Treatment of Metal Plating Wastewater by Electrocoagulation

Feryal Akbal and Selva Camc Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Ondokuz Mays University, 55139 Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey; fakbal@omu.edu.tr (for correspondence)
Published online 5 April 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.10546

In this study, the performance of electrocoagulation process in the treatment of metal plating wastewater was investigated using different combinations of aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) electrodes. The effect of applied current, metal concentration, and treatment time on the metal removal efciency was investigated. The results show that electrocoagulation can effectively reduce metal ions to a very low level. The Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations were more effective for the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni from metal plating wastewater. Almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni was achieved with initial Cu concentration of 335 mg/L, Cr concentration of 193 mg/L, Ni concentration of 526 mg/L after 60 min of electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with Fe-Al electrode combination. 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 31: 340350, 2012

Keywords: electrocoagulation, metal plating wastewater, aluminum electrodes, iron electrodes

INTRODUCTION

Plating wastewaters contain various kinds of toxic substances such as acid cyanide, alkaline cleaning agent, degreasing solvents, oil and fat, and heavy metals. Most of the heavy metals such as copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, etc., in wastewater are harmful when they are discharged directly to the environment. Hence, treatment of them before discharging becomes necessary [1]. Various techniques have been employed for the treatment of heavy metals, including precipitation [2], coagulation [3], adsorption [4],
2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

biosorption [5], ion-exchange [6], electrodialysis [7], electrodeionization [8, 9], and membrane separation [1013]. Among these techniques chemical precipitation is widely used for heavy metal removal from wastewaters. The dissolved metal ions are converted to the insoluble solid via a chemical reaction with a precipitant agent such as lime. Advantages of using lime precipitation include the simplicity of the process, inexpensive equipment requirement, and convenient and safe operations, making it a popular method for metal removal from contaminated wastewater. In spite of its advantages, chemical precipitation requires a large amount of chemicals to reduce metals to an acceptable level for discharge. Other drawbacks are its excessive sludge production that requires further treatment, the increasing cost of sludge disposal, slow metal precipitation, poor settling, the aggregation of metal precipitates, and the long-term environmental impacts of sludge disposal [14]. Electrocoagulation has the potential to eliminate the disadvantages of the classical treatment techniques and to achieve a sustainable and economic treatment of polluted wastewater. This technique does not require any supplementary addition of chemicals, and it reduces the volume of produced sludge [15]. The coagulating ions are produced in situ and the treatment process involves many chemical and physical phenomena, such as discharge, anodic oxidation, cathodic reduction, coagulation, electrophoretic migration, and adsorption [16]. Electrocoagulation has been successfully used for the treatment of wastewaters such as electroplating wastewater [17], chemical mechanical polishing wastewater [18, 19], textile wastewater [20], olive mill

340 October 2012

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

wastewater [2123], laundry wastewater [24], tannery wastewater [25, 26], pulp and paper mill industry wastewater [27, 28], bakers yeast wastewater [29], and slaughterhouse wastewater [30]. In the present work, treatment of the metal plating wastewaters containing copper, chromium, and nickel by electrocoagulation was investigated. The effect of operational parameters such as applied current, electrode material and combination, metal concentration, and treatment time on the removal efciency have been assessed.
DESCRIPTION OF ELECTROCOAGULATION PROCESS

tates at pH > 5.5 and remains in equilibrium with Fe21 up to pH 9.5 or with monomeric species such as Fe(OH)1, Fe(OH)2, and Fe(OH)2 3 at higher pH values. The formation of insoluble Fe(OH)2 can be written as: Fe2 2OH ! FeOH2 (7)

and the overall reaction for the electrolytic process from the sequence of reactions (5)(7) is: Fe 2H2 O ! FeOH2 H2 (8)

The electrocoagulation process is based on the continuous in situ production of a coagulant in the contaminated water. The most widely used electrode materials in electrocoagulation process are aluminum and iron. In the case of aluminum, the main reactions at the anode and cathode are: Als ! Al
3

In the presence of O2, dissolved Fe21 is oxidized to insoluble Fe(OH)3: 4Fe2 10H2 O O2 ! 4FeOH3 8H (9)

3e

(1)

and protons can be directly reduced to H2 gas at the cathode: 8H 8e ! 4H2 (10)

3H2 O 3e ! 3=2H2g 3OH

(2)

On the other hand, at high pH values both cathode and anode may be chemically attacked by OH2 ions. 2Al 6H2 O 2OH ! 2 AlOH 4 3H2 (3)

The corresponding overall reaction obtained by combining reactions (5), (9), and (10) is: 4Fe 10H2 O O2 ! 4FeOH3 4H2 (11)

Al31 and OH2 ions generated by electrode reactions (1) and (2) react to form various monomeric species 1 2 such as Al(OH)21, Al(OH)1 2 , Al2(OH)2 , Al(OH)4 , and 31 41 , polymeric species such as Al6(OH)15 , Al7(OH)17 41 71 51 Al8(OH)20 , Al13O4(OH)24 , and Al13(OH)34 , which transform nally into Al(OH)3(s) according to complex precipitation kinetics. Al3 3H2 O ! AlOH3 3H (4)

Insoluble Fe(OH)3 ocs can remove pollutants by surface complexation or electrostatic attraction, followed by coagulation [34].
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Freshly formed amorphous Al(OH)3(s) sweep ocs have large surface areas, which are benecial for a rapid adsorption of soluble organic compounds and trapping of colloidal particles. Finally, these ocs are removed easily from aqueous medium by sedimentation or H2 otation [3133]. When an iron anode is utilized in electrocoagulation, Fe21 is dissolved in the wastewater from Fe oxidation at the anode as follows: Fe ! Fe2 2e (5)

Characterization of the Wastewaters Three different wastewater samples supplied by metal plating plant were used in the electrocoagulation experiments. The wastewaters were ltered using a screen lter to remove large suspended solids before being used for the subsequent studies. The main characteristics of these wastewaters were presented in Table 1. Electrocoagulation Procedure The experimental equipment schematically is shown in Figure 1. The monopolar electrocoagulation unit consisted of a 1 L electrochemical reactor with three anodes and three cathodes. The iron (98.94%) and aluminum (98.86%) plates were used as electrodes with four different arrangements. Total effective electrode area was 202 cm2 and the spacing between electrodes was 10 mm. The current was maintained constant by means of a precision DC power supply (GW GPC-3060D). All the electrocoagulation experiments were performed for 60 min at the original pH (pH 3.0) of the wastewater. Applied current was varied between 0.5 and 2.0 A, which corresponded to current density between 25 and 100 A/m2. Sodium chloride (10%) was used to increase the conductivity of the wastewater. In each run, 650 mL of wastewater
October 2012 341

whereas hydroxide ion and H2 gas are generated at the cathode from the reaction: 2H2 O 2e ! 2OH H2 (6)

OH2 production from reaction (6) causes an increase in pH during electrolysis. Insoluble Fe(OH)2 precipi-

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 1. Characteristics of wastewaters.

Characteristics Cu (mg/L) Cr (mg/L) Ni (mg/L) pH Conductivity (mS/cm)

Wastewater I 45 44.5 394 3.00 2.00

Wastewater II 155 116 452 3.00 4.00

Wastewater III 335 193 526 3.00 4.00

Analytical Procedure The pH of the wastewater was measured using a pH meter (InoLab WTW). A Jenway Conductivity Meter (Model 4071) was employed to determine the conductivity of the wastewater. The concentrations of the metal ions (Cu, Cr, and Ni) in the wastewater were analyzed by an atomic absorption spectrometer (UNICAM 929) according to the standard methods [36].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1. Experimental system.

was placed into the electrocoagulation cell. A magnetic stirrer was used to stir the wastewater at 200 rpm. The operation started when the current was adjusted to a desired value. At different time intervals, the samples were taken from the reactor and ltered before analysis. During electrocoagulation pH, conductivity, and metal concentrations of wastewater were measured. The energy consumption was calculated using the following equation [35]. E U I t V (12)

where E is the energy consumption (kwh/m3), U is the applied voltage (V), I is the current (A), t is the electrocoagulation time (h), and V is the volume of the treated wastewater (L). The amount of electrode dissolved was calculated theoretically by using Faradays law [35]. C I tM Z F V (13)

where C (g/L) is the iron or aluminum concentration in the electrolytic cell, I is the current (A), t is the electrocoagulation time (s), M is the molecular weight of anode (g/mol), Z is the chemical equivalence, F is the Faradays constant (96,500 C/mol), and V is the volume of treated wastewater (L).
342 October 2012

Effect of Applied Current In all electrochemical processes, applied current is the most important parameter for controlling the reaction rate within the electrochemical reactor. The current determines the coagulant dosage rate, the bubble production rate, and uid regime (mixing) within the reactor. Hence the collision between particles, the oc growth, and the potential for material removal, both pollutant and coagulant, by otation are determined by the current [37]. To investigate the effect of current on metal removal, electrocoagulation process was carried out using various currents varying from 0.5 to 2.0 A at pH 3.0 and conductivity of 2 mS/cm. Figure 2 shows the effect of applied current on Cu removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations. The removal rate of Cu increased with increasing current, and the highest current (2.0 A) produced the quickest removal rate. Increasing the current causes higher coagulant dissolution, and OH2 production resulted in a more efcient and faster removal [18]. After 15 min of electrocoagulation, Cu removal was 68.7% and 99.2% for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 56.7% and 99.7% for Al-Al electrode combination, 56.1% and 99.9% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 47.5% and 91.4% for Al-Fe electrode combination at currents of 0.5 and 2.0 A, respectively. Complete removal of Cu was achieved after 10 min of electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations. Figure 3 shows the effect of applied current on Cr removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations. An increase in current from 0.5 to 2.0 A yields an increase in the efciency of Cr removal from 78.4% to 99.9% for Fe-Fe electrode combination after 10 min of electrocoagulation. As the current increased, the electrolysis time needed to achieve same removal efciency decreased. At current of 0.5 and 2.0 A,

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 2. Effect of applied current on copper removal from electroplating wastewater (Cu: 45 mg/L, pH: 3.0,

conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

30 min and 10 min of electrocoagulation time was sufcient for complete removal of Cr. After 10 min of electrocoagulation, Cr removal ranged between 66.3% and 93.2% for Al-Al electrode combination, 80.3% 99.7% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 73.9% 96.9% for Al-Fe electrode combination. Figure 4 shows the effect of applied current on Ni removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations. The Ni removal increased from 51% to 98% for the Fe-Fe electrode combination, from 47.9% to 96.5% for the Al-Al electrode combination, from 52.9% to 99.9% for the Fe-Al electrode combination, and from 44% to 76.3% for the Al-Fe electrode combination when current increased from 0.5 to 2.0 A after 20 min of electrocoagulation. The Ni removal efciencies were higher for Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations, compared with the Al-Al and Al-Fe electrode combinations. Table 2 shows the initial and residual metal concentrations, metal removal efciencies, and energy and electrode consumptions at different currents. It can be seen that the metal removal efciency, energy consumption, and electrode consumption increased with increasing the current. Almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni was achieved with Fe-Al electrode combination at curent of 2.0 A and electrocoagulation time of 20 min with energy consumption of 10.07

kwh/m3 and electrode consumption of 1.08 kg/m3. At high currents, the extent of anodic dissolution of iron and aluminum increases, resulting in a greater amount of precipitate and removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni. The rate of bubble-generation increases and the bubble size decreases with increasing current; both of these trends are benecial in terms of high pollutantremoval efciency by H2 otation [38, 39]. Effect of Metal Concentration The effect of metal concentration was investigated using four different combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes at current of 2.0 A, pH 3.0, and conductivity of 4 mS/cm. Figure 5 shows Cu removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes. The Cu removal efciency decreased from 99.8% to 66% for Fe-Fe electrode combination at 10 min of electrocoagulation, while in case of Al-Al electrode combination from 96.7% to 35% by increasing the concentration of Cu from 45 to 335 mg/L. The Cu removal efciency was 99.3% and 74.8% with FeAl electrode combination and 99.8% and 41.6% with Al-Fe electrode combination after 10 min of electrocoagulation at Cu concentration of 45 mg/L and 335 mg/L, respectively. Complete removal of Cu was achieved after 20 and 40 min of electrocoagulation at
October 2012 343

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 3. Effect of applied current on chromium removal from electroplating wastewater (Cr: 44.5 mg/L, pH:

3.0, conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

Cu concentrations of 45 and 155 mg/L for all electrode combinations. Figure 6 shows Cr removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes. As expected, it appears that the removal rate has decreased with increasing initial Cr concentration. The removal efciencies of Cr were 99.9%, 96.7%, and 81.1%, for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 94.4%, 92.5%, and 89.9% for Al-Al electrode combination, 99.8%, 94.3%, and 90.6% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 99.9%, 84.4% and 62.4% for Al-Fe electrode combination at 5 min of electrocoagulation with the initial concentrations of 44.5, 116, and 193 mg/L, respectively. At initial Cr concentrations of 44.5, 116, and 193 mg/L, 5, 15, and 20 min of electrocoagulation time was sufcient for completely removal of Cr with Fe-Fe electrode combination. When the other electrode combinations were used, longer electrocoagulation times are necessary for the complete removal of Cr. Figure 7 shows Ni removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes. Efciencies of Ni removal after 20 min of electrocoagulation at Ni concentrations of 394, 452, and 526 mg/L were obtained as 99.9%, 94.5%, and 75.9%, for Fe-Fe
344 October 2012

electrode combination, 99.4%, 94.4%, and 48.1% for Al-Al electrode combination, 99.9%, 96.3%, and 78.8% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 99.9%, 64.6%, and 46.5% for Al-Fe electrode combination, respectively. The removal rate of Ni was higher with Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations than with Al-Al and Al-Fe electrode combinations. The residual Ni concentration was 0.8 mg/L for Fe-Al electrode combination, 4.2 mg/L for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 10.7 mg/L for Al-Al electrode combination, and 15.2 mg/L for Al-Fe electrode combination at an initial concentration of 526 mg/L after 60 min of electrocoagulation. As the results indicated, the metal removal efciencies were higher for Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations compared with the Al-Al and Al-Fe electrode combinations. The reason for this behavior could be that the adsorption capacity of ferric oxides is much higher than aluminum oxides. The metal removal efciency decreased with an increase in metal concentration. According to Faradays law, constant amount of Fe21 passed to the solution at the same current and time for all metal concentrations. Consequently, the same amount of ocs would be produced in the solutions. As a result, the ocs produced at high metal concentration were insufcient to adsorb all of the metal molecules of the solution [40, 41].

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 4. Effect of applied current on nickel removal from electroplating wastewater (Ni: 394 mg/L, pH: 3.0,

conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

Table 2. Initial and residual metal concentrations, metal removal efciencies, and corresponding energy and

electrode consumptions at different currents. 0.5 A Electrocoagulation time (min) Initial Cu (mg/L) Initial Cr (mg/L) Initial Ni (mg/L) Residual Cu (mg/L) Residual Cr (mg/L) Residual Ni (mg/L) Cu removal (%) Cr removal (%) Ni removal (%) Initial conductivity (mS/cm) Final conductivity (mS/cm) Mean voltage (V) Energy consumption (kwh/m3) Electrode consumption (kg/m3) 20 45 44.5 394 14.1 0.2 192 68.5 99.6 51 2.00 1.75 3.28 0.78 0.26 20 45 44.5 394 17.2 8.8 205 61.7 80.3 47.9 2.00 1.52 3.38 0.86 0.08 20 45 44.5 394 6.12 3.0 185 86.4 93.1 52.9 2.00 1.44 3.24 0.90 0.26 20 45 44.5 394 21.3 6.8 220 52.5 84.7 44 2.00 1.39 2.68 0.71 0.08 20 45 44.5 394 1.1 0 124 97.5 100 68.5 2.00 1.63 5.28 2.70 0.54 1.0 A 20 45 44.5 394 4.6 5.1 142 89.8 88.5 63.8 2.00 1.43 5.50 2.75 0.17 20 45 44.5 394 4.3 2.6 142 90.5 94.2 63.8 2.00 1.08 4.54 2.65 0.26 20 45 44.5 394 4.8 2.2 195 89.4 94.9 50.4 2.00 1.24 4.78 2.65 0.08 20 45 44.5 394 0 0 7.6 100 100 98.0 2.00 1.59 9.08 9.86 1.08 2.0 A 20 45 44.5 394 0 0.1 13.6 100 99.8 96.5 2.00 1.39 8.56 9.45 0.35 20 45 44.5 394 0 0 0.2 100 100 99.9 2.00 1.43 9.18 10.07 1.08 20 45 44.5 394 1.9 0.71 93.5 95.6 98.4 76.3 2.00 1.31 7.36 7.58 0.35

Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

October 2012 345

Figure 5. Copper removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, conduc-

tivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 6. Chromium removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, con-

ductivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 7. Nickel removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, conduc-

tivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 8. Variations of pH values during electrocoagulation of metal plating wastewater. (Current: 2.0 A,

pH: 3.0, conductivity: 4 mS/cm).

Table 3. Comparison of metal removal efciencies of various treatment processes.

Treatment method Coagulation Electrodeionization

Metal Cu Ni Cu Cr Cu

Cu

Cu

Ultraltration

Cu Cr Ni Ni

Reverse osmosis Electrocoagulation

Cu Cr Ni Cu Cr Ni

Coagulant/membrane/electrode Polyferric sulphate, PAM, DDTC Polyethylene anion and cation exchange membrane Polyethylene anion and cation exchange membrane Polyethylene anion and cation exchange membrane Mixed-bed resin in the concentrate compartment; mixed-bed resin in the dilute compartment, RF 5 13, 20V Cation resin in the concentrate compartment; mixed-bed resin in the dilute compartment, RF 5 13, 20V No resin in the concentrate compartment; mixed-bed resin in the dilute compartment, RF 5 13, 20V FUS 0181 UF membrane, CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure, pH 7.0 FUS 0181 UF membrane, CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure, pH 7.0 FUS 0181 UF membrane, CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure, pH 7.0 UPM 20 membrane, 200 kPa pressure ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0 ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0 ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0 Fe/Al electrode Fe/Al electrode Fe/Al electrode

Initial metal concentration (ppm) 20 87.9 94.9 89.5 51

Removal efciency (%) 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8

Reference [3] [8] [8] [8] [9]

54

99.8

[9]

47

99.4

[9]

25 25 25 25 17 167 26 335 193 526

98.6 99.1 95.1 99.9 98.7 99.4 99.0 100 100 100

[10] [10] [10] [11] [12] [12] [12] This study This study This study

The change in nal pH with electrocoagulation time was shown in Figure 8. For all electrode combinations, nal pH values gradually increased with increasing electrocoagulation time. The nal pH of metal plating wastewater remained between 5.3 and 8.1 for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 5.77.7 for AlAl electrode combination, 5.19.8 for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 4.98.5 for Al-Fe electrode combination after 60 min of electrocoagulation. Hydrogen evolution at the cathode resulted in progressive increase of the pH [42]. For the removal of Cu and Cr as hydroxides by precipitation, a pH value of 8 is necessary whereas for the precipitation of Ni hydroxides the pH should be 10. Consequently, Cu and Cr were mainly removed by precipitation as hydroxides by the hydroxyl ions formed at the cathode via water electrolysis and by coprecipitation with aluminium and iron hydroxides, and Ni was mainly removed by coprecipitation with aluminium and iron hydroxides.
348 October 2012

Metal Removal Efciencies of Various Treatment Processes The comparison of metal removal with different processes were given in Table 3. Li et al. [3] employed sodium diethyl-dithiocarbamate (DDTC) as a trapping agent and polyferric sulphate and polyacrylamide as the occulants to treat copper electroplating wastewater. They found that an almost complete removal of Cu could be achieved with an initial Cu concentration of 20 mg/L when the molar ratio of DDTC to Cu is between 0.8 and 1.2. Feng et al. [8] studied the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni ions from electroplating wastewater by a hybrid system combining ion exchange with electrodialysis. About 100% rejection was achieved with an initial Cu concentration of 94.9 mg/L and Cr concentration of 89.5 mg/L and Ni concentration of 87.9 mg/L. Semmens et al. [9] investigated the ability of continuous electrodeionzation (CEDI) process for copper sulfate recovery from synthetic rinsewater. They evaluated three bench-scale

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

congurations of CEDI modules under varying ow and voltage conditions. They reported that module performance was best with no ion exchange resin in the concentrate compartments. By operating at a voltage of $20 V, copper removal from diluted stream higher than 99% was achieved in all of the modules tested. Barakat and Schmidt [10] employed polymer-enhanced ultraltration process for the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni ions from synthetic solution. They reported that 98.6% Cu rejection, 99.1% Cr rejection, and 95.1% Ni rejection were achieved with an initial metal concentration of 25 mg/L and 1 bar of pressure. Kryvoruchko et al. [11] investigated purication of the water contaminated by Ni ions by use of ultraltration in combination with chelation. They reported that the maximum retention coefcient of Ni ions by the UPM-20 membrane was almost be 100%, when poly (ethylene imine) was used as a chelating agent. Ozaki et al. [12] investigated the removal performance of an ultra-lowpressure reverse osmosis membrane (ULPROM) for the separation of Cu, Cr, and Ni ions from both synthetic and electroplating wastewater. They reported 99.4% Cr rejection, 98.7% Cu rejection, and 99% Ni rejection with an initial Cr concentration of 167 mg/L, Cu concentration of 17 mg/L, and Ni concentration of 26 mg/L at pH 7.0 and feed pressure of 450 kPa. In this study almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni was obtained after 60 min of electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with initial Cu concentration of 335 mg/L, Cr concentration of 193 mg/L, and Ni concentration of 526 mg/L.
CONCLUSION

DDTC Fe ULPROM

diethyl-dithiocarbamate iron ultra-lowpressure reverse membrane

osmosis

LITERATURE CITED

In this study, the applicability of electrocoagulation in the treatment of electroplating wastewater was investigated. Iron and aluminium plates in four different combinations were tested to identify the optimum electrode combination. The results show that electrocoagulation can effectively reduce metal ions to a very low level. The Cu, Cr, and Ni removal efciency increased with increasing current and electrocoagulation time and decreased with increasing metal concentration. At higher current, formation rate of aluminium and iron hydroxide ocs increased and the aluminium and iron hydroxide ocs act as adsorbents for metal ions and eliminate them from the wastewater. The Fe-Fe and FeAl electrode combinations were more effective for the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni. Electrocoagulation of the metal plating wastewater with Fe-Al electrode combination was able to achieve almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni after 20 min of electrocoagulation with a current of 2.0 A at Cu, Cr, and Ni concentrations of 45, 44.5, and 394 mg/L. The same removal was achieved after 60 min of electrocoagulation at Cu, Cr, and Ni concentrations of 335, 193, and 526 mg/L, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of Ondokuz Mays University Research Fund of this project (No. MF-114). Abbreviations Al aluminum CEDI continuous electrode ionzation

1. Hunsom, M., Pruksathorn, K., Damronglerd, S., Vergnes, H., & Duverneuil, P. (2005). Electrochemical treatment of heavy metals (Cu21, Cr61, Ni21) from industrial efuent and modeling of copper reduction, Water Research, 39, 610616. 2. Feng, D., Aldrich, C., & Tan, H. (2000). Treatment of acid mine water by use of heavy metal precipitation and ion exchange, Minerals Engineering, 13, 623642. 3. Li, Y., Zeng, X., Liu, Y., Yan, S., Hu, Z., & Ni, Y. (2003). Study on the treatment of copper-electroplating wastewater by chemical trapping and occulation, Separation and Purication Technology, 31, 9195. 4. Wang, Y.-H., Lin, S.-H., & Juang, R.-S. (2003). Removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using various low-cost adsorbents, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 102, 291302. 5. Wang, J., & Chen, C. (2009). Biosorbents for heavy metals removal and their future, Biotechnology Advances, 27, 195226. 6. Dabrowski, A., Hubicki, Z., Podkoscielny, P., & Robens, E. (2004). Selective removal of the heavy metal ions from waters and industrial wastewaters by ion-exchange method, Chemosphere, 56, 91106. 7. Tzanetakis, N., Taama, W.M., Scott, K., Jachuck, R.J.J., Slade, R.S., & Varcoe, J. (2003). Comparative performance of ion exchange membranes for electrodialysis of nickel and cobalt, Separation and Purication Technology, 30, 113127. 8. Feng, X., Wu, Z., & Chen, X. (2007). Removal of metal ions from electroplating efuent by EDI process and recycle of puried water, Separation and Purication Technology, 57, 257263. 9. Semmens, M.J., Dillon, C.D., & Riley, C. (2001). An evaluation of continuous electrodeionization as an in-line process for plating rinsewater recovery, Environmental Progress, 20, 251260. 10. Barakat, M.A., & Schmidt, E. (2010). Polymerenhanced ultraltration process for heavy metals removal from industrial wastewater, Desalination, 256, 9093. 11. Kryvoruchko, A., Yurlova, L., & Kornilovich, B. (2002). Purication of water containing heavy metals by chelating-enhanced ultraltration, Desalination, 144, 243248. 12. Ozaki, H., Sharmab, K., & Saktaywirf, W. (2002). Performance of an ultra-low-pressure reverse osmosis membrane (ULPROM) for separating heavy metal: Effects of interference parameters, Desalination, 144, 287294. 13. Qin, J.-J., Wai, M.-N., Oo, M.-H., & Wong, F.-S. (2002). A feasibility study on the treatment and recycling of a wastewater from metal plating, Journal of Membrane Science, 208, 213221. 14. Kurniawan, T.A., Chan, G.Y.S., Lo, W.-H., & Babel, S. (2006). Physico-chemical treatment techniques for wastewater laden with heavy metals, Chemical Engineering Journal, 118, 8398.
October 2012 349

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep

15. Heidmann, I., & Calmano, W. (2010). Removal of Ni, Cu and Cr from a galvanic wastewater in an electrocoagulation system with Fe- and Al-electrodes, Separation and Purication Technology, 71, 308314. 16. Cheng, H. (2006). Cu(II) Removal from lithium bromide refrigerant by chemical precipitation and electrocoagulation, Separation and Purication Technology, 52, 191195. 17. Adhoum, N., Monser, L., Bellakhal, N., & Belgaied, J.-E. (2004). Treatment of electroplating wastewater containing Cu21, Zn21 and Cr(VI) by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 112, 207213. 18. Lai, C.L., & Lin, S.H. (2003). Electrocoagulation of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) wastewater from semiconductor fabrication, Chemical Engineering Journal, 95, 205211. 19. Drouiche, N., Ghaffour, N., Lounici, H., & Mameri, M. (2007). Electrocoagulation of chemical mechanical polishing wastewater, Desalination, 214, 3137. lu, M. (2003). 20. Kobya, M., Can, O.T., & Bayramog Treatment of textile wastewaters by electrocoagulation using iron and aluminium electrodes, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 100, 163178. 21. Adhoum, N., & Monser, L. (2004). Decolourization and removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 43, 12811287. _nan, H., Dimoglo, A.,  22. I S ims  ek, H., & Karpuzcu, M. (2004). Olive oil mill wastewater treatment by means of electro-coagulation, Separation and Purication Technology, 36, 2331. g n, U .T., Ug ur, S., Koparal, A.S., & O u 23. U tveren, .B. (2006). Electrocoagulation of olive mill U wastewaters, Separation and Purication Technology, 52, 136141. 24. Ge, J., Qu, J., Lei, P., & Liu, H. (2004). New bipolar electrocoagulation-electrootation process for the treatment of laundry wastewater, Separation and Purication Technology, 36, 3339. 25. Feng, J., Sun, Y., Zheng, Z., Zhang, J., Li, S., & Tian, Y. (2007). Treatment of tannery wastewater by electrocoagulation, Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19, 14091415. zacar, M. (2006). Treatment of 26.  S engil, I.A., & O dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation using mild steel electrodes, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 137, 11971205. 27. Khansorthong, S., & Hunsom, M. (2009). Remediation of wastewater from pulp and paper mill industry by the electrochemical technique, Chemical Engineering Journal, 151, 228234. 28. Ugurlu, M., Gurses, A., Dogar, C., & Yalcn, M. (2008). The removal of lignin and phenol from paper mill efuents by electrocoagulation, Journal of Environmental Management, 87, 420428. 29. Kobya, M., & Delipinar, S. (2008). Treatment of the bakers yeast wastewater by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 154, 11331140.

lu, M. (2006). 30. Kobya, M., Senturk, E., & Bayramog Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 133, 172176. zbir, 31. Bayramoglu, M., Kobya, M., Can, O.T., & So M. (2004). Operating cost analysis of electrocoagulation of textile dye wastewater, Separation and Purication Technology, 37, 117125. lu, R., Kocakerim, 32. Ylmaz, A.E., Boncukcuog M.M., & Keskinler, B. (2005). The investigation of parameters affecting boron removal by electrocoagulation method, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 125, 160165. 33. Zaied, M., & Bellakhal, N. (2009). Electrocoagulation treatment of black liquor from paper industry, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 163, 9951000. 34. Martnez-Huitle, C.A., & Brillas, E. (2009). Decontamination of wastewaters containing synthetic organic dyes by electrochemical methods: A general review, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 87, 105145. 35. Ghosh, D., Medhi, C.R., & Purkait, M.K. (2008). Treatment of uoride containing drinking water by electrocoagulation using monopolar and bipolar electrode connections, Chemosphere, 73, 13931400. 36. APHA, AWWA, & WPCF. (1995). Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater (19th Edition), Washington, APHA. 37. Hana, F., Assobhei, O., & Mountadar, M. (2010). Detoxication and discoloration of Moroccan olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174, 807812. 38. Daneshvar, N., Oladegaragoze, A., & Djafarzadeh, N. (2006). Decolorization of basic dye solutions by electrocoagulation: An investigation of the effect of operational parameters, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 129, 116122. 39. Song, S., He, Z., Qiu, J., Xu, L., & Chen, J. (2007). Ozone assisted electrocoagulation for decolorization of C.I. Reactive Black 5 in aqueous solution: An investigation of the effect of operational parameters, Separation and Purication Technology, 55, 238245. 40. Daneshvar, N., Khataee, A.R., Ghandim, A.R.A., & Rasoulifard, M.H. (2007). Decolorization of C.I. Acid Yellow 23 solution by electrocoagulation process: Investigation of operational parameters and evaluation of specic energy consumption (SEEC), Journal of Hazardous Materials, 148, 566 572. 41. Modirshahla, N., Behnajady, M.A., & Kooshaiian, S. (2007). Investigation of the effect of different electrode connections on the removal efciency of Tartrazine from aqueous solutions by electrocoagulation, Dyes and Pigments, 74, 249257. 42. Zongo, I., Leclerc, J.-P., Maiga, H.A., Wethe, J., & Lapicque, F. (2009) Removal of hexavalent chromium from industrial wastewater by electrocoagulation: A comprehensive comparison of aluminium and iron electrodes, Separation and Purication Technology, 66, 159166.

350 October 2012

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.31, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep