Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purification Technology

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

Electrocoagulation–electroflotation as a surface water treatment for

industrial uses
Catherine Ricordel a,∗ , André Darchen b , Dimiter Hadjiev c
a
Ecole des Métiers de l’Environnement, Campus de Ker Lann, 35170 Bruz, France
b
UMR CNRS 6226 Sciences Chimiques de Rennes, ENSCR, CS 50837, avenue du Général Leclerc, 35708 Rennes Cedex 7, France
c
Laboratoire de Biotechnologie et Chimie Marine, Université de Bretagne Sud, Centre de Recherche, rue Saint Maudé, 56132 Lorient, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water is a natural product that is needed in many industrial uses, but some processes like washing
Received 2 March 2010 or cooling do not require drinking water. In this work we investigated the efficiency of an electrolytic
Received in revised form 29 June 2010 treatment of surface waters in order to increase their quality. The waters were taken from a river and in
Accepted 30 June 2010
a pond and they were treated by electrocoagulation–electroflotation with an aluminum soluble anode.
Vital nutriments for the bacteria development were consumed during the electrolysis. This treatment led
Keywords:
to great decreases of molecular oxygen, phosphate and nitrate anions and dissolved organic compounds.
Bacteria
Each of these decreases may explain the disinfection effect that was observed for the total flora. Moreover,
Disinfection
Aluminum
the X-ray diffraction of the electro-generated solid showed the presence of nanocrystallites that could be
Nanoparticles involved in a bactericidal effect. After the electrocoagulation–electroflotation treatment, the investigated
Adenosine 5 -triphosphate waters exhibited an increased quality for a cooling use.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in ECEF processes. Indeed, electrolysis of wastewaters with alu-

The deterioration of the quality and the decrease of the quan-
tity of water lead to a greater interest in treating or recycling waters
with physical means such as membrane separation or electrolytic
process [1–5]. Electrocoagulation–electroflotation (ECEF) appears
as a promising and efficient electrochemical technology [6–11].
ECEF is an electrolytic treatment whereby a sacrificial iron or alu-
minum anode dissolves and produces coagulant ions Al3+ or Fe2+ ,
while the cathode reaction affords hydrogen that is involved in a
flotation process. Electrocoagulation and ECEF offer some advan-
tages over traditional chemical coagulation: less coagulant ion is
required and consequently less sludge is formed. ECEF equipments
are compact and suitable installations are available. Furthermore,
the coagulant injection into the solutions is easily managed by con-
trolling the electrolytic current.
A number of papers are devoted to the ECEF treatment of
wastewater [6,12–19]. It has been noted that iron anode leads to a
green color into treated water which then turns yellow and turbid
[6,20–22]. This effect is due to the formation of Fe2+ ions that are
oxidized to Fe3+ in the presence of oxygen. Fe(OH)3 formation and
its precipitation affords yellow water and increases its turbidity.
This drawback is a good reason for choosing aluminum electrodes
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 299058800; fax: +33 299058809.
E-mail address: catherinericordel@ecole-eme.com (C. Ricordel).
minum soluble anode has been well documented by numerous
authors [11,13,23–25]. Electrolytic dissolution of the aluminum
anode leads to various mononuclear and polynuclear species that
are involved in coagulation process in solution. This coagulation
affords gelatinous charged hydroxo-cationic complexes which are
able to remove pollutants by adsorption and charge neutralization.
ECEF treatment is an alternative to conventional chemical
coagulation using Fe or Al salts. In ECEF, the coagulant is gener-
ated by electrolytic oxidation of an anode. Removal mechanisms
occurring in the ECEF process involve coagulation, adsorption,
precipitation and flotation [26–29]. The advantages of ECEF on
conventional chemical coagulation include a low consumption of
alkaline reagents thanks to a minor change of pH. The direct han-
dling of corrosive chemicals is almost eliminated and the process
can be easily adapted for use in portable water treatment units
[7,8,30].
Electrochemical disinfection has shown a great interest, as one
of the alternatives to conventional chlorination due to its effective
environmental compatibility. A lot of studies concern electrolysis
which generates a variety of oxidants in the presence of molecular
oxygen, including hydrogen peroxide and ozone, as well as free
chlorine and chlorine dioxide when chloride ions are present in
the solution [31–33]. Disinfection effect of electrocoagulation has
been recently published, but the question remains open on how
does it work? We were interested by using ECEF in the objective of
treating surface waters taken in a river and a pond in order to obtain

1383-5866/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2010.06.024
 C. Ricordel et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347
Table 1
Physicochemical characteristics of river and pond water.
Parameters River water
−1
CAT (mequiv. L ) 1.79
Chloride (mg Cl− L−1 ) 7.82
Total hardness (Ca, Mg) (◦ F) 11.33
Hardness (Ca) (◦ F) 7.13
Nitrate (mg L−1 ) 13.50
Phosphate (mg L−1 ) 0.10
Total suspended solids, TSS (mg L−1 ) 0.05*E−02
Permanganate index (mg O2 L−1 ) 6.35
waters able to be used in water cooling towers. For this goal, it
was necessary to study the performances of the electrocoagulation
towards the removal of the essential nutriments for bacterial flora
and the flora able to be present in these waters. We thus made
chemical and bacteriological studies of two surface waters treated
by electrocoagulation by using aluminum electrodes. Further, the
energy consumption has been determined.
2. Experimental
2.1. Water substrates
All the experiments were performed with tap water or water
samples taken in a river and a pond. These samples were stored
at 4 ◦ C and brought to room temperature before experimentation.
Table 1 gathers the main physicochemical data of these surface
waters.
2.2. Equipment and electrolysis
The ECEF reactor was a 2 L electrolytic cell with two parallel
aluminum plates, each having a surface area of 38.4 cm2 . The elec-
trodes were installed vertically in the middle of the reactor with
an electrode gap of 2 cm. Before electrolysis, the electrodes were
immersed in 2 M NaOH during 5 min and then rinsed with water.
Finally, they were dried with absorbent paper and weighed. The
electrodes were connected to a DC power supply (Micronix MX300-
1) providing a controlled voltage or current up to 300 V or 1 A,
respectively. All the runs were performed at room temperature,
under a magnetically agitation. Current intensity was chosen in
order to avoid any heating of the solution, a phenomenon which
would influence the disinfection action of electrolysis. The applied
tension and the water temperature were measured during the elec-
trolysis. The conductivity and the pH of the waters were measured
with a WTW 315i apparatus. After each run, the aluminum elec-
trodes were washed with water, dried and weighed. Water samples
were taken and used for analysis after sedimentation. Neither cen-
trifuging nor filtration was performed. Parallel blank analyses were
carried out on untreated waters.
2.3. Bacteria analysis
Total bacteria and algae were counted according to the standard
method NF EN ISO 6222(T 90401) [34]. The count of the revival
colonies was obtained at 37 ◦ C on Plate Count Agar (PCA). Two
characteristics were determined: (i) T0 , the initial bacterial con-
centration in unit forming colonies (UFC mL−1 ) and (ii) Tf , the final
bacterial concentration (UFC mL−1 ).
For the effluent analysis, the Quench—Gone cATP (QGA) technol-
ogy was used. The decanted solid was analyzed for Total Control
for Microbial growth control (TCM). TCM and QGA are technolo-
gies from LuminUltra working on the measurement of adenosine
5 -triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a direct and interference-free indica-
tor of the total biomass. The results are first expressed in Relative
343
Light Units (RLU), then transformed by calibration in pg mL−1 of
ATP and finally converted into equivalent bacterium.
Pond water Eq. (1) was used to calculate the Quench–Gone cATP, where
0.93 RLUUCI was the calibration result. QGA allows the measurement of
10.37 the cellular concentration cATP and the determination of the equiv-
– alent microorganism concentration. For Total Control parameters,
6.00 we realized two tests: total ATP (tATP) and extra cellular (dATP).
7.00
0.55
Relationships ((2) and (3)) were used to calculate Total Control
1.1*E−03 parameters. In Eq. (1) cATP is the intracellular ATP concentration of
7.63 living organisms and it is given by Eq. (4):
RLUcATP 10, 000
cATP (pg mL−1 ) = × (1)
RLUUCI sample volume (mL)
RLUtATP
tATP (pg mL−1 ) = × 20, 000 (2)
RLUUCI
RLUdATP
dATP (pg mL−1 ) = × 10, 000 (3)
RLUUCI
cATP (pg mL−1 ) = tATP − dATP (4)
2.4. Chemical analysis
All chemical analyses were carried out by following standard
methods: Alcalimetric Title and Complete Alcalimetric Title (AT and
CAT) NF EN ISO 9963-1 (T 90-036); total hardness (Mg2+ + Ca2+ )
(NF T 90-003); hardness (Ca2+ ) (NF T 90-016); chloride (NF T 90-
014); permanganate index (KMnO4 ) NF EN ISO8467 (T 90-050);
suspended matters (NF T 90-105); phosphate NF EN ISO 6878
(T 90-023). Nitrate concentration was measured by the Reflecto-
quant method (Merck). The detection range was between 5 and
225 mg L−1 .
2.5. Electrochemical analysis
Specific electrochemical analyses were done during electrolysis
performed in a 0.5 L three-neck round-bottom flask equipped with
aluminum electrodes, a platinum electrode and a saturated calomel
electrode (SCE) as a sensor of the oxidation reduction potential
(ORP) and with a Clark electrode for the oxygen concentration mea-
surement. The electrolysis was stopped during the electrochemical
measurements.
2.6. X-ray diffraction
The solid obtained after electrolysis carried out in 0.01 M NaCl
with a soluble aluminum anode was collected by filtration. It was
washed with water, dried at 105 ◦ C and then characterized by X-ray
powder diffraction (Bragg-Brentano geometry, Rigaku-Geigerflex
diffractometer). The diffraction pattern was scanned from 10◦ to
90◦ (2) using  Cu K␣ = 1.54178 Å and a step length of 0.02◦ (2).
The grain size of crystallized alumina was estimated from the full
width at half-maximum values of the X-ray diffraction using Scher-
rer’s formula.
3. Results and discussion
The first point of interest was to investigate the efficiency of
ECEF in improving the water quality for an industrial application in
cooling towers. The second point concerned the capacity of ECEF to
disinfect surface waters.
3.1. Removal of chemical species
The efficiency of the ECEF process on the chemical composition
of river water and pond water is given in Table 2. The experiments
were carried out at 17 ◦ C with a river water having initial pH = 7.60
344 C. Ricordel et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347
Table 2
Removal efficiency of ECEF treatment applied to surface water and drinking water.
Chemical parameters (conductivity) Tap water
Ca2+ : 150 ◦ F
1.7 mS cm−1 1 mS cm−1
Removal efficiencies (%)
CAT 71 17
Chloride 0 4
Total hardness 1 8
Hardness 0 8
Nitrate 2 0
Phosphate 78 68
TSS – –
Permanganate index – 47
and a conductivity of 0.41 mS cm−1 and at 12.3 ◦ C with a pond water
having initial pH = 6.94 and a conductivity of 0.55 mS cm−1 . In order
to determine the influence of some water parameters on the ECEF
process, we investigated the efficiency of the treatment applied
to tap water after NaCl addition. The calculation of the chemical
removal efficiency (RE%) was performed using formula (5) where
C0 and C are concentrations of the chemical before and after elec-
trolysis:
(C0 − C) × 100
RE (%) = (5)
C0
The results (Table 2) show a very good efficiency for orthophos-
phate ions and fairly good ones for the suspended solids, nitrate ions
and the permanganate index. The nitrate removal efficiency was
better for the pond water than for the river water probably because
nitrate concentration was lower in the pond water. For tap water,
and Ca2+ supplemented tap water, the results given in Table 2 show
that higher conductivity and Ca2+ concentration have a negative
effect on the phosphate ions removal. But, the high concentration
of Ca2+ decreased the CAT.
According to the results of Table 2, ECEF can be successfully
used to remove suspended matters, orthophosphate and nitrate
ions and organic matter involved in the permanganate index. After
30 min of electrolysis, about 50% of the suspended matters were
precipitated. It is well known that the similar charge of colloidal
particles prevent their aggregation through electrostatic repul-
sion. The ECEF efficiency is based on the fact that the instability
of colloids, suspensions and emulsions is determined by electric
charges. Therefore, when additional electrical charges are supplied
to colloidal particles via appropriate electrodes, the surface charges
are neutralized and several particles coalesce and lead to larger
agglomerates which may be separated by flotation or sedimenta-
tion [21,35].
Holt et al. [23] proved that the electrolysis current is not the sole
parameter which controls the coagulation process. Bubble produc-
tion rate and fluid regime within the reactor are also key parameters
of the process. The collision between particles, the floc growth and
the potential for material removal by flotation are controlled by
the current. Low electrolysis current produces low hydrogen bub-
ble density, leading to a low upward momentum flux, and thus a
poor mixing within the reactor. Under these conditions the sedi-
mentation is more efficient than the flotation. When the current
increases, the bubble density and the amount of mixing increase
and favor flotation over sedimentation. The operational current has
a strong influence on the dominant pollutant removal path, that is
flotation or settling, and consequently on the floc production. High
current means a small electrocoagulation cell but the process works
with a wasting electrical energy in heating up the water [30].
The decrease of the total hardness can be attributed to an elec-
trochemical generation of a softener to limit the scaling [36]. We
should mention that the simultaneous presence of calcium ions
River water (0.41 mS cm−1 ) Pond water (0.55 mS cm−1 )
21 9
2 0
21
14 10
26 62
99 99
51 46
47 46
and hydrogen carbonate leads to the formation of calcium carbon-
ate and hydrogen carbonate on the cathode according to reactions
(6) and (7) [37]:
HCO3 − + OH− → CO3 2− + H2 O (6)
2− 2+
CO3 + Ca → CaCO3 (7)
The reduction of the permanganate index is similar to results
obtained in studies carried out on organic matter removal [38,39].
The nitrate removal results confirm the experiments that were
carried out by Emamjomeh and Sivakumar [40] by a batch ECEF
process. The nitrate removal efficiency depends on electrolysis time
and current values. At both low current and short electrolysis time,
the nitrate removal efficiency was very low.
The important removal of phosphate ions is the most interest-
ing result. During the dissolution of aluminum anode, micro-flocs
are formed rapidly. After the electrocoagulation, the solutions were
maintained unstirred for a few minutes in order to allow the
agglomeration of micro-flocs into larger flocs. During this floccu-
lation process all kinds of micro-particles and negatively charged
ions are attached to the flocs by electrostatic bonding. Phosphate
ions are also adsorbed onto coagulated flocs. When aluminum ions
are present in the water, AlPO4 forms in the low pH range (<6.5)
and at a higher pH range (>6.5) aluminum increasingly converts
to oxides and hydroxides [41]. The removal of orthophosphate and
nitrate ions is very important for the success of the process. Indeed,
these ions are vital nutriments for a good bacterial development.
Their removal inhibits biofilm formation.
In order to understand the action of electrocoagulation against
bacteria, we measured the oxygen concentration and the ORP of
solution during some experiments. The results are presented in
Figs. 1–3.
When the electrocoagulation experiments were performed in
the presence of chloride salts, the oxygen concentration showed a
Fig. 1. Variations of O2 concentration during electrocoagulation carried out in the
presence of different electrolytes (electrolyte concentration 0.1 M; I = 0.5 A).
 C. Ricordel et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347 345

Table 4
ATP (TCM) results for isolated solids after ECEF treatment of river water and pond
water.

Ref. ATP total ATP extra ATP intra Dead cellular (%)
(pg mL−1 ) (pg mL−1 ) (pg mL−1 )

River water
[1] 33,993 11,540 22,453 34
[2] 42,790 9879 32,911 23
[3] 10,591 5598 4993 53

Pond water
[1] 31,777 17,968 3809 57
[2] 26,349 26,310 39 100
[3] 18,909 17,404 1505 92

Fig. 2. ORP variation during an electrocoagulation carried out in KCl solution (0.1 M;
I = 0.5 A).
Fig. 3. ORP variation during an electrocoagulation carried out in KNO3 solution
(0.1 M; I = 0.5 A).
90% decrease within 10 min (Fig. 1). These oxygen removals were
due to a deoxygenating action of the hydrogen evolved at the cath-
ode. When the electrocoagulation was realized in the presence of
nitrate salts, the oxygen removal was less efficient. A 90% decrease
of oxygen concentration needed 60 min. During these electrolyses
less hydrogen was evolved at the cathode since a part of the current
was consumed by the nitrate reduction. Oxygen removal during
electrocoagulation was more efficient than a deoxygenating pro-
cess performed by a nitrogen bubbling into the solution. The oxygen
decrease leads to an unfavorable environment for aerobic bacteria.
Figs. 2 and 3 present the variations of ORP during electrocoag-
ulations. As expected for a solution with decreasing concentration
of oxygen removal and increasing content of hydrogen, the ORP
decreased until −0.15 V/SCE. In agreement with a lower concen-
tration of hydrogen, the potential decreased more slowly in nitrate
solutions (Fig. 3).
3.2. Bacterial removal by ECEF
The effect of ECEF on bacteria and algae development was inves-
tigated on treated waters. After 10 min of electrolysis, a foam layer
appeared at the surface and increased in time as the result of elec-
Table 3
Efficiency of ECEF treatment on the bacteriological parameters for river water and
pond water (measures by standard methods).
troflotation. The bacteriological results after 30 min of electrolysis
are listed in Table 3. They show a total elimination of flora and good
disinfection efficiency. Ghernaout et al. [21] founded similar results
with surface water using steel electrodes at the same voltage but
with a current of 10 A. In our experiments, the current value was set
at 0.22 A. This low current was taken in order to avoid a temperature
increase due to a Joule effect.
ATP was measured before and after electrocoagulation. ATP is a
direct and interference-free indicator of total biomass. Any living
cell produces and consumes ATP. This molecule is thus specific to a
living cell and we can consider that any trace of ATP is the witness
of cells which are died or live.
Table 4 gathers ATP results obtained on the river and pond flocs.
Table 5 contains results of solution analysis. We observed a sig-
nificant fluctuation in results concerning the percentage of dead
bacteria in the flocs. These differences can result from 10% of error
expressed by LuminUltra technologies. ATP is not completely elimi-
nated from died cells. However, we can suppose that all the bacteria
did not die in the flocs. Concerning the measures of ATP QGA, results
of Table 5 confirm the results obtained with a standard method. The
solution was bacteria-free. Bacteria were trapped into the flocs and
for most part of them they were living.
The experiments reported indicate only that the bacteria are
not detectable by any of classical cultivation or ATP methods
(Tables 3 and 5). But a significant fraction of the initial popula-
tion remains alive in the flocs (Table 4). To explain the dead and
the concentration of bacteria in the flocs we used some working
hypothesis.
3.3. Disinfection hypothesis by ECEF
According to Oss [42] bacterial adhesion to surfaces results
from the Lifshitz–Van der Waals free energy interaction and the
Lewis acid–base free energy interaction. Bacteria either donate or
accept electrons to the surface of the substrate (in this case the
gas bubbles). Adhering bacteria may decrease electrostatic repul-
sion allowing floc formation. The charge transfer, however, takes
place over a range shorter than 0.5 nm, so close contact is needed.
Table 5
ATP results (QGA) for water obtained after ECEF treatment and decantation.

Experiment reference ECEF 1 ECEF 2 ECEF 3 Ref. ATP (pg mL−1 ) Equivalent microorganismes % Removal
River water River water
To (UFC mL−1 ) 1.12E+02 1.12E+02 1.12E+02 Blank 335.4 3.3E+05
Tf (UFC mL−1 ) 0 0 0 Test 1 31.6 3.1E+04 91
Percentage decrease (%) 100 100 100 Test 2 14.3 1.4 E+04 96
Test 3 15.9 1.6 E+04 95
Experiment reference ECEF 1 ECEF 2
Pond water
Pond water Blank 933.1 9.3E+05
To (UFC mL−1 ) 4.15 E+04 6.05 E+05 Test 1 36.1 3.6E+04 96
Tf (UFC mL−1 ) 2.50 E+02 2.20 E+02 Test 2 101.1 1.0E+05 89
Percentage decrease (%) 99.4 99.6 Test 3 18.2 1.8E+04 98
346 C. Ricordel et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347
Fig. 4. Diagram of X-ray diffraction of solid compounds isolated at the end of an elec-
trocoagulation (NaCl 0.01 M; I = 0.1 A). In the X-ray diffractogram, peaks attributed
to a boehmite structure are marked with*.
This contact is realized easily in the electrocoagulation process
where the negatively charged bacteria could electrophoretically
move, resulting in higher bacteria concentrations near the posi-
tively charged anode. So, the coagulation creates a floc blanket that
entraps colloidal particles as well as bacteria still remaining in the
aqueous solution [43].
The inactivation of bacteria and yeast cells by electrochemical
means has been well documented [31,44–47]. It is important to
highlight that these studies describe the electrochemical process
that are different from electocoagulation. In the following we can
only make some hypothesis about the links. It has been reported
that electrochemical and magnetic fields can destroy a wide vari-
ety of microorganisms from viruses [3] to bacteria [48,49]. It can
be assumed that the current applied creates a potential differ-
ence from one extremity to the other of the cellular membrane
on account of its electrical resistance. This potential difference
modifies consequently the trans-membrane potential producing
destruction of the cellular membrane. Usually, the membrane is
constituted by a bi-layer of phospholipids and it protects vital cen-
ters of bacterial cells. Protein inclusions inside the membrane allow
ionic change with the cell environment. A phospholipidic mem-
brane is not easily oxidized whereas proteins are easily destroyed
by the direct effect of an electric field. Cells cannot change more
ions but can however be reactivated in a favorable environment. Its
total destruction requires an oxidant capable of passing through the
membrane and reaching vital centers [49,50]. Electric fields are also
capable of destroying cells without destroying their membranes.
Matsunaga et al. [51] describe a system in which cells are killed
without rupturing, but rather with the electrochemical oxidation
of an intracellular coenzyme A. Thus, electric fields may directly
oxidize cellular constituents, leading to cell death.
Comparisons of results from different authors have to be treated
carefully because the inactivation efficiency of electrochemical
disinfection systems is largely dependent on electrolytic cell con-
figuration, the type of microorganism involved, as well as other
experiment parameters, such as flow rate and current density [52].
During electrolysis, the removal of oxygen (Fig. 1) and the ORP
variations (Figs. 2 and 3) could be unfavorable conditions for living
aerobic bacteria.
The solid compound which was isolated after electrolysis was
studied by X-ray diffraction. The pattern (Fig. 4) exhibits two
kinds of crystallites. The solid was a mixture of two identified
alumina: bayerite Al(OH)3 and boehmite AlOOH. The larger peaks
are attributed to a boehmite structure, and the sharper peaks are
those of bayerite. The ray shape is significant of the crystallite size.
Indeed, the Scherrer’s relationship [53,54] tells that larger rays are
attributed to smaller crystallites. From the X-ray diffraction data,
the grain size of crystallites can be calculated using Scherrer’s for-
mula (8), where d is the grain size,  is the X-ray wavelength, ˇ is
the full width at half-maximum and  is the Bragg angle. Using Eq.
(8) the grain size of AlOOH was estimated to be about 10–15 nm.
So, the large rays of boehmite are due to nanocrystallites and that
they may be involved in a bactericidal effect:
0.9
d= (8)
ˇ cos 
Jiang et al. [55] proved that alumina nanoparticles exhibit a mortal-
ity rate of 36% towards Escherichia coli. Toxicity of nanoparticles was
not only from the dissolved metal ions, but also from their greater
tendency to attach to the cell walls than to aggregate together.
Due to positive surface charges on the alumina nanoparticles at
near-neutral pH, an electrostatic interaction is possible between
negatively charged E. coli cells and the particles, leading to bacterial
adhesion onto nanoparticles surfaces [55,56].
The results obtained prove that to separate the total flora of the
effluent by using a simple decantation, an important current is not
useful. This result would be interesting in the development of a
water treatment process.
4. Conclusions
The effects of disinfection by the ECEF process have been stud-
ied for the case of two raw surface waters. It was found that a total
removal of bacteria and algae were rapidly reached in 30 min. The
electrocoagulation supplies a robust packaging of nanoparticles
susceptible to present some biocide properties.
Electrocoagulation with aluminum electrodes is a suitable pro-
cess for the removal of phosphate which is nutriment for bacteria,
mushrooms and algae. ECEF can be a solution to treat the most
common problem of phosphorus compounds involved in eutroph-
ication.
Electrocoagulation is an electrochemical technique with many
applications, in which a variety of unwanted dissolved particles
and suspended matter can be effectively removed from an aqueous
solution by electrolysis. The hardness, nitrate and phosphate ions
and TSS are decreased down in surface water.
The electrocoagulation would allow to limit the use of biocides,
and consequently to save chemicals and to decrease the operating
costs of pretreatment stations. This technique would also allow to
use surface waters as a supplement of air cooling towers and thus
to protect natural resources.
Acknowledgement
Financial support from the Conseil Régional de Bretagne is grate-
fully acknowledged (by A.D. and D.H.; Project Prir Proelec no 509).
References
[1] P. Drogui, S. Elmaleh, M. Rumeau, C. Bernard, A. Rambaud, Hybride process,
microfiltration–electroperoxidation for water treatment, J. Membr. Sci. 186
(2001) 123–132.
[2] C. Fersi, L. Gzara, M. Dhahbi, Treatment of textile effluents by membrane tech-
nologies, Desalination 185 (2005) 399–409.
[3] B. Zhu, D.A. Clifford, S. Chellam, Comparison of electrocoagulation and chemi-
cal coagulation pretreatment for enhanced virus removal using microfiltration
membranes, Water Res. 39 (2005) 3098–3108.
[4] A. Bagga, S. Chellam, D.A. Clifford, Evaluation of iron chemical coagulation and
electrocoagulation pretreatment for surface water microfiltration, J. Membr.
Sci. 309 (2008) 82–93.
[5] E. Friedler, I. Katz, C.G. Dosoretz, Chlorination and coagulation as pretreatments
for greywater desalination, Desalination 222 (2008) 38–49.
[6] X.M. Chen, G.H. Chen, P.L. Yue, Separation of pollutants from restaurant
wastewater by electrocoagulation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 19 (2000) 65–76.
[7] M.Y.A. Mollah, R. Schennach, J.R. Parga, D.L. Cocke, Electrocoagulation
(EC)—science and applications, J. Hazard. Mater. B 84 (2001) 29–41.
 C. Ricordel et al. / Separation and Purification Technology 74 (2010) 342–347
[8] 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. B 114 (2004) 199–210.
[9] P. Gao, X. Chen, F. Shen, G. Chen, Removal of chromium (VI) from wastewater
by combined electrocoagulation–electroflotation without a filter, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 43 (2005) 117–123.
[10] P.K. Holt, G.W. Barton, C.A. Mitchell, The future for electrocoagulation as a
localised water treatment technology, Chemosphere 59 (2005) 355–367.
[11] M.M. Emamjomeh, M. Sivakumar, Review of pollutants removed by electro-
coagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes, J. Environ. Manage. 90
(2009) 1663–1679.
[12] N. Mameri, H. Lounici, D. Belhocine, H. Grib, D.L. Piron, Y. Yahiat, Defluorida-
tion of Sahara water by small plant electrocoagulation using bipolar aluminum
electrodes, Sep. Purif. Technol. 24 (2001) 113–119.
[13] J.Q. Jiang, N. Graham, C.A. Andre, G.H. Kelsall, N. Brandon, Laboratory study
of electrocoagulation–flotation for water treatment, Water Res. 36 (2002)
4064–4078.
[14] C.Y. Hu, S.L. Lo, W.H. Kuan, Effects of co-existing anions on fluoride removal
in electrocoagulation (EC) process using aluminum electrodes, Water Res. 37
(2003) 4513–4523.
[15] N. Adhoum, L. Monser, N. Bellakhal, J.E. Belgaied, Treatment of electroplating
wastewater containing Cu2+ , Zn2+ and Cr(VI) by electrocoagulation, J. Hazard.
Mater. 112 (2004) 207–213.
[16] M. Bayramoglu, M. Kobya, O.T. Can, M. Sozbir, Operating cost analysis of electro-
coagulation of textile dye wastewater, Sep. Purif. Technol. 37 (2004) 117–125.
[17] C.Y. Hu, S.L. Lo, W.H. Kuan, Effects of the molar ratio of hydroxide and fluoride
to Al(III) on fluoride removal by coagulation and electrocoagulation, J. Colloid
Interf. Sci. 283 (2005) 472–476.
[18] P. Canizares, F. Martınez, M.A. Rodrigo, C. Jimenez, C. Saez, J. Lobato, Mod-
elling of wastewater electrocoagulation processes. Part II: application to
dye-polluted wastewaters and oil-in-water emulsions, Sep. Purif. Technol. 60
(2008) 147–154.
[19] C.T. Wang, W.L. Chou, L.S. Chen, S.Y. Chang, Silica particles settling charac-
teristics and removal performances of oxide chemical mechanical polishing
wastewater treated by electrocoagulation technology, J. Hazard. Mater. 161
(2009) 344–350.
[20] H.A. Moreno-Casillas, D.L. Cocke, J.A.G. Gomes, P. Morkovsky, J.R. Parga, E. Peter-
son, Electrocoagulation mechanism for COD removal, Sep. Purif. Technol. 56
(2007) 204–211.
[21] D. Ghernaout, A. Badis, A. Kellil, B. Ghernaout, Application of electrocoagula-
tion in Escherichia coli culture and two surface waters, Desalination 219 (2008)
118–125.
[22] M. Kobya, S. Delipinar, Treatment of the baker’s yeast wastewater by electro-
coagulation, J. Hazard. Mater. 154 (2008) 1133–1140.
[23] P.K. Holt, G.W. Barton, M. Wark, C.A. Mitchell, A quantitative comparison
between chemical dosing and electrocoagulation, Colloid Surf. A: Physicochem.
Eng. Aspects 211 (2002) 233–248.
[24] C.A. Martınez-Huitle, E. Brillas, Decontamination of wastewaters containing
synthetic organic dyes by electrochemical methods: a general review, Appl.
Catal. B: Environ. 87 (2009) 105–145.
[25] S. Vasudevan, J. Lakshmi, J. Jayaraj, G. Sozhan, Remediation of phosphate-
contaminated water by electrocoagulation with aluminum, aluminum alloy
and mild steel anodes, J. Hazard. Mater. 164 (2009) 1480–1486.
[26] M. Bayramoglu, M. Eyvaz, M. Kobya, Treatment of the textile wastewater
by electrocoagulation. Economical evaluation, Chem. Eng. J. 128 (2007) 155–
161.
[27] M. Kobya, O.T. Can, M. Bayramoglu, Treatment of textile wastewaters by elec-
trocoagulation using iron and aluminum electrodes, J. Hazard. Mater. B 100
(2003) 163–178.
[28] P. Canizares, C. Jiménez, F. Martinez, C. Saez, M.A. Rodrigo, Study of the electro-
coagulation process using aluminum and iron electrodes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
46 (2007) 6189–6195.
[29] P. Canizares, C. Jiménez, F. Martínez, M.A. Rodrigo, C. Sáez, The pH as a key
parameter in the choice between coagulation and electrocoagulation for the
treatment of wastewaters, J. Hazard. Mater. 163 (2009) 158–164.
[30] G. Chen, Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 38 (2004) 11–41.
347
[31] C.P. Davis, M.E. Shirtliff, N.M. Trieff, S.L. Hoskins, M.M. Warren, Quantification,
qualification, and microbial killing efficiencies of antimicrobial chlorine-based
substances produced by iontophoresis, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 38
(1994) 2768–2774.
[32] W.K Liu, M.R.W. Brown, T.S.J. Elliot, Mechanisms of the bactericidal activity
of low amperage electric current (DC), J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 39 (1997)
687–695.
[33] L.V. Venczel, M. Arrowood, M. Hurd, M.D. Sobsey, Inactivation of Cryptosporid-
ium parvum oocysts and Clostridium perfringens spores by a mixed-oxidant
disinfectant and by free chlorine, Appl. Environ. Microb. 63 (1997) 1598–1601.
[34] NF EN ISO 6222.—Qualité de l’eau Dénombrement des micro-organismes reviv-
ifiables - Comptage des colonies par ensemencement dans un milieu de culture
nutritif gélosé (in French).
[35] A.S. Koparal, U.B. Ogutveren, Removal of nitrate from water by electroreduction
and electrocoagulation, J. Hazard. Mater. B 89 (2002) 83–94.
[36] A.H. Bannoud, F. Persin, M. Rumeau, A study of the perfection of an electro-
chemical reactor for softening water, Water Res. 27 (1993) 1385–1391.
[37] M. Malakootian, H.J. Mansoorian, M. Moosazadeh, Performance evaluation of
electrocoagulation process using iron-rod electrodes for removing hardness
from drinking water, Desalination 255 (2010) 67–71.
[38] S. Mahesh, B. Prasad, I.D. Mall, I.M. Mishra, Electrochemical degradation of pulp
and paper mill wastewater. Part I. COD and color removal, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
45 (2006) 2830–2839.
[39] S. Mahesh, B. Prasad, I.D. Mall, I.M. Mishra, Electrochemical degradation of pulp
and paper mill wastewater. Part II. Characterization and analysis of sludge, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 45 (2006) 5766–5774.
[40] M.M. Emamjomeh, M. Sivakumar, Electrocoagulation technology for nitrate
removal, in: 9th Annual Environmental Research Event (ERE) Conference,
Published in the Conference Proceeding, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 29th
November–2nd December, 2005.
[41] D.G. Grubb, M.S. Guimaraes, R. Valencia, Phosphate immobilization using an
acidic type F fly ash, J. Hazard. Mater. 76 (2000) 217–236.
[42] C.J.V. Oss, Interfacial Forces in Aqueous Media, Marcel Decker Inc., New York,
1994, p. 440.
[43] K.P. Dress, M. Abbaszadegan, R.M. Maier, Comparative electrochemical inacti-
vation of bacteria and bacteriophage, Water Res. 37 (2003) 2291–2300.
[44] D. Gaskova, K. Sigler, B. Janderova, J. Plasek, Effect of high-voltage electric
pulses on yeast cells: factors influencing the killing efficiency, Bioelectrochem.
Bioenerg. 39 (1996) 195–202.
[45] T. Grahl, H. Markl, Killing of microorganisms by pulsed electric fields, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 45 (1996) 148–157.
[46] G. Patermarakis, E. Fountoukidis, Disinfection of water by electrochemical
treatment, Water Res. 24 (1990) 1491–1496.
[47] S. Velizarov, Electric and magnetic fields in microbial biotechnology: possibil-
ities, limitations, and perspectives, Electro Magnetobiol. 18 (1999) 185–212.
[48] H.F Diao, X.Y. Li, J.D. Gu, H.C. Shi, Z.M. Xic, Electron microscopic investigation
of the bactericidal action of electrochemical disinfection in comparison with
chlorination, ozonation and Fenton reaction, Process Biochem. 39 (11) (2004)
1421–1426.
[49] M. Li, J.H. Qu, Y.Z. Peng, E. Sterilization of, Coli cells by the application of pulsed
magnetic field, J. Environ. Sci. 16 (2004) 348–352.
[50] J.C. Weaver, Y.A. Chizmadzhev, Theory of electroporation: a review, Bioelec-
trochem. Bioenerg. 41 (1996) 135–160.
[51] T. Matsunaga, S. Naksono, T. Takamuku, J.G. Burgess, N. Nakamura, K. Sode, Dis-
infection of drinking water by using a novel electrochemical reactor employing
carbon-cloth electrodes, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58 (1992) 686–689.
[52] M.I. Kerwick, S.M. Reddy, A.H.L. Chamberlain, D.M. Holt, Electrochemical disin-
fection, an environmentally acceptable method of drinking water disinfection?
Electrochim. Acta 50 (2005) 5270–5277.
[53] A.L. Patterson, The Scherrer formula for X-ray particle size determination, Phys.
Rev. 56 (1939) 978–982.
[54] H.P. Klugg, L.E. Alexander, X-ray Diffraction Procedures, Wiley, New York, 1954.
[55] W. Jiang, H. Mashayekhi, B. Xing, Bacterial toxicity comparison between nano-
and micro-scaled oxide particles, Environ. Pollut. 157 (2009) 1619–1625.
[56] M. Sadiq, B. Chowdhury, N. Chandrasekaran, A. Mukherjee, Antimicrobial sensi-
tivity of Escherichia coli to alumina nanoparticles, Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol.
Med. 5 (2009) 282–286.