This article was downloaded by: [CERIST]

On: 01 January 2014, At: 14:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B:

Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lesb20

The efficiency of electrocoagulation in treating

wastewater from a dairy industry, Part I: Iron
electrodes
a a
Gerson Freitas Silva Valente , Regina Célia Santos Mendonça , José Antonio Marques
a b
Pereira & Leonardo Bonato Felix
a
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos , Universidade Federal de Viçosa , Viçosa ,
Brazil
b
Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica , Universidade Federal de Viçosa , Viçosa , Brazil
Published online: 19 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Gerson Freitas Silva Valente , Regina Célia Santos Mendonça , José Antonio Marques Pereira & Leonardo
Bonato Felix (2012) The efficiency of electrocoagulation in treating wastewater from a dairy industry, Part I: Iron electrodes,
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B: Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, 47:4, 355-361,
DOI: 10.1080/03601234.2012.646174

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2012.646174

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B (2012) 47, 355–361
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0360-1234 (Print); 1532-4109 (Online)

DOI: 10.1080/03601234.2012.646174

The efficiency of electrocoagulation in treating wastewater

from a dairy industry, Part I: Iron electrodes

GERSON FREITAS SILVA VALENTE1, REGINA CÉLIA SANTOS MENDONÇA1, JOSÉ ANTONIO
MARQUES PEREIRA1 and LEONARDO BONATO FELIX2
1
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
2
Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil

Iron electrodes were used for electrocoagulation (EC) treatment of wastewater from a dairy plant. Electrolysis time, pH, current
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

density and distance between electrodes were considered to assess the removal efficiency of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
solids (TS) and their fractions and turbidity. Samples were collected from the effluent of a dairy plant using a sampling methodology
proportional to the flow. The treatments were applied according to design factorial of half fraction with two levels of treatments and
three repetitions at the central point. The optimization of parameters for treating dairy industry effluent by electrocoagulation using
iron electrodes showed that electric current application for 15 minutes, an initial sample pH close to neutral (pH 7.0) and a current
density of 50 A.m−2 resulted in a significant reduction in COD by 58 %; removal of turbidity, suspended solids and volatile suspended
solids by 95 %; and a final treated effluent pH of approximately 9.5. Negative consequences of the type of electrode used were the
emergence of an undesirable color and an increase in the proportion of dissolved solids in the treated effluent.
Keywords: Electrocoagulation, iron electrodes, wastewater, dairy industries.

Introduction Studies with wastewater from different industries show

Application of electrocoagulation for the treatment of sev-
eral effluent types has been considered a competitive means
of wastewater treatment, especially for removing metals,
anions, dyes, organic matter (BOD, COD), total suspended
solids and colloids in wastewater from different sources.[1,2]
Most studies have focused on the efficiency of removing
a specific pollutant by modifying variable parameters of
the electrocoagulation process, including conductivity, pH,
current density, the material used to make the electrodes,
distance between the electrodes and electrolysis time, in or-
der to maximize performance and reduce the cost of system
operation.[1]
The cost is one of the parameters that affect the utility
of any method of wastewater treatment. In EC, the cost of
consumption of the electrodes used in electro-coagulation
cells is high; however, the highest operating cost of the
system is due to the elevated consumption of electricity.[4–6]
Address correspondence to Regina Célia Santos Mendonça,
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Fed-
eral de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil CEP. 36570-000; E-mail:
rmendonc@ufv.br
Received March 18, 2011.
significant differences in the cost of electrodes used in the
electrocoagulation process; the total cost of a treatment
procedure can be 50 % to 80 % more expensive when alu-
minum is used as the electrode material, yet both materials
reach a similar COD removal efficiency.[1–3]
Few studies have been carried out studying the appli-
cation of EC in wastewater treatment produced by food
industries. The EC process has historically been applied
in the coconut-processing industry,[7] industrial processing
of potato chips,[8] chicken abattoirs[6] and on a synthetic
effluent from the dairy industry.[9,10]
Food processing industries use high volumes of water
and generate large amounts of wastewater that need to be
treated before being released into external bodies of water.
One of the highest polluters in the food processing industry,
the dairy industry’s contribution to the pollution of water
is considered significant because milk processing results in
large amounts of organic matter discarded together with
the wastewater.
The volume of wastewater generated by the dairy indus-
try can vary from 1 to 5 times the volume of milk processed
daily and is dependent on the final product being manu-
factured, the technological level of the plant, compliance
with good manufacturing practice (GMP) principles and
the level of operators’ training. Based on the pollutant load
 356 Valente et al.
potentially carried by these wastewaters, we can conclude
that processing activity will result in considerable environ-
mental impact if the wastewater is not properly treated and
improperly disposed of in the environment.[2]
Numerous options for wastewater treatment exist, some
of which are expensive and complex, whereas others are
cheaper and simpler.[11] The development and study of
wastewater treatment technologies that might reduce op-
erating costs and provide ease of control are needed to
decrease the environmental impact of untreated wastewa-
ter disposal. These technologies should often be employed
in compact treatment plants to reduce the production of
unpleasant odors, especially considering the proximity and
development of cities around industrial districts.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the electrocoagulation reactor bench
the use of iron electrodes for the treatment of dairy effluent
used (color figure available online).
by electrocoagulation. The performance of this system was
evaluated for its capacity to remove COD, turbidity, total
solids and fractions; process parameters included current
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

density, pH, electrolysis time and distance between the elec-
trodes.
Material and methods
Wastewater characterization
We used wastewater from a small milk-processing plant
(15,000 liters of milk per day). The rinse waters from dif-
ferent sectors of the plant were pooled in a collection unit
that was selected as the site of sample collection.
Samples were collected using a sampling methodology
proportional to flow. Beginning at 8:00 h and ending at
17:00 h, corresponding to the total processing time in the
plant, samples were collected at 1 h intervals. A total vol-
ume of 33 L of wastewater was collected. The sub-samples
were kept refrigerated until the required volume (33 L) was
collected and analysis began. The pH was measured in each
sub-sample to assess changes over the period of operation
of the plant. The parameters evaluated in this study were
also used to characterize wastewaters. The experiment was
performed in triplicate.
The analysis of chemical oxygen demand (COD) was
carried out according to the American Public Health As-
sociation (APHA)[12] colorimetric method 5200. Samples
were digested in a MARCONI Dry Block MA 4004 heat
block. Absorbance readings were performed using a GBC
spectrophotometer model UV / VIS 911A at 600 nm.
The analysis of the levels of solids and their fractions were
performed according to the APHA[12] gravimetric method
2540.
The pH measurements were performed following the po-
tentiometric method, using a digital portable DIGIMED
DMPH meter, model 2, according to the APHA[12] method
4500 (H+). Turbidity was measured by the APHA[12]
method 2130; using a TECNOPON turbidimeter, model
TB 1000.
The EC tests were performed in batches in a glass reactor
(300 × 200 × 135 mm − l × w × h) with an iron electrode,
as shown in Figure 1. The electrode was constructed from
eight iron plates (130 × 200 × 1.5 mm − l × w × h), main-
taining a ratio between the area of the electrode and the
volume of effluent of 27 m2.m−3 in each test. Teflon spacers
allowed the distance between the plates of the electrodes
to be adjusted as the test was conducted. The connection
was a parallel-type monopole and applied constant direct
current. The temperature of the effluent during the electro-
coagulation tests was maintained at 20 ± 2◦ C.
After each test was performed the polarity of the elec-
trodes was reversed to avoid wearing them out and to pre-
vent the formation of passive films that reduce the efficiency
of the system. The sample pH was adjusted to the condi-
tions stipulated in the experimental design, using NaOH (1
mol.L−1) or H2 SO4 (0.05 mol.L−1), as appropriate.
During the application of electric current, the liquid was
agitated at 50 rpm to ensure contact with the net mass of
all of the electrodes. When the current application ceased,
the agitation was stopped. After 20 min, the time necessary
for phase separation by flotation, a sample of the average
depth of the reactor was collected for the analysis of the
effluent properties.
Statistical analysis
A statistical design of the type-1 fractional factorial 2IV 4–1
with triplicate at the central point was used to evaluate the
process parameters of the efficiency of wastewater treat-
ment by electrocoagulation, as shown in Table 1.
Statistical analysis of the removal efficiency of the ef-
fluent characteristics under study was performed using the
software MINITAB 15.0.
 Electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment 357
Table 1. Conditions of wastewater initial pH, current density, Table 2. Physicochemical characteristics of the wastewater from
distance between electrodes and electrolysis time used for elec- dairy industry.
trocoagulation tests.
Parameter analyzed Interval
Distance
Current between pH 0.6−10.4
Initial pH density (A electrodes Turbidity 268.0−438.0
Assay adjusted Time (min) m−2) (cm) COD 1727.3−4786.2
Solids and their fractions
1 5.0 5.0 37.0 0.6 Total solids (TS) 1780.0−2512.0
2 9.0 5.0 37.0 1.4 Total volatile solids (TVS) 1119.2−2370.0
3 5.0 25.0 37.0 1.4 Total fixed solids (TFS) 142.0−746.8
4 9.0 25.0 37.0 0.6 Total dissolved solids (TDS) 1262.0−2120.0
5 5.0 5.0 61.6 1.4 Volatile dissolved solids (VDS) 702.0−2093.3
6 9.0 5.0 61.6 0.6 Fixed dissolved solids (FDS) 26.7−560.0
7 5.0 25.0 61.6 0.6 Total Suspended solids (TSS) 300.0−604.0
8 9.0 25.0 61.6 1.4 Volatile suspended solids (VSS) 205.0−417.2
9 7.0 15.0 49.3 1.0 Fixed suspended solids (FSS) 68.0−186.8
10 7.0 15.0 49.3 1.0 Settleable solids (SS) 0.1−1.0
11 7.0 15.0 49.3 1.0
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

Results and discussion

Wastewater characterization
The decision to use composite sampling proportional to
the flow of wastewater was made because of the wide varia-
tion in the composition of effluent from the dairy industry.
This variation is due to the broad range of products man-
ufactured by the same day in a given plant, the quality of
raw material, cleaning procedures, adoption of good manu-
facturing practices, process control, technologies employed
by the company and other factors. In Table 2, we describe
the variation in the average values of physical and chemical
characteristics of the dairy effluent studied soon after all of
the samples were collected. These results are corroborated
by previously published data.[11,13] The pH was measured
in each sub-sample collected. The values of COD as well as
the solids and their fractions are expressed in mg.L−1, and
turbidity is expressed in units of NTU.
We observed a high concentration of organic matter in
the dairy effluent, predominantly in dissolved form, as was
expected. This concentration may be higher in plants that
have cheese production lines and do not use whey. The unit
evaluated did use cheese whey, so this was not discarded
with the effluent. The visual appearance of the treated efflu-
ent varied little after each test. We observe predominantly
floating material and some sedimented material after the

Fig. 2. Phase separation after treatment by electrocoagulation.

The example shown was performed under the conditions of the Fig. 3. Wastewater after treatment (left) and before treatment
test at the central point (color figure available online). (right) (color figure available online).
 358 Valente et al.
Table 3. Average removal, in percent, for each parameter evaluated in the experiment.
Solids and their fractions
Assay TS TVS TFS TDS VDS FDS TSS VSS FSS Final pH Turbidity COD

1 13.8 26.8 −10.3 1.5 19.0 −27.3 49.3 46.0 58.1 7.5 40.9 42.1
2 3.1 13.6 −16.4 −14.0 −2.1 −33.5 52.5 52.4 52.6 8.8 45.8 22.0
3 27.6 38.9 6.9 7.8 18.7 −10.1 85.1 88.7 75.4 11.6 92.6 65.6
4 21.8 30.4 5.9 −0.2 5.4 −9.4 85.3 91.9 67.5 12.4 94.8 44.0
5 13.9 29.1 −14.1 −3.2 13.0 −29.6 63.3 68.8 48.7 7.5 41.9 53.9
6 10.3 29.3 −24.8 −5.1 12.0 −33.1 54.6 71.7 8.6 9.6 66.4 43.1
7 28.0 36.9 11.6 6.6 11.8 −1.8 89.6 98.7 65.1 12.6 93.4 59.5
8 −12.5 −2.2 −31.5 −33.7 −21.7 −53.2 48.5 45.7 56.0 13.4 92.6 45.4
9 17.5 28.0 −1.9 −6.1 −0.5 −15.4 85.7 98.1 52.6 12.0 92.3 63.7
10 31.5 50.0 −2.7 12.7 30.0 −15.6 85.7 99.2 49.5 11.8 91.7 54.8
11 13.9 37.7 −30.0 −10.3 15.7 −52.8 83.8 91.9 62.0 10.2 95.6 61.3

effluent had been treated by electrocoagulation; Figure 2 The results of the tests, expressed as a percentage of
shows an example. removal, are presented in Table 3. We observed that in
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

Immediately after flotation and sedimentation of ma-
terial, the flakes formed were green due to the presence of
Fe(OH)2 . After a few minutes of air contact, we observed
the oxidation of Fe(OH)2 to Fe(OH)3 , resulting in a brick-
red color. This final color could be observed in the treated
effluent, and a similar change in the color of the flakes was
also observed by Casillas et al.[1] This phenomenon be-
comes a limiting factor for treatment because it is desirable
to have a colorless effluent after treatment (Fig. 3).
some trials, there was an increase in total solids and their
fractions content (negative values), indicating that there
was incorporation of the electrode material in the effluent.
These results showed the increase of electrode wear, under
the studied conditions in test. Based on this observation,
the conditions of test 8 (initial pH 9.0, 25 min. current
application, 61.6 A.m−2 and 1.4 cm distance between the
electrodes) were the most unsuitable for this evaluation of
wastewater treatment.

A. Turbity B. COD
0.99 0.99
Probability

Probability

0.9 0.9 Electrolysis time

Electrolysis time
0.5 0.5
pH adjusted
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
-5 0 5 10 -5 0 5 10
Effects Effects
D.
C. Fixed suspended solids Volatile suspended solids
0.99 0.99
Electrolysis time
Probability

Probability

0.9 Current density 0.9

0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
-5 0 5 10 -5 0 5 10
Effects Effects
E. Total suspended solids F. Final pH
0.99 0.99 Electrolysis time
Probability

Probability

0.9 Electrolysis time 0.9

0.5 0.5 pH adjusted
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
-5 0 5 10 -5 0 5 10
Effects Effects

Fig. 4. Estimations of the effects on the removal of turbidity, COD, FSS, VSS, TSS and the final pH of the effluent represented in the
normal probability plot (α = 0.1) of zero mean and variance (color figure available online).
 Electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment 359

100
Variable
T urbidez
SS
80 SSV

Removal (%)
60

40

20

0
5 10 15 20 25
Electrolysis time (min)
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

Fig. 5. Percentage removal of turbidity, TSS and VSS as a function of time (min).

The estimates of the effects represented in the normal
probability plot of zero mean and variance to assess which
effects were significant for all treatments are shown in Fig-
ure 4. The application time of the electric current was signif-
icant for COD removal, some fractions of solids (TSS and
VSS), turbidity and final pH of the treated effluent. The pH
value of raw wastewater was significant only for COD re-
moval and final effluent pH, and the current density applied
was significant only in the removal of FSS. For the other pa-
rameters evaluated, none of the variables were significant.
Based on these results, we can express the removal of tur-
bidity, TSS and VSS as a function of time (Fig. 5). However,
at a reference time (15 min.), an interval time common to
the three parameters, we observe a reduction in turbidity
by approximately 95 % and removal of approximately 85 %
of TSS and 98 % of VSS. These results are expected be-
cause the TSS fractions are mainly responsible for effluent
turbidity.
The models adjusted for the removal efficiency of turbid-
ity, SS and SSV as a function of time are presented below

Fig. 6. Effect of time on COD removal and the final pH of the treated effluent as a function of time of electric current application
and the initial pH of the sample.
 360 Valente et al.
Table 4. Regression analysis (ANOVA) of the models to remove turbidity, TSS, VSS, COD and final pH values.
DF SS MS F p

Removal of turbiditya
Regression 2 5045.60 2522.80 45.86 0.00
Residue 8 440.10 55.00
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Total 10 5485.70
Remova lof TSSb
Regression 2 1778.8 889.4 5.85 0.03
Residue 8 1216.7 152.1
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Total 10 5485.70
Removal of VSSc
Regression 2 2393.2 1196.6 4.28 0.05
Residue 8 2237.6 279.7
Lack of fit –
Pure error –
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014

Total 10 5485.70
Removal of DQOd
Regression 3 1277.39 425.80 8.39 0.01
Residue 7 355.36 50.77
Lack of fit 1 2.74 2.74 0.05 0.84
Pure error 6 352.62 58.77
Total 10 1632.75
Final pHe
Regression 3 28.83 9.61 25.88 0.00
Residue 7 2.60 0.37
Lack of fit 1 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.41
Pure error 6 2.30 0.38
Total 10 31.43
a
R2: 92.0 %; R2adj : 90.0 %; bR2: 59.4 %; R2adj : 49.2 %; cR2: 51.7 %; R2adj : 39.6 %; dR2: 78.2 %; R2adj : 68.9 %; eR2: 91.7 %; R2adj : 88.2 %.

in Equations 1, 2 and 3 moval efficiency is related to the predominant type of solid

%TURB = 9.95 + 8.7 t − 0.221 t2
%TSS = 25.5 + 6.83t − 0.191t 2
%VSS = 21.9 + 8.86t − 0.259t 2
where, % TURB is the percentage of turbidity removed, %
TSS is the percentage of TSS removed, % VSS is the per-
centage of VSS removed and t is time of electric current
application.
In Figure 6, we depict the effect of time on COD removal
and the final pH of the treated effluent as a function of both
time of electric current application and the initial pH of the
sample. A 58 % removal of COD and a final pH of 9.5 result
from an electrolysis time of 15 min and a sample with an
initial pH near neutral. These results are consistent with the
results described in a study conducted by Silva et al.[14] The
rise in the pH of the effluent was also observed by Casillas
et al.[1] COD reduction was found to be significantly lower
than previously reported by Sengil and Ozacar[10] The re-
fraction. In the case presented here, the predominant frac-
(1) tion of dissolved solids in the effluent of the dairy plant
(2) (approximately 80 % of total solids) were not efficiently
(3) removed, while the TSS removal was favored, as shown in
Table 3.
Models adjusted for COD removal (Equation 4) and
final pH of effluent as a function of time and initial pH
(Equation 5) are shown below.
%COD = 49.8 + 4.16 pH + 4.57t − 0.130t 2 (4)
Final pH = 3.38 + 0.262 pH + 0.411t − 0.0078t 2 (5)
where % COD is the percentage of COD removed, pH is
the adjusted pH and t is the electrolysis time.
The removal profile of FSS was correlated to current
density applied. Approximately 60 % of FSS was removed
by a current density up to 50 A.m−2, with a significant
reduction when using higher values. This reduction in the
capacity to remove FSS with increasing current density is
 Electrocoagulation in wastewater treatment
probably due to formation of soluble products derived from
the reaction between the coagulant and the compounds
present in effluent; application of a higher current density
suggests the highest coagulant formation.[1]
The distance between electrodes was not a signifi-
cant factor for organic matter removal under the tested
conditions. Electrode distance is an important parameter
in the operational cost of the treatment plant because re-
ducing the distance between the electrodes reduces the en-
ergy required to run the EC reactor and therefore lowers
the cost of operation.
The first and second degree polynomial models were not
significant in the regression analysis. The results of analysis
of variance (ANOVA) are shown in Table 4.
The dissolved solids fraction was the most negatively af-
fected fraction using the electrocoagulation process. We
observed an average increase of 4 % in the concentra-
tion of TDS and 25.6 % in the concentration of FDS.
These data conflict with results obtained in a study by
Downloaded by [CERIST] at 14:17 01 January 2014
Fornari[15] but agree with the results presented by Casillas
et al.[1]
The EC showed low removal efficiency of TS, TVS, VDS
and FTS, average 15.4; 28.9; 9.2 and 9.7 % respectively. We
obtained a removal efficiency of 58 % of COD in this study,
in contrast to the high value, 98 %, obtained by Sengil &
Ozacar[10] where the suspended solid content in effluent was
high. In the study presented here, the effluent had a high
concentration of dissolved solids, representing 80 % of total
solids.
Conclusions
The optimization of parameters for the treatment of dairy
industry effluents, using iron electrodes in the process of
electrocoagulation, showed that an electric current ap-
plied for 15 minutes, a sample with an initial pH close to
neutral (pH 7.0) and a current density of 50 A.m−2 showed
a significant reduction in COD by 58 %; removal of turbid-
ity, total suspended solids and volatile suspended solids by
95 %; and final treated effluent with a pH of approximately
9.5. A negative effect of the type of electrode used was the
emergence of an undesirable color and an increase in the
fraction of dissolved solids in the treated effluent.
361
References
[1] Casillas, H.A.M.; Cocke, D.L.; Gomes, J.A.G.; Morkovsky, P.;
Parga, J.R.; Peterson, E. Electrocoagulation mechanism for COD
removal. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 56, 204–211.
[2] Emamjomeh, M.M.; Sivakumar, M. Review of pollutants removed
by electrocoagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes. J.
of Environ. Management 2009, 90, 1663–1679.
[3] Mollah, M.Y.A.; Morkovsky, P.; Gomes, J.A.G.; Kesmez, M.;
Parga, J.; Cocke, D.L. Fundamentals, present and future per-
spectives of electrocoagulation. J. Hazardous Materials 2004, 114,
199–210.
[4] Kobya, M.; Bayramoglu, M.; Eyvaz, M. Techno-economical evalu-
ation of electrocoagulation for the textile wastewater using different
electrode connections. J. Hazardous Materials, 2007, 148, 311–318.
[5] Bayramoglu, M.; Kobya, M.; Can, O.T.; Sozbir, M. Operating cost
analysis of electrocoagulation of textile dye wastewater. Separation
Purification Technol. 2004, 37, 117–125.
[6] Bayramoglu, M.; Kobya, M.; Eyvaz, M.; Senturk, E. Technical and
economic analysis of electrocoagulation for the treatment of poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater. Separation Purification Technol. 2006,
51, 404–408.
[7] Crespilho, F.N.; Santana, C.G.; Rezende, M.O.O. Tratamento
de efluente de indústria de processamento de coco utilizando
eletroflotação. Quı́mica Nova 2004, 27(3), 387–392.
[8] Kobya, M.; Hiza, H.; Senturka, E.; Aydinera, C.; Demirbas, E.
Treatment of potato chips manufacturing wastewater by electroco-
agulation. Desalination 2006, 190, 201–211.
[9] Tchamango, S.; Nanseu-Njiki, C.P.; Ngameni, E.; Hadjiev, D.;
Darchen, A. Treatment of dairy effluents by electrocoagulation us-
ing aluminum electrodes. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 947–952.
[10] Sengil, I.A.; Ozacar, M. Treatment of dairy wastewaters by electro-
coagulation using mild steel electrodes. J. Hazardous Materials, B.
2006: 137, p. 1197–1205.
[11] Matos, A.T.; Abrahão, S.S.; LoMonaco, P.A.V.; Sarmento, A.P.;
Matos, M.P. Capacidade extratora de plantas em sistemas alaga-
dos utilizados no tratamento de águas residuárias de laticı́nios.
ver.ras.Eng. Agrı́c. Amb. 2010, 14, 1311–1317.
[12] American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Ex-
amination of Water and Wastewater, 21th Ed.; Am. Public Health
Association: Washington D.C.; 2005.
[13] Hamdani, A.; Mountadar, M.; Assobhei, O. Comparative study of
the efficacy of three coagulants in treating dairy factory waste water.
Intern. J. Dairy Technol. 2005, 58(2), 83–88.
[14] Silva, A.C.L.; Will, I.B.S.; Filho, O.B.; Remoção de DQO e de cor
através do tratamento eletrolı́tico, XXVII Congreso Interamericano
de Ingenierı́a Sanitaria y Ambiental, Brasil, December 3–8, 2000.
Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental: Porto
Alegre.
[15] Fornari, M.M.T. Aplicação da técnica de eletro-floculação no trata-
mento de efluentes de curtume. Dissertação de mestrado, Universi-
dade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná: Toledo, Paraná, 2007.