Pre-treatment of acetic acid from food processing wastewater using response surface methodology via Fenton oxidation process for sustainable water reuse
Abstract
This study designed to optimize the operating parameters of the Fenton process in removing acetic acid from food processing using Response Surface Methodology module in the Design of Expert for sustainable water reuse. Optimum operating conditions needed for the highest removal efficiency of 95.2% and 84.7% for color and chemical oxygen demand respectively were found to be at hydrogen peroxide concentration of 0.004 mol/L, ferrous iron concentration of 0.02 mol/L, initial pH of 3.45, and reaction time of 149.08 min for color. While, chemical oxygen demand had a maximum of around 84.7% removal efficiency that could be obtained at a hydrogen peroxide concentration of 0.014 mol/L, ferrous iron concentration of 0.051 mol/L, initial pH of 2.04, and reaction time of 144.58 min. The results showed that the Fenton process via Response Surface Methodology, at a certain level, may be used as a useful technology for pre- and post-treatment of wastewater from food processing for water scarcity as reclaimed water.
Water scarcity is a major constraint to many countries such as Thailand, Lao, Vietnam, and Cambodia, which about more than half of the essential reservoirs representing stand below 40 percent of capacity and frequently occurs for wide fluctuations in rainfed production [1]. Thailand is experiencing a severe drought event impacting large areas of many provinces are warning to prepare for serve drought in the country, especially Northeast (Isan), in particular, agriculture and industry sectors [2]. Eastern of Thailand, the river level is quite low that saltwater from the ocean is creeping upstream and affecting water and drinking water supplies unpredictable [3]. It can be seen that in a country where foremost environmental, crop production, social, economic, and industrial estates problems in the region are expected to suffer [4], [5]. Therefore, treated wastewater for sustainable water reuse is recognized and challenged as a strategic option in industrial processes that must be integrated approach into comprehensive water resource management plans, including water supply, wastewater collection, reclamation, and reuse [6] locally is required.
Thailand is one country of Southeast Asia that has many factories, such a process of pickling, curing, and preserving fruits and vegetables for all regions as rising export demands and domestic consumption [7]. High water consumption is used in these processes, which have an effect on the high production of wastewater volume along with treatment costs account for 60–70% of the production cost [8] that have been widely explored. In the present, wastewater from these processes has been investigated to study and improve for sustainable reuse. Hence, a purification method is essential to remove impurities such as protein, carbon source, and acetic acid [8] from the production processes. However, acetic acid is one of the major organic acids (known as a non-degradable organic compounds) in a broad range of applications as a solvent [9] in various industries such as textiles, pharmaceutical industry, synthetic fibers, synthetic polymers, plastics manufacturing [7], petroleum, fine chemicals and food industry [10]. Acetic acid is used to food production [11], [12] as a food ingredient such as a flavor enhancer, flavoring agent, an acidifier, color diluent, curing, and pickling agent, pH control agent, solvent, and preservative. High concentrations of acetic acid can cause irritation [13] or severe injury depending on the concentration. Other problems are also possible such as renal failure and interference with blood clotting [13]. The acetic acid may react with strong reagents such as perchlorate and Puerto permanganate, which can cause explosions [14], [15] in food processing industries. Therefore, the residual acetic acid like chemical effluents [16], [17] after the production process needs to find a way to manage waste occurring [18], [19]. If there is the contamination of acetic acid in the wastewater, resulting from the production process, then the high volume of wastewater may affect the function of microorganisms and the performance in wastewater treatment and biological treatment. Therefore, wastewater containing contaminants should be treated to inhibit the growth of microorganisms and metabolic depression, and the decomposition of organic matter in wastewater treatment [20] containing acetic acid so as not to affect the biological wastewater treatment and discharge of wastewater containing contaminants into receiving water.
Numerous traditional processes are applied for acetic acid removal from preserving fruits and vegetables industry or fermentation broths and industrial fields such as liquid-liquid extraction, vinyl acetate, reactive extraction, analytical chemistry, adsorption, electrodialysis, precipitation, solvents in many commercial products (inks and paints), distillation, membrane processes [21], bioelectrochemical [22], extraction and stripping processes [23], bulk liquid membrane and bulk ionic liquid membranes [24]. Besides, adsorption technology also can be applied in removing for non-degradable organic compounds like acetic acid such as magnetic bio-adsorbent and Fe3O4 nanoparticles nanocomposite [25], [26], nanocomposite [27], [28], thorium-ethanolamine nanocomposite [28], [29], fruit peel and seed activated carbon [30], [31]. Currently, the technology of treating acetic acid and organic contaminants in the wastewater industry uses chemical treatments [32] such as Advanced Oxidation Process (AOPs) [33], [34], a process that involves the production of a hydroxyl radical (OH•) [35], [36]. Deng and Zhao [37] reported that AOPs could be applied in various pollutants in wastewater with a combination of hydroxyl radical, Ozone, Photocatalytic oxidation, Ultraviolet ray, Fenton process, and sulfate-based AOPs represents Advanced Oxidation Processes. Fenton oxidation processes are unstable and active oxidant agents that can react quickly with non-degradable organic compounds on the biological wastewater treatment (denoted as R) at a constant rate. The OH• is formed from the reaction of oxidizing agent (H2O2) and metal salt or oxide catalyst (Fe2+) to generate strong reactive species, as shown in the reaction chain of eq. (1) – eq. (7). The main reactions of Fenton oxidation process in an acidic medium are shown in eq. (1) of the conditional treatment, other reactions are shown in eq. (2) – eq. (7) [38], [39]:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
while organic compounds reaction in an acidic medium is shown as eq. (8) – eq. (11) [38], which OH• can attract the organic radicals to form double-bound or by the abstraction of a hydrogen atom from aliphatic organic molecules such as additive radical, hydrogen abstract action, electron transfer, and radical combination:
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
However, several studies have been reported that biological and ultrafiltration membrane treatment processes are of the promising options in the treatment of non-organic and organic loads such as dyeing wastewater, pulp and canned food factory. However, both treatments have a major limitation of inorganic and expensive and membrane fouling, respectively [40], [41]. While the advanced Fenton oxidation process is an alternative method in reducing industrial wastewater organic loads due to advanced oxidation processes are capable of transforming non-biodegradable into non-toxic biodegradable substances [42]. In case of acetic acid contaminated wastewater from food processing (Wastewater was brought from the process of pickling in Thailand) decomposition, the role of H2O2, Fe2+ ions, initial pH and reaction time are important in the Fenton process; however are has not been investigated yet. Therefore, the primary aim of this research was to investigate the degradation of acetic acid contaminated wastewater from the food industry using the Fenton oxidation process via response surface methodology (RSM) with applying the method from the literature [43]. Besides, the effect of pH, temperature and ratios of H2O2: Fe2+ ions on the degradation efficiency of pre-treatment through advanced Fenton oxidation process in a batch system was evaluated by using RSM module in the design of experiment (DOE) for sustainable water reuse as reclaimed water.
Raw wastewater, RSM relevant statistical analysis and RSM batch experiment were detailed in this section. The removal efficiency of COD and color was used as a surrogate parameter in the Fenton oxidation process as the following details.
Raw wastewater was obtained from the food processing of pickling, curing, and preserving fruits and vegetables in the north of Phayao province, Thailand. In general, raw wastewater was contaminated with acetic acid and eliminated by pouring into the sludge drying area with other waste and let it evaporate naturally, which can affect humans and the environment inevitably. The preliminary characteristics of raw wastewater are presented in [Table 1].
| Parameter | Raw wastewater range values |
|---|---|
| pH | 2.9-3.2 |
| COD (mg/L) | 2,550-3030 |
| Color ( Pt-Co) | 2154-2545 |
[Figure 1] shows the physical characteristics of the raw wastewater used. It can be seen that the color is yellow-brown and unpleasant smell, which wastewater comes from the process of pickling, acetic acid is added to the salt solution (NaCl) to make the pickling brine. Acetic acid acts as a preservative and diffuses into the vegetables, while salt solution keeps the vegetables from swelling [44]. However, to control the lab-scale experiment, this project only focused on the removal of acetic acid at a low pH via Fenton oxidation process.
Brine wastewater from food processing industry
The finding of optimum conditions for pre-treatment of acetic acid in terms of four independent variables were selected for the initial pH, H2O2 concentration, Fe2+ ions concentration and reaction time along with a fixed temperature of 25 oC, was further investigated using with the advanced Fenton oxidation process. In this step of the experimental design, experimental range and levels of center composite design were analyzed by response surface methodology (RSM) via the design of experiment (DOE) software tools called central composite design (CCD). The optimal response of the operation factors was analyzed to obtain the statistical techniques (empirical regression model) and graphical data (ANOVA, analysis of variance) for pre-treatment of acetic acid through RSM. Then, the second-degree polynomial was computed through a four-factor of CCD in order to estimate the advanced design for 30 experimental runs. The experimental runs (N) were accomplished by using 16 (2n) factorial points, 8 (2n) axial points at the center run and 6 (N0) central points, which were attained according to eq. (12):
(12)
where N is the experimental runs, n is the numbers of operational factors of the initial pH, H2O2 concentration, Fe2+ ions concentration and reaction time involved, 2n is the number of factorial points, 2n is the number of axial points and N0 is the centre points.
The eq. (13), a second-degree polynomial regression model was obtained from the experimental data of 30 runs that were analyzed through the CCD matrix:
(13)
where y is the predicted response, xi and xj are the real or code values of the variable parameter obtained from pre-treatment acetic acid runs, ε is the random error and β0, βi, βii and βij are the constant regression coefficient, linear regression coefficient, quadratic regression coefficient and interaction regression coefficient respectively.
For the pre-treatment of acetic acid study via Fenton oxidation process from food processing, CCD allowed four numeric factors were set to range in five levels: low level (-, minus factorial point), high (+, plus factorial point ), center point level (0), and two axial points (plus and minus alpha) corresponding to -1 and +1. In terms of plus and minus alpha are not shown here due to it is the same range and levels of factorial point. The overall range and levels of CCD are illustrated in [Table 2].
| Variables | Unit | Range and levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| x1, H2O2 concentration | mol/L | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| x2, Fe2+ ions concentration | mol/L | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.08 |
| x3, Initial pH | - | 2 | 3.5 | 5 |
| x4, Reactions time | min | 30 | 90 | 150 |
Laboratory-scale, the degradation of acetic acid, the Fenton oxidation process were carried out in 1.5 L batch reactor. 1 L of raw wastewater was adjusted to the desired level (pH 2.0 ± 0.1 – pH 5.0 ± 0.1) using 1.0 N H2SO4 and/or NaOH (both was purchased from Ajax Finechem) before adding the ratios of hydrogen peroxide oxide (H2O2, 0.01 – 0.05 mol/L, Sigma-Aldrich) and Ferrous (FeSO4.7H2O, 0.02 – 0.08 mol/L, analytical grade, Ajax Finechem) reagent with the heating of 40 °C temperature and then followed by changing the reaction time of 30 – 150 min. After that, aliquots were withdrawn with adding 10.0 mL NaSO3 (sodium sulfite, 25% w/v, Sigma-Aldrich)) to stop the reaction immediately for each contact time and filtered through 0.45 μm syringe filters (Glass fiber filter, GA-55). COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L, HANNA, HI 96727) and color (Pt-Co, HANNA, HI 96727) were measured as a surrogate parameter to obtain the optimization via Fenton oxidation process for sustainable water reuse. However, all batch experiments were run by following the CCD matrix (code and actual variables), as shown in [Table 6].
The results of Response Surface Methodology and model fit and Optimum conditions of treated acetic acid using Fenton oxidation process were evaluated as follows.
The computing of the empirical quadratic models was obtained by using 30 observed responses from the experimental runs that were formulated via the RSM. The percent of pre-treatment efficiency, the highest order polynomial of both empirical quadratic models for color and COD were remarked as suggested, and the model is not aliased by the software as shown in [Table 3].
| Source | Standard derivative | R-Squared | Adj. R-Squared | Pred. R-Squared | PRESS | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color | ||||||
| Linear | 9.63 | 0.1644 | 0.0307 | -0.0934 | 3036.83 | |
| 2FI | 10.76 | 0.2086 | -0.2080 | -0.8220 | 5060.40 | |
| Quadratic | 9.54 | 0.5082 | 0.0492 | -1.0336 | 5647.99 | Suggested |
| Cubic | 9.68 | 0.7638 | 0.0216 | -6.8523 | 21808.95 | Aliased |
| COD | ||||||
| Linear | 7.73 | 0.2438 | 0.1228 | -0.1718 | 2312.99 | |
| 2FI | 7.60 | 0.4434 | 0.1504 | -1.1873 | 4317.42 | |
| Quadratic | 6.93 | 0.6350 | 0.2944 | -1.2389 | 4419.35 | Suggested |
| Cubic | 2.50 | 0.9779 | 0.9084 | 0.1398 | 1697.86 | Aliased |
The optimum condition of pre-treatment for acetic acid, the best percent of removal efficiency for both color and COD was correlated with four factors of H2O2 concentration (x1), Fe2+ ions concentration (x2), initial pH (x3), and reaction time (x4). The final empirical models of the suggested quadratic model in terms of the four actual variable factors are shown by eq. (14) and eq. (15). Both suggested quadratic models of color and COD, the negative signs in front of the terms show antagonistic effects, and the positive sign indicates synergistic effects [43].
(14)
(15)
The ANOVA results analysis parameters for the quadratic regression models of Eqs. (14) and (15) are obtainable in [Table 4]. The t-test follows a Student’s t-distribution was used as a tool to verify the Fisher's F statistic (test statistic for F-test) value with a low p-value Prob>F less than 0.0500, indicating the model terms are significant for the regression models. It can be suggested that the regression models indicated the p-value Prob > F more than 0.0500, illustrating the model terms for the response surface quadratic model of eq. (14) and eq. (15) is insignificant. Therefore, the regression models needed to be reduced as shown in eq. (16) and eq. (17).
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value | p-value Prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| color | |||||
| Model | 1411.45 | 14 | 100.82 | 1.11 | 0.4221 |
| x1 H2O2 | 259.84 | 1 | 259.84 | 2.85 | 0.1119 |
| x2 Fe2+ | 0.37 | 1 | 0.37 | 4.06E-03 | 0.95 |
| x3 pH | 99.69 | 1 | 99.69 | 1.09 | 0.312 |
| x4 Reaction time | 96.56 | 1 | 96.56 | 1.06 | 0.3195 |
| x1 x2 | 6.25E-06 | 1 | 6.25E-06 | 6.86E-08 | 0.9998 |
| x1 x3 | 11.34 | 1 | 11.34 | 0.12 | 0.7291 |
| x1 x4 | 6.64 | 1 | 6.64 | 0.073 | 0.7908 |
| x2 x3 | 3.36 | 1 | 3.36 | 0.037 | 0.8503 |
| x2 x4 | 13.78 | 1 | 13.78 | 0.15 | 0.7027 |
| x3 x4 | 87.47 | 1 | 87.47 | 0.96 | 0.3426 |
| x12 | 39.18 | 1 | 39.18 | 0.43 | 0.5218 |
| x22 | 644.03 | 1 | 644.03 | 7.07 | 0.0179 |
| x32 | 389.04 | 1 | 389.04 | 4.27 | 0.0565 |
| x42 | 2.92 | 1 | 2.92 | 0.032 | 0.8603 |
| COD | |||||
| Model | 1253.47 | 14 | 89.53 | 1.86 | 0.1218 |
| x1 H2O2 | 9.02 | 1 | 9.02 | 0.19 | 0.671 |
| x2 Fe2+ | 9.53 | 1 | 9.53 | 0.2 | 0.6623 |
| x3 pH | 35.7 | 1 | 35.7 | 0.74 | 0.4022 |
| x4 Reaction time | 426.9 | 1 | 426.9 | 8.89 | 0.0093 |
| x1 x2 | 0.011 | 1 | 0.011 | 2.19E-04 | 0.9884 |
| x1 x3 | 21.6 | 1 | 21.6 | 0.45 | 0.5127 |
| x1 x4 | 97.96 | 1 | 97.96 | 2.04 | 0.1737 |
| x2 x3 | 234.17 | 1 | 234.17 | 4.88 | 0.0432 |
| x2 x4 | 0.41 | 1 | 0.41 | 8.46E-03 | 0.9279 |
| x3 x4 | 39.91 | 1 | 39.91 | 0.83 | 0.3764 |
| x12 | 33.13 | 1 | 33.13 | 0.69 | 0.4193 |
| x22 | 122.84 | 1 | 122.84 | 2.56 | 0.1306 |
| x32 | 28.72 | 1 | 28.72 | 0.6 | 0.4514 |
| x42 | 0.42 | 1 | 0.42 | 8.82E-03 | 0.9264 |
[Table 5] demonstrates the analysis of variance table for response surface reduced quadratic model, the statistical significance for the regression coefficient of the model terms were confirmed by the results of the p-value Prob>F less than 0.0500. The results found that the model terms of color and COD were of high significance. It can be suggested that these model terms can be successfully applied to predict the optimum conditions for the response of the maximum percent removal efficiency via Fenton oxidation process. Hence, the reduced regression model of eq. (16) and eq. (17) was obtained as follows:
(16)
(17)
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value | p-value Prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color | |||||
| Model | 1285.93 | 7 | 183.70 | 2.71 | 0.0347 |
| x1 H2O2 | 259.84 | 1 | 259.84 | 3.83 | 0.0631 |
| x2 Fe2+ | 0.37 | 1 | 0.37 | 5.455E-003 | 0.9418 |
| x3 pH | 99.69 | 1 | 99.69 | 1.47 | 0.2381 |
| x4 Reaction time | 96.56 | 1 | 96.56 | 1.42 | 0.2454 |
| x12 | 36.29 | 1 | 36.29 | 0.54 | 0.4721 |
| x22 | 733.96 | 1 | 733.96 | 10.83 | 0.0033 |
| x32 | 404.72 | 1 | 404.72 | 5.97 | 0.0230 |
| Residual | 1491.51 | 22 | 67.80 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 925.46 | 17 | 54.44 | 0.48 | 0.8818 |
| Pure Error | 566.05 | 5 | 113.21 | ||
| Cor Total | 2777.44 | 29 | |||
| COD | |||||
| Model | 1253.06 | 12 | 104.42 | 2.46 | 0.0439 |
| x1 H2O2 | 9.02 | 1 | 9.02 | 0.21 | 0.6505 |
| x2 Fe2+ | 9.53 | 1 | 9.53 | 0.22 | 0.6414 |
| x3 pH | 35.70 | 1 | 35.70 | 0.84 | 0.3717 |
| x4 Reaction time | 426.90 | 1 | 426.90 | 10.07 | 0.0056 |
| x1 x3 | 21.60 | 1 | 21.60 | 0.51 | 0.4851 |
| x1 x4 | 97.96 | 1 | 97.96 | 2.31 | 0.1469 |
| x2 x3 | 234.17 | 1 | 234.17 | 5.52 | 0.0311 |
| x3 x4 | 39.91 | 1 | 39.91 | 0.94 | 0.3456 |
| x12 | 33.13 | 1 | 33.13 | 0.78 | 0.3891 |
| x22 | 122.84 | 1 | 122.84 | 2.90 | 0.1070 |
| x32 | 28.72 | 1 | 28.72 | 0.68 | 0.4219 |
| x42 | 0.42 | 1 | 0.42 | 0.00998E-003 | 0.9216 |
| Residual | 720.83 | 17 | 42.40 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 684.32 | 12 | 57.03 | 7.81 | 0.0169 |
| Pure Error | 36.51 | 5 | 7.30 | ||
| Cor Total | 1973.89 | 29 | |||
| Run | Code variable | Actual variable | Responses | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | Color (%) | COD (%) | |||||
| Observed | Predicted | Error (%) | Observed | Predicted | Error (%) | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 5 | 30 | 74.15 | 80.20 | 8.20 | 58.74 | 65.42 | 11.37 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 3.5 | 90 | 89.30 | 91.91 | 2.92 | 78.05 | 72.99 | 6.48 |
| 3 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 2 | 150 | 82.57 | 80.45 | 2.57 | 78.45 | 73.52 | 6.28 |
| 4 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 80.98 | 68.60 | 15.29 | 67.15 | 76.28 | 13.60 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 75.73 | 75.98 | 0.33 | 81.06 | 79.15 | 2.36 |
| 6 | -1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2 | 30 | 63.46 | 67.93 | 7.04 | 76.29 | 73.46 | 3.71 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 95.14 | 75.98 | 20.14 | 82.87 | 79.15 | 4.49 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 2 | 90 | 61.58 | 61.68 | 0.16 | 84.10 | 81.07 | 3.60 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 64.05 | 75.98 | 18.63 | 76.17 | 79.15 | 3.91 |
| 10 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 3.5 | 90 | 92.47 | 92.20 | 0.29 | 66.98 | 71.54 | 6.81 |
| 11 | -1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 5 | 30 | 67.52 | 72.92 | 8.00 | 78.67 | 75.66 | 3.83 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 69.70 | 75.98 | 9.01 | 78.67 | 79.15 | 0.61 |
| 13 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 5 | 150 | 90.29 | 85.15 | 5.69 | 78.64 | 83.15 | 5.73 |
| 14 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 5 | 150 | 71.08 | 77.55 | 9.10 | 76.41 | 77.29 | 1.15 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 2 | 150 | 77.22 | 80.16 | 3.81 | 78.67 | 82.62 | 5.02 |
| 16 | -1 | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 5 | 30 | 69.30 | 72.64 | 4.82 | 65.35 | 69.46 | 6.29 |
| 17 | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 2 | 30 | 85.73 | 75.53 | 11.90 | 66.58 | 64.78 | 2.70 |
| 18 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 2 | 150 | 68.71 | 72.56 | 5.60 | 76.82 | 81.41 | 5.98 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 30 | 76.43 | 73.66 | 3.62 | 80.94 | 74.69 | 7.72 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 5 | 90 | 64.15 | 66.39 | 3.49 | 81.36 | 83.89 | 3.11 |
| 21 | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 5 | 150 | 83.46 | 77.27 | 7.42 | 79.04 | 71.1 | 10.05 |
| 22 | 1 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 5 | 30 | 85.83 | 80.52 | 6.19 | 77.67 | 71.62 | 7.79 |
| 23 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 61.48 | 76.20 | 23.94 | 84.50 | 74.87 | 11.40 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 80.39 | 75.98 | 5.49 | 75.98 | 79.15 | 4.17 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 90 | 75.14 | 75.98 | 1.12 | 78.67 | 79.15 | 0.61 |
| 26 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 2 | 30 | 76.53 | 68.22 | 10.86 | 64.20 | 64.36 | 0.25 |
| 27 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 2 | 150 | 69.50 | 72.85 | 4.82 | 77.41 | 72.31 | 6.59 |
| 28 | 1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 2 | 30 | 69.89 | 75.81 | 8.47 | 46.68 | 55.67 | 19.26 |
| 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 3.5 | 150 | 75.93 | 78.29 | 3.11 | 78.67 | 84.43 | 7.32 |
| 30 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 5 | 150 | 91.77 | 84.87 | 7.52 | 78.67 | 76.95 | 2.19 |