Water Treatment Using Natural Coagulant and Electrocoagulation Process: A Comparison Study

Gali Aba Lulesa, Tofik; Beyene, Dejene; Ebba, Million; Kenea, Goshu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4640927

International Journal of Analytical Chemistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4640927 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4640927

Water Treatment Using Natural Coagulant and Electrocoagulation Process: A Comparison Study

Tofik Gali Aba Lulesa,¹Dejene Beyene,¹Million Ebba,¹and Goshu Kenea²

Academic Editor: Chanbasha Basheer

Received27 Jul 2022

Revised05 Sept 2022

Accepted21 Sept 2022

Published29 Sept 2022

Abstract

Water treatment is the primary consideration before utilizing water for different purposes. Surface water is highly vulnerable to pollution, either due to natural or anthropogenic processes. The main targets of this study were to investigate surface water treatment using Moringa Oleifera (MO), the electrocoagulation process (EC), and the Moringa Oleifera assisted electrocoagulation process (MOAEC). The Moringa Oleifera, EC process, and Moringa Oleifera-assisted EC process are effective mechanisms for the removal of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), phosphate, TSS (Total Suspended Solids), and color from surface water. Different operating parameters such as pH (5–11), the dosage of coagulant (0.2–0.5 g), contact time or reaction time (20–50 minutes), current (0.2–0.5 A), and settling time (5–20 minutes) were considered. The maximum removal efficiency using Moringa Oleifera and the EC process was COD (85.48%), BOD (78.50%), TDS (84.5%), phosphate (95.70%), TSS (93.90%), color (94.50%), and COD (90.50%), BOD (87%), TDS (97.50%), phosphate (89.10%), TSS (95.80%), and color (96.15%), respectively. Similarly, with the application of MOAEC, 91.47%, 89.35%, 97.0%, 90.20%, 9.10%, and 95.70% of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color were removed, respectively. The EC process and MOAEC were more effective in the removal of COD, BOD, TDS, TSS, and color than using MO. More phosphate was removed using MO than the EC process and MOAEC. Additionally, the effects of different operating parameters were studied on the removal efficiency.

1. Introduction

As a human being in this global village, “water” is one of the most important needs [1, 2], and for all living things and activities, as well as for preserving the environment and its resources, water is vitally important [3–5]. Most of Earth’s surface is covered by water, which covers more than two-thirds of the planet’s surface, but most of it is salty and useless [6]. In addition to this, the world’s water resources could also be contaminated due to a variety of natural and man-made factors [7, 8]. Urbanization [9–12], industrialization [10, 11, 13, 14], agricultural, [13–15] surface runoff, and sediment transport [2] are some of the factors considered in the deterioration of the parameters of water quality.

On a global scale, at least four billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, or they believe that it is unsafe to drink [16]. World, continent, and country-level human health are directly affected by drinking water quality [17]. Many countries, especially those in developing countries, have poor water quality, which has led to several waterborne diseases [4, 11, 18, 19].

Diverse water treatment technologies have been created in response to the alarming condition of water shortages to assure the creation of an appropriate water supply and quality to fulfill the demand and preserve the availability of clean water resources. These technologies can generally be divided into three groups: physical, chemical, and biological processes [20]. Without significantly altering the chemical or biological properties of the treated water, physical treatment unit operations solely rely on the physical separation of contaminants from water/wastewater [21]. Chemical treatments are known as additive procedures because additional chemicals are needed for them to interact with the intended pollutants and remove them, and the fundamental objective of biological unit procedures, which use microorganisms for the biodegradation of pollutants in water/wastewater, is to lower the organic content and nutrients in the water/wastewater [21].

Whatever type of water treatment process is used, it must be considered in a variety of situations, including the effectiveness of the technology, ease of implementation, environmental friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and skilled manpower required to run the technology.

Electrocoagulation (EC) is an electrochemical process for water and wastewater treatment that is based on electrochemically dissolving cationic metallic species in situ by oxidizing a sacrificial anode only with the application of electric current [22]. By using electrical energy to dissolve the metals from the electrode surface and destabilize colloidal suspensions, electrocoagulation causes pollutants to flocculate and float [23]. In comparison to traditional treatment methods, the electrocoagulation (EC) process is a promising and fairly environmentally friendly technology for the removal of contaminants from water and wastewater due to its ease of installation and operation; no need for chemical addition; relatively low operation; and maintenance cost; low sludge production; and high removal efficiency of pollutants [24]. Some studies were conducted on water treatment utilizing the electrocoagulation process under different operating parameters for the removal of arsenic [25, 26], fluoride [25], bromide [27, 28], sulfate [29], chromium [30], copper [31], and selenium [32].

Metal-based coagulants are the most often used chemical to support the flocculation-coagulation processes in the treatment of water and wastewater and they function admirably in the treatment of numerous water and wastewater kinds with distinct properties [33]. However, to attain green technology and sustainable processes, some researchers suggest using plant-based coagulants as an alternative to the widely used metal-based coagulant [34–38].

Natural coagulants used for water and wastewater treatment have numerous advantages [39], such as being eco-friendly; the flocculation technique is more cost-effective and efficient; it is a cheap and simple approach for developing nations; it does not affect water taste; it does not cause health problems; and the small amount of sludge that is precipitated is biodegradable and safe for human health and the environment.

Moringa oleifera is a type of natural coagulant used for the treatment of water and wastewater. An investigation was conducted into the water and wastewater treatment for the elimination of color, COD, BOD, dissolved oxygen, TSS, TDS, and turbidity [36, 39, 40]. In this study, the application of electrocoagulation and Moringa Oleifera on surface water treatment for the removal of color, TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), and phosphate was discussed separately.

Additionally, the removal efficiency of color, TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), and phosphate using Moringa Oleifera assisted electrocoagulation was studied. Furthermore, different factors that influence the removal efficiency of color, TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), and phosphate were discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Surface water supply was collected from the Awetu River, Jimma Zone, and Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Surface water was collected using the grab sampling technique for sampling, and was then kept in a refrigerator (4°C) to prevent changes in the quality of water. The materials used for this study were a beaker, magnetic stirrer (model RHB2), desiccator, drying oven, filter paper, COD reactor (Hatch 45600-02), COD digester, COD kit, BOD incubator, DO meter, electrode (Al-Al), DC-power supply (WYJ-o-15 V/5 A), spectrophotometer (model 6700), vacuum pump, vacuum hood, heaters, conical flasks, pH meter, standard flasks, Erlenmeyer flasks, measuring cylinder, plastic bottles, burettes, thermometer, funnel, suction flask, wash bottle, porcelain dish, weighing balance (model Pw-124), weighing balance (model Pw-124), filtration apparatus, graduated cylinder, turbidity meter (Wag-WT3020), pH meter (pH 3310), and ultraviolet (UV) lamp (model PUV-1022).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Experimental Procedure for Electrocoagulation Process

An experimental investigation was conducted at standard room pressure and temperature. As shown in Figure 1, an electrocoagulation process was used in a 1-liter glass beaker as an electrocoagulation cell. An aluminum electrode was used that has a dimension of 6 cm, 13 cm, and 0.2 cm for length, width, and thickness respectively. An effective surface area of the electrode was adjusted to 55 cm² throughout the experiments.

Once the water sample was added to the electrocoagulation cell, the EC cell was placed on a magnetic stirrer. A magnetic stirrer bar also placed inside the EC contains water samples that mix water samples based on the seed of the magnetic stirrer. An aluminum electrode was connected to an anode and cathode and then inserted into the electrocoagulation cell containing the water sample. The distance between electrodes was adjusted to 2 cm. Then, electrodes from the anode and cathode are connected to a DC-power supply with electrical wires. By adjusting all operating parameters (reaction time, pH, and current), the removal percentages of color, turbidity, TDS, COD, and phosphate were evaluated.

2.2.2. Experimental Procedure Using Moringa Oleifera

Moringa Oleifera seed powder was collected from a locally available market and its powder preparation was based on an experimental procedure. Moringa Oleifera seeds are first dried with sunlight to remove the moisture content. Mortar, pan, sieve, paper, and oven-dry were the instruments used for the preparation of Moringa Oleifera seed powder. Once the husks were removed from the Moringa Oleifera seeds, they were placed in a mortar and crushed, and then they were placed in an oven to dry with the using pan at 105°C for 7 hours [36]. Then, using a jar test, different water characteristics (% color, % turbidity, % TDS, % COD, and % phosphate) were evaluated after adjusting the dosage of Moringa Oleifera seed powder, pH, settling time, and contact time as shown in Figure 2.

2.2.3. Experimental Procedure of Moringa Oleifera Assisted EC Process

One of the practical methods for expanding the use and proving the efficacy of natural coagulants is to combine them with other treatment technologies, much like how traditional inorganic coagulants are combined with other processes. A relatively novel method for enhancing the overall performance of an integrated system is the use of natural coagulant (Moringa Oleifera seed) in conjunction with the EC process.

Some research was conducted in keeping one factor and evaluating the removal of different parameters from water, and investigating the effects of each factor separately [22, 36, 41] However, in this study, based on the adjusted values of factors either for the electrocoagulation process or Moringa Oleifera an experiment was conducted just uniformly with the increase of each factor without keeping one factor constant.

Moringa Oleifera-assisted EC process was performed similarly to the EC process as shown in Figure 1. But a different dosage of Moringa Oleifera seed powder (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 g) was added to the EC setup shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Analysis

Different empirical formulas were used for the analysis of surface water characteristics based on the initial and final concentrations of pollutants. The removal efficiencies of color [22], phosphate [42], TDS [43], COD [36, 44], and BOD [44] were calculated using equations ((1)–(5)).where, Abs_i and Abs_f are initial and final absorbance.where, C_i and C_t are initial and final phosphate registered at different times.where, C_o and C_f are initial and final concentration of TDS respectively.where, COD_i and COD_f are initial and final concentration of COD.where, BOD_i and BOD_f are the initial and final BOD measured at different time.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Removal Efficiency COD, BOD, TDS, Phosphate, TSS, and Color

The removal efficiency was evaluated for COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color from water using Moringa Oleifera as a coagulant, electrocoagulation process, and Moringa Oleifera-assisted electrocoagulation process. While using Moringa Oleifera seed powder, coagulant dosage (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 g), pH (5, 7, 9, and 11), contact time (20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes) and settling time (5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes) are considered as operating parameters on the removal efficiency. During the electrocoagulation process, the pH of surface water and contact time or reaction time is fixed to be the same as in the treatment process using the Moringa Oleifera process. However, the electric current applied was adjusted to 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 A.

At pH 5, the removal efficiency of COD (78.30%), BOD (70%), TDS (81.20%), phosphate (85%), TSS (87.50%), color (89%), and COD (80%), BOD (81%), TDS (94.20%), phosphate (81.20%), TSS (87%), and color (92.80%) using Moringa Oleifera and electrocoagulation processes, respectively. In this case, the dosage of Moringa Oleifera was 0.2 g at 20 minutes of contact time and 5 minutes of settling time. But the removal efficiency was achieved at 20 minutes of reaction time and 0.2 A of current with the electrocoagulation process. The removal percentages of TSS and phosphate were higher using Moringa Oleifera than in the electrocoagulation process, but the removal efficiency of COD, BOD, TDS, and color using electrocoagulation was higher than using Moringa Oleifera as a coagulant at pH 5.

Increasing the pH to 7 results in the increasing removal efficiency of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color using both the Moringa Oleifera and electrocoagulation processes. The removal percentages of COD (79.20%), BOD (74.30%), TDS (83.10%), phosphate (89.50%), TSS (91%), and color (92.70%) were removed with a dosage of 0.3 g of Moringa Oleifera at 30 minutes of contact time and 10 minutes of settling time. Similarly, using the EC process, when the reaction time was 30 minutes and the current applied was 0.3 A, the removal efficiency of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color were 87.30%, 83.10%, 83.10%, and 95.70%, 84.90%, 90.90%, and 94.50%, respectively. So, at pH 7, the higher removal efficiency was achieved for phosphate and TSS using Moringa Oleifera, and more COD, BOD, TDS, and color were also removed using the EC process.

When pH was 9, the removal efficiency of pollutants was increased, similar to at pH 5 and 7. The removal percentages of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color were increased to 81.89%, 76.90%, 83.52%, 93.28%, 92.50%, and 93%, respectively, using Moringa Oleifera. Similarly, with the application of the electrocoagulation process, the better removal efficiency was achieved for COD (89%), BOD (85.70%), TDS (93.50%), TSS (96.40%), and color (95.78%) compared to using Moringa Oleifera. However, in the case of phosphate removal, using Moringa Oleifera was better than utilizing the electrocoagulation process.

Another experiment was also conducted at pH 11 using Moringa Oleifera and the EC process. In both cases, good removal percentages of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color were achieved with the consideration of influencing parameters. Using Moringa Oleifera seed powder of 0.5 g, 50 minutes of contact time, and 20 minutes of settling time, 95.70% of phosphate and 94.50% of color were removed from surface water. The removal percentages for COD, BOD, TDS, and TSS were also good, even if they were not enough compared to using the EC process. Applying the EC process at pH 11, by increasing the current to 0.5 A and reaction time to 50 minutes, maximum removal efficiency of COD (90.50%), BOD (87%), TDS (97.50%), TSS (95.80%), and color (96.15%) compared to using Moringa Oleifera for COD (85.48%), BOD (78.50%), TDS (84.50%), TSS (93.90%), and color (94.50%).

Moringa Oleifera was found to have a high percentage of phosphate removed compared to the EC process at different influencing parameters. Similarly, at pH, 5, 7, 9, and 11, the EC process was effective in the removal of COD, BOD, TDS, and color relative to Moringa Oleifera seed powder.

Additional experiments were also conducted on the removal degree of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TDS, and color from surface water using the Moringa Oleifera enhanced electrocoagulation process. The investigation was conducted at pH (5, 7, 9, and 11), current (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 A), the dosage of Moringa Oleifera (0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 g), and reaction time of (20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes). Any water sample that contains more electric conductivity that undergoes an electrocoagulation process and better removal efficiency is enhanced. Sometimes, when water sample electric conductivity was lower, different types ofsupporting electrolytic such as Na₂SO₄, KCl, NaCl, and NaHCO₃ will be added to achieve better removal efficiency [45]. To increase electrolytic conductivity and prevent the formation of an oxide layer, minimize the ohmic drop, and therefore increase power density, a supportive electrolyte is added [45]. Regarding the relationship between pH and electrical conductivity, Electrical conductivity is a nonspecific measurement of the concentration of both positively and negatively charged ions in a sample, whereas pH measures a particular hydrogen ion. Hence, water contains more ions, indicating higher electrical conductivity, whether it may be in acidic or basic conditions. In this study, the electrical conductivity of water was not measured, and it directly focused on the pH, current, and Moringa Oleifera powder.

When pH was 5, 7, 9, and 11, the removal percentages of COD were 83.50%, 86.50%, 87.90%, and 91.47% at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 A, respectively. This was achieved at reaction times of electrocoagulation processes of 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes. In this case, the removal of COD is better than using the Moringa Oleifera assisted EC process than using the EC process and Moringa Oleifera.

Similarly, the removal percentage of BOD was 79.50%, 82.90%, 85.20%, and 89.35% at pH 5, 7, 9, and 11, respectively. These results were achieved at reaction times of 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes and with 02, 0.3, 04, and 0.5 A of current. When the pH was 11, the current was 0.5 A, the dosage of Moringa Oleifera was 0.5 g, and the reaction time was 50 minutes. Moringa Oleifera assisted EC process removed COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color up to 91.47%, 89.35%, 97.60%, 90.20%, 96.10%, and 95.70%, respectively.

In terms of general removal degree, the Moringa Oleifera-assisted EC process removes a higher percentage of COD, BOD, and TSS than the EC process and Moringa Oleifera alone. However, the highest removal percentages of phosphate were obtained using Moringa Oleifera, as well as for TDS and color, utilizing the EC process.

Generally, the application of Moringa Oleifera, electrocoagulation process, and Moringa Oleifera assisted EC process was effective for the removal of pollutants from surface water with consideration of different influencing parameters.

(c)

The good removal of contaminants from the water was achieved while the electric current was a progressive increase [22]. This can be observed that the rate of coagulant and bubble generation is determined by the applied current, and this can improve the effectiveness of pollutant removal [22].

4. Conclusions

Water treatment is a crucial task needed before a water supply for different purposes. The treatment technology and process must be effective while being selected from different perspectives. Moringa Oleifera seed is a natural coagulant that is used for the treatment of water and has numerous advantages relative to synthetic coagulants. Followed by the coagulation-flocculation process, Moringa Oleifera seed powder can remove pollutants from surface water. Dosage of Moringa Oleifera seed powder, pH, contact time, and settling time are the main factors considered to evaluate the removal of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), phosphate, TSS (Total Suspended Solids), and color, and the study showed that it was an effective process. Similarly, the EC process is also another simple technology for the treatment of water only with the application of electric current using sacrificial electrodes. With an electric current applied, pH, and reaction time as operating parameters, the EC process was effective in the elimination of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color from surface water.

Additionally, the Moringa Oleifera-assisted electrocoagulation (MOAEC) process is performed by the addition of Moringa Oleifera seed powder to the EC process. The study showed that the MOAEC process is effective in the removal efficiency of COD, BOD, TDS, phosphate, TSS, and color from surface water. Generally, Moringa Oleifera (MO), the electrocoagulation process (EC), and the Moringa Oleifera-assisted electrocoagulation process were all found to be effective methods for removing color, TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, and phosphate from surface water.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

S. C. Dendukuri and S. Asadi, “Estimation of water quality index by weighted arithmetic water quality index method: a model study,” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, vol. 8, no. 4, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Gopal, A. Shanmugasundaram, B. Nithya, N. S. Magesh, and M. Jayaprakash, “Water quality of the Uppanar estuary, Southern India: implications on the level of dissolved nutrients and trace elements,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 130, pp. 279–286, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ahmed, R. Madan, B. A. A. Amarah, and M. Naushad, “water quality assessment of shallow aquifer based on canadian council of ministers of the environment index and its impact on irrigation of Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh,” Journal of King Saud University Science, vol. 32, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Ebba, “Application of electrocoagulation for the removal of color from institutional wastewater: analysis with response surface methodology,” Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, vol. 9, pp. 470–479, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
M. G. Uddin, S. Nash, and A. I. Olbert, “A review of water quality index models and their use for assessing surface water quality,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 122, Article ID 107218, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Dinka, “Safe drinking water: concepts, benefits, principles and standards,” Water Challenges an Urbanizing World, IntechOpen, London, UK, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Soltani, A. Oukil, H. Boutaghane, A. Bermad, and M. R. Boulassel, “A new methodology for assessing water quality, based on data envelopment analysis: application to Algerian dams,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 121, Article ID 106952, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Liu, D. Ryu, J. A. Webb et al., “Characterisation of spatial variability in water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchments using multivariate statistical analysis,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 137, pp. 137–151, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Giri and A. K. Singh, “Assessment of surface water quality using heavy metal pollution index in Subarnarekha river, India,” Water Quality, Exposure and Health, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 173–182, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Mahapatra, M. Sahu, R. K. Patel, and B. N. Panda, “Prediction of water quality using principal component analysis,” Water Quality, Exposure and Health, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 93–104, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Rezaie-Balf, N. F. Attar, A. Mohammadzadeh et al., “Physicochemical parameters data assimilation for efficient improvement of water quality index prediction: comparative assessment of a noise suppression hybridization approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 271, Article ID 122576, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Deepa and S. Venkateswaran, “Appraisal of groundwater quality in upper Manimuktha sub basin, Vellar river, Tamil Nadu, India by using water quality index (WQI) and multivariate statistical techniques,” Modeling Earth Systems and Environment., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1165–1180, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gibrilla, E. K. P. Bam, D. Adomako et al., “Seasonal evaluation of raw, treated and distributed water quality from the Barekese dam (river offin) in the Ashanti region of Ghana,” Water Quality, Exposure and Health, vol. 3, no. 3-4, pp. 157–174, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hussein and J. Ajeet, “Evaluation of water quality of Al-Gharraf river using the water quality index (WQI),” Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, vol. 6, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
J. K. Chaudhary, “ScienceDirect a comparative study of fuzzy logic and WQI for groundwater a comparative study of fuzzy logic and WQI for groundwater quality assessment quality assessment,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 171, pp. 1194–1203, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. K. Biswas and C. Tortajada, “Water quality management: a globally neglected issue,” International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 913–916, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. R. Kelly, R. Cronk, E. Kumpel, G. Howard, and J. Bartram, “How we assess water safety: a critical review of sanitary inspection and water quality analysis,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 718, Article ID 137237, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Abtahi, N. Golchinpour, K. Yaghmaeian et al., “A modified drinking water quality index (DWQI) for assessing drinking source water quality in rural communities of Khuzestan Province, Iran,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 53, pp. 283–291, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Li and J. Wu, “Drinking water quality and public health,” Exposure and Health, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 73–79, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. L. Ang and A. W. Mohammad, “State of the art and sustainability of natural coagulants in water and wastewater treatment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 262, Article ID 121267, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Moussa, M. H. El-Naas, M. Nasser, and M. J. Al-Marri, “A comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water treatment: potentials and challenges,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 186, pp. 24–41, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ebba, P. Asaithambi, and E. Alemayehu, “Investigation on operating parameters and cost using an electrocoagulation process for wastewater treatment,” Applied Water Science, vol. 11, p. 175, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Syam Babu, K. Vijay, P. V. Nidheesh, and M. Suresh Kumar, “Performance of continuous aerated iron electrocoagulation process for arsenite removal from simulated groundwater and management of arsenic-iron sludge,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 47, Article ID 101476, 2021b.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Y. Goren, M. Kobya, and M. S. Oncel, “Arsenite removal from groundwater by aerated electrocoagulation reactor with Al ball electrodes: human health risk assessment,” Chemosphere, vol. 251, Article ID 126363, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. López-Guzmán, M. T. Alarcón-Herrera, J. R. Irigoyen-Campuzano, L. A. Torres-Castañón, and L. Reynoso-Cuevas, “Simultaneous removal of fluoride and arsenic from well water by electrocoagulation,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 678, pp. 181–187, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Syam Babu, P. V. Nidheesh, and M. Suresh Kumar, “Arsenite removal from aqueous solution by aerated iron electrocoagulation process,” Separation Science and Technology, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 184–193, 2021a.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A Al-Raad, M. M. Hanafiah, A. S. Naje et al., “Treatment of saline water using electrocoagulation with combined electrical connection of electrodes,” Processes, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 242, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Li, J. Wu, T. Yong, Y. Fei, and J. Qi, “Investigation of bromide removal and bromate minimization of membrane capacitive deionization for drinking water treatment,” Chemosphere, vol. 280, Article ID 130857, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Y. Goren and M. Kobya, “Arsenic removal from groundwater using an aerated electrocoagulation reactor with 3D Al electrodes in the presence of anions,” Chemosphere, vol. 263, Article ID 128253, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Wang, Q. Shen, J. Xue et al., “3D hierarchically porous NiO/NF electrode for the removal of chromium(VI) from wastewater by electrocoagulation,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 402, Article ID 126151, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kim, T.-K. Kim, and K.-D. Zoh, “Removal mechanism of heavy metal (Cu, Ni, Zn, and Cr) in the presence of cyanide during electrocoagulation using Fe and Al electrodes,” Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 33, Article ID 101109, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. K. Hansen, S. F. Peña, C. Gutiérrez, A. Lazo, P. Lazo, and L. M. Ottosen, “Selenium removal from petroleum refinery wastewater using an electrocoagulation technique,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 364, pp. 78–81, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ahmad, S. B. Kurniawan, J. Ahmad et al., “Dosage-based application versus ratio-based approach for metal-and plant-based coagulants in wastewater treatment: merits, limitations, and applicability,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 334, Article ID 130245, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. Alam, P. Pandey, F. Khan, B. Souayeh, and M. Farhan, “Study to investigate the potential of combined extract of leaves and seeds of moringa oleifera in groundwater purification,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 7468–7513, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. P. Camacho, V. S. Sousa, R. Bergamasco, and M. Ribau Teixeira, “The use of Moringa oleifera as a natural coagulant in surface water treatment,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 313, pp. 226–237, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Desta and M. E. Bote, “Wastewater treatment using a natural coagulant (Moringa oleifera seeds): optimization through response surface methodology,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 11, Article ID e08451, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. I. Gandiwa, L. B. Moyo, S. Ncube, T. A. Mamvura, L. L. Mguni, and N. Hlabangana, “Optimisation of using a blend of plant based natural and synthetic coagulants for water treatment: (Moringa Oleifera-Cactus opuntia-alum blend),” South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 34, pp. 158–164, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Scholes, K. Adenike, and O. Aderonke, “Heliyon Efficacy of a natural coagulant protein from Moringa oleifera (Lam) seeds in treatment of Opa reservoir water, Ile-Ife, Nigeria,” Heliyon, vol. 6, Article ID e03335, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Prabhakaran, M. Manikandan, and M. Boopathi, “Treatment of textile effluents by using natural coagulants,” Materials Today Proceedings, vol. 33, pp. 3000–3004, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. C. Shan, M. Al Matar, E. A. Makky, and E. N. Ali, “The use of Moringa oleifera seed as a natural coagulant for wastewater treatment and heavy metals removal,” Applied Water Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1369–1376, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Varkey, “Purification of river water using Moringa Oleifera seed and copper for point-of-use household application,” Scientific African, vol. 8, Article ID e00364, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sun, M. Gao, Y. Wang et al., “Phosphate removal via biological process coupling with hydroxyapatite crystallization in alternating anaerobic/aerobic biofilter reactor,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 326, Article ID 124728, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Das, L. R. Varghese, and N. Das, “Enhanced TDS removal using cyclodextrinated, sulfonated and aminated forms of bead-membrane duo nanobiocomposite via sophorolipid mediated complexation,” Desalination, vol. 360, pp. 35–44, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. Soto, C. A. Diaz, A. M. Zapata, and J. C. Higuita, “BOD and COD removal in vinasses from sugarcane alcoholic distillation by Chlorella vulgaris: environmental evaluation,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 176, Article ID 108191, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Nidheesh, F. M. Khan, A. Kadier, J. Akansha, M. E. Bote, and M. Mousazadeh, “Removal of nutrients and other emerging inorganic contaminants from water and wastewater by electrocoagulation process,” Chemosphere, vol. 307, Article ID 135756, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bener, Ö. Bulca, B. Palas, G. Tekin, S. Atalay, and G. Ersöz, “Electrocoagulation process for the treatment of real textile wastewater: effect of operative conditions on the organic carbon removal and kinetic study,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 129, pp. 47–54, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Ueda Yamaguchi, L. F. Cusioli, H. B. Quesada et al., “A review of Moringa oleifera seeds in water treatment: trends and future challenges,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 147, pp. 405–420, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yazici Guvenc, K. Dincer, and G. Varank, “Performance of electrocoagulation and electro-fenton processes for treatment of nanofiltration concentrate of biologically stabilized landfill leachate,” Journal of Water Process Engineering, vol. 31, Article ID 100863, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Bote and W. M. Desta, “Removal of turbidity from domestic wastewater using electrocoagulation: optimization with response surface methodology,” Chemistry Africa, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 123–134, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Tofik Gali Aba Lulesa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies