Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Efficiency of Electrocoagulation in Treating Wastewater From A Dairy Industry, Part I: Iron Electrodes
The Efficiency of Electrocoagulation in Treating Wastewater From A Dairy Industry, Part I: Iron Electrodes
GERSON FREITAS SILVA VALENTE1, REGINA CÉLIA SANTOS MENDONÇA1, JOSÉ ANTONIO
MARQUES PEREIRA1 and LEONARDO BONATO FELIX2
1
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
2
Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
Iron electrodes were used for electrocoagulation (EC) treatment of wastewater from a dairy plant. Electrolysis time, pH, current
density and distance between electrodes were considered to assess the removal efficiency of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
solids (TS) and their fractions and turbidity. Samples were collected from the effluent of a dairy plant using a sampling methodology
proportional to the flow. The treatments were applied according to design factorial of half fraction with two levels of treatments and
three repetitions at the central point. The optimization of parameters for treating dairy industry effluent by electrocoagulation using
iron electrodes showed that electric current application for 15 minutes, an initial sample pH close to neutral (pH 7.0) and a current
density of 50 A.m−2 resulted in a significant reduction in COD by 58 %; removal of turbidity, suspended solids and volatile suspended
solids by 95 %; and a final treated effluent pH of approximately 9.5. Negative consequences of the type of electrode used were the
emergence of an undesirable color and an increase in the proportion of dissolved solids in the treated effluent.
Keywords: Electrocoagulation, iron electrodes, wastewater, dairy industries.
1 13.8 26.8 −10.3 1.5 19.0 −27.3 49.3 46.0 58.1 7.5 40.9 42.1
2 3.1 13.6 −16.4 −14.0 −2.1 −33.5 52.5 52.4 52.6 8.8 45.8 22.0
3 27.6 38.9 6.9 7.8 18.7 −10.1 85.1 88.7 75.4 11.6 92.6 65.6
4 21.8 30.4 5.9 −0.2 5.4 −9.4 85.3 91.9 67.5 12.4 94.8 44.0
5 13.9 29.1 −14.1 −3.2 13.0 −29.6 63.3 68.8 48.7 7.5 41.9 53.9
6 10.3 29.3 −24.8 −5.1 12.0 −33.1 54.6 71.7 8.6 9.6 66.4 43.1
7 28.0 36.9 11.6 6.6 11.8 −1.8 89.6 98.7 65.1 12.6 93.4 59.5
8 −12.5 −2.2 −31.5 −33.7 −21.7 −53.2 48.5 45.7 56.0 13.4 92.6 45.4
9 17.5 28.0 −1.9 −6.1 −0.5 −15.4 85.7 98.1 52.6 12.0 92.3 63.7
10 31.5 50.0 −2.7 12.7 30.0 −15.6 85.7 99.2 49.5 11.8 91.7 54.8
11 13.9 37.7 −30.0 −10.3 15.7 −52.8 83.8 91.9 62.0 10.2 95.6 61.3
effluent had been treated by electrocoagulation; Figure 2 The results of the tests, expressed as a percentage of
shows an example. removal, are presented in Table 3. We observed that in
Immediately after flotation and sedimentation of ma- some trials, there was an increase in total solids and their
terial, the flakes formed were green due to the presence of fractions content (negative values), indicating that there
Fe(OH)2 . After a few minutes of air contact, we observed was incorporation of the electrode material in the effluent.
the oxidation of Fe(OH)2 to Fe(OH)3 , resulting in a brick- These results showed the increase of electrode wear, under
red color. This final color could be observed in the treated the studied conditions in test. Based on this observation,
effluent, and a similar change in the color of the flakes was the conditions of test 8 (initial pH 9.0, 25 min. current
also observed by Casillas et al.[1] This phenomenon be- application, 61.6 A.m−2 and 1.4 cm distance between the
comes a limiting factor for treatment because it is desirable electrodes) were the most unsuitable for this evaluation of
to have a colorless effluent after treatment (Fig. 3). wastewater treatment.
A. Turbity B. COD
0.99 0.99
Probability
Probability
Probability
Probability
Fig. 4. Estimations of the effects on the removal of turbidity, COD, FSS, VSS, TSS and the final pH of the effluent represented in the
normal probability plot (α = 0.1) of zero mean and variance (color figure available online).
Electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment 359
100
Variable
T urbidez
SS
80 SSV
Removal (%)
60
40
20
0
5 10 15 20 25
Electrolysis time (min)
Fig. 5. Percentage removal of turbidity, TSS and VSS as a function of time (min).
The estimates of the effects represented in the normal Based on these results, we can express the removal of tur-
probability plot of zero mean and variance to assess which bidity, TSS and VSS as a function of time (Fig. 5). However,
effects were significant for all treatments are shown in Fig- at a reference time (15 min.), an interval time common to
ure 4. The application time of the electric current was signif- the three parameters, we observe a reduction in turbidity
icant for COD removal, some fractions of solids (TSS and by approximately 95 % and removal of approximately 85 %
VSS), turbidity and final pH of the treated effluent. The pH of TSS and 98 % of VSS. These results are expected be-
value of raw wastewater was significant only for COD re- cause the TSS fractions are mainly responsible for effluent
moval and final effluent pH, and the current density applied turbidity.
was significant only in the removal of FSS. For the other pa- The models adjusted for the removal efficiency of turbid-
rameters evaluated, none of the variables were significant. ity, SS and SSV as a function of time are presented below
Fig. 6. Effect of time on COD removal and the final pH of the treated effluent as a function of time of electric current application
and the initial pH of the sample.
360 Valente et al.
Table 4. Regression analysis (ANOVA) of the models to remove turbidity, TSS, VSS, COD and final pH values.
DF SS MS F p
Removal of turbiditya
Regression 2 5045.60 2522.80 45.86 0.00
Residue 8 440.10 55.00
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Total 10 5485.70
Remova lof TSSb
Regression 2 1778.8 889.4 5.85 0.03
Residue 8 1216.7 152.1
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Total 10 5485.70
Removal of VSSc
Regression 2 2393.2 1196.6 4.28 0.05
Residue 8 2237.6 279.7
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Total 10 5485.70
Removal of DQOd
Regression 3 1277.39 425.80 8.39 0.01
Residue 7 355.36 50.77
Lack of fit 1 2.74 2.74 0.05 0.84
Pure error 6 352.62 58.77
Total 10 1632.75
Final pHe
Regression 3 28.83 9.61 25.88 0.00
Residue 7 2.60 0.37
Lack of fit 1 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.41
Pure error 6 2.30 0.38
Total 10 31.43
a
R2: 92.0 %; R2adj : 90.0 %; bR2: 59.4 %; R2adj : 49.2 %; cR2: 51.7 %; R2adj : 39.6 %; dR2: 78.2 %; R2adj : 68.9 %; eR2: 91.7 %; R2adj : 88.2 %.