Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhazmat

Removal of natural organic matter and arsenic from water by

electrocoagulation/flotation continuous flow reactor
Emilijan Mohora ∗ , Srdjan Rončević, Božo Dalmacija, Jasmina Agbaba, Malcolm Watson,
Elvira Karlović, Milena Dalmacija
University of Novi Sad Faculty of Sciences, Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Environmental Protection, Trg D. Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

h i g h l i g h t s

 A continuous electrocoagulation/flotation reactor was designed built and operated.

 Highest NOM removal according to UV254 was 77% relative to raw groundwater.
 Highest NOM removal accordance to DOC was 71%, relative to raw groundwater.
 Highest As removal archived was 85% (6.2 ␮g/l), relative to raw groundwater.
 Specific reactor energy and electrode consumption was 1.7 kWh/m3 and 66 g Al/m3 .

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The performance of the laboratory scale electrocoagulation/flotation (ECF) reactor in removing high con-
Received 20 February 2012 centrations of natural organic matter (NOM) and arsenic from groundwater was analyzed in this study.
Received in revised form 25 July 2012 An ECF reactor with bipolar plate aluminum electrodes was operated in the horizontal continuous flow
Accepted 28 July 2012
mode. Electrochemical and flow variables were optimized to examine ECF reactor contaminants removal
Available online 7 August 2012
efficiency. The optimum conditions for the process were identified as groundwater initial pH 5, flow
rate = 4.3 l/h, inter electrode distance = 2.8 cm, current density = 5.78 mA/cm2 , A/V ratio = 0.248 cm−1 . The
Keywords:
NOM removal according to UV254 absorbance and dissolved organic matter (DOC) reached highest values
Electro-coagulation–flotation
Groundwater
of 77% and 71% respectively, relative to the raw groundwater. Arsenic removal was 85% (6.2 ␮g As/l) rel-
Arsenic removal ative to raw groundwater, satisfying the drinking water standards. The specific reactor electrical energy
Natural organic matter consumption was 17.5 kWh/kg Al. The specific aluminum electrode consumption was 66 g Al/m3 . Accord-
ing to the obtained results, ECF in horizontal continuous flow mode is an energy efficient process to
remove NOM and arsenic from groundwater.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Natural organic matter (NOM) in water is a major concern
and should be removed from drinking water from a number
of reasons. NOM affects organoleptic properties of water (color,
taste and odor); reacts with most disinfectants used in water
treatment, thus reducing their disinfection power, influencing
disinfectant demand and disinfection process design; produces dis-
infection by-products (DBPs) of various kinds, affects the stability
and removal of inorganic particles; heavily influences coagulant
demand; affects corrosion processes; and affects biostability and
biological regrowth in distributions systems [1]. NOM often reduces
the removal of target substances through its adsorption onto
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 63 7599130; fax: +381 21 485 2728.
E-mail address: emohora@ifc.org (E. Mohora).
adsorbents and/or the formation of a complex with the target sub-
stances [2]. Recently, that presence of NOM in surface water was
reported to negatively influence removal of As(V) by electrocoag-
ulation/flotation (EFC) treatment [3].
Coagulation using metal based coagulants is the essential pro-
cess in the conventional treatment of drinking water [4]. In this
process coagulating agents and other additives are dosed to pro-
duce larger aggregates which can be separated physically. The
process depends on variety of factors, including but not limited
to, pH, coagulant type and dosage and the type and concentration
of NOM. This is a multi stage process that requires considerable
land area and continual supply of chemicals. A more cost-effective
method to clean a wide range of polluted water on site and with
minimum additives is required for sustainable water management
[1]. ECF has been suggested as an alternative. It is the process
whereby a sacrificial metal anode doses treated water electrochem-
ically, while the cathode reaction provides afford hydrogen which

0304-3894/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.07.056
258 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264

is involved in the flotation process. ECF is characteristic for its ease Table 1
Characteristics of the raw groundwater.
of operation, reduced production of sludge, the floc formed tends to
be much larger, less maintenance and no need for handling chem- Parameters No. of measurements (n) Value ± 
icals [5–7]. ECF has attracted great attention as an eco-friendly pH 10 7.4 ± 0.3
and efficient process, although it has some demerits, such as the Conductivity (␮S/cm) 10 1310 ± 36
need to replace electrodes at regular intervals due to their disso- DOC (mg C/l) 30 9.31 ± 0.51
lution, high cost of electricity, anode passivation and hydroxides UV254 (cm−1 ) 30 0.444 ± 0.026
SUVA (l mg−1 m−1 ) 30 4.64 ± 0.11
which may tend to solubilize in some cases [8]. Recent technical
Arsenic (␮g/l) 15 5.4 ± 16.4
improvements, combined with the growing need for small scale
 – standard deviation based on n measurements.
decentralized water and waste water treatment facilities, have led
to a re-evolution of the ECF [9]. A literature survey indicates that
most of the studies on NOM removal by ECF process have been car- 1730 SB, 0–30 V, 0–3 A), ampere-meter, voltmeter, and sampling
ried out in batch treatment mode using model water [10–13]. Only setup. The electrode dimensions were 14 cm × 13 cm × 0.3 cm and
modest attention has been paid to the ECF treatment of ground- aluminum purity was 99.5%. The distances between the plate elec-
water containing a high NOM concentration and in the continuous trodes varied from 1.2 cm to 2.8 cm, and were numbered in the
flow mode. reactor from 3 to 5.
Arsenic is classified as a Group I carcinogenic substances to In general, each experimental run lasted for 90 min. During the
humans based on epidemiological evidence [14]. The World Health experiments, raw groundwater from the water tank was pumped
organization (WHO) has established 10 ␮g/l as maximum arsenic into the EFC reactor by centrifugal pump. The reactor operated at
concentration for drinking water [15]. Arsenic in groundwater flow rates 4.3 l/h, 6.4 l/h and 10.3 l/h. In order to minimize elec-
occurs in two oxidation states As(III) (arsenite) and As(V) (arse- trode oxidation and passivation, the direction of the power supply
nate). As(III) is more mobile in groundwater and 25–60 times was changed at 90 min time intervals. Due to the geometry of the
more toxic than As(V). Various treatment technologies have been laboratory ECF reactor used, within the single unit coagulation,
applied to remove arsenic including coagulation with precipi- flocculation, flotation and settling occurred in parallel. The treated
tation with iron and aluminum salts, adsorption onto activated groundwater was collected after a desired period of time from the
alumina, activated carbon and activated bauxite, ion exchange and reactor effluent flow and filtered through Whatman No: 42 filter
reverse osmosis. Those technologies showed a medium to low paper before analyses. Effluent groundwater samples were ana-
As(III) removal efficiency and also required pH regulation as it influ- lyzed for NOM, Astotal , pH and temperature. Before and after each
ences arsenic speciation and surface change of adsorbents. Authors experimental run electrodes weight was measured.
thus recommended to oxidize As(III) to As(V) for effective arsenic
removal. However, in the presence of NOM the oxidation step
applied prior to As(III) removal could lead to the formation of toxic 2.3. Analytical methods and calculations
oxidation by products [16]. ECF is offering advantage to oxidize
As(III) in As(V) and improve its removal without required oxidation 2.3.1. NOM analyses
step [3]. Literature results on arsenic removal by ECF showed that UV254 absorbance measurements were performed before and
5 out of 7 studies were based on batch processes [2]. Most of them after ECF treatment in accordance with standard methods [20] by
have used model water and there are only 2 studies concerning UNICAM SP600 UV spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 254 nm
groundwater polluted by arsenic [17,18]. with a 1 cm quartz cell.
Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate After filtration through a 0.45 ␮m membrane filter, the ground-
treatability of groundwater with a high concentration of NOM and water samples were analyzed before and after ECF treatment for
arsenic using an ECF reactor in horizontal continuous flow mode DOC content using an Elementar LiquiTOCII, with oxidation by com-
with bipolar plate aluminum electrodes. The effects of different bustion at 850 ◦ C.
ECF reactor operational parameters on NOM and As removal effi-
ciency like inter-electrode distance, A/V ratio, the initial pH of the 2.3.2. Arsenic analyses
raw groundwater, current density, electrode passivation and the Arsenic analyses were carried by Atomic Absorption Spec-
flow rate were studied, with the goal of optimizing reactor removal troscopy (PerkinElmer AAnalyst 700) according to the standard
efficiency rate for specific energy and electrode consumption. method EPA 7010 (Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spec-
trophotometry, Rev. 0, Feb. 2007).
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Groundwater samples DC

All experiments were performed with groundwater samples V

collected in the Central Banat region (Republic of Serbia), where
A
groundwater is used as a principle water supply source. Its principle
characteristic is listed in Table 1. This groundwater contains unde- E
sirable components like a high concentration of NOM and arsenic P
ECF
as a consequence of its origin [19]. S

S
2.2. Experimental setup and procedure
T

All experiments were carried out in a bipolar laboratory ECF

continuous flow reactor (Fig. 1). It consists of 30 l water tank, cen-
Fig. 1. Diagram of the experiment: T – water tank, P – centrifugal pump, ECF – bipo-
trifugal pump, 4.5 l Plexiglas laboratory scale ECF reactor with a lar continuous flow electro-coagulation–flotation reactor, E – aluminum electrodes,
horizontal continuous flow, DC power supply source (model DF DC power supply, A – ampere-meter, V – voltmeter, S – sampling points.
 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264
2.3.3. pH and conductivity
pH measurements were carried out on a WTW InoLab portable
instrument. Conductivity measurements were carried out on a
Hanna model HI 933000.
2.3.4. Calculations
NOM removal efficiency was calculated as:
C0 − Ct
 (%) = × 100
C0
where C0 – initial concentration, Ct – concentration after ECF treat-
ment time t. The ECF reactor electrical energy consumption (E) was
calculated using the commonly used equation:
E = UItECF
where E is in kWh, U is the applied potential (in V), I is the operat-
ing current in ampere (A) and tECF is the ECF treatment time. The
amount of Al(III) released into the treated groundwater during ECF
treatment was estimated by applying Faraday’s law:
ItECF M
mt =
nF
where mt the dissolved aluminum (g), n is the number of elec-
trons in the redox reaction, F is Faraday’s constant and M is the
molecular weight of Al. Current efficiency was calculated as:
me
CE = × 100
mt
The calculation is based on the comparison of experimental
weight loss of the aluminum electrodes me during ECF treat-
ment and the theoretical amount of aluminum dissolution mt
according to Faraday’s law. The specific electrical energy consump-
tion (Seec ) is calculated as a function of aluminum electrode weight
consumption during ECF in kWh/kg Al [21,22]
nFU
Seec = . (5)
MCE × 3.6 × 103
3. Results and discussion
3.1. A/V ratio effect
The ratio between the total active electrode area (A) and the
volume of groundwater in the reactor (V) is (crude) measure of the
potential for delivering coagulant and bubbles to the ECF system
(on a volumetric bases) [27]. It was reported that an optimal reac-
tor operating current density exists for a fixed A/V ratio [21]. The
effect of A/V ratio on NOM removal efficiency was studied between
0.12 cm−1 and 0.31 cm−1 by adding electrodes to the ECF reac-
tor from 3 to 5, and the groundwater volume was kept constant.
The ECF treatment was carried out at the constant applied poten-
tial of 20 V, flow rate 4.3 l/h, inter-electrode distance of 1.2 cm,
initial pH 7.7, and groundwater conductivity of 1270 ␮S/cm. The
results obtained (Fig. 2) show that increasing the A/V ratio above
value of 0.248 cm−1 or addition of more than four electrodes into
the ECF reactor does not improve NOM removal efficiency. This
is associated with the considerable decrease of the operating cur-
rent density as a consequence of A/V ratio increase for the constant
potential applied during experimental run. For A/V ratio value
0.248 cm−1 the ECF reactor in its steady state achieved the high-
est NOM removal efficiency of 60% (relative to raw groundwater)
based on UV254 absorbance.
The obtained results demonstrate that additional electrodes in
the ECF reactor for the constant applied potential do not assure a
steady increase in the NOM removal efficiency. Therefore, the most
favorable A/V ratio of 0.248 cm−1 , or four aluminum electrodes in
the ECF reactor, was selected for the following experimental work.
259
(1)
(2)
(3)
Fig. 2. Effect of A/V on NOM removal efficiency based on UV254 absorbance. The
ECF treatment was carried out at U = 20 V, Q = 4.3 l/h, d = 1.2 cm, pH 7.7, conductiv-
ity = 1270 ␮S/cm, DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
(4)
3.2. Effect of initial groundwater pH
It has been reported that the initial pH of the treated water is
important operating factor influencing NOM removal efficiency by
ECF [23]. The effect may be twofold, first on the distribution of
aluminum hydrolysis product and secondly, the effect of a passi-
vation layer formed especially in the high initial pH of the anode
surface [24,25]. To examine this effect, raw groundwater samples
were adjusted to the desired pH by adding sodium hydroxide or
hydrochloric acid. The ECF treatment was carried out at constant
applied potential of 20 V, flow rate 3.6 l/h, interelectrode distance
1.2 cm, and groundwater conductivity of 1284 ␮S/cm.
The results obtained (Fig. 3) indicate that at initial groundwa-
ter pH 5.0, the ECF reactor took approximately 10 min to achieve
a steady state based on UV254 absorbance and approximately
50 min based on DOC. The initial groundwater specific ultravio-
let absorbance (SUVA) at 254 nm value was 4.64 ± 0.11 l mg−1 m−1
(Table 1). This indicates that a large part of the NOM present in the
raw groundwater consists of hydrophobic organic compounds with
high molecular masses and a high degree of aromaticity, which can
be easily removed by coagulation [1,28–31]. The remainder of the
DOC is harder to remove, and thus takes longer to reach a steady
state. The average value of NOM removal efficiency achieved based
on UV254 absorbance and DOC for the reactor steady state was 74%
and 66%, respectively. However, at initial groundwater pH of 7.0,
the EFC reactor took approximately 60 min to achieve a relatively
steady state treatment regime. The NOM removal efficiency for
the reactor steady state regime time based on UV254 absorbance
and DOC was 63% and 54% respectively. These results confirm
previously reported studies performed with the model waters con-
taining high NOM concentration and in batch treatment mode, that
the ECF process is more efficient when the initial treated water pH
is adjusted to 5 [10–13]. Therefore, for the following experimental
work the pH value of the raw groundwater was adjusted to 5.
3.3. Effect of inter electrode distance (d)
NOM removal efficiency and energy consumption was analyzed
as a function of inter electrode distance (d). The inter electrode
distance varied at values of d = 1.2 cm, 2.0 cm and 2.8 cm. The ECF
260 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264

a
a

b
b

Fig. 3. Variation of DOC (a) and UV254 absorbance (b) as a function of ini-
tial groundwater pH value and time. The ECF treatment was carried out at
c
U = 20 V, Q = 3.6 l/h, d = 1.2 cm, conductivity (pH = 7.0) = 1284 ␮S/cm, conductivity
(pH = 5.0) = 1750 ␮S/cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.

treatment was carried out at constant applied potential of 17 V,

flow rate 3.6 l/h, initial groundwater pH 5, and conductivity of
1750 ␮S/cm.
In general, a closer inter electrode distance is desirable, because
electrical resistance (IR drop) increases with inter-electrode dis-
tance increase [18,26]. Results obtained show that ECF reactor
took approximately 10 min (Fig. 4a) to achieve steady state based
on UV254 absorbance and 30 min according to DOC (Fig. 4b). As
explained above (Section 3.2), the organic carbon responsible for
UV254 absorbance is more readily removed than the rest of the
DOC. The highest NOM removal efficiency (Fig. 4a and b) and lowest
specific energy consumption (Fig. 4c) unexpectedly was achieved
for the highest inter electrode distance studied (2.8 cm). This is in
contrast with the results Feng et al. obtained [12], however Yildiz
et al. reported highest NOM removal efficiency for the inter elec-
trode distance of 5 cm [10,11]. The NOM removal efficiency based
on UV254 absorbance and DOC was 77% and 69%, respectively. The Fig. 4. NOM removal efficiency based on UV254 absorbance (a), DOC (b) and specific
result can be explained that flotation of hydrogen bubbles pro- energy consumption (c) as a function of ECF treatment time and inter electrode dis-
tance. The ECF treatment was carried out at U = 17 V, Q = 3.6 l/h, initial groundwater
duced at the cathode as NOM removal path was more stabile and
pH 5.0, conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 ,DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
flocks were easy to be floated when the inter electrode distance
was 2.8 cm. Interelectrode distances 1.2 cm and 2 cm were closed to
 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264
b Fig. 6. Variation of treated groundwater temperature as a function of the operat-
Fig. 5. Effect of current density on the performance of the ECF reactor based on
UV254 absorbance (a) and DOC (b) as a function of treatment time. The ECF treatment
was carried out at Q = 6.4 l/h, d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH 5.0,
conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm, DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
obstruct adequate mass transport in the reactor reducing its NOM
removal efficiency rate and creating instability of the removal effi-
ciency over the treatment time (Fig. 4a). Thus, d = 2.8 cm as a most
favorable was selected for the following experiments.
3.4. Current density effect (i) on NOM and arsenic removal
In any EFC process the current density is the most impor-
tant operational parameter setting the final removal and defining
the specific energy and electrode consumption and so eventu-
ally the ultimate operating cost for the process [23]. The ECF
reactor’s NOM and arsenic removal was studied by conducting
experiments at current density values: 5.71 mA/cm2 , 5.78 mA/cm2 ,
11.80 mA/cm2 while flow rate, inter electrode distance, number of
electrodes and initial pH were kept constant (Q = 6.4 l/h, d = 2.8 cm,
A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH 5.0).
Obtained results (Fig. 5) show that ECF reactor took approx-
imately 10 min to achieve steady state according to UV254 and
30 min according to DOC. NOM in water are large organic molecules
that carry a negative charge giving them colloidal characteristics.
ECF is based on the fact that the stability of the colloids is influenced
261
ing current density and ECF treatment time. The ECF treatment was carried out
at Q = 6.4 l/h, d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH 5.0, conductiv-
ity = 1750 ␮S/cm, DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
by electric charges. Therefore if additional electrical charge is
supplied to the charged particles via ECF reactor’s electrodes,
the surface charge of NOM molecules is neutralized and several
molecules combine into larger and separable agglomerates. The
increase of the operating current density caused a decrease in reac-
tor DOC removal efficiency. It is a known fact that operating current
density in ECF processes directly determines the coagulant dosage
and the rate of bubble generation, which influences both mixing
and mass transfer in the reactor. It is reported that at low operating
currents settling dominates, and as the current increases, the pol-
lutant fraction that is removed by flotation increases, although the
coagulant appears to be used less effectively [6]. Therefore at higher
operating current densities, bubble densities increase, resulting in a
greater upwards momentum flux and thus faster removal of NOM
and coagulant by flotation from the active reactor volume to the
surface. Finally we could conclude that for higher operating current
densities more aluminum was available per unit of time in the ECF
reactor volume but its residence time in the active reactor volume
was shorter, which caused the decline of NOM removal efficiency.
The influence of the used operating current density on the varia-
tion of effluent groundwater pH value and temperature was studied
too (Figs. 6 and 7). For operating current densities of 5.71 mA/cm2 ,
5.78 mA/cm2 and 11.80 mA/cm2 over 90 min of ECF treatment, the
pH value of the effluent groundwater increased relative to the raw
groundwater by 6.9%, 11%, 31%, and the effluent groundwater tem-
perature increased by 13.6% 12% and 34%, respectively. Initial water
pH value affects either distribution of aluminum hydrolyses prod-
ucts or structure of NOM directly [24,25]. When pH value is higher,
NOM takes more negative charge, and process needs more Al3+ to
neutralize the negative charge reducing removal efficiency [12].
Therefore, it is evident that ECF process under higher operating
current density boost water pH increase over the treatment time
reducing NOM removal efficiency.
The highest reactor NOM removal efficiency obtained accord-
ing to UV254 absorbance and DOC was 77% and 71% respectively,
and was achieved for a current density of 5.78 mA/cm2 . The
specific reactor energy and electrode consumption for operating
current density of 5.78 mA/cm2 were 2.01 kWh/m3 , 80 g Al/m3 ,
respectively. In addition, the specific reactor electrical energy con-
sumption (Seec ) was 17.5 kWh/kg Al.
262 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264

Fig. 7. Variation of treated groundwater pH as a function of the operat- Fig. 8. Effect of flow rate on ECF reactor NOM removal efficiency based on
ing current density and ECF treatment time. The ECF treatment was carried UV254 absorbance as a function of treatment time. The ECF treatment was carried
out at Q = 6.4 l/h, d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , pH 5.0, conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm, out at d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , pH 5.0, U = 17 V, i = 5.78 mA/cm2 , conductiv-
DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l. ity = 1750 ␮S/cm, DOC0 = 9.31 mg C/l.

The arsenic removal efficiency achieved for operating current

rate of 4.3 l/h in the effluent groundwater sampled after 90 min of
density of 5.78 mA/cm2 was 80% relative to the raw groundwater
treatment.
(residual Astotal concentration in the effluent groundwater sam-
pled after 90 min of treatment was 9.2 ␮g/l). Mechanisms of arsenic
removal by EC involve oxidation of As(III) in As(V) and subsequent 3.6. Effect of passivation
surface complexation with aluminum hydroxides [3].
This study evidently conformed that operating current density One of the greatest operational issues with ECF is electrode pas-
is the key ECF reactor operational parameter defining coagulant sivation. This passive layer increases the applied potential and leads
dose, variation of treated water pH and temperature over treatment to a waste of energy in ECF processes [1]. It is reported that 120 mg/l
time, influencing the dominant NOM separation mode and finally is the critical NOM concentration in the treated water at which the
defining the NOM and As removal efficiency rate. Thus, the follow- passive layer starts to form, from a point 5 min into treatment, on
ing experimental work was carried out using a current density of the surface of the anode, preventing delivery of enough coagulant
5.78 mA/cm2 . [11]. The variation of the operating current as a function of applied
potential and treatment time has been analyzed.
The results obtained at 20 V (Fig. 10) show a significant decrease
3.5. Effect of flow rate on NOM and arsenic removal
of 20% in the operating current, relative to the initial value, during
the 90 min of ECF treatment. This is attributed to aluminum anode
The effect of flow rate on ECF reactor NOM and arsenic removal
passivation. For voltages of 17 and 15 V, the current value change
efficiency was analyzed by conducting experiments at flow rate val-
ues: 4.3 l/h, 6.4 l/h, 10.3 l/h, or residence times 62.8 min, 42.1 min,
26.3 min, while the other selected parameters were kept constant
(d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH 5.0, U = 17 V,
i = 5.78 mA/cm2 , conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm).
The flow rate does not appear to have a large effect on NOM
removal by ECF reactor (Fig. 8) and after 15–90 min of treatment,
the average UV254 absorbance reductions were 72–77%, depending
on the flow rate values (4.3–10.3 l/h). The best NOM removal (77%)
results were obtained with a flow rate of 4.3 l/h.
The effect of the flow rate on effluent groundwater pH and tem-
perature was also analyzed. In general, increase of the reactor flow
rate slows treated groundwater temperature and pH increase over
the treatment time. For the reactor flow rates of 4.3 l/h, 6.4 l/h,
10.3 l/h, treated water temperature has increased by 13%, 8.9% and
6%, relative to the raw groundwater temperature, for 90 min of
the treatment. In parallel, effluent water pH has increased by 17%
10% and 9%, relative to the initial groundwater pH value that was
adjusted to 5.
The impact of flow rate on Astotal removal was studied (Fig. 9).
The increase of the flow rate reduces reactor’s Astotal removal effi-
ciency. For flow rates of 4.3 l/h, 6.4 l/h and 10.3 l/h, the reduction in Fig. 9. Astotal concentration as a function of ECF reactor flow rate. The ECF treat-
arsenic content was 85%, 77% and 75%, respectively. A minimum ment was carried out at d = 2.8 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , pH 5.0, U = 17 V, i = 5.78 mA/cm2 ,
Astotal residual concentration of 5.3 ␮g/l was obtained at a flow conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm, DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264
Fig. 10. Variation of the operating current as a function of applied poten-
tial and treatment time. The ECF treatment was carried out at Q = 6.4 l/h,
d = 1.2 cm, A/V = 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH 5.0, conductivity = 1750 ␮S/cm,
DOC0 = 9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l.
over 90 min of treatment was insignificant, decreasing by only 4%
relative to the initial value.
A recent study indicated that the electrolyte should contain
a minimum of 60 mg/l Cl− to breakdown the anodic passivation
layer during ECF treatment [25]. In order to explore passivation,
60 mg/l Cl− (as NaCl) was added to the raw groundwater. The NOM
removal achieved according to UV254 absorbance was not signif-
icantly improved compared to the results for treatment without
Cl− addition. However, the operating current did not vary over the
90 min of treatment, indicating the breakdown of the anodic passi-
vation layer, which was more important. Arsenic removal efficiency
was 85% (residual Astotal concentration obtained was 6.2 ␮g/l). The
presence of 60 mg/l Cl− in the treated groundwater reduced reac-
tor specific energy consumption by 15% (1.7 kWh/m3 ) and specific
aluminum consumption by 17% (66 g Al/m3 ), compared with the
results of groundwater treatment without addition of supporting
electrolyte in the same reactor operational conditions.
4. Conclusions
In this study NOM and arsenic removal was analyzed using the
laboratory scale continuous flow ECF reactor with bipolar plate
aluminum electrodes. The effects of the reactor’s various opera-
tional parameters on NOM and arsenic removal efficiency as well
as energy efficiency and electrode consumption were studied.
It was found that adding more than four electrodes to the ECF
reactor resulted in a decline in NOM removal efficiency. NOM
removal is more efficient when the pH of the groundwater was
adjusted to 5. Increase of the operating current density caused a
slight decrease in NOM removal efficiency. Effect from flow rate
on NOM removal efficiency was not observable, however, increase
the flow rate was found to decrease Astotal removal efficiency. A
concentration of 60 mg/l Cl− in treated groundwater containing
9.31 ± 0.51 mg C/l of NOM was sufficient for anode passivation layer
breakdown.
The highest achieved NOM removal according to UV254
absorbance and DOC was 77% and 71%, respectively, (relative to raw
groundwater) as well as arsenic removal efficiency of 85% (6.2 ␮g
As/l), meeting the drinking water standards of 10 ␮g/l. The ECF reac-
tor operational parameters were: current density 5.78 mA/cm2 ,
263
applied potential 17 V, inter electrode distance 2.8 cm, flow rate
4.3 l/h, A/V ratio 0.248 cm−1 , initial groundwater pH value 5 and
60 mg/l Cl− was present in the treated groundwater. The spe-
cific reactor energy and electrode consumption were 1.7 kWh/m3
and 66 g Al/m3 , respectively. The specific reactor electrical energy
consumption (Seec ) was 17.5 kWh/kg Al. ECF reactor took approx-
imately 10 min to achieve steady state according to UV254 and
30 min according to DOC.
This study showed that ECF treatment is a promising purification
technology for the treatment of groundwater containing high con-
centrations of NOM and arsenic. Outputs of this study will be helpful
for further application in designing economically and environmen-
tally sustainable ECF continuous flow reactors for the treatment of
raw groundwater polluted with NOM and As for small settlements.
Acknowledgements
This research was financed by the Ministry of Education and
Science of the Republic of Serbia (Project No. III43005) and the
Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development
of the Government of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Republic
of Serbia (Project No. APV 114-451-1985)
References
[1] D. Ghernaout, B. Ghernaout, A. Kellil, Natural organic matter and enhanced
coagulation as a link between coagulation and electrocoagulation, Desalin.
Water Treat. 2 (2009) 2003–2222.
[2] Y. Seida, Y. Nakano, Removal of humic substances by layered double hydroxide
containing iron, Water Res. 5 (34) (2000) 1487–1494.
[3] V. Pallier, G.F. Cathalifaud, B. Serpaud, Influence of organic matter on arsenic
removal by continuous flow electrocoagulation treatment of weakly mineral-
ized waters, Chemosphere 8 (2011) 21–28.
[4] M.M. Emamjomeh, M. Sivakumar, Review of pollutants removed by electro-
coagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes, J. Environ. Manage. 90
(2009) 1663–1679.
[5] C. Riocordel, A. Darchen, D. Hadjiev, Electrocoagulation–electroflotation as a
surface water treatment for industrial uses, Sep. Purif. Technol. 74 (2010)
342–347.
[6] P.K. Holt, G.W. Barton, M. Wark, C.A. Mitchell, A quantitative comparison
between chemical dosing and electrocoagulation, Colloids Surf. A: Physic-
ochem. Eng. Asp. 211 (2002) 233–248.
[7] M.Y.A. Mollah, P. Morkovsky, J.A.G. Gomes, M. Kesmez, J. Parga, D.L. Cocke,
Fundamentals, present and future perspectives of electrocoagulation, J. Hazard.
Mater. 114 (2004) 199–210.
[8] N.S. Kumar, S. Goel, Factors influencing arsenic and nitrate removal from drink-
ing water in a continuous flow electrocoagulation process, J. Hazard. Mater. 173
(2010) 528–533.
[9] P.K. Holt, G.W. Barton, C.A. Mitchell, The future for electrocoagulation as a
localised water treatment technology, Chemosphere 59 (2005) 355–367.
[10] Y.S. Yildiz, A.S. Koparal, S. Irdemez, B. Keskinler, Electrocoagulation of synthet-
ically prepared waters containing high concentration of NOM using iron cast
electrodes, J. Hazard. Mater. B139 (2007) 373–380.
[11] Y.S. Yildiz, A.S. Koparal, B. Keskinel, Effect of initial pH and supporting elec-
trolyte on the treatment of water containing high concentration of humic
substances by electrocoagulation, Chem. Eng. J. 138 (2008) 63–72.
[12] Q.Y. Feng, X. Li, Y. Cheng, Z. Lai, Removal of humic acid from groundwater by
electrocoagulation, J. China Univ. Mining Technol. 17 (2007) 520, 513-515.
[13] M. Vespsalainen, M. Ghiasvand, J. selin, J. Pienimaa, E. Repo, M. Pulliainen, M.
Sillanpaa, Investigation of the effects of temperature and initial sample pH on
natural organic matter (NOM) removal with electrocoagulation using response
surface methods (RSM), Sep. Purif. Technol. 69 (2009) 255–326.
[14] IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans: Overall Evaluations of Carcino-
genicity: An Updating of IARC Monographs, vol. 1–42 (7), International Agency
for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, 1987, pp. 100–206.
[15] World Health Organization, Guidelines for drinking water quality, vol.1, 2006,
pp. 306.
[16] P.R. Kumar, S. Sanjeev, C.K. Khilar, S.P. Mahajan, Removal of arsenic from water
by electrocoagulation, Chemosphere 5 (9) (2004) 1245–1252.
[17] J.R. Paraga, D.L. Cocke, J.K. Valenzuela, J.A. Gomez, M. Kesmez, G. Irwin, H.
Moreno, M. Weir, Arsenic removal via electrocoagulation from heavy metal
contaminated groundwater in La Magunera, Mexico, J. Hazard. Mater. B124
(2005) 247–254.
[18] J.F. Martinez-Villafane, C.M. Ocampo, A.M. Garcia-Lara, Energy and electrode
consumption analyses of electrocoagulation for the removal of arsenic from
underground water, J. Hazard. Mater. 172 (2009) 1617–1622.
264 E. Mohora et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 257–264
[19] A. Tubic, J. Agbaba, B. Dalmacija, I.I. Tumbas, M. Dalmacija, Removal of arsenic
and natural organic matter from groundwater using ferric and alum salts: a case
study of central Banat region (Serbia), J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 45 (2010)
363–369.
[20] AWWA–APHA–WEF Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th edition, American Public Health Association/American
Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC,
1998.
[21] N. Mameri, A.R. Yeddou, H. Lounici, D. Belhocine, H. Grib, B. Bariou, Defluo-
ridation of septentrional Sahara water of North Africa by electrocoagulation
process using bipolar aluminium electrodes, Water Res. 32 (1998) 1604–1612.
[22] D. Ghosh, C.R. Medhi, H. Solonki, M.K. Purkait, Decolorization of cri stal violet
Solution by electrocoagulation, J. Environ. Prot. Sci. 2 (2008) 25–35.
[23] G. Chen, X.M. Chen, P.L. Yue, Electrocoagulation and electroflotation of restau-
rant wastewater, J. Environ. Eng. 126 (2000) 858–863.
[24] A.S. Koparal, Y.S. Yildiz, B. Keskinel, N. Demircioglu, Effect of initial pH on
the removal of humic substances from wastewater by electrocoagulation, Sep.
Purif. Technol. 59 (2008) 175–182.
[25] G. Mouedhen, M. Feki, M.D.P. Wery, H.F. Ayedi, Behaviour of aluminium elec-
trodes in electrocoagulation process, J. Hazard. Mater. 150 (2008) 124–135.
[26] C. Phalakornkule, S. Polgumhang, W. Tongdaung, Performance of an elec-
trocoagulation process in treating direct dye: batch and continuous upflow
processes, World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 57 (2009) 277–282.
[27] P.K. Holt, Electrocoagulation: unravelling and synthesizing the mechanisms
behind a water treatment process, PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering, The
University of Sydney, 2003.
[28] T. Karanfil, M.A. Schlautoman, I. Erdogan, Survey of DOC and UV measurement
practices with implications for SUVA determination, JAWWA 94 (12) (2002)
68.
[29] J.J. Molnar, J.R. Agbaba, B.D. Dalmacija, T.M. Klašnja, M.B. Dalmacija, M.M.
Kragulj, A comparative study of the effects of ozonation and TiO2 -catalyzed
ozonation on the selected chlorine disinfection by-product precursor content
and structure, Sci. Total Environ. 425 (2012) 169–175.
[30] J.K. Edzvald, J.E. Tobiason, Enhanced coagulation: US requirements and a
broader view, Water Sci. Technol. 4 (1999) 47–54.
[31] N. Her, G. Amy, D. Foss, J. Cho, Y. Yoon, P. Kosenka, Optimization of method
for detecting and characterizing NOM by HPLC-size exclusion chromatogra-
phy with UV and on-line DOC detection, Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002)
1069–1076.