Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

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

Mercury(II) removal from water by electrocoagulation using aluminium

and iron electrodes
Charles Péguy Nanseu-Njiki a,∗ , Serge Raoul Tchamango a , Philippe Claude Ngom a ,
André Darchen b , Emmanuel Ngameni a
a
Laboratoire de Chimie Analytique, Faculté des sciences, Université de Yaoundé I, B.P. 812 Yaoundé, Cameroon
b
ENSCR, UMR CNRS 6226 Sciences Chimiques de Rennes, Avenue du Général Leclerc, 35700 Rennes, France

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

Article history: In this work, electrocoagulation was used to evaluate the treatment of synthetic solutions containing
Received 4 August 2008 mercury(II) of concentration 2 × 10−5 M. The effects of the distance between the electrodes, current den-
Received in revised form 10 January 2009 sity, charge loading and initial pH on the removal efficiency were investigated, using aluminium and
Accepted 9 March 2009
iron electrodes. Analysis of the filtrates resulting from the treatment was made by anodic redissolution
Available online 18 March 2009
in the differential pulse mode. The removal efficiency was above 99.9% when the distance between the
electrodes was 3 cm, the current density ranging from 2.5 to 3.125 A dm−2 ; for instance, 99.95% of the
Keywords:
mercury(II) was eliminated when a charge loading of 9.33 and 15.55 F m−3 were used for iron and alu-
Electrocoagulation
Mercury(II)
minium respectively. In these conditions, by varying the pH of the mercury(II) solutions from 3 to 7, the
Removal efficiency removal efficiency remained higher than 99%. In addition, some experiments were carried out on a river
Aluminium and iron electrodes water contaminated with mercury(II) ions, and the results obtained showed that the presence of organic
matter do not influence the efficiency of the treatment. The elimination of mercury(II) ions is best per-
formed with iron, where 15 min of electrolysis was sufficient to reach the highest removal compared to
aluminium which required 25 min for the same result.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Mercury is found usually in inorganic or organic forms. In the

Inorganic pollutants and in particular heavy metals constitute a
serious threat for the environment. These heavy metals, known as
powerful toxic agents, are teratogenic and carcinogenic [1–4]. Their
use as raw material in various production facilities is the source
of the contamination of many effluents whose polluting loads are
often very high compared to the standards. This is the case of man-
ufacturing processes such as batteries and accumulators made up
of mercury(II) oxide, paints containing mercury(II) sulphate, phar-
maceutical products like mercurochrome (antiseptic) and clinical
thermometers [3]. Effluents containing mercury(II) or its deriva-
tives have already caused several disasters in the world. The first
great pollution of great scale caused by this element is known to
be the water disaster of Minamata (Japan) in 1953 which deci-
mated more than 200 people who consumed fish contaminated
by methyl mercury [5]. Other cases of contamination from mercury
showed that daily intake in small doses (0.25 mg) by an individ-
ual can affect the nervous system and cause neurological and renal
disorders which are sometimes irreversible [2,5,6].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +237 22 05 87 24; fax: +237 22 23 98 02.
E-mail address: nanseu@yahoo.fr (C.P. Nanseu-Njiki).
inorganic form, it usually exists in various physical states: liq-
uid (Hg0 ) or solid (salts of Hg2+ , Hg2 2+ ions or oxide). However,
inorganic mercury can combine with organic compounds to give
organometallics, and sometimes methyl mercury under the action
of bacteria for instance. In this latter form, mercury is much more
toxic and labile compared to its free form. In general, mercury con-
tamination is favoured by its high volatility which can induce its
inhalation through air; its high reactivity readily allows mercury
to combine with various other elements, leading to quite stable
species, and that can accumulate in sea products. Ingestion of
the products constitutes another way of contamination of human
beings [2,3].
Several techniques are used with the object of reducing the
effects caused by the presence of mercury and its derivatives in
wastewater. They include chemical coagulation, precipitation, elec-
troflotation, adsorption on activated carbon, ion exchange through a
liquid–liquid membrane, fixation of the pollutant through a biologi-
cal membrane and ultrafiltration [4,7–9]. Some techniques based on
the trapping of mercury by modified materials using certain groups
having affinities with it have been developed recently [10–13]. The
majority of studies carried out in this field with these techniques do
not show satisfactory removal efficiencies. Moreover, their imple-
mentation requires important means in terms of equipment and

0304-3894/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.042
 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436 1431

reagents, which contributes to raise their production costs. As an and analyzed in order to determine the quantity of pollutant elimi-
example, chemical coagulation requires some reagents (iron and nated. The treatment procedure is illustrated in the diagram below.
aluminium hydrolysable salts), a permanent pH adjustment and
this leads in general to secondary pollution [7]. A literature survey
does not show any study on the decontamination of mercury(II)
or its derivatives by electrocoagulation. Studies on the decontam-
ination of effluents containing heavy metals other than mercury
by electrocoagulation led to removal efficiency close to 100%. More
importantly, decontamination by this technique does not involve
any risk of side pollution [4,14–18].
The objective of this work is to remove mercury(II) ions from a
solution by electrocoagulation using iron and aluminium as elec-
trodes. Parameters such as distance between electrodes, current
density, charge loading and initial pH of the solution will also be
investigated to enhance the efficiency of the treatment.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental apparatus

Electrocoagualation of mercury(II) was carried out in a 100 mL

beaker, using a magnetic stirrer in order to get a good homoge-
nization of flocks and wastewater. The current was provided by a
DC power supply (ERMES M10-SP-303 30 V–3 A). Analyses were
made by anodic redissolution in pulse mode using a ␮-AUTOLAB
potentiostat provided with a system of electrochemical analyses
GPES (Eco-Chemie) monitored by a computer. The working elec-
trode was Gold, and was a rotating disk. Saturated calomel (SCE)
and platinium were used respectively as reference and auxiliary
electrodes. The pH was measured using a Multi 340i/SET Weight
Watchers International (WTW) pH-meter, while the chemical oxy-
gen demand (COD) was measured using a HACH 2500 Odissey 2.4. Analysis procedure
spectrophotometer.
Electrochemical investigations were done by using anodic redis-
2.2. Reagents and solutions solution in the differential pulse mode on filtrates collected at the
end of the treatment. The current peak was used to calculate the
Solutions were prepared at room temperature with deionised removal percentage of mercury(II) ions. During these investiga-
water. All reagents were of analytical grade and were used without tions, 5 mL of electrolytic solution and 5 mL of the filtrate were
further purification. The glassware was washed prior to analysis and mixed in a 50 mL volumetric flask, and then extended the whole
treated with water and sulphuric acid (H2 SO4 , 98%, from Riedel-de- to the gauge mark with deionised water [19–21]. The content was
Haen), then rinsed with water and dried in an oven. poured in a conventional cell of three electrodes (Au-SCE-Pt) and
Solutions of mercury(II) were prepared by dissolving a suitable analyzed.
quantity of mercury(II) nitrate (Hg(NO3 )2 , 97% from Riedel-de-
Haen) in deionised water and acidifying it by hydrochloric acid 3. Results and discussions
(HCl, 37% from Prolabo). The pH was adjusted by adding HCl or
The efficiency of the elimination of mercury(II) during the treat-
NaOH 10−1 M, while sodium chloride (NaCl, 99.8% from Prolabo)
ment was evaluated by its removal efficiency ( ) given by the
was added to the medium in order to make it conductive.
following equation:
The solution used during electrochemical investigations to
detect residual mercury(II) fraction was a mixture of ethylene
diamine tetra acetic disodic acid (EDTANa2 , 99% from Prolabo) as
complexing agent, sodium chloride as supporting electrolyte and (1)
perchloric acid (HClO4 , 70% from Riedel-de-Haen) in order to avoid where Co and C are respectively the concentrations of mercury(II)
the precipitation of mercury(II) ions during the analysis. ions before and after the treatment.
A calibration curve drawn for known mercury(II) concentration
2.3. Treatment procedure was used to deduce the removal efficiency of the pollutant in treated
solutions.
Treatments were carried out using iron and aluminium as
electrodes. Aluminium electrodes were blades of dimensions 3.1. Analysis of mercury(II)
4 cm × 1 cm, while those of iron were nails of 0.8 cm of diameter
and 4 cm height. Before each treatment, electrodes are scrubbed The analysis of mercury(II) solutions has already been investi-
with sand paper, then cleaned with 1 M H2 SO4 and rinsed several gated. In the present work, the determination of the quantity of
times with water [17,18]. The electrodes (anode and cathode) of these ions after treatment was made using an electrolytic medium
the same nature separated by a gap ranging from 1 to 5 cm were acidified by HClO4 2 × 10−4 M and containing EDTANa2 10−3 M and
placed parallel to each other in a beaker containing 100 mL of the NaCl 10−3 M acting as complexing agent and supporting electrolyte
solution to be treated. The total immersed area of each electrode respectively according to a procedure described by Tchinda et al.
was 8 cm2 . At the end of the treatment, the filtrate was collected [13].
1432 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436

Table 1
Electrochemical parameters used during Hg(II) detection by anodic
redissolution in differential pulse mode.

Potential of deposit (Edep ) 0.3 V

Final potential (Ef ) 0.9 V
Time of deposit (td ) 30 s
Time of modulation 5 ms
Modulation amplitude 5 mV
Amplitude of the pulse 50 mV
Velocity rate of electrode 500 rpm

During the analysis, the complex formed by mercury(II) and

EDTA was reduced at the gold electrode surface as shown by the
equation below:

HgY 2− + 2e− → Hg(0) + Y 4− (2)

After this stage, the solution was left at rest for 10 s approximately;
during this period the reaction of redissolution occurred, corre-
sponding to the oxidation of mercury reduced previously at the
electrode surface. This step is expressed by the following equation:

Hg(0) + Y 4− → HgY 2− + 2e− (3)

The parameters used during the detection of mercury(II) by

anodic redissolution in the differential pulse mode are presented
in Table 1. The deposit of mercury occurs at a potential of 0.3 V, and
its redissolution at approximately 0.55 V. This explains the window
of sweeping between 0.3 V and 0.9 V. The best time of deposit is
obtained after 30 s.
Fig. 1(a) shows the voltammograms obtained during the analysis
by anodic redissolution of mercury(II) solutions, their concentra-
tions varying between 10−7 and 10−6 M. The redissolution peak
which appears at 0.55 V, increases progressively with the concen-
tration of mercury(II). The reproducibility of the signals tends to
show that HgY2− formed at the gold electrode surface is stable. In
Fig. 1. (a) Evolution of the peak current of a solution of Hg(II) ions between 10−7 and
Fig. 1(b), the variation of the peak current with the concentration 10−6 M. Detection by anodic redissolution in differential impulse mode in 6 × 10−3 M
of mercury(II) ions is plotted. From this figure, the corresponding NaCl + 10−3 M EDTANa2 + 2 × 10−4 M HClO4 after 30 s of electrolysis at 0.3 V. (b) Cal-
equation of the straight line obtained is y = 3.0452x + 0.3352 with ibration line of mercury(II) ions between 10−6 and 10−7 M.
a correlation coefficient r2 = 0.993, which can therefore be used
for the calculation of the pollutant concentration after the treat- Cathode:
ment.
3H2 O + 3e− → 3/2H2 + 3OH (5)

3.2. Treatment by electrocoagulation of the mercury(II) solution
The treatment was carried out on the solution contaminated by
mercury(II) at a concentration of 2 × 10−5 M, the electrodes being
iron or aluminium. As a matter of fact, these metals are commonly
used in the electrocoagulation processes because they can easily
be dissolved and produce metallic cations whose hydroxides are
responsible of the coagulation. Moreover, they are not very expen-
sive and do not pose hazard in the environment [7].
3.2.1. Electrocoagulation with aluminium electrodes
A few minutes after the beginning of the treatment achieved as
indicated in Section 2.3, a development of flocks is observed. The
effect of hydrogen released at the cathode favours the progressive
accumulation of these flocks at the solution surface in the form
of whitish thick mud. At the end of the treatment, the anode is
partially consumed and the filtrates obtained are clear and stable.
Flocks formation is caused by electrodissolution of the anode and
the reduction of water at the cathode which generates respectively
within the solution, aluminium and hydroxide ions according to the
following reactions [14–18,22]:
Anode:
− 2+
Al → Al 3+
+ 3e
On the other hand, at high pH values, both anode and cathode
may be chemically attacked by OH− ions according to the reaction
below [22,23]:
2Al + 6H2 O + 2OH− → 2Al(OH)4 − + 3H2 (6)
The Al3+ and OH− ions produced at the electrodes react to form
monomeric and polymeric species which transform finally into
Al(OH)3 capable to bind mercury(II) ions [8,15].
3.2.2. Electrocoagulation with iron electrodes
Upon treating the solution with iron electrodes, the medium
which is green at the beginning of the process becomes progres-
sively yellow. At the end, the filtrate is clear while flocks are also
formed. The green and yellow colours result from Fe2+ and Fe3+
respectively. Fe2+ is the common ion generated during the electrol-
ysis of iron, and in the presence of dissolved oxygen in water, it can
be easily oxidised into Fe3+ . Two mechanisms have been proposed
to explain the production of iron hydroxides [22,23].
Mechanism 1:
Anode
4Fe → 4Fe2+ + 8e− (7)
+
(4) 4Fe + 10H2 O + O2 → 4Fe(OH)3 + 8H (8)
 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436
Fig. 2. Effect of the distance between electrodes on the removal efficiency of
Hg(II) ions. Current density = 1.25 A dm−2 , electrolysis time = 15 min, concentration
of NaCl = 0.1 M, current intensity = 0.1 A, initial pH of the solution = 2.7.
Cathode
8H+ + 8e− → 4H2
Overall reaction
4Fe + 10H2 O + O2 → 4Fe(OH)3 + 4H2
Mechanism 2:
Anode
Fe → Fe2+ + 2e−
Fe2+ + 2OH− → Fe(OH)2
Cathode
2H2 O + 2e− → 2OH− + H2
Overall equation
Fe + 2H2 O → Fe(OH)2 + H2
During electrolysis, Fe(II) and Fe(III) hydroxides remain in the
solution as suspensions and can also remove mercuric ions by com-
plexation or electrostatic attraction followed by coagulation [22].
Similar observations have already been made by Chen et al. [14]
during the elimination of oil and grease from restaurant effluents
by electrocoagulation. They explain this colour change by the fact
that iron(II) ions generated by the electrodissolution of anode are
oxidized progressively in the presence of dissolved oxygen.
3.3. Effect of the distance between the electrodes
The influence of the distance between the electrodes has been
examined with the aim of determining the one which gives a
better elimination of the pollutant. Experiments were then per-
formed on several samples of mercury(II) solutions of concentration
2 × 10−5 M varying the gap between the electrodes from 1 to
5 cm. The analysis of the filtrates after the treatment is plotted
on Fig. 2 from which it appears that increasing the gap between
the electrodes slightly increases the removal of the pollutant and
this is noticed whatever the nature of the electrode. A similar
behaviour has already been observed by Daneshvar et al. [23] dur-
ing the treatment of dye solutions by electrocoagulation and by
Sherestha et al. [24] during the electrochemical removal of lead,
cadmium and zinc in water respectively. The influence of the dis-
tance between the electrodes on the efficiency of the process could
be explained by the fact that the electrostatic field which depends
1433
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
Fig. 3. Effect of current density on removal efficiency of Hg(II) ions. Initial con-
(13) centration of mercury(II) ions = 2 × 10−5 M; electrode surface = 8 cm2 ; electrolysis
time = 25 min. (a) Aluminium; (b) iron. Initial pH of the solution = 2.7.
(14) on the distance between the electrodes diminishes as this param-
eter increases. A low field may result in a slower displacement of
the ions formed during the electrolysis and then facilitates their
flocculation, which render the binding of mercury(II) in solution by
iron or aluminium hydroxide more efficient. Besides, Fig. 2 shows
clearly that the removal of pollutant is identical in both cases when
the gap between the electrodes is beyond 3 cm, the current density
being equal to 0.625 A dm−2 . This distance will be maintained for
the study of other parameters.
3.4. Effect of current density
The current density is the current per unit surface; it is a param-
eter that controls the anode dissolution speed on the one hand,
and that of hydrogen formation on the other hand [7,14,15,23,24].
We have examined the influence of the variation of this parameter
between 0.625 and 3.125 A dm−2 on the removal of mercury(II), for
iron and aluminium electrodes. Thus, we varied the current from
0.05 to 0.25 A while the electrolysis time and immersed electrodes
surface remained constant. We observed that, the higher the cur-
rent density, the more turbid the solution was at the end of the
treatment. This can be explained by the fact that an increase in
current density also increases the rate of anode dissolution, and
consequently favours flocculation.
Fig. 3(a and b) depicts the variations of the removal effi-
ciency and mercury(II) ions concentration against the current
density in the case of aluminium and iron respectively. From
these results, it appears that the current density initially imposed
1434 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436

(0.625 A dm−2 ) induces the elimination of a significant quantity of

Hg2+ ions, whose concentrations vary from 2 × 10−5 to 0.604 × 10−7
and 1.292 × 10−7 M respectively for iron and aluminium; removals
obtained are more than 99%. The removal efficiency is better with
iron in the range 0.625–2.5 A dm−2 . Beyond this limit, an increase
of the current density results only in a small increase of the removal
efficiency in the case of iron where a plateau is reached, while with
aluminium, a slight increase is still perceptible. Moreover, for a
given current density, the removal efficiency with iron is higher.
Similar results were obtained by Kobya et al. [15] and Kumar et al.
[25] during the treatment of textile effluents and water contami-
nated by arsenic respectively. For the textile effluents, these authors
found that the optimal current densities are 0.8 and 1.5 A dm−2
respectively for iron and aluminium after 10 min of electrolysis,
regarding the optimal removal efficiency of turbidity and chemical
oxygen demand. These authors explained this behaviour by the fact
that iron(III) hydroxide has a greater affinity to the pollutant com-
pared to aluminium hydroxide. The quantity of electricity released
during the treatment could also justify these results; for the same
quantity of electricity, the number of moles of Fe2+ electrogener-
ated is higher than that of Al3+ , consequently more Fe(II) and Fe(III)
hydroxides are formed.

3.5. Effect of charge loading

Charge loading is the quantity of electricity per unit volume.

It depends on Al3+ or Fe2+ ions produced in solution during the
electrolysis [14,22,26–28].
We sought for both electrodes, the charge loading values which
can be used to obtain the highest removal efficiency. For this to be
achieved, the current density is kept equal to 2.5 A dm−2 while the
charge loading was varied between 1.87 and 15.55 F m−3 of solution
to be treated.
One can notice in Fig. 4(a and b) that removal efficiencies
obtained when the charge loading is 1.87 F m−3 are higher than
99.6% with both electrodes. During the treatment, removal effi-
ciency reaches 99.95% and does not evolve, for a charge loading of
9.33 F m−3 when iron is used. With aluminium, the optimal removal
is 99.90%. This value is lower than that obtained with iron although
more charge loading is used (15.55 F m−3 ). In a similar study deal-
ing with the removal of arsenic from water by electrocoagulation,
Kumar et al. [25] showed that the variation of the removal efficiency
with charge loading also depends on the nature of electrodes: for
a charge loading equal to 1.04 F m−3 the removal efficiency was
99% with iron and only 37% with aluminium, the charge loading
being equal to 3.63 F m−3 . These authors also explain the weaker
removal with aluminium electrodes by a low adsorption capacity
of aluminium hydroxide compared to iron(III) hydroxide. In fact, the
size of Fe3+ could increase their capacity for absorption (10–30 ␮m
against 0.05–1 ␮m for Al3+ ions) [29]. The quantity of electricity
imposed during the treatment also happened to be dependent on
the nature of the electrodes. As a matter of fact 15 and 25 min of
electrolysis is needed for iron and aluminium respectively to reach
the plateau, the current used being equal to 0.1 A. At this point, it
appears clearly that iron treats mercury(II) solutions quicker than
aluminium.
3.6. Effect of the initial pH
When electrocoagulation proceeds in aqueous solution, the pH
of the medium has a considerable effect on its performance as well
as on the solubility of the analyte [9,17]. In fact, when the pH varies,
mercury(II) takes the following forms: Hg2+ , HgOH+ and Hg(OH)2
[30], which of course results in different reactivities of this species.
In this work, the examination of the pH effect on the elimination of
Fig. 4. Effect of charge loading on removal efficiency of Hg(II) ions. Density of
current = 2.5 A dm−2 . Initial concentration = 2 × 10−5 M; electrode surface = 8 cm2 . (a)
Aluminium; (b) iron. Initial pH of the solution = 2.7.
mercury(II) by electrocoagulation was studied for pH ranging from
3 to 7; pH values less than 3 should be avoided because the hydroxyl
ions formed will not be stable enough to react with aluminium or
iron cations. For pH values higher than 7, the formation of aluminate
ions which are useless will proceed [22–23]. During experiments,
the concentration of mercury(II) solution was 2 × 10−5 M. The pH
of samples to be treated was adjusted by addition of diluted solu-
tions of sodium hydroxide or hydrochoric acid. From the analysis
of Figs. 2 and 3, we noted that when current densities were 2.5 and
1.25 A dm−2 for aluminium and iron respectively, and the distance
between the electrodes was 3 cm, the removal efficiency does not
evolve significantly. For this reason, we chose those values to study
the effect of the initial pH on the elimination of mercury(II) ions.
In Fig. 5, it is seen that removal efficiency varies very slightly
with the initial pH and remains high (greater than 99% for both
electrodes) for the range of the pH explored, no matter what the
form in which Hg(II) is found. These removals show that for the
initial pH chosen, the production of Al3+ and Fe3+ is sufficient to
carry out the treatment because the flocks formed by these cations
could present a rather great affinity to the different forms of mer-
cury(II) ions. Similar results were obtained by Şengil and Özacar [31]
during the treatment of dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation
using mild steel electrodes and they also observed that elimination
of parameters of pollution were obtained when the initial pH is
between 3 and 7; they also noted that beyond these values removal
efficiencies of these parameters decreased.
 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436
Table 2
Characteristics of the river water contaminated with mercury(II) ions before and after treatment by electrocoagulation. (a) COD before treatment; (b) COD after treatment.
Anode material COD (mg L−1 )
(a)
Iron 378
Aluminium 378
Fig. 5. Effect of initial pH on removal efficiency of Hg(II) ions.
3.7. Treatment by electrocoagulation of a river water
contaminated by mercury(II) ions
After the successful treatment of a pure water contaminated
with mercury(II) by electrocoagulation, we decided to evaluate the
performance of this process applied to the treatment of a river water
contaminated by the same pollutant. Roughly speaking, a volume
of 100 mL of this river was collected in a beaker and then a precise
quantity of mercury(II) nitrate was added to reach a final con-
centration of 2 × 10−5 M of mercury(II). The solution obtained was
submitted to an electrocoagulation treatment under the optimal
conditions described above (currents densities: 2.5 and 1.25 A dm−2
respectively for aluminium and iron; distance between the elec-
trodes: 3 cm; initial pH: 7). The influence of the dissolved organic
matter on the removal of the mercury(II) ions was checked by
measuring the chemical oxygen demand before and after the treat-
ment. The results of the analyses are reported in the Table 2, from
which it is observed that the removal efficiencies of mercury(II) are
respectively 99.95 and 99.85% when iron and aluminium are used
as electrode material. At the same time, the COD of the solution
decreases notably following the same trend; i.e. from 378 to 36 and
47 mg L−1 which corresponds to removals of 90.48 and 87.57% for
aluminium and iron respectively. The examination of these results
shows that the removal efficiencies obtained in the two cases (with
deionised water and river water) are approximately equal, and this
means that the effect of the organic matter contained in the river
water is negligible on the mercury(II) ions elimination. By consid-
ering the high removals of the COD and mercuric ions, it is obvious
that electrocoagulation can also be effective for the treatment of
river water polluted by mercury(II) ions.
4. Conclusion
This study showed the applicability of electrocoagulation to
treat water contaminated by mercury(II). More than 99% of the pol-
lutant was eliminated by using iron and aluminium as electrodes.
The minimum distance between the electrodes giving good removal
was 3 cm. Beyond this value, removal efficiencies do not vary signif-
icantly whatever the electrode used. Increasing the current density
from 0.625 to 3.125 A dm−2 resulted in a high binding capacity for
1435
Removal efficiency of mercury(II) after treatment of river water (%)
(b)
36 99.95
47 99.85
iron(III) hydroxide compared to that of aluminium hydroxide. The
optimal current density retained in the case of iron was 2.5 A dm−2 .
Charge loading examination also showed a correlation between the
increase of this parameter and the removal efficiency. Under the
optimal conditions, the electrocoagulation of samples of river water
polluted with mercury(II) ions was investigated in order to examine
the effect of organic matter on the treatment. The results obtained
showed that the elimination of the COD is high, and the removal
efficiencies of mercury(II) ions are similar to the case where the
effluent was made with deionised water. This study confirmed that
with iron, the treatment was faster and better than aluminium.
With iron electrode, only 15 min of electrolysis and an optimal
loading 9.33 F m−3 were required to treat mercury(II) ions, com-
paratively to aluminium where 25 min and a charge loading of
15.55 F m−3 were necessary to achieve the best efficiency.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the International Foundation of
Science (IFS) (Project No. W/4395-1, Dr. Nanseu NJIKI C.P.) and
the Academy of Science for the developing world (TWAS) (TWAS
RESEARCH UNIT GRANT No. 07-052LDC/CHE/AF/AC, Professor Nga-
meni E.) for their financial support.
References
[1] C. Collado-Sanchez, J. Pérez-Pena, M.D. Gelado-Caballero, J.A. Herrera-Melian,
J.J. Hernandez-Brito, Rapid determination of copper, lead and cadmium in
unpurged seawater by adsorptive stripping voltammetry, Anal. Chim. Acta 320
(1996) 19–30.
[2] C.D. Carrington, B. Montwill, P.M. Bolger, An intervention analysis for reduction
of exposure to methylmercury from the consumption of seafood by women of
child-bearing age, Regul. Toxicol. Pharma. 40 (2004) 272–280.
[3] X. Zhu, S.D. Alexandratos, Determination of trace levels of mercury in aque-
ous solutions by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry:
elimination of the memory effect, Microchem. J. 81 (2006) 37–41.
[4] T.A. Kurniawan, G.Y.S. Chan, W.H. Lo, S. Babel, Physico-chemical treatment tech-
niques of wastewater laden with heavy metals, Chem. Eng. J. 118 (2006) 83–98.
[5] S.M. Ullruich, T.W. Tanton, S.A. Abdrasthistova, Mercury in the aquatic environ-
ment: a review of factors affecting methylation, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.
31 (2001) 241–293.
[6] W.F. Fitzgerald, C.H. Lamborg, Geochemistry of mercury in the environment, in:
H.D. Holland, K.K. Turckian (Eds.), Treatise on Geochemistry, Elsevier, Oxford,
UK, 2004.
[7] G. Chen, Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 38 (2004) 11–41.
[8] A. Alinsafi, M. Khemis, M.N. Pons, J.P. Leclerc, A. Yaacoubi, A. Benhammou, A.
Nejmeddine, Electrocoagulation of reactive textile dyes and textile wastewater,
Chem. Eng. Proc. 44 (2005) 461–470.
[9] R.G. Casqueira, M.L. Toren, H.M. Kohler, The removal of zinc from liquid streams
by electroflotation, Miner. Eng. 19 (2006) 1388–1392.
[10] L. Mercier, T.J. Pinnavaia, A functionalized porous clays heterostructure for
heavy metal ion (Hg2+ ) trapping, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 20 (1998)
101–106.
[11] A. Walcarius, M. Etienne, S. Sayen, B. Lebeau, Grafted silicas in electroanalysis
amorphous versus ordered mesoporous materials, Electroanalysis 15 (2003)
414–421.
[12] I.K. Tonle, E. Ngameni, A. Walcarius, From clay-to organoclay-film modified elec-
trodes: tuning charge selectivity in ion exchange voltammetry, Electrochim.
Acta 49 (2004) 3435–3443.
[13] A.J. Tchinda, E. Ngameni, A. Walcarius, Thiol functionalized clay heterostruc-
tures (PCHs) deposited as thin films on carbon electrode: towards mercury(II)
sensing, Sens. Actuator B121 (2006) 113–123.
[14] X. Chen, G. Chen, P.L. Yue, Separation of pollutants from restaurant wastewater
by electrocoagulation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 19 (2000) 65–76.
[15] M. Kobya, O.T. Can, M. Bayramoglu, Treatment of textile wastewaters by electro-
coagulation using iron and aluminium electrodes, J. Hazard. Mater. B100 (2003)
163–178.
1436 C.P. Nanseu-Njiki et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2009) 1430–1436
[16] N. Adhoum, J.E. Belgaied, L. Monser, N. Bellakhal, Treatment of electroplating
wastewater containing Cu2+ , Zn2+ and Cr(VI) by electrocoagulation, J. Hazard.
Mater. B112 (2004) 207–213.
[17] C. Escobar, C. Soto-Salazar, M. Ines Toral, Optimization of the electrocoagula-
tion process for removal of copper, lead and cadmium in natural waters and
simulated wastewater, J. Environ. Manage. 81 (2005) 384–391.
[18] A.E. Yilmaz, R. Boncukcuoglu, M. Muhtar, M. Kocakerim, B. Keskinler, The inves-
tigation of parameters affecting boron removal by electrocoagulation method,
J. Hazard. Mater. 125 (2005) 160–165.
[19] M. Makhfoul, A. Souissi, M. Meray, Analyse de la fraction labile du zinc, cad-
mium, plomb et du cuivre dissous en milieu marin côtier par la redissolution
anodique à impulsions différentielles, C.R. Chim. 6 (2003) 689–693.
[20] M.A. Al-Ghouti, M.A. Khraisheh, M. Tutuji, Flow injection potentiometric strip-
ping analysis for study of adsorption of heavy metal ions onto modified
diatomite, Chem. Eng. J. 104 (2004) 83–91.
[21] A. Profumo, D. Merli, M. Pesavento, Voltammetric determination of inorganic
As(III) and total inorganic As in natural waters, Anal. Chim. Acta 539 (2005)
245–250.
[22] M. Bayramoglu, M. Kobya, O.T. Can, M. Sobzir, Operating cost analysis of textile
dye wastewater, Sep. Purif. Technol. 37 (2004) 117–125.
[23] N. Daneshvar, H.A. Sorkhabi, M.B. Kasiri, Decolorization of dye solution con-
taining Acid Red 14 by electrocoagulation with a comparative investigation of
different electrode connections, J. Hazard. Mater. B 112 (2004) 55–62.
[24] R. Sherestha, R. Fischer, D. Rahner, Behavior of cadmium, lead and zinc at the
sediment–water interface by electrochemically initiated process, Colloids Surf.
A 222 (2003) 261–271.
[25] P.R. Kumar, S. Chaudhari, K.C. Khilar, S.P. Mahajan, Removal of arsenic from water
by electrocoagulation, Chemosphere 55 (2004) 1245–1252.
[26] M.Y.A. Mollah, R. Schennach, D.L. Cocke, Electrocoagulation (EC)—science and
applications, J. Hazard. Mater. B84 (2000) 29–41.
[27] J.R. Parga, D.L. Cocke, J.L. Valenzuela, J.A. Gomes, M. Kesmez, G. Irwin, H. Moreno,
M. Weir, Arsenic removal via electrocoagulation from heavy metal contam-
inated groundwater in la Comarca Lagunera Mexico, J. Hazard. Mater. B124
(2005) 247–254.
[28] P. Gao, X. Chen, F. Shen, G. Chen, Removal of chromium (VI) from wastewater by
combined electrocoagution–electroflotation without a filter, Sep. Purif. Technol.
43 (2005) 117–123.
[29] V.Y. Baklan, I.P. Kolesnikova, Influence of electrode material in the electrocoag-
ulation, J. Aerosol. Sci. 27 (1996) 209–210.
[30] C. Delacote, Etudes électroanalytiques de processus de transfert de matière et de
charge au sein de silices mésoporeuses organiquement modifiées, Ph.D. Thesis,
Nancy, France, 2005.
[31] I.A. Şengil, M. Özacar, Treatment of dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation
using mild steel electrodes, J. Hazard. Mater. B 137 (2006) 1197–1205.