Journal of Environmental Health and Sustainable Development.

2016; 1(1)

Original Article
Performance Evaluation of Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different
Coagulants

Tahereh Zarei Mahmoud Abadi 1, Asghar Ebrahimi 2*, Mohammad Taghi Ghaneian 3, Mehdi Mokhtari2, Mohammad
Hossein Salmani4, Parvaneh Talebi 1

1
BSc, Environmental Science &Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public
Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd, Iran, taherehzarei92@gmail.com, apf_sts_1381@yahoo.com
2
Assistant Professor, Environmental Science &Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health Engineering ,
School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd, Iran, Mhimokhtari@gmail.com
3
Associate Prof. Environmental Science &Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health Engineering , School
of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd, Iran, mtghaneian@yahoo.com
4
Assistant Professor, Environmental Science &Technology Research Center, Department of Environmental Health Engineering,
School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences,Yazd, Iran, Mhsno6@yahoo.com

Received: 18 Jan 2016 Accepted: 29 Feb 2016

Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study was, wastewater quality investigation and removal efficiency of
contaminants from the wastewater tile factory by using coagulants includes ferric chloride, ferric sulfate and ferrous,
aluminum sulfate and poly aluminum chloride in order to reuse it in the processing line.
Methods: This is an applied study. With regard to shiftwork schedules of the factory, the composite samples of
wasrewater in production line was obtained. Firstly, based on standard methods wastewater parameters were measured .
In the next step by using the jar- test the effect of changing coagulants dosing(0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35g/L) and pH
values (7,9,11) on the removal parameters of turbidity, EC, TSS, TS and COD was investigated. Finaly the effective
dose and optimal pH were selected and the best coagulant was determined.
Results:The optimum PH of ferric chloride, ferric sulfate and ferrous that optimum was 11as well as it was 7 for
aluminum sulfate and poly aluminum chloride. The optimum concentration of iron-based coagulants and aluminum-
based coagulants was 0.3 g/L and 0.25 g/L, respectively. Poly aluminum chloride with removal of 99.92% , 99.94%,
89.8 and 75% has the best removal efficiency for turbidity, TSS, TS and COD, respectively. In addition, in a lower dose
aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride and ferric sulfate had the best removal efficiency.
Conclusion: Among the five studied coagulants, poly aluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate and ferrous sulfate had
the most efficiency, respectively. Due to the high cost of aluminum chloride, it needs more accuracy to select the most
suitable coagulant.

Keywords: Coagulant, Wastewater treatment, Tile industry, Turbidity, COD

*Corresponding author: Asghar Ebrahimi Email: ebrahimi20007@gmail.com Tel: 09132679641

22
 Zarei Mahmoud Abadi Tahereh, et al.
Introduction:
In recent decades, the growth of consumption and
increasing of industrial production was reflected
in rapid decline of available natural resources (raw
materials and energy resources). On the other
hand, high quantity of waste generated in which
most of them not directly recyclable (1). Water is
used as an initial material in many industries and
wastewater is discharged to the environment (2). In
order to achieve conditions for sustainable
development, industrial developments align with
environmental development is inevitable. Among
the important environmental industrial parks,
providing the required water industry and entering
industrial pollutants into groundwater sources.
Construction of appropriate wastewater treatment
systems prevent the contamination of water
resources and environment and also provide a new
source of water for reuse (3). Today, shortage of
water for both drinking and industrial communities
is a global concern. Therefore, protection of water
resources is very important. there are many studies
in water minimizing to solve this problem in
industries with different approaches (4). Water
management is a very important issue in most
industrial sections, (5). Water is a very important
raw material in the manufacture of tiles and its
usage varies greatly between sectors and processes
(6). Water consumed for the operation of various
units preparation and cleaning of equipment such
as slurry and glaze preparation, glazing lines,
washing gases from scrubbers and etc. Major
wastewater produced in these parts is only due to
washing (7). A significant amount of suspended
solids and turbidity in wastewater industries could
23
be removed just by a simple sedimentation. As a
result, effluent from it can only be returned to the
ball mill. But have not recycled water quality
necessary for use in another part especially of the
preparation glazes. As a result, a significant
amount of groundwater is used as the fresh water
source in production line for production glaze and
other coatings. However, groundwater supplies is
limited. Tile industry should be find solution to
decrease its groundwater consumption (5). Water
recycling and reuse in the consumption cycle not
only reduce consumption and has economic
efficiency, but not exit wastewater pollutants to
surrounding environment as a principle in order to
prevent contamination of the environment should
take priority.
The composition of these tile industry wastewaters
is include clays, frits and insoluble silicates,
electrolytes, anions such as sulfate(100-500 mg/L),
chloride (100-700mg/L), suspended and dissolved
heavy metals such as lead and zinc, COD (150-
1000 mg/L) and BOD (50-400 mg/L) (6, 8).
Organic materials that mainly come from the
additives used in decorate the tiles (5). Contrast
municipal wastewater biological treatment
methods, mainly to respond. Therefore, different
methods based on physico-chemical process are
needed. Physical-chemicals treatment methods can
be used for wastewater tile. Physical-chemical
wastewater treatment including homogenization,
aeration, Sedimentation, filtration, activated carbon
adsorption, coagulation and flocculation, ion
exchange and reverse osmosis (9).Now, coagulants
compound of aluminum is very common in water
and wastewater treatment and the use of these
 Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different Coagulants

materials increased. In addition, these are materials
very cheap and easily accessible. The selection the
type of coagulation is one the most important
decision for the wastewater treatment and will be
based on the nature of wastewater. Poly aluminum
chloride (PAC) has proven to be more efficient in
low dosages and in a wider pH range acts (10).
Nilsalab investigated the use of the coagulation
process in the ceramic industry wastewater
treatment using aluminum sulfate and reported
most removal efficiency of turbidity at pH 6-7 with
optimal dose 200 mg/L(11). In another study
fahiminia et al, the effect of different doses of
coagulants including Alum, poly aluminum
chloride, Polymer, Ferric chloride (Fecl3) and lime
on turbidity, total suspended solids and total solids,
removal were investigated. The results indicated
that lime in dose 25 ppm is the best coagulant for
turbidity removal (99.8%) and the highest
efficiency for TS removal (82.5%) is related to
using Alum in dose100 ppm (12). paula et al, in
2014 studied concrete industry for wastewater
treatment using a combination of aluminum sulfate
and Moringa oleifera, that turbidity removal
efficiency was 90 percent (13). The aim of this
study was to investigate the quality of wastewater
and use of coagulation-flocculation process with
coagulants ferric chloride, ferric sulfate and
ferrous, aluminum sulfate and poly aluminum
chloride for suspended solids and turbidity
reduction from wastewater in order to reuse it in
the processing line.
Methods:
In this study sample was composed of wastewater
processing line according to shift work and
changes taking it. Measuring parameters pH, EC
(multi-parameter model 40HQ company HACH)
and temperature were determined at the spot of
sampling due to changes over time. Samples were
collected in 20-L plastic containers and transported
to the laboratory and stored at 4°C. Experiments
were carried out according to standard method for
water and wastewater tests (14). Physical and
chemical raw wastewater is mentioned in table 1.

Table 1: Physical - chemical characteristics, raw wastewater tile industry

Parameters unit Min Max Average ± SD

pH - 8.2 8.6 8.3±0.6

Temperature (°C) 30 32 31±1
EC (us/cm) 2142 2700 2484±299.57
Turbidity NTU 9500 13300 11100±1969.77
TDS (mg/L) 1096 1246 1185.33±79
TSS (mg/L) 13450 34414 21221.33±11485.45
TS (mg/L) 14546 35628 22390±11529.71
COD (mg/L) 151.2 490 361.33±183.66
BOD5 (mg/L) 100.8 392.5 266.51±149.58

24
 Zarei Mahmoud Abadi Tahereh, et al.

The study was performed in laboratory scale using Germany. Hydrochloric acid 1 normal and lime Ca
the jar by five coagulant ferric chloride, ferric (OH) 2 solution were used for adjusting the pH
sulfate and ferrous, aluminum sulfate as metal salts value of wastewater during the treatment
and Poly aluminum Chloride (PAC) as hydrolyzed processes. Details coagulants used are described in
aluminum salt. This was compounded of Merck table 2.

Table 2: Characteristics of coagulants used in the study

Coagulants Formula Molecular weight (g/mole) No. Artie Concentration (%)

ferric chloride Fecl3.6H2O 270.30 3943 10

ferric sulfate Fe2(SO4)3.H2O 399.88 3926 10
sulfate ferrous FeSO4·7H2O 278.02 3965 10
aluminium sulfate AL2(SO4)2 666.42 1102 10
Poly aluminum Chloride Al2(OH)nCl6-n 10

The coagulation-flocculation process carried out
using a jar test manufactured by HACH (model
402-7790). The samples were after out of the
refrigerator for 2 hours at room temperature, until
temperature reaches to 22°C. The sample was
given 100 minutes sedimentation time. In order to
determine the optimum pH coagulant materials,
evaluated the different pH (7, 9, 11) in the fixed
amount of coagulants (iron-based compounds 0.25
g/L and aluminum-based compounds 0.2 g/L). By
measuring parameters turbidity, EC, TSS, TS,
COD for each pH, a sample with the highest
removal efficiency for the desired parameters, pH
of the sample as optimum pH was considered.
Then wastewater pH regulation at the optimum
value and Followed by various amounts of
coagulants materials (0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35 g/L)
simultaneously added to the wastewater to the
volume of one liter and it was determined the
optimal amount. Wastewater and coagulants were
stirred at room temperature first with rapid mixing
for 1 min at 100 rpm and slowly mixing for 10
minutes at 20 rpm. At the end of slow mixing, was
considered 30 minutes sedimentation for sample.
After the sedimentation period, the supernatant
wastewater into the beakers extracted using a
plastic syringe and Measured parameters turbidity
(turbidity meter TB100 model manufactured by
Eutech), EC, TSS, TS, COD. Finally, optimal dose
each coagulant was determined. To draw the
relevant diagrams software Excel 2010 was used.
In this research, in order to increase the accuracy
of experiments, all experiments were repeated
twice and the mean values were reported as the
final result.
Results:
Figure 1 shows the efficiency of turbidity removal
during the sedimentation, before coagulation
process. According to this figure, sedimentation
different times were tested on the tile raw
wastewater before adding coagulants. The
sedimentation time of 100 minutes, the turbidity of
wastewater from 10500 to 6310 NTU decreased
(39.9% of turbidity removal efficiency). Turbidity

25
 Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different Coagulants
removal efficiency almost unchanged after 100
minutes. Figures 2 to 6 show the results optimum
pH about coagulants used. Ferric chloride has been
effective in alkaline pH, by doing a jar test for each
sample three pH, the optimum pH of 11 was
obtained. The results showed that the optimum pH
of ferric sulfate and ferrous the most appropriate
pH obtained, is equal to 11. The results of the
experiments of coagulant aluminum sulfate and
poly aluminum chloride showed the optimum pH
for these two coagulants is 7. For the investigation
investigat
the effect of different dosages of coagulants to
remove contaminants by ferric chloride, ferric
sulfate and ferrous, aluminum sulfate and poly
aluminum chloride at pH fixed at doses (0.15, 0.2,
0.25, 0.3, 0.35 g/L),
), Jar tests were performed.
Figures 7 to 10 shows the effect of different doses
of coagulant
lant to remove contaminants. The results
of the experiment ferric chloride coagulant showed
that in dosage 0.3 g/L works well in the removal of
the evaluated parameters and rate removal of
turbidity, EC, TSS, TS respectively 99.84, 20.46,
99.83, 90.09 Percentage and 50% removal of
Figure 1: Effect of sedimentation, before coagulation process for the removal of turbidity
26
COD. In the case of ferric sulfate results the effect
of different doses indicate that the rate removal the
studied parameters at doses consumption greater
than 0.3 g/L trends has been fixed and rate removal
of turbidity, EC, TSS, TS respectively 99.69,
22.45, 99.71, 90.27 Percentage and 72.5% removal
of COD. The results of experiment ferrous sulfate
coagulant showed in dosage 0.3 g/L have worked
well in removing contaminants and rate removal of
turbidity, EC, TSS, TS in order
ord 99.9, 26.47, 99.9,
90.9 Percentage and 60% removal of COD. The
results the effect of different doses aluminum
sulfate and Poly aluminum chloride indicate that
removed studied parameters the dosage 0.25 g/L
then for both coagulation trend has been fixed. The
result dose 0.25 g/L was selected as the optimal
dose for the two coagulants. The removal of
turbidity, EC, TSS, TS and COD for aluminum
sulfate, respectively 99.88,, 24.95, 99.86, 90.68 and
60 Percentage. For poly aluminum chloride
respectively 99.92, 17.74
74, 99.93, 89.86 and 75
percentage.
 Tahereh Zarei Mahmoud Abadi, et al.

Figure 2: Effect of coagulants on turbidity removal efficiency at different pH

Figure 3: Effect of coagulants on electrical conductivity removal efficiency at different pH

Figure 4: Effect of coagulants on total suspended solids removal efficiency at different pH

27
 Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different Coagulants

Figure 5: Effect of coagulants on total solids removal efficiency at different pH

Figure 6: Effect of coagulants on COD removal efficiency at different pH

100
Turbidity Removal (%)

99.8 ferric chloride

ferric sulfate
99.6
ferrous sulfate
99.4 aluminium sulfate
99.2 PAC

99
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Coagulant dosage(g/l)

Figure 7: The effect of coagulant dosage on turbidity removal efficiency

28
 Tahereh Zarei Mahmoud Abadi, et al.

Figure 8: The effect of coagulant dosage on total suspended solids removal efficiency
35

30
EC Removal (%)

ferric chloride
25
ferric sulfate
20 ferrous sulfate

15 aluminium sulfate
PAC
10

5
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosage(g/l)

Figure 9: The effect of coagulant dosage on electrical conductivity removal efficiency

91

90.5 ferric chloride

TS Removal(%)

ferric sulfate
90 ferrous sulfate
aluminium sulfate
89.5 PAC

89
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Dosage(g/l)

Figure 10: The effect of coagulant dosage on total solids removal efficiency

29
 Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different Coagulants
80
70
60
COD Removal (%) 50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1
Coagulant dosage(g/l)
Figure 11: The effect of coagulant dosage on COD removal efficiency
Discussion:
According to figure 1, sedimentation time of 100
minutes was selected as the best time remained
before the coagulation process. The results research
showed that aluminum sulfate and PAC better
performance at pH 7. The important reason for such
behavior is: 1- at low pH, Presence monomers
particles, aluminum causing neutralization of
anionic particles contaminants and sedimentation of
doing better. 2- at low pH, concentration of
dissolved aluminum decreased with decreasing the
Al (OH)4- and reduce this ratio lead to the
sedimentation process improvement and this anionic
aluminum hydroxide reducing the effects of
coagulation (10). But at alkaline pH due to the
formation of fine flocs, less sedimentation and also
decrease efficiency. Coagulants aluminum sulfate
and PAC compared with other coagulants in the
lower dose showed most of the removal efficiency
of turbidity, TSS, COD. The pH and optimal dose of
aluminum sulfate were consistent with studies
Nilsalab (11). However, in study Mr. Fahiminia (12)
with much less turbidity ferric chloride in dosage
ferric chloride
ferric sulfate
ferrous sulfate
aluminium sulfate
PAC
0.2 0.3 0.4
0.5 g/L turbidity removal 99.4 percentage while in
this study despite the turbidity 16 times more ferric
chloride at dose 0.3 g/L Shown more efficiency for
turbidity (99.84%). In the study Paula (13) despite
the combination of aluminum sulfate with other
coagulants removal efficiency had 90% while this
study only aluminum sulfate, have been able to
remove 99.88% for turbidity. COD removal rate
increased with increasing coagulants.These findings
show that for remove significant COD, required
high doses of coagulants. This could be due to the
presence of large amounts of organic matter in
effluent and their reaction is with coagulants that
causes the suspended matter in effluent oxidized,
signed and eliminate this process can reduce
wastewater COD (15). The results showed the
electrical conductivity increases by increasing
coagulants. Comparison of the effects these
coagulants to remove contaminants showed poly
aluminum chloride has a better performance
compared to other coagulants. Poly aluminum
chloride compared with other coagulants such as
aluminum sulfate, ferric chloride, etc. in medium
30
 Tahereh Zarei Mahmoud Abadi, et al.

and high turbidity of better performance. For
example, requires a lot less due to ionic load charge
more, coarse clots, reduces settling time flukes, less
sludge production, without the need to regulate the
pH, its better performance at lower temperatures. In
recent years, poly aluminum chloride is used widely
as an alternative to the traditional aluminum sulfate
and ferric chloride coagulant. In practical
applications showed that PAC coagulant effect
produced 2-3 times better than are conventional
aluminum salts (16). According to consumption less
in the same terms such the initial turbidity and
suspended solids and etc, using a PAC the ultimate
cost is more economical.
Conclusion:
-Coagulation and flocculation is a suitable method
for remove turbidity and COD wastewater.
- Due to the high turbidity wastewater tiles, this
method has a high potential for practical
application in wastewater with high COD and
turbidity.
-Having regard to the high efficiency of this method
and inexpensive and does not require advanced
technology as a solution for wastewater treatment
producing line factories tile is recommended.
Acknowledgments:
The support President of the School of Public
Health and laboratory experts which provide
laboratory the possibility to carry out the research
to be provided and their valuable guidance in this
study helped us to appreciate.

References:
1. Ferreira JMF, Torres PMC, Silva MS, Labrincha JA. Recycling of granite sludges in brick-type and floor tile-type
ceramic formulations. J Euroceram News. 2002; 14: 1-4.
2. Nabi Bidhendi GHR, Mehrdadi N, Mohammadnejad S. Water and wastewater minimization in Tehran oil refinery
using water pinch analysis. Int J Environ Res. 2010; 4(4): 583-594.
3. Aghakhani A, Sadani M, Faraji M, Boniadi NGR. Compression of methods to estimate the industrial water demand
based on the number of industrial units, number of employees, Total area and the area infrastructure. J Res Health
System. 2010; 6(2): 357-364.
4. Khezri SM, Lotfi F, Tabibian S, Erfani Z. Application of water pinch technology for water and wastewater
minimization in aluminum anodizing industries. Int J Environ Sci Tech. 2010; 7(2): 281-290.
5. Deratani A, Palmeri J, Moliner-Salvador S, Sánchez E. Use of nanofiltration membrane technology for ceramic
industry wastewater treatment.J Bolet de la Socie Españ de Cerámica y Vidrio. 2012; 51(103): 1-12.
6. Ibáñez-Forés V, Bovea M, Azapagic A. Assessing the sustainability of Best Available Techniques (BAT):
methodology and application in the ceramic tiles industry. J Clean Prod. 2013; 51: 162-176.
7. Huang YI, Luo J, Xia B. Application of cleaner production as an important sustainable strategy in the ceramic tile
plant–a case study in Guangzhou, China. J Clean Prod. 2013; 43: 113-121.
8. Enrique JE, Monfort E, Busani G, Mallol G. Water-saving techniques in the Spanish tile industry. Tile & brick
international. J Bol Soc Esp Cerám Vidrio. 2000; 39(1): 149-154.

31
 Tile Wastewater Treatment with Different Coagulants

9. Elsheikh MA, Al-Hemaidi WK. Approach in Choosing Suitable Technology for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. J
Civil Environ Eng. 2012; 2(5): 2-10.
10. Sahu OP, Chaudhari PK, Review on chemical treatment of industrial waste water. J Appl Sci Environ Manage.
2013; 17(2): 241-257.
11. Nilsalab P, Gheewala SH. Improving the Efficiency of the Water System in Ceramic Tile Manufacturing. 2009;1-6.
12. Fahiminia M, Ardani R, Hashemi S, Alizadeh M. Wastewater Treatment of Stone Cutting Industries by Coagulation
Process. J Arch Hyg Sci. 2011; 2(1): 16-22
13. de Paula HM, de Oliveira Ilha MS, Andrade LS. Concrete plant wastewater treatment process by coagulation
combining aluminum sulfate and Moringa oleifera powder. J Clean Prod. 2014; 76: 125-130.
14. APHA, AWWA, WEF, Rice EW, Barid RB, Eaton AD. Association, Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. 22 nd ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. 2012.
15. JouanMa X, Hui LX, Treatment of water-based printing ink wastewater by Fenton process combined with
coagulation. J hazard mater, 2008; 162(1): 386-90.
16. Mirzaei A, Takdastan A, Alavi Bakhtiarvand N. Survey of PAC Performance for Removal of Turbidity, COD,
Coliform Bacteria, Heterotrophic Bacteria from Water of Karoon River. Iran J Health Environ. 2011; 4(3): 267-276.

32