjusting the pH level, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate. The findings from these observations can be used to determine the optimal dose of coagulant C2 needed to achieve the desired water quality goals.

3.4.3. Coagulant 3

Figure 5 represents the evolution of the suspended solids (SS) rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH as a function of the dose of coagulant C3.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C3 on the pH, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate.
The first statement indicates that the addition of 8 mL of coagulant C3 resulted in a significant increase in the pH level from 5.27 to 6.11. This suggests that coagulant C3 can be an effective pH regulator to adjust the pH level of the system to an optimal range.
The second statement highlights the effectiveness of coagulant C3 in reducing the hydrocarbon content in the system. At a dose of 4 mL of coagulant C3, the hydrocarbon content decreased by 25.2 ppm; this reduction continued as the dose was increased, reaching 11.7 ppm at 16 mL of coagulant C3. This indicates that coagulant C3 can be effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination from the system.
The third statement reveals that a dose of 16 mL of coagulant C3 led to a significant reduction in the SS rate from 417 to 45 ppm. This suggests that coagulant C3 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids and organic matter in the system, leading to improved water quality.
In summary, coagulant C3 can be a useful tool for managing water quality by adjusting the pH level, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate. The findings from these observations can be used to determine the optimal dose of coagulant C3 needed to achieve the desired water quality goals.

3.4.4. Coagulant 4

Figure 6 represents the evolution of suspended solids (SS) rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH as a function of the dose of coagulant C4.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C4 on the pH level, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate in a water treatment system.
The first statement indicates that adding 4 mL of coagulant C4 caused an increase in pH from 5.27 to 5.95. This suggests that coagulant C4 has the potential to act as a pH regulator, raising the pH level of the system to an optimal range.
The second statement highlights the effectiveness of coagulant C4 in reducing the hydrocarbon content in the system. At a dose of 4 mL, the hydrocarbon content decreased by 12.3 ppm; this reduction continued as the dose was increased, reaching 5.6 ppm at 16 mL of coagulant C4. This indicates that coagulant C4 can be effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination from the water treatment system.
The third statement reveals that adding 4 mL of coagulant C4 resulted in a significant reduction in the SS rate from 417 to 58 ppm. This suggests that coagulant C4 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids and organic matter in the system, leading to improved water quality.
In summary, coagulant C4 can be an effective treatment agent for managing water quality by adjusting the pH level, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate. These findings can be used to determine the optimal dose of coagulant C4 needed to achieve the desired water quality goals in the water treatment system.

3.4.5. Coagulant 5

Figure 7 represents the evolution of the SS rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH as a function of the dose of coagulant C5.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C5 on the pH level, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate in a water treatment system.
The first statement indicates that adding 16 mL of coagulant C5 caused an increase in pH from 5.27 to 5.91. This suggests that coagulant C5 can act as a pH regulator and can raise the pH level of the system.
The second statement highlights the effectiveness of coagulant C5 in reducing the hydrocarbon content in the system. At a dose of 4 mL, the hydrocarbon content decreased by 14.7 ppm; this reduction continued as the dose was increased, reaching 5.1 ppm at 16 mL of coagulant C5. This indicates that coagulant C5 can be effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination from the water treatment system.
The third statement reveals that adding 16 mL of coagulant C5 resulted in a significant reduction in the SS rate from 417 to 25 ppm. This suggests that coagulant C5 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids and organic matter in the system, leading to improved water quality.
In summary, coagulant C5 can be an effective treatment agent for managing water quality by adjusting the pH level, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate. These findings can be used to determine the optimal dose of coagulant C5 needed to achieve desired water quality goals in the water treatment system.

3.4.6. Coagulant 6

Figure 8 represents the evolution of the suspended solids (SS) rate, hydrocarbon content, and pH according to the dose of coagulant C6.
The given statements describe the impact of coagulant C6 on the pH level, hydrocarbon content, and SS rate in a water treatment system.
The first statement indicates that adding 16 mL of coagulant C6 resulted in a moderate increase in pH from 5.27 to 5.70. This suggests that coagulant C6 can act as a pH regulator and slightly raise the pH level of the system.
The second statement highlights the effectiveness of coagulant C6 in reducing the hydrocarbon content in the system. At a dose of 4 mL, the hydrocarbon content decreased by 11.7 ppm; this reduction continued as the dose was increased, reaching 4.2 ppm at 12 mL and 20 mL of coagulant C6. This indicates that coagulant C6 can be effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination from the water treatment system.
The third statement reveals that adding 20 mL of coagulant C6 resulted in a significant reduction in the SS rate from 417 to 63 ppm. This suggests that coagulant C6 can effectively reduce the concentration of suspended solids in the system, leading to improved water quality.
In summary, coagulant C6 can be an effective treatment agent for managing water quality by slightly adjusting the pH level, reducing hydrocarbon contamination, and lowering the SS rate. These findings can be used to determine the optimal dose of coagulant C6 needed to achieve desired water quality goals in the water treatment system.
Through this analysis of each coagulant, we understand that:
  • For each preparation, the treatment efficiency depends on the dose of the coagulant, as shown in the table below (Table 5).
It is important to carefully optimize the concentration of activated silica in oily water treatment processes to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency. This can be achieved through laboratory testing and experimentation, as well as through careful monitoring of the treatment process parameters, such as pH, temperature, and mixing intensity. By properly controlling the concentration of activated silica, it is possible to achieve effective and efficient removal of suspended solids from oily waters while minimizing the use of chemical coagulants and reducing the overall treatment costs.

4. Conclusions

Given the significant discharge of polluted water from various crude oil treatment processes, the operation of purifying effluents is a primary objective to ensure substantial water conservation for reuse. The policy of preserving the environment established by the minimum concentration standards of components (pollutants and contaminants, etc.) always remains the limit not to exceed.
The treatment of oily water for reinjection aims to reduce the maximum suspended solids and hydrocarbons that they carry to make them compliant with the required specifications. To remove these particles, coagulation and flocculation processes are used, followed by a settling stage.
The oily waters treated at the API CINA unit are characterized by a slightly acidic pH, a high level of suspended solids (SS), and significant hydrocarbon content. Treatment tests by coagulation–flocculation and settling showed that the coagulant used removes suspended matter from the crude effluent, reduces its hydrocarbon content, and increases its pH.
The best treatment result is achieved with a coagulant prepared with distilled water, a concentration of 5% (4 mL) of sodium silicate, and a concentration of 2% (0.45 mL) of sulfuric acid.
The optimal dose of coagulant for ensuring the maximum treatment corresponds to 16 ppm. The automatic dosing mode provides better efficiency in the treatment scheme compared with the old manual dosing method. Finally, we propose some recommendations and suggestions that we consider useful:
  • The continuous verification of the preparation and injection of activated silica.
  • The continuous verification of the preparation and injection of Kurifix.
  • The periodic cleaning of the API settling tank.
  • The instantaneous monitoring of oily water entering the station.
  • The verification and cleaning of pumps and chemical injection circuits.
  • The draining of the DGF (dissolved gas filter) or IGF (induced gas filter) tanks.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N.E.H.S., F.M. and H.T.; methodology, M.H., M.K. and A.A. (Amira Atamnia); validation, A.N.E.H.S., N.C., J.Z., M.H. and F.M.; formal analysis, N.C., M.K. and H.T.; investigation, A.N.E.H.S.; resources, F.M. and M.H.; data curation, A.N.E.H.S., M.B. and H.T.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N.E.H.S. and F.M.; writing—review and editing, A.A. (Amira Atamnia), M.B., H.T., J.Z. and M.B.; visualization, A.A. (Abdeltif Amrane), and M.K.; supervision, M.H., A.N.E.H.S. and F.M.; project administration, M.H. and A.A. (Abdeltif Amrane). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all who assisted in conducting this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rowe, A. Evaluation of natural resource interventions. Am. J. Eval. 2012, 33, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pradinaud, C.; Northey, S.; Amor, B.; Bare, J.; Benini, L.; Berger, M.; Boulay, A.-M.; Junqua, G.; Lathuillière, M.J.; Margni, M.; et al. Defining freshwater as a natural resource: A framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 960–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cosgrove, W.J.; Loucks, D.P. Water management: Current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 4823–4839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Molle, F.; Wester, P.; Hirsch, P. River basin closure: Processes, implications and responses. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Verhoeven, H. The politics of African energy development: Ethiopia’s hydro-agricultural state-building strategy and clashing paradigms of water security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2013, 371, 20120411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lujala, P. The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources. J. Peace Res. 2010, 47, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Van Der Ploeg, F.; Poelhekke, S. The impact of natural resources: Survey of recent quantitative evidence. In Why Does Development Fail in Resource Rich Economies; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sid, A.N.E.H.; Tahraoui, H.; Kebir, M.; Bezzekhami, M.A.; Kouini, B.; Hassein-Bey, A.H.; Selma, T.; Amrane, A.; Imessaoudene, A.; Mouni, L. Comparative Investigation of the Effect of EggshellPowder and Calcium Carbonate as Additivesin Eco-Friendly Polymer Drilling Fluids. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bhattacharyya, A.; Liu, L.; Lee, K.; Miao, J. Review of Biological Processes in a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR): Effects of Wastewater Characteristics and Operational Parameters on Biodegradation Efficiency When Treating Industrial Oily Wastewater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jain, M.; Majumder, A.; Ghosal, P.S.; Gupta, A.K. A review on treatment of petroleum refinery and petrochemical plant wastewater: A special emphasis on constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mokif, L.A.; Jasim, H.K.; Abdulhusain, N.A. Petroleum and oily wastewater treatment methods: A mini review. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 49, 2671–2674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chowdhary, P.; Bharagava, R.N.; Mishra, S.; Khan, N. Role of industries in water scarcity and its adverse effects on environment and human health. In Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development: Volume 1: Air, Water and Energy Resources; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 235–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Garg, S.; Chowdhury, Z.Z.; Faisal, A.N.M.; Rumjit, N.P.; Thomas, P. Impact of industrial wastewater on environment and human health. In Advanced Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation of Water: Comparative Study of Water Pollution Index during Pre-Industrial, Industrial Period and Prospect of Wastewater Treatment for Water Resource Conservation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karri, R.R.; Ravindran, G.; Dehghani, M.H. Wastewater—Sources, toxicity, and their consequences to human health. In Soft Computing Techniques in Solid Waste and Wastewater Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 3–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paramati, S.R.; Sinha, A.; Dogan, E. The significance of renewable energy use for economic output and environmental protection: Evidence from the Next 11 developing economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 13546–13560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Manisalidis, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Stavropoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hughes, J.; Cowper-Heays, K.; Olesson, E.; Bell, R.; Stroombergen, A. Impacts and implications of climate change on wastewater systems: A New Zealand perspective. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 31, 100262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yin, C.-Y. Emerging usage of plant-based coagulants for water and wastewater treatment. Process Biochem. 2010, 45, 1437–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Qu, X.; Alvarez, P.J.; Li, Q. Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2013, 47, 3931–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Brix, H. Wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands: System design, removal processes, and treatment performance. In Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 9–22. [Google Scholar]
  21. Colla, V.; Branca, T.A.; Rosito, F.; Lucca, C.; Vivas, B.P.; Delmiro, V.M. Sustainable reverse osmosis application for wastewater treatment in the steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 130, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Saleh, T.A. Protocols for synthesis of nanomaterials, polymers, and green materials as adsorbents for water treatment technologies. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mujeriego, R.; Asano, T. The role of advanced treatment in wastewater reclamation and reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yu, L.; Han, M.; He, F. A review of treating oily wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S1913–S1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Iwuozor, K.O. Prospects and challenges of using coagulation-flocculation method in the treatment of effluents. Adv. J. Chem.-Sect. A 2019, 2, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, C.S.; Robinson, J.; Chong, M.F. A review on application of flocculants in wastewater treatment. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2014, 92, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Thanappan, S. Waste water (Sewage) Treatments. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2021, 2, 405–413. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, L.K.; Wang, M.-H.S.; Shammas, N.K.; Hahn, H.H. Physicochemical treatment consisting of chemical coagulation, precipitation, sedimentation, and flotation. In Integrated Natural Resources Research; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 265–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Santhmayor, K.D.; Shiri, N.D.; Asiya, I.; Krafft, M.S.; Thurm, W. Development of water filtration unit for wastewater generated from waste plastics recycling machines. AIP Conf. Proc. 2020, 2236, 050009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ghernaout, D.; Ghernaout, B. From chemical disinfection to electrodisinfection: The obligatory itinerary? Desalination Water Treat. 2010, 16, 156–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abbasian, F.; Lockington, R.; Mallavarapu, M.; Naidu, R. A comprehensive review of aliphatic hydrocarbon biodegradation by bacteria. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2015, 176, 670–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sellami, M.; Benhabireche, F.; Frouhat, H. Chemical Treatment Process and Reuse of Oily-Waters arising from Petroleum Field of HBK/Algeria. Int. J. Waste Resour. 2017, 6, 1000255. [Google Scholar]
  33. Karnib, M.; Kabbani, A.; Holail, H.; Olama, Z. Heavy metals removal using activated carbon, silica and silica activated carbon composite. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhu, H.; Liang, C.; Yan, W.; Overbury, S.H.; Dai, S. Preparation of highly active silica-supported Au catalysts for CO oxidation by a solution-based technique. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 10842–10848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Nardi, I.; Del Nery, V.; Amorim, A.; Dos Santos, N.; Chimenes, F. Performances of SBR, chemical–DAF and UV disinfection for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater reclamation. Desalination 2011, 269, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Igoud, S.; Zeriri, D.; Boutra, B.; Mameche, A.; Benzegane, Y.; Belloula, M.; Benkara, L.; Aoudjit, L.; Sebti, A. Compared efficiency of sustainable and conventional treatments of saline oily wastewater rejected by petroleum industry in Algerian Sahara. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2022, 40, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kurniawan, S.B.; Imron, M.F.; Chik, C.E.N.C.E.; Owodunni, A.A.; Ahmad, A.; Alnawajha, M.M.; Rahim, N.F.M.; Said, N.S.M.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Kasan, N.A. What compound inside biocoagulants/bioflocculants is contributing the most to the coagulation and flocculation processes? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tahraoui, H.; Belhadj, A.-E.; Hamitouche, A.; Bouhedda, M.; Amrane, A. Predicting the Concentration of Sulfate (SO42-) in Drinking Water Using Artificial Neural Networks: A Case Study: Médéa-Algeria. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 217, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tahraoui, H.; Belhadj, A.-E.; Amrane, A.; Houssein, E.H. Predicting the Concentration of Sulfate Using Machine Learning Methods. Earth Sci. Inform. 2022, 15, 1023–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tahraoui, H.; Belhadj, A.-E.; Triki, Z.; Boudella, N.R.; Seder, S.; Amrane, A.; Zhang, J.; Moula, N.; Tifoura, A.; Ferhat, R.; et al. Mixed Coagulant-Flocculant Optimization for Pharmaceutical Effluent Pretreatment Using Response Surface Methodology and Gaussian Process Regression. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 169, 909–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hadadi, A.; Imessaoudene, A.; Bollinger, J.-C.; Bouzaza, A.; Amrane, A.; Tahraoui, H.; Mouni, L. Aleppo Pine Seeds (Pinus halepensis Mill.) as a Promising Novel Green Coagulant for the Removal of Congo Red Dye: Optimization via Machine Learning Algorithm. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 331, 117286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Tahraoui, H.; Belhadj, A.E.; Moula, N.; Bouranene, S.; Amrane, A. Optimisation and Prediction of the Coagulant Dose for the Elimination of Organic Micropollutants Based on Turbidity. Kem. Ind. 2021, 70, 675–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Renault, F.; Sancey, B.; Badot, P.-M.; Crini, G. Chitosan for coagulation/flocculation processes–an eco-friendly approach. Eur. Polym. J. 2009, 45, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pourrezaei, P.; El-Din, M. Coagulation-Flocculation Pretreatment of Oil Sands Process Affected Water. In Proceedings of the 1st International Oil Sands Tailings Conference, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 7–10 December 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Galil, N.; Wolf, D. Removal of hydrocarbons from petrochemical wastewater by dissolved air flotation. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Campo, R.; Giustra, M.G.; De Marchis, M.; Freni, G.; Di Bella, G. Characterization and treatment proposals of shipboard slop wastewater contaminated by hydrocarbons. Water 2017, 9, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rodriguez, A.Z.; Wang, H.; Hu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, P. Treatment of produced water in the permian basin for hydraulic fracturing: Comparison of different coagulation processes and innovative filter media. Water 2020, 12, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pan, L.; Chen, Y.; Chen, D.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Long, Y. Oil removal in tight-emulsified petroleum waste water by flocculation. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 392, 042005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bruno, P.; Campo, R.; Giustra, M.; De Marchis, M.; Di Bella, G. Bench scale continuous coagulation-flocculation of saline industrial wastewater contaminated by hydrocarbons. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 34, 101156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chaouch, N.; Chaouki, M. Water treatment processes applied at the deoiling stations at Hassi Messaoud (efficiency and professional risks). Mater. Biomater. Sci. 2018, 1, 032–034. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sellami, M.; Loudiyi, K.; Bellemharbet, K.; Djabbour, N. Electro-coagulation treatment and de-oiling of wastewaters arising from petroleum industries. J. Pet. Environ. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 1000290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Al Battashi, M.; Al Shukaili, S.; Al Balushi, S.U.; Al Hatmi, K.; Al Mashrafi, A.A. Treatment of Produced Water with Back Produced ASP. In Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 11–14 November 2019; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tucker, C.S.; D’Abramo, L.R. Managing High pH in Freshwater Ponds; Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Stoneville: Stoneville, MS, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Krulwich, T.A.; Sachs, G.; Padan, E. Molecular aspects of bacterial pH sensing and homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 9, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rengarajan, T.; Rajendran, P.; Nandakumar, N.; Lokeshkumar, B.; Rajendran, P.; Nishigaki, I. Exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with special focus on cancer. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 5, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baker, W.E.; Cox, P.; Kulesz, J.; Strehlow, R.; Westine, P. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Water 15 03360 g001
Figure 1. The samples before the injection of the coagulant.
Figure 1. The samples before the injection of the coagulant.
Water 15 03360 g001
Water 15 03360 g002aWater 15 03360 g002b
Figure 2. Influence of the concentration of activated silica on oily waters. (a) Coagulant 1, (b) Coagulant 2, (c) Coagulant 3, (d) Coagulant 4, (e) Coagulant 5, (f) Coagulant 6.
Figure 2. Influence of the concentration of activated silica on oily waters. (a) Coagulant 1, (b) Coagulant 2, (c) Coagulant 3, (d) Coagulant 4, (e) Coagulant 5, (f) Coagulant 6.
Water 15 03360 g002aWater 15 03360 g002b
Water 15 03360 g003
Figure 3. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C1.
Figure 3. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C1.
Water 15 03360 g003
Water 15 03360 g004
Figure 4. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C2.
Figure 4. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C2.
Water 15 03360 g004
Water 15 03360 g005
Figure 5. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C3.
Figure 5. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C3.
Water 15 03360 g005
Water 15 03360 g006
Figure 6. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C4.
Figure 6. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C4.
Water 15 03360 g006
Water 15 03360 g007
Figure 7. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C5.
Figure 7. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C5.
Water 15 03360 g007
Water 15 03360 g008
Figure 8. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C6.
Figure 8. Evolution of environmental indicators based on the dosage of coagulant C6.
Water 15 03360 g008
Table 1. Preparation conditions for coagulants (activated silica).
Table 1. Preparation conditions for coagulants (activated silica).
Coagulant DesignationWater PreparationSodium Silicate
(% Mass-Related)		Sulfuric Acid
(% Mass-Related)
C1Distilled water41.5
C22
C32.5
C451.5
C52
C62.5
Table 2. Daily analysis of water pH at the inlet and outlet (API).
Table 2. Daily analysis of water pH at the inlet and outlet (API).
DatepHNorm
pH InputpH Output
1st day4.926.187.5
45 days3.97.27.5
30 days5.96.177.5
25 days4.919.227.5
5 days3.878.257.5
average4.77.4047.5
Table 3. Analysis of HC (hydrocarbon) at the inlet and outlet (API).
Table 3. Analysis of HC (hydrocarbon) at the inlet and outlet (API).
HC (ppm)
DaysHC InputHC OutputNorm (ppm)
1 day522.8280≤10
30 days187.0918.7≤10
15 days727.7690.1≤10
13 days90.6332.8≤10
3 days133.5149.2≤10
15 days12455≤10
15 days42077.3≤10
2 days132.5240.5≤10
5 days32265.4≤10
5 days23354.2≤10
5 days132.16235.7≤10
Table 4. Analysis of TSS (total suspended solids) of water at the inlet and outlet (API).
Table 4. Analysis of TSS (total suspended solids) of water at the inlet and outlet (API).
DaysSS InputSS OutputNorm (ppm)
1 day23260≤30
30 days15957≤30
15 days13245.5≤30
13 days12473≤30
4 days14156≤30
15 days157.631≤30
15 days15527≤30
15 days148.597≤30
5 days16538≤30
5 days11381≤30
5 days27148≤30
Table 5. Summary of optimal treatment conditions.
Table 5. Summary of optimal treatment conditions.
pHHCSS
Optimal dose
(mL)		C18204
C220208
C3161616
C44164
C5161616
C6161220
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sid, A.N.E.H.; Mokrane, F.; Hadj, M.; Chagour, N.; Atamnia, A.; Boudoukhani, M.; Tahraoui, H.; Kebir, M.; Zhang, J.; Amrane, A. Investigating the Efficacy of Oily Water Treatment at a De-Oiling Facility in the Northern Industrial Center of CINA, Hassi Messaoud: A Statistical Physics Assessment. Water 2023, 15, 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193360

AMA Style

Sid ANEH, Mokrane F, Hadj M, Chagour N, Atamnia A, Boudoukhani M, Tahraoui H, Kebir M, Zhang J, Amrane A. Investigating the Efficacy of Oily Water Treatment at a De-Oiling Facility in the Northern Industrial Center of CINA, Hassi Messaoud: A Statistical Physics Assessment. Water. 2023; 15(19):3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193360

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sid, Asma Nour El Houda, Fedoua Mokrane, Mimoune Hadj, Nihad Chagour, Amira Atamnia, Meriem Boudoukhani, Hichem Tahraoui, Mohammed Kebir, Jie Zhang, and Abdeltif Amrane. 2023. "Investigating the Efficacy of Oily Water Treatment at a De-Oiling Facility in the Northern Industrial Center of CINA, Hassi Messaoud: A Statistical Physics Assessment" Water 15, no. 19: 3360. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193360

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop