!

$%$&$'

! " #
97
 Presentation Outline

• EF – background on applied processes and

research status

• EF – description of process, chemical reactions

• Results

• Conclusions

• Applications

98
 Electrochemical Processes
Historical Overview

• Generation of chlorine for deodorizing and

disinfecting - as early as 1887

• Separation of oil in wastewater – 1903

• Electrolytic sludge treatment plants in Santa

Monica, California and Oklahoma – 1911

• Electroflotation was introduced into the mining

and metal processing industries - early 1900’s

• Removal of color using aluminium electrodes

(Stuart, 1946) 99
 Applications of Electrochemical
Processes Today

• Paper and pulp industries

• Mining and metal-processing industries
• Treatment of:
• oil wastes
• dyes
• suspended particles
• chemical and mechanical polishing
waste
• synthetic detergents

100
 Research Objectives
• Elucidate the mechanisms of coagulation
and flocculation in EF while relating
changes in suspension characteristics, floc
evolution and floc morphology to
operational parameters

• Compare the fundamental chemical and

physical mechanisms of the EF process to
the conventional coagulation-flocculation
mechanisms

• Test EF as an effective pre-treatment to

membrane filtration
101
 EF
Definition
A coagulation/flocculation process in which
the coagulant is generated in situ by
electrolytic oxidation of an appropriate anode
material (usually aluminum or iron)

In this process, as in standard coagulation,

colloidal solids, metals and soluble inorganic
pollutants can be removed by destabilization
mechanisms
102
 Why EF?
Advantages:

• Avoids use of chemicals, no neutralization

of chemicals is needed = no secondary
pollution

• Electrolytic processes controlled

electrically, without moving parts = less
maintenance = low OPEX

• CAPEX is relatively low

103
Disadvantages:

• The anodes undergo oxidation = need to

be regularly replaced

• Passivation of the cathode occurs by

formation of impermeable oxide film =
loss of efficiency of the process

• Electricity may be expensive in some

places

104
 Reactions in EF Cell

Aluminum:

anode reactions:

Al(s) Al+3(aq) + 3e- E0=1.66V

2H2O O2(g) + 4H+(aq) + 4e- E0=-1.229V

cathode reactions:

2H2O + 2e- H2(g) + 2OH-(aq) E0=-0.83V

105
 Aluminum Mononuclear Complexes

(1) Al+3(aq) + H2O AlOH+2(aq) + H+(aq)

(2) AlOH+2(aq) + H2O Al(OH)2+(aq) + H+(aq)

(3) Al(OH)2+(aq) + H2O Al(OH)3(s) + H+(aq)

(4) Al(OH)3(s) + H2O Al(OH)4-(aq) + H+(aq)

106
Aluminum Solubility Diagram

107
 Floc Evolution and Morphology

• Explore the changes in suspension

characteristics after application of EF

• Examine the size and structural

evolution of resulting aggregates/flocs

108
 Floc Morphology

• Fractal Dimension (2D or 3D analysis)

• Scattering Exponent (3D analysis)

109
 Materials and Methods
Floc evolution in EF
Suspension:
Kaolinite (60mg/l, in distilled water). 83mg/l
bicarbonate, pH corrected with NaOH or
H2SO4 to achieve values of 5, 6.5, 8 and
conductivity corrected to 1mS/cm with NaNO3
Analyses
• Floc size and structure – Malvern Mastersizer
Microplus (uses Mie theory for scattering pattern).
• Image Analysis – Olympus Stereoscope SZX12.
• ζ potential – Malvern Zetamaster S
• pH
110
 Results
No substantial floc formation at pH 8
Particle Size Distributions
14 12
0 min (kaolin)
12 0.042A, pH 5 3 min 10
0.22A, pH 5 0 min (kaolin)

3 min
10
6 min
volume %

8 6 min
8

volume %
10 min 10 min
6 6
15 min 15 min
4 4
2
2
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 0
µ m)
size (µ 0.1 1 10 100 1000
size (µ
µm)

12 16
0 min (kaolin) 0 min (kaolin)
10 0.042A, pH 6.5 3 min
14
0.22A, pH 6.5 3 min
12
6 min 6 min
8
volume %

10
volume %

10 min 10 min
6 8
15 min 15 min
4 6

2 4

2
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 0
size (µ 0.1 1 10 100 1000
µm)
size (µm)

111
 pH

pH 5 pH 6.5
6.2 7.5
0.042A 0.042A
6 7.3
0.11A 0.11A
5.8
0.22A 7.1
0.22A
5.6
pH

pH
6.9
5.4
5.2 6.7

5 6.5
0 3 6 10 15 0 3 6 10 15
time (min) time (min)

112
ζ potential

30
0.042A (pH 6.5)
0.11A, pH(6.5)
20
0.22A, pH (6.5)
10 0.042A (pH 5)
0.11A (pH 5)
ζ potential (m V)

0 0.22A (pH 5)
0 5 10 15 20
-10

-20

-30

-40
time (min)

113
 Floc Growth Stages
0.042A, pH 5 0.22A, pH 5
300 300
0.197mA/cm^2
250 4.12mA/cm^2
250
0.78mA/cm^2
1.03mA/cm^2
200 200
D(v,0.5)

D(v, 0.5)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (min) time (min)

0.042A, pH 6.5 0.22A, pH 6.5

300 300
4.12mA/cm^2
0.197mA/cm^2 250
250
1.03mA/cm^2
0.78mA/cm^2
200 200
D(v, 0.5)
D( v, 0 .5)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (m in)
time (min)

114
In the growth stages (induction and exponential), before
transition to a steady state due to fragmentation, the
relationship between the volume mean diameter and time
can be written as:

D(V,0.5) = Kebt
K is a fitting parameter.
b is the growth factor, dependent on the unique
flocculation conditions.
Initial
b (0.042A) R2 b (0.11A) R2 b (0.22A) R2
pH

5.0 0.236 0.98 0.303 0.92 0.381 0.99

6.5 0.297 0.98 0.329 0.94 0.528 0.99

115
Dependency of Growth Factor on
Current for Different pH Values
0.6
pH 5
0.5
y = 1.3466x + 0.2177 pH 6.5
2
R = 0.9339
0.4
b (arb)

0.3
y = 0.8045x + 0.2069
0.2 R2 = 0.9916

0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
current (A)

116
Scattering Exponent

SE, pH 6.5 SE, pH 5

Time
(min) 0.042A 0.11A 0.22A 0.042A 0.11A 0.22A

3 1.83+0.04 1.78+0.02 1.77+0.02 1.75+0.06 1.86+0.02 1.78+0.03

6 1.93+0.01 1.95+0.01 1.78+0.01 1.78+0.02 1.81+0.02 1.84+0.02

10 1.89+0.01 1.88+0.02 1.81+0.02 1.88+0.01 1.90+0.01 1.87+0.02

15 1.93+0.01 1.93+0.01 1.86+0.01 1.87+0.01 1.87+0.01 1.87+0.02

117
 Floc Images
a c

b d

pH 6.5 a. 0.042A, t=6min b. 0.22A, t=6min c. 0.042A,

t=10min d. 0.22A, t=10min
118
Evolution of Volume Mean Diameter at pH 6.5
EF vs. CF

300
30mg/l alum

250 80mg/l alum

160mg/l alum

200 0.042A
0.11A
d(V,0.5 )

150 0.22A

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20
time (min)
119
 ζ potential, pH 6.5
EF vs. CF

30
0.042A

20 0.11A
0.22A
10
30mg/l alum
ζ potential (mV)

0 80mg/l alum
0 5 10 15 20 160mg/l alum
-10

-20

-30

-40
time (min)

120
Scattering Exponent, pH 6.5
EF vs. CF
SE
Time
(min) 30mg/l 0.042 A 80 mg/l 0.011A 160 mg/l 0.22A

3 1.99+0.03 1.83 + 0.04 1.87+0.02 1.78 + 0.02 1.81+0.03 1.77 + 0.02

6 1.91+0.02 1.93 + 0.01 1.89+0.01 1.95 + 0.01 1.84+0.01 1.78 + 0.01

10 1.83+0.01 1.89 + 0.02 1.82+0.01 1.88 + 0.02 1.84+0.01 1.81 + 0.02

15 1.78+0.02 1.93 + 0.01 1.84+0.01 1.93 + 0.01 1.86+0.01 1.86 + 0.01

121
Conclusions

• EF cannot be considered an "equivalent" process to

CF.

• The final pH in EF will always be higher than the initial

pH, thus differing from CF in which a decrease in pH
occurs.

• EF is a versatile process exhibiting a wider sweep floc

regime than CF, and is able to produce a wider range of
floc "types" depending on conditions of operation.

122
Conclusions - cont.
• The flocculation rate in EF is generally higher than in
CF. Growth rate is dependent on absolute current
rather than current density, with higher growth rates
obtained for higher currents. This dependency is
increased in optimal aluminum hydroxide
precipitation conditions.

• The floc structures formed in EF are initially more

porous and fragile than those formed in CF. They are
more susceptible to shear stress, and therefore more
prone to compaction and restructuring.

• For optimal sweep floc conditions, the flocculation

mechanism in EF is of a diffusion limited type while in
CF it is more of a reaction limited nature.
123
 EF “sweep floc”
-3.5 2+ 100 -3.5 2+ zone 100
Al(OH) Al(OH)
-4.5 30 -4.5 30
CF
-5.5 Sweep 10 -5.5 Sweep 10

Log [Al] - mol/L

Log [Al] - mol/L

Coagulation Coagulation

Alum - mg/L
Alum - mg/L
-6.5 3 -6.5 3
Charge Charge
Neutralization Al(OH) Neutralization Al(OH)
-7.5 1 -7.5 1
Restabilization Zone Restabilization Zone
(boundaries vary with (boundaries vary with
-8.5 different waters) 0.3 -8.5 different waters) 0.3
Al TOTAL Al TOTAL

4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9
pH of Mixed Solution pH of Mixed Solution

124
 Applications

• Pretreatment to membrane filtration –

MF/UF, dead-end configuration.

• Flocculation combined with air flotation –

for flocculation in waters containing oils.

• Metals removal – heavy metal treatment

125
Thank you for your attention

126
Electro-flocculation as Pretreatment
for Microfiltration

Moshe Ben-Sasson & Avner Adin

The Department of Soil and Water Sciences

Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

127

EF-CW Workshop, Tel-Aviv 19.12.2010

Outlines
1. Scientific background
2. Research objectives
3. Materials and methods
4. Results and discussion
Filtration of colloidal silica
Filtration of Secondary effluents
Filtration of dissolved organic matter
5. Conclusions

128
Scientific background:
Membrane fouling

129
Scientific background:
Fouling mitigation by chemical coagulation

Fouling mitigation mechanisms:

Prevention of the internal fouling
Decreasing the external fouling
Increasing the backtransport rates

a) Dead end filtration mode, b) Crossflow filtration mode (Chen et al., 2005)
130
Scientific background:
Electroflocculation (EF)

131
Scientific background:
Electroflocculation (EF)

Aluminum EF
CrossFlow-MF - Pouet and Grasmick, (1994), observed significant
improvement, but the operational conditions were not
given.
DeadEnd-UF – Harif et al., (2006) – observed 20% higher fluxes due
to EF pretreatment.

Iron EF
CrossFlow-MF - Al-Malack et al., (2004), EF pretreatment had
marginal effect on filtration performance.
DeadEnd-MF - Bagga et al., (2008), EF pretreatment had marginal
effect on filtration performance.
132
 Research objectives:

To study the effects of electroflocculation pretreatment on

DeadEnd microfiltration
Research questions:
• How much energy can be saved by using the hybrid process
(EF+MF)?

• What are the operational optimum conditions (pH, electric current

intensity)?

• How EF effects each type of fouling mechanism (internal and

external)? 133

• What are the EF effects on MF removal abilities of colloids?

Material and Methods:
The membrane system

B
D

A
F

Membrane system: A -N2 pressure balloon, B -pressure regulator-, C – supply chamber, D - membrane
cell, E- technical balance, E – data processing computer.
134
 Material and Methods:
Feed solution and EF process

Basic solution – 2 L of highly pure water + 1 g/L NaHCO3 + 0.2 g/L

NaNO3.

pH – different doses of HNO3 to give pH values of 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8.

Constant EF electric current – 0.4 A.

EF operation time – 0,1,2,4,6 min (equivalent to doses of 0-6.75 mg/L

aluminum and 0-3.38 mg/L iron).

Slow mixing time – 20 min.

135
 Material and Methods:
Filtration energy

In constant pressure filtration mode : t t

E = ∫ JA ∆ Pdt
0
=∆ P ∫ JAdt =∆ PV
0

Where P– pressure (Pa) , J– flux (m/s), A – membrane surface area (m2), E -

consumed energy (J) and V- filtered volume of solution (m3).

W ith o u t E F
4

F lu x (m /h o u r)
3
W ith E F

EF=Electroflocculation 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
136 F iltra tio n tim e (s e c )
Material and Methods:
Filtration energy
Step 1: finding the fouling coefficients (Km, Kc, D) of the solution
untreated by EF.

∆P
J (t ) = t
R0
t
+ Kc ∫ Jdt
t
∫ Jdt 0
− 0

1 − K m ∫ ( Jl D
) dt
5
0
4

F lu x (m /h o u r)
Raw data
Kuberkar and Davis model (2001) 3 Model
2
1
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Time (sec)
137
Material and Methods:
Filtration energy
Step 2: reconstruction the filtration curve of the untreated suspension by using
the fouling parameters which were found in the first step.

Calculation of what should be the needed operation pressure ( ∆P * ) so that

untreated suspension will have the same filtration time as EF treated
suspension.

14
12 Raw data - without EF V∆P ∗ ∆P ∗
EnergyRatio = =
F lu x ( m /h o u r )

10
8
Raw data - with EF
V∆P0 ∆P0
6 Model
4
∆P * Calculated pressure of the
2 untreated solution
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 ∆ P0 The operational pressure

Time (sec) 138

Material and Methods:
Energy ratio

V∆P ∗ ∆P ∗
EnergyRatio = =
V∆P0 ∆P0

The ratio between the filtration energy of the

untreated solution to the filtration energy of the
treated by EF solution, when they had the same
filtration time.

∆P * Calculated pressure of the

untreated solution

∆ P0 The operational pressure

139
 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica

Membrane: Polycarbonate membrane with pore size of 100 nm.

Fouling mechanisms:

Internal fouling experimental set: silica particles, 3 mg/L, size of 12 nm.

External fouling experimental set: silica particles, 50 mg/L, size of 500 nm.

140
 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica –
aluminum based EF

Internal fouling experimental set

EF operation 5
0 m in 0 .5 m in
time 4
1 m in 2 m in

Flux (m /hour)
3
pH 6.5 4 m in
5 2
0 m in 0 .5 m in
4 1
1 m in 2 m in
Flux (m /hour)

3 0

2
pH 7.5 4 m in 6 m in 0 5000 10000 15000
F iltra tio n tim e (s e c )
20000 25000

1
The filtrated volume in all the
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
experiments was 1.9 L
F iltra tio n tim e (s e c )

141
 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica –
aluminum based EF

External fouling experimental set

EF operation 5
0 m in 0 .5 m in

time 4
1 m in 2 m in

Flux (m /s e c )
3 4 m in

5 pH 6.5
0 m in 1 m in
2

4
2 m in 4 m in 1
F lu x (m /h ou r)

3
6 m in 0

2
pH 7.5 0 5000 10000 15000
F iltra tio n tim e (s e c )
1

0 The filtrated volume in all the

0 5000 10000 15000
experiments was 1.9 L
F iltra tio n tim e (s e c )

142
 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica –
aluminum based EF

Energy ratio:
10 Internal fouling 10
p H6 p H6 .5 External fouling p H6 p H6 .5

8 p H7 p H7 .5
8
p H7 p H7 .5
E n e r g y r a t io

p H8

E n e r g y r a t io
6 6 p H8

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
E F ope ration tim e (m in) E F ope ra tion tim e (m in)

143
 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica –
aluminum based EF
SEM pictures of the membrane surface after filtration (pH 6.5)
5 micrometer Internal, 5 micrometer Internal, 1 min
No EF EF

5 micrometer External, 5 micrometer External, 4 min

No EF EF

Conclusion: Sweep coagulation is144the effective flocculation mechanism

 Results:
Filtration of colloidal silica – cleaning

Flux restoration after cleaning (in %)

Iron EF Aluminum EF No EF

pH 7.5 pH 6.5 pH 7.5 pH 6.5 pH 7.5 pH 6.5

Internal
96 97 102 93 10 5.5 exp.
External
93 91 100 91 59 33 exp.

Conclusions: EF pretreatment can: 1) lower the cleaning costs of the

membrane, 2) enhance the membrane life expectancy, 3) Decrease
145
the biological fouling intensity.
Results:
Filtration of secondary effluents (with Dr. Yuemei
Lin)

100000 100000

A B
UF-10KDa UF-100KDa
Filtration time (sec)
80000 80000

Filtration 60000 60000

times 40000
42360
40000
15420 14790 15480 17940
20000 20000
6940 5280 4230
0 0
0 1 2 4 0 1 2 4
EF operation time (min) EF operation time (min)

100000
UF- UF- MF
C
MF 10KDa 100KDa
Filtration time (sec)

80000

60000
Effluents 2.5 6.5 17.8
40000

19320 Effluents 1.4 1.5 12.4

20000
+Wet-land
820 600 530
0
Effluents 2.9 4.2 36.5
0 1 2 4
EF operation time (min) +Wet-land
146

+Polishing pond
Results:
Filtration of secondary effluents (with Dr. Yuemei
Lin)

SEM pictures:

2 µm No EF 2 µm 4 min EF

147
 Results:
Filtration of secondary effluents
(with Mrs. Rivka Calvo and Mr. Yehoyada Zidon)
100 100
Al – pH 6 82 79 Fe – pH 6 81
80 70 80
65 68
59 59
% re m ov a l

% re m ov a l
60 60

40 40
20 20
20 20

0 0
MF MF+EF4min MF+EF8min MF+EF12min 100KDa MF MF+EF4min MF+EF8min MF+EF12min 100KDa

50000
44000

40000
Filtration time (sec)

30000
20000
20000

8640 1670 3310 3850 1310 1500

10000

0
MF 4Al 8Al 148
12Al 4Fe 8Fe 12Fe UF
 Conclusions

• Pretreatments by aluminum or iron based MF can significantly

minimize (up to 90%) filtration energy consumption in dead-end MF.

• EF pretreatment may lowers the energy and the water consumption in

the cleaning procedure and leads to longer life expectancy of the
membrane.

• Hybrid EF+MF can be alternative filtration process to UF.

• Hybrid EF+MF is attractive process

149 for secondary effluent polishing.
 EF-CW Workshop, Tel Aviv, 19.12.2010

Electroflocculation - constructed
wetland hybrid for phosphate removal in
effluent reuse
A. Adin, A. Barash, K. Ozer, D. Milstein, A.
Gasith
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
and Tel-Aviv University, Israel

150
 Outline
•Introduction: CF, EF and CW
•Research objectives
•Materials and methods: bench and
field pilot scale
•Results: bench scale and field pilot
scale
•Conclusions
151
Chemical flocculation
Major flocculants:
Al2(SO4)3.14H2O (Alum)

FeCl3.6H2O

Al+3 Alm(OH)n+/-
Fe+2/3 Fem(OH)n+/-
152
Electroflocculation
- +
Al+3
OH- Aluminum:
O2(g)
anode reactions:
H2(g) Al(s)ÆAl+3(aq)+3e-2H2O
ÆO2(g)+4H+(aq)+e-

cathode reactions:
2H2O+2e-
Anode Cathode ÆH2(g)+2OH-(aq)
(Al/Fe) (Stainless
Steel)
153

Oxidation of a metal anode with electric current

Aluminum Solubility Diagram
Al+3

Al(OH)3(s)
Al(OH)+2
Al(OH)4-

Al(OH)2+

Hydroxide formation at cathode

154
Faraday’s law
i*t*M
W=
Z*F
W= Fe dissolving (g Fe cm-2)
i= current density (A cm-1)
t= time
M= molecular weight of Fe (M=56)
Z= number of electrons involved in the
oxidation/ reduction reaction (Z=3 or 2)

F= Faraday’s constant (96,500)

155
Electrofloculation
(EF)
• Prevents
salination
• Simple operation
• Modular
• Small footprint
•Low energy
•Low cost 156
Constructed
Wetland (CW)

157
 Main objective
To evaluate the efficiency of EF-
filtration in nutrients and particle
removal in comparison with
known abilities of constructed
wetland
158
 Specific aims
1. Optimizing phosphorous and particles
removal
2. Study the effect of EF on water quality
as a pre/post treatment to the wetland
system
3. To evaluate possible integration
in a wastewater treatment plant
159
 Phase I
• Bench type EF-GF unit
• CW-EF-GF Vs EF-GF-CW
• Turbidity ,Particles (PSD) ,TOC, DOC ,P,
Residual Fe/Al

160
 wastewater inlet

A lab
Automatic

EF-
control

CW EF continuous cell

DC power supply

unit

Sand filter 1
mm

wetland Wetland
Basalt bed Dolomite bed

161 Effluent
 Phase II
• Constructing a pilot EF unit

• Optimizing for phosphorous removal

• Continuous flow of treated wastewater

from EF to a CW pond.

The EFector
(Treatec21 Industries Ltd.
162
Solor Group - Israel)
 'EFector'

Holding tank
Sand
filter
Control panel

Effluent
to CW
Air compressor
Influent
163
 CW basins data
Two ponds in series
The upper pond – EFector level:
5.5 m X 5.5 m X 0.7 m

• The second, lower pond

6.5 m X 5.2 m X 0.7 m

Bed layers: Basalt and dolomite

Vegetation: Cyperus papyrus, Canna sp., Iris

pseudoacorus, Phragmites australis and
Juncus ensifolius. By the third year
Cyperus papyrus dominated the system.
164
 Lab system results
Inlet % Removal Outlet
CW concentration concentration
Turbidity (NTU) 2-6.9 20-70 1-2
Phosphate (mg/L) 4.5-6.2 Up to 18 3-5
Organic matter 9.8-21.3 25-85 2-11
(mg/L)
Particles 5500-27000 13-98 1000-7000
(2-17µm size)

Inlet % Removal Outlet

EF-GF concentration concentration
Turbidity (NTU) 0.5-4.4 25-86 0.4-1

Phosphate (mg/L) 2.8-10.1 51-96 0.4-8.5

Organic matter 7.6-16.2 4-10 10-17
(mg/L)
165
Particles 5800-29000 93-99 300-2000
 Phase I conclusions
• EF-GF-CW is favorable to CW-EF-GF

• Efficient removal of P, Fe, Turbidity

• Partial removal – DOC and particles (>2

µm)

166
 Phase II – Influent
Turbidity – 2.0-3.5 NTU Temp – 20-25 0c

TOC – 10-12 mg/L pH – 7.5-8

DOC – 12-15 mg/L Conductivity – 1700-

1900 µMHO/cm
TSS – 3-10 mg/L

Phosphorous – 1-3 mg/L

167

Flow rate – 1.5 m3/Hr

 Phase II results - CW
Parameter Removal (%) Final concentration
(mg/l)
BOD 63±16 2.3±1

TSS 67±20 1.5±0.9

NH4-N 93.2±5.5 0.15±0.12

NO3-N -211.2±237.9 1.9±1.45

PO4-P -11.3±49.3 1.3±0.6

168
Phase II results - Combos
% %
Inlet % %
Removal Removal
concent- Removal Removal
EF-GF- CW-EF-
ration EF-GF CW
CW GF
2-4.5
Turbidity 0-30 80-85 17-38 28-53
NTU
Phospho 1-3
83-97 18-20 44-84 86-94
rous mg/L
10-15
TOC 11-24 22-25 21-27 22-53
mg/L
3-10
TSS 18-22 35-45 33-58 66-82
mg/L 169
 Phosphorous removal from
Shafdan secondary effluent
100

80
removal (%)

60

40

20

0
CW EF-GF

5 ppm 10 ppm 12 ppm 12.5 15 ppm CW

170

C0 = 1- 3 mg/L , standard: 1 mg/L

 Phosphorus removal by CW-EF
system
(Co = 1-3 mg/L)

100

80
Removal (%)

60

40

20

0
171
CW EF-GF EF-GF-CW CW-EF-GF
 TSS removal by CW-EF system
(Co = 3-10 mg/L)

100

80
Removal (%)

60

40

20

0
172
EF-GF CW EF-GF-CW CW-EF-GF
 Turbidity removal by CW-EF
system (Co = 2-4 NTU)
100

80
Removal (%)

60

40

20

0
EF-GF CW
173
EF-GF-CW CW-EF-GF
 Residual turbidity in Shafdan
treated effluent
10

Rsidual turbidity [NTU]

8

0
EF-GF EF-GF-CW

1 ppm 5 ppm 9 ppm CW 10 ppm 12 ppm 15 ppm

174

C0 = 2.0 - 4.5 NTU

 Turbidity removal from EF by
granular filtration
100

80
removal (%)
60

40

20

0
GF
5 ppm 9 ppm 10 ppm 15 ppm
175

C0 = 50 - 90 NTU
TOC removal by CW-EF system
(Co = 9-13 mg/L)

100

80
Removal (%)

60

40

20

0
176
EF-GF CW EF-GF-CW CW-EF-GF
conclusions
• EFector: removes P

efficiently

• CW: removes turbidity

efficiently

• EF and CW compliment each other

• Turbidity does not predict P removal

177
 Future work
• Better understanding of electrocoagulation
mechanisms, iron species and their fate in
particular.
• Improving colloids removal
• Modeling EF hybrid processes, eg EF-UF
• Chromium removal from contaminated wells

178
Thank you!

179
Electroflocculation - constructed
wetland hybrid: The Manual
A. Adin, Y. Lin, A. Barash, L. Rubinstein, K.
Ozer,
N. Vescan, D. Milstein, A. Gasith
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
and Tel-Aviv University, Israel

180
 Outline
•Manual objectives
Manual contents
•Application notes

181
 Manual objectives

•Provide a user guide of a hybrid system of

constructed wetland- electroflocculation
polishing secondary effluent of municipal
wastewater treatment plant.

•Demonstrate how to calibrate, operate and

maintain this hybrid system based on
wastewater characterization and its application.

Next: Research results

182
 Manual contents

•Operator’s and management’s responsibilities

•Description of the unit processes
•Treatment requirements
•System general and more detailed design
•System operation and product quality control
•Maintenance program and safety measures
•FAQ – potential operational problems/solutions.

183
Application notes

Manual to be used by
•City and consulting engineers
•Plant operators
•students and researchers
•Strategic planners and decision makers
looking for sustainable solutions

•Dissemination by virtual bookstores,

seminars, workshops and demonstrations.
184
Thank you! Let’s SWITCH to water!

185
 APPENDIX B

WP 3.3.3 REFEREED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

1. Harif. T., Hai. M., and Adin, A., Electroflocculation as potential pretreatment
in colloid ultrafiltration. Water Supply, 6(1):69-78 (2006).
2. Harif, T., and Adin, A. Characteristics of aggregates formed by electroflocculation of a
colloidal suspension. Water Research, 41(13):2951-61 (2007).
3. Sun, L., Miznikov, E., Wang, L., and Adin, A. Nickel removal from wastewater by
electroflocculation-filtration hybridization. Desalination, 249 (2):832-836 (2009).
4. Ben-Sasson M., Calmano W., Adin A., Iron oxidation processes in electroflocculation
(electrocoagulation) cell, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 171, 704-709 (2009).
5. Ben-Sasson M., Adin A., Fouling mechanisms and energy appraisal in microfiltration
pretreated by aluminum based electroflocculation, Journal of Membrane Science, 352(1), 86-
94 ( 2010) .
6. Ben-Sasson M., Adin A., Fouling mitigation by iron-based electroflocculation in
microfiltration: mechanisms and energy minimization. Water Research, 44(13), 3973-3981
(2010).

186