Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Role of electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment: A developmental T

review
Amina Tahreen, Mohammed Saedi Jami*, Fathilah Ali
Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Electrocoagulation (EC) is a popular wastewater treatment alternative that had been studied extensively for a
Electrocoagulation wide range of wastewater types, due to its versatility, ease of setup, low footprint and eco-friendly nature. The
Wastewater treatment recent studies on EC advancements on various wastewater types had been reviewed in this paper. The opera-
Sustainability tional variables that are vital to EC and the fundamental relationship of EC with conventional chemical coa-
Sustainable technology
gulation had been assessed as they are the primary factors that govern the pollutant removal mechanism of the
Hybrid system
Water reclamation
process. Hence, EC needs further studies for optimisation of its process parameters and modelling for scale up in
Recycle the industrial level. Moreover, this paper reviews the current emerging hybrid technologies of EC with integrated
Reuse separation technologies and their limitations for enhanced wastewater treatment systems for cleaner effluents,
water reclamation and recycle. The current prominent hybrid EC processes under research include: EC-ad-
sorption, EC-peroxidation, EC-chemical coagulation (CC), photovoltaic EC and EC-membrane. Due to the overall
low footprint requirement, environmental sustainability and strong potential of constant operation without
needing extensive control, hybrid EC-membrane process undeniably stands out to be the future of wastewater
treatment.

1. Introduction
Rising scarcity of fresh water is a global concern. According to the
World Economic Forum, the global water crisis ranks as the number
four risk in terms of impact on the society till date. A significant de-
crease in the available fresh water quality and quantity is raising con-
cerns on consequent impact on not only human health and ecosystem
but also the world economy [1]. Besides, the United Nations (UN)
realizing the importance and urgency of freshwater crisis mitigation,
placed “Clean Water and Sanitation” as the number six goal to be
achieved by 2030 under the movement of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG). Therefore, Target 6.3 under goal 6 (SDG) is to improve
water quality, wastewater treatment and safe reuse. By UN definition,
the accomplishment of Target 6.3 (one of the eight targets to achieve
SDG goal 6) is visualised by breaking it down to the following four
measures [2]:
1 Reducing pollution
2 Abolishing dumping and minimizing the emission of hazardous
materials and chemicals
3 Cutting down the quantity of untreated wastewater by half
4 Substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
It is evident that emerging industries and urban societies are major
drivers for global economic boost. However, disregarding the en-
vironmental consequences strictly on appropriate waste treatment and
disposal, will sooner or later, not only tax the world economy, but also
can build up to the collapse of the ecosystem sustainability, even im-
pacting climate change in the long run.
For instance, Malaysia being one of the top global palm oil produ-
cers, generated 19.86 million tons of crude palm oil (CPO) in 2019
alone, which is a marginal increase by 1.8 % [3]. With every ton of CPO
produced, huge amount of water is employed for extraction processes
on fresh fruit bunches (FFB) and about 50 % of the water is disposed as
effluents [4]. Besides, the effluents are high in organic matter and nu-
trients that are nontoxic but carry potential to induce algal growth and
eutrophication overtime [5], while the conventional treatment methods
fail to meet the environmental discharge standards set by Department
of Environment (DOE) of Malaysia [6]. Similarly, most wastewater ef-
fluents besides treated palm oil mill effluents (POME) [6–9], from
several industries such as cheese whey effluent [10], municipal was-
tewater [11], mineral processing wastewater [12] and many other types
of wastewater are discharged into rivers after conventional treatments.
Typical treatments before discharge into rivers involve physical, bio-
logical and/or chemical processes.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: saedi@iium.edu.my (M.S. Jami).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101440
Received 8 April 2020; Received in revised form 23 May 2020; Accepted 10 June 2020
2214-7144/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tahreen, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440

The type of treatment varies depending on the different types of

wastewater and pollutants. The conventional processes involved in
wastewater treatment include advanced oxidation processes [13], bio-
logical processes [14–16], physico-chemical processes [17–19], and
also emerging technologies namely membrane filtration [20,21] and
adsorption [22]. Advanced oxidation processes require strong oxidants
making the wastewater treatment taxing in terms of safety and cost.
Biological processes on the other hand, demand strictly controlled
conditions with long retention times, larger footprint and unwanted by-
products generation. Chemical processes need extensive chemical ad-
dition that not only adds to process cost, but also makes downstream
processes complex, with increased risk of secondary contamination.
Membrane filtration and adsorption alone cannot efficiently treat
wastewater, unless integrated with thorough pre-treatment processes.
Or else, the processes become unproductive overtime due to pore
blocking with pollutants and loss of flux (flowrate of clean treated ef-
fluent per unit surface area). Therefore, wastewater treatment research
is greatly allured to electrochemical processes. In 1889, electricity
employed water treatment was first proposed in UK, while electro-
coagulation (EC) achieved its first patent in the US in 1909 [23]. Even
though EC was successfully applied in the US in large scale drinking
water treatment in 1946, it failed to gain global popularity for wider
applications limited by power supply costs and huge capital investment
[23].
However, constant progress in EC research remarkably upheld the
significance of EC and its promising impact in wastewater treatment. Fig. 1. Diagram of electrical double layer (EDL) adopted from Park and Seo
Amongst all electrochemical processes, EC stands out as the most sus- [35].
tainable alternative to treat wastewater due to its simple setup, small
footprint, ability to treat large quantity of water with no extensive potential difference. High colloidal stability prevents flocculation that
chemical treatment [24,25]. Moreover, the versatility of the process produces flocs that can be separated by precipitation or sedimentation.
and its setup enables EC to treat a wide range of wastewater across The destabilization of the colloid surface charge is the prime target of
industries and domestic works with different types of pollutants. Many coagulation so the particles can agglomerate to form flocs that can be
researchers worldwide had conducted several EC studies till date, to easily separated from the water/wastewater.
treat various types of wastewater and achieved promising outcomes. According to the Derjaguin Landua Verwey Overbeek (DLVO)
Some EC studies were taken further by integrating with other processes, theory, the net force from Van der Waals attraction and surface charge
progressing into advanced wastewater systems to produce cleaner ef- repulsion as presented in Fig. 2 determines the stability of the colloids
fluents. Some of the notable works on EC are carried out by Bashir et al. [33–35]. The colloid stability can be quantified as zeta potential, which
[7], Changmai et al. [26], Deveci et al. [27], Dimoglo et al. [28], is the potential difference between the slipping plane and bulk solution
Khemila et al. [29], Nasrullah et al. [30], Nawarkar and Salkar [11], [36]. The particle stability is determined with respect to the bulk so-
Sher et al. [31] and more. This paper reviews the recent advancements lution in the measurement of zeta potential at the edge of EDL, giving a
on the evolution of EC and its emerging hybrid processes, along with an direct estimation of the colloidal surface stability while in motion in the
overview of crucial fundamentals on coagulation, which is necessary to solution [37], and it is the most precise tool for measuring colloid
understand the mechanism of EC and the influence on its operational stability [11]. Determining the colloid stability is vital to monitor and
variables. counteract the repulsive forces on colloid surface by destabilization.
Colloidal destabilization by coagulants is achieved by four me-
2. Coagulation chanisms: double layer compression, adsorption/charge neutralization,

To grasp the concept of coagulation, brief understanding on col-

loidal chemistry is vital as the wastewater pollutants are generally
colloids. Typically ranging from 1 nm to 2 μm, colloids dispersed in a
solution remain stable enough to avoid the physical separation pro-
cesses such as sedimentation, flotation and general filtration [32]. The
stability of the colloids is governed by the balance of two significant
forces: the repulsive forces at the colloid surface and the Van der Waal’s
attraction. The attractive Van der Waals forces resulting from induced
or permanent dipoles among dispersed molecules counteract with the
repulsive forces that arise when the stern, diffuse and electrical double
layer (EDL) of the colloids overlap. Stern layer comprises of the surface
colloidal charge that is constant in contrast to diffuse layer that is fol-
lowed by the stern layer as shown in Fig. 1. The diffuse layer is heavily
influenced by the charges present in the suspension resulting in the
formation of EDL which is an electrical potential barrier build up be-
tween both stern and diffuse layers. The combined effect of these
charged layers amongst the colloids creates a strong repulsive force,
making the colloids very stable. The repulsive force can be specified as Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the forces on two colloid particles adopted from
particle resistance to destabilization and is quantified by measuring its Park and Seo [35].

2
A. Tahreen, et al.
adsorption/inter-particle bridging and precipitation [24,37,38]. To
summarize, coagulation targets first to compress the EDL of the pollu-
tant as its thickness represents the strength of the pollutant repulsion.
High concentration of counter ions, surrounding the EDL, neutralizing
its repulsive forces, causes the reduction of EDL thickness. Conse-
quently, the zeta potential reduces with the increase in colloid desta-
bilization and reaches near 0 mV at optimum destabilization [24].
Charge neutralization is also achieved when counter ions adsorb on
the surface of the colloids outdoing the repulsive forces on the colloid
surface. Consequently, the neutralized colloids come together and ag-
glomerate for separation. Besides, metal coagulants when polymerized
with reactive groups, can form inter-particle links among colloids via
hydrogen bonding and dipole-dipole interactions. The inter-particle
bridging of the colloids gets bigger in size causing the colloidal desta-
bilization. However, it must be noted that rapid mixing and polymer
addition beyond optimum can cause dissociation of the inter-particle
bridges and restore colloid stability. On the other hand, at high doses of
metal salts, reaction with water leads to the formation of insoluble
sludge as precipitate, entrapping the pollutants [24,37,38]. Therefore,
with a good understanding of the weakening mechanisms of colloid
stability, the role of coagulation can be effectively studied, controlled
and enhanced.
2.1. Chemical coagulation (CC)
The surface charges in wastewater pollutants are commonly desta-
bilized by adding chemical coagulants and is referred to as chemical
coagulation (CC). The coagulants that had been widely used are mainly
sulfates and chlorides of Al and Fe for efficient pollutant removal,
mainly due to their availability, low cost and high electrodissolution
rates [39,40]. Also, the increased potential to generate polyvalent ions
with high coagulating property, makes Al and Fe conventionally ac-
cepted for coagulation [41–43]. The generation of polyvalent ions Al3+,
Fe2+ and Fe3+ from the coagulant dissociation in the solution is fol-
lowed by formation of metal hydroxides. While the metal hydroxides
form, the charged hydroxyl ions form complexes with the pollutants
present in the solution. Therefore, the repulsive charges on the pollu-
tant surface are destabilized causing the EDL to compress and collapse,
allowing the pollutants to agglomerate and form flocs. These flocs begin
to precipitate and separate from the solution through flotation by rising
up on the solution surface or by sedimentation on the influence of
gravity, depending on the type and size of the flocs produced [44].
By employing CC and flocculation, it is possible to achieve notable
results in wastewater treatment. Sher et al. [19] achieved 98 % removal
of COD and 99 % of turbidity, which is remarkable with CC-flocculation
process. However, the process is not feasible for large scale operation of
wastewater treatment with extensive chemical requirement. The major
disadvantage of CC is secondary contamination resulting from chemical
additions [45]. Additional separation steps are mandatory to remove
the harsh chemicals from the final treated water in CC making the
downstream processes more complex. Therefore, the emerging tech-
nology of electrochemical coagulation with negligible chemical input
becomes more appealing.
3. Electrocoagulation (EC)
EC is an electrochemical process that destabilizes the charges of the
pollutants through applied electric current causing electrode dissolu-
tion and trapping pollutants in flocs that can be separated from the
electrolytic mixture. Metal ions resulting from the anode dissolution
and subsequent hydrolysis act as coagulants that help to weaken
charged pollutants and cause them to floc together [46]. The metal
hydroxyl ions due to their polar moment and oxidizing ability form
complexes with the pollutants, leading to floc formation. An EC cell
geometry includes a power supply and electrodes immersed in an in-
sulated container for wastewater treatment. A schematic diagram of a
3
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of basic experimental setup of electrocoagulation
cell.
simple EC cell setup is presented in Fig. 3.
The major factors that affect EC process are electrode type, distance
between electrodes, applied current density, initial pH, conductivity of
the electrolyte and treatment time. Therefore, the operational variables
are to be optimized in every EC study.
Typically iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) plates are used as electrodes
as they are readily available, inexpensive and have high removal effi-
ciency [25]. These sacrificial metal electrodes release metal hydroxides
in the electrolyte as the current is applied, which has high affinity to
bind with the pollutants in the electrolytic cell. The equations that
describe this reaction are stated below, where M is the solid metal
electrode and n is the number ion charge [25].
At the anode:
M(s) → M(aq)n + ne− (1)
−
2H2O → 4H+
(aq) + O2 (g) + 4e (2)
At the cathode:
M(aq)n + ne− → M(s) (3)
2H2O(l) + 2e −
→ H2 + 2OH−
(aq) (4)
As EC reactions proceed, the released metal ions from electrode
dissociation, are estimated using Faraday’s law [5,37,47]. The theore-
tical electrode consumption value deduced from Faraday’s law helps to
evaluate EC performance and optimization.
It is important to highlight the features of EC that remarkably outdo
CC. EC eliminates the need for moving parts in its operation, adding to
the simplicity of the process reducing maintenance [46–48]. Aswathy
et al. [47] proved a drastic difference in COD removal % while com-
paring both EC and CC on bilge water (oily wastewater produced within
ocean vehicles) treatment. EC resulted in 78 % COD removal compared
to 59 % by CC. Besides, the resulting sludge from EC were more
settleable, acid resistant, stable with larger floc size and with less bound
water that could be separated quickly with filtration along with easier
dewatering compared to CC [47].
Moreover, with electricity being the driving force of metal coagu-
lant generation, the need for chemical addition in EC is diminished.
However, for the less economically developed countries (LEDCs),
electricity becomes a costly limiting factor for carrying out EC. Hence,
some researchers studied EC based wastewater treatment employing
solar power and had achieved remarkably promising results [11,29,49].
By incorporating renewable energy as power supply, EC can therefore,
further contribute to both economic and environmental sustainability
in wastewater treatment.
A. Tahreen, et al.
3.1. Parameters affecting EC
3.1.1. Current density
A key parameter affecting EC efficiency is current density, which is
the current applied per effective electrode surface area. Current density
determines the release rate of electrons as a consequence of dissociation
of metal ions from the electrode [46]. In fact, the electrode dissociation
directly corresponds to the applied current density [24]. However, the
range of current density applied varies widely for different types of
wastewater. The differences arise mostly due to variation in ionic in-
teraction resulting from the nature of pollutants present in the waste-
water.
Typically, the current density applied for EC may range from as low
as 0.01Am−2 [50] to as high as 880 Am−2 [51]. Even though the ap-
plied current greatly corresponds to the metal ion dissociation and re-
lease of ions in the solution, an excess of current may negatively affect
the efficiency of EC by enabling secondary reactions and over dosage of
coagulants can cause charge reversal of the colloids. This phenomenon
may reduce the electrode life span while deteriorating the efficiency of
EC and management of resources (energy supply, electrodes, etc.).
Therefore, current density is an important parameter that requires op-
timization to carry out EC for the desired wastewater/water treatment.
EC is also optimized corresponding to other key operational para-
meters such as initial pH, operation time, electrode type, electrode ar-
rangement and geometry [46]. The effect of current density on the
operation and effectiveness of EC had been studied by various re-
searchers on several operating conditions [26,52–54]. High current
leads to high ohmic drop (IR drop) between the electrodes along with
increased voltage that leads to higher costs. By reducing current den-
sity, the power consumption costs can be tackled, compromising how-
ever, the reaction time [55]. The current density can be reduced while
obtaining the same EC efficiency by modifying the other key parameters
of EC. For example, the costs can be minimized by reducing the power
input by diminishing the inter electrode distance, raising electrolyte
conductivity and electrode surface area [56]. Hence, parameter opti-
misation is vital in EC to study the synergistic or antagonistic effects of
multiple parameters on pollutant removal.
3.1.2. Electrode material and arrangement
The electrode material hugely influences the EC performance, effi-
ciency and cost. The material determines the type of electrochemical
reaction that will take place. The efficiency is mainly judged by the
electrode dissociation rate, pollutant removal percentage and the coa-
gulant needed. These parameters correspond directly to the release of
the metallic ion coagulants in the electrolytic solution. Coagulants with
a greater charge valency are favoured due to their ability to enhance the
coagulation of pollutants assisted by their greater level of electrical
double layer compression [39]. Considering the ability of effective
coagulation along with cost-effectiveness, availability, reliability and
non-hazardous characteristics, Al and Fe electrodes had been widely
utilized worldwide for EC with successful removal of targeted pollu-
tants [10,43,46].
Even though both metals, Al and Fe, are on a similar level in the
metal reactivity series, differences in their ion dissolution rates result in
varying outcomes in the EC process. There are differences in opinions of
several researchers regarding the most suitable electrode combination
for specific wastewater treatments. As example, for EC treatment on
palm oil mill effluent (POME), Nasrullah et al. [57] concluded that Al
electrodes resulted in a greater COD removal of 70 % compared to Fe
with addition of a coagulant and oxidant, whereas Bashir et al. [7] with
Fe electrodes had achieved a COD removal of 71.3 % on the same type
of wastewater with oxidant addition. Differences in other factors such
as EC time, wastewater characteristics and initial pH may have col-
lectively impacted the EC efficiency.
Besides, numerous studies had shown that both Fe and Al more or
less, resulted in the same range of COD % removal, generally with Al
4
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
showing greater effectiveness compared to Fe while Fe excels with its
relatively low power consumption minimizing the overall process cost
[32,58,59]. Moreover, in terms of decolorization of acid dye, Fe once
again surpassed Al by removing 98 % of the dye unlike 53 % by Al Chafi
et al. [60]. Beside maximum decolorization yield, the energy require-
ments and costs were minimized with Fe. Therefore, a fine line cannot
be drawn as to which electrode combination gives the best outcome.
Both Fe and Al have their own distinct properties with respective me-
chanisms in their dissociation and chemical properties. More factors
such as optimum working pH and reaction time must be considered as
well in parameter optimization as they vary for different electrodes,
along with the chemistry of the targeted wastewater. However, a
number of works concluded Al-Al to be the best electrode combination
for maximum COD removal [12,47,53,61,62].
A few studies had attempted to utilize a combination of both Al and
Fe electrodes for EC on several wastewater and reported a greater
overall efficiency in terms of pollutant removal as well as reduction in
power input and therefore, process costs [46,63–65]. El-Naas et al. [62]
however, achieved the best COD and sulphate removal with Al anode
and cathode. Besides Al and Fe electrodes, some researchers had also
attempted to use graphite and stainless steel as electrodes in their re-
spective EC based wastewater treatments [62,66,67].
Other than electrode combination, electrode arrangement can also
affect EC performance. Electrodes can either be simply arranged as
shown in Fig. 3 with a cathode and an anode, or they can have a
complex arrangement involving multiple sets of anodes and cathodes in
a single EC set up. The three types of complex electrode arrangements
are monopolar parallel (MP-P), monopolar series (MP-S) and bipolar
series (BP-S), differing based on variation in electrode connection, and
the concepts can be further understood in the works by Hakizimana
et al. [46], Naje et al. [32] and Shamaei et al. [68].
3.1.3. Inter electrode distance
The distance between electrodes plays a significant role in an EC
operation, as it determines the electrostatic field between the anode and
the cathode. The electrostatic field is the highest when the inter elec-
trode distance is at its minimum. Therefore, the metal hydroxides that
aid in forming flocs to support coagulation degrade due to strong col-
lisions from the high electrostatic attraction [69]. Consequently, EC
efficiency is low at minimum inter-electrode distance.
On the other hand, larger inter electrode gap defers the subsequent
formation of metal hydroxide-flocs due to reduced electrostatic forces
[70]. Electrode spacing beyond optimum largely reduces the EC effi-
ciency, incurring higher power consumption to overcome the slower
movement of the released ions between the anode and cathode [47,56].
Hence, it is vital to run EC at an optimum inter-electrode distance.
Several studies had used a minimum distance of no less than 10 mm
[10,11,25,28,58,71] for various types of wastewater. Beside this, an
interelectrode distance of 20 mm–30 mm had also been employed in
many studies [7,27,65,72].
A recent study by Changmai et al. [73] determined the effect of EC
efficiency in metal removal on steel industry effluent, with change in
electrode distance that was varied from 5 mm to 20 mm. It was con-
cluded that as the interelectrode gap was decreased, the metal removal
efficiency increased, due to the reduced resistance of the solution and
the minimum travelling distance for the ions. Therefore, with less
current density, higher metal removal percentage was achieved. How-
ever, the most appropriate electrode distance, as all key parameters,
also depend on the type of wastewater and the EC reactor design. A
larger space between the electrodes can be overcome by a larger ap-
plication of current. And the current requirement also depends on the
conductivity, pH and zeta potential of the wastewater.
Akarsu et al. [74] and Aswathy et al. [47], both carried out EC on
bilge water (oily wastewater produced within ocean vehicles) applying
10 V of power supply. Aswathy et al. [47] achieved a COD % removal of
89.84 % in 120 min compared to 52 % COD % removal by Akarsu et al.
A. Tahreen, et al.
[74] in 90 min. The major distinguishing factors between both studies
are the EC time as well as the electrode distance. The major difference
in COD% removal is due to the huge gap in the interelectrode distance.
Akarsu et al. [74] employed an electrode distance of 80 mm compared
to 10 mm by Aswathy et al. [47]. Besides, the findings of Aswathy et al.
[47] were strengthened with additional EC carried out and optimized
on synthetic bilge water first, achieving over 84 % COD removal, later
validated by real bilge water. Therefore, it can be concluded, that the
interelectrode distance plays a crucial role in pollutant removal effi-
ciency in EC and must be kept optimum to avoid higher power con-
sumption.
3.1.4. Initial pH and conductivity
Conductivity and pH are important factors to be considered to carry
out efficient EC. pH affects the conductivity, zeta potential as well as
the electrode dissolution in the wastewater solution [24]. However, the
pH tends to change throughout the EC process. Consequently, to map
the direct relationship between the pH and EC efficiency is hard.
Therefore, measuring the initial pH is the most appropriate step to
determine pH effect on EC.
Generally, pH of the wastewater, targeted for EC, is adjusted with
addition of common bases like NaOH solution and acids like dilute
sulfuric or hydrochloric acids. Varying the initial pH helps to optimize
the EC process to determine the optimum initial pH for the specific EC
process [37,38]. Every EC process specific to a certain type of waste-
water varies in terms of optimum initial pH; some wastewater types
give optimum EC efficiency at acidic initial pH such as the works by
Bashir et al. [7] on POME, Dimoglo et al. [28] on laundry wastewater,
Changmai et al. [26] on oily wastewater, Reilly et al. [5] on dairy
processing wastewater. On the other hand, some EC operations are
more efficient on relatively more alkaline pH environment, such as the
studies by Deveci et al. [27] on tannery wastewater, Nawarkar & Salkar
[11] on municipal wastewater, Verma [65] on textile wastewater and
Akarsu et al. [74] on bilge water. Moreover, there are also a few studies
that depicted optimum pollutant removal with a neutral initial pH such
as the studies carried out by Elazzouzi et al. [72] and Khemila et al.
[29]. Therefore, EC proves to be a versatile electrochemical treatment
process that can perform at its optimum in wide range of pH, acidic,
basic or neutral; largely depending on the type of electrodes used and
their interaction with the targeted wastewater.
Sher et al. [31] had carried out electrochemical coagulation and
flocculation on wastewater and achieved remarkable outcomes with a
revived design. The authors concluded that the current applied is the
most effective variable, achieving over 50 % COD removal with Fe
electrodes and around 12–18 % with Al electrodes, both on the same
wastewater with constant initial pH of 7.3. It is evident that initial pH
plays a crucial role in the performance of specific electrodes and the
best electrode for giving optimum pollutant removal cannot be con-
cluded from this study and therefore, needs incorporation of initial pH
optimisation for each electrode type. Demirbas and Kobya [53] had
carried out a study by using both Al-Al and Fe-Fe electrodes and found
that Al electrodes produced best results at a pH of 6.5 whereas Fe
electrodes performed best at pH 7.5. Each electrode type exhibits op-
timum performance at varying pH ranges when tested for the same
wastewater [60].
Different metal electrodes have different rate of dissolution at dif-
ferent wastewater solution. For instance, Al electrodes release trivalent
Al3+ ions which are oxidized to Al(OH)3, which release their OH−
hydroxide ions at the cathode. The release and uptake of these ions
according to the electrochemical nature of the wastewater affect the
initial pH of the solution. Unlike Al, Fe electrodes release Fe2+ ions
which tend to further oxidize to Fe3+ ions before forming the hydro-
xides. Therefore, the initial pH of Fe employed EC varies compared to
that with Al electrodes. Further studies must be carried out on EC to
evaluate and solidify the relationship between electrode material and
optimum initial pH for specific wastewater, and their effect on overall
5
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
EC efficiency.
pH largely controls the conductivity, which determines the current
flow in the solution. It governs the economic feasibility of the EC pro-
cess especially in terms of power consumption. Higher conductivity
means less current is required to achieve the same pollutant removal
efficiency. Often, electrolytes such as NaCl and NH4Cl are added to
increase the solution conductivity. However, not many studies had been
undertaken to optimize the electrolyte concentration for optimum EC
yield.
Typically, the colloids with charge more positive than 30 mV and
more negative than 30 mV are considered stable [75]. More research is
required to investigate the effect of electrolyte concentration and pH on
the zeta potential of the wastewater solution besides conductivity,
especially to determine possible interaction with key EC parameters
whether they aid or diminish EC activity in colloidal destabilization.
3.1.5. Reaction time
The pollutant removal efficiency is dependent largely on the EC
time. With longer times, higher rate of pollutant removal is achieved
due to the generation of more metal coagulants and flocs at a constant
current density [32]. However, the EC efficiency forms a plateau at
specific time frames as the pollutant removal rates become constant due
to occupied active sites forming coagulant pollutant flocs [58]. The
optimization of EC time is necessary as the pollutant removal rate is
affected by electrolysis time, to avoid loss of energy and resources.
3.1.6. Temperature
Most EC studies are generally carried out at room temperature.
However, some researchers had investigated the effect of temperature
in pollutant removal efficiency in EC. For instance, Çırak [76] con-
cluded that heated solutions result in a more efficient and cost effective
colloidal separation. Higher temperature increased the generation of Al
(OH)2+ ions which is one of the most effective coagulant species.
Raising the temperature from 25 °C to 85 °C, not only enhanced the
turbidity removal percentage from colloidal calcareo-argillaceous sus-
pension significantly but also reduced power consumption [76]. Cor-
responding to increased effectiveness, operating EC at higher tem-
peratures, lowers current density requirement, therefore, reducing
process costs notably.
Shamaei et al. [68] achieved an increase in total organic carbon
(TOC) % removal at 60 °C while varying temperature ranging from
20 °C to 60 °C. However, the efficiency significantly increased at 60 °C.
At high temperature, the formation of more metal hydroxides is pro-
minent due to higher rate of ion movement explained by Brownian
motion and collisions which destabilize the colloids rapidly with more
efficiency. But higher temperature may have negative effects in EC. For
instance, metal coagulants become more soluble at heated temperatures
[77]. Consequently, the ability to separate the filterable precipitates are
potentially reduced leaving behind dissolved substances in the treated
effluent [68].
3.1.7. Other factors
3.1.7.1. Stirring speed. Stirring speed is an important factor for EC to
ensure homogeneity in the reactor mixture and enhance pollutant
removal rate by imparting velocity through agitation. In general, the
stirring speed is kept constant at most EC studies for wastewater
treatment, typically within 80–300 rpm [7,12,57,78]. However, some
researchers investigated the influence of stirring speed on EC process in
pollutant removal efficiency. Increasing mixing speed enhances the
movement of ions and flocs produced within the EC reactor increasing
the overall efficiency of the pollutant removal. However, beyond
optimum range, the agitation can impact negatively to the EC
efficiency by breaking down the flocs that trap the pollutants within
by possibly restabilising the colloids [32,58,69].
3.1.7.2. Supporting electrolytes. Supporting electrolytes boost the
A. Tahreen, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440

conductivity of the EC mixture by enhancing electron transfer in anode
dissolution. Consequently, a larger current can pass through the
electrolytic solution at a smaller voltage, reducing the power
consumption of the overall EC process, making it economical by
saving time and resources to achieve the same efficiency. The most
common electrolyte used is sodium chloride (NaCl) as it is inexpensive
and readily available. Besides, polyaluminium chloride (PAC),
potassium chloride (KCl) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3) supporting
electrolytes were compared along with NaCl for EC by Keshmirizadeh
et al. [78]. It was found that KCl worked as effectively as NaCl in total
removal of chromium IV from wastewater. Therefore, the conductivities
of the EC mixture are adjusted by the addition of appropriate
supporting electrolytes at optimum concentrations.
However, more studies should be carried to optimise supporting
electrolyte concentration in EC as it affects the total dissolved solids
(TDS) of the final effluent which is crucial for operations that require
feed water of strictly low TDS value.
4. EC based wastewater treatment
efficiency, lower capital cost and footprint requirement, no extensive
chemical addition, easy setup and non-hazardous by-products, make EC
one of the most sustainable wastewater treatment option. However, EC
has its limitations in treating water to the purity level of reuse along
with deterioration of sacrificial electrodes during the EC process, hence
requires time to time electrode replacement [56]. Therefore, there is
immense room for improvement in employing EC technology especially
by optimization of operational parameters for maximum purity and
yield.
Based on the findings summarized in Table 1, it can be noted that EC
is a booming technology and holds immense potential to replace con-
ventional wastewater treatment methods. However, EC alone is in-
sufficient to reclaim water for industrial or domestic reuse as COD is not
completely removed by EC process. Hence, development of hybrid
technologies by integrating EC with other separation processes holds
potential to effectively overcome the EC limitations. The hybrid tech-
nologies can be designed to produce water from wastewater, that can be
reused; contributing to cut down global freshwater crisis and reduce
pollution by cleaner waste discharge to the environment.

Till date, EC had been widely studied in treating wastewaters from
various sources including bilge water [47,74], municipal wastewater
[11,79], textile wastewater [29,70], oily wastewater [26], tannery
wastewater [27], mineral processing wastewater [12], urban waste-
water [72], laundry wastewater [28], metalworking fluid wastewater
[53], industrial waste water [80], palm oil mill effluents (POME) [7,57]
and more (summarized in Table 1). The main operating parameters,
namely current density, electrode type, inter-electrode distance, initial
pH and the percentage of pollutant removal had been also summarized
in Table 1. Notably, over 85 % of pollutant removal with EC treatment
on several types of wastewater, proves its reliability to be an alternative
technology for treating wastewater. Beside pollutant removal
5. Advancements in EC based hybrid technologies
Several researchers had studied the impact of many hybrid tech-
nologies integrated with EC to enhance its performance; the related
studies had been reviewed and summarised in Table 2.
5.1. EC-peroxidation
Among the prominent wastewater treatment technologies that are
widely integrated with EC, advanced oxidation process such as perox-
idation is an attractive alternative. The hybrid process combining both
EC and advanced oxidation is also known as electrochemical

Table 1
Summary of EC process on various types of wastewater in current studies.
Reference Wastewater type Electrode Inter-electrode Optimum current density/ Optimum initial EC time % Pollutant removal
combination distance voltage pH

[61] Textile wastewater Al-Al 20 mm 25 mA/cm2 5 120 min 18.6 % COD

83.5 % turbidity
[28] Laundry wastewater Graphite-Steel 10 mm 5.26 mA/cm2 5.5 5 min 90 % surfactant
[26] Oily wastewater Al-Al 5 mm 8 mA/cm2 3.6 20 min 71 % oil and grease
14 % TDS
[12] Sulphide mineral processing Al-Al (opt) Fe-Fe 25 mm 90.01 mA/cm2 6.5 – 98.36 % COD
wastewater 93.14 % SO42−
94.86 % Ca2+
[11] Municipal wastewater Al-Al 10 mm 4 mA/cm2 7.4−8.5 20 min 92.01 % COD
93.97 % turbidity
49.78 % TDS
[7] Palm oil mil effluent (POME) Al-Al 30 mm 40.21 mA/cm2 4.4 45.67 min 71.3 % COD
96.8 % colour
100 %TSS
[29] Textile wastewater Al-Al 10 mm 10−40 mA/cm2 7 – 99 % turbidity
95 % colour
[80] Industrial estate wastewater Fe-Fe – 30 mA/cm2 6 50 min 92 % COD
[72] Urban wastewater Al-Al 30 mm 20 mA/cm2 7.4 30 min 85 % COD
94 % TSS
[53] Metalworking fluid wastewater Al-Al 10 mm 8 mA/cm2 6.5 (Al) 25 94 % COD (Al)
Fe-Fe 7.5 (Fe) min 90 % COD (Fe)
2
[65] Textile wastewater Fe-Al 30 mm 2 mA/cm 8 80 min 90 % COD
90 % colour removal
[79] Biotreated municipal wastewater Al-Al 5 mm 0.265 mA/cm2 7.5 40 min 63.21 % (NO3)− 79.98
% (SO4)2-
[57] Palm oil mil effluent (POME) Al-Al 10 mm 80 mA/cm2 – 180 min (Fe) 86.67 % COD (Fe)
Fe-Fe 210 min (Al) 81.11 % COD (Al)
2
[81] Palm oil mill effluent (POME) Al-Al 30 mm 56 mA/cm 4.5 65 min 75.4 % COD
[74] Bilge water Al-Al 80 mm 10 V 8 90 min 52 % COD
[47] Synthetic bilge water, Real bilge Al-Al 10 mm 10 V 7 120 min 85 % COD
water 89.84 % COD
[5] Dairy processing and Al-Al – 3.6 mA/cm2 4.5 60 min 75 % COD
slaughterhouse wastewater Fe-Fe

6
A. Tahreen, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440

Table 2
Recent studies on EC based hybrid systems for wastewater treatment.
Reference Wastewater Hybrid EC technology Research outcome

[82] Distillery industrial photo-EC, electrochemical peroxidation ECP gave the best COD removal (86 %) and colour removal (100 %) with minimum
effluent (ECP), photo-ECP energy consumption of 1.2 kWhr/m3
[7] POME ECP 71.3 % COD removal was achieved using Al electrodes with optimum conditions of pH
4.4, current density 40.21 mA/cm2 and 45.67 min reaction time
[27] Tannery wastewater EC-fungal treatment 96 % COD removal was achieved.
Electrodes: (Al-Fe) with optimum values
pH 8, current density 0.81 A and time of 60 min
[74] Bilge water EC-nanofiltration 62.38 % COD was removed in 90 min with pH 6.25 and 15 V
[57] POME ECP with addition of PAC 95.08 % COD removal was achieved in 180 min at optimum current density of 80 mA/cm2
and addition of 2 % H2O2+3 g/L PAC
[29] Textile dye wastewater Photovoltaic EC 99 % turbidity and 95 % colour were removed using solar energy as power source
[68] Oil sands produced water EC-CC The highest % TOC removal (39.8 %) was obtained at 0.34 A, pH 8, temperature 60 °C at
90 min EC process
[11] Municipal effluent Photovoltaic EC 92.01 % COD, 93.97 % turbidity and 49.78 % TDS were removed with solar energy as
power source
[73] Steel industry effluent EC-MF 100 % removal of heavy Mn was achieved and water reclaimed was recycled for unit
operations in the industry
[83] Sunflower oil refinery EC-EO 90–95 % of organic wastes were removed at pH 5.8, current density 8.58 mA/cm2 and
effluent operation time 243 min

peroxidation (ECP) [83–85]. ECP involves addition of oxidant, namely
hydrogen peroxide H2O2 while operating EC process [83]. Researchers
namely Asaithambi et al. [82], Nasrullah et al. [57] and Bashir et al. [7]
carried out ECP studies and achieved promising results. By adding H2O2
concentration of 234 mg/L, Asaithambi et al. [82] achieved a COD re-
moval increase by 13 % using ECP hybrid process compared to EC
alone, with a final COD removal of 85 % on industrial distillery effluent
using Fe electrodes at an initial pH of 5. Beside enhanced COD % re-
moval, peroxidation with 0.5 g/L of H2O2 combined with EC, reduced
the current density by 28.2 % and reaction time by 30 % on POME [7].
Moreover, alongside ECP by addition of 2 % H2O2, and by further ad-
dition of coagulant aid PAC, Nasrullah et al. [57] achieved a COD re-
moval of 95.08 % on POME. Therefore, combination of ECP as well as
coagulant aid proves to be a promising hybrid system not only for re-
moving organic pollutants but also saving time and energy costs.
However, addition of coagulant aid suggests the need for further pol-
ishing steps for chemical by-product removal with additional unit op-
eration. Also, the requirement of powerful oxidant, H2O2 in ECP, makes
the process less environment friendly. Moreover, Sharma et al. [83]
compared ECP with an EC integrated electro-oxidation (EO), an ad-
vanced oxidation process based hybrid system and concluded that hy-
brid EC-EO surpassed both in terms of pollutant removal efficiency as
well as power consumption efficiency against ECP. Additional studies
must be undertaken considering the sustainability of the hybrid EC-EO
process along with economic feasibility and to tackle the arising com-
plications in industrial scale up as well as environmental sustainability.
5.2. EC-CC
Despite possible complications in the downstream polishing steps of
treated effluent, EC combined with chemical coagulation (CC) effec-
tively removed total organic carbon (TOC) of 39.8 % on oil sands
produced water [68]. Hence, the idea that CC is not a good combination
with EC as compared to ECP is further strengthened. Even though the
wastewater is clarified to an extent, EC-CC fails to achieve the effluent
quality pure enough to be recycled in the industry unit operations.
5.3. Photovoltaic EC
A remarkable advancement in EC technology for wastewater sys-
tems is the integration of photovoltaic cells in EC for energy supply.
Solely, depending on solar energy to carry out EC, takes it a step further
in environmental sustainability and cost efficiency. Not many studies
had been performed to investigate the large-scale implementation of
solar power for continuous EC operation. Long term EC efficiency and
solar grid infrastructure for continuous operation are yet to be in-
vestigated [29]. Seeking a sustainable power input for remote areas
with electricity deficit, Khemila et al. [29] investigated the use of
photovoltaic EC to remove turbidity and color from textile wastewater
and achieved a removal of turbidity and color by 99 % and 95 %, re-
spectively. Also Nawarkar and Salkar [11] after incorporation of solar
powered EC in continuous operation, achieved COD removal of 92.01
%, turbidity 93.97 % and TDS of 49.78 % from municipal wastewater. It
is, therefore, evident that photovoltaic EC can be a promising alter-
native for enhancing pollutant removal efficiency while cutting off
power requirement costs with renewable energy.
5.4. EC-biological treatment
Deveci et al. [27] incorporated biological fungal treatment (BFT)
with EC to improve tannery wastewater treatment and observed a COD
removal of 96 % using Al and Fe electrodes. It is a relatively new insight
to merge biological treatment process with EC as a hybrid system but is
significantly effective to remove toxic pollutants and heavy organic
matter from tannery wastewater. However, the need for a highly con-
trolled environment with strict media composition for growth and
fermentation, makes the hybrid system to work at longer times adding
more complexities for large scale industrial applications. Therefore,
further studies must be carried out to investigate the sustainability of
the combined system and downstream processes needed for the final
effluent removal from the fungal reaction mixture.
5.5. EC-membrane
Above all separation processes, the emerging membrane technology
paves way for a versatile and promising water treatment system with
low space, minimum chemical requirement and simple integration with
EC. Changmai et al. [73] accomplished a 100 % removal of heavy metal
namely manganese (Mn) from steel industry effluent employing a hy-
brid EC-membrane process. Through microfiltration (MF) membrane,
the flocs were separated to obtain the treated water that was pure en-
ough to be recycled as process water for the steel industry unit opera-
tions. Besides, the fabrication of the microfiltration membrane from the
steel industry waste such as steel slags, had made the hybrid EC-
membrane system more impressive owing to its ability to remove 100 %
of the targeted heavy metal from the wastewater, along with promising
environmental sustainability considering waste reduction by recycle
and reuse. Moreover, without the need of harsh chemicals that incur

7
A. Tahreen, et al.
production of unwanted by-products and incorporation of further pur-
ification steps to obtain the treated water, membrane filtration com-
mendably stands out from advanced oxidation process. Therefore, hy-
brid EC-membrane process must be further studied especially in terms
of parameter optimization and system design. Also, the potential of the
hybrid system in upscaling to industrial level must be assessed.
Akarsu et al. [74] carried out EC to treat bilge water and concluded
that EC solely was insufficient for COD removal and therefore, a com-
bined nanofiltration membrane process was required for further clar-
ification. Besides, the crucial limiting factor of membrane filtration that
largely influences the process efficiency in long-term, is membrane
fouling. Membrane fouling is the consequence of reduction in the flow
rate of the filtered effluent (also known as permeate) due to pore
blocking of the membrane by accumulated pollutants [86]. Many re-
searchers had extensively studied the types of fouling, their causes and
mitigation strategies to overcome the consequences. Li et al. [87] car-
ried out direct observation through membrane (DOTM). DOTM is an
optical observation procedure of particle deposition on membrane first
developed by UNESCO Centre of Membrane Science and Technology
(UNSW) via Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM)
[88]. By investigating the particle distribution, the differences in flux
ratio of clean and fouled membrane were evaluated in terms of flux
decline on crossflow microfiltration.
Changmai et al. [73] integrated microfiltration with EC to remove
flocs from oily wastewater. The mechanism of metal ion entrapment
and separation using hybrid EC-membrane had been remarkably illu-
strated in Fig. 4 by Changmai et al. [73]. The mechanism depicted in
Fig. 4 can provide a clear general understanding on the targeted pol-
lutant removal process for various types of wastewater employing hy-
brid EC-membrane system.
With ceramic microfiltration membrane, Changmai et al. [73]
concluded that about 75 %–85 % of the initial flux through filtration of
the EC treated samples was achieved. However, no counteractive
measures were undertaken or suggested in the study to overcome the
flux loss. If the EC treated samples were allowed to sediment for a
period of time, the flocs would settle, and the clarified EC sample would
significantly enhance the microfiltration process minimizing the con-
sequences of fouling and reduced flux. In fact, many studies view
membrane filtration as the core polishing step for treating wastewater
Fig. 4. Schematic visualization of particle removal through EC-membrane hybrid technique [73].
8
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
and EC as its pretreatment. For instance, Chellam and Sari [44] con-
cluded that EC removes viruses, organic matter and other pollutants
from the sample that are foulants for membrane filtration. Therefore, a
fully optimized, specified and controlled EC process can greatly en-
hance membrane filtration by significantly minimizing membrane
fouling. Moreover, many researchers developed pore blocking models
to study the nature of fouling on a type of membrane on different types
of effluents. For example, Hermia’s models are the most prominent
equations according to various literature for evaluating the type of
fouling on the membrane filtration process, basing upon which fouling
mitigation strategies are developed [22,86,89–91,92].
Moreover, employing EC as a pre-treatment process for membrane
separation is an enormous progress in water treatment technology. For
instance, chemical coagulation and membrane filtration combined
system called coagulation membrane bioreactor (CMBR) had been ef-
fectively applied for treating drinking water by Best et al. [93] andTian
et al. [94]. Not only the organic matter removal efficiency was en-
hanced but also membrane fouling was greatly mitigated. Therefore,
Liu et al. [95] concluded that coagulation was the most effective
treatment technology to not only mitigate membrane fouling but also
extend overall membrane lifespan and boost permeate quality. With the
CMBR, many operations such coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration etc. can be completely removed due to the induced air lift
circulation in the reactor mixing the feedwater and the reactor mixture
[96]. Therefore, the flocs formed increase in size with the internal
circulation and mitigate membrane fouling by preventing smaller flocs
or particulates to block the membrane pores.
For CMBR, typically PAC is used as coagulant or adsorbent which
also requires extensive maintenance and additional operation for its
removal [96]. The addition of any chemical reagent like PAC can be
omitted with EC. Therefore, replacing the chemical coagulation process
with EC and integrating with membrane process or membrane bior-
eactor (MBR) once again stands out as a promising alternative for
water/wastewater treatment that needs to be thoroughly explored and
studied. A schematic diagram for the overall water reclamation process
and reuse in the industry had been visualized in Fig. 5.
A. Tahreen, et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of overall hybrid EC-membrane process plan for process water reclamation and recycle.
6. Conclusions
After thorough review on recent advancements on the role of EC on
wastewater treatments, the rising importance and promising potential
of EC is evident. Specifically, the characteristics of EC that distinctively
makes it stand out are the versatility in its ability to treat wide range of
wastewater types, simplicity in setup, cost effectiveness and above all,
environmental sustainability by not requiring or producing hazardous
chemicals. The crucial aspect of EC that needs consideration is that the
operational variables vary with respect to the type of wastewater and
requires optimization and modelling. Moreover, to meet the environ-
mental discharge standards and for water reclamation from wastewater
and recycle in the industry, EC evolution with hybrid integration with
other separation processes just makes it a step closer to sustainably
replace the conventional treatment systems. Replacing conventional
power supply with solar power for EC process is a commendable pro-
gress in EC evolution. Also, among several hybrid EC techniques that
had been studied, emerging membrane technology stands out to be the
finest process to be integrated with EC due to the overall low footprint
requirement, environmental sustainability and continuous operation
without requiring complex handling. However, more research needs to
be undertaken in terms of parameter optimization, system design and
economic feasibility to investigate the potential of hybrid-EC mem-
brane to be upscaled in industrial level specific to the wastewater type
along with membrane pore blocking studies and fouling mitigation
strategies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors express their gratitude to Ministry of Education (MOE)
Malaysia for granting a Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS),
project no. FRGS-19-194-0803, and to International Islamic University
Malaysia for the financial support.
References
[1] World Economic Forum, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Insurance, Z, Global Risks
Report 2019, (2019).
[2] SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation, SDG 6 Synthesis Report
2018 on Water and Sanitation, (2018), https://doi.org/10.18356/e8fc060b-en.
[3] Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry, Malaysian
Palm Oil Board i (February) (2020) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
[4] A.L. Ahmad, S. Ismail, S. Bhatia, Water recycling from palm oil mill effluent (POME)
using membrane technology, Desalination 157 (1–3) (2003) 87–95, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00387-4.
[5] M. Reilly, A.P. Cooley, D. Tito, S.A. Tassou, M.K. Theodorou, Electrocoagulation
9
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
treatment of dairy processing and slaughterhouse wastewaters, Energy Procedia
161 (2019) 343–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.106.
[6] H. Kamyab, S. Chelliapan, M.F.M. Din, S. Rezania, T. Khademi, A. Kumar, Palm oil
mill effluent as an environmental pollutant, Palm Oil (2018), https://doi.org/10.
5772/intechopen.75811.
[7] M.J. Bashir, J.H. Lim, S.S. Abu Amr, L.P. Wong, Y.L. Sim, Post treatment of palm oil
mill effluent using electro-coagulation-peroxidation (ECP) technique, J. Clean.
Prod. 208 (2019) 716–727, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.073.
[8] Z. Daud, H. Awang, V. Education, U. Tun, H. Onn, Treatment of palm oil mill ef-
fluent by electrocoagulation with aluminium electrodes, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7
(2) (2013) 457–463.
[9] M.R. Othman, M.A. Hassan, Y. Shirai, A.S. Baharuddin, A.A.M. Ali, J. Idris,
Treatment of effluents from palm oil mill process to achieve river water quality for
reuse as recycled water in a zero emission system, J. Clean. Prod. 67 (2014) 58–61,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.004.
[10] L. Tirado, Ö. Gökkuş, E. Brillas, I. Sirés, Treatment of cheese whey wastewater by
combined electrochemical processes, J. Appl. Electrochem. 48 (12) (2018)
1307–1319, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10800-018-1218-y.
[11] C.J. Nawarkar, V.D. Salkar, Solar powered Electrocoagulation system for municipal
wastewater treatment, Fuel 237 (2019) 222–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2018.09.140.
[12] M. Wu, Y. Hu, R. Liu, S. Lin, W. Sun, H. Lu, Electrocoagulation method for treat-
ment and reuse of sulphide mineral processing wastewater: characterization and
kinetics, Sci. Total Environ. 696 (2019) 134063, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134063.
[13] G. Boczkaj, A. Fernandes, Wastewater treatment by means of advanced oxidation
processes at basic pH conditions: a review, Chem. Eng. J. 320 (2017) 608–633,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.084.
[14] D. Huang, C. Hu, G. Zeng, M. Cheng, P. Xu, X. Gong, et al., Combination of Fenton
processes and biotreatment for wastewater treatment and soil remediation, Sci.
Total Environ. 574 (2017) 1599–1610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.
08.199.
[15] M.J. Iskandar, A. Baharum, F.H. Anuar, R. Othaman, Palm oil industry in South East
Asia and the effluent treatment technology—a review, Environ. Technol. Innov. 9
(February 1) (2018) 169–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2017.11.003.
[16] W.L. Liew, M.A. Kassim, K. Muda, S.K. Loh, A.C. Affam, Conventional methods and
emerging wastewater polishing technologies for palm oil mill effluent treatment: a
review, J. Environ. Manage. 149 (2014) 222–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2014.10.016.
[17] H. Bhuptawat, G.K. Folkard, S. Chaudhari, Innovative physico-chemical treatment
of wastewater incorporating Moringa oleifera seed coagulant, J. Hazard. Mater. 142
(1–2) (2007) 477–482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.08.044.
[18] S.H. Lin, M.L. Chen, Treatment of textile wastewater by-chemical methods for
reuse, Water Res. 31 (4) (1997) 868–876, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-
1354(96)00318-1.
[19] F. Sher, A. Malik, H. Liu, Industrial polymer effluent treatment by chemical coa-
gulation and flocculation, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (4) (2013) 684–689, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.07.003.
[20] J.M. Dickhout, J. Moreno, P.M. Biesheuvel, L. Boels, R.G.H. Lammertink, W.M. de
Vos, Produced water treatment by membranes: a review from a colloidal perspec-
tive, February 1, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 487 (2017) 523–534, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcis.2016.10.013.
[21] J. Teng, L. Shen, Y. He, B.Q. Liao, G. Wu, H. Lin, Novel insights into membrane
fouling in a membrane bioreactor: elucidating interfacial interactions with real
membrane surface, Chemosphere 210 (2018) 769–778, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.07.086.
[22] M.K. Amosa, M.S. Jami, M.F.R. Alkhatib, T. Majozi, Studies on pore blocking me-
chanism and technical feasibility of a hybrid PAC-MF process for reclamation of
irrigation water from biotreated POME, Sep. Sci. Technol. (Philadelphia) 51 (12)
(2016) 2047–2061, https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2016.1192192.
[23] G. Chen, Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 38 (1) (2004) 11–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2003.10.006.
[24] D.T. Moussa, M.H. El-Naas, M. Nasser, M.J. Al-Marri, A comprehensive review of
electrocoagulation for water treatment: potentials and challenges, J. Environ.
Manage. 186 (2017) 24–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.032.
[25] O. Sahu, B. Mazumdar, P.K. Chaudhari, Treatment of wastewater by
A. Tahreen, et al.
electrocoagulation: a review, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. - Int. 21 (4) (2014)
2397–2413, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2208-6.
[26] M. Changmai, M. Pasawan, M.K. Purkait, Treatment of oily wastewater from dril-
ling site using electrocoagulation followed by microfiltration, Sep. Purif. Technol.
210 (2019) 463–472, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.08.007.
[27] E.Ü. Deveci, C. Akarsu, Ç. Gönen, Y. Özay, Enhancing treatability of tannery was-
tewater by integrated process of electrocoagulation and fungal via using RSM in an
economic perspective, Process. Biochem. 84 (2019) 124–133, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procbio.2019.06.016.
[28] A. Dimoglo, P. Sevim-Elibol, Dinç, K. Gökmen, H. Erdoğan, Electrocoagulation/
electroflotation as a combined process for the laundry wastewater purification and
reuse, J. Water Process. Eng. 31 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.
100877.
[29] B. Khemila, B. Merzouk, A. Chouder, R. Zidelkhir, J.P. Leclerc, F. Lapicque,
Removal of a textile dye using photovoltaic electrocoagulation, Sustain. Chem.
Pharm. 7 (August 2017) (2018) 27–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2017.11.004.
[30] M. Nasrullah, L. Singh, S. Krishnan, M. Sakinah, D.M. Mahapatra, A.W. Zularisam,
Electrocoagulation treatment of raw palm oil mill effluent: effect of operating
parameters on floc growth and structure, J. Water Process Eng. 33 (August 2019)
(2020) 101114, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101114.
[31] F. Sher, K. Hanif, S. Zafar, M. Imran, Implications of advanced wastewater treat-
ment: electrocoagulation and electro flocculation of effluent discharged from a
wastewater treatment plant, J. Water Process. Eng. 33 (November 2019) (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101101.
[32] A.S. Naje, S. Chelliapan, Z. Zakaria, M.A. Ajeel, P.A. Alaba, A review of electro-
coagulation technology for the treatment of textile wastewater, Rev. Chem. Eng. 33
(3) (2017) 263–292, https://doi.org/10.1515/revce-2016-0019.
[33] B.A. Firth, R.J. Hunter, Flow properties of coagulated colloidal suspensions. I.
Energy dissipation in the flow units, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 57 (2) (1976) 248–256,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(76)90200-9.
[34] M.S. Nasser, A.E. James, Numerical simulation of the continuous thickening of
flocculated kaolinite suspensions, Int. J. Miner. Process. 84 (1–4) (2007) 144–156,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2007.05.005.
[35] S.J. Park, M.K. Seo, Intermolecular force, Interface Science and Technology vol. 18,
(2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375049-5.00001-3.
[36] M. Kosmulski, J. Gustafsson, J.B. Rosenholm, Correlation between the zeta poten-
tial and rheological properties of anatase dispersions, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 209
(1) (1999) 200–206, https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1998.5884.
[37] M. Vepsäläinen, M. Sillanpää, Electrocoagulation in the treatment of industrial
waters and wastewaters, Advanced Water Treatment, (2020), pp. 1–78, https://doi.
org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819227-6.00001-2.
[38] P. Taylor, D. Ghernaout, M.W. Naceur, B. Ghernaout, A review of electrocoagula-
tion as a promising coagulation process for improved organic and inorganic matters
removal by electrophoresis and electroflotation, Desalin. Water Treat. (December
2012) (2011) 37–41.
[39] S. Garcia-Segura, M.M.S.G. Eiband, J.V. de Melo, C.A. Martínez-Huitle,
Electrocoagulation and advanced electrocoagulation processes: a general review
about the fundamentals, emerging applications and its association with other
technologies, J. Electroanal. Chem. 801 (2017) 267–299, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jelechem.2017.07.047.
[40] A.K. Verma, R.R. Dash, P. Bhunia, A review on chemical coagulation/flocculation
technologies for removal of colour from textile wastewaters, J. Environ. Manage. 93
(1) (2012) 154–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.09.012.
[41] O.T. Can, E. Gengec, M. Kobya, TOC and COD removal from instant coffee and
coffee products production wastewater by chemical coagulation assisted electro-
oxidation, J. Water Process. Eng. 28 (January) (2019) 28–35, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jwpe.2019.01.002.
[42] R. Davarnejad, M. Mohammadi, A.F. Ismail, Petrochemical wastewater treatment
by electro-Fenton process using aluminum and iron electrodes: statistical compar-
ison, J. Water Process. Eng. 3 (C) (2014) 18–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.
2014.08.002.
[43] M.J. Pearse, Historical use and future development of chemicals for solid-liquid
separation in the mineral processing industry, Miner. Eng. 16 (2) (2003) 103–108,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-6875(02)00288-1.
[44] S. Chellam, M.A. Sari, Aluminum electrocoagulation as pretreatment during mi-
crofiltration of surface water containing NOM: a review of fouling, NOM, DBP, and
virus control, J. Hazard. Mater. 304 (2016) 490–501, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2015.10.054.
[45] B. Ensano, L. Borea, V. Naddeo, V. Belgiorno, M. de Luna, M. Balakrishnan,
F. Ballesteros, Sc, J. Hazard. Mater. 361 (2019) 367–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2018.07.093.
[46] J.N. Hakizimana, B. Gourich, M. Chafi, Y. Stiriba, C. Vial, P. Drogui, J. Naja,
Electrocoagulation process in water treatment: a review of electrocoagulation
modeling approaches, Desalination 404 (2017) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2016.10.011.
[47] P. Aswathy, R. Gandhimathi, S.T. Ramesh, P.V. Nidheesh, Removal of organics from
bilge water by batch electrocoagulation process, Sep. Purif. Technol. 159 (2016)
108–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.01.001.
[48] K. Sardari, P. Fyfe, D. Lincicome, S.R. Wickramasinghe, Aluminum electro-
coagulation followed by forward osmosis for treating hydraulic fracturing produced
waters, Desalination 428 (August 2017) (2018) 172–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.desal.2017.11.030.
[49] A. Ziouvelou, A.G. Tekerlekopoulou, D.V. Vayenas, A hybrid system for ground-
water denitrification using electrocoagulation and adsorption, J. Environ. Manage.
249 (June) (2019) 109355, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109355.
[50] D. Ghosh, H. Solanki, M.K. Purkait, Removal of Fe(II) from tap water by
10
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
electrocoagulation technique, J. Hazard. Mater. 155 (1–2) (2008) 135–143, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.11.042.
[51] O. Larue, E. Vorobiev, C. Vu, B. Durand, Electrocoagulation and coagulation by iron
of latex particles in aqueous suspensions, Sep. Purif. Technol. 31 (2) (2003)
177–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(02)00182-X.
[52] X. Chen, P. Ren, T. Li, J.P. Trembly, X. Liu, Zinc removal from model wastewater by
electrocoagulation: processing, kinetics and mechanism, Chem. Eng. J. 349 (2018)
358–367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.05.099.
[53] E. Demirbas, M. Kobya, Operating cost and treatment of metalworking fluid was-
tewater by chemical coagulation and electrocoagulation processes, Process. Saf.
Environ. Prot. 105 (2017) 79–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.10.013.
[54] S. Um, Effect of current density and contact time on membrane fouling in elec-
trocoagulation-MBR and their kinetic studies on fouling reduction rate, TAPPI J. 31
(4) (2017) 321–328, https://doi.org/10.11001/jksww.2017.31.4.321.
[55] D. Wagle, C. Lin, T. Nawaz, H.J. Shipley, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. (2019) 103595, ,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103595.
[56] M.Y.A. Mollah, P. Morkovsky, J.A.G. Gomes, M. Kesmez, J. Parga, D.L. Cocke,
Fundamentals, present and future perspectives of electrocoagulation, J. Hazard.
Mater. 114 (1–3) (2004) 199–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.08.
009.
[57] M. Nasrullah, L. Singh, Z. Mohamad, S. Norsita, S. Krishnan, N. Wahida,
A.W. Zularisam, Treatment of palm oil mill effluent by electrocoagulation with
presence of hydrogen peroxide as oxidizing agent and polialuminum chloride as
coagulant-aid, Water Resour. Ind. 17 (November 2016) (2017) 7–10, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wri.2016.11.001.
[58] B. Lekhlif, L. Oudrhiri, F. Zidane, P. Drogui, J.F. Blais, Study of the electro-
coagulation of electroplating industry wastewaters charged by nickel (II) and
chromium (VI), J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 5 (1) (2014) 111–120.
[59] I. Linares-Hernández, C. Barrera-Díaz, G. Roa-Morales, B. Bilyeu, F. Ureña-Núñez,
Influence of the anodic material on electrocoagulation performance, Chem. Eng. J.
148 (1) (2009) 97–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2008.08.007.
[60] M. Chafi, B. Gourich, A.H. Essadki, C. Vial, A. Fabregat, Comparison of electro-
coagulation using iron and aluminium electrodes with chemical coagulation for the
removal of a highly soluble acid dye, Desalination 281 (2011) 285–292, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.004.
[61] S. Bener, Ö. Bulca, B. Palas, G. Tekin, S. Atalay, G. Ersöz, Electrocoagulation process
for the treatment of real textile wastewater: Effect of operative conditions on the
organic carbon removal and kinetic study, Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 129 (2019)
47–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.06.010.
[62] M.H. El-Naas, S. Al-Zuhair, A. Al-Lobaney, S. Makhlouf, Assessment of electro-
coagulation for the treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater, J. Environ.
Manage. 91 (1) (2009) 180–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.003.
[63] J.A.G. Gomes, P. Daida, M. Kesmez, M. Weir, H. Moreno, J.R. Parga, et al., Arsenic
removal by electrocoagulation using combined Al-Fe electrode system and char-
acterization of products, J. Hazard. Mater. 139 (2) (2007) 220–231, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.11.108.
[64] I. Heidmann, W. Calmano, Removal of Ni, Cu and Cr from a galvanic wastewater in
an electrocoagulation system with Fe- and Al-electrodes, Sep. Purif. Technol. 71 (3)
(2010) 308–314, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.12.016.
[65] A.K. Verma, Treatment of textile wastewaters by electrocoagulation employing Fe-
Al composite electrode, J. Water Process. Eng. 20 (September) (2017) 168–172,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.11.001.
[66] Akanksha, G.B. Roopashree, K.S. Lokesh, Comparative study of electrode material
(iron, aluminium and stainless steel) for treatment of textile industry wastewater,
Int. J. Environ. Sci. 4 (4) (2013) 519–531, https://doi.org/10.6088/ijes.
2014040400008.
[67] O. Chavalparit, M. Ongwandee, Optimizing electrocoagulation process for the
treatment of biodiesel wastewater using response surface methodology, J. Environ.
Sci. 21 (11) (2009) 1491–1496, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62445-6.
[68] L. Shamaei, B. Khorshidi, B. Perdicakis, M. Sadrzadeh, Treatment of oil sands
produced water using combined electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation
techniques, Sci. Total Environ. 645 (2018) 560–572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.06.387.
[69] V. Khandegar, A.K. Saroha, Electrocoagulation for the treatment of textile industry
effluent - a review, J. Environ. Manage. 128 (2013) 949–963, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.043.
[70] S.K. Verma, V. Khandegar, A.K. Saroha, Removal of chromium from electroplating
industry effluent using electrocoagulation, J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 17 (2)
(2013) 146–152, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000170.
[71] M. Kobya, F. Ozyonar, E. Demirbas, E. Sik, M.S. Oncel, Arsenic removal from
groundwater of Sivas-Şarkişla Plain, Turkey by electrocoagulation process: com-
paring with iron plate and ball electrodes, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 3 (2) (2015)
1096–1106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.04.014.
[72] M. Elazzouzi, K. Haboubi, M.S. Elyoubi, Electrocoagulation flocculation as a low-
cost process for pollutants removal from urban wastewater, Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
117 (2017) 614–626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.11.011.
[73] M. Changmai, P.P. Das, P. Mondal, M. Pasawan, A. Sinha, P. Biswas, et al., Hybrid
electrocoagulation–microfiltration technique for treatment of nanofiltration re-
jected steel industry effluent, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 00 (00) (2020) 1–22,
https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1715381.
[74] C. Akarsu, Y. Ozay, N. Dizge, H.E. Gulsen, H. Ates, B. Gozmen, M. Turabik,
Electrocoagulation and nanofiltration integrated process application in purification
of bilge water using response surface methodology, Water Sci. Technol. 74 (3)
(2016) 564–579, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.168.
[75] O. Duman, S. Tunç, Electrokinetic and rheological properties of Na-bentonite in
some electrolyte solutions, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 117 (1–2) (2009)
A. Tahreen, et al.
331–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2008.07.007.
[76] M. Çırak, High-temperature electrocoagulation of colloidal calcareo-argillaceous
suspension, Powder Technol. 328 (2018) 13–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.
2018.01.026.
[77] C.T. Driscoll, R.D. Letterman, Chemistry and fate of AL (I I I) in treated drinking
water by Charles T. Driscoll 1 and Raymond D. Letterman, 2 member, ASCE. J.
Environ. Eng. 114 (1) (1988) 21–37.
[78] E. Keshmirizadeh, S. Yousefi, M.K. Rofouei, An investigation on the new operational
parameter effective in Cr(VI) removal efficiency: a study on electrocoagulation by
alternating pulse current, J. Hazard. Mater. 190 (1–3) (2011) 119–124, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.010.
[79] A.K. Sharma, A.K. Chopra, Removal of nitrate and sulphate from biologically
treated municipal wastewater by electrocoagulation, Appl. Water Sci. 7 (3) (2017)
1239–1246, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0320-0.
[80] Y. Yavuz, B. Ögütveren, Treatment of industrial estate wastewater by the applica-
tion of electrocoagulation process using iron electrodes, J. Environ. Manage. 207
(2018) 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.034.
[81] M.J.K. Bashir, T. Mau Han, L. Jun Wei, N. Choon Aun, S.S. Abu Amr, Polishing of
treated palm oil mill effluent (POME) from ponding system by electrocoagulation
process, Water Sci. Technol. 73 (11) (2016) 2704–2712, https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2016.123.
[82] P. Asaithambi, B. Sajjadi, A.R. Abdul Aziz, W.M.A. Bin Wan Daud, Performance
evaluation of hybrid electrocoagulation process parameters for the treatment of
distillery industrial effluent, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 104 (2016) 406–412,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.09.023.
[83] S. Sharma, A. Aygun, H. Simsek, Electrochemical treatment of sunflower oil refinery
wastewater and optimization of the parameters using response surface metho-
dology, Chemosphere 249 (2020) 126511, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.126511.
[84] E. Brillas, I. Sirés, M.A. Oturan, Electro-fenton process and related electrochemical
technologies based on fenton’s reaction chemistry, Chem. Rev. 109 (12) (2009)
6570–6631, https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900136g.
[85] S. Sharma, H. Simsek, Treatment of canola-oil refinery effluent using electro-
chemical methods: a comparison between combined electrocoagulation + elec-
trooxidation and electrochemical peroxidation methods, Chemosphere 221 (2019)
630–639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.066.
[86] Y.R. Chang, Y.J. Lee, D.J. Lee, Membrane fouling during water or wastewater
11
Journal of Water Process Engineering 37 (2020) 101440
treatments: current research updated, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 94 (2019) 88–96,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2017.12.019.
[87] H. Li, A.G. Fane, H.G.L. Coster, S. Vigneswaran, Direct observation of particle de-
position on the membrane surface during crossflow microfiltration, J. Memb. Sci.
149 (1) (1998) 83–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00181-1.
[88] E. Drioli, L. Giorno, E. Fontananova, Comprehensive Membrane Science and
Engineering, Retrieved from (2017) https://books.google.com.my/books?id=6-
xGDgAAQBAJ.
[89] R.W. Field, D. Wu, J.A. Howell, B.B. Gupta, Critical flux concept for microfiltration
fouling, J. Memb. Sci. 100 (3) (1995) 259–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-
7388(94)00265-Z.
[90] T. Mohammadi, A. Esmaeelifar, Wastewater treatment of a vegetable oil factory by
a hybrid ultrafiltration-activated carbon process, J. Memb. Sci. 254 (1–2) (2005)
129–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.12.037.
[91] M.V. Sarfaraz, E. Ahmadpour, A. Salahi, F. Rekabdar, B. Mirza, Experimental in-
vestigation and modeling hybrid nano-porous membrane process for industrial oily
wastewater treatment, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 90 (10) (2012) 1642–1651, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2012.02.009.
[92] M.C. Vincent Vela, S. Álvarez Blanco, J. Lora García, E. Bergantiños Rodríguez,
Analysis of membrane pore blocking models adapted to crossflow ultrafiltration in
the ultrafiltration of PEG, Chem. Eng. J. 149 (1–3) (2009) 232–241, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2008.10.027.
[93] G. Best, M. Singh, D. Mourato, Y.J. Chang, Application of immersed ultrafiltration
membranes for organic removal and disinfection by-product reduction, Water Sci.
Technol. Water Supply 1 (5–6) (2001) 221–231.
[94] Jyu Tian, Zlin Chen, Yling Yang, H. Liang, J. Nan, Zzhi Wang, Gbai Li, Hybrid
process of BAC and sMBR for treating polluted raw water, Bioresour. Technol. 100
(24) (2009) 6243–6249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.008.
[95] D. Liu, Z. Zhang, Y. Qian, P. He, Y. Wu, L. Rong, et al., Principles and performance
of a submerged internal-circulation membrane coagulation reactor, Desalin. Water
Treat. 57 (32) (2016) 14787–14797, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.
1070754.
[96] H. Abu Hasan, M.H. Muhammad, N.I. Ismail, A review of biological drinking water
treatment technologies for contaminants removal from polluted water resources, J.
Water Process. Eng. 33 (May 2019) (2020) 101035, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwpe.2019.101035.