Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

A systematic diagnosis of state of the art in the use of electrocoagulation as

a sustainable technology for pollutant treatment: An updated review
Milad Mousazadeh a, b, 1, Zohreh Naghdali a, b, Zakaria Al-Qodah c, S.M. Alizadeh d,
Elnaz Karamati Niaragh e, 1, Sima Malekmohammadi f, P.V. Nidheesh g, Edward P.L. Roberts h,
Mika Sillanpää i, j, k, Mohammad Mahdi Emamjomeh l, *
a
Student Research Committee, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
b
Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran
c
Al-Balqa Applied University, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Amman, Jordan
d
Petroleum Engineering Department, Australian College of Kuwait, West Mishref, Kuwait
e
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Hafez Ave., Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
f
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
g
CSIR National Environmental EngineeringResearch Institute, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
h
University of Calgary, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
i
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Viet Nam
j
Faculty of Environment and Chemical Engineering, Duy Tan University, Da Nang 550000, Viet Nam
k
School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, West Street, Toowoomba 4350 QLD,
Australia
l
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Electrocoagulation (EC) and electrocoagulation-flotation (ECF) are of widespread interest owing to their effec­
Electrocoagulation tiveness for the simultaneous abatement of a broad range of pollutants in drinking and waste waters, but their
Electrocoagulation-flotation capability can vary significantly depending on the operating conditions. The effect of operating conditions on the
Contaminant removal
performance of EC has been the subject of much debate over the last few decades. This review aims to focus on
Operating conditions
Drinking and waste waters treatment
the application of EC/ECF processes for pollutants removal under different operating conditions, emphasizing the
principal issues that compose the foundation of EC/ECF. It has been found that the current density (typically
1–20 mA/cm2), type of electrode (Al or Fe), and electrolysis time are the key process parameters that influence
performance. Although some key mechanisms of pollutant abatement in EC/ECF processes have been identified,
recent studies have begun to reveal how the underlying removal mechanisms using the EC/ECF processes depend
on the nature of pollutant. Key mechanisms of pollutant abatement include charge neutralization, reduc­
tion–oxidation, and precipitation/co-precipitation. The development of improved or innovative cell designs, as
well as systematic modeling of EC reactors, are needed. Future research focused on hybrid technologies with
cost-effective energy supply may lead to innovative treatment options for wastewater treatment.

Introduction toxic pollutants mitigation from wastewater. These toxic pollutants

One of the most significant global problems in today’s industriali­
zation, particularly in agriculture, is the contamination of water [1,2]. In
the last few decades, the supply of fresh water, human development, and
environmental protection became threatened by the ever-increasing
industrial contamination [3,4]. Intensive research is being done for
include natural and synthetic organic pollutants as well as several heavy
metals [5–8]. Hence, water treatment and reclamation are of increasing
importance, and significant concern was given to environmental pro­
tection and human health issues. This can be achieved by applying
efficient and cost-effective green technologies to remove pollutants from
drinking and waste waters [9]. A broad range of conventional methods

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m_emamjomeh@yahoo.com (M. Mahdi Emamjomeh).
1
Co-first author, Milad Mousazadeh and Elnaz Karamati Niaragh contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101353
Received 7 September 2020; Received in revised form 18 May 2021; Accepted 1 June 2021
Available online 17 June 2021
2213-1388/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
has been applied for drinking and waste waters treatment, including
membrane filtration (e.g. nanofiltration) [10,11] physicochemical pro­
cesses (e.g. adsorption) [12,13] chemical precipitation [14] chemical
oxidation [15] and biodegradation [16]. The feasibility of these pro­
cesses depends on the intended application. However, each of these
processes has drawbacks, including high operating and maintenance
costs, creation of secondary pollution, production of high volumes of
sludge (in some cases), a requirement for chemical additives, concen­
trated waste production, and challenging scale-up. Accordingly, alter­
native techniques are required to provide more sustainable, cost-
effective solutions for removing of pollutants from drinking and waste
waters. Electrochemical treatment technologies have many merits, such
as theirs versatility, the avoidance of chemical addition, and simple
operation [17,18]. The electrodes are arranged in monopolar or bipolar
modes and can be from aluminum, graphite, iron, and steel [19]. Elec­
trochemical process for water and wastewater contaminant removal
including electrochemical oxidation, electrochemical reduction, elec­
trocoagulation (EC) and electrocoagulation/flotation (ECF), and elec­
trodialysis processes [20]. The other technologies are shown in Fig. 1a.
Fig. 1b shows the main processes occurring in the EC/ECF processes.
There are multiple electrochemical and chemical reactions occurring the
most important of which are:
Anode: M → Mn+ +n e− metal dissolution
− −
Cathode 2H2O + 2 e →H2 + 2 OH hydrogen evolution and hydroxide for­
mation (2)
Mn+ + n OH− →M(OH)n metal ion hydrolysis
The metal and hydroxide ions produced at the electrodes act as co­
agulants, and precipitated metal hydroxide (or oxyhydroxide) removes
contaminants by sweep coagulation [21].
EC/ECF have attracted increasing attention owing to their ability to
simultaneously remove a wide range of pollutants [22,23] including
colloidal and suspended particles [24,25] heavy metals (e.g. chromium)
[26,27] turbidity [28,29] colors [30,31] oil and grease [32,33] ions (e.g.
phosphate) [34,35] surfactants [36] microorganisms and pathogens (e.
g. Escherichia, micromycetes) [37] and organic matter [38] from
drinking and waste waters. Other noteworthy characteristics of EC and
ECF (Fig. 2) are their simplicity, reliability, simple operation, low sludge
production, no requirement for chemical handling, and low cost for
drinking and waste waters treatment. Nevertheless, these methods like
other techniques have some drawbacks including but not limited to high
electrical energy consumption, especially for low conductivity water
treatment, and the requirement for sacrificial electrode replacement
[39–41]. These technologies offer the opportunity for low cost, effective
treatment of many types of municipal and industrial wastewaters. For
Fig. 1. The range of electrochemical drinking and waste waters treatment technologies, and the main processes occurring in EC/ECF.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
instance, several studies have reported high efficiency for heavy metal
removal from real or synthetic wastewater [39,40]. During the last few
decades, the fundamentals of this technology, the effects of factors,
elimination mechanisms and its applications have been investigating
[42,43].
To date, many reviews have been published regarding the applica­
tion of the EC process and the effectiveness of various operating pa­
rameters. For instance, Kabdaşlı et al. [44] reviewed EC applications for
industrial wastewaters (e.g. textile finishing processes) with special
emphasis placed on the major reaction mechanisms involved in the
treatment of specific pollutants as well as operation costs including solid
waste management, sacrificial electrode materials and electrical energy
requirements. Sahu et al. [45] reviewed the mechanism, affecting fac­
tors (e.g. electrode material, electrode distance and electrode arrange­
ments) and application of EC process for industrial wastewater
treatment, as well as reactor design. Garcia-Segura et al. [43] conducted
a comprehensive review on fundamentals of EC technology, application
of EC for organic and inorganic pollutants, novel developed methods (e.
g. Sono-EC), effect of the operating parameters for efficient application
of the EC process, reactor design parameters (e.g. inter-electrode gap
distance) as well as the cost estimation. In another review, Al-Qodah
et al. [46] studied the performances of combined EC process (e.g. EC-
adsorption), modeling of kinetics and statistical methods and the cost
(1) as well as scale up of these combined systems. Nonetheless, it is evident
that the EC/ECF processes simultaneously have not been systematically
reviewed. Amongst them, heretofore, Emamjomeh and Sivakumar [21]
considered bench and field-scale studies of EC and ECF technology for
(3) the removal of various pollutants. In this manner, the present review
provides a comprehensive and updated review that aims to outline the
state of the art in the use of EC and ECF processes for pollutants treat­
ment under a range of operating conditions, covering studies during the
timeframe 2010 to 2020. Such a comprehensive review will present the
necessary data for researchers studying this treatment technology. This
study begins by describing the principles of EC/ECF processes to shed
light on the interactions within the cell. Then, the critical operating
parameters that influence the pollutants treatment performance are
elucidated, considering industrial applications on emerging pollutants
removal from water/wastewater. Next, the optimal, maximal, and
minimal values of the operating parameter for different applications are
discussed. After this, the place of EC/ECF technology amongst other
treatment methods is presented, as well as the main mechanisms
involved in the abatement of pollutants is summarized. Finally, the gaps
in knowledge and recommendations for the next steps needed to
improve the performance of EC/ECF are considered.
2
M. Mousazadeh et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

Fig. 2. Advantages and disadvantages of EC/ECF processes.

Fundamental principles of EC/ECF processes

EC is a process of destabilizing contaminants comprising colloids,

suspended, emulsified, and dissolved particles in drinking and waste
waters or in an aqueous solution [21]. It is worth noting that this process
has a robust background in removing contaminants from drinking and
waste waters by several mechanisms, including electrochemical,
chemical, and physical processes [45,47]. The electrocoagulation pro­
cess is accompanied by a flotation process in which gas bubbles pro­
duced at the cathodes attach to the coagulated contaminants and float
upwards to the surface of the solution. The ECF process is often referred
to simply as EC process [20,26]. Authors sometimes use the term ECF to
indicate that the gas used in the floatation step is produced by the
electrolysis [48,49]. In some cases, a separate electro-flotation process
may be used (not considered in this review), where another electro­
chemical cell is used with inert electrodes to generate gases, whereas in
ECF processes, most or all of the gas is generated on the cathode [50,51].
In EC process, three main consecutive steps occur including electrolytic
oxidation of the sacrificial electrode and generation of coagulants.
Thereafter, the contaminants are destabilized and agglomerate to form
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the reactions occurring within EC/ECF processes.
flocs [52]. In EC reactions, the H2 and O2 gases are strong enough to
generate bubbles to float the coagulated materials. As the floc is formed,
the electrolysis gases remove contaminants to the liquid surface and summarized as follows [26]:
floc-foam layer [44].
1- The “sacrificial anode” is oxidized, forming metal cations.
2- Water molecules are reduced within the cathode to release hydroxide
Description of EC/ECF ions (OH–) as well as to produce bubbles from hydrogen gas (H2).
3- The metal cations and hydroxide ions combine (a hydrolysis reac­
EC is an attractive alternative to conventional coagulation and has a tion) to form the coagulant, destabilizing suspended particulate and
long history [53–55]. The EC approach is similar to the conventional dissolved pollutants.
chemical coagulation process, but EC uses electrochemical reactions to 4- The interaction between the positive ion and (OH–) ion forms metal
generate the coagulant in-situ, using sacrificial anodes and hydroxide hydroxide precipitates, which adsorb dissolved contaminants.
production at the cathodes. The metal anode is oxidized to produce 5- The precipitated solids flocculate to form larger structures that
metal cations, and water molecules are reduced at the cathode to pro­ “sweep” contaminants from the solution.
duce hydroxide ions. Depending on the pH of the water, metals and 6- Pollutants are adsorbed or co-precipitated onto the flocculated
hydroxide ions typically combine to form an insoluble metal hydroxide. structures, which aggregate to forming larger solid networks.
The formed metal hydroxide precipitate adsorbs or co-precipitates the 7- The formed aggregates float due to attached gas bubbles and move
pollutant molecules to form the coagulated sludge [43,56]. The reduc­ up to the surface of the liquid phase, or if gas bubbles are not
tion of water molecules at the cathode produces H2 gas as well as hy­ attached, they will settle due to their high density relative to the
droxide ions [57]. Aluminum and iron are widely used as the electrode solution.
material in these processes due to their ease of oxidation and their 8- Flow and mixing are desirable to enhance interaction between the
effectiveness as coagulants [58]. As shown in Fig. 3, the mechanisms pollutants, coagulated particles, and gas bubbles.
involved in the EC/ECF processes are well illustrated, which can be

3
M. Mousazadeh et al.
9- Redox reactions may occur that convert the pollutants into less toxic
forms.
Generally, in EC/ECF processes, buoyancy and gravity forces deter­
mine the separation mechanism and physicochemical parameters inside
the EC cell control pollutant removal. The pollutant’s physicochemical
properties affect its interactions in the process and thus the removal
performance.
Reactions in the EC/ECF cell
The successive steps occurring in an EC process are illustrated in
Fig. 1b, which demonstrates the complex nature and interplay between
these different processes occurring in the EC cell. Evidently, the EC
process functions as an interconnected complex with an assembly of
mechanisms operating synergistically to remove simultaneously con­
taminants from the treated water [26,59]. Due to this complexity, a wide
variety of mechanisms have been proposed for the EC processes. A
systematic approach is expected to gain a deep understanding of the EC
mechanism for each different application or the removal of target pol­
lutants, in order to enable the design of an effective EC process with
good treatment performance [47,60]. The oxidation reactions that occur
depend not only on the electrode material but also on the operating
conditions (e.g. the electrode potentials), and the water composition, in
particular the presence of dissolved oxygen and other oxidizing or
reducing species.
Operational parameters affecting pollutants treatment
The efficacy of the EC/ECF processes relies on several operating
factors, including the current density, electrolysis time, inter-electrode
distance, mode of operation, electrical configuration, electrode mate­
rial and the pH of the solution. Each of these parameters is discussed in
this section.
Applied current
Current intensity is one of the key parameters in the design of the EC/
ECF processes and is often described in terms of the current density (i.e.
the current per unit electrode area) [47,61]. In the EC/ECF method, the
current density is the most significant factor in controlling the reaction
rate [62] playing a key role since it determines the coagulant dosage and
bubble generation rate, the floc size and growth rate, the bubble size, the
kinetics of the reaction, and the energy consumption of the EC/ECF
processes [49,63]. The current density controls both the cathodic and
anodic reaction rate. Therefore, the description of the relationship be­
tween current density and dissolved metals concentration based on
Faraday’s law is important [64,65]. The process happens in an electro­
lyte solution, water, or salt solution that makes an opportunity to pass
the ions through cathode and anode. Ions present in the solution carry
the current between the electrodes. At the anode, electrons are trans­
ferred to the external circuit, leading to the oxidation of metal atoms in
the electrode to form metal ions. At the cathode, electrons from the
external circuit are transferred to species in solution leading to a
reduction reaction, typically reduction of water to form hydrogen gas
and hydroxide ions [45].
From Faraday’s law, the electrical current leads to a passage of
electric charge, which is directly related to the number of metals ion
coagulant are released at the anode (assuming that no other chemical or
electrochemical reactions are occurring). Hence, the most important
factor in contaminant removal is the electrical current [49]. The mass of
metal ions produced can be calculated via Faraday’s law using Eq. (4)
[51,56];
It
m=Φ M (4)
zF
4
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
where M is the atomic mass of the electrode material, F is Faraday’s
constant (1F = 96,486C), m is the mass in grams of metal (e.g. Al)
generated at a specific current, z is the number of electrons transferred
per metal atom, which are three. However, Faraday’s law (ϕ = 1) is valid
only when all the electrons in the system participate only in the metal-
dissolution reaction at the anode. When parallel reactions occur, a
correction factor denoted current efficiency or faradaic yield (ϕ), is used
to account for the gap between the theoretical and experimental disso­
lution of the sacrificial anode. This value is usually lower than 1, but ϕ
may be higher than 1 when the chemical and the electrochemical
oxidation mechanisms of the metal proceed simultaneously. Müller et al.
[85] indicated that faradaic efficiency depended on the electrolyte
composition (e.g. presence of oxyanions) and the charge dosage rate. For
solution compositions that tend to passivate the electrode surface (e.g.
high sulfate concentration), high over potential may lead to oxygen
evolution at the anode. Oxidation of ferrous iron may also occur, as well
as oxidation of organics present in the solution. In order to remove
surface layers on the anode, increasing of charge dosage rate was more
suitable for iron electrodes rather than polarity reversal and water-
saturated electrode storage. Also, improved mass transport (i.e. high
shear rate), and low current density could reduce side reactions, pro­
ducing higher current efficiency.
The metal cations released in bulk undergo various equilibrium re­
actions that correspond to acid/base, complexation, precipitation, and
redox reactions in water. As predicted by Faraday’s Law expressed by
Eq. (4), different aluminum concentrations can be generated by varying
either the current or the generation time. As mentioned above, the
current density controls the amount of metal ion produced from elec­
trochemical oxidation of the metal anode, increasing the rate of pro­
duction of metal hydroxide flocs formed in the solution for contaminant
removal [66]. Additionally, through increasing current density, the
bubble generation rate is increased, and the bubble size is decreased,
which enhances the solid–liquid separation by hydrogen gas flotation.
On the other hand, if the applied current density exceeds a threshold, the
bubbles coalesce to form large bubbles and diminish the performance of
the solid–liquid separation by floatation. Hence, the current density
range should be optimized with other operational variables, considering
both the electrocoagulation and floatation processes [50]. The applied
current density varies from below 1 to>40 mA/cm2, for heavy metals,
conventional and organic pollutants [67]. The performance of system
can be variable in wide range of current density. However, in most
studies a high efficiency was obtained when the current density was in
the range 6–20 mA/cm2 or less [48,68,69].
The current density also influences the electrical energy consump­
tion of the process. It should be noted that the coagulant dose is pro­
portional to both the electrical current and the treatment time so that the
treatment performance can be independently controlled through both of
these parameters [51]. Another way to consider the treatment intensity
is based on the charge loading, which is the electrical charge (i.e. the
total current multiplied by the treatment duration) per unit volume of
water treatment. The dose of coagulant will typically be proportional to
the charge loading in the absence of chemical dissolution or electro­
chemical side reactions. This can be explained by the fact that the
contaminant removal efficiency follows the amount of coagulant
released from the electrodes. According to Faraday’s law (Eq. (4)) when
the charge loading is low, insufficient coagulant dose will also be offered
to destabilize colloidal and suspended particles [70].
The applied current density and voltage are inter-related parameters.
In an electrochemical cell, an increase in voltage will lead to an increase
in current, and vice versa; however, in conditions such as passivation of
the electrodes, high overpotentials leads to a reduction in the current.
The applied current density, which drives the rate of coagulant dosing
and hence contaminant removal, can affect cell voltage through various
overpotentials [71]. By selecting a cathode material that has a high
overpotential, proton reduction suppression can occur. The over­
potentials for oxidation or reduction of the solvent can vary
M. Mousazadeh et al.
considerably with the electrode material. For instance, an overpotential
of − 0.58 V has been reported for cathodic H2 evolution at a current
density of 1 mA/cm2 on aluminum electrodes [72]. Thus, these two
parameters cannot be independently controlled. For application of EC/
ECF processes in industry, one of the most important factors in deter­
mining the current density is the lifetime of the electrode plates before
the time of their replacement. The time between electrode replacement
depends upon the applied current density and the thickness of the
sacrificial electrodes. By using thick plates, with typical current densities
the electrode replacement time can be of order several months or years.
Therefore, in practice, to prevent frequent electrode replacement, the
amount of current intensity is kept in a range from below 1 to around 20
mA cm-2. In most cases, current density is chosen to promote the lifetime
of the electrode to ensure that the cost of electrode replacement is kept
to a minimum [73]. This issue has received very little attention from
researchers in recent years.
As discussed above, higher values of the applied current density are
expected to enhance the removal efficiency of pollutants, since
increasing current increases the rate of formation of coagulant. For
example, COD, color and turbidity removal percentages were enhanced
when the current density was almost tripled from 50 to 125 A/cm2 with
iron electrodes [74]. This behavior was confirmed by Fouad [33] who
investigated the removal efficiency of oil as a function of current in­
tensity. Similar results of the effect of current density have been reported
for the removal of COD [75] dye [76] uranium [77] copper, turbidity,
and organic substances [78]. This phenomenon can be explained by the
increase in applied current on the surface of the electrodes, which pro­
duces higher bubbles and coagulant generation rate, thus causing
destabilization of the contaminant molecules [77]. Nasrullah et al. [55]
investigated the performance of the EC process by determining COD,
BOD, and SS removal for a range of applied current. They confirmed the
positive effect of increasing the applied current on the removal of these
contaminants.
Electrolysis time
Electrolysis time is a critical factor for EC/ECF processes since it
determines the quantity of production of metal hydroxides from elec­
trodes [79]. As mentioned above, the combination of electrolysis time
with the applied current determine the dose of coagulant and thus play a
key role in the EC process for pollutant removal [80]. The electrolysis
time increases the amount of electrode oxidation of anode metal and
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of (a) batch and (b) continuous modes of EC/ECF reactors.
5
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
thus leads to an increase in the amount of coagulant ions supplied to the
treated water, leading to the formation of flocs [41,81]. In most EC/ECF
processes, enhanced contaminant removal is achieved with increasing
treatment time due to the dominant contaminant removal mechanisms
of sweep coagulation and co-precipitation [82].
In many cases, the percentage pollutant removal does not increase
beyond a certain electrolysis time as there may be a limit on the removal
that can be achieved by sweep coagulation and co-precipitation. Beyond
this limit, there is no benefit of additional electrolysis time to produce
extra flocs since the removal of contaminants is not enhanced [83,84].
The EC process performance in both batch (Fig. 4a) and continuous
(Fig. 4b) systems is strongly influenced by the operating time or reten­
tion time, respectively. Increasing the electrolysis time leads to an in­
crease in removal performance until a maximum removal is achieved.
Bazrafshan et al. [85] investigated the removal of BOD, COD, and total
solids (TS) from dairy wastewater using EC with aluminum electrodes.
They reported that the percentage removal of these three contaminants
increased with increasing electrolysis time. As the treatment time was
increased, an increasing amount of coagulant flocs were formed and
separated by settling or floatation [86,87]. Atashzaban et al. [88]
investigated the removal of COD and total solids (TS) from polyvinyl
acetate production using a synthetic effluent. They found that the op­
timum treatment time was 15 s for the iron electrode and 20 s for the
aluminum electrode when operating at a current density of 24 mA/cm2.
Increasing the treatment time beyond a certain point in some cases can
lead to a decrease in contaminant removal due to the formation of more
soluble ions and a decrease in the amount of flocs [86,87,89]. Nwabanne
et al. [90] concluded that the optimal time for turbidity removal from
abattoir wastewater using iron electrodes at current intensity 2.5 A was
30 min. Jiao et al. [91] showed that the removal of anionic surfactant by
ECF using aluminum electrodes at a current density of 10 mA/cm2
increased rapidly in the first 10 min, increased slowly in the second 20
min, and then started decreasing gradually. It has been reported that
increasing the electrolysis time leads to an increase in the removal of a
wide range of contaminants, including fluoride [92,93] turbidity [94]
COD [94,95] chromium [95] and phenolic compounds [94].
Inter electrode distance
The space between the cathode and anode exerts a significant effect
in the EC process, affecting the mixing and transport processes (i.e. the
interaction between the hydroxide generated at the cathode and metal
M. Mousazadeh et al.
cations formed at the anode), the potential gradient, and the electrical
energy consumption. Based on Ohm’s law (Eq. (5)), the Ohmic loss is
directly proportional to the inter-electrode distance. Furthermore, at a
fixed current intensity, the cell voltage decreases as the interelectrode
distance and the solution resistance decrease [45,96]. Consequently,
electrical energy consumption can be increased by increasing the inter-
electrode distance and hence the Ohmic loss. The inter-electrode dis­
tance may be adjusted to an optimum value, depending on the energy
consumption and removal performance [97,98].
Id
EΩ =
Aκ
where: EΩ is the Ohmic loss (i.e. the IR drop), I is the applied current,
d is the distance between cathode and anode (i.e. the inter-electrode
distance), A is anode surface area, and κ is the specific conductivity of
the water undergoing treatment.
The distance between electrodes can influence the contaminant
removal. At a small inter-electrode distance, the pollutant removal ef­
ficiency can be relatively low because of the generated metal hydrox­
ides, which usually act to form flocs with the pollutants will collide self-
aggregate with insufficient interaction with the pollutants [87,99].
Under these conditions, the flow between the electrodes may also be
limited by the narrow gap and high pressure drop. At the optimum inter-
electrode distance, the highest pollutant removal is achieved. Under
these conditions, the transport processes and the interaction between
the coagulant and the pollutant is enhanced. An increase in the inter-
electrode distance beyond the optimum leads to a decrease in the
pollutant removal as the transport processes and interaction decreases,
resulting in less formation of flocs for the coagulation of pollutants
[87,100]. Furthermore, as the inter-electrode distance increases the
electrical energy consumption will increase, increasing the cost of
treatment.
At relatively high inter-electrode distances, the pollutant removal
performance decreases because the interaction between the hydroxides
and pollutants decreases due to lower mass transfer rates [98]. Atash­
zaban et al. [88] showed that increasing the electrode spacing from 1 to
3 cm resulted in a decrease in the removals of COD and TSS with both
iron and aluminum electrodes at a constant current density of 24 mA/
cm2. They obtained the highest removal at an inter electrode distance of
1 cm and a current density of 24 mA/cm2. Furthermore, another study
found the highest removal efficiencies (over 87%) of COD, TSS, color,
BOD, TDS, turbidity, phenols, and phosphate at an inter electrode dis­
tance of 0.5 cm [101]. As expected, it has been shown that the electrical
energy consumption increases with the inter-electrode distance [102].
The selection of the inter-electrode distance will depend on its impact on
treatment performance and the cell voltage (and hence energy con­
sumption). For systems with low conductivity, the cell voltage (and
hence the energy cost) will be relatively high, which may lead to se­
lection of a narrower electrode gap. Based upon recent studies, an inter-
electrode distance of between 0.5 cm [103–105] and 1 cm [106–108]
are typically used.
Fig. 5. Different electrical configurations of EC/ECF reactors: (a) monopolar-parallel, (b) monopolar-series, and (c) bipolar-series.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
Electric configuration
In EC/ECF technologies, the electric configuration has a substantial
effect on the contaminant removal and energy consumption. As depicted
in Fig. 5, the electric configuration can be classified into monopolar-
parallel (MP-P), monopolar-series (MP-S), and bipolar (BP) systems
[97,109,110]. In the MP-P configuration (Fig. 5a), the anodes and
cathodes are connected in parallel to the power supply, which provides
the direct current between all electrodes in the solution. In MP-S
configuration (Fig. 5b), each of the outermost electrodes are con­
(5) nected to the power supply, while the internal electrodes are inter­
connected with each other. The electric current passes through the cell
via the internal electrodes due to the potential difference in the solution
so that one of the internal electrodes acts as a cathode and the other as an
anode. In the BP configuration (Fig. 5c) electrodes, only the outermost
two electrodes are connected to the power supply, and the internal
electrodes are not connected at all. Each of the internal plates acts as a
BP electrode as the current flows through it from one side to the other,
with one side acting as a cathode and the other side as an anode [45,47].
It is not clear which of these electrical configurations is better
because in addition to the electric configuration the removal efficiency
strongly depends on the other operating parameters as well as the nature
of the solution and the target contaminants [43]. Nonetheless, some
studies have found that MP configuration gives better performance, with
lower power consumption and high pollutant removal [48,97,110,111].
According to Demiris et al. [109] all configurations gave a similar per­
formance for the removal of turbidity and color, but MP-P has the lowest
operating costs. In contrast, some studies have found that a BP config­
uration can give high pollutant removal, although it can lead to higher
energy consumption if there is a significant shunt current (i.e. leakage
current between each cell) [109,112–115]. This behavior may be due to
the fact that there is a higher surface area in a BP configuration, which
owes to more anodic oxidation than in a MP configuration [86].
A comparison between bipolar and monopolar electrodes was un­
dertaken by Nasrullah et al. [116] to remove chemical oxygen demand
(COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended solid (SS)
from palm oil mill effluent on a lab-scale of 1000 mL. The results showed
that the MP-S electrode configuration with the highest efficiency was
able to remove 65, 62 and 60%, by MP-P remove 61, 58, 58% and finally
by bipolar only remove 56, 56, 51% in 120 min. The pollutant removal
efficiency is strongly dependent on the amount of anodic dissolution
released into the reactor, which leads to the formation of more co­
agulants in the system. This indicates a higher consumption of anodic
material by the MP-S compared to BP, which ultimately resulted in a
higher removal of pollutants. In general, over time in the EC process, the
decrease in current intensity occurs due to the passivation of anode. In
this study, the rate of decrease in current intensity using BP was much
higher than MP, which resulted in higher overall process efficiency.
However, Alimohammadi et al. [112] constructed a 2 L laboratory-scale
EC reactor that involved four Al/Fe plates for comparison of MP and BP
configurations to treat natural organic matter (NOM). They revealed,
6
M. Mousazadeh et al.
under optimal conditions (current density = 0.25 mA/cm2 and initial
concentration of NOM = 50 mg/L), high NOM removal was observed
after 10 min by BP (approximately 100%) relative to MP configurations
using both electrodes.
In another study, Loukanov et al. [117] successfully applied large-
scale removal of colloidal contaminants from artisanal wastewater by
bipolar electrocoagulation with six aluminum electrodes. They found
that over 90% removal of total chromium, phosphorus, COD and
turbidity was achieved at short time (10–30 min), neutral pH and
minimized current density. Damaraju et al. [118] proposed a BP-EC
reactor with 15 electrodes for the removal of recalcitrant TOC and TP
from distillery wastewater. They observed that the highest removal ef­
ficiency was achieved to be 73% and 85%. Moreover, a study by Dam­
araju et al. [119] compared the performance of a continuous BP-EC unit
containing 15 electrodes at a laboratory scale with that of a field-scale
BP-EC system containing 132 iron electrodes used to treat marigold
wastewater. Under optimal conditions, the results well approved that
almost complete removal of phenolic compounds, pesticides, and
bioactive compounds by BP configuration from the wastewater.
Overall, according to the previous results, monopolar is superior to
bipolar for small lab research equipment but further research needs to be
done to make an accurate generalization for large-scale operation. It is
important to note that for large industrial scale operation bipolar is
preferred, because from an electrical perspective it is easier to apply a
high voltage and low current electrical supply (i.e. bipolar configura­
tion) than that of low voltage and high electrical current (i.e. monopolar
configuration). Most research studies do not acknowledge this
distinction.
Electrode material
The selection of the appropriate electrode in the EC/ECF processes
affects not only the removal rates of the target pollutants but also the
chemical and electrochemical reactions occurring in the cell and the
amount as well as properties of waste sludge produced. In addition to
aluminum and iron, various other electrodes materials including: zinc
[120] copper [121,122] magnesium [123,124] titanium [125] plat­
inum, graphite [126,127] and stainless steel [128,129] have been
evaluated in various applications. To the best of knowledge, iron and
aluminum electrodes are most commonly used owing to their affordable,
ready availability and proven efficacy [108,130,131]. The anode and
cathode materials can be either similar or of different materials.
Many studies have investigated the effect of the electrode material
used in EC/ECF to achieve a high removal of a wide range of pollutants.
Huang et al. [132] found that under identical conditions, phosphate
recovery from municipal sewage treatment plants using iron electrodes
was much more efficient than that of aluminum electrodes. The findings
of Bazrafshan et al. [133] found that both iron and aluminum anodes
were very successful in removing fluoride ions from a synthetic solution.
Devlin et al. [131] showed that orthophosphate removal rates for a
municipal wastewater treatment plant were higher using EC treatment
with aluminum or iron electrodes relative to magnesium electrodes.
Bensadok et al. [134] also found that aluminum electrodes gave the
highest removal efficiency for COD from dairy wastewater treatment,
compared to platinized titanium electrodes. Usually, aluminum dis­
solves to form in Al3+ ions and Fe to form Fe2+ or Fe3+ (normally
generated by oxidation of Fe2+ in solution by dissolved oxygen or other
oxidising species). Dia et al. [135] evaluated the performance of iron
and aluminum electrodes in the removal of organic matter. They found
that under optimal conditions, the efficiency of aluminum and iron
electrodes in removing the COD was similar, with 70% and 65% of COD
removed using aluminum and iron electrodes, respectively. The obser­
vations found virtually complete removal of humic acids occurred; on
the other hand, fulvic acids and hydrophilic compounds were partially
removed using either aluminum or iron as an anode. In most studies, it
7
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
was found that Fe is oxidized to Fe2+ [136,137]. However, Fe3+ can be
produced in solution by oxidation by dissolved oxygen in alkaline pH
conditions. Since Fe2+ has a lower positive charge and a higher solubi­
lity, it is a less effective coagulant and gives lower contaminant removal
[138]. Although aluminum is more expensive than iron, aluminum
generally has a higher removal performance than iron [139]. Studies on
the composition of iron and aluminum as electrodes have also been
carried out. It was reported that aluminum has a high performance for
removal of color, phosphate [140] and fluoride [141] and iron has high
performance in COD removal. Thus, when a mixture of different con­
taminants is present, a combination of these two electrodes resulted in a
good performance. Similar contaminant removal has been reported for
EC treatment of for paper wastewater using iron and aluminum elec­
trodes [142]. Akbal and Camcı also showed that EC with Fe–Al electrode
combinations were able to completely remove copper, chromium, and
nickel from metal plating wastewater which found to be more effective
than that of Fe-Fe and Al-Al electrodes [143]. Inert electrodes, such as
metal oxide coatings, have been used as cathodes [143]. When the water
has significant amounts of calcium or magnesium ions, the efficiency of
EC process is reduced [144]. In other cases, the combination of iron and
aluminum is less effective than aluminum and iron combination.
Most reports in the literature utilize a pair of electrodes, although a
few studies have also studied larger numbers of electrodes. Industrial
electrochemical systems, including EC/ECF reactors, typically use a
large stack of electrodes. Increasing the number of electrodes is used for
scale up, in order to increase the total electrode area. Some recent
studies have examined the effect of the number of electrodes on the
contaminant removal efficiency. Akbal and Camcı [145] assessed the
removal of Copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni) using an EC
reactor containing six electrode plates of aluminium (Al) and iron (Fe)
from metal plating wastewater. They inferred that that by increasing the
number of Al-electrodes from two to six after 10 min of the electrolysis
time, the removal efficiency of Cu, Cr and Ni increased from 77.8 to
97.5%, from 71.9 to 93.2% and from 40.2 to 74.1%, respectively. The
results showed a dramatic reduction (99.9%) in Ni concentration was
achieved after 30 min with six Al-electrodes. On the other hand, by using
Fe-electrodes with similar conditions, the removal efficiencies of Cu and
Cr increased from 87.4 to 98.5% and from 87.7 to 99.9%, respectively.
The reason for this direct correlation between the number of electrodes
and removal rates in this study is that increasing the number of elec­
trodes is associated with increasing the total area of electrodes, thus
making the distribution of the coagulant addition more effective, which
leads to the complete removal of contaminants [145]. In another study,
Khaled et al. [104] studied an EC batch reactor for cadmium removal
from synthetic and phosphate industrial wastewater. The results
confirmed that the use of four electrodes improved the treatment rate. It
took 30 min to achieve 90% cadmium removal, whereas 45 min were
required if two electrodes were used for the same function. The process
efficacy was confirmed by increasing the number of electrodes owing to
an increase in the removal efficiency. However, Nazlabadi et al. [146]
reached conflicting conclusions. They reported a batch ECF with a series
of five to fifteen electrodes for nitrate and nitrite removals from syn­
thetic solution. They found that the number of electrodes had little effect
on the removal efficiencies, and with increasing number of electrodes
the residual nitrate decreased. Under optimal conditions of<350 mg L-1,
as well as up to 500 mg L-1 of initial nitrate concentration, no significant
effect of the number of electrodes on the removal efficiencies was
observed [146].
Solution pH
The pH of a solution is a crucial factor that affects EC/ECF processes
[106]. It determines the solubility of electrodes and ion production in
the aqueous solution, therewith influencing the rejection efficiency of
pollutants. Therefore, the main electrochemical and chemical reactions
M. Mousazadeh et al.
in an electrocoagulation system are as follow;
M→M n+
+ne−
(6)
−
2e + 2H2O → 2OH + H2 −
(7)
In acidic solution:
Mn+ + H2O → M(OH)n + nH+ (8)
In alkaline solution:
M n+
+ OH− → M(OH)n (9)
As the electrical current is applied, metal ions are formed at the
anodes (Eq. (6)), which combined with the hydroxide ions generated at
the cathode (Eq. (7)), act as a powerful coagulant for pollutant coagu­
lation [49].
The effect of initial pH on EC processes varies depending on the
nature of the contaminants [63]. In alkaline and acidic solutions, the
sacrificial electrodes may be undergone chemical dissolution.
Aluminum, in particular, is thermodynamically unstable and will reduce
water in both hydroxide and alkaline solutions. The pH also controls the
speciation of the coagulant in solution, the surface charge of pre­
cipitates, and the complex interactions with the contaminants, including
co-precipitation and adsorption processes. Thus, the effect of pH on EC/
ECF processes depends on the nature of the anode, the composition of
the water undergoing treatment, and the target contaminants [147].
However, compared to chemical coagulation, the pH change during EC
processes as the production of OH– at the cathode is balanced by con­
sumption due to hydrolysis of metal ions generated at the anode [148].
The solution pH also influences the size of bubbles formed at the cathode
in the EC process [48]. The bubble sizes in the EC process are typically
20–70 μm, smaller than those in induced gas or dissolved gas floatation
[56]. The small bubble size provides a high surface area for gas–liquid-
solid interaction, and the bubble size also affects the collisions between
bubbles and solids, as smaller bubbles will remain in the system for
longer, while larger bubbles rise rapidly and leave the cell. The
hydrogen bubbles are smallest in the neutral pHs range 6–8.
Investigating the relationship between pH and removal efficiency is
complex since the pH can change during the EC/ECF processes [149].
The effect of pH is further complicated by the pH variation in the EC cell,
as the pH at the electrode surfaces can be significantly different from the
bulk pH. This effect was recently demonstrated using pH sensitive
flyorescent dyes, visualized using laser scanning confocal microscopy
[150]. Aluminum and iron exhibit different pH behavior. The iron
electrode performs well at high pH. At pH values below 3.5, the release
rate of aluminum ions (Al3+) is higher than at pH values above 3.5, in
which there is aluminum in the form of boehmite [AlO(OH)] precipitate
[151]. At acidic pH, the dissolution of iron electrodes is usually signif­
icant even in the absence of applied current, for example, oxidation of
ferrous (Fe2+) to ferric iron (Fe3+), the more effective coagulant) was
slower at lower pH which was capable of inactivating E. coli and viruses
due to ferrous iron oxidation [152].
The decrease in the dissolution rate at high pH can be attributed to
the decrease in iron corrosion in alkaline pH in the presence of oxygen.
Under these conditions, a passive layer forms on the surface. Consider­
ation of all of these effects demonstrates that pH is the key parameter in
EC/ECF processes. Removal of phosphorus and metal cations has been
found to be sensitive to the pH. For phosphorus, higher removal by EC
with iron electrodes was achieved at lower pH values (e.g. at a pH of 3)
[153]. However, with aluminum electrodes, the removal of phosphorus
by EC was higher in the pH range from 6 to 8 [153]. Interestingly,
another study showed that as pH increases, the removal of copper,
manganese, and zinc contaminants by EC tends to increase [154].
Increasing pH values has also been shown to increase the removal of
many different metal ions by EC/ECF using different electrode materials
(Fe/Al), including: Co(II) [155] As(V) [156] Cu, Cr and Ni [143] Cu(II),
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
Pb(II) and Cd(II) [143] Cu(II), Ni(II), Zn(II) and Mn(II) [157].
Contaminant concentration
The initial concentration of the target contaminants can significantly
affect the pollutant removal achieved by EC/ECF processes. However,
there is no simple relationship or direct correlation between the removal
achieved and the initial contaminant concentration. Usually, high initial
pollutant concentration requires a longer treatment time (i.e. charge
loading) to achieve a high removal [157]. On the other hand, increasing
the initial concentration of some pollutants results in lower removal
[158,159]. Higher concentrations can lead to significant changes in the
speciation behavior. For example, increasing the contaminant concen­
tration can decrease the amount of hydroxide cationic complexes
formed, which are responsible for the coagulation [160]. In the case of
metal ion contaminants, the concentration and type of the anions in­
fluence the speciation and thus the effect of contaminant concentration
on removal by EC. For example, the concentration of some metal ions (e.
g. Cu+2) in the presence of chloride ions significantly affects their
removal [154]. For other metal ions, the effect of anions type and con­
centration is more significant than initial concentration [154].
The effect of the initial concentration of target contaminants depends
on multiple factors such as the type of pollutant (organic, inorganic,
soluble, etc.), interactions with other species present in the solution
being treated, and the electrode material. In some cases, the removal
efficiency of pollutants achieved by EC at constant current density and
treatment time decreases with increasing pollutant concentration. Since
the dose of coagulant is constant under these conditions and the initial
concentration of contaminants increases, there is insufficient metal hy­
droxide coagulant to achieve the same removal [161]. Patel et al. [162]
revealed that by tripling the chromium (VI) ion concentration from 50 to
150 mg/l, Cr(VI) removal percentage was declined from 94.88% to
67.06%. On the other hand, Adeogun et al. [163] showed that increasing
the concentration of dye from 10 to 50 mg/l had a positive effect on its
removal. Ensano et al. [164] studied the effect of initial concentrations
of pharmaceutical contaminants Diclofenac, Carbamazepine, and
Amoxicillin (from 0.01 to 10 mg/l) on their removal by EC. They found
that as the initial concentration of these contaminants increased, the
removal efficiency by EC also increased for a constantly applied charge
loading. This indicates that removal of these contaminants at low con­
centrations is more difficult, even though the coagulant dose per unit
mass of contaminant is higher at low concentrations. The increase in
removal with the initial concentration observed for Diclofenac was
lower than for the other contaminants. This was explained by the fact
that Diclofenac was more difficult to remove, indicating that the nature
of the contaminant influences the effect of initial concentration on
removal performance. Un et al. [163] also studied the effect of the initial
concentration of heavy metal contaminants Cu, Cd, and Ni, on their EC
removal. They found that increasing concentration had little effect on
the removal performance and, in some cases, led to a decrease in the
removal achieved. However, in another study, increasing the concen­
tration of Ni, Cd and Pb decreased their removal efficiency [165]. It is
clear from the wide range of different behaviors, there is no clear rela­
tionship between initial contaminant concentration and removal per­
formance. These differences in behavior are presumably due to the
complexity of the interactions between the contaminant, other species in
solution, and the coagulant.
Selection of operating parameters in EC/ECF
There are a large number of operating parameters affecting EC/ECF
performance, including those discussed above: pH, treatment time,
current density or cell voltage, electrode material, initial pollutant
concentration, inter-electrode distance, and others such as the electrode
geometry (e.g. aspect ratio, flat plate of corrugated), manifold design,
solution flow velocity, the concentration of dissolved oxygen, and the
M. Mousazadeh et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

Table 1
Typical values of operating parameters for EC/ECF processes.
Practical added value of Pollutant Key issues to be addressed Ref.
parameters

^pH = 2 Pb pH value for>99% removal efficiency was equal to 9.5 (at fixed other factors). [184]
†
pH = 12
* for Al electrode: SOC Efficiency removal (%) for Al electrode, respectively: [138]
Operation time = 60 min TP 78, 96, 84, 100, 65, 84
Current density = 38.89 mA. Cu
cm− 2 Zn Efficiency removal (%) for Fe electrode, respectively:
pH of the solution = 6 Mn 57, 96, 81, 100, 61
Fe
* for Fe electrode:
Operation time = 110 min
Current density = 38.89 mA.
cm− 2
pH of the solution = 6
Nitrate 93% removal, the best economical and efficient design. [228]
* Voltage = 17 V
* Electrolysis Time = 240 min
* pH = 8

^ Current density = 0 Am− 2 COD The removal efficiency (%) of 80, 98 ,100 and 100, respectively in optimum condition. [229]
^ pH: 2 Phosphate
^ Voltage = 16.1 V SS
* Current density = 0.65 Am− 2 Turbidity
* Initial pH = 6
* Charge loading = 0.59Fm− 3
†
Current density = 0.75 Am− 2
†
pH: 10
†
Voltage = 20.5 V
^ pH = 4
^ Current density = 1 mA.cm− 2
^ Electrolysis time = 5 min
^ C0 = 20 mg.L− 1

Iron Removal efficiency of 99.6%. The impact of technological parameters on pollutant removal followed the order of [230]
* Electrolysis time = 20 min C0 > t > CD > pH.
* Initial pH = 6
* Current density = 1.5 mA.
cm− 2
* C0 = 20 mg.L− 1
†
pH = 8
†
Current density = 2 mA.cm− 2
†
Electrolysis time = 20 min
†
C0 = 60 mg.L− 1
^ Operation time = 5 min
^ Current density = 0.4 mA. Nitrate 96% removal efficiency in continuous operation of the ECF process. [231]
cm− 2
^ pH of the solution = 3
* Operation time = 30 min
* Current density = 3.2 mA.
cm− 2
* pH of the solution = 7
†
Operation time = 30 min
†
Current density = 3.2 mA.
cm− 2
†
pH of the solution = 11
* for TSS removal: TSS For TSS, 76.6% removal efficiency achieved. [232]
Operation time = 30 min Cu For Cu, Cr and Zn, respectively: 99%, 59.2% and 82.1% removal efficiency.
Current density = 5.3 mA.cm− 2 Cr
pH of the solution = 7 Zn
* for heavy metals removal:
Operation time = 40 min
Current density = 3.2 mA.cm− 2
pH of the solution = 7
* Current density = 100 A.m− 2 Cr (VI) 100% removal efficiency. [233]
pH of the solution = 4.5
As 93.5% and 95.7% removal efficiency for Fe and Al electrode, respectively. [183]
^ Operation time = 0 min
^ Current density = 2.5 A.m− 2
^ pH of the solution = 4
1
^ initial concentration: 75 μg L−
* Operation time = 12.5 min
* pH of the solution = 6.5
for Al electrode:
* Operation time = 15 min
(continued on next page)

9
M. Mousazadeh et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

Table 1 (continued )
Practical added value of Pollutant Key issues to be addressed Ref.
parameters

* pH of the solution = 7
†
Operation time = 15 min
†
Current density = 7.5 A.m− 2
†
pH of the solution = 9
†
initial concentration:
500 μg L− 1
* Current density = 400 A.m− 2 Hg 99.95% removal efficiency. [234]
* pH of the solution = 3–7

Notes: ^ Minimum; * Optimum; † Maximum.

addition of other chemicals [60]. In the numerous published studies, the
effect of different parameters on contaminant removal has been inves­
tigated [166–169].
A summary of the factors that have been investigated and their effect
on the performance of EC/ECF processes for a wide range of different
contaminants is shown in Table 1. In particular, the range of each of the
parameters used (i.e. the minimum and maximum) is given, as well as
the reported optimum value of each parameter, given through special
pollutants, was reported. This table can provide a useful guide for re­
searchers and engineers to select the suitable operating parameters for
EC/ECF processes.
Simultaneous effect of parameters
Each of the parameters discussed above not only affects the EC
process performance individually, they also interact either synergisti­
cally or antagonistically. Table 2 summarizes the findings of studies that
have evaluated the interactions between operating parameters. It is clear
from these studies that the interaction between different parameters
varies depending on the nature of the contaminant. This again confirms
the complexity of the physico-chemical interactions between the con­
taminants, other species present, and the electrochemically generated
coagulant.

Table 2
Reported studies on simultaneous effect of EC/ECF parameters on pollutant removal.
Simultaneous effect of Condition Comments Ref.
parameters

pH and initial • pH (5–9) • pH is inversely correlated but at lower concentrations, this is more noticeable and the effect of [171]
concentration • time (5–25 min) concentration is also known at high pHs.
Time and initial • initial copper content • Time is directly correlated but at low concentrations, the effect of time is reduced.
concentration (2.5–32.5 mg.L− 1) • Voltage and time are both directly related, but voltage has more impact.
Voltage and time
Time and Current density • Time (5–20) • Both are directly related, but the current density has more impact. [235]
• Current density (30–240)
Current density and pH • Time (5–45 min) • Both current density and pH have a direct effect, but at high pH the tire density is low. [236]
Time and pH • Current density (22–110) • When removing TSS, time is highly pH-dependent and more effective at low pHs.
Steel and aluminum • pH (3–7) • The type of electrode materials was almost the same except for one state.
• electrode material (steel/
aluminum)
Voltage and initial • Voltage (17–27 V) • Voltage and concentration are directly related and at low voltages, the positive effect of concentration [237]
concentration • Nitrate concentration is greater. The same is true of time and pH.
Time and pH (100–300 mg.L− 1) • The simultaneous increase of all the parameters investigated in this article has a drastic effect.
• Time (50–80)
• pH (8–10)
Time and Current density • Time (20–60 min) • Both are directly related on COD, TSS & Turbidity removal but when the current density was higher, [238]
• Current density (10–20 mA/ the effect of time was increased.
cm2)
pH • Time (20–60 min) • Acidic pH (in range of 5–6) was better for Decolorization [239]
Current density and pH • Current density (15–35) • At a low density, an increase of pH resulted in a decrease in decolorization efficiency, but at a higher
Time and other • pH (4–9) density, an inverse performance was observed.
parameters • Optimum condition for time was about 20 min at different pH and current density.
Batch and continuous Batch & continuous • Batch & continuous were almost the same within 10%. [240]
• The color and COD removals by the batch reactor were higher than the continuous reactor because the
distribution of electroactive species.
pH and initial • pH (4–7) • At higher initial nitrate concentration, increasing the pH enhanced the nitrate removal efficiency. [146]
concentration • initial nitrate (300–500 mg. • At lower current intensities, the residual nitrate increased by increasing the initial pH.
Current intensity and L− 1) • The residual nitrate declined by increasing the reaction time at a constant initial concentration and
pH • current intensity (2–3.5 A) number of electrodes.
• time (110–180 min) • Increasing the number of electrodes, the residual nitrate decreased, but at a constant reaction time and
• electrode number (8–12) number of electrodes, the increasing of the current intensity had no specific effect on the residual
nitrate.
Time and Current density • time (10–30 min) • The time interaction and current intensity were not statistically significant on bacterial biomass [241]
• current density (2–3 A) removal but they had a synergistic effect on color removal.
pH and initial • pH (6–8) • Acidic pH improved the removal rate a lot to some extent that the copper concentration effect was [171]
concentration • initial copper (10–25 mg.L− 1) disappear.
Time and initial voltage (9–15 V) • Time and copper concentration hadn’t a special effect on each other.
concentration • time (10–20 min) • Voltage and treatment time had positive effects on copper removal efficiency but not as much as pH
Voltage and time values.

10
M. Mousazadeh et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

Modeling approaches below.

Sacrificial Reactions occurred at Anode and Cathode, in the Solution, and
Despite the EC applicability in water and wastewater treatment, its electrode Polymerization
industrial application has not been widespread, in part due to the lack of Al Basic Al (s) → Al+3 (aq) + 3e- (10)
systematic models for reactor scale-up. Hakizimana et al. [47] reviewed conditions 3H2O (l) + 3e- → 1.5H2 (g) + 3OH- (aq) (11)
the studies with three modeling approaches, including, statistical Al+3 (aq)+ 3OH- (aq)→ Al(OH)3 (s)↓ (12)
Al (s) + 3H2O (l) → Al(OH)3 (s)↓+ (13)
modeling, knowledge-based models (e.g., phenomenological models, 1.5H2 (g)
detailed mechanism), and computational fluid dynamic (CFD). To date, nAl(OH)3 (s)↓ → Aln(OH)3n (s)↓ (14)
most studies have used statistical modeling such as response surface Acidic Al (s) → Al+3 (aq) + 3e- (15)
methodology (RSM), which determines the effects of independent pa­ conditions Al+3 (aq)+ 3H2O (l) → Al(OH)3 (s)↓+ (16)
3H+ (aq)
rameters and their interactions; consequently, an empirical model could
3H+ (aq) + 3e- → 1.5H2 (g) (17)
be generated to estimate the optimum operating conditions [47]. Studies Al (s) + 3H2O (l) → Al(OH)3 (s)↓+ (18)
have applied the RSM modeling approach to techno-economic optimi­ 1.5H2 (g)
zation of parameters [146,170]. For multi objective optimization, ANN Fe and SS Basic Fe (s) → Fe+2 (aq) + 2e- (19)
has been applied with RSM for copper removal from simulated waste­ conditions 2H2O (l) + 2e- → H2 (g) + 2OH- (aq) (20)
Fe+2 (aq)+ 2OH- (aq)→ Fe(OH)2 (s)↓ (21)
water using the EC process [171]. Knowledge-based models, which Fe (s) + 2H2O (l) → Fe(OH)2 (s)↓+ H2 (22)
evaluate the kinetics of pollutant abatement [172] electrochemical (g)
phenomena, adsorption and variable order kinetic model [173] floccu­
lation, flotation and settling, and complexation have been also investi­ Acidic 4Fe (s) → 4Fe+2 (aq) + 8e- (23)
conditions 4Fe+2 (aq) + 10H2O (l) + 10O2 (g)→ (24)
gated by many researchers [47]. According to the literature, CFD
4Fe(OH)3 (s)↓+ 8H+ (aq)
simulations, analysis of mixing, mass transfer, current distribution and 8H+ (aq) + 8e- → 4H2 (g) (25)
electrochemistry, will likely play a crucial role in improving EC reactor 4Fe (s) + 10H2O (l) + 10O2 (g)→ 4Fe (26)
design for future applications [47]. (OH)3 (s)↓+ 4H2 (g)
Zn Zn (s) → Zn (aq) + 2e-
2+
(27)
2H2O (l) + 2e- → H2 (g) + 2OH- (aq) (28)
Mechanisms of pollutant removal in EC/ECF processes
Zn2+ (aq) + 2H2O (l) → Zn(OH)2 (s)↓ + 2H+ (29)
Mg Mg (s) → Mg2+ (aq) + 2e- (30)
As it mentioned previously, EC entails a complex combination of 2H2O (l) + 2e- → H2 (g) + 2OH- (aq) (31)
chemical and physical interactions; and the study of the EC/ECF Mg2+ (aq) + 2H2O (l) → Mg(OH)2 (s)↓ + 2H+ (32)
Cu Cu (s) → Cu2+ (aq) + 2e- (33)
mechanisms is useful in order to improve understanding of the phe­
2H2O (l) + 2e- → H2 (g) + 2OH- (aq) (34)
nomena taking place in the process. This new understanding can enable 2Cu (s) + 3H2O (l) + 0.5O2 (g) → 2Cu(OH)2 (s)↓ + H2 (g) (35)
the development of designs to be optimized for each application, as well
as the development of innovative cell designs and processes for the
removal of various contaminants [26]. According to the literature, to
remove pollutants from drinking and waste waters, various mechanisms Colors and textile dyes
synergistically occur in EC/ECF processes, and these mechanisms are
illustrated schematically in Fig. 6. According to the literature, several mechanisms likely occur between
The mechanisms of EC/ECF processes depend upon the electrode dye molecules and hydro-generated products. As shown in Table 4, the
material, which determine the type of coagulants and oxidation/ predominant mechanisms of dye removal include dye molecule
reduction reactions, as well as the chemical and physical properties of adsorption, either by electrostatic attraction or physical entrapment,
the solution undergoing treatment, in particular its composition (con­ and precipitation [176]. However, the pH of the solution can alter the
centration and nature of the contaminant and other species present), pH, rate of these interactions [21]. Thus, dyes are typically removed by
and conductivity. Table 4 summarizes EC/ECF processes for removing precipitation or adsorption processes:
various pollutants from 2010 to 2020 that partially or comprehensively Precipitation→{ DYE + Monomeric M → M [DYE-Monomeric M](s)pH=4-5
identified the contaminant removal mechanisms. The range of electrode DYE + Polymeric M → M [DYE-Polymeric M] (s)pH=5-6
materials used in these studies included aluminum, aluminum alloy, Adsorption→{ DYE + M (OH)n (s) → [Particle]pH>6.5
[DYE-Polymeric M](s) + M (OH)n (s) → [Particle]pH>6.5
iron, stainless steel, zinc, copper, and magnesium (Mg). For these
metals, the following oxidation/reduction reactions can be considered
to occur in EC/ECF processes [26,124,174,175]: Mollah et al. [177] applied a continuous EC process for removing orange
Al+3 produced at the anode reacts with OH– (or water) to form Al II dye using aluminum electrodes. The maximum dye removal (94.5%)
(OH)+ 2 , followed by Al(OH)3 as the pH increases, and finally, polymer­ was at a current density and initial pH of 16 mA/cm2 and 6.5, respec­
ization processes occur to form Aln(OH)3n. In the case of iron electrodes, tively. The main dye removal mechanism was adsorption onto the
ferrous Fe2+ is formed at the anode, which can precipitate as Fe(OH)2. polymerized aluminum hydroxide, which has a strong affinity to adsorb
Preferably the ferrous iron is oxidized to the ferric form (Fe3+), a more the hydrolyzed dye molecules. Also, they proposed that a minor,
effective coagulant with lower solubility than Fe2+. This can be achieved possible mechanism was chemical degradation, which occurred between
by dissolved oxygen under acidic conditions or by the addition of an orange II and oxidants produced during the EC. Olad et al. [178]
oxidizing agent. Fe3+ can precipitate as ferric oxyhydroxide, FeO(OH), investigated Alphazurine FG dye using iron and aluminum electrodes
or as iron oxide Fe2O3 (also known as hematite). In some cases where a using an EC process. The pH range for maximum Alphazurine removal
mixture of Fe2+ and Fe3+ are present, Fe3O4 (magnetite) may be was between 4 and 9, and under these conditions, the majority of the
precipitated (not shown in the list of reactions above). Other metals Alphazurine was removed by adsorption and enmeshment. The iron
precipitate as hydroxide as the pH increases. The mechanisms of anode was more efficient for Alphazurine removal since the hydrous
contaminant removal for different types of contaminants, including aluminum hydroxide lacks a relatively low adsorption capacity for
colors and dyes, heavy metals, anions, hardness, and other contaminants Alphazurine. The results also indicated pseudo-first-order kinetics for
often present in municipal and industrial wastewater, are discussed Alphazurine removal by the EC process. As an evaluation of the removal
mechanism for crystal violet using EC, Mbacké et al. [179] applied
aluminum and SS as the anode and cathode, respectively. The current
density applied in the batch EC reactor was varied from 10 to 25 mA/

11
M. Mousazadeh et al.
Fig. 6. Mechanisms occurring simultaneously during EC/ECF processes.
cm2. The results suggested that the removal mechanism was a combi­
nation of coagulation by aluminum hydroxide oliomers and electro­
chemical oxidation. In the coagulation reaction, crystal violet molecules
are attached to the aluminum hydroxide, mainly by chemical rather
than physical interactions. For methylene blue investigated by Liu and
Wu [180] adsorption was the main removal mechanism using a batch EC
process with aluminum and titanium electrodes. Ramya Sankar &
Sivasubramanian [181] affirmed that the removal of Congo red dye was
via adsorption and charge neutralization mechanism followed up in situ
aluminum coagulants production. The pseudo-second order kinetic
model was also achieved as a well-fitted model for Congo red dye
removal.
Heavy metals
As shown in Table 4, EC/ECF processes have been applied for
removal various heavy metals, including: arsenic (As5+ or As3+), chro­
mium (Cr6+ or Cr3+), zinc (Zn2+), nickel (Ni2+), copper (Cu2+), cad­
mium (Cd2+), mercury (Hg2+), cobalt (Co2+), lead (Pb2+), manganese
(Mn2+), antimony (Sb5+), strontium (Sr2+), cesium (Cs2+), iron (Fe2+),
aluminum (Al3+) from drinking and waste waters. Wan et al. [182]
evaluated the mechanism of arsenic (As3+ and As5+) removal in a batch
EC system using iron electrodes. During the EC process, the dissolved
iron precipitated as lepidocrocite (γ-FeOOH), which adsorbed the
arsenic irons. In the case of As3+, it was partially oxidized to As5+, which
removed more easily than As3+ during the EC treatment. It was found
that phosphate inhibited arsenic removal; however, using longer treat­
ment times to increase the dose of iron oxide enhanced the arsenic
removal in the presence of phosphate. At high pH (8–9) and high initial
As concentration (1000 µg/L), the As removal rate was slow, and it took
a long time for the dissolved As concentration to fall below 1 µg/L. Co-
precipitation and adsorption of arsenic onto the aluminum and iron
hydroxides were also reported by Kobya et al. [183]. Mohammed et al.
[184] investigated the As removal using various electrodes and found
that first order kinetic model was the best to describe its removal; they
analyzed the sludge obtained during the EC process of which results
indicated the adsorption of arsenic species on to the metal hydroxide
surfaces in case of steel and aluminum electrodes. Syam Babu et al.
[185] applied an external air supply with the EC process to completely
remove the As species; the generation of oxidizing agents including
ferryl ions during the process improved the arsenite removal. Murthy &
Parmar [186] proposed a pseudo-second-order kinetic model for the
adsorption of strontium ions (Sr2+) during EC. It was found that SS
electrodes were more effective for the removal of Sr2+ (with a removal of
around 93%) with an optimum current density of 8 mA/cm2. A neutral
pH was desirable for higher strontium ion removal since acidic and
12
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
alkaline pH caused the amphoteric behavior of hydroxides leading to
soluble cations and monomeric anions. Kim et al. [187] applied the EC
process with iron and aluminum electrodes for the removal Pb2+, Cd2+,
and Cu2+. Precipitation, adsorption, and chemical oxidation/reduction
were reported to be the dominant mechanisms for lead, cadmium, and
copper (Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cu2+) removal. In addition, the presence of
chloride in the electrolyte caused the precipitation of the heavy metals
as Pb(OH)Cl, β-Cd2(OH)3Cl, and CuCl.
EC/ECF typically operate best in the neutral pH range 6–8.
Furthermore, unlike chemical coagulation processes, EC/ECF does not
lead to a significant shift in the pH of the water. This is due to the
simultaneous generation of metal ions at the anode and hydroxide ions
at the cathode. The produced metal ions react with hydroxide, leading to
very little net change in pH. Thus costs for pH adjustment are not
required, in fact, these costs are much lower than they are for competing
chemical processes such as chemical coagulation and lime softening.
Other inorganic contaminants
Ion removal mechanisms entailed different pathways depending on
their type. For evaluation of fluoride, Emamjomeh et al. [21] conducted
a batch monopolar ECF process with aluminum electrodes. It was found
that under acidic conditions, the aluminum remained dissolved, limiting
the effectiveness of the process. The highest fluoride removal was ob­
tained in the pH range of 6 to 8. When pH was in this range, the fluo­
rohydroxide aluminum complex was formed. Under these conditions,
the fluoride removal mechanism was found to be the adsorption of F−
and precipitation of cryolite (Na3AlF6) formation. Behbahani et al. [92]
confirmed that fluoride was adsorbed onto aluminum hydroxide co­
agulants during a batch EC process (pH = 7).
For nitrate removal using EC/ECF processes, nitrate reduction has
been identified as a key step in its removal, although the precise nitrate
removal mechanism pathway was not scrutinized to determine the
following mechanisms that occur afterward [146,170,188]. However,
Lacasa et al. [189] compared nitrate removal by chemical coagulation
and EC using aluminum and iron electrodes and found nitrate could be
removed by adsorption during EC. They reported that the EC process
was effective for nitrate removal primarily due to the preferential
adsorption of nitrate ions onto the aluminum and iron hydroxide pre­
cipitates. A small amount of ammonium ion production was found to
occur during the EC process, which also subsequently adsorbed onto the
hydroxide flocs. Yehya et al. [190] analyzed the nitrate removal
mechanisms via the EC process with aluminum electrodes. It was found
that nitrate removal followed first-order kinetics, and the rate of
removal was directly proportional to the applied current. The primary
mechanism of nitrate removal was found to be reduction of nitrate to
M. Mousazadeh et al.
ammonium, and adsorption of ammonium ions onto the flocs. A model
of the nitrate removal was developed based on ammonium adsorption
with zero-order kinetics, in combination with electroreduction of nitrate
with first-order kinetics. However, the presence of other anions such as
phosphate, which might interfere with the nitrate removal, was not
evaluated by these authors.
As a prominent study on phosphate removal mechanism, Lacasa et al.
[191] applied the EC process with iron and aluminum electrodes. The
adsorption of anions onto metal hydroxide and co-precipitation of
phosphates was proposed as the main mechanisms of phosphate removal
by the EC process. In the case of aluminum electrodes, aluminum
phosphate formation was enhanced at low current densities (0.1 mA/
cm2). In the case of iron electrodes, the adsorption mechanism played no
significant role in phosphate removal via the EC process. Bakshi et al.
[192] also confirmed the successful adsorption of the phosphate onto
aluminum hydroxide flocs using EDS spectra obtained XRD analysis of
flocs. Amongst studies on boron removal mechanism, Isa et al. [193]
utilized an ECF process with aluminum electrodes. According to ther­
modynamics study results, the removal mechanism was found to be
chemisorption on the aluminum hydroxide flocs and followed a pseudo-
second-order kinetic model; the adsorption process that revealed an
augmented dispersal in the solution was spontaneous The produced flocs
were also studied to recover boron as a recyclable precipitate. Mala­
kootian et al. [194] applied a batch EC process using iron electrodes to
remove hardness from water. It was found that the initial pH, applied
voltage, and reaction time all had a significant impact on the hardness
removal mechanism. At acidic pH, the Fe(OH)2 is presented in the so­
lution soluble, and Fe(OH)3 is produced precipitated in at the neutral
and alkaline pH; At higher pH, additionally, the precipitation of the
calcium and magnesium carbonate salts may also occur on the cathode.
Municipal and industrial wastewater
Dissolved organic and inorganic content
The mechanism of COD removal depends on the species produced
during the EC process and the formation of flocs affected by the pH of the
solution and reactivity of organic compounds. Aswathy et al. [195]
found that neutral pH was suitable to remove COD from bilge water; at
lower pH, the precipitation of iron insoluble was lesser, leading a lower
removal efficiency. The second order kinetic model was also reported as
the best one or both Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models of sol­
uble COD removal. Chou [196] investigated the removal of polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) via a batch EC process. The maximum removal was ob­
tained using a combination of an iron anode and an aluminum cathode.
The dominant PVA removal mechanisms were adsorption and co-
precipitation, however, the mechanistic study of the process for PVA
removal was not scrutinized; the flocs and the solution were not
examined as well. Nawarkar & Salkar [3 4 6] evaluated municipal
wastewater treatment using solar powered EC. Although COD and
turbidity removal of 92% and 94% were achieved, TDS removal was
only 50%, which indicates that EC is less effective for TDS removal in
comparison with other pollutants. Similarily, Bakrya et al. [3 3 7] found
that TOC, turbidity, and TDS removal using the EC process were 64.8%,
98.3%, and 78%, respectively.
Ulu et al. [197] evaluated the mechanism of removal of natural
organic matter (NOM) mechanism by EC with aluminum and iron
electrodes. The results indicated that the EC process was very effective
for the removal of the aromatic part of the NOM. Three major mecha­
nisms were reported, including adsorption by hydrogen bonding and
Van der Waals interactions, precipitation, and sweep coagulation. It was
found that the EC was predominantly able to remove humic, hydro­
phobic, and high molecular weight compounds. Syaichurrozi et al.
[173,198] presented the mechanistic model of the EC process, a prom­
ising investigation of the EC study, for Vinasse removal. The effect of
initial pH and the voltage were scrutinized in this regard. The mecha­
nistic model revealed that the COD removal reactions during the EC
13
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
process entailed adsorption, flocculation, entrapment, sedimentation,
and flotation; by increasing the pH from 4.35 to 6, the reaction rate
constants of adsorption, flotation and entrapment amplified [198]. By
variation of voltage (7.5–12.5 V), four mechanistic models were pro­
posed to determine the suitable one fitted well by measured data. Ac­
cording to the outcomes, the model opted that assumed the COD
removal by adsorption and entrapment of the coagulants, which settled
accordingly, while the floated flocs occurred via flotation of the settled
flocs [173].
Oil and grease
To remove oil from wastewater, Liu et al. [199] applied aluminum
electrodes in an ECF process and quantified the amount of flotation and
sedimentation. It was found that increasing the current density
improved the flotation. At a current density of 15 mA/cm2, about 90% of
the oil was separated by flotation; however, at a current density of 7.5
mA/cm2, a higher oil removal of 97.3% was obtained. In addition, it was
found that gentle mixing was required to obtain effective flotation.
Suspended solids and turbidity
The EC process can be a promising technology for the removal of
colloids from drinking and waste waters. The pH of the solution has been
shown to be an influence the removal performance as well as the
mechanism of removal of suspended solids and turbidity by the EC
process [200]. Liu et al. [200] studied the removal of suspended solids
using EC with iron electrodes and found that for pH between 5 and 7, the
generated iron hydroxide effectively traps the destabilized particles.
Pathogens and microorganisms
The EC process is a promising technology for pathogens and micro­
organisms abatement on which researches are inadequate; however,
Heffron et al. [201] investigated virus mitigation in drinking water using
a batch EC process using iron electrodes. The primary mechanism of
removal was by physical interaction with the flocs, and inactivation was
also observed by ferrous iron oxidation. Aguilar Ascon [202] evaluated
the removal of Escherichia coli (E. coli) using a batch EC process.
Aluminum and iron electrodes were applied as the anode and cathode
using a monopolar connection. It was found that the EC process signif­
icantly removes pathogenic microorganisms, such as E. coli, which re­
duces the need for chlorine during the final treatment stage. This
research did not elaborate on the E. coli removal mechanisms, so further
studies are needed to determine the processes that led to the removal or
inactivation of the E coli.
Radioactive elements
The EC process is also applied for the removal of radioactive con­
taminants from drinking and waste waters. Kamaraj and Vasudevan
[203] applied various anode materials, including aluminum, iron,
magnesium, and zinc, to remove strontium and cesium from water using
the EC process. According to the results, the adsorption mechanism was
dominated in strontium and cesium removal than direct cathodic
deposition; the results of kinetic studies revealed the suitability of sec­
ond order model for adsorption of strontium and cesium on magnesium
hydroxides. The Langmuir adsorption isotherm was best fitted with the
experimental data. Li et al. [204] evaluated uranium (VI) removal via
the EC process. Iron and graphite were used as electrodes of the EC
process and 79.01% of uranium was achieved at pH = 6 due to the
balanced generation of iron oxides and hydroxides. The removal
mechanism was precipitation, and the second order kinetic model was
best fitted with the experimental data. The same results for uranium
removal were reported by Li et al. [205]. Nariyan et al. [206] also
removed uranium from mine water through the EC process. Iron and
aluminum were used as anodes with stainless steel cathodes. It was re­
ported that sorption and reduction were the main mechanisms in ura­
nium removal; and for both of electrode materials first order kinetics
M. Mousazadeh et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

was the best models. 2- The improved sequential biological treatment process can be used to
reduce high COD content in some raw wastewater.
Opportunities and barriers of EC/ECF technologies among 3- To coagulate the suspended solids (SS) and the most dissolved ma­
current treatment methods terials that could cause fouling for membrane bioreactors

Electrocoagulation is a relatively recent wastewater treatment pro­
cess that has been shown continuous development for 30 years [26,59].
This treatment process has a promising performance that could exten­
sively overtake the drawbacks of other treatment methods and can
become a sustainable and cost effective treatment process (4). According
to the available published studies, it is clear that EC as a treatment
process for high COD load has been applied as a single or in combined
treatment systems to achieve one of the following objectives:
1- To remove the toxic constituents from some types of wastewater in
addition to some non-biodegradable compounds
It should be noted that EC has been used as a post treatment polishing
process to achieve a higher degree of pollutants removal after the pri­
mary treatment processes. The performance of EC with that of other
treatment processes such as chemical coagulation [145,207–210] bio­
logical treatment [211] anodic oxidation [212] and Fenton [213–215].
From the recent studies listed in Table 3, it is clear that EC represents a
promising treatment process all types of wastewater, including those of
high COD and can achieve high removal efficiencies and with low solid
wastes. Accordingly, many promising opportunities encourage the
application of EC treatment processes. However, there are several
problems or barriers that have been faced in many studies that could
limit the large-scale application of EC treatment processes.

Table 3
Comparisons of EC, chemical coagulation (CC) and other treatment processes.
Drinking and waste EC CC Ref.
waters
Electrode Current pH Contaminant removal Coagulant Dosemg. Contaminant removal
material density mA. L− 1
cm− 2

Palm oil mill effluent Al-Al 2 5 72% Oil68% COD Al2 (SO4)3 500 55% Oil, 75% SS at pH [242]
(POME) 2.5
Textile wastewater Fe-FeAl-Al 7.515 8 98% dye Al2 (SO4)3 500 53% dye [216]
Berberine FE-FE 19.4 5.5–8.5 87.6% polymeric ferric sulfate, 200–600 35% at pH 7.5 [207]
pharmaceutical polyaluminum chloride
wastewater
Coal mine drainage Fe-Fe 50 2.5 99.96%. NaOH for precipitation 1N 28.4% to [214]
wastewater solution
Boron removal from Al-Al 3.75 8 94% Boron AlCl3 7450 24% Boron [243]
boron-containing
solution
Gelatin production Al-Al 1A 7 73.6% COD APC 54.5 55.6% COD [244]
wastewater
Artisanal tannery Fe-Fe 0.4 A 6 71.15% COD FeSO4 370 83.17% COD [215]
wastewater
Textile Factory Al-Al 0.4 A 9 58.86, 94.44 and 97.81% of Al2 (SO4)3 500 56.08 and 63.64% [245]
COD, total phosphorous and COD and total
turbidity phosphorus

Drinking and waste waters EC Other treatment processes Ref.

Electrode Current density pH Contaminant Characteristics and Contaminant removal

material mA.cm− 2 removal

Photoelectrocoagulation, peroxi-electrocoagulation and peroxi- [246]

photoelectrocoagulation
Pharmaceutical wastewater Fe-Fe 15 7 34% COD peroxi-electrocoagulation > peroxi-photoelectrocoagulation >
photoelectrocoagulation > electrocoagulation
peroxi-electrocoagulation (PEC) and peroxi-coagulation (PC)
processes
Simulated purified terephthalic Fe - Graphite 4.5–22.8 1–5 60.76%, COD 73.91% COD by PEC66.68% COD by PC [247]
acid wastewater
Anodic Oxidation or electro oxidation
Acid green dye 50 from Al-Al 3.51 9 90% Color Graphite anode/ SS Cathode/ 20V, 10 A 68% [212]
wastewater
Aqueous solution of ellagic acid Fe-Fe 3.20, 6.41, and 8 93% COD Graphite and RuO2/IrO2/TaO2 3.20, 6.41, 100% [248]
12.82 coated titanium electrodes and 12.82 ellagic acid

Drinking and waste EC Other treatment processes Ref.

waters Electrode Current density pH Contaminant removal Contaminant removal
material mA.cm− 2

Biological Treatment
Municipal Wastewater Fe-Fe 2-4 7.5 84% COD 83% COD [211]
Treatment
Laundry wastewater Al-AL 8V 7 80% SDS Sodium aerobic degradation by 40% SDS Sodium [249]
dodecylbenzene sulphate Bacillus strain, 72 h dodecylbenzene sulphate
Olive mills Wastewater Advanced Oxidation
H2O2/Fe(II), O2/Fe(II), and H2O2/O2/Fe(II)
Al-Al 22 V 6.13 93% decolorization Pre-treated by EC 78% decolorization [250]
92.4% Phenolic reduction Untreated by EC 14% decolorization

SS: Stainless Steel.

14
 M. Mousazadeh et al.
Table 4
Studies of the operating conditions and mechanisms of removal of pollutants using.
Targeting pollutant Source C.D.a (or Initial Voltage E.T.b Electrode Electrode Main and primary mechanisms of Removal Reactor T.E.c (%) Ref.
current) pH (V) (min) material configuration removal path

Colors and textile dyes

Orange II Synthetic wastewater 12-21.5 2-12.6 - - Al BPg Adsorption on polymerized Al Settled Continuous 33-94.5 [177]
mA/cm2 (300-575 mL/
min)
Alphazurine FG Synthetic wastewater 2.5-10 4-9 - 0-10 Al and Fe MP Enmeshment of AF in particles Settled Batch 35-97 [178]
mA/cm2 precipitate + Adsorption on precipitate and
Fe hydroxide floated
Acid blue 113 Synthetic wastewater 10-50 5.5-7.5 - 0-60 Fe and SS MP Adsorption - Batch >95 [251]
mA/cm2
Reactive red 198 Synthetic textile - - 5-40 5-90 Al MP and BP Adsorption of dye molecules on flocs Settled Batch <99.89 [161]
wastewater
Disperse blue 56, Basic Synthetic wastewater 5.44- 2-10 - 1-10 Fe MP Precipitation + adsorption Settled Batch <94.7, [176]
yellow 28 32.67 and <99.9
mA/cm2 floated
CI reactive blue 25 Textile industry - 5-11 14-20 0-90 Al MP Adsorption Settled Batch <97.7 [252]
and
floated
Brilliant green Synthetic wastewater 6.9-41.7 2-10 - 0-30 Al MP Adsorption Batch <99.99 [253]
mA/cm2
Crystal violet Synthetic wastewater 10-25 3-10 - 0-15 Al and SS MP Complexion + adsorption Settled Batch >70 [179]
mA/cm2 and
floated
Direct green 1 Synthetic wastewater - 3-11 2-6 0-60 SS - Adsorption - Batch <99.87 [254]
Methylene blue Synthetic wastewater 5 mA/ 3-11 - 2.5-30 Al and - Adsorption - Batch <100 [180]
cm2
15

titanium
Heavy metals and
metals
Cd Synthetic solution 1-5 mA/ 4-9 - 0-120 Mg and SS - Adsorption Settled Batch <99 [123]
cm2
Sr (II) Synthetic solution 410-1000 - 11.5- 30 Fe MP Adsorption Settled Batch 87.45- 99.5 [255]
mA 17.84
Hg, Pb, Ni Synthetic drinking 0.25-2.0 2-10 1.5-2.1 5-35 Mg alloy, - Adsorption - Batch 38-99, 54- [124]
water mA/cm2 Al, and MS 98, 58-99
Mn Synthetic 0.25-2 3-11 - 15-105 Mg and SS MP and BP Adsorption Settled Batch 84-99 [256]

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

mA/cm2
Al, Cu, Si, Zn, Mn, Fe Mine water 10-70 2.68 - 0-120 Fe, Al, and MP Adsorption - Batch <100, [257]
mA/cm2 SS <100, <90,
<100, <40,
<78
Cu, Zn, Ni Synthetic solution 0.74 mA/ - - 60, Fe and Al MP Precipitation Settled Continuous -, <100, [258]
cm2 120, (0.3 m3/h) <100
180
Pb (II), Cd (II), and Cu Synthetic solution 0.7-2 5.2- - 0-90 Fe and Al - Precipitation + adsorption + chemical Settled Batch - [187]
(II) mA/cm2 6.03 oxidation/reduction
Cr (III) Artificial wastewater - 2.1-2.5 10-30 20-60 Fe MP and BP Charge neutralization Settled Batch <99.95 [259]
As, Sb Synthetic and 0.28-5.6 3-11 - 0-55 Fe and Al MP Adsorption Settled Batch 54.21- [260]
practical mA/cm2 and 99.98,
contaminated surface floated 39.97-
water 99.98
Ions
Fluoride Synthetic water 500-2500 2-10 - - Al MP Competitive adsorption between OH− Settled Batch <92 [261]
mA and F− + formation of Cryolite in pH and
range of 5-8 floated
(continued on next page)
 M. Mousazadeh et al.
Table 4 (continued )
Targeting pollutant Source C.D.a (or Initial Voltage E.T.b Electrode Electrode Main and primary mechanisms of Removal Reactor T.E.c (%) Ref.
current) pH (V) (min) material configuration removal path

Calcium Synthetic solution 2.2-8.8 - - 10-60 Al MP - - Batch 36 [262]

mA/cm2
Phosphate, Nitrogen Synthetic solution 0.3 mA/ 2-8 - 60 Fe MP Adsorption - Batch <100, <20 [263]
cm2
Boron Synthetic wastewater 6.25- 4-10 - 30, 60, Al - Adsorption Settled Batch <99.7 [193]
18.75 90 and
mA/cm2 floated
Selenocyanate Synthetic wastewater 400-1200 4-8 - 0-400 Al and Fe - Adsorption - Batch - [264]
mA
Tetrafluoroborate Synthetic wastewater 2.5-6.25 4-12 - 0-180 Al MP BF− 4 decomposition + coagulation of Settled Batch <98.3 [265]
mA/cm2 fluoride and boron
Sulfate Mining water 1-3 A 4-10 - 0-300 Al and Fe MP Adsorption + charge neutralization - Batch <50 [266]
Nitrate and nitrite Synthetic solution 950-4550 1.9-9.1 - 61-229 Al BP Denitrification Settled Batch - [146]
mA and
floated
Municipal and industrial wastewater
Organic and inorganic content
Polyvinyl alcohol Synthetic solution - 6.5 5-20 0-120 Al and Fe MP Adsorption + co-precipitation - Batch 40-95 [267]
Salicylic acid Synthetic solution 0.6-4.8 - - 0-120 Al MP Adsorbed on charged metal hydroxide Settled Batch <91.4 [268]
mA/cm2
COD, Detergent, Color, Laundry wastewater - 3-10 10-30 0-90 Al MP and BP Adsorption Settled Batch 0-93.2, 0- [153]
Turbidity, Phosphate and 93.5, 0-
floated 90.1, 0-
95.9, 0-96.7
Tannic acid, COD Synthetic solution 1-10 mA/ 2-11 - - Fe - Charge neutralization + sweep Settled Batch <83 [269]
cm2 coagulation
16

COD, Sulfamethazazole Hospital effluent 12.8 mA/ 5-9 20-50 5-60 Al MP 16% degradation of Sulfamethazazole + - Batch 58 [270]
and trimethoprim cm2 28% adsorption of trimethoprim
COD, BOD5, TSS, TN Slaughterhouse 0.5-2.5 7 - 10-50 Fe MP Adsorption - Batch <93, <97, [271]
wastewater mA/cm2 <81, <84
Endocrine disrupting Synthetic solution 4-20 mA/ 3-9 - 0-40 Al and Fe - Co-precipitated with Al (adsorption or Settled Batch <65 [272]
chemical, COD cm2 complex formation)
Dexamethasone Synthetic solution 50-550 - - 0-45 Al MP Repression of the double layer + Settled Batch 17.6-97.9 [273]
and hospital mA entrapment of colloidal particles by
wastewater sweeping floc

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

COD, Turbidity Municipal 1 mA/ 7.4 and 3 - Fe and Al MP Floc enmeshment and adsorption of Settled Batch - [210]
Phosphate, N, Fecal wastewater cm2 7.7 soluble COD/Adsorption and
coliform enmeshment/ Enmeshment and
promoted by the formation of
disinfectant species
Tetracycline Synthetic solution 100-800 2-10 - 0-15 Al MP Adsorption Batch <99 [274]
mA
Humic Acid Synthetic solution 0.42-4.5 3-6 - 0-25 Fe and Al MP Charge neutralization + sweep Settled Batch <87 [275]
mA/cm2 entrapment flocculation
Perfluorooctanoate Synthetic solution 0.5 mA/ - - 0-20 Zn, Al rod - Adsorption + precipitation Settled Batch <99.7 [276]
cm2 and SS
Perfluoroalkyl acids Synthetic solution 6.25-50.0 3.8 and - 0-90 Fe and Al - Adsorption Settled Batch >99 [277]
mA/cm2 5.2 and
floated
Oxytetracyline Synthetic solution 10-25 - - 0-120 Fe, Al, and MP Adsorption Settled Batch <96 [278]
mA/cm2 SS
Ciprofloxacin antibiotic Hospital wastewater 5-20 mA/ 4-10 - 5-30 Fe - Adsorption - Batch <99 [279]
cm2
Synthetic wastewater 6-7 - 0-36 Al and CS - Precipitation + degradation - <100 [280]
(continued on next page)
 M. Mousazadeh et al.
Table 4 (continued )
Targeting pollutant Source C.D.a (or Initial Voltage E.T.b Electrode Electrode Main and primary mechanisms of Removal Reactor T.E.c (%) Ref.
current) pH (V) (min) material configuration removal path

Antibiotics (ampicillin, 1.8 mA/ Settled

doxycycline, cm2 and
sulfathiazole) floated
Glyphosate herbicide Synthetic wastewater 6 mA/ 6.7 30 60 Al, Fe, steel, MP Coagulation + adsorption Settled Batch <94.25 [174]
cm2 and copper and
floated
Diclofenac, Real municipal 0.3-1.8 - 11.23- 3, 6, Al and SS MP Adsorption Settled Batch 22, 23, 40 [281]
Carbamazepine, wastewater mA/cm2 60.59 and 19
Amoxicillin hr
TOC Water containing 50-250 7 - - Fe - - Settled Batch >90 [282]
micropollutants mA and
floated
Selenium Petroleum refinery 7.7-15.3 5 2.8-3.9 60-360 Fe - Adsorption + co-precipitation Settled Batch <90 [283]
wastewater mA/cm2 and
floated
Hydrated silica, Deep well water 10-16 - - 13.9- Al - Formation of Al silicates/Replaces a - Continuous - [284]
Fluoride, As, Sulfate, mA/cm2 55.9 s hydroxyl group from flocs/Adsorption (1.16-4.67 cm/
Phosphate s)
Ketoprofen Synthetic solution 9.61- 4-10 0-120 Fe MP Adsorption Settled Batch <100 [285]
38.46 and
mA/cm2 floated
Estrogens Synthetic solution 4-16 mA/ 7 - - MS - Adsorption - Batch >80 [286]
cm2
DOC, UV254, Turbidity, Mine and surface 0.5-4.5 2.5-8.5 - 15-30 Al MP Charge neutralization + double layer - Batch <86.6, [287]
Phenol water mA/cm2 compression <93.3, <93,
<85.5
17

Oil & grease

Oil Simulated oil water 5.9-18.0 3.5-7.5 - 0-180 Al MP Coagulation Settled Batch - [288]
emulsion mA/cm2 and
floated
Oil and grease, COD Carwash wastewater 0-5 mA/ 2-10 - 5-50 Al and Fe MP Adsorption Settled Batch 69-90 [289]
cm2 and
floated
Pathogens and microorganisms
Bacteria, helminth eggs, Municipal 3000 mA 4.5 - 0-60 Al and Fe MP Adsorption Settled Batch <100 [37]

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353

protozoa wastewater and
floated
E. coli Domestic wastewater 1000- 7, 8.5 - 10-60 Al and Fe MP Adsorption Settled Batch <100 [202]
3000 mA and
floated
Cyanobacteria Surface water 37 mA/ 6.93- - 1 and Al MP - Settled Continuous (5- <92.8 [290]
cm2 8.12 2.2 and 35 L/hr)
floated
Virus Synthetic solution 100 mA - - 5 Fe - Inactivation + physical removal - Batch - [291]
Microalgae Synthetic solution 10,000 - - - Al - - Settled Batch - [292]
mA and
floated
Radioactive elements
Strontium, Cesium Aqueous solution - 2-12 2.4, 2.14, 0-100 Al, Fe, Mg, Adsorption - Batch 97, 96.8 [203]
2.56, 2.73 Zinc
Uranium (VI) Synthetic solution 0.6-1.4 3-9 - 0-24 Fe, Graphite - Precipitation Settled Batch 99.65 [204]
mA/cm2
Uranium Mine water 10-70 2.68 - 0-120 Fe, Al, SS Sorption + reduction (precipitation) Settled Batch 97.35 [206]
mA/cm2

Notes: a Current density; b

Electrolysis time; c Treatment efficiency; d Not determined; e Monopolar; f Stainless Steel; g Bipolar; h Mild Steel; I Carbon Steel; j Glassy Carbon
M. Mousazadeh et al.
Opportunities for EC processes
Opportunities for EC treatment processes can be summarized as
• The EC treatment process has shown higher COD removal effi­
ciencies and other pollutants than CC, biological treatment and other
treatment processes and, many other processes [216,217]. In addi­
tion, EC is characterized by relatively short treatment time compared
to biological treatment or other processes.
• EC usually produces small quantities of sludge compared to the CC
process [218]. This factor will reduce the cost of waste management
and the overall cost of the process. In addition, the overall cost of EC
processes is lower than that of CC and some other processes
[214,219,220].
• The EC process can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce the COD
prior to the biological treatment, or as a post-treatment or polishing
process depending on the type and concentration of pollutants. It has
been shown that both modes can be successfully applied [221,222].
On the other hand, chemical coagulation, for example, is generally
applied as a pre-treatment only.
• Solar powered EC is a sustainable process for drinking and waste
waters treatment that can be applied to small communities in iso­
lated locations [223]. The use of solar energy reduces the operation
cost to a minimum.
Barriers of EC processes
In spite of the promising opportunities of EC/ECF processes, it has
many barriers that hindered its use on an industrial scale. These barriers
include:
• In most studies, simulated wastewater and not real wastewater was
used. For this reason, more studies should be conducted to treat real
wastewater rather than simulated wastewater in order to compare
the actual results [224].
• Scale-up of wastewater treatment processes is an essential step for
application in large-scale treatment plants. This step requires process
optimization, and a design basis for large-scale treatment processes
[225]. However, none of the EC/ECF papers discussed in this review
has considered the scale-up approach. Most EC/ECF studies are
performed at lab-scale and focus on optimizing the operational
conditions to improve performance. There is thus a gap in the liter­
ature, and further studies addressing design models that can be used
for scale up of EC/ECF processes are needed [225].
• The use of mathematical models, as well as kinetic models to
describe the EC/ECF treatment processes is still very limited. Such
models are needed to accurately describe and confirm the experi­
mental results obtained to be used in scaling up of these systems.
• Currently, conventional non-renewable sources as the key current
supply for most of the EC/ECF processes. This factor is considered a
major disadvantage since it leads to an increase in the operating cost
and the pollution buy the combustion of fossil fuel. For this reason,
the use of sustainable energy resources such as photovoltaic modules
or others is essential [226,227].
• More studies should investigate the problem of electrode passivation
since it usually leads to efficiency reduction. Researchers in the field
should pay special attention in future works to find some methods or
mechanisms to reduce its side effects.
• Further studies are urgent to opt for the most efficient electrode
arrangement and to decide which configuration is more efficient.
Such research should focus on optimizing the number, arrangement,
and connection of electrodes.
Closing remarks
EC/ECF is a sustainable technology for the treatment of a wide range
18
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
of pollutants present in many types of drinking and waste waters. This
review paper addresses the key role of critical operating parameters for
EC/ECF, including the applied current and voltage, electrolysis time,
inter-electrode distance, mode of application, electric configuration,
electrode material, solution pH and the initial concentration of the
pollutant content, all of which can affect the process performance. The
current density, electrolysis time, and type of electrode must be carefully
considered for each application due to their direct influence on the rate
of energy consumption, bubble production rate, the chemical and elec­
trochemical reactions occurring in the reactor, and the contaminant
removal mechanisms.
Despite the drawbacks of EC/ECF, such as the requirement for pe­
riodic replacement of the electrodes, the electrical energy consumption
particularly for treatment of water with low electrical conductivity, and
the lack of a systematic reactor design procedure, the process has many
advantages over competing technologies. Advantages include the ease of
operation, no chemical addition is required, low sludge production,
simultaneous removal of pollutants, short retention time, and low en­
ergy consumption (in most cases) leads to low operating costs. There is
an increasing trend of the EC or ECF use with other treatment processes
rather than the use of EC alone. The EC/ECF processes could be used as a
pre- or post-treatment process depending on the properties of the
wastewater and the quality of the treated water.
EC/ECF is typically considered as an alternative to chemical treat­
ment processes such as chemical coagulation, lime softening etc., which
face similar issues with sludge disposal. It is well established that EC/
ECF produces lower quantities of sludge than chemical treatment pro­
cesses. However, the management of the sludge should be one of the
parameters to be considered in future studies. One of the possible sludge
management approaches, where the sludge contains significant organic
content, is to incinerate the sludge to produce electricity and to recycle
the metallic ash. Another approach is to produce composite activated
carbon. The cost of sludge handling and management is an important
parameter affecting the economics of the treatment process. However,
no studies have been cited that estimate the overall cost of the EC
treatment process including sludge management. Most studies of EC
studies are lab-scale and the sludge produced and cost effective sludge
management processes have not been reported. The recyclability of
sludge has also not been considered in EC/ECF research, and future
studies on this topic are strongly recommended. The sludge could be
potentially be reprocessed for applications in the construction industry
(e.g., concrete production).
In EC/ECF processes, there are multiple contaminant removal
mechanisms that occur simultaneously, including reduction, oxidation,
adsorption, precipitation, co-precipitation, and charge neutralization.
These processes must also be compatible with the solid–liquid separa­
tion processes, usually sedimentation and / or flotation. All of the
mechanisms involved depend on the operating conditions and, in
particular, on the nature of the sacrificial electrodes. Most of the re­
ported studies of these processes have been carried out on a laboratory
scale, which is likely due the cost and complexity of carrying out large or
pilot scale studies. Almost of the studies of EC showed high contaminant
removal performance and low sludge production compared with other
treatment processes such as chemical coagulation. In addition, the
treatment time required for EC/ECF processes was significantly lower
than biological treatment.
There is more studies needed on the design and modeling of EC re­
actors. Because of the complexity of the mechanisms and processes
occurring in EC reactors modelling can be challenging, and it is difficult
to obtain reliable predictions of process performance for real applica­
tions without testing at pilot scale. However, with the increasing pro­
cessing power and advanced software and simulation techniques,
numerical simulation of the complex interactions in EC/ECF is increas­
ingly accessible to simulation. The combination of EC or ECF with other
treatment technologies is also expected to bring breakthroughs in the
treatment of pollutants in drinking and waste waters. Studies of the
M. Mousazadeh et al.
integration of EC/ECF processes utilizing renewable and inexpensive
electrical generation such as wind and solar are needed. This approach
will enable the reduction of operating costs, decrease the environmental
impact of the EC/ECF processes, and enable easy implementation in
remote locations. The energy consumption depends on the operating
conditions and the conductivity of the water. To reduce the energy
consumption of EC/ECF there are several possible strategies:
• Lower current density can be used but this will lead to a large elec­
trode area and hence a higher capital cost, so there is a trade-off
between the capital cost of the EC/ECF hardware, and the oper­
ating cost for electricity.
• Reduction of the inter-electrode gap will reduce the cell voltage and
hence the energy consumption. Although, some studies have shown
that the gap can affect the treatment performance and if the gap is
too narrow it will lead to restriction of the flow. There is also a risk of
fouling plugging of the EC/ECF reactor.
• Addition of salts to increase the conductivity of the water undergoing
treatment. However, this leads to a significant chemical operating
cost, and contamination of the treated water unless the added salt is
also removed by the EC/ECF processes.
• During the day, DC current produced from solar energy can be
directly used in the EC cell with the use of a current regulator. The
batteries can be used to store the excess electrical energy to be used
overnight.
• To make energy consumption a cost-effective process, electrode
passivation should be minimized. This can be achieved by utilizing a
continuous or periodical cleaning device for the electrodes in the EC
cell to maintain a low cell voltage, high current density and prevent
significant temperature rise in the cell.
Pilot and industrial scale application of EC/ECF has rarely been
studied for drinking and waste waters treatment, and such studies would
provide valuable insights for researchers in the field. In terms of the
operating conditions, there is a very wide range of parameters that have
been studied, but for a given application, there is currently no systematic
method for the selection of suitable operating parameters such as elec­
trode material, inter-electrode distance, flow velocity, and current
density. In the last few decades, technology has continued to show great
promise. Future advances for the successful development of EC pro­
cesses will rely upon the close collaboration of analytical chemists,
electrochemists, environmental and chemical engineers to ensure a
complete understanding of the processes involved and to develop suit­
able models of the process.
Conclusion and future scope
This review demonstrates EC/ECF processes as a promising treat­
ment approach for broad range of pollutants removal from water and
wastewater. It includes the most significant results of large number of
papers published during the last few decades. In addition, the effects of
the main operating parameters on the process performance were dis­
cussed and analyzed. The current density, electrolysis time, and type of
electrode must be carefully considered for each application due to their
direct influence on the rate of energy consumption, bubble production
rate, the chemical and electrochemical reactions occurring in the
reactor, and the contaminant removal mechanisms. It is found that this
treatment process has been successfully used to treat different types of
pollutants such as heavy metal ions, anions, dyes, oils, pathogens, mi­
croorganisms, and many others. It has been proven that this EC/ECF
processes represents a practical cost-effective technology for the
removal of most pollutants. Furthermore, some challenges such as en­
ergy consumption and electrode passivation should be considered in
more studies to find more reliable and sustainable solutions for them.
Overall, most studies of EC studies are lab-scale and the sludge produced
and cost effective sludge management processes have not been reported.
19
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
The recyclability of sludge has also not been considered in EC/ECF
research, and future studies on this topic are strongly recommended.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Milad Mousazadeh: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investiga­
tion Project administration, Writing - review & editing. Zohreh Nagh­
dali: Writing - original draft, Software & Formal analysis. Zakaria Al-
Qodah: Writing - original draft, Methodology. S.M. Alizadeh: Writing -
original draft. Elnaz Karamati Niaragh: Writing - original draft,
Methodology, Software, Investigation. Sima Malekmohammadi:
Writing - original draft. P.V. Nidheesh: Writing - review & editing.
Edward P.L. Roberts: Writing - review & editing. Mika Sillanpää:
Writing - review & editing. Mohammad Mahdi Emamjomeh: Writing -
review & editing, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Vali­
dation, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The support of the Research Vice-Chancellor of Qazvin University of
Medical Sciences (IR.QUMS.REC.1398.274) is wholeheartedly appreci­
ated. Milad Mousazadeh gratitudes the Iran’s National Elites Foundation
(INEF) for granting the Award, No. 15/11529.
References
[1] Emamjomeh M, Kakavand S, Jamali H, Alizadeh S, Safdari M, Mousavi SES, et al.
The treatment of printing and packaging wastewater by
electrocoagulation–flotation: the simultaneous efficacy of critical parameters and
economics. Desalin Water Treat 2020;205.
[2] Mohammadi P, Lotfi S, Moussavi SP, Mousazadeh M, Rostami R. Studying quality
of drinking water and determining sustainable indicators for water resources of
villages of Harsin Town of Iran. International Journal of Health and Life Sciences
2018;4.
[3] Alsbaiee A, Smith BJ, Xiao L, Ling Y, Helbling DE, Dichtel WR. Rapid removal of
organic micropollutants from water by a porous β-cyclodextrin polymer. Nature
2016;529:190–4.
[4] Zhu L, Meng L, Shi J, Li J, Zhang X, Feng M. Metal-organic frameworks/carbon-
based materials for environmental remediation: A state-of-the-art mini-review.
J Environ Manage 2019;232:964–77.
[5] Emamjomeh MM, Torabi H, Mousazadeh M, Alijani MH, Gohari F. Impact of
independent and non-independent parameters on various elements’ rejection by
nanofiltration employed in groundwater treatment. Appl Water Sci 2019;9:71.
[6] Fu Z, Guo W, Dang Z, Hu Q, Wu F, Feng C, et al. Refocusing on nonpriority toxic
metals in the aquatic environment in China. ACS Publications 2017.
[7] Mousazadeh M, Alizadeh S, Frontistis Z, Kabdaşlı I, Karamati Niaragh E, Al
Qodah Z, et al. Electrocoagulation as a Promising Defluoridation Technology
from Water: A Review of State of the Art of Removal Mechanisms and
Performance Trends. Water 2021;13:656.
[8] Zhitkovich A. Chromium in drinking water: sources, metabolism, and cancer
risks. Chem Res Toxicol 2011;24:1617–29.
[9] Gleick PH. A look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water Int
2000;25:127–38.
[10] Naghdali Z, Sahebi S, Mousazadeh M, Jamali HA. Optimization of the forward
osmosis process using aquaporin membranes in chromium removal. Chem Eng
Technol 2020;43:298–306.
[11] Zagklis DP, Vavouraki AI, Kornaros ME, Paraskeva CA. Purification of olive mill
wastewater phenols through membrane filtration and resin adsorption/
desorption. J Hazard Mater 2015;285:69–76.
[12] Faraji M, Ebrahimi A, Nourmoradi H, Nikoonahad A, Abdolahnejad A,
Ghanbari R, et al. Optimizing the removal of humic acid with polyaluminum
chloride and polyaluminum ferric chloride as green coagulants using response
surface methodology. Desalin Water Treat 2019;139:297–304.
[13] Li H, Liu S, Zhao J, Feng N. Removal of reactive dyes from wastewater assisted
with kaolin clay by magnesium hydroxide coagulation process. Colloids Surf, A
2016;494:222–7.
[14] Ye Z-L, Chen S-H, Wang S-M, Lin L-F, Yan Y-J, Zhang Z-J, et al. Phosphorus
recovery from synthetic swine wastewater by chemical precipitation using
response surface methodology. J Hazard Mater 2010;176:1083–8.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
[15] Wenk J, Aeschbacher M, Salhi E, Canonica S, Von Gunten U, Sander M. Chemical
oxidation of dissolved organic matter by chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and ozone:
effects on its optical and antioxidant properties. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:
11147–56.
[16] Eslami H, Shariatifar A, Rafiee E, Shiranian M, Salehi F, Hosseini SS, et al.
Decolorization and biodegradation of reactive Red 198 Azo dye by a new
Enterococcus faecalis–Klebsiella variicola bacterial consortium isolated from
textile wastewater sludge. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2019;35:38.
[17] Moussa D, El-Naas M, Nasser M, Al-Marri M. A comprehensive review of
electrocoagulation for water treatment: Potentials and challenges. J Environ
Manage 2016;30:e18.
[18] Nidheesh P, Singh TA. Arsenic removal by electrocoagulation process: Recent
trends and removal mechanism. Chemosphere 2017;181:418–32.
[19] Meiramkulova K, Jakupova Z, Orynbekov D, Tashenov E, Kydyrbekova A,
Mkilima T, et al. Evaluation of electrochemical methods for poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater treatment. Sustainability 2020;12:5110.
[20] Feng Y, Yang L, Liu J, Logan BE. Electrochemical technologies for wastewater
treatment and resource reclamation. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2016;2:
800–31.
[21] Emamjomeh MM, Sivakumar M. Review of pollutants removed by
electrocoagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes. J Environ Manage
2009;90:1663–79.
[22] Abbas S, Ali W. Electrocoagulation technique used to treat wastewater: a review.
Am. J. Eng. Res. (AJER) 2016:74–88.
[23] Yadav AK, Singh L, Mohanty A, Satya S, Sreekrishnan T. Removal of various
pollutants from wastewater by electrocoagulation using iron and aluminium
electrode. Desalin Water Treat 2012;46:352–8.
[24] Al-Shannag M, Lafi W, Bani-Melhem K, Gharagheer F, Dhaimat O. Reduction of
COD and TSS from paper industries wastewater using electro-coagulation and
chemical coagulation. Sep Sci Technol 2012;47:700–8.
[25] Lekhlif B, Oudrhiri L, Zidane F, Drogui P, Blais J-F. Study of the
electrocoagulation of electroplating industry wastewaters charged by nickel (II)
and chromium (VI). J. Mater. Environ. Sci 2014;5:111–20.
[26] Al-Qodah Z, Al-Shannag M. Heavy metal ions removal from wastewater using
electrocoagulation processes: a comprehensive review. Sep Sci Technol 2017;52:
2649–76.
[27] Khan SU, Asif M, Alam F, Khan NA, Farooqi IH. Optimizing fluoride removal and
energy consumption in a batch reactor using electrocoagulation: a smart
treatment technology. Smart Cities—Opportunities and Challenges Springer
2020,:767–78.
[28] Abbasi S, Mirghorayshi M, Zinadini S, Zinatizadeh A. A novel single continuous
electrocoagulation process for treatment of licorice processing wastewater:
Optimization of operating factors using RSM. Process Saf Environ Prot 2020;134:
323–32.
[29] Bracher GH, Carissimi E, Wolff DB, Graepin C, Hubner AP. Optimization of an
electrocoagulation-flotation system for domestic wastewater treatment and reuse.
Environ Technol 2020:1–11.
[30] El Gaayda J, Akbour RA, Titchou FE, Afanga H, Zazou H, Swanson C, et al. Uptake
of an anionic dye from aqueous solution by aluminum oxide particles:
Equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies. Groundwater Sustainable Dev
2021;12:100540.
[31] Titchou FE, Afanga H, Zazou H, Akbour RA, Hamdani M. Batch elimination of
cationic dye from aqueous solution by electrocoagulation process. Mediterranean
Journal of Chemistry 2020;10:1–12.
[32] Al-Malack MH, Siddiqui M. Treatment of synthetic petroleum refinery wastewater
in a continuous electro-oxidation process. Desalin Water Treat 2013;51:6580–91.
[33] Fouad Y. Separation of cottonseed oil from oil–water emulsions using
electrocoagulation technique. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2014;53:199–204.
[34] Hashim KS, Al Khaddar R, Jasim N, Shaw A, Phipps D, Kot P, et al.
Electrocoagulation as a green technology for phosphate removal from River
water. Sep Purif Technol 2019;210:135–44.
[35] Sandoval MA, Nava JL, Coreño O, Carreño G, Arias LA, Méndez D. Sulfate ions
removal from an aqueous solution modeled on an abandoned mine by
electrocoagulation process with recirculation. Int J Electrochem Sci 2017;12:
1318–30.
[36] Mahmoud S, Ahmed M. Removal of surfactants in wastewater by
electrocoagulation method using iron electrodes. Physical Sciences Research
International 2014;2:28–34.
[37] Boudjemaa N, Drouichec N, Mameria N. Electro coagulation for the pathogenic
and microorganism removal from Oued El-Harrach. Algeria wastewater,
Desalination Water Treat 2017;68:129–236.
[38] Vepsäläinen M, Pulliainen M, Sillanpää M. Effect of electrochemical cell structure
on natural organic matter [NOM) removal from surface water through
electrocoagulation (EC]. Sep Purif Technol 2012;99:20–7.
[39] de Carvalho HP, Huang J, Zhao M, Liu G, Dong L, Liu X. Improvement of
Methylene Blue removal by electrocoagulation/banana peel adsorption coupling
in a batch system. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2015;54:777–86.
[40] Sravanth T, Ramesh S, Gandhimathi R, Nidheesh P. Continuous treatability of oily
wastewater from locomotive wash facilities by electrocoagulation. Sep Sci
Technol 2019:1–7.
[41] Tak B-Y, Tak B-S, Kim Y-J, Park Y-J, Yoon Y-H, Min G-H. Optimization of color
and COD removal from livestock wastewater by electrocoagulation process:
application of Box-Behnken design [BBD]. J Ind Eng Chem 2015;28:307–15.
[42] Al-Shannag M, Al-Qodah Z, Bani-Melhem K, Qtaishat MR, Alkasrawi M. Heavy
metal ions removal from metal plating wastewater using electrocoagulation:
Kinetic study and process performance. Chem Eng J 2015;260:749–56.
20
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
[43] Garcia-Segura S, Eiband MMS, de Melo JV, Martínez-Huitle CA.
Electrocoagulation and advanced electrocoagulation processes: A general review
about the fundamentals, emerging applications and its association with other
technologies. J Electroanal Chem 2017;801:267–99.
[44] Kabdaşlı I, Arslan-Alaton I, Ölmez-Hancı T, Tünay O. Electrocoagulation
applications for industrial wastewaters: a critical review. Environmental
Technology Reviews 2012;1:2–45.
[45] Sahu O, Mazumdar B, Chaudhari P. Treatment of wastewater by
electrocoagulation: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2014;21:2397–413.
[46] Al-Qodah Z, Tawalbeh M, Al-Shannag M, Al-Anber Z, Bani-Melhem K. Combined
electrocoagulation processes as a novel approach for enhanced pollutants
removal: A state-of-the-art review. Sci Total Environ 2020;744:140806.
[47] Hakizimana JN, Gourich B, Chafi M, Stiriba Y, Vial C, Drogui P, et al.
Electrocoagulation process in water treatment: A review of electrocoagulation
modeling approaches. Desalination 2017;404:1–21.
[48] Ahangarnokolaei M, Ganjidoust H, Ayati B. Optimization of parameters of
electrocoagulation/flotation process for removal of Acid Red 14 with mesh
stainless steel electrodes. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination 2018;8:
278–92.
[49] Ghanbari F, Moradi M, Eslami A, Emamjomeh MM. Electrocoagulation/flotation
of textile wastewater with simultaneous application of aluminum and iron as
anode. Environmental Processes 2014;1:447–57.
[50] Alam R, Shang JQ, Khan AH. Bubble size distribution in a laboratory-scale
electroflotation study. Environ Monit Assess 2017;189:193.
[51] Mohtashami R, Shang JQ. Electroflotation for Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters: A Focused Review. Environmental Processes 2019;6:325–53.
[52] Sun Y, Zhou S, Chiang P-C, Shah KJ. Evaluation and optimization of enhanced
coagulation process: Water and energy nexus. Water-Energy Nexus 2019;2:25–36.
[53] Gao S, Du M, Tian J, Yang J, Yang J, Ma F, et al. Effects of chloride ions on
electro-coagulation-flotation process with aluminum electrodes for algae
removal. J Hazard Mater 2010;182:827–34.
[54] Golzary A, Imanian S, Abdoli MA, Khodadadi A, Karbassi A. A cost-effective
strategy for marine microalgae separation by electro-coagulation–flotation
process aimed at bio-crude oil production: Optimization and evaluation study.
Sep Purif Technol 2015;147:156–65.
[55] Nasrullah M, Zularisam A, Krishnan S, Sakinah M, Singh L, Fen YW. High
performance electrocoagulation process in treating palm oil mill effluent using
high current intensity application. Chin J Chem Eng 2019;27:208–17.
[56] Barrera-Díaz CE, Balderas-Hernández P, Bilyeu B. Electrocoagulation:
Fundamentals and Prospectives. Electrochemical Water and Wastewater
Treatment: Elsevier; 2018. p. 61–76.
[57] Shammas NK, Pouet M-F, Grasmick A. Wastewater treatment by
electrocoagulation–flotation. Flotation Technology: Springer; 2010. p. 199–220.
[58] Bayar S, Yildiz Y, Yilmaz A, Koparal AS. The effect of initial pH on treatment of
poultry slaughterhouse wastewater by electrocoagulation method. Desalin Water
Treat 2014;52:3047–53.
[59] Al-Qodah Z, Al-Shannag M, Bani-Melhem K, Assirey E, Yahya MA, Al-
Shawabkeh A. Free radical-assisted electrocoagulation processes for wastewater
treatment. Environ Chem Lett 2018;16:695–714.
[60] Ghernaout D, Alghamdi A, Ghernaout B. Electrocoagulation process: A
mechanistic review at the dawn of its modeling. Journal of Environmental
Science and Allied Research 2019;2:51–67.
[61] Sena S, Prajapatib AK, Bannatwalac A, Pala D. Electrocoagulation treatment of
industrial wastewater including textile dyeing effluent–a review. DESALINATION
AND WATER TREATMENT 2019;161:21–34.
[62] Nasrullah M, Siddique MNI, Zularisam A. Effect of high current density in
electrocoagulation process for sewage treatment. Asian J Chem 2014;26:4281.
[63] Gao S, Yang J, Tian J, Ma F, Tu G, Du M. Electro-coagulation–flotation process for
algae removal. J Hazard Mater 2010;177:336–43.
[64] Comninellis C, Chen G. Electrochemistry for the Environment. Springer; 2010.
[65] Zodi S, Merzouk B, Potier O, Lapicque F, Leclerc J-P. Direct red 81 dye removal by
a continuous flow electrocoagulation/flotation reactor. Sep Purif Technol 2013;
108:215–22.
[66] Ozden M, Tekbas M, Caliskan Y, Bektas N. Decolourisation of Disperse Brown Dye
Solution by Electrocoagulation Process with Al and Fe Electrodes. Gazi University
Journal of Science 2019;32.
[67] Oden MK, Sari-Erkan H. Treatment of metal plating wastewater using iron
electrode by electrocoagulation process: Optimization and process performance.
Process Saf Environ Prot 2018;119:207–17.
[68] Elazzouzi M, Haboubi K, Elyoubi M. Enhancement of electrocoagulation-flotation
process for urban wastewater treatment using Al and Fe electrodes: Techno-
economic study. Mater Today: Proc 2019;13:549–55.
[69] Meetiyagoda TAOK, Fujino T. Comparison of Different Anode Materials to
Remove Microcystis aeruginosa Cells Using Electro-Coagulation–Flotation
Process at Low Current Inputs. Water 2020;12:3528.
[70] Swain K, Abbassi B, Kinsley C. Combined electrocoagulation and chemical
coagulation in treating brewery wastewater. Water 2020;12:726.
[71] Jing G, Ren S, Gao Y, Sun W, Gao Z. Electrocoagulation: a promising method to
treat and reuse mineral processing wastewater with high COD. Water 2020;12:
595.
[72] Heard DM, Lennox AJ. Electrode materials in modern organic electrochemistry.
Angew Chem Int Ed 2020;59:18866–84.
[73] Yasri N, Hu J, Kibria MG, Roberts EP. Electrocoagulation Separation Processes,
Multidisciplinary Advances in Efficient Separation Processes. ACS Publications
2020:167–203.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
[74] Hossain M, Mahmud I, Parvez S, Cho HM, Hossain M, Mahmud I, et al. Impact of
current density, operating time and pH of textile wastewater treatment by
electrocoagulation process. Environ Eng Res 2013;18:157–61.
[75] Yassine W, Akazdam S, Zyade S, Gourich B. Treatement of Olive Mill Wastewater
Using Electrocoagulation Process. Journal of Applied Surfaces and Interfaces
2018;4.
[76] Baddouh A, Bessegato GG, Rguiti MM, El Ibrahimi B, Bazzi L, Hilali M, et al.
Electrochemical decolorization of Rhodamine B dye: Influence of anode material,
chloride concentration and current density. J Environ Chem Eng 2018;6:2041–7.
[77] Choi AES, Futalan CCM, Yee J-J. Fuzzy optimization for the removal of uranium
from mine water using batch electrocoagulation: A case study. Nuclear
Engineering and Technology 2020;52:1471–80.
[78] Adamovic S, Prica M, Dalmacija B, Rapajic S, Novakovic D, Pavlovic Z, et al.
Feasibility of electrocoagulation/flotation treatment of waste offset printing
developer based on the response surface analysis. Arabian J Chem 2016;9:
152–62.
[79] El-Taweel YA, Nassef EM, Elkheriany I, Sayed D. Removal of Cr (VI) ions from
waste water by electrocoagulation using iron electrode. Egypt J Pet 2015;24:
183–92.
[80] Behbahani M, Alavi Moghaddam M, Arami M. Phosphate removal by
electrocoagulation process: Optimization through response surface methodology.
Env. Eng. Mang. J. 2013;(EEMJ) 12:12.
[81] Karichappan T, Venkatachalam S, Jeganathan PM, Sengodan K. Treatment of rice
mill wastewater using continuous electrocoagulation technique: optimization and
modelling. J Korean Chem Soc 2013;57:761–8.
[82] S.H. Abbas, W.H. Ali, Electrocoagulation Technique Used To Treat Wastewater:
A.
[83] Bazrafshan E, Mohammadi L, Ansari-Moghaddam A, Mahvi AH. Heavy metals
removal from aqueous environments by electrocoagulation process–a systematic
review. Journal of environmental health science and engineering 2015;13:74.
[84] Emamjomeh MM, Mousazadeh M, Mokhtari N, Jamali HA, Makkiabadi M,
Naghdali Z, et al. Simultaneous removal of phenol and linear alkylbenzene
sulfonate from automotive service station wastewater: Optimization of coupled
electrochemical and physical processes. Sep Sci Technol 2020;55:3184–94.
[85] Bazrafshan E, Moein H, Kord Mostafapour F, Nakhaie S. Application of
electrocoagulation process for dairy wastewater treatment. J Chem 2013 (2012)..
[86] Brahmi K, Bouguerra W, Belhsan H, Elaloui E, Loungou M, Tlili Z, et al. Use of
electrocoagulation with aluminum electrodes to reduce hardness in tunisian
phosphate mining process water. Mine Water Environ 2016;35:310–7.
[87] Khandegar V, Saroha AK. Electrocoagulation for the treatment of textile industry
effluent–a review. J Environ Manage 2013;128:949–63.
[88] Z. Atashzaban, A. Seidmohammadi, D. Nematollahi, G. Azarian, S.O. HEIDARY,
A.R. Rahmani, The Efficiency of Electrocoagulation and Electroflotation Processes
for Removal of Polyvinyl Acetate From Synthetic Effluent, (2016).
[89] Yuksel E, Eyvaz M, Gurbulak E. Electrochemical treatment of colour index
reactive orange 84 and textile wastewater by using stainless steel and iron
electrodes. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy 2013;32:60–8.
[90] Nwabanne JT, Obi CC. Abattoir Wastewater Treatment by Electrocoagulation
Using Iron Electrodes. Der Chemica Sinica 2017;8:254–60.
[91] Jiao B, Peng X, Li D, Ye Q. A Study on Treating Bathing Wastewater by
Electrocoagulation-Flotation. Res. J. Chem. Environ 2011;15:533–7.
[92] Behbahani M, Moghaddam MA, Arami M. Techno-economical evaluation of
fluoride removal by electrocoagulation process: Optimization through response
surface methodology. Desalination 2011;271:209–18.
[93] Un UT, Koparal AS, Ogutveren UB. Fluoride removal from water and wastewater
with a bach cylindrical electrode using electrocoagulation. Chem Eng J 2013;223:
110–5.
[94] Yazdanbakhsh A, Massoudinejad M, Arman K, Aghayani E. Investigating the
potential of electrocoagulation-flotation (ECF) process for pollutants removal
from olive oil mill wastewater. J Appl Environ Biol Sci 2013;3:22–8.
[95] Elabbas S, Ouazzani N, Mandi L, Berrekhis F, Perdicakis M, Pontvianne S, et al.
Treatment of highly concentrated tannery wastewater using electrocoagulation:
influence of the quality of aluminium used for the electrode. J Hazard Mater
2016;319:69–77.
[96] Vasudevan S, Kannan BS, Lakshmi J, Mohanraj S, Sozhan G. Effects of alternating
and direct current in electrocoagulation process on the removal of fluoride from
water. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2011;86:428–36.
[97] Khaled B, Wided B, Béchir H, Elimame E, Mouna L, Zied T. Investigation of
electrocoagulation reactor design parameters effect on the removal of cadmium
from synthetic and phosphate industrial wastewater. Arabian J Chem 2015.
[98] Nasrullah M, Singh L, Wahida ZA. Treatment of sewage by electrocoagulation and
the effect of high current density. Energy Environ Eng J 2012;1.
[99] Shankar R, Singh L, Mondal P, Chand S. Removal of COD, TOC, and color from
pulp and paper industry wastewater through electrocoagulation. Desalin Water
Treat 2014;52:7711–22.
[100] Sridhar R, Sivakumar V, Immanuel VP, Maran JP. Treatment of pulp and paper
industry bleaching effluent by electrocoagulant process. J Hazard Mater 2011;
186:1495–502.
[101] Naje AS, Chelliapan S, Zakaria Z, Abbas SA. Treatment performance of textile
wastewater using electrocoagulation (EC) process under combined electrical
connection of electrodes. Int J Electrochem Sci 2015;10:5924–41.
[102] Asaithambi P, Aziz ARA, Sajjadi B, Daud WMABW. Sono assisted
electrocoagulation process for the removal of pollutant from pulp and paper
industry effluent. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2017;24:5168–78.
21
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
[103] Bouguerra W, Barhoumi A, Ibrahim N, Brahmi K, Aloui L, Hamrouni B.
Optimization of the electrocoagulation process for the removal of lead from water
using aluminium as electrode material. Desalin Water Treat 2015;56:2672–81.
[104] Khaled B, Wided B, Béchir H, Elimame E, Mouna L, Zied T. Investigation of
electrocoagulation reactor design parameters effect on the removal of cadmium
from synthetic and phosphate industrial wastewater. Arabian J Chem 2019;12:
1848–59.
[105] Sharma AK, Chopra A. Removal of nitrate and sulphate from biologically treated
municipal wastewater by electrocoagulation. Appl Water Sci 2017;7:1239–46.
[106] Al-Raad AA, Hanafiah MM, Naje AS, Ajeel MA, Basheer AO, Ali Aljayashi T, et al.
Ekhwan Toriman, Treatment of Saline Water Using Electrocoagulation with
Combined Electrical Connection of Electrodes. Processes 2019;7:242.
[107] Asaithambi P, Beyene D, Aziz ARA, Alemayehu E. Removal of pollutants with
determination of power consumption from landfill leachate wastewater using an
electrocoagulation process: optimization using response surface methodology
[RSM]. Appl Water Sci 2018;8:1–12.
[108] Hamada M, Ghalwa N, Farhat N, Mahllawi K, Jamee N. Optimization of
Electrocoagulation on Removal of Wastewater Pollutants. Int J Waste Resour
2018;8:2.
[109] Demirci Y, Pekel LC, Alpbaz M. Investigation of different electrode connections in
electrocoagulation of textile wastewater treatment. Int J Electrochem Sci 2015;
10:2685–93.
[110] Kobya M, Ulu F, Gebologlu U, Demirbas E, Oncel MS. Treatment of potable water
containing low concentration of arsenic with electrocoagulation: Different
connection modes and Fe–Al electrodes. Sep Purif Technol 2011;77:283–93.
[111] Tanyol M, Ogedey A, Oguz E. COD removal from leachate by electrocoagulation
process: treatment with monopolar electrodes in parallel connection. Water Sci
Technol 2018;77:177–86.
[112] Alimohammadi M, Askari M, Dehghani M, Dalvand A, Saeedi R, Yetilmezsoy K,
et al. Elimination of natural organic matter by electrocoagulation using bipolar
and monopolar arrangements of iron and aluminum electrodes. Int J Environ Sci
Technol 2017;14:2125–34.
[113] Irki S, Ghernaout D, Naceur MW, Alghamdi A, Aichouni M. Decolorization of
methyl orange (MO) by electrocoagulation (EC) using iron electrodes under a
magnetic field (MF). II. Effect of connection mode, World. J Appl Chem 2018;3:
56.
[114] Qi Z, Zhang J, You S. Effect of placement angles on wireless electrocoagulation for
bipolar aluminum electrodes. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering
2018;12:9.
[115] Tiaiba M, Merzouk B, Amour A, Mazour M, Leclerc J-P, Lapicque F. Influence of
electrodes connection mode and type of current in electrocoagulation process on
the removal of a textile dye. Desalin Water Treat 2017;73:330–8.
[116] Nasrullah M, Singh L, Krishnan S, Sakinah M, Zularisam A. Electrode design for
electrochemical cell to treat palm oil mill effluent by electrocoagulation process.
Environ Technol Innovation 2018;9:323–41.
[117] Loukanov A, El Allaoui N, Omor A, Elmadani FZ, Bouayad K, Nakabayashi S.
Large-scale removal of colloidal contaminants from artisanal wastewater by
bipolar electrocoagulation with aluminum sacrificial electrodes. Results in
Chemistry 2020;2:100038.
[118] Damaraju M, Muraki R, Bhattacharyya D, Panda TK, Kurilla KK. Treatment of a
Distillery Wastewater in a Bipolar-Mode Electrocoagulation System: Performance
Evaluation and Kinetic Analysis. International Journal of Civil Engineering 2019;
17:1643–52.
[119] Damaraju M, Bhattacharyya D, Panda TK, Kurilla KK. Marigold wastewater
treatment in a lab-scale and a field-scale continuous bipolar-mode
electrocoagulation system. J Cleaner Prod 2020;245:118693.
[120] Safwat SM, Matta ME. Performance evaluation of electrocoagulation process
using zinc electrodes for removal of urea. Sep Sci Technol 2019:1–10.
[121] C.A. Carbajal-Clemente, C. Barrera-Díaz, G. Roa-Morales, P. Balderas-Hernández,
Electrocoagulation of an Industrial Wastewater Using Copper Electrodes, Meeting
Abstracts, The Electrochemical Society, 2014, pp. 942-942.
[122] Prajapati AK, Chaudhari PK, Pal D, Chandrakar A, Choudhary R.
Electrocoagulation treatment of rice grain based distillery effluent using copper
electrode. J Water Process Eng 2016;11:1–7.
[123] Vasudevan S, Lakshmi J, Packiyam M. Electrocoagulation studies on removal of
cadmium using magnesium electrode. J Appl Electrochem 2010;40:2023–32.
[124] Vasudevan S, Lakshmi J, Sozhan G. Simultaneous removal of Co, Cu, and Cr from
water by electrocoagulation. Toxicol Environ Chem 2012;94:1930–40.
[125] Gönder Z, Balcıoğlu G, Kaya Y, Vergili I. Treatment of carwash wastewater by
electrocoagulation using Ti electrode: optimization of the operating parameters.
Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019;16:8041–52.
[126] Asgharyan F, Khosravi Nikou M, Anvaripour B, Danaee I. The Effect of Different
Electrodes on Humic Acid Removal by Electrocoagulation, Iranian Journal of Oil
& Gas. Science and Technology 2018;7:52–63.
[127] Bhatnagar R, Joshi H, Mall ID, Srivastava VC. Electrochemical oxidation of textile
industry wastewater by graphite electrodes. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health, Part A 2014;49:955–66.
[128] Mahmad MKN, Rozainy M, Abustan I, Baharun N. Electrocoagulation process by
using aluminium and stainless steel electrodes to treat total chromium, colour and
turbidity. Procedia Chem 2016;19:681–6.
[129] Santhosh P, Revathi D, Saravanan K. Treatment of sullage wastewater by
electrocoagulation using stainless steel electrodes. International Journal of
Chemical Science 2015;13:1173–86.
[130] An C, Huang G, Yao Y, Zhao S. Emerging usage of electrocoagulation technology
for oil removal from wastewater: a review. Sci Total Environ 2017;579:537–56.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
[131] Devlin TR, Kowalski MS, Pagaduan E, Zhang X, Wei V, Oleszkiewicz JA.
Electrocoagulation of wastewater using aluminum, iron, and magnesium
electrodes. J Hazard Mater 2019;368:862–8.
[132] Huang H, Zhang D, Zhao Z, Zhang P, Gao F. Comparison investigation on
phosphate recovery from sludge anaerobic supernatant using the
electrocoagulation process and chemical precipitation. J Cleaner Prod 2017;141:
429–38.
[133] Bazrafshan E, Ownagh KA, Mahvi AH. Application of electrocoagulation process
using iron and aluminum electrodes for fluoride removal from aqueous
environment. J Chem 2012;9:2297–308.
[134] Bensadok K, El Hanafi N, Lapicque F. Electrochemical treatment of dairy effluent
using combined Al and Ti/Pt electrodes system. Desalination 2011;280:244–51.
[135] Dia O, Drogui P, Buelna G, Dubé R, Ihsen BS. Electrocoagulation of bio-filtrated
landfill leachate: Fractionation of organic matter and influence of anode
materials. Chemosphere 2017;168:1136–41.
[136] Montefalcon MFV, Chiong MR, Resurreccion AC, Garcia-Segura S, Ocon JD.
Arsenic Removal by Advanced Electrocoagulation Processes: The Role of Oxidants
Generated and Kinetic Modeling. Catalysts 2020;10:928.
[137] Müller S, Behrends T, van Genuchten CM. Sustaining efficient production of
aqueous iron during repeated operation of Fe (0)-electrocoagulation. Water Res
2019;155:455–64.
[138] R. Mores, P.d.A. Mello, C. Zakrzevski, H. Treichel, A. Kunz, J. Steffens, R. Dallago,
REDUCTION OF SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON AND REMOVAL OF TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS AND METALS FROM SWINE WASTEWATER BY
ELECTROCOAGULATION, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 35 (2018)
1231-124.
[139] Benhadji A, Ahmed MT, Maachi R. Electrocoagulation and effect of cathode
materials on the removal of pollutants from tannery wastewater of Rouïba.
Desalination 2011;277:128–34.
[140] Ano J, Assémian AS, Yobouet YA, Adouby K, Drogui P. Electrochemical removal
of phosphate from synthetic effluent: A comparative study between iron and
aluminum by using experimental design methodology. Process Saf Environ Prot
2019;129:184–95.
[141] A. Takdastan, S.E. Tabar, A. Islam, M. Bazafkan, A. Naisi, The effect of the
electrode in fluoride removal from drinking water by electro coagulation process,
International Conference on Chemical, Environmental and Biological Sciences
(CEBS-2015), 2015, pp. 39-44.
[142] Katal R, Pahlavanzadeh H. Influence of different combinations of aluminum and
iron electrode on electrocoagulation efficiency: Application to the treatment of
paper mill wastewater. Desalination 2011;265:199–205.
[143] Akbal F, Camcı S. Copper, chromium and nickel removal from metal plating
wastewater by electrocoagulation. Desalination 2011;269:214–22.
[144] Fu F, Wang Q. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: a review.
J Environ Manage 2011;92:407–18.
[145] Akbal F, Camcı S. Comparison of electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation for
heavy metal removal. Chem Eng Technol 2010;33:1655–64.
[146] Nazlabadi E, Moghaddam MRA, Karamati-Niaragh E. Simultaneous removal of
nitrate and nitrite using electrocoagulation/floatation (ECF): A new multi-
response optimization approach. J Environ Manage 2019;250:109489.
[147] Yuksel E, Gurbulak E, Eyvaz M. Decolorization of a reactive dye solution and
treatment of a textile wastewater by electrocoagulation and chemical
coagulation: Techno-economic comparison. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy
2012;31:524–35.
[148] Gadd A, Ryan D, Kavanagh J, Beaurain A-L, Luxem S, Barton G.
Electrocoagulation of fermentation wastewater by low carbon steel (Fe) and 5005
aluminium (Al) electrodes. J Appl Electrochem 2010;40:1511–7.
[149] Mansoorian HJ, Mahvi AH, Jafari AJ. Removal of lead and zinc from battery
industry wastewater using electrocoagulation process: influence of direct and
alternating current by using iron and stainless steel rod electrodes. Sep Purif
Technol 2014;135:165–75.
[150] Fuladpanjeh-Hojaghan B, Elsutohy MM, Kabanov V, Heyne B, Trifkovic M,
Roberts EP. In-operando mapping of pH distribution in electrochemical processes.
Angew Chem 2019;131:16971–5.
[151] Kim K-J, Baek K, Ji S, Cheong Y, Yim G, Jang A. Study on electrocoagulation
parameters (current density, pH, and electrode distance) for removal of fluoride
from groundwater. Environmental Earth Sciences 2016;75:45.
[152] Lynn W, Heffron J, Mayer BK. Electrocoagulation as a Pretreatment for
Electroxidation of E. coli. Water 2019;11:2509.
[153] Janpoor F, Torabian A, Khatibikamal V. Treatment of laundry waste-water by
electrocoagulation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2011;86:1113–20.
[154] Hanay Ö, Hasar H. Effect of anions on removing Cu2+, Mn2+ and Zn2+ in
electrocoagulation process using aluminum electrodes. J Hazard Mater 2011;189:
572–6.
[155] Shafaei A, Pajootan E, Nikazar M, Arami M. Removal of Co (II) from aqueous
solution by electrocoagulation process using aluminum electrodes. Desalination
2011;279:121–6.
[156] Can BZ, Boncukcuoglu R, Yilmaz AE, Fil BA. Effect of some operational
parameters on the arsenic removal by electrocoagulation using iron electrodes.
Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 2014;12:95.
[157] Al Aji B, Yavuz Y, Koparal AS. Electrocoagulation of heavy metals containing
model wastewater using monopolar iron electrodes. Sep Purif Technol 2012;86:
248–54.
[158] Aoudj S, Khelifa A, Drouiche N, Hecini M, Hamitouche H. Electrocoagulation
process applied to wastewater containing dyes from textile industry. Chem Eng
Process Process Intensif 2010;49:1176–82.
22
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
[159] Malakootian M, Yousefi N, Fatehizadeh A. Survey efficiency of electrocoagulation
on nitrate removal from aqueous solution. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2011;8:
107–14.
[160] Zaied B, Rashid M, Nasrullah M, Zularisam A, Pant D, Singh L. A comprehensive
review on contaminants removal from pharmaceutical wastewater by
electrocoagulation process. Sci Total Environ 2020;138095.
[161] Dalvand A, Gholami M, Joneidi A, Mahmoodi NM. Dye removal, energy
consumption and operating cost of electrocoagulation of textile wastewater as a
clean process, CLEAN–Soil. Air, Water 2011;39:665–72.
[162] Patel SR, Parikh SP. Statistical optimizing of electrocoagulation process for the
removal of Cr (VI) using response surface methodology and kinetic study. Arabian
J Chem 2020.
[163] Un UT, Ocal SE. Removal of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Ni) by electrocoagulation.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 2015;6:425.
[164] Ensano BMB, Borea L, Naddeo V, Belgiorno V, De Luna MDG, Ballesteros FC.
Removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater by intermittent electrocoagulation.
Water 2017;9:85.
[165] Vosoogh A, Baghvand A, Saghakhaneh H. Removal of heavy metals and hardness
from groundwater via electro-coagulation method. Pollution 2017;3:213–24.
[166] Aoudj S, Khelifa A, Drouiche N. Removal of fluoride, SDS, ammonia and turbidity
from semiconductor wastewater by combined
electrocoagulation–electroflotation. Chemosphere 2017;180:379–87.
[167] Aoudj S, Khelifa A, Drouiche N, Belkada R, Miroud D. Simultaneous removal of
chromium (VI) and fluoride by electrocoagulation–electroflotation: application of
a hybrid Fe-Al anode. Chem Eng J 2015;267:153–62.
[168] Merzouk B, Madani K, Sekki A. Using electrocoagulation–electroflotation
technology to treat synthetic solution and textile wastewater, two case studies.
Desalination 2010;250:573–7.
[169] Ricordel C, Darchen A, Hadjiev D. Electrocoagulation–electroflotation as a surface
water treatment for industrial uses. Sep Purif Technol 2010;74:342–7.
[170] Karamati-Niaragh E, Moghaddam MRA, Emamjomeh MM, Nazlabadi E.
Evaluation of direct and alternating current on nitrate removal using a continuous
electrocoagulation process: Economical and environmental approaches through
RSM. J Environ Manage 2019;230:245–54.
[171] Bhatti MS, Kapoor D, Kalia RK, Reddy AS, Thukral AK. RSM and ANN modeling
for electrocoagulation of copper from simulated wastewater: Multi objective
optimization using genetic algorithm approach. Desalination 2011;274:74–80.
[172] Chen X, Ren P, Li T, Trembly JP, Liu X. Zinc removal from model wastewater by
electrocoagulation: processing, kinetics and mechanism. Chem Eng J 2018;349:
358–67.
[173] Syaichurrozi I, Sarto S, Sediawan WB, Hidayat M. Mechanistic models of
electrocoagulation kinetics of pollutant removal in vinasse waste: Effect of
voltage. J Water Process Eng 2020;36:101312.
[174] Danial R, Sobri S, Abdullah LC, Mobarekeh MN, FTIR,. CHNS and XRD analyses
define mechanism of glyphosate herbicide removal by electrocoagulation.
Chemosphere 2019;233:559–69.
[175] Kamaraj R, Pandiarajan A, Jayakiruba S, Naushad M, Vasudevan S. Kinetics,
thermodynamics and isotherm modeling for removal of nitrate from liquids by
facile one-pot electrosynthesized nano zinc hydroxide. J Mol Liq 2016;215:
204–11.
[176] Ayhan Şengil İ, Özdemir A. Simultaneous decolorization of binary mixture of blue
disperse and yellow basic dyes by electrocoagulation. Desalin Water Treat 2012;
46:215–26.
[177] Mollah MYA, Gomes JA, Das KK, Cocke DL. Electrochemical treatment of Orange
II dye solution—Use of aluminum sacrificial electrodes and floc characterization.
J Hazard Mater 2010;174:851–8.
[178] Olad A, Amani-Ghadim AR, Dorraji MSS, Rasoulifard MH. Removal of the
alphazurine FG dye from simulated solution by electrocoagulation, CLEAN–Soil.
Air, Water 2010;38:401–8.
[179] Mbacké MK, Kane C, Diallo NO, Diop CM, Chauvet F, Comtat M, et al.
Electrocoagulation process applied on pollutants treatment-experimental
optimization and fundamental investigation of the crystal violet dye removal.
J Environ Chem Eng 2016;4:4001–11.
[180] Liu N, Wu Y. Removal of methylene blue by electrocoagulation: a study of the
effect of operational parameters and mechanism. Ionics 2019;25:3953–60.
[181] Sankar MR, Sivasubramanian V. Application of statistical design to optimize the
electrocoagulation of synthetic Congo red dye solution and predicting the
mechanism. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2020;17:1373–86.
[182] Wan W, Pepping TJ, Banerji T, Chaudhari S, Giammar DE. Effects of water
chemistry on arsenic removal from drinking water by electrocoagulation. Water
Res 2011;45:384–92.
[183] Kobya M, Gebologlu U, Ulu F, Oncel S, Demirbas E. Removal of arsenic from
drinking water by the electrocoagulation using Fe and Al electrodes. Electrochim
Acta 2011;56:5060–70.
[184] Mohammed WT, AlJaberi FY. Effecting of pH parameter on simulated wastewater
treatment using electrocoagulation method. J Eng 2018;24:73–88.
[185] Syam Babu D, Nidheesh P, Suresh Kumar M. Arsenite removal from aqueous
solution by aerated iron electrocoagulation process. Sep Sci Technol 2019:1–10.
[186] Murthy Z, Parmar S. Removal of strontium by electrocoagulation using stainless
steel and aluminum electrodes. Desalination 2011;282:63–7.
[187] Kim D-G, Palacios RJS, Ko S-O. Characterization of sludge generated by
electrocoagulation for the removal of heavy metals. Desalin Water Treat 2014;52:
909–19.
[188] Govindan K, Noel M, Mohan R. Removal of nitrate ion from water by
electrochemical approaches. J Water Process Eng 2015;6:58–63.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
[189] Lacasa E, Cañizares P, Sáez C, Fernández FJ, Rodrigo MA. Removal of nitrates
from groundwater by electrocoagulation. Chem Eng J 2011;171:1012–7.
[190] Yehya T, Chafi M, Balla W, Vial C, Essadki A, Gourich B. Experimental analysis
and modeling of denitrification using electrocoagulation process. Sep Purif
Technol 2014;132:644–54.
[191] Lacasa E, Canizares P, Saez C, Fernandez FJ, Rodrigo MA. Electrochemical
phosphates removal using iron and aluminium electrodes. Chem Eng J 2011;172:
137–43.
[192] Bakshi A, Verma AK, Dash AK. Electrocoagulation for removal of phosphate from
aqueous solution: Statistical modeling and techno-economic study. J Cleaner Prod
2020;246:118988.
[193] Isa MH, Ezechi EH, Ahmed Z, Magram SF, Kutty SRM. Boron removal by
electrocoagulation and recovery. Water Res 2014;51:113–23.
[194] Malakootian M, Mansoorian H, Moosazadeh M. Performance evaluation of
electrocoagulation process using iron-rod electrodes for removing hardness from
drinking water. Desalination 2010;255:67–71.
[195] Aswathy P, Gandhimathi R, Ramesh S, Nidheesh P. Removal of organics from
bilge water by batch electrocoagulation process. Sep Purif Technol 2016;159:
108–15.
[196] Chou W-L. Removal and adsorption characteristics of polyvinyl alcohol from
aqueous solutions using electrocoagulation. J Hazard Mater 2010;177:842–50.
[197] Ulu F, Gengec E, Kobya M. Removal of natural organic matter from Lake Terkos
by EC process: Studying on removal mechanism by floc size and zeta potential
measurement and characterization by HPSEC method. J Water Process Eng 2019;
31:100831.
[198] Syaichurrozi I, Sarto S, Sediawan WB, Hidayat M. Mechanistic model of
electrocoagulation process for treating vinasse waste: Effect of initial pH.
J Environ Chem Eng 2020;8:103756.
[199] Liu Y, Li Y, Jiang W, Chen M, Yang J, Li J. Quantitative analysis on removal path
of emulsified oil in the reactor of EC. Sep Purif Technol 2017;178:288–97.
[200] Liu Y-H, Lin C-Y, Huang J-H, Yen S-C. Particle removal performance and its
kinetic behavior during oxide-CMP wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation.
J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2016;60:520–4.
[201] Heffron J, McDermid B, Maher E, McNamara PJ, Mayer BK. Mechanisms of virus
mitigation and suitability of bacteriophages as surrogates in drinking water
treatment by iron electrocoagulation. Water Res 2019;163:114877.
[202] E. Aguilar-Ascon, Removal of Escherichia coli from Domestic Wastewater Using
Electrocoagulation, (2019).
[203] Kamaraj R, Vasudevan S. Evaluation of electrocoagulation process for the removal
of strontium and cesium from aqueous solution. Chem Eng Res Des 2015;93:
522–30.
[204] Li P, Zhun B, Wang X, Liao P, Wang G, Wang L, et al. Highly efficient interception
and precipitation of uranium (VI) from aqueous solution by iron-
electrocoagulation combined with cooperative chelation by organic ligands.
Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:14368–78.
[205] Li P, Chen P, Wang G, Wang L, Wang X, Li Y, et al. Uranium Elimination and
Recovery from Wastewater with Ligand Chelation-Enhanced Electrocoagulation.
Chem Eng J 2020;124819.
[206] Nariyan E, Sillanpää M, Wolkersdorfer C. Uranium removal from Pyhäsalmi/
Finland mine water by batch electrocoagulation and optimization with the
response surface methodology. Sep Purif Technol 2018;193:386–97.
[207] Harif T, Khai M, Adin A. Electrocoagulation versus chemical coagulation:
coagulation/flocculation mechanisms and resulting floc characteristics. Water Res
2012;46:3177–88.
[208] Phalakornkule C, Worachai W, Satitayut T. Characteristics of suspended solids
removal by electrocoagulation, International Journal of Chemical, Molecular,
Nuclear. Materials and Metallurgical Engineering 2010;4.
[209] Xiao SH, Song YH, Zeng P, Peng JF, Zhang DS. Comparative study on the
treatment of berberine wastewater by chemical-and electro-coagulation
processes: zeta potential analysis. Advanced Materials Research: Trans Tech Publ;
2012. p. 496–500.
[210] Zaleschi L, Sáez C, Cañizares P, Cretescu I, Rodrigo MA. Electrochemical
coagulation of treated wastewaters for reuse. Desalin Water Treat 2013;51:
3381–8.
[211] Ahmad H, Lafi WK, Abushgair K, Assbeihat JM. Comparison of coagulation,
electrocoagulation and biological techniques for the municipal wastewater
treatment. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 2016;11:
11014–24.
[212] El-Ashtoukhy EZ, Amin N. Removal of acid green dye 50 from wastewater by
anodic oxidation and electrocoagulation—A comparative study. J Hazard Mater
2010;179:113–9.
[213] Akyol A, Can OT, Demirbas E, Kobya M. A comparative study of
electrocoagulation and electro-Fenton for treatment of wastewater from liquid
organic fertilizer plant. Sep Purif Technol 2013;112:11–9.
[214] Ghanbari F, Moradi M. A comparative study of electrocoagulation,
electrochemical Fenton, electro-Fenton and peroxi-coagulation for decolorization
of real textile wastewater: electrical energy consumption and biodegradability
improvement. J Environ Chem Eng 2015;3:499–506.
[215] Tchamango S, Kamdoum O, Donfack D, Babale D, Ngameni E. Comparison of
electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation in the treatment of artisanal tannery
effluents. Nigerian Journal of Technology 2016;35:219–25.
[216] Chafi M, Gourich B, Essadki A, Vial C, Fabregat A. Comparison of
electrocoagulation using iron and aluminium electrodes with chemical
coagulation for the removal of a highly soluble acid dye. Desalination 2011;281:
285–92.
23
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
[217] Ye S, Li N. Comparison of electrochemical treatment of petroleum refinery
effluents using electrooxidation, electrocoagulation and electrophenton process.
Int. J. Electrochem. Sci 2016;11:6173–82.
[218] Oncel M, Muhcu A, Demirbas E, Kobya M. A comparative study of chemical
precipitation and electrocoagulation for treatment of coal acid drainage
wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 2013;1:989–95.
[219] Moosavirad S. Treatment and operation cost analysis of greywater by
electrocoagulation and comparison with coagulation process in mining areas. Sep
Sci Technol 2017;52:1742–50.
[220] Moosavirad SM. Feasibility study of coagulation system to greywater treatment
and economical comparison with electrocoagulation in mining areas. Journal of
Advances in Environmental Health Research 2016;4:190–8.
[221] Al-Qodah Z, Al-Qudah Y, Assirey E. Combined biological wastewater treatment
with electrocoagulation as a post-polishing process: A review. Sep Sci Technol
2019:1–19.
[222] Al-Qodah Z, Al-Qudah Y, Omar W. On the performance of electrocoagulation-
assisted biological treatment processes: a review on the state of the art. Environ
Sci Pollut Res 2019:1–25.
[223] Zaleschi L, Teodosiu C, Cretescu I, Rodrigo MA. A comparative study of
electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation processes applied for wastewater
treatment. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ) 2012;11.
[224] Pulkka S, Martikainen M, Bhatnagar A, Sillanpää M. Electrochemical methods for
the removal of anionic contaminants from water–A review. Sep Purif Technol
2014;132:252–71.
[225] Lin C-J, Lo S-L, Kuo C-Y, Wu C-H. Pilot-scale electrocoagulation with bipolar
aluminum electrodes for on-site domestic greywater reuse. J Environ Eng 2005;
131:491–5.
[226] Al-Hamamre Z, Saidan M, Hararah M, Rawajfeh K, Alkhasawneh HE, Al-
Shannag M. Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy
resources for Jordan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:295–314.
[227] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya F, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1753–66.
[228] Moradi M, Ashrafizadeh SN. Nitrate removal from tapwater by means of
electrocoagulation-flotation process. Sep Sci Technol 2019:1–11.
[229] Bassala HD, Dedzo GK, Bememba CBN, Seumo PMT, Dazie JD, Nanseu-Njiki CP,
et al. Investigation of the efficiency of a designed electrocoagulation reactor:
Application for dairy effluent treatment. Process Saf Environ Prot 2017;111:
122–7.
[230] Hashim KS, Shaw A, Al Khaddar R, Pedrola MO, Phipps D. Iron removal, energy
consumption and operating cost of electrocoagulation of drinking water using a
new flow column reactor. J Environ Manage 2017;189:98–108.
[231] Majlesi M, Mohseny SM, Sardar M, Golmohammadi S, Sheikhmohammadi A.
Improvement of aqueous nitrate removal by using continuous electrocoagulation/
electroflotation unit with vertical monopolar electrodes. Sustainable Environ Res
2016;26:287–90.
[232] H. Singh, B.K. Mishra, Performance evaluation and kinetic modeling of the
electrocoagulation treatment process for the removal of total suspended solids
and metals from synthetic water, (2016).
[233] Dermentzis K, Christoforidis A, Valsamidou E, Lazaridou A, Kokkinos N. Removal
of hexavalent chromium from electroplating wastewater by electrocoagulation
with iron electrodes. Global Nest J 2011;13:412–8.
[234] Daniel R, Himabindu V, Krupadam R, Anjaneyulu Y. Removal of Mercury from
Pharmaceutical Wastewaters Using Electrocoagulation: A Cleaner Technology
Option. IUP Journal of Environmental Sciences 2010;4.
[235] Nourouzi MM, Chuah T, Choong TS. Optimisation of reactive dye removal by
sequential electrocoagulation–flocculation method: comparing ANN and RSM
prediction. Water Sci Technol 2011;63:984–94.
[236] G. VARANK, H. Erkan, S. Yazycy, A. DEMIR, G. ENGIN, Electrocoagulation of
tannery wastewater using monopolar electrodes: process optimization by
response surface methodology, (2014).
[237] Emamjomeh MM, Jamali HA, Moradnia M. Optimization of nitrate removal
efficiency and energy consumption using a batch monopolar electrocoagulation:
prediction by RSM method. J Environ Eng 2017;143:04017022.
[238] Ghanim A. Optimization of pollutants removal from textile wastewater by
electrocoagulation through RSM. Journal of University of Babylon 2014;22:
375–87.
[239] Khorram AG, Fallah N. Treatment of textile dyeing factory wastewater by
electrocoagulation with low sludge settling time: Optimization of operating
parameters by RSM. J Environ Chem Eng 2018;6:635–42.
[240] Ardhan N, Ruttithiwapanich T, Songkasiri W, Phalakornkule C. Comparison of
performance of continuous-flow and batch electrocoagulators: A case study for
eliminating reactive blue 21 using iron electrodes. Sep Purif Technol 2015;146:
75–84.
[241] Boudjema N, Abdi N, Grib H, Drouiche N, Lounici H, Mameri N. Simultaneous
removal of natural organic matter and turbidity from Oued El Harrach River by
electrocoagulation using an experimental design approach. Desalin Water Treat
2016;57:14386–95.
[242] Phalakornkule C, Mangmeemak J, Intrachod K, Nuntakumjorn B. Pretreatment of
palm oil mill effluent by electrocoagulation and coagulation. Science Asia 2010;
36:142–9.
[243] Danis K, Huang Y-H. Comparision of Chemical Coagulation and
Electrocoagulation for Boron Removal from Synthetic Wastewater Using
Aluminium. International Journal of Chemical, Molecular, Nuclear, Materials and
Metallurgical Engineering 2015;9:944–8.
M. Mousazadeh et al.
[244] Arturi TS, Seijas CJ, Bianchi GL. A comparative study on the treatment of gelatin
production plant wastewater using electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation.
Heliyon 2019;5:e01738.
[245] Tchamango S, Kamdoum O, Donfack D, Babale D. Comparison of
electrocoagulation and chemical coagulation processes in the treatment of an
effluent of a textile factory. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental
Management 2017;21:1317–22.
[246] Farhadi S, Aminzadeh B, Torabian A, Khatibikamal V, Fard MA. Comparison of
COD removal from pharmaceutical wastewater by electrocoagulation,
photoelectrocoagulation, peroxi-electrocoagulation and peroxi-
photoelectrocoagulation processes. J Hazard Mater 2012;219:35–42.
[247] Sandhwar VK, Prasad B. Comparison of electrocoagulation, peroxi-
electrocoagulation and peroxi-coagulation processes for treatment of simulated
purified terephthalic acid wastewater: optimization, sludge and kinetic analysis.
Korean J Chem Eng 2018;35:909–21.
[248] Muthukumar M, Govindaraj M, Muthusamy A, Raju GB. Comparative study of
electrocoagulation and electrooxidation processes for the degradation of ellagic
acid from aqueous solution. Sep Sci Technol 2010;46:272–82.
[249] Ramcharan T, Bissessur A. Treatment of laundry wastewater by biological and
electrocoagulation methods. Water Sci Technol 2017;75:84–93.
[250] Jalo H, Hajjaji SE, Ouardaoui A. Depollution of olive mill wastewater through
electrocoagulation and advanced oxidation. The Online Journal of Science and
Technology-April 2018;8.
[251] Saravanan M, Sambhamurthy NP, Sivarajan M. Treatment of acid blue 113 dye
solution using iron electrocoagulation, CLEAN–Soil. Air, Water 2010;38:565–71.
[252] Singh TSA, Ramesh ST. An experimental study of CI Reactive Blue 25 removal
from aqueous solution by electrocoagulation using aluminum sacrificial
electrode: kinetics and influence of parameters on electrocoagulation
performance. Desalin Water Treat 2014;52:2634–42.
[253] Nandi BK, Patel S. Removal of brilliant green from aqueous solution by
electrocoagulation using aluminum electrodes: experimental, kinetics, and
modeling. Sep Sci Technol 2014;49:601–12.
[254] Sakthisharmila P, Palanisamy P, Manikandan P. A characteristic study on
generation and interactive effect of electrocoagulated floc with Direct Green 1
and Reactive Red 2. J Mol Liq 2017;231:160–7.
[255] Parga J, Gonzalez G, Moreno H, Valenzuela J. Thermodynamic studies of the
strontium adsorption on iron species generated by electrocoagulation. Desalin
Water Treat 2012;37:244–52.
[256] Ganesan P, Lakshmi J, Sozhan G, Vasudevan S. Removal of manganese from water
by electrocoagulation: adsorption, kinetics and thermodynamic studies. The
Canadian journal of chemical engineering 2013;91:448–58.
[257] Nariyan E, Sillanpää M, Wolkersdorfer C. Electrocoagulation treatment of mine
water from the deepest working European metal mine – Performance, isotherm
and kinetic studies. Sep Purif Technol 2017;177:363–73.
[258] de Mello Ferreira A, Marchesiello M, Thivel P-X. Removal of copper, zinc and
nickel present in natural water containing Ca2+ and HCO3-ions by
electrocoagulation. Sep Purif Technol 2013;107:109–17.
[259] Shahriari T, Bidhendi GN, Mehrdadi N, Torabian A. Removal of chromium (III)
from wastewater by electrocoagulation method. KSCE J Civ Eng 2014;18:949–55.
[260] Song P, Yang Z, Xu H, Huang J, Yang X, Wang L. Investigation of influencing
factors and mechanism of antimony and arsenic removal by electrocoagulation
using Fe–Al electrodes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2014;53:12911–9.
[261] Emamjomeh MM, Sivakumar M, Varyani AS. Analysis and the understanding of
fluoride removal mechanisms by an electrocoagulation/flotation (ECF) process.
Desalination 2011;275:102–6.
[262] Sefatjoo P, Moghaddam MRA, Mehrabadi AR. Evaluating electrocoagulation
pretreatment prior to reverse osmosis system for simultaneous scaling and
colloidal fouling mitigation: Application of RSM in performance and cost
optimization. J Water Process Eng 2020;35:101201.
[263] Inan H, Alaydın E. Phosphate and nitrogen removal by iron produced in
electrocoagulation reactor. Desalin Water Treat 2014;52:1396–403.
[264] Kazeem TS, Labaran BA, Habib-ur-Rehman Ahmed TM, Essa MH, Al-
Suwaiyan MS, Vohra MS. Treatment of Aqueous Selenocyanate Anions Using
Electrocoagulation. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci 2019;14:10538–64.
[265] Lin J-Y, Raharjo A, Hsu L-H, Shih Y-J, Huang Y-H. Electrocoagulation of
tetrafluoroborate (BF4− ) and the derived boron and fluorine using aluminum
electrodes. Water Res 2019;155:362–71.
[266] Mamelkina MA, Tuunila R, Sillänpää M, Häkkinen A. Systematic study on sulfate
removal from mining waters by electrocoagulation. Sep Purif Technol 2019;216:
43–50.
[267] Chou W-L, Wang C-T, Huang K-Y. Investigation of process parameters for the
removal of polyvinyl alcohol from aqueous solution by iron electrocoagulation.
Desalination 2010;251:12–9.
[268] Chou W-L, Wang C-T, Huang K-Y, Liu T-C. Electrochemical removal of salicylic
acid from aqueous solutions using aluminum electrodes. Desalination 2011;271:
55–61.
24
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 47 (2021) 101353
[269] Mansouri K, Elsaid K, Bedoui A, Bensalah N, Abdel-Wahab A. Application of
electrochemically dissolved iron in the removal of tannic acid from water. Chem
Eng J 2011;172:970–6.
[270] Martins AF, Mallmann CA, Arsand DR, Mayer FM, Brenner CG. Occurrence of the
antimicrobials sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim in hospital effluent and study
of their degradation products after electrocoagulation, CLEAN–Soil. Air, Water
2011;39:21–7.
[271] Ahmadian M, Yousefi N, Van Ginkel SW, Zare MR, Rahimi S, Fatehizadeh A.
Kinetic study of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation using
Fe electrodes. Water Sci Technol 2012;66:754–60.
[272] Govindaraj M, Sudhir A, Sukumar C, Hariprakash B, Pattabhi S. Treatment of
endocrine disrupting chemical from aqueous solution by electrocoagulation. Sep
Sci Technol 2012;48:295–302.
[273] Arsand DR, Kümmerer K, Martins AF. Removal of dexamethasone from aqueous
solution and hospital wastewater by electrocoagulation. Sci Total Environ 2013;
443:351–7.
[274] Ouaissa YA, Chabani M, Amrane A, Bensmaili A. Removal of tetracycline by
electrocoagulation: kinetic and isotherm modeling through adsorption. J Environ
Chem Eng 2014;2:177–84.
[275] Ulu F, Barışçı S, Kobya M, Särkkä H, Sillanpää M. Removal of humic substances by
electrocoagulation (EC) process and characterization of floc size growth
mechanism under optimum conditions. Sep Purif Technol 2014;133:246–53.
[276] Wang Y, Lin H, Jin F, Niu J, Zhao J, Bi Y, et al. Electrocoagulation mechanism of
perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) on a zinc anode: influence of cathodes and anions. Sci
Total Environ 2016;557:542–50.
[277] Yang B, Han Y, Yu G, Zhuo Q, Deng S, Wu J, et al. Efficient removal of
perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) from aqueous solution by electrocoagulation using
iron electrode. Chem Eng J 2016;303:384–90.
[278] Nariyan E, Aghababaei A, Sillanpää M. Removal of pharmaceutical from water
with an electrocoagulation process; effect of various parameters and studies of
isotherm and kinetic. Sep Purif Technol 2017;188:266–81.
[279] Yoosefian M, Ahmadzadeh S, Aghasi M, Dolatabadi M. Optimization of
electrocoagulation process for efficient removal of ciprofloxacin antibiotic using
iron electrode; kinetic and isotherm studies of adsorption. J Mol Liq 2017;225:
544–53.
[280] Baran W, Adamek E, Jajko M, Sobczak A. Removal of veterinary antibiotics from
wastewater by electrocoagulation. Chemosphere 2018;194:381–9.
[281] Ensano BMB, Borea L, Naddeo V, Belgiorno V, de Luna MDG, Balakrishnan M,
et al. Applicability of the electrocoagulation process in treating real municipal
wastewater containing pharmaceutical active compounds. J Hazard Mater 2019;
361:367–73.
[282] Govindan K, Angelin A, Kalpana M, Rangarajan M, Shankar P, Jang A.
Electrocoagulants characteristics and application of electrocoagulation for
micropollutant removal and transformation mechanism. ACS Appl Mater
Interfaces 2019.
[283] Hansen HK, Peña SF, Gutiérrez C, Lazo A, Lazo P, Ottosen LM. Selenium removal
from petroleum refinery wastewater using an electrocoagulation technique.
J Hazard Mater 2019;364:78–81.
[284] López RL, Coreño O, Nava JL. Abatement of hydrated silica and simultaneous
removal of coexisting ions from deep well water by electrocoagulation using an
up-flow reactor. J Water Process Eng 2019;32:100923.
[285] Madi-Azegagh K, Yahiaoui I, Boudrahem F, Aissani-Benissad F, Vial C,
Audonnet F, et al. Applied of central composite design for the optimization of
removal yield of the ketoprofen (KTP) using electrocoagulation process. Sep Sci
Technol 2019;54:3115–27.
[286] Maher EK, O’Malley KN, Heffron J, Huo J, Mayer BK, Wang Y, et al. Analysis of
operational parameters, reactor kinetics, and floc characterization for the removal
of estrogens via electrocoagulation. Chemosphere 2019;220:1141–9.
[287] Snehi S, Singh H, Priya T, Mishra BK. Understanding the natural organic matter
removal mechanism from mine and surface water through the electrocoagulation
method. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua 2019;68:
523–34.
[288] Sangal VK, Mishra I, Kushwaha J. Electrocoagulation of soluble oil wastewater:
parametric and kinetic study. Sep Sci Technol 2013;48:1062–72.
[289] Gönder ZB, Balcıoğlu G, Vergili I, Kaya Y. Electrochemical treatment of carwash
wastewater using Fe and Al electrode: Techno-economic analysis and sludge
characterization. J Environ Manage 2017;200:380–90.
[290] de la Fuente A, Muro-Pastor AM, Merchán F, Madrid F, Pérez-Martínez JI,
Undabeytia T. Electrocoagulation/flocculation of cyanobacteria from surface
waters. J Cleaner Prod 2019;238:117964.
[291] Mumford AC, Barringer JL, Benzel WM, Reilly PA, Young L. Microbial
transformations of arsenic: mobilization from glauconitic sediments to water.
Water Res 2012;46:2859–68.
[292] Landels A, Beacham TA, Evans CT, Carnovale G, Raikova S, Cole IS, et al.
Improving electrocoagulation floatation for harvesting microalgae. Algal research
2019;39:101446.