Is Electrocoagulation A Promising Technology For Algal Organic Matter Removal

Is Electrocoagulation a Promising Technology for Algal
Organic Matter Removal? Current Knowledge and Open

Questions
Zuzana Krusinova[1,2], Michaela Prokopova[1,2], Pavel Krystynik[1,4], Petr Kluson[2,3], Martin Pivokonsky[1],*
Abstract
Electrocoagulation (EC) is a practical alternative to technology for AOM removal. However, the studies
chemical coagulation for the treatment of drinking on EC are inconsistent in their approaches, and they
water that contains various pollutants, including lack thorough optimization of operating conditions
humic substances. Nevertheless, the performance of (resultant pH, coagulant dosing) and reports of resi-
EC for removal of algal organic matter (AOM) is dual metal concentrations. Some of the identified
still largely unexplored. In this review, the properties needs for future research include the complete opti-
of AOM, the principles of chemical coagulation and mization of EC for AOM removal, its direct com-
EC, and the current state of knowledge on the coa- parison with chemical coagulation, and EC testing
gulation of AOM have been outlined. The limited for the elimination of mixtures of AOM, humic
available literature on the EC of AOM is critically substances, and inorganic particles.
reviewed and let conclude that this is a promising
Keywords: Algal organic matter removal, Coagulation, Drinking water treatment, Electrocoagulation
Received: October 04, 2022; revised: January 16, 2023; accepted: February 08, 2023
DOI: 10.1002/cben.202200049
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
1 Introduction Many studies also have dealt with the removal of natural
organic matter (NOM), which is present in most surface drink-
Electrocoagulation (EC) has been used for wastewater treat- ing water reservoirs. NOM is nontoxic (unless it contains
ment since the end of the 19th century, and the first drinking cyanotoxins), but it can act as a precursor for the formation of
water treatment application appeared 50 years later [1]. How- harmful disinfection by-products during water treatment [24].
ever, EC has never become as popular, widespread, or well- Most studies on the EC of NOM have focused only on humic
studied as chemical coagulation (CC). Nevertheless, in recent substances, and the authors have reported high removal effi-
years, researchers have started to study EC in the context of cacy, i.e., 73–87 % removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
seeking technologies that are more environmentally friendly [25–27]. However, algal organic matter (AOM) should be
(EC produces less sludge than chemical coagulation [1, 2]), can
be continuously operated with a high degree of automatization
[3, 4], and can be installed as autonomous treatment units
—————
[1]
Zuzana Krusinova, Michaela Prokopova, Dr. Pavel Krystynik, Assoc.
powered by solar or wind power [5–8]. Prof. Martin Pivokonsky https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2067-2632
EC has been successfully used for the removal of metal ions (pivo@ih.cas.cz)
from synthetic water (i.e., a solution containing defined Institute of Hydrodynamics of the Czech Academy of Sciences,
amounts of chemicals that mimic specific natural water or Pod Patankou 30/5, 166 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
wastewater matrices) [9, 10], wastewater [11, 12], and ground- [2]
Zuzana Krusinova, Michaela Prokopova, Assoc. Prof. Petr Kluson
water [3, 13]. Further studies have demonstrated the effective Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Charles
application of EC for the removal of organic substances, such University, Benatska 2, 128 01 Prague 2, Czech Republic.
as textile dyes [14, 15], mineral oils [16], pharmaceuticals, e.g., [3]
Assoc. Prof. Petr Kluson
ibuprofen, paracetamol, or tetracyclines [17], and per- Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the Czech Acade-
fluoroalkyl substances, e.g., perfluorooctanoic acid [18, 19]. In my of Sciences, Rozvojova 135, 165 02 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
the context of drinking water treatment, successful experiments [4]
Dr. Pavel Krystynik
were performed for the removal of fluorides [20, 21], arsenic Faculty of Environment, University of J. E. Purkyne, Pasteurova
[22], nitrates, and sulfates [23]. 3632/15, 400 96 Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic.
www.ChemBioEngRev.de ª 2023 The Authors. ChemBioEng Reviews published by Wiley-VCH GmbH ChemBioEng Rev. 2023, 10, No. 2, 222–230 222
21969744, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cben.202200049 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
considered an important part of NOM, especially during the glycolic acids. The MWs of polysaccharides, proteins, and simi-
occurrence of algal and cyanobacterial blooms. Researchers lar compounds are above 100 kDa, and their portions increase
have reported a removal efficacy greater than 95 % during the with the age of the culture. COM often contains fewer
EC of algal and cyanobacterial cells [28, 29], but only a limited low-MW compounds and more high-MW compounds than
number of studies have explored the EC of dissolved AOM. EOM of the same species [33]. COM also contains more
The removal of AOM presents major challenges since CC, hydrophilic substances than EOM; nevertheless, hydrophilic
an essential process in most drinking water treatment plants molecules dominate both AOM fractions. To illustrate, the
(DWTPs), has variable removal efficiency and does not remove portion of hydrophobic compounds was approximately only
compounds with low molecular weights (MWs). Therefore, this 10 % in COM and 30 % in EOM produced by the same species
review aims to compare CC with EC and to elucidate whether [32, 33, 41–43].
EC has the potential to outmatch CC in some practical aspects. Surface charge determines the interactions of molecules with
These cases might involve, e.g., its high removal efficacy for other particles present in water and thus influences the behav-
AOM or for low-MW fractions of AOM, its wide range of ior of molecules during coagulation, adsorption, and mem-
operational conditions (water pH and temperature), its low brane filtration [40]. AOM, as a whole, shows a negative charge
operational and maintenance requirements, its low sludge pro- over a broad range of pH values (pH 2.5–10). This is caused
duction potential, or its ease of small-scale application. mainly by peptides and proteins containing acidic functional
groups (carboxyl, hydroxyl, thiol, etc.) that can lose a proton
with increasing pH value [32, 44]. The charge densities of
2 Theoretical Background for Algal AOM were reported to reach 0.1–3.2 meq g–1 [32].
Organic Matter The complexity and variability of AOM composition con-
tribute to the challenges associated with its removal in DWTPs
AOM is a variable mixture of compounds produced by algae for the production of safe drinking water.
and cyanobacteria throughout their life. Extracellular organic
matter (EOM), consisting of by-products of secondary meta-
bolism, prevails during the exponential growth phase. Cellular 3 Chemical Coagulation and
organic matter (COM) is released due to cell rupture, which Electrocoagulation
occurs naturally during the stationary and decline growth
phases or might be caused by some water treatment processes Chemical coagulation (CC) followed by floc separation cur-
(e.g., peroxidation). COM consists mainly of intracellular rently plays a key role in conventional drinking water treat-
organic matter (IOM) and compounds originally retained on ment [40]. Hydrolyzing aluminum and iron salts, such as ferric
cell surfaces [30, 31]. The composition of AOM not only differs chloride (FeCl3), ferric sulfate (Fe2(SO4)39H2O), and alumi-
among the abovementioned categories (EOM, COM, IOM) but num sulfate (Al2(SO4)318H2O), are the predominantly used
also depends on the particular species and its growth phase, on coagulants. After the salts are added to treated water, the salts
the age of the culture [31–33], and on environmental condi- dissociate, and the metal ions hydrolyze to produce various
tions, such as the presence of nutrients or toxins, water pH, species, such as hydroxocomplexes, hydroxides, or hydrated
temperature, and light regime [34, 35]. The composition of oxides, which are effective coagulants.
AOM, as well as its physicochemical properties, such as MW, The degree of hydrolysis and the consequent charge of the
affinity for water, and surface charge, are essential factors from products depend on the pH of the solution. Simultaneously,
a drinking water treatment perspective. hydrolysis produces hydrogen protons (H+), which decrease
AOM is sometimes divided into two categories, protein- the pH. The hydrolysis products can destabilize contaminants
aceous and nonproteinaceous [36–38]. The proteinaceous part by different mechanisms (charge neutralization, adsorption,
comprises proteins and peptides, while polysaccharides, oligo- and sweep flocculation). Consequently, impurities and coagu-
saccharides, and monosaccharides predominate in the nonpro- lants form flocs that can later be separated by sedimentation,
teinaceous part [31]. Lipids are present in dissolved AOM at flotation, or filtration [45].
negligible concentrations due to their low solubility in water Crucial operating parameters that affect the removal effi-
[37]. AOM can contain 16–60 % peptides/proteins, and this ciency of a pollutant are the coagulation pH and the type and
percentage is often higher in the COM than in the EOM of the dosage of the coagulant, as well as the selected type of floc sepa-
same species [32, 33]. The portion of carbohydrates also varies ration method [46]. Because the hydrolysis of the mentioned
considerably, reaching approximately 10–50 % for different coagulants decreases the pH, this phenomenon must be consid-
species, culture ages, and extraction methods [37, 39]. ered during the adjustment of coagulation pH, especially in the
The MW of AOM covers a broad range of values from a few case of low-alkalinity waters. Additionally, water temperature
hundred Da to more than hundreds of kDa [40], and the MW influences the speed of hydrolysis, and very low temperatures
distribution differs significantly according to the species pro- can disrupt the CC process [47, 48].
ducing the AOM. For example, molecules larger than 500 kDa In addition to coagulation agents, flocculating agents, such
have been reported to constitute 5–46 % of AOM produced by as natural or synthetic polymers, can be used in the formation
different species, while compounds smaller than 1 kDa consti- of the flocs. A special group of flocculating agents are polyelec-
tuted 30–81 % [32]. A large portion of nonproteinaceous com- trolytes, which contain ionizable functional groups spread
pounds are usually smaller than 1 kDa. These compounds along the main chain. The dissociation of ionizable groups
include mono- and oligosaccharides, as well as aldehydes or gives the polyelectrolyte a positive or a negative charge depend-
ing on the presence of functional groups. According to the The factors that influence the performance of EC can be sep-
resulting charge of the polymer molecule, cationic or anionic arated into two groups. In the first group, the parameters di-
polyelectrolytes can be distinguished. Polymers containing rectly influence pollutant separation efficacy, and they are the
both positively and negatively charged groups are called same as those for CC (pH, type and dosage of coagulant, floc
zwitterionic, while polymers with no ionizable substance are separation strategy). The parameters from the second group
called nonionic [49]. The most widely used polyelectrolytes in mainly affect the coagulant dosage and the cost efficiency of
drinking water treatment are polydimethylammonium chloride the process. These parameters include the current intensity,
(PolyDADMAC), polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyacrylamide current density, electrolysis time, distance between electrodes,
(PAM), and polyethyleneimine (PEI) [49, 50]. surface of the electrodes, operating mode of the reactor, and
The main difference between CC and EC is the strategy for conductivity of the treated water.
dosing the coagulant. In CC, the coagulant (metal ions) is intro- The type of coagulant depends on the material of the anode
duced in the form of a salt, whereas in EC, a metal electrode is (usually aluminum or iron), while the cathode can be made of
electrochemically dissolved in the treated water (Fig. 1). Thus, inert stainless steel. However, when changing polarity is used
no anions, such as sulfates, are introduced into the water. The to prevent anode passivation, both electrodes must be made of
hydrolysis of metal ions, destabilization of pollutants, and for- the same material. The combination of current intensity and
mation of flocs is similar to CC [51]. To dissolve the electrode electrolysis time determines the amount of coagulant to be
(called the sacrificial electrode), an electric potential is applied to dosed [26, 55]. This relationship is described by Faraday’s law
a pair of electrodes, and electric current passes through the elec- (Eq. (1)):
trodes and water. The electric current causes electrolysis of some ItM
water molecules, leading to the formation of gaseous hydrogen m¼ (1)
zF
on the cathode and gaseous oxygen on the anode. If gas bubbles
attach to the flocs of coagulated particles, these particles can then where m represents the weight of the dissolved metal (g), I is
float towards the liquid surface. This process is known as (elec- the applied current (A), t is the electrolysis time (s), M is the
tro)flotation and can be used for floc separation, but its effective- molar mass of the metal (g mol–1), z is the number of trans-
ness depends on the operating conditions. ferred electrons per metal atom, and F is Faraday’s constant
If the flocs do not contain gas bubbles, they can be separated (96 487 C mol–1).
by sedimentation [52]. The evolution of hydrogen is related to A higher current density, expressed as the current intensity
hydroxide ion (OH–) production, which neutralizes or out- per unit of electrode surface, leads to more intensive bubble
weighs the effect of hydrogen ions formed during the hydro- generation and thus affects sludge separation [56]. If the
lysis of the coagulant. Therefore, in most cases, EC tends to in- current intensity is kept constant and the electrode surface is
crease the pH value [53]. This effect can simplify the treatment changed, the dosage remains constant, but the voltage changes.
of waters that have low initial pH and/or alkalinity values A larger electrode surface means a lower voltage and thus lower
because no major pH adjustments are necessary prior to EC. power consumption [55]. Similarly, a shorter interelectrode
Only when the initial water pH is more basic (above 8 or 9, distance and/or higher conductivity of water lead to lower volt-
depending on other conditions) does hydrolysis proceed faster age [52].
and produce more H+ ions, so it predominates over OH– for- EC has been reported to outmatch CC for the removal of
mation, and the pH decreases during EC [28, 54]. turbidity [57], arsenic [58], and boron [59] and to match the
performance of CC for the removal of humic compounds [1].
It remains to be seen whether EC can be similarly efficient for
the elimination of AOM. The next two sections review the
current state of knowledge on the CC and EC of AOM.
3.1 Coagulation of Algal Organic Matter
Several studies on the CC of algal and cyanobacterial cells agree

on a high removal efficacy that exceeds 90 % [60–64]. The opti-
mal pH is 6–8, and the dominant mechanism is adsorption
onto coagulant precipitates [61, 62]. Nevertheless, cells of some
picocyanobacterial species, which are the smallest cyanobacte-
ria with sizes of approximately 0.2–2 mm, can be more resistant
to CC, with removal efficacy only slightly above 50 % [65].
The CC of AOM is generally even more complicated and less
successful, with optimized removal efficacy varying between
25 % and more than 80 %. The efficacy depends largely on the
AOM composition and properties induced by the specific spe-
cies, their growth phases and growth conditions, as well as the
Figure 1. Simplified scheme for AOM electrocoagulation with proportion of EOM, COM, and proteinaceous and nonpro-
aluminum electrodes. teinaceous fractions [37, 38, 60, 66, 67]. EOM was found to be
more prone to coagulation than COM (IOM) of the same have tested EC in a batch mode [29, 80, 81], while others have
species, with high variability among species. A large proportion tested it in a continuous mode with one pass of the treated
of hydrophobic compounds has been correlated with high water [79] or with multiple passes [28]. Other differences
removal efficacy [66], supporting the assumption that hydro- include the number, shape, and material of electrodes, as well
phobic compounds coagulate better than hydrophilic com- as the type of treated water, namely, synthetic or natural. Floc
pounds [68, 69]. separation also varies among studies, including sedimentation
The proteinaceous part of COM is considerably easier to [79, 81], filtration [29], direct flotation by gas bubbles formed
remove by coagulation than the nonproteinaceous part. The during EC [80], and subsequent electroflotation with inert elec-
proteins and peptides coagulate at pH 4–6.5 with an efficacy trodes [28]. Consequently, comparing results among the stud-
higher than 80 %, and the dominant mechanism is charge ies as well as between EC and CC is a quite challenging task.
neutralization, while nonproteins coagulate mostly through Algal and cyanobacterial cells (M. aeruginosa, C. vulgaris,
adsorption onto hydroxide precipitates at pH 6.5–9, with an unspecified algae and cyanobacteria from surface waters or
efficacy as low as 25 % [37, 38]. This low degree of removal from a wastewater recycling facility effluent) can be electro-
may be caused by the high content of low-MW compounds coagulated with more than 95 % efficacy [28, 29, 79]. This out-
(smaller than 10 kDa) among nonproteins. Small organic mole- come is comparable to the efficacy of CC [60–64]. During most
cules are generally resistant to coagulation, regardless of of the experiments, the initial pH was between 6.9 and 8.9, but
whether they originate from AOM or humic substances the researchers did not attempt pH optimization, nor did they
[38, 69, 70]. report the final pH value.
Nevertheless, natural waters usually contain a mixture of The EC of dissolved AOM is, as in the case of CC, more
impurities that interact with each other, changing coagulation complicated. AOM can be removed with efficacy ranging from
behavior. AOM proteins shift the optimum pH of the coagula- 40 to 70 %, depending on the type of AOM and the electrode
tion of kaolin particles towards more acidic values (pH 4–6.5 material [80, 81]. Again, these results are comparable to the
instead of 6–8.5 for kaolin alone) [71]. Similarly, simultaneous results of CC, where the optimized removal efficacy varies
coagulation of COM and algal cells requires less coagulant and between approximately 25 and 80 % [37, 38, 60, 66, 67]. The
a lower pH (5–6.5 instead of 6–7.5) than coagulation of algal highest removal by EC (70 %) was reached using the Cu anode
cells alone, which is attributable to the observation that COM for an M. aeruginosa culture containing both cells and AOM.
acts as a polymer coagulation aid [62]. During the coagulation The pH increased during EC from 7 to 11.5. The authors com-
of humic substances, the addition of AOM proteins improves pared four anode materials, Al, Cu, Fe, and Zn. The Al anode
removal efficacy while decreasing coagulant requirement, but performed best for cell removal but at the same time removed
the optimum pH remains the same [72]. Interestingly, AOM only 40 % DOC [80]. Similarly, another study reported that the
was also reported to act as a coagulant for kaolin particles, algal Al anode was more efficient than the Fe anode for cell removal
cells, and humic substances, but only under acidic conditions [29]. Regarding DOC removal, in one study, an Fe anode per-
(pH < 4.5) [62, 71, 72]. formed better than the Al anode [81], while other authors
On the other hand, the presence of AOM can increase the found that both materials performed identically [80].
coagulant demand for cell removal under some circumstances However, the conclusions reached on the performance of
[73, 74]. AOM can also impair the coagulation of other sub- different anode materials should be approached cautiously
stances by the formation of dissolved complexes with both fer- because the studies did not include experimental pH optimiza-
ric and aluminum coagulants [30, 38]. Whether AOM has a tion. During the CC of AOM, the optimum pH for coagulants
beneficial or a detrimental effect on coagulation probably based on Al and Fe differs [62, 67]. Therefore, pH probably also
depends on the properties of AOM, the ratio of high- and plays an important role in the EC of AOM and algal cells with
low-MW compounds, and the specific conditions of the proc- different anodes. Before deciding which anode material is more
ess, particularly the pH and the type and dose of coagulant. suitable for a specific application, a thorough pH optimization
should be performed for all the considered materials.
Rafiee et al. [81] reported that EC eliminated a larger portion
3.2 Electrocoagulation of Algal Organic Matter of hydrophilic compounds than hydrophobic compounds; the
original AOM contained 55 % hydrophilic compounds, and
In addition to using EC for microalgal harvesting during food after EC their proportion decreased to 0.13–5.6 %, depending
and biofuel production [75–78], EC is an attractive alternative on experimental conditions [81]. This outcome contrasts with
for purifying drinking water. Several studies have shown that CC, during which hydrophobic substances coagulate more
EC successfully removes algal and bacterial cells from water easily [68, 69]. In the same study, EC removed a larger percent-
[28, 29, 79, 80], but researchers have rarely reported the con- age of saccharides than proteins (60 % and 20 %, respectively).
centration of dissolved AOM and its changes during EC. To The reason was probably the different MW distributions of
the best of our knowledge, only two studies have dealt with the saccharides and proteins in the AOM solution. In the original
effect of EC on dissolved AOM, and they documented some AOM, the carbohydrate fraction contained more high-MW
promising outcomes [80, 81]. The general lack of studies on molecules and fewer low-MW molecules than the protein frac-
this topic despite these encouraging results suggests a research tion. High-MW saccharides and proteins tend to coagulate
gap. more than low-MW saccharides and proteins [81], similar to
In addition, studies on the EC of algal cells and AOM are CC results [38, 69, 70]. CC usually removes a larger portion of
inconsistent in their approaches to the problem. Some authors proteins than nonproteins, but this effect is attributed to the
MW distribution, which in most cases is inverse to the distri- pollution (because no chemicals are added), the formation of
bution reported by Rafiee et al. [37, 38, 81]. large and stable flocs, the production of considerably smaller
Wiley and Trent [28] reported that chlorine gas was pro- amounts of sludge than during CC, and the possibility for com-
duced at the anode when chloride ions (Cl–) were present in plete automation [85], which can be achieved by controlling
the solution. The chloride ions dissolved and formed hypo- the electrocoagulation unit with a mathematical model taking
chlorite anions (ClO–), which enhanced water disinfection into account the geometrical dimensions of the reactor, the
[28]. However, chlorine production can lead to the formation volume flow rate of the liquid, and the applied current supply
of toxic disinfection by-products (e.g., trihalomethanes and [86]. Several specific and promising applications of EC in
haloacetic acids) when organic matter is present [24]; thus, this drinking water treatment related to the anticipated efficient
phenomenon deserves further research. AOM removal are outlined below.
As already mentioned, none of the research teams has per- – An additional step in a standard DWTP for the elimina-
formed thorough pH optimization. Furthermore, some do not tion of picocyanobacteria.
report the pH of the treated water or the pH value after EC. Picocyanobacteria typically show periodical occurrence with
Because EC can increase the pH quite dramatically, no infor- peak abundances in water reservoirs reaching more than
mation is then available on the actual pH during the destabili- 800 000 cells mL–1 [87]. Some picocyanobacteria, such as Meris-
zation and aggregation of impurities, although this pH value is mopedia tenuissima, can be coagulated effectively [62]; other
the most important value from the perspective of water treat- species are, however, more problematic. Aktas et al. [65] coagu-
ment [82]. Another major drawback of the studies is the com- lated the cyanobacteria Synechococcus sp. with an efficacy of
plete lack of residual metal monitoring, which is crucial for only 56 % relative to 99 % removal of M. aeruginosa and 91 %
possible implementation for drinking water treatment as metal removal of C. vulgaris [65]. EC might be able to remove pico-
contents are strictly limited in drinking water [83]. Reports on cyanobacteria because it successfully eliminates bacteria of
coagulant dosing are also often problematic. To a great extent similar sizes [29], but to the best of our knowledge, no research
[28, 29, 79, 80], readers must calculate the theoretical dosing of has been published to support this statement. The technology
Al and Fe (in mg L–1) according to Faraday’s law, which is could be implemented into DWTP after CC and used only in
known to sometimes be imprecise in predicting actual dosing times of picocyanobacterial blooms. In such an arrangement,
[84]. Moreover, the theoretical dosage was impossible to calcu- EC may also improve the removal of residual AOM.
late in one study due to a lack of information provided [81]. – The main treatment step in a smaller decentralized DWTP,
An analytical determination of actual coagulant dosing should possibly in mountain environments or at higher latitudes.
always be included in studies on EC to allow researchers to de- EC can remove turbidity, humic substances, AOM, and other
termine whether Faraday’s law is applicable for the specific pollutants in separate experiments; therefore, EC will probably
treated water and operating conditions. also remove a complex mixture of these compounds, but more
Naceradska et al. [82] proposed a method for the optimiza- research is still needed. Moreover, EC can be assembled as an
tion of CC that emphasized resultant pH and coagulant dosing independent unit powered by solar panels or by a wind turbine
as key parameters. The method is based on coagulation jar [5–8], and the unit would then require only one regular ex-
tests, which consist of coagulant dosing and two sequences of pendable material, i.e., the electrodes, which could be made of
agitations, fast and slow. Tito et al. [55] recommend a similar ordinary iron or aluminum plates. In mountain environments
approach to EC experiments. They identified the absence of a or at higher latitudes, the raw water has low temperatures dur-
standardized approach and the variability in strategies for data ing most of the year, and in waters of peatland origins, the pH
collection and reporting as the main barrier to further research is also considerably low [88]. Since EC, unlike CC, increases
and to a larger implementation of EC for industrial applica- water pH during treatment, no or only minor chemical addi-
tions. To overcome this obstacle, the authors suggested using tion for pH regulation would be needed. Low water tempera-
jar testing with consistent reports of current intensity and dos- tures of approximately 1–5 °C can hinder the performance of
ing concentration [55]. If this method is complemented with CC both in the laboratory and at industrial scales [47, 48]. EC
thorough pH optimization for the resultant pH value and with is apparently less sensitive to low temperatures, because
careful monitoring of the residual metal content, the method although Vepsäläinen [84] reported a lower rate of electrode
can serve as a benchmark for the evaluation of EC performance dissolution at 2 °C relative to 12 °C and 22 °C, it resulted only
for drinking water treatment. The procedure can be imple- in slightly higher energy consumption but not in lower NOM
mented for experiments at a laboratory scale, with some neces- removal efficacy [84]. Hence, the treatment of water with both
sary modifications when researchers prefer to use a continuous low pH and low temperature favors EC over CC. Nevertheless,
mode rather than a batch mode. Pilot-plant experimental more studies that directly compare EC and CC, including eco-
setups, on the other hand, should resemble the target industrial nomic factors, would be helpful before EC is extensively used.
application or the conditions at specific DWTPs. – An additional step preceding membrane separation in a
DWTP.
The fact that AOM causes severe membrane fouling (i.e.,
4 Possible Implementation of decreases permeate flux or increases transmembrane pressure)
Electrocoagulation is well documented. One of the mitigation strategies that can
be used during algal blooms is pretreatment of the water for
The frequently mentioned advantages of EC include simplicity AOM removal [40]. EC has been successfully tested as a pre-
of equipment and operation, reduced risk from secondary treatment step before ultrafiltration of seawater [89] and
microfiltration of surface waters containing NOM [90], in both
cases without additional floc separation before filtration. Zuzana Krusinova is a Ph.D.
Employing floc flotation induced by gas bubbles formed during student at the Institute for En-
EC further improves EC performance with regard to subse- vironmental Studies, Faculty of
quent microfiltration [91]. It can be assumed that EC will be Science, Charles University in
similarly efficient in the pretreatment of waters containing high Prague, and a doctorand at the
concentrations of AOM. Then, EC could improve the perform- Institute of Hydrodynamics of
ance of membrane filtration during periods of algal blooms. the Czech Academy of Scien-
ces. She has a background in
environmental protection and
5 Conclusions water quality and treatment.
Her research focuses on elec-
AOM can hinder drinking water treatment processes and/or trocoagulation as a method for
impair drinking water quality, as it can form toxic disinfection water purification.
by-products. Chemical coagulation usually removes algal and
cyanobacterial cells efficiently; however, the removal rates of
Michaela Prokopova is a
dissolved AOM are much lower and variable, and they depend
Ph.D. student at the Institute
on AOM composition. Therefore, it is desirable to develop and
for Environmental Studies, Fa-
test alternative approaches that might complement or even
culty of Science, Charles Uni-
replace chemical coagulation.
versity in Prague. Currently,
One such promising method is EC. Several studies have
she is a doctorand at the Insti-
reported EC efficacy comparable to CC efficacy for the removal
tute of Hydrodynamics of the
of both algal/cyanobacterial cells and DOC. Only two studies
Czech Academy of Sciences.
have focused on the EC of dissolved AOM, but they did not
Her research interests within
attempt to optimize EC conditions (i.e., resultant pH value,
the field of drinking water
dose of Al/Fe) and did not monitor residual metal concentra-
treatment include oxidation
tions. To produce comparable and complete results, future
and coagulation-flocculation of
studies could implement standardized jar tests with an empha-
natural organic matter.
sis on the resultant pH, reporting dosing concentrations, cur-
rent intensity, and residual metal content.
The specific research needs identified include the following: Pavel Krystynik is head of the
– Complete optimization of EC for AOM removal. Department of Environmental
– Direct comparison of EC and CC with respect to AOM re- Chemistry and Technology of
moval, both performed with the same model solution or the Jan Evangelista Purkyne
with the same water matrix is required. Comparison of EC University and research scien-
removal of different AOM components such as COM and tist at the Institute of Hydro-
EOM, the composition of which, moreover, differs depend- dynamics of the Czech Acad-
ing on the species of phytoplankton and its growth phase emy of Sciences. He obtained
would also be useful. his Ph.D. degree at the Univer-
– EC testing for the elimination of mixtures of pollutants rele- sity of Chemistry and Technol-
vant to drinking water treatment, both from synthetic solu- ogy. His main research field is
tions and natural water matrices. These pollutants include water treatment via photo-
AOM, humic substances, and inorganic particles. chemical and electrochemical
– Exploration of the question of chlorine generation and possi- methods.
ble formation of disinfection by-products during EC.
– Testing the removal of low-MW molecules that CC cannot
eliminate, possibly by applying EC to the effluent of CC.
– Evaluation of picocyanobacterial removal by EC.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
Petr Kluson is currently a
scientific vice-president of the
AOM algal organic matter
European Federation of Chem-
CC chemical coagulation
ical Engineering, associate pro-
COM cellular organic matter
fessor at the Charles University
DOC dissolved organic carbon
in Prague, and senior scientist
DWTP drinking water treatment plant
at the Institute of Chemical
EC electrocoagulation
Process Fundamentals of the
EOM extracellular organic matter
Czech Academy of Sciences.
IOM intracellular organic matter
He obtained his Ph.D. degree
MW molecular weight
at the University of Chemistry
NOM natural organic matter
and Technology in Prague. His
research is focused on environ-
mental processes and micro- References
reactor engineering.
[1] E. A. Vik, D. A. Carlson, A. S. Eikum, E. T. Gjessing, Water
Martin Pivokonsky is a distin- Res. 1984, 18, 1355–1360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
guished Czech researcher and 0043-1354(84)90003-4
an expert in the field of water [2] C. Barrera-Diaz, M. Palomar-Pardave, M. Romero-Romo,
treatment. He graduated in S. Martinez, J. Appl. Electrochem. 2003, 33, 61–71.
environmental engineering at [3] P. Krystynik, P. Masin, Z. Krusinova, P. Kluson, Int. J. Envi-
the Institute for Environmental ron. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 4167–4172. DOI: https://doi.org/
Studies, Faculty of Science, 10.1007/s13762-018-2074-3
Charles University in Prague, [4] S. R. S. Bandaru, A. Roy, A. J. Gadgil, C. M. van Genuchten,
where he also obtained his Water Res. 2020, 175, 115668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
Ph.D. degree and later became j.watres.2020.115668
an associate professor. Cur- [5] A. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, V. Martı́nez-Miranda, I. G. Martı́nez-
rently, he is a director of the Cienfuegos, P. T. Almazán-Sánchez, M. Castañeda-Juárez,
Institute of Hydrodynamics of I. Linares-Hernández, Fuel 2015, 149, 46–54. DOI: https://
the Czech Academy of Scien- doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.080
ces, and he also leads a research team focused on drinking [6] C. J. Nawarkar, V. D. Salkar, Fuel 2019, 237, 222–226. DOI:
water treatment at the Institute. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.140
[7] S. Zhang, J. Zhang, W. Wang, F. Li, X. Cheng, Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 2013, 117, 73–80. DOI: https://doi.org/
Acknowledgment 10.1016/j.solmat.2013.05.027
[8] S.-B. Jeon, S. Kim, S.-J. Park, M.-L. Seol, D. Kim, Y. K.
This work was supported by the Czech Academy of Sciences, Chang, Y.-K. Choi, Nano Energy 2016, 28, 288–295. DOI:
Czech Republic (RVO: 67985874), and the authors acknowl- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.08.051
edge the financial assistance on this project. The authors also [9] L. Xu, G. Cao, X. Xu, S. Liu, Z. Duan, C. He, Y. Wang,
thank to the Strategy AV21 of the Czech Academy of Sciences Q. Huang, J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 204, 394–403. DOI:
(VP20 – Water for life) for valuable support. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.020
[10] R. Kamaraj, S. Vasudevan, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2015, 93,
522–530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.03.021
Symbols used [11] E. Gatsios, J. N. Hahladakis, E. Gidarakos, J. Environ.
Manage. 2015, 154, 117–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
F [C mol–1] Faraday’s constant J.JENVMAN.2015.02.018
I [A] applied current [12] M. H. Isa, E. H. Ezechi, Z. Ahmed, S. F. Magram, S. R. M.
m [g] weight of the dissolved metal Kutty, Water Res. 2014, 51, 113–123. DOI: https://doi.org/
M [g mol–1] molar mass of the metal 10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.024
t [s] electrolysis time [13] L. S. Thakur, P. Mondal, J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 190, 102–
z [–] number of transferred electrons per metal 112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.053
atom [14] N. N. Abdulrazzaq, B. H. Al-Sabbagh, H. A. Shanshool,
J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101906. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101906
[15] M. Kobya, E. Gengec, E. Demirbas, Chem. Eng. Process. Proc-
ess Intensif. 2016, 101, 87–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cep.2015.11.012
[16] A. G. Merma, B. F. Santos, A. S. C. Rego, R. R. Hacha, M. L. [37] J. Naceradska, K. Novotna, L. Cermakova, T. Cajthaml,
Torem, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 15164–15176. DOI: M. Pivokonsky, J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 79, 25–34. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.10.107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.09.024
[17] M. Negarestani, M. Motamedi, A. Kashtiaray, A. Khadir, [38] M. Pivokonsky, J. Safarikova, P. Bubakova, L. Pivokonska,
M. Sillanpää, Groundwater Sustainable Dev. 2020, 11, Water Res. 2012, 46, 5583–5590. DOI: https://doi.org/
100474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100474 10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.040
[18] M. K. Kim, T. Kim, T. K. Kim, S. W. Joo, K. D. Zoh, Sep. [39] L. M. L. Laurens, S. van Wychen, J. P. McAllister, S. Arrow-
Purif. Technol. 2020, 247, 116911. DOI: https://doi.org/ smith, T. A. Dempster, J. McGowen, P. T. Pienkos, Anal.
10.1016/j.seppur.2020.116911 Biochem. 2014, 452, 86–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
[19] Y. Liu, X.-M. Hu, Y. Zhao, J. Wang, M.-X. Lu, F.-H. Peng, j.ab.2014.02.009
J. Bao, Chemosphere 2018, 201, 303–309. DOI: https:// [40] M. Pivokonsky, J. Naceradska, I. Kopecka, M. Baresova,
doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.02.129 B. Jefferson, X. Li, R. K. Henderson, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
[20] L. F. Castañeda, J. F. Rodrı́guez, J. L. Nava, Chem. Eng. J. Technol. 2016, 46, 291–335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
2020, 127529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10643389.2015.1087369
j.cej.2020.127529 [41] T. Li, B. Z. Dong, Z. Liu, W. H. Chu, Water Sci. Technol.
[21] D. Das, B. K. Nandi, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103643. 2011, 64, 1685–1691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103643 wst.2011.148
[22] W. Wan, T. J. Pepping, T. Banerji, S. Chaudhari, D. E. Giam- [42] S. Zhou, Y. Shao, N. Gao, Y. Deng, L. Li, J. Deng, C. Tan,
mar, Water Res. 2011, 45, 384–392. DOI: https://doi.org/ Water Res. 2014, 52, 199–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.016 j.watres.2014.01.002
[23] M. Amarine, B. Lekhlif, E. M. Mliji, J. Echaabi, Groundwater [43] L. Li, N. Gao, Y. Deng, J. Yao, K. Zhang, Water Res. 2012, 46,
Sustainable Dev. 2020, 11, 100452. DOI: https://doi.org/ 1233–1240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100452 j.watres.2011.12.026
[24] D. Ghernaout, M. W. Naceur, A. Aouabed, Desalination [44] H. Bernhardt, O. Hoyer, H. Schell, B. Lüsse, Z. Wasser Ab-
2011, 270, 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ wasser-Forsch. 1985, 18, 18–30.
j.desal.2011.01.010 [45] J. Duan, J. Gregory, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 100–
[25] K. L. Dubrawski, M. Fauvel, M. Mohseni, J. Hazard. Mater. 102, 475–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
2013, 244–245, 135–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0001-8686(02)00067-2
j.jhazmat.2012.11.027 [46] M. Sillanpää, M. C. Ncibi, A. Matilainen, M. Vepsäläinen,
[26] V. Kuokkanen, T. Kuokkanen, J. Rämö, U. Lassi, Water Res. Chemosphere 2018, 190, 54–71. DOI: https://doi.org/
2015, 79, 79–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2017.09.113
j.watres.2015.04.029 [47] J. K. Morris, W. R. Knocke, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1984,
[27] F. Ulu, S. Baris˛çi, M. Kobya, H. Särkkä, M. Sillanpää, Sep. 76, 74–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/
Purif. Technol. 2014, 133, 246–253. DOI: https://doi.org/ j.1551-8833.1984.tb05302.x
10.1016/j.seppur.2014.07.003 [48] B. Lim-Seok Kang, J. L. Cleasby, J. Environ. Eng. 1995, 121,
[28] P. E. Wiley, J. D. Trent, Water Supply 2016, 16, 314–323. 893–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2015.140 (ASCE)0733-9372(1995)121:12(893)
[29] D. Ghernaout, A. Badis, A. Kellil, B. Ghernaout, Desalina- [49] J. Bratby, Coagulation and Flocculation in Water and Waste-
tion 2008, 219, 118–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ water Treatment, 3rd ed., IWA Publishing, London 2016.
j.desal.2007.05.010 [50] Polyelectrolyte Coagulants in Water Treatment – An Assess-
[30] T. Takaara, D. Sano, H. Konno, T. Omura, Water Res. 2007, ment of Research Needs (Eds: R. D. Letterman, R. W. Pero),
41, 1653–1658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO 1988.
J.WATRES.2007.01.035 [51] Y. M. A. Mollah, R. Schennach, J. R. Parga, D. L. Cocke,
[31] M. Pivokonsky, O. Kloucek, L. Pivokonska, Water Res. 2006, J. Hazard. Mater. 2001, 84, 29–41. DOI: https://doi.org/
40, 3045–3052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00176-5
J.WATRES.2006.06.028 [52] M. Mousazadeh, Z. Naghdali, Z. Al-Qodah, S. M. Alizadeh,
[32] R. K. Henderson, A. Baker, S. A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, Water E. Karamati Niaragh, S. Malekmohammadi, P. V. Nidheesh,
Res. 2008, 42, 3435–3445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ E. P. L. Roberts, M. Sillanpää, M. Mahdi Emamjomeh,
J.WATRES.2007.10.032 Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101353. DOI:
[33] M. Pivokonsky, J. Safarikova, M. Baresova, L. Pivokonska, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101353
I. Kopecka, Water Res. 2014, 51, 37–46. DOI: https://doi.org/ [53] T. Harif, M. Khai, A. Adin, Water Res. 2012, 46, 3177–3188.
10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.03.034
[34] W. Huang, H. Chu, B. Dong, Desalination 2012, 293, 104– [54] G. Mouedhen, M. Feki, M. D. P. Wery, H. F. Ayedi, J. Hazard.
111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESAL.2012.03.001 Mater. 2008, 150, 124–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
[35] S. M. Myklestad, Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 165, 155–164. j.jhazmat.2007.04.090
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)04549-G [55] D. N. Tito, P. Krystynik, P. Kluson, Chem. Eng. Process.
[36] R. Liu, T. Guo, M. Ma, M. Yan, J. Qi, C. Hu, G. Liu, H. Liu, Process Intensif. 2016, 104, 22–28. DOI: https://doi.org/
J. Qu, W. van der Meer, J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 76, 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/J.CEP.2016.02.011
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.05.011
[56] P. K. Holt, G. W. Barton, C. A. Mitchell, Chemosphere 2005, [74] A. J. Garzon-Sanabria, S. S. Ramirez-Caballero, F. E. P. Moss,
59, 355–367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ Z. L. Nikolov, Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 143, 231–237. DOI:
J.CHEMOSPHERE.2004.10.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2013.05.125
[57] M. Han, J. Song, A. Kwon, Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply [75] S. M. Mixson, L. F. Stikeleather, O. D. Simmons, C. W. Wil-
2002, 2, 73–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2002.0152 son, J. M. Burkholder, J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 1701–1709.
[58] E. Lacasa, C. Sáez, P. Cañizares, F. J. Fernández, M. A. Rodri- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-0232-z
go, Sep. Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 508–514. DOI: https:// [76] N. Uduman, V. Bourniquel, M. K. Danquah, A. F. A. Hoad-
doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2012.690806 ley, Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 174, 249–257. DOI: https://doi.org/
[59] A. E. Yilmaz, R. Boncukcuoğlu, M. M. Kocakerim, J. Hazard. 10.1016/j.cej.2011.09.012
Mater. 2007, 149, 475–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ [77] D. Parmentier, D. Manhaeghe, L. Baccini, R. van Meir-
J.JHAZMAT.2007.04.018 haeghe, D. P. L. Rousseau, S. van Hulle, Algal Res. 2020, 47,
[60] R. K. Henderson, S. A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, Water Res. 101828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.101828
2010, 44, 3617–3624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ [78] S. Lucakova, I. Branyikova, S. Kovacikova, M. Pivokonsky,
J.WATRES.2010.04.016 M. Filipenska, T. Branyik, M. C. Ruzicka, Bioresour. Technol.
[61] R. K. Henderson, S. A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, Water Res. 2021, 323, 124606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
2008, 42, 1827–1845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biortech.2020.124606
j.watres.2007.11.039 [79] A. de la Fuente, A. M. Muro-Pastor, F. Merchán, F. Madrid,
[62] M. Baresova, M. Pivokonsky, K. Novotna, J. Naceradska, J. I. Pérez-Martı́nez, T. Undabeytia, J. Cleaner Prod. 2019,
T. Branyik, Water Res. 2017, 122, 70–77. DOI: https:// 238, 117964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.070 J.JCLEPRO.2019.117964
[63] A. Gonzalez-Torres, J. Putnam, B. Jefferson, R. M. M. Stuetz, [80] T. A. O. K. Meetiyagoda, T. Fujino, Water 2020, 12, 3528.
R. K. K. Henderson, Water Res. 2014, 60, 197–209. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123528
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.04.046 [81] P. Rafiee, S. Ebrahimi, M. Hosseini, Y. W. Tong, Biotechnol.
[64] N. B. Wyatt, L. M. Gloe, P. v. Brady, J. C. Hewson, A. M. Rep. 2020, 25, e00433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
Grillet, M. G. Hankins, P. I. Pohl, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, j.btre.2020.e00433
109, 493–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.23319 [82] J. Naceradska, L. Pivokonska, M. Pivokonsky, J. Water Sup-
[65] T. S. Aktas, F. Takeda, C. Maruo, N. Chiba, O. Nishimura, ply Res. Technol. 2019, 68, 222–230. DOI: https://doi.org/
Desalin. Water Treat. 2012, 48, 294–301. DOI: https:// 10.2166/aqua.2019.155
doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.698828 [83] Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the
[66] Z. Zhao, W. Sun, A. K. Ray, T. Mao, M. B. Ray, Chemosphere quality of water intended for human consumption, Off. J.
2020, 245, 125669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ Eur. Communities 1998, L 330, 32–54.
j.chemosphere.2019.125669 [84] M. Vepsäläinen, M. Ghiasvand, J. Selin, J. Pienimaa, E. Repo,
[67] M. Baresova, J. Naceradska, K. Novotna, L. Cermakova, M. Pulliainen, M. Sillanpää, Sep. Purif. Technol. 2009, 69,
M. Pivokonsky, J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 98, 124–133. DOI: 255–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.08.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.05.031 [85] D. T. Moussa, M. H. El-Naas, M. Nasser, M. J. Al-Marri,
[68] B. Ghernaout, D. Ghernaout, A. Saiba, Desalin. Water Treat. J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 186, 24–41. DOI: https://doi.org/
2010, 20, 133–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5004/ 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.10.032
dwt.2010.1202 [86] A. Safonyk, A. Bomba, I. Tarhonii, in Conf. on Computer
[69] M. Ma, R. Liu, H. Liu, J. Qu, W. Jefferson, Sep. Purif. Technol. Science and Information Technologies 2018, 451–463.
2012, 86, 19–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ [87] V. Koza, L. Rederer, in Sbornı́k Konference Pitná Voda,
j.seppur.2011.10.015 W&ET Team, České Budějovice 2014, 123–128.
[70] T. K. Nissinen, I. T. Miettinen, P. J. Martikainen, T. Vartiai- [88] W. Shotyk, Earth Sci. Rev. 1988, 25, 95–176. DOI: https://
nen, Chemosphere 2001, 45, 865–873. DOI: https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1016/0012-8252(88)90067-0
10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00103-5 [89] T. C. Timmes, H. C. Kim, B. A. Dempsey, Desalination 2009,
[71] J. Safarikova, M. Baresova, M. Pivokonsky, I. Kopecka, Sep. 249, 895–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
Purif. Technol. 2013, 118, 49–57. DOI: https://doi.org/ J.DESAL.2009.07.002
10.1016/j.seppur.2013.06.049 [90] S. Chellam, M. A. Sari, J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 304, 490–501.
[72] M. Pivokonsky, J. Naceradska, T. Brabenec, K. Novotna, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.10.054
M. Baresova, V. Janda, Water Res. 2015, 84, 278–285. DOI: [91] N. P. Gamage, J. D. Rimer, S. Chellam, J. Membr. Sci. 2012,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2015.07.047 411–412, 45–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
[73] D. Vandamme, I. Foubert, I. Fraeye, K. Muylaert, Bioresour. J.MEMSCI.2012.04.014
Technol. 2012, 124, 508–511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2012.08.121

Is Electrocoagulation A Promising Technology For Algal Organic Matter Removal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Is Electrocoagulation A Promising Technology For Algal Organic Matter Removal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is Electrocoagulation A Promising Technology For Algal Organic Matter Removal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is Electrocoagulation a Promising Technology for Algal

Organic Matter Removal? Current Knowledge and Open

3.1 Coagulation of Algal Organic Matter

Several studies on the CC of algal and cyanobacterial cells agree

You might also like