“Process Development for Simultaneous

Removal of Heavy Metals and Microbial

Contaminants from Drinking Water”
BY:
MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
ROLL NO. 132-PHD-2016
SUPERVISED BY:
PROF. DR. AHMAD ADNAN
CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, GCU LAHORE
CO-SUPERVISED BY:
DR. QURAT-UL AIN SYED
DIRECTOR GENERAL, PCSIR LABORATORIES COMPLEX, LAHORE
 Outline
 Background & Objectives
 Major Drinking Water Quality Issues, Sources &
Health Problems of Contaminants
 Current DW Treatment Techniques
 Electrocoagulation (EC) Process for DW Treatment
 Modification & Optimization of EC Process as
Integrated Hybrid Treatment
 Efficiency of MEC Process for Chemical &
Microbiological Contaminants of DW
 Validation of MEC Process Data & Characterization
 Research Outcomes & Conclusion
 Research Objectives & Scheme
 Application of Electrocoagulation (EC) Process for DW Treatment
 Modifications & Optimization of EC process for simultaneous
removal of heavy metals and microbiological contaminations from
drinking water
 Comparison of Conventional Electrocoagulation (CEG) and
Modified Electrocoagulation (MEG)
 Practical application and presentation of the amended modified
anodes for simultaneous removal of metals and microbiological
contamination from public drinking water as integrated hybrid
treatment system
 Application and Validation of antiviral & Antibacterial Efficacy of
MEC process for drinking water
 Characterization of MEC Process & Metal Hydroxide Flocs (SEM,
EDX, Composition, HPLC, FTIR etc.)
 Background
 Quality of Drinking Water is major issue currently which is being deteriorated
continuously due to natural & anthropogenic activities
 Major Water Quality Contaminations
 Physical (turbidity, taste, odour, pH etc.)
 Chemical (dissolved salts cations and anions)
 Microbiological (bacteria, viruses etc.)
 The major types of contaminations in Punjab are Fluoride, Arsenic and
Microbiology

 Safe drinking water supply required for;

 Basic Human Right
 Necessary for healthy, active, productive and auspicious life
 Drinking Water Availability Scenario
About one-tenth of the world’s
people don't have easy access
to safe water (WHO 2021)

Over the last century

 Human population has increased 3x

 Global water withdrawal has increased 7x

 Drinking Water Availability Scenario
 663 million people Lack access to clean water
 2.7 billion face water shortage
 One third of global urban population (933 million) was
facing water scarcity in 2016 which is projected to
increase in 2050 around 1.693 to 2.373 billion people (He,
Liu et al. 2021).
 The global metropolitan population increased more
rapidly from 0.8 billion (29.6%) in 1950 to 4.4 billion
(56.2%) in 2020 (UNO 2018).
 50-80% water demand will increase in next 3 decades due
to population expansion
 Pakistan per capita water availability decreased from
5600m3 (1947) and now below 1000m3 (water scarce), will
decrease to 575m3 in 2025.
Reasons for Water Quality Deterioration
 Sources Natural & Anthropogenic
A. Natural Sources
 geological and environmental factors, rainfalls,
soil erosions, tsunamis, windblown dust, sea
salt sprays, volcano eruptions, hurricanes,
earthquakes, climate change, droughts, forest
fires
 soil texture and matrix interactions, mudslides,
emissions of volatile organic compounds,
 interaction of surface and aquifer soils with in
contact water
 Reasons for Water Quality Deterioration
B. Anthropogenic Sources (80 % water borne diseases)
 Drinking water quality is being deteriorated continuously
due to anthropogenic activities including;
 Domestic and industrial effluents discharge
 Agriculture waste run off
 Direct pumping down of industrial effluent waste into
aquifer
 Leakages of septic tanks
 Replacement of sewage lines at leakage and after expiry
of life
 Mixing of sewage and drinking water lines
 Uncontrolled pumping of ground water aquifer
 Installation of industries in residential areas
 Uncontrolled expansion of cities, housing, road
infrastructures,
 Major Contaminants Identified
(PCRWR National Study)

Unfit Sample
• 88% samples at
user ends
• 79% water sources Bacteriological Arsenic
(68%) (24%)

Nitrate Fluoride
(13%) (5%)
 Microbiological Contamination in DW
 4.5 billion cases of diarrhoea are reported each year
About 0.8 million people die annually due to diarrhoea
infections (reason of 90% child's death globally)
4.5 million people in Pakistan suffer from Diarrhoea
annually (14% children's)
380-883 m USD loss for Water Related Diseases (0.6-
1.44% of GDP)
50 % of total diseases & 40% deaths in Pakistan
water related diseases including diarrhea, cholera,
typhoid, dengue, hepatitis, polio, scabies, giardiasis,
amoebiasis and dracunculiasis ((Nwabor, Nnamonu et al. 2016)
 Arsenic Contamination (Global Scenario)
Many countries of the continents globally have high level
of arsenic in drinking water.
Africa Pacific countries includes New Zealand, Ghana,
South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia;
Asia Continent includes India, Bangladesh, China
(including Taiwan and Mongolia), Iran, Thailand, Japan,
Myanmar, Cambodia, Nepal and Pakistan;
Europe includes United Kingdom, Russia, Germany,
Italy, France, Greece, Austria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary,
Romania and Serbia;
America Continent includes Alaska, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Vietnam, Mexico, Argentina, Honduras, Chile,
Dominica and Peru (Petrusevski, Sharma et al. 2007).
 Arsenic Contamination in DW
 The magnitude of this problem is severe in Bangladesh and West Bengal,
India and Pakistan.

 It is estimated that of the 140 million people of 70 countries, 50 million of

Bangladesh, 30 million of India, are at risk of arsenic poisoning

 High level of Arsenic (As) concentrations up to 1800 µg/L have been measured
in Inner Mongolia, a northern province of China

 In Vietnam and Cambodia, arsenic concentrations were also observed to be

high (up to 1340 µg/L)

 In many areas of Kasur, Multan, Muzafargarh and

Bahawalpur the arsenic concentration ranged up to 4500-
4800 µg/L.
Arsenic Contamination in DW of Pakistan
In Pakistan arsenic contamination has been reported in many
cities including;

 Kasur, Lahore, Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Sahiwal

Bahawalpur, Multan, Khanewal, R.Y. Khan, Rajanpur,

Muzaffargarh, Mianwali, D.G. Khan, Vehari, Bhakkar

 Pishin, Sibi, Loralai, Dadu, Jamshoro, Tharparkar and

Mailsi, Manchar lake, Hyderabad, Jaccobabad, and Nagar
Parker
 Health Impacts (cont..)
 Arsenic increases the chances of chronic diseases & also Decreases the
average life (WHO 2008)

S # Arsenic Level Risk Out of Effect

(ppb)
1 2.5 1 1000 Cancer
2 10 12-18 10,000 Lung and
Females Bladder
3 10 14-23 10,000 cancer
Males
4 50 21 1000 Death
5 500 1 10 Death
Health Impact of Arsenic contamination
 Keratosis
Thickening of the skin of palms and/or soles

Mild Moderate Keratosis Hyperkeratosis

Keratosis
Pictorial View Kasur & Sahiwal
Major contaminants Health Problems and Treatment Options
Parameter Health Issues
Diarrhea, typhoid, amoebiasis
Microbiological Contamination
dengue, polio, scabies, giardiasis,
dracunculiasis, Gastroenteritis,
Cholera, Dysentery, Hepatitis A & E,
Skin irritations etc.
skin liasons, Arsenicosis, peripheral
neuropathy, diabetes, oxidative
Arsenic (As)
stress, hyperpigmentation, nervous
and cardiovascular diseases,
increased risk of bladder,
prostateskin, liver, lung cancer.
Treatment Options
Use of disinfectants techniques with
(a) chemicals; chlorine (Cl2) gas,
chlorine dioxide, and ozone,
Bleaching powder, Liquid bleach
etc. (b). Physical sterilization and
disinfection techniques; ultraviolet
(UV) light, Gamma rays, boiling,
sunlight, reverse osmosis, filtration
and ultra-filtration, granulated active
carbon
Arsenic removal special media,
Reverse osmosis (RO), Ion
exchange resins, New innovative
techniques like bio sorbents etc.
 Major contaminants Health Problems and Treatment Options
Parameter Health Issues Treatment Options
Methemoglobinemia (Blue baby Reverse osmosis, specific nitrate
Nitrates (NO3 )

syndrome in infant), miscarriage and removal media, Distillation, Ion

birth defects, exchange resin
gastrointestinal disorders and
achlorhydria

Dental and skeletal Fluorosis, bones Precipitation, coagulation,

Fluoride (F)

damage, arthritis, osteoporosis, adsorption, specific nitrate removal

fatigue muscle damage, chronic issues media, Membrane-based processes,
Ion-exchange methods

Gastrointestinal and endemic diseases, Surface water: Coagulation-

water born and water based diseases flocculation aided with filtration
Turbidity

related to microorganisms, water Groundwater: Filtration

treatment issues, host for bacteria and
viruses
 Major contaminants Health Problems and Treatment Options

Parameter Health Issues Treatment Options

Dry skin and hair, itchy scalp, Water Softeners, Reverse Osmosis,
excessive use of soap and detergent, cation exchange resins
Hardness

mineral buildup in water heaters,

plumbing taps, fixtures,
cardiovascular diseases.

Salty and bitter taste, high toxic Reverse Osmosis, Distillation,

(TDS)
Solids

substances, water related diseases Deionization (DI), Distillation etc.

Heart & kidney diseases due to high Reverse Osmosis

Chlorides

sodium chloride content, Ion exchange resin

(Cl)

Alzheimer's disease (AD), secondary Oxidizing Filters, Sediment filters,

(Fe)

or aesthetic contaminant, iron based Water Softening (Ion Exchange)

 Major contaminants Health Problems and Treatment Options
Parameter Health Issues
cardiovascular disorders,
ium, antimony, selenium, copper, cadmium and
neuronal damage and neuro
disorders, renal injuries, risk of
cancer of vital organs, diabetes,
disturbs main metabolic process,
bones damage, nervous system
and kidneys damage, DNA
damages, carcinogenesis,
nephrotoxicity, , reactive oxygen
species generation, bone
deforming, bone marrow’s loss
and skin problems
nickel)
Treatment Options
Chemical adsorption,
precipitation, reverse
osmosis (RO), membrane
filtration, selective metal
removal media, solvent
extraction, ion exchange
resins and electrochemical
techniques,
electrocoagulation
techniques.
 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality
NSDWQ Guideline
Water Quality Parameter Units WHO Guideline values
Values

Chloride (Cl) mg/L ≤ 250 250

Magnesium as Mg2+ mg/L NVS 150
Total Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L < 500 NVS
pH - 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
Sulfate as SO4 2- mg/L NVS 250
Sodium as Na+ mg/L NVS 200
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L < 1000 < 1000
(TDS)
Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/L 10 10
Arsenic (As) µg/L ≤ 50 10
Aluminum (Al) mg/L ≤ 0.2 0.2
Antimony (Sb) mg/L ≤ 0.005 0.02
 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality
NSDWQ WHO Guideline
Water Quality Parameter Units
Guideline Values values
Boron (B) mg/L 0.3 0.3
Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.01 0.003
Chromium (Cr) mg/L ≤ 0.05 0.05
Copper (Cu) mg/L 2 2
Fluoride (F) mg/L ≤ 1.5 1.5
Lead (Pb) mg/L ≤ 0.05 0.01
Manganese (Mn) mg/L ≤ 0.5 0.5
Mercury (Hg) mg/L ≤ 0.001 0.001
Nickel (Ni) mg/L ≤ 0.02 0.07
Selenium (Se) mg/L ≤ 0.01 0.04
Zinc (Zn) mg/L 5 3
Total Coliform MPN/100mL 0 0
Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL 0 0
 Metals Treatment Options
 Precipitation Process
 Coagulation/Filtration
 Iron/Manganese Oxidation
 Coagulation assisted Microfilatration
 Enhanced Coagulation
Adsorption Process
 Activated Alumina
 Ion Exchange
 Membrane Process
 Alternative Techniques
 Iron Oxide Coated Sand Sulfur Modified Iron
 Granular Ferric Hydroxide Iron Filling
 Photooxidation
 Microbial Treatment Options
 Chemical Disinfection Processes
 Chlorine (Gas, liquid, solid, bleach, hypo etc.)
 Ozone
 Chlorine Dioxide
 Membrane Processes
 Reverse Osmosis
 Ultrafiltration Membranes
 Nanofiltration Membranes
 Electromagnetic Rays
 UV Light
 Gamma Rays
 Solar light
 Electrocoagulation Process
EC process is quite simple, Versatile, effective,
easy to use apply
eliminated the disadvantages of classical treatment
technologies for the sustainable, ecofriendly and
economical water treatment
 Its efficiency has been investigated and increased
by 100 time for removal of pollutants by hydroxides
using in combination with other adsorption
techniques
 Can be applied for removal of heavy metals,
Chemical, organic, pathogens
 PROCESS
METHODOLOGY
 Electrocoagulation Process Principle
The sample solution acts as conductive
medium
 Electrodes are immersed in it connected
with DC electric supply
Main functional steps
Oxidation (Anode with production of M+ Cations to
form hydroxide)
Reduction (Cathode with production of H2 gas)
Flocculation/flotation
The charge neutralization, adsorption and coagulation
are additional pollution removal techniques used
during EC process
 Electrocoagulation Process Statistics
Economic Aspect of EC Process (Electrical energy consumption)
EEC (kWh/m3) = UIT/60V
Here: U is applied voltage, I is current passed, T is treatment time and V is volume of sample
Faraday’s Law of Electrolysis for metal dissolution

m= Mass (gram ) of anode metal oxidized

I = Current passed (ampere A)
t= Time (seconds) of EC reaction
M = Molar mass (g/mol)
Z = Valence number of anode metal
f = Faraday’s constant (C/mol)
Faraday’s efficiency of EC reactor

ma = Actual mass of metal produced

mt = Theoretical mass produced in an EC process
 EC Process Summary
Anode reaction (oxidation)
Fe (s) → Fe+3 + 3e-
 Cathode reaction (reduction)
3 H2O + 3e- → 3/2 H2 (g) + 3 OH­-

 Fe+3 and OH- generated at electrodes surface

reacts to form Fe (OH)3
Fe+3aq + 3OH-aq → Fe(OH)3
 Contamination Removal by EC Process
Water disinfection and metal decontamination by EC process is
accomplished by the combination of various processes:
Oxidation
Reduction
Deposition
Decomposition
Adsorption
Absorption
Precipitation
Flotation
Coagulation
Filtration
 Major Parameters Effecting Electrocoagulation (EC) Process
Electrocoagulation (EC) is effected by number of parameters like;
 material of electrodes
 applied voltage
 current density
 type of electrical connection
 Electrical Conductivity of solution,
 distance of the electrodes,
 stirring speed of the solution,
 temperature of the solution,
 depth of the electrodes in solution,
 time of EC treatment,
 level of contamination of pollutant
 volume of the solution to be treated.
 Electrocoagulation Process Benefits
 Simple equipment so can be designed easily
 No chemical addition
Environment friendly technique as no secondary pollutants are
generated
Require low electrical energy So can be Easily used in remote and
rural areas
 Can be operated on solar cells and alternate energy sources
 EC process as it is low sludge production technique.
Treated water is colorless, odorless, clear and pleasant palatable
water.
 Applied on low TDS waters
 Effluents recovery cost is also very low
 Requires low maintenance cost
 The recovered metals is additional advantage.
Electrolyzer Operation & Scheme of EC Treatment
 Equipment = Commercially available Electrolyzer
 Electrodes Dimensions = 65 mm length and 7 mm diameter
 Electrode = Iron & Aluminum
Modified Anodes = Fe-Zn, Fe-Cu, Fe-Al, Fe-Ag
 Reactor Temperature = 30-50 C
 Stirring Speed = 500 rpm
 Power supply = AC 220V
 Sample Volume = 1000 mL
 Operation = In Batch
Reaction Time = 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 minutes
 Stay time = 30 minutes
 Filtration = whatmann 42 filter paper
 Testing = before and after treatment
 target parameters = chemical, metals & micro
EC Process
EC Process
Process Layout Plan
Proposed Schematic Drinking Water Treatment
System (Video)
 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
 Research Methodology
 Application of CEC & MEC Process on DW
 Optimization of MEC Anodes for
Simultaneous Removal of Contaminants
 Analysis for Physical, chemical,
microbiological analysis BFT & AFT
 Effect of MEC process of Artificially
Contaminated Samples
 Characterization of the Flocs
 Antiviral Treatment Efficiency
The
verification of the results by performing analysis at
AAS, ICP, SEM, HPLC, FTIR and EDX
 Laboratories Facilities used for the Research Activities
 Department of Chemistry, Government College University Lahore
 Pakistan Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (PCSIR)
Laboratories Complex, Lahore (PNAC CAB No. 24)
 Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Head
Office, H-8/1, Khayban-e-Johar, Islamabad & Regional Office, Raiwind
Road Lahore (PNAC CAB No. 48)
Quality Control Center (QCC) Pakistan Standards and Quality Control
Authority (PSQCA), Ferozpur Road, Lahore (PNAC CAB No. 273)
 Central Testing Laboratory, Punjab Environment Protection Agency
(EPA), Gate No. 8 National Hockey Stadium, Lahore.
Water Environment Laboratories & Consultancy Services (WELCOS) 29-
D Punjab University Town 2, Lahore (PNAC CAB No. 227)
 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS), Outfall Road,
Lahore
 Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), DHA Lahore
Four Brothers Chemicals Lab, 21 Km Ferozpur Road, 2 Km Westside
Rohinala Kahna, Lahore (PNAC CAB No. 100)
 Sample Treatment Scheme
 Potable water samples are treated with conventional and
modified process for to assess contaminants removal efficiency

 Artificially contamination of water samples with;

A: Metal Standers & multi-element CRM

 Individual Metal Standards
 (As, Al, Ba, Cu, Cd, Hg, Mn, Ni, P, Ag, Zn)
 Multi-element Standards
 (K, P, Fe, Na, Al, Ce, Mg, Se, Ca, As, Pb, Hg, Ni, Cr, V, Ba, Be,
Cd, Co, Li, Mn, Ag)
B. ATCC Microbiological Cultures
 E. coli (ATCC 8739)
 Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15442)
 Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923)
 Samples Selection
Three Potable water samples from urban water supply were
selected
1. GWS1 from tube well source situated near Galla
Market Guromanget, Gulberg III, Lahore having
(GPS location 31°30'31"N & 074° 21'19"E) Lahore.
2. DWS1 was collected from house No. 29-D Block,
Punjab University Employees Housing Society, Phase
II, Raiwind Road Lahore having GPS Coordinates
31°25’36.5”N, 74°14’39.7”E.
3. DWS2 was collected from chemical laboratory tap at
Quality Control Center (QCC) PSQCA, Ferozpur
Road Lahore at GPS coordinates 31°31’4.2”N, 74°
19’35.2”E.
 Testing Methods & Techniques
Parameters Analysis Method & Technique
pH APHA 4500H+ B, Electrometric method
TDS APHA 2510, Laboratory Method, electrical Conductivity meter
Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) APHA 2510, Laboratory Method, electrical Conductivity meter
Chloride APHA 4500 Cl-B argentometric titration
Calcium, Magnesium & Hardness APHA 2340 C EDTA titrimetric method
Total alkalinity APHA 2320 B acid base titration
Fluoride APHA 4500 F D SPADNS reagent DR 6000 Spectrophotometer
Sulfate APHA 4500 SO42- E , Turbidimetric method, Spectrophotometer
Nitrate as N APHA 4500 NO3-B, ultraviolet spectrophotometric screening

Arsenic, Mercury, Silver, Lithium,

Cobalt, Vanadium, Cadmium,
APHA 3112 B & APHA 3114 B Hydride Generation Technique at atomic
Manganese, Zinc, Phosphorus,
absorption spectrometer
Copper, Lead, Nickel
APHA 3120 B Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-
Aluminum, Chromium, Selenium,
OES)
Antimony, Barium, Beryllium,
Boron, Sodium, Potassium

Total Coliform, Fecal coliform, E.coli 9221-B, E, F, Multiple tube Fermentation Technique

Total Plate Count APHA 9215 A and B Multiple tube Fermentation Technique
Pseudomonas aeruginosa APHA 9213-F Multiple tube Fermentation Technique
Staphylococcus aureus 9213-B Multiple tube Fermentation Technique
RESULTS &
DISCUSSION
 Optimization of CEC Process
The optimization is very vital and key route for
process development
Objective of Study
Use of electro-coagulation process for simultaneous
removal of metals and microorganisms from
drinking water
 Conventional EC Process (Fe anode & AL Cathode)
 Modified EC Process (Anodes Fe-Zn, Fe-Cu, Fe-Ag and
Fe-Al) & Al Cathode
Sample = GWS1 from Galla Market Guromanget,
Gulberg III, Lahore (GPS location 31°30'31"N
&074° 21'19"E (TDS=681mg/L)
 Section A (I)
Conventional EC Treatment
Process Efficiency on GWS1
 Conventional EC Treatment Process Conditions GWS1
Electrode:
Cathode Aluminum
Anode Iron
Sample GWS1
Sample Pretreatment No
Treatment Time 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

minutes in 1 Liter
batch
 Effect of EC Treatment with Iron Anode on Drinking Water Quality (GWS1)
Permissible Treatment Time
Parameter Limits
(NSDWQ) Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.

Calcium (mg/L) NA 22.0±1.112 21.8± 1.112 22.6± 1.113 22.8± 1.112 20.2± 1.114 20.4± 1.115 20.6± 1.114
Magnesium (mg/L) NA 40.1± 0.655 45.1± 0.651 42.2± 0.658 42.0± 0.655 46.0± 0.671 48.4± 0.662 45.8±0.665

Sodium (mg/L) NA 180.0 ±1.854 178.4± 1.755 177.1± 0.875 176.5± 0.882 177.2± 0.798 177.4± 0.858 177.± 0.855

Potassium (mg/L) NA 1.0± 0.220 0.8± 0.132 0.6± 0.024 0.2± 0.005 BDL BDL BDL

Sulfate (mg/L) NA 180.0± 0.75 179.0± 0.520 181.0± 0.284 178.0± 0.854 176.0± 1.054 177.0± 0.857 176.0± 0.858
Chloride (mg/L) < 250 51.0± 0.53 51.0± 0.528 50.0± 0.55 51.0± 0.584 52.0± 0.528 53.0± 0.615 52.0± 0.524
pH 6.5-8.5 7.40± 0.052 7.51± 0.048 7.75± 0.035 7.92± 0.035 8.14± 0.045 8.25± 0.055 8.39± 0.055
Electrical
NA 1219± 2.548 1218± 1.584 1214± 2.154 1210± 2.145 1206± 2.154 1201± 1.254 1194± 2.154
Conductivity µS/cm)
Total Alkalinity
NA 390± 2.54 395± 3.548 400± 5.21 415± 4.25 425± 4.521 440± 2.154 455± 5.051
(mg/L)
TDS (mg/L) < 1000 681.4± 2.548 680.9± 3.254 678.6± 5.248 676.4± 3.548 674.2± 3.548 671.4± 3.54 667.4± 5.25
Total Hardness as
< 500 220± 2.55 240± 0.00 230± 2.254 230± 2.44 240± 1.25 250± 2.65 240± 2.55
CaCO3 (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L) ≤ 1.5 0.55± 0.025 0.21± 0.022 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Nitrate as N (mg/L) ≤ 10 0.32 ± 0.04 0.20± 0.02 0.15± 0.02 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phosphorus (mg/L) NA 0.85± 0.042 0.25± 0.02 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Iron (mg/L) NA 0.18± 0.033 0.27±0.028 0.31± 0.025 0.35± 0.00 0.38± 0.044 0.34± 0.025 0.33± 0.22
Arsenic (µg/L) ≤ 50 22.18± 0.77 11.24±0.055 7.59± 0.025 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Total coliform
(MPN/100 mL) 0 300 300 300 280 280 280 220
Fecal coliform
(MPN/100 mL) 0 90 90 90 80 80 70 70
 Section A (II)

Optimization of the EC Treatment

Anode Composition on GWS1
 Modified EC Treatment Process Efficiency
Chemical Parameters on GWS1
Electrode:
Cathode Aluminum
Anode Fe-Zn Fe-
Cu
Fe-Al Fe-
Ag
Sample GWS1

Sample Pretreatment No

Treatment Time
Modified Anodes Effect on Major Water Quality Parameters of Sample (GWS1)

Effect on pH values Effect on Electrical Conductivity

Effect on TDS Effect on Total Alkalinity

Modified Anodes Effect on Major Water Quality Parameters of Sample (GWS1)

Effect on Nitrate as N Contamination Effect on Fluoride Contamination

Effect on Phosphate Concentration Effect on Arsenic Contamination

Modified Anodes Effect on Major Water Quality Parameters of Sample (GWS1)
The pH values changed 7.40± 0.052 to 9.12 ±
0.068 with Fe-Zn anode; to 8.91± 0.06 with Fe-
Cu anode; to 8.03± 0.05 with Fe-Ag anode and
to 8.06± 0.052 with Fe-Al anode (Figure 4.2-a)
The TDS level in treated sample were
decreased to 663.5±4.44 mg/L with Fe-Zn
anode; to 662.4±3.022 with Fe-Cu anode; to
664.7±4.522 with Fe-Ag anode and to
671.4±3.352 mg/L with Fe-Al amended anode
(Figure 4.2-c).
The total alkalinity of the treated sample
increased from 390±2.54 mg/L to 490±2.55
with Fe-Zn anode; to 460±2.55 with Fe-Cu
anode, 425±2.5 with Fe-Ag anode and
450±2.75 with Fe-Al anode (Figure 4.2-d).
Nitrate contamination was also removed in
filtrate of treated sample with Fe-Zn, Fe-Cu,
Fe-Ag and Fe-Al anodes after 2 minutes EC
treatment (Figure 4.2-e).
The Electrical conductivity of the
natural water sample was reduced from
1219± 2.548 mg/L to 1194± 2.154 with
iron anode; to 1187±2.442 with Fe-Zn
anode; to 1185±2.52 with Fe-Cu anode;
to 1189±2.184 with Fe-Ag anode and to
1201±2.44 with Fe-Al anode (Figure
4.2-b)
The amended anodes with iron
combination also proved good for 100%
fluoride removal after 1-minute treatment
(Figure 4.2-f)
The 100% Phosphate removal was
accomplished after 2 minutes’ treatment
with Fe-Ag and Fe-Al anodes (Figure 4.2-
g).
The Fe-Zn and Fe-Cu amended anodes
performed better for the 100% arsenic
removal within one minute EC treatment
(Figure 4.2-h).
Effect of Modified EC Treatment
Anodes
for Heavy Metals Removal from
Artificially Contaminated GWS1
 Conditions for Metals Removal Efficiency by MEC
Modified Anodes:
Fe-Zn Fe-Cu
Fe-Ag Fe-Al
Heavy Metals Standards:
As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni, Mn
Spiking Concentration of Metals in GWS1
200 µg/L of Each Metal
Treatment Time
0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 minutes in 1 Liter
batch
 Metals Removal Efficiency by EC Treatment using Iron-Aluminum Anode from
Spiked Water (GWS1) Sample
Metals As Cd Cr Pb Ni Mn Cu Zn Ag Al Fe
NSDWQ
Standards ≤50 10 ≤50 ≤50 ≤20 ≤500 ≤2000 5000 NA ≤200 NA
(ppb)
22.18 180.2
Raw Water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.77 ±2.88

219.31 202.92 203.10 202.88 204.56 201.2 180.5

Spiked Sample BDL BDL BDL BDL
±2.25 ±3.55 ±1.85 ±3.18 ±4.25 ±2.28 ±3.94

179.93 132.54 131.08 127.22 124.08 111.46 37.71 266.85

0.5 min. BDL BDL BDL
± 1.77 ±4.25 ±1.25 ±1.57 ±2.53 ±1.40 ±0.68 ±7.23

106.70 86.20 75.68 60.49 61.8 46.65 265.16 380.38

1.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±1.24 ±2.18 ±0.64 ±1.05 ±1.25 ±0.92 ±1.55 ±12.54
40.24 52.96 37.21 34.19 31.25 31.22 391.42 680.55
2.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.87 ±1.54 ±0.75 ±0.84 ±1.08 ±0.55 ±2.54 ± 18.25

16.33 26.83 14.85 17.25 7.61 14.39 523.17 590.48

3.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.45 ±0.45 ±0.31 ±0.45 ±0.55 ±0.31 ±3.58 ±20.85

3.35 ± 5.70 6.27 571.48 440.48

4.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.15 ±0.27 ±0.24 ±3.10 ±12.5

432.26 382.55
5.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±2.58 ±10.52
 Metals Removal Efficiency by EC Treatment using Iron-Zinc Anode from
Spiked Water (GWS1) Sample
Metals As Cd Cr Pb Ni Mn Cu Zn Ag Al Fe
NSDWQ
Standards ≤50 10 ≤50 ≤50 ≤20 ≤500 ≤2000 5000 NA ≤200 NA
(ppb)
22.18 180.2
Raw Water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.77 ±2.88

219.31 202.92 203.10 202.88 204.56 201.2 180.5

Spiked Sample BDL BDL BDL BDL
±2.25 ±3.55 ±1.85 ±3.18 ±4.25 ±2.28 ±3.94

83.77 121.00 99.54 88.91 109.35 101.19 379.12 340.5

0.50 min. BDL BDL BDL
±1.11 ±3.16 ±0.94 ±1.08 ±2.49 ±1.08 ±3.68 ±9.54

29.90 76.81 37.53 29.25 40.28 36.52 543.55 390.8

1.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.84 ±1.73 ±0.55 ±0.77 ±0.99 ±0.85 ±5.28 ±15.5
2.64 28.89 15.14 8.83 19.47 20.36 898.18 530.82
2.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.33 ±0.77 ±0.27 ±0.15 ±0.25 ±0.44 ±8.66 ±21.85

8.63 8.25 1645.79 460.5

3.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.17 ±0.21 ±26.84 ±18.5

1839.88 380.78
4.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±32.35 ±27.58

2842.55 275.88
5.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±40.25 ±15.54
Metals Removal Efficiency by EC Treatment using Iron-Copper Anode from
Spiked Water (GWS1) Sample
Metals As Cd Cr Pb Ni Mn Cu Zn Ag Al Fe
NSDWQ
Standards ≤50 10 ≤50 ≤50 ≤20 ≤500 ≤2000 5000 NA ≤200 NA
(ppb)
22.18 180.2
Raw Water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.77 ±2.88
Spiked 219.31 202.92 203.10 202.88 204.56 201.2 180.5
BDL BDL BDL BDL
Sample ±2.25 ±3.55 ±1.85 ±3.18 ±4.25 ±2.28 ±3.94

85.42 112.21 101.02 109.47 109.22 106.41 225.23 295.08

0.5 min. BDL BDL BDL
±1.55 ±2.48 ±1.51 ±1.44 ±2.86 ±1.05 ±3.15 ±6.85
31.46 38.75 36.47 38.44 42.76 39.55 462.25 510.42
1.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.67 ±1.14 ±1.01 ±0.75 ±1.55 ±0.76 ±4.29 ±14.25
2.19 19.79 12.88 12.42 20.15 22.36 639.45 744.54
2.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.18 ±0.75 ±0.28 ±0.41 ±0.82 ±0.35 ±8.15 ±18.08
9.932 842.65 758.55
3.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.15 ±12.54 ±17.52

547.9 560.22
4.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±10.5 ±11.42

585.78 470.28
5.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Metals Removal Efficiency by EC Treatment using Iron-Silver Anode from Spiked
Water (GWS1) Sample
Metals As Cd Cr Pb Ni Mn Cu Zn Ag Al Fe
NSDWQ
≤200
Standards ≤50 10 ≤50 ≤50 ≤20 ≤500 5000 NA ≤200 NA
0
(ppb)
22.18 180.2
Raw Water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.77 ±2.88
Spiked 219.31 202.92 203.10 202.88 204.56 201.2 180.5
BDL BDL BDL BDL
Sample ±2.25 ±3.55 ±1.85 ±3.18 ±4.25 ±2.28 ±3.94
140.87
129.10 118.75 164.93 141.74 136.41 80.26 290.85
0.5 min. 5 BDL BDL BDL
±3.10 ±1.85 ±2.65 ±3.45 ±2.05 ±1.56 ±4.56
±2.15
90.23 76.45 52.78 110.35 89.51 98.29 324.55 530.08
1.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±1.54 ±1.25 ±1.12 ±1.72 ±2.15 ±1.68 ±8.48 ±13.54
33.33 32.22 29.78 68.68 28.60 57.29 577.46 640.24
2.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.88 ±0.94 ±0.85 ±0.84 ±0.95 ±0.94 ±15.36 ±17.36
12.97 8.85 4.08 12.91 13.44 21.29 780.35 770.44
3.0 min. BDL BDL BDL
±0.64 ±0.37 ±0.15 ±0.37 ±0.45 ±0.63 ±20.52 ±20.48
5.02 1.41 13.54 586.48 610.06
4.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.20 ±0.15 ±0.24 ±16.54 ±14.58
544.80 530.28
5.0 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Effect of Modified EC Treatment
Anodes
for Disinfection of
Microbiological Contamination
GWS1
 Effect of MEC Process on Microbiological Parameters
Modified Anodes:
Fe-Zn Fe-Cu
Fe-Ag Fe-Al
ATCC Cultures:
Staphylococcus aureus
E. coli
Raw Water Bacterial Load
Staphylococcus aureus 430 MPN/100
mL
E. Coli 350
MPN/100 mL
 Efficacy of CEC & MEC Treatment for Bacterial Disinfection
(MPN/100mL) on Artificially Contaminated Sample
Parameters Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 min
A) Fe anode EC treatment results of sample
Staphylococcus
430 430 350 280 240 210 210
aureus
E. Coli 350 350 350 280 240 220 210
B) Fe-Zn anode EC treatment results of sample
Staphylococcus
430 140 12 ND ND ND ND
aureus
E. Coli 350 110 33 1.8 ND ND ND
C) Fe-Cu anode EC treatment results of sample
Staphylococcus
430 120 8.2 ND ND ND ND
aureus
E. Coli 350 110 5.5 ND ND ND ND
D) Fe-Ag anode EC treatment results of sample
Staphylococcus
430 350 170 58 ND ND ND
aureus
E. Coli 350 350 210 94 14 ND ND
E) Fe-Al anode EC treatment results of sample
 Section B
Application
of Modified Electrocoagulation (MEC)
Process for
Simultaneous Removal
of Microbiological and Heavy Metals
from
Drinking Water Samples
 Summary of the MEC Process for Microbiological Disinfection

I. First water sample (DWS1) was collected from

house No. 29-D Block, Punjab University
Employees Housing Society, Phase II, Raiwind
Road Lahore having GPS Coordinates
31°25’36.5” N, 74°14’39.7”E. TDS 343mg/L
II. Second water sample (DWS2) was collected
from chemical laboratory tap at Quality Control
Center (QCC) PSQCA, Firozpur Road Lahore at
GPS coordinates 31°31’4.2”N, 74° 19’35.2”E.
TDS=462 mg/L
 Fe-Zn Anode B(a1)
Modified Electrocoagulation (MEC)
Process on DWS1
Effect on
Chemical ,
Micro, metals

Heavy Metals
Fe-Zn Anode Artificially
Contaminated

Microbiological
Artificially
Contaminated
DWS1 Effect on
Chemical ,
Micro, metals

Heavy Metals
Fe-Cu Anode Artificially
Contaminated

Microbiological
Artificially
Contaminated
 Analysis
Analysis results
results of chemicalparameters
of chemical parameters after
afterEC
ECtreatment withwith
treatment Fe-Zn Anodeanode
Fe-Zn
Treatment Time
Parameter NSDWQ Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
Limits
Calcium (mg/L) NA 25.3 ±1.155 31.3 ±1.155 30.7 ±1.155 31.3 ±1.155 28.0 ±2.000 28.7 ±1.155 28.0 ±2.040
17.01
Magnesium (mg/L) NA 14.2 ±0.701 16.6 ±0.701 15.8 ±0.000 15.0 ±0.701 17.4 ±1.856 16.6 ±0.701
±0.122
Sodium (mg/L) NA 68.3 ±0.577 67.0 ±1.000 66.3 ±0.577 65.0 ±1.000 65.0 ±1.000 65.3 ±1.155 64.2 ±1.104
Potassium (mg/L) NA 2.5 ±0.100 2.4 ±0.058 2.4 ±0.058 2.4 ±0.115 2.5 ±0.058 2.5 ±0.153 2.4 ±0.124
Sulfate (mg/L) NA 49.3 ±0.577 54.0 ±1.000 52.3 ±0.577 46.0 ±0.000 43.3 ±0.577 44.7 ±0.577 43.6 ±0.432
Chloride (mg/L) < 250 21.3 ±0.577 21.7 ±0.577 23.7 ±0.577 22.7 ±0.577 24.0 ±1.000 23.7 ±0.577 22.4 ±0.444
pH 6.5-8.5 7.75 ±0.026 7.82 ±0.040 7.90 ±0.030 8.22 ±0.030 8.27 ±0.012 8.38 ±0.015 8.44 ±0.034
Electrical Conductivity
(µS/cm)
NA 537 ±1.528 538 ±1.155 537 ±0.577 534 ±1.155 526 ±2.082 524 ±1.732 520 ±1.252
Total Alkalinity (mg/L) NA 192 ±2.887 197 ±5.774 202 ±2.887 207 ±5.774 218 ±2.887 222 ±2.887 226 ±2.654
332.2
TDS (mg/L) < 1000 343.6 ±0.524 342.4 ±3.584 341.0 ±4.131 341.3 ±1.560 335.7 ±1.143 333.4 ±1.831
±1.820
Total Hardness as
CaCO3 (mg/L)
< 500 122 ±2.887 147 ±2.887 142 ±2.887 140 ±0.000 142 ±2.887 140 ±0.000 140 ±0.000
Fluoride (mg/L) ≤ 1.5 0.18 ±0.006 0.11 ±0.015 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Nitrate as N (mg/L) ≤ 10 0.66 ±0.004 0.42 ±0.003 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phosphorus (µg/L) NA 3.22 ±0.006 1.29 ±0.042 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Iron (mg/L) NA 0.19 ±0.010 0.34 ±0.012 0.37 ±0.021 0.30 ±0.021 0.28 ±0.015 0.29 ±0.015 0.28 ±0.012
Arsenic (µg/L) ≤ 50 20.47 ±0.176 9.55 ±0.127 6.49 ±0.090 2.09 ±0.132 BDL BDL BDL
Manganese (µg/L) ≤ 500 3.66 ±0.020 1.26 ±0.015 0.86 ±0.015 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Copper (µg/L) 2000 4.43 ±0.015 2.15 ±0.015 0.74 ±0.023 BDL BDL BDL BDL
1647 2340
Zinc (µg/L) Fe-Zn anode 5000 65.6 ±1.955 184.7 ±6.054 1036 ±9.165 1886 ±11.790 2550 ±30.28
±22.030 ±27.574
Zinc (µg/L) Fe anode 5000 65.6 ±1.955 21.8 ±0.666 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
 Efficacy of Fe-Zn Anode EC Treatment on Bacterial
Disinfection of DWS1
Parameters Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.

a. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 94 94 84 84 79 79 79

Fecal Coliform 43 43 43 41 41 40 40

E. coli 12 12 10 11 6.8 5.5 5.5

b. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs

Total Coliform 94 94 79 70 34 22 21

Fecal Coliform 43 43 38 27 21 11 10

E. Coli 12 12 9.3 9.1 4 4 3.7

c. Evaluation of bacterial growth on iron anode flocs after incubation

Total Coliform - 540 350 210 170 84 79

Fecal Coliform - 150 170 130 94 70 70

E. coli - 43 33 24 14 14 12
 Efficacy of Fe-Zn Anode EC Treatment on Bacterial
Disinfection of DWS1
Parameters Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.

d. Iron-zinc anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 94 41 22 8.1 ND ND ND

Fecal Coliform 43 34 17 11 ND ND ND

E. Coli 12 4 ND ND ND ND ND

e. Iron-zinc anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs

Total Coliform 94 33 11 ND ND ND ND

Fecal Coliform 43 22 6 ND ND ND ND

E. Coli 12 3.4 ND ND ND ND ND

f. Evaluation of bacterial growth on iron-zinc anode flocs after incubation

Total Coliform - 11 ND ND ND ND ND

Fecal Coliform - 4 ND ND ND ND ND

E. coli - ND ND ND ND ND ND
 EC treatment effect of Fe-Zn anode on the removal of
metals from artificially Contaminated DWS1
Metals
((µg/L)) As Be Cd Co Cr P Pb Mn Cu Se V Zn Ni Hg
NSDWQ
≤ 50 NA 10 NA ≤ 50 NA ≤ 50 ≤ 500 2000 ≤ 10 NA 5000 ≤ 20 ≤1
Standard

Raw 20.45 3.22 3.66 4.42 65

BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
water ±0.95 ±0.32 ±0.25 ±0.25 ±1.22

Spiked 94.19 16.56 15.73 17.67 38.36 533.74 96.75 19.6 36.5 197.0 26.76 112.59 51.19 66.25
sample ±1.6 ±0.55 ±0.36 ±0.38 ±0.68 ±9.55 ±2.59 ±0.83 ±1.27 ±2.45 ±1.38 ±3.58 ±4.55 ±1.55

21.46 6.97 8.02 16.64 3.45 109.33 22.98 7.62 11.63 140.42 21.47 215 38.51 18.40
0.5 min.
±0.85 ±0.11 ±0.13 ±0.44 ±0.06 ±2.55 ±0.81 ±0.35 ±0.75 ±2.11 ±1.28 ±2.44 ±1.55 ±0.8

5.46 3.31 11.92 52.91 8.22 2.53 6.85 123.55 4.58 795 31.25 12.88
1 min. BDL BDL
±0.45 ±0.07 ±0.25 ±1.29 ±0.31 ±0.18 ±0.42 ±1.82 ±0.77 ±6.85 ±1.15 ±0.45

3.28 8.56 1.52 2.5 115.23 2.15 1520 9.26

2 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.08 ±0.11 ±0.04 ±0.08 ±1.65 ±0.11 ±15.66 ±0.4

2.50 4.36 95.57 1.65 1880 5.52

3 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.05 ±0.08 ±1.88 ±0.12 ±32.65 ±0.34

1.60 2.29 78.32 2750

4 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.04 ±0.04 ±0.67 ±44.5

46.22 2880
5 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.45 ±46.2
Fe-Zn anode metals removal Efficiency from artificially
Contaminated DWS1
 Beryllium (Be) and chromium (Cr) removed rapidly by EC
treatment within 1 minute
 The arsenic (As), phosphorus (P), lead (Pb) and nickel (Ni) after
2 minutes
 Copper and Manganese after 3 minutes
 Mercury and vanadium after 4 minutes
 Cadmium and Cobalt after 5 minutes
 Selenium could not removed after five minutes EC treatment

 The complete (100%) removal of As, Be, Mn, Cu, Cd, Co, Cr, P,
Pb, V, Ni, and Hg
 The concertation of Se was decreased to 76.5% after 5 min
treatment.

 The MEC process have not shown decent results for removal of
Boron (B), Barium (Ba), Lithium (Li) and Strontium (Sr) in
 Fe-Cu Anode B(a2)

Modified Electrocoagulation (MEC)

Process on DWS1
 Analysis
Analysis results
results of chemical
of chemical parameters
parameters DWS1afterafter
EC treatment with with
MEC Process Fe-ZnFe-Cu
Anodeanode

Treatment Time
Parameter NSDWQ
Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
Limits
Calcium (mg/L) NA 25.3 ±1.155 27.3 ±1.050 28.6 ±0.554 29.3 ±0.455 28.2 ±0.205 29.3 ±0.052 28.8 ±0.505
Magnesium (mg/L) NA 14.2 ±0.701 14.2 ±0.634 15.9 ±0.634 17.9 ±0.630 20.3 ±1.444 20.2 ±1.154 21.5 ±0.752
Sodium (mg/L) NA 68.3 ±0.577 67.3 ±0.452 66.8 ±0.255 66.4 ±0.362 66.2 ±0.625 66.3 ±0.452 66.1 ±0.225
Potassium (mg/L) NA 2.5 ±0.100 2.5 ±0.000 2.5 ±0.050 2.5 ±0.055 2.46 ±0.057 2.5 ±0.050 2.5 ±00.500
52.60
Sulfate (mg/L) NA 49.3 ±0.577 52.3 ±0.577 53.25 ±1.002 54.6 ±0.577 56.35 ±0.577 55.25 ±1.045
±0.577
Chloride (mg/L) < 250 21.3 ±0.577 21.3 ±0.057 21.7 ±0.262 21.8 ±0.306 21.6 ±0.305 21.8 ±0.250 21.5 ±0.255
pH 6.5-8.5 7.75 ±0.026 7.95 ±0.010 8.02 ±0.012 8.16 ±0.025 8.27 ±0.005 8.34± 0.015 8.41 ±0.005
Electrical
NA 537 ±1.528 538 ±0.576 539 ±0.575 535 ±2.080 534 ±1.155 533 ±0.570 530 ±0.572
Conductivity (µS/cm)
Total Alkalinity
NA 192 ±2.887 193 ±2.883 192 ±2.884 195 ±0.252 197 ±2.882 198 ±2.880 200 ±0.500
(mg/L)
339.2
TDS (mg/L) < 1000 343.6 ±0.524 344.2 ±0.364 345.5 ±0.362 342.5 ±1.335 342.6 ±0.735 341.5 ±0.370
±0.375
Total Hardness as
< 500 122 ±2.887 129 ±1.150 128 ±2.005 138 ±2.882 138 ±2.005 133 ±2.885 136 ±2.880
CaCO3 (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L) ≤ 1.5 0.18 ±0.006 0.13 ±0.005 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Nitrate as N (mg/L) ≤ 10 0.66 ±0.004 0.46 ±0.005 0.11 ±0.005 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phosphorus (µg/L) NA 3.22 ±0.006 1.32 ±0.005 0.09 ±0.005 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Iron (mg/L) NA 0.19 ±0.010 0.28 ±0.015 0.35 ±0.011 0.38 ±0.057 0.4 ±0.011 0.38 ±0.025 0.38 ±0.010
Arsenic (µg/L) ≤ 50 20.47 ±0.176 9.85 ±0.087 7.19 ±0.082 2.4 ±0.045 BDL BDL BDL
Manganese (µg/L) ≤ 500 3.66 ±0.020 1.26 ±0.015 0.86 ±0.015 BDL BDL BDL BDL
Copper (µg/L) 2000 4.43 ±0.015 2.15 ±0.015 0.74 ±0.023 BDL BDL BDL BDL
336.25 647.54 886.88 1380
Copper (µg/L) (Fe-Cu) 2000 4.43 ±0.015 255.52 ±8.54 1340 ±20.250
±9.165 ±11.25 ±12.548 ±17.025
 Analysis results of chemical parameters DWS1 after MEC Process with Fe-Cu anode

Parameters Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.

a. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 94 94 84 84 79 79 79

Fecal Coliform 43 43 43 41 41 40 40

E. coli 12 12 10 11 6.8 5.5 5.5

b. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs

Total Coliform 94 94 79 70 34 22 21

Fecal Coliform 43 43 38 27 21 11 10

E. Coli 12 12 9.3 9.1 4 4 3.7

c. Evaluation of bacterial growth on iron anode flocs after incubation

Total Coliform - 540 350 210 170 84 79

Fecal Coliform - 150 170 130 94 70 70

E. coli - 43 33 24 14 14 12
 Efficacy of Fe-Cu Anode EC Treatment on Bacterial
Disinfection of DWS1
Parameters Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.

d. Iron-Copper anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 94 39 17 3.6 ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 43 22 12 ND ND ND ND
E. coli 12 3.7 ND ND ND ND ND
e. Iron-Copper anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs
Total Coliform 94 38 9.1 ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 43 12 ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli 12 ND ND ND ND ND ND
f. Evaluation of bacterial growth on iron-zinc anode flocs after incubation
Total Coliform - 9.1 ND ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform - 2.0 ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli - ND ND ND ND ND ND
 EC treatment effect of Fe-Cu anode on the removal of
metals from artificially Contaminated DWS1
Metals
(µg/L) As Be Cd Co Cr P Pb Mn Cu Se V Zn Ni Hg

NSDWQ
≤ 50 NA 10 NA ≤ 50 NA ≤ 50 ≤ 500 2000 ≤ 10 NA 5000 ≤ 20 ≤1
Standards

20.45 3.22± 3.66± 4.42± 65±

Raw water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.95 0.320 0.254 0.252 1.22

Spiked 94.19 16.56 15.73 17.67± 38.36± 533.74± 96.75± 19.6± 36.5± 197± 26.76± 112.59± 51.19± 66.25±
sample ±1.61 ±0.55 ±0.36 0.383 0.682 9.558 2.592 0.830 1.273 2.450 1.384 3.588 4.559 1.554

22.49 7.37 8.96 16.54± 3.49± 122.32± 23.55± 8.19± 259± 142.52± 20.97± 41.61± 39.22± 17.96±
0.5 min
±0.54 ±0.30 ±0.21 0.495 0.075 1.456 0.682 0.111 2.082 0.480 0.304 0.594 0.344 0.911

7.19 4.19± 13.02± 58.78± 9.45± 1.06± 687± 121.96± 3.86± 21.5± 27.12± 11.84±
1 min BDL BDL
±0.17 0.072 0.206 0.79 0.118 0.085 4.041 0.297 0.085 0.461 0.25 0.408

3.69± 10.43± 2.09± 1398± 109.26± 4.43± 2.32± 7.69±

2 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.132 0.085 0.111 9.074 0.731 0.102 0.075 0.131

2.15± 8.97± 1785± 85.82± 3.73±

3 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.066 0.182 11.015 0.835 0.092

0.87± 5.18± 2492± 67.39±

4 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.091 0.135 14.933 0.445

2.25± 2880± 51.02±

5 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
0.087 16.703 0.256
Fe-Zn anode metals removal Efficiency from artificially
Contaminated DWS1

 The complete (100%) removal of As, Be, Mn, Cu, Cd, Co, Cr, P,
Pb, V, Ni, and Hg

 Cobalt and selenium concentrations were declined to 87% and

74.1% from the initial contamination level

 Copper concentration increased above guideline values after 5

minutes EC process
EC treatment effect of Fe-Zn & Fe-Zn anodes on Metals
Removal from artificially Contaminated DWS1
 Fe-Zn Anode B(b1)
Modified Electrocoagulation (MEC)
Process Effect on DWS2
Effect on
Chemical , Micro,
metals

Heavy Metals
Fe-Zn Anode Artificially
Contaminated

Microbiological
Artificially
Contaminated
DWS2 Effect on
Chemical , Micro,
metals

Heavy Metals
Fe-Cu Anode Artificially
Contaminated

Microbiological
Artificially
Contaminated
 Analysis
Analysis results
results of chemical
of chemical parameters
parameters DWS2afterafter
EC treatment with with
EC treatment Fe-ZnFe-Zn
Anodeanode
Treatment Time
Parameter NSDWQ
Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
Limits
Calcium (mg/L) NA 38.7 ±1.154 40.0 ±0.00 40.0 ±0.00 40.7 ±1.155 42.0 ±0.00 42.0 ±2.066 41.6 ±0.577

Magnesium (mg/L) NA 25.0 ±0.797 24.46±0.287 24.70 ±0.701 24.74 ±0.669 25.0 ±0.62 25.3 ±0.862 26.2 ±0.609
Sodium (mg/L) NA 95.0 ±0.577 94.0 ±0.557 92.0 ±1.528 92.0 ±0.00 90.0 ±0.577 90.0 ±1.00 89.6 ±1.007
Potassium (mg/L) NA 3.8 ±0.06 4.0 ±0.06 4.0 ±0.00 4.2 ±0.06 4.3 ±0.06 4.1 ±0.05 4.1 ±0.04
Sulfate (mg/L) NA 76.0 ±0.577 78.0 ±0.577 80.0 ±1.00 84.0 ±0.577 80.0 ±0.00 80.0 ±1.528 82 ±1.00
Chloride (mg/L) < 250 24.0 ±0.00 24.0 ±0.00 23.2±1.386 23.2±1.386 23.2±1.386 22.4±1.386 23.2 ±1.386
pH 6.5-8.5 8.26 ±0.015 8.41±0.015 8.4 ±0.006 8.41 ±0.006 8.44 ±0.021 8.47 ±0.02 8.52 ±0.012
Electrical
NA 722 ±0.577 717 ±1.00 707 ±1.528 695 ±1.06 682 ±1.732 678 ±0.577 671 ±1.00
Conductivity (µS/cm)
Total Alkalinity
NA 298 ±2.887 305 ±5.00 310 ±2.887 310 ±2.887 320 ±0.00 325 ±2.887 325 ±2.887
(mg/L)
TDS (mg/L) < 1000 462 ±0.370 458 ±0.640 452 ±0.978 444 ±0.640 436 ±1.109 434 ±0.370 429 ±0.64
Total Hardness as 197.6
< 500 190.0 ±2.00 190.6 ±1.155 191.6 ±2.887 193.6 ±2.887 198.6 ±1.155 201.6 ±2.887
CaCO3 (mg/L) ±2.517
Fluoride (mg/L) ≤ 1.5 0.25 ±0.00 0.11 ±0.012 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Nitrate as N (mg/L) ≤ 10 0.95 ±0.021 0.41 ±0.01 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Phosphorus (µg/L) NA 1.59 ±0.006 0.29 ±0.026 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Iron (mg/L) NA 0.23 ±0.011 0.31 ±0.012 0.36 ±0.026 0.35 ±0.05 0.35 ±0.053 0.36 ±0.01 0.37 ±0.011
Arsenic (µg/L) ≤ 50 22.8 ±0.107 2.15 ±0.030 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
Copper (µg/L) 2000 1.55 ±0.053 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
167.75 432.49 773.45 1220.13 1807.86 2496.44
Zinc (µg/L) 5000 27.66 ±0.397
±0.427 ±0.725 ±2.892 ±10.23 ±3.63 ±11.089
 Efficacy of Fe & Fe-Zn Anode EC treatment on bacterial
Load (MPN/100mL) of DWS2
Raw 0.50 1 2
Parameters 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
water min. Min. Min.
a. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 140 140 120 110 94 79 70

Fecal Coliform 58 58 48 47 43 43 39

E. coli 13 13 11 11 10 10 9.1

b. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs

Total Coliform 140 110 79 58 40 21 17

Fecal Coliform 58 49 38 32 14 8.3 8.1

E. coli 13 13 10 9.1 3.6 ND ND

 Efficacy of Fe & Fe-Zn Anode EC treatment on bacterial
Load (MPN/100mL) of DWS2
Raw 0.50
Parameters 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
water min.
c. Iron-zinc anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs
Total Coliform 140 47 14 ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 58 15 3.6 ND ND ND ND
E. coli 13 1.8 ND ND ND ND ND
d. Iron-zinc anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs
Total Coliform 140 24 ND ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 58 12 ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli 13 ND ND ND ND ND ND
e. Evaluation of bacterial growth on iron-zinc anode flocs after incubation
Total Coliform - 3.6 ND ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform - ND ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli - ND ND ND ND ND ND
 EC treatment effect of Fe-Zn anode on the removal of
metals from artificially Contaminated DWS1
Metals
(µg/L) As Be Cd Co Cr P Pb Mn Cu Se V Zn Ni Hg

NSDWQ
≤ 50 NA 10 NA ≤ 50 NA ≤ 50 ≤ 500 2000 ≤ 10 NA 5000 ≤ 20 ≤1
Standards

22.8 0.91 1.59 ± 0.55 1.55 2.92 27.66

Raw water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.107 ±0.052 0.05 ±0.036 ±0.053 ±0.056 ±0.397

Spiked 121.82 101.45 100.9 101.4 101.86 103.14 100.89 101.05 1.62 100.96 103.07 158.61 102.75 103.39
sample ±0.551 ±0.616 ±0.405 ±0.840 ±0.323 ±1.376 ±1.549 ±0.382 ±0.017 ±0.460 ±0.199 ±0.641 ±0.627 ±0.739

21.64 36.14 51.93 48.71 40.29 24.27 20.4 50.45 87.35 38.59 317.95 34.79 29.46
0.5 min BDL
±0.390 ±0.154 ±0.470 ±0.709 ±1.277 ±0.781 ±0.496 ±1.329 ±1.301 ±0.902 ±1.538 ±1.510 ±0.490

4.31± 10.31 24.06 36.22 1.17± 5.67 2.84 29.89 73.67 18.69 616.51 22.17 15.56
1 min BDL
0.212 ±0.461 ±0.671 ±0.622 0.320 ±0.49 ±0.249 ±0.994 ±1.107 ±1.062 ±3.776 ±0.735 ±0.478

11.58 17.25 8.71 55.99 3.73 987.9 2.3 2.76

2 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.451 ±0.235 ±1.067 ±1.439 ±0.140 ±2.966 ±0.304 ±0.261

6.56 13.25 1.22 42.6 1289.29

3 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.420 ±0.236 ±0.239 ±2.673 ±4.719

0.64 2.01 26.77 1690.31

4 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.208 ±0.105 ±0.639 ±5.553

17.39 2385.11
5 min BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.401 ±12.286
Fe-Zn anode metals removal Efficiency from artificially
Contaminated DWS1
 Arsenic, beryllium, chromium, phosphorus and lead were
removed completely after 2 minute
 Vanadium, nickel and mercury removed after 3 minues
 Manganese after 4 minutes
 Cadmium, cobalt after 5 minutes
 The complete (100%) removal of As, Be, Mn, Cu, Cd, Co, Cr, P,
Pb, V, Ni, and Hg

 The concertation of Se was decreased to 83% after 5 min

treatment.

 EC process has not notable effect on boron (B), barium (Ba),

lithium (Li) and strontium (Sr) removal from spiked sample
 Fe-Cu Anode B(b2)
Modified Electrocoagulation (MEC)
Process Effect on DWS2
 Analysis
Analysis results
results of chemical
of chemical parameters
parameters DWS2afterafter
EC treatment with with
EC treatment Fe-ZnFe-Cu
Anodeanode

Treatment Time
Parameter NSDWQ
Raw water 0.50 min. 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
Limits
Calcium (mg/L) NA 38.7 ±1.154 38.6 ±1.15 37.2 ±1.15 38.6 ±1.15 38.0 ±0.00 39.4 ±1.15 39.4 ±1.15
Magnesium (mg/L) NA 25.0 ±0.797 25.2 ±0.63 25.6 ±0.82 24.8 ±0.92 24.8 ±0.28 24.4 ±0.94 24.0 ±0.80
Sodium (mg/L) NA 95.0 ±0.577 94 ±0.48 94 ±0.58 93 ±0.58 93 ±0.54 93 ±0.00 90 ±0.00
Potassium (mg/L) NA 3.8 ±0.06 3.9 ±0.06 3.9 ±0.06 4.1 ±0.04 4.1 ±0.04 4.1 ±0.05 4.0 ±0.05
Sulfate (mg/L) NA 76.0 ±0.577 77 ±0.577 78 ±1.00 81 ±2.6 82 ±1.52 81 ±1.52 81 ±0.57
Chloride (mg/L) < 250 24.0 ±0.00 24.0 ±0.00 24.0 ±0.00 23.2 ±1.38 23.2 ±1.38 23.2 ±1.38 22.4 ±0.00
pH 6.5-8.5 8.26 ±0.015 8.35 ±0.01 8.39 ±0.01 8.41 ±0.01 8.42 ±0.01 8.45 ±0.02 8.48 ±0.01

Electrical
NA 722 ±0.577 716 ±0.57 705±0.57 692±2.08 680±0.57 676±1 678±0.57
Conductivity (µS/cm)
Total Alkalinity
NA 298 ±2.887 301 ±2.8 303 ±5.7 303 ±2.8 306 ±2.8 306 ±2.8 308 ±2.8
(mg/L)
TDS (mg/L) < 1000 462 ±0.370 458 ±0.37 451 ±0.37 443 ±1.33 435 ±0.37 432 ±0.64 434 ±0.37
Total Hardness as
< 500 190.0 ±2.00 190 ±0.00 189 ±1.15 189 ±1.15 187 ±1.15 188 ±1.15 187 ±1.15
CaCO3 (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L) ≤ 1.5 0.25 ±0.00 0.17 ±0.005 0.05 ±0.005 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Nitrate as N (mg/L) ≤ 10 0.95 ±0.021 0.41 ±0.02 0.11±0.02 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Phosphorus (µg/L) NA 1.59 ±0.006 0.41±0.015 0.02 ±0.005 BDL BDL BDL BDL

Iron (mg/L) NA 0.23 ±0.011 0.18±0.011 0.21 ±0.057 0.25±0.057 0.31 ±0.01 0.28 ±0.01 0.28±0.057

Arsenic (µg/L) ≤ 50 22.8 ±0.107 2.81±0.12 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Copper (µg/L) 2000 1.55 ±0.053 205 ±3.22 428 ±5.338 805 ±7.55 1355±16.38 1860 ±21.62 2345 ±26.852
 Efficacy of Fe & Fe-Cu Anode EC treatment on bacterial
Load (MPN/100mL) of DWS2
Raw 0.50 1 2
Parameters 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
water min. Min. Min.
a. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs

Total Coliform 140 140 120 110 94 79 70

Fecal Coliform 58 58 48 47 43 43 39

E. coli 13 13 11 11 10 10 9.1

b. Iron anode EC treatment results of sample filtrate without flocs

Total Coliform 140 110 79 58 40 21 17

Fecal Coliform 58 49 38 32 14 8.3 8.1

E. coli 13 13 10 9.1 3.6 ND ND

 Efficacy of Fe & Fe-Cu Anode EC treatment on bacterial
Load (MPN/100mL) of DWS2
Raw 0.50
Parameters 1 Min. 2 Min. 3 Min. 4 Min. 5 Min.
water min.
a. Iron –Copper anode EC treatment results of sample suspension with flocs
Total Coliform 140 33 9.1 ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 58 17 1.8 ND ND ND ND
E. coli 13 2 ND ND ND ND ND
b. Iron –Copper anode EC treatment results of sample suspension without flocs
Total Coliform 140 21 ND ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform 58 11 ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli 13 1.8 ND ND ND ND ND
c. Evaluation of Bacterial viability on Iron-Copper Flocs after Incubation
Total Coliform - 1.8 ND ND ND ND ND
Fecal Coliform - ND ND ND ND ND ND
E. coli - ND ND ND ND ND ND
 EC treatment effect of Fe-Cu anode on the removal of
metals from artificially Contaminated DWS2
Metals
As Be Cd Co Cr P Pb Mn Cu Se V Zn Ni Hg
(µg/L)

NSDWQ
≤ 50 NA 10 NA ≤ 50 NA ≤ 50 ≤ 500 2000 ≤ 10 NA 5000 ≤ 20 ≤1
Standards

22.8 0.91 1.59 0.55 1.55 2.92 27.66

Raw water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.107 ±0.052 ±0.05 ±0.036 ±0.053 ±0.056 ±0.397

Spiked 121.82 101.45 100.9 101.4 101.86 103.14 100.89 101.05 1.62 100.96 103.07 158.61 102.75 103.39
sample ±0.551 ±0.616 ±0.405 ±0.840 ±0.323 ±1.376 ±1.549 ±0.382 ±0.017 ±0.460 ±0.199 ±0.641 ±0.627 ±0.739

23.98 37.12 53.94 53.55 41.6 26.1 21.38 47.18 278.21 87.35 41.41 7.47 32.59 31.72
0.5 min.
±0.130 ±0.136 ±0.225 ±1.425 ±0.837 ±1.368 ±0.679 ±1.130 ±0.691 ±0.836 ±0.541 ±0.228 ±0.921 ±0.870

6.31 12.45 27.2 36.66 2.4 5.84 4.21 30.53 503.9 76.85 17.68 1.52 17.82 18.03
1 min.
±0.185 ±0.125 ±0.787 ±0.519 ±0.704 ±0.987 ±0.211 ±1.270 ±1.547 ±0.557 ±0.486 ±0.395 ±0.784 ±0.531

1.22 13.6 18.78 8.83 950.38 64.98 5.14 1.74 3.99

2 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.135 ±0.132 ±0.404 ±0.624 ±4.660 ±0.855 ±0.186 ±0.241 ±0.140

8.15 12.91 2.12 1485.47 56.42

3 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.066 ±0.315 ±0.372 ±10.67 ±1.017

1.3 3.58 2006.8 41.22

4 min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.195 ±0.340 ±12.65 ±0.403

2383.85
23.66
5min. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ±10.54 BDL BDL BDL BDL
±0.9
2
Fe-Cu anode metals removal Efficiency from artificially
Contaminated DWS2
 Arsenic, chromium, phosphorus, zinc and lead were removed
completely after 2 minute
 Beryllium, vanadium, nickel and mercury removed after 3
minutes
 Manganese after 4 minutes
 Cadmium, cobalt after 5 minutes
 The complete (100%) removal of As, Be, Mn, Cu, Cd, Co, Cr, P,
Pb, V, Ni, and Hg

 The concertation of Se was decreased to 77% after 5 min

treatment.

 EC process has not notable effect on boron (B), barium (Ba),

lithium (Li) and strontium (Sr) removal from spiked sample
Summary of the MEC Process for Microbiological
Disinfection

Comparative efficiency (Fe-Cu> Fe-Zn> Fe-Ag> Fe-Al).

A. Copper Health Impacts

The intake of copper at high concentrations can cause serious acute and chronic health issues
of central nervous system, damage of kidneys, gastrointestinal problems, mucosal irritations,
blood capillary damage, Wilson’s disease, renal and hepatic problems

B. Zinc Health Benefits

Zinc is a trace element that is required for over 300 zinc metalloenzymes as well as normal
nucleic acid, protein, and membrane metabolism. Zinc deficiency is one of the top ten factors
contributing to disease burden in developing countries. A third of the population is deficient
in zinc, and 40% of preschool children are stunted. Zinc deficiency is an emerging health
problem in Pakistan, with approximately 20.6% of children having zinc levels below 60
g/dL. Zinc deficiency causes poor appetite, weight loss, and poor growth in children, as well
as delayed wound healing, taste abnormalities, and mental lethargy
 Fe-Zn Modified Anode B(c)
Microbiological Disinfection Efficiency
of (MEC) Process
 Microbial Disinfection Efficiency of Amended Fe-Zn Anode on
Artificially Contaminated Sample
 The sample was inoculated with cultures of pure strain of bacteria;
E. coli (ATCC 8739), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15442)
and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923).

 The bacterial load of E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were

found to 540 and 350 MPN/100mL in controlled sample

 These artificially contaminated samples were treated in parallel

with electrocoagulation process using iron and iron-zinc anode for
variable treatment time from 0.50 to 5 minutes

 Zinc along with iron is preferred for the treatment of drinking

water samples to treat microbiological contamination due to its
imperative efficacy proven by MEC process in current study.
 Microbial Disinfection Efficiency of Amended Fe-Zn Anode on
Artificially Contaminated Sample
Control
Reaction Time 0.5 min 1 min 2 min 3 min 4 min 5 min
Sample
a. Iron anode results of sample suspension with flocs (MPN/100mL)
P. aeruginosa 350 350 280 220 210 210 150
E. coli 540 540 430 430 350 280 210
b. Iron anode results of sample filtrate without flocs (MPN/100mL)
P. aeruginosa 350 280 220 170 110 94 48
E. coli 540 430 280 220 150 120 84
a) Iron/zinc anode results of sample suspension with flocs (MPN/100mL)
P. aeruginosa 350 200 94 24 ND ND ND
E. coli 540 350 170 40 ND ND ND
a) Iron/zinc anode results of sample filtrate without flocs (MPN/100mL)
P. aeruginosa 350 110 27 10 ND ND ND
E. coli 540 350 140 14 ND ND ND
a) MEC treatment effect on total plate count/mL

Iron anode suspension 9.3x 103 8.4 x 103 7.4 x 103 7.3 x 103 5.2 x 103 3.3 x 103 2.1 x 103

Iron anode filtrate 9.3x 103 7.0 x 103 6.1 x 103 4.5 x 103 3.3 x 103 2.4 x 103 1.8 x 103

Iron / Zinc Anode

suspension
9.3x 103 3.2 x 103 1.5 x 103 5.2 x 102 1.2 x 102 55 22

Iron/ zinc anode filtrate 9.3x 103 2.5 x 103 7.6 x 102 1.5 x 102 63 20 ND
a) Disinfection efficiency of amended MEC treatment (Bacterial count Log 10)
E. coli 7.71 7.3 6.52 4.30 3.22 ND ND
Staph. aureus 7.57 7.25 6.8 3.52 2.68 1.65 ND
Microbial Disinfection Efficiency of Amended Fe-Zn Anode on
Artificially Contaminated Sample
 Section C

Validation Study of Modified EC

Process
 Section C(a)
Validation of the Microbial Disinfection
by MEC Process using Structural
Morphological Study of Indicator
Bacteria with Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM)
Structural Morphological Study of Indicator Bacteria with Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM)
 The ATCC cultures of E. coli (gram negative) and S.
aureous (gram positive) were incubated in broth and
microbes were centrifuged to make pellets in sterilized
tubes.

 optical density (OD) values of the dilutions were set near

to 0.5 OD checked by Eppendorf photometer

 The 100 mL dilution of bacterial dilution cultures were

treated with amended electrodes for 1-minute

 The Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) pictures of the

microbes before and after treatment at 5um magnification
shown clear morphology of the microbes.
Structural Morphological Study of Indicator Bacteria with Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM)

The bacterial cell walls and cellular structures are

smashed by the active metal antimicrobial action

The penetration of metal disinfectants from cell

wall into cellular constituents causes bacterial cell
destruction either by alteration, modification or
amendments in cellular configuration.
 SEM Morphological Representation of Amended MEC
Process Microbiological Disinfection

(a): E. coli before treatment (b): E. Coli after Treatment

(c): Staph aureus before treatment (d): Staph aureus after treatment
 Section C(b)

Characterization of
Sludge and Flocs of EC
Treatment
 Metals uptake analysis of Flocs
 The artificially contaminated sample with CRM
(20ml/1000mL) was treated with EC process to remove
the metals from the spiked sample
 After treatment the flocs were filtered and separated as
sludge from sample.
 The flocs obtained were dried and 0.5 grams of
homogenized flocs were suspended and dissolved in 200
mL sample.
 The analysis of the flocs solution was made at ICP-OEC
to verify the heavy metals concentration in the flocs and
their relative values were calculated
Metals uptake analysis of Flocs
Flocs Heavy Metals Analysis after EC Treatment of Artificially
Contaminated Sample
 Section C(c)

Morphological
Characterization of Flocs
of EC Treatment
 Morphology of Metal Hydroxide Flocs
SEM Pictures of Flocs

The metal hydroxide sludge generated in

raw water sample and artificially
contaminated sample during the EC process
was filtered, evaporated and dried to get
flocs residues.

The dried residue of the flocs was analyzed

by SEM and EDX to determine their
morphological and chemical composition
characteristics.
 Morphology of Metal Hydroxide Flocs
SEM Pictures of Flocs

a. Blank Sample Flocs (10µm) Fe Anode b. Blank Sample Flocs (5µm) Fe Anode

c. Metals spiked sample Flocs(10µm), Fe anode Treatment d. Metals spiked sample Flocs (5µm), Fe anode Treatment
 Morphology of Metal Hydroxide Flocs
SEM Pictures of Flocs

e.Metals spiked sample Flocs(10µm), Fe-Zn anode Treatment f. Metals spiked sample Flocs(5µm), Fe-Zn anode Treatment

g. Metals spiked sample Flocs(10µm), Fe-Cu anode Treatment h. Metals spiked sample Flocs(5µm), Fe-Cu anode Treatment
 Morphology of Metal Hydroxide Flocs
SEM Pictures of Flocs

g. Metals spiked sample Flocs(5µm), Fe-Al anode Treatment h. Metals spiked sample Flocs(2µm), Fe-Ag anode Treatment

i.SEM Images (10 µm) of Sediments and Flocs Mixture Fe-Zn anode j. SEM Images (5 µm) of Sediments and Flocs Mixture Fe-
Zn anode
 Section C(d)

The EDX Analysis of the

Metal Flocs of EC
Treatment
The EDX Analysis of the Metal Flocs of EC Treatment
 The EDX Analysis of the Metal Flocs of EC Treatment

Line Apparent Wt% Standard Factory

Element Type Concentration k Ratio Wt% Sigma Label Standard

Fe K series 6 0.06001 36.33 7.88 Fe Vit Yes

O K series 3.97 0.01336 6.02 0.83 SiO2 Yes

Na K series 33.14 0.13986 18.12 2.25 Albite Yes

S K series 0.97 0.00832 0.47 0.07 FeS2 Yes

Cl K series 59.47 0.51974 29.39 3.64 NaCl Yes

K K series 0.84 0.00712 0.46 0.08 KBr Yes

Ca K series 0.73 0.00655 0.4 0.06 Wollastonite Yes

Cu K series 3.11 0.03108 1.8 0.24 Cu Yes

Cd L series 10.43 0.10434 7.01 0.88 Cd Yes

Total: 100
The EDX Analysis of the Metal Flocs of EC Treatment
 The EDX Analysis of the Metal Flocs of EC Treatment
Line Apparent Wt% Standard Factory
Element Type Concentration k Ratio Wt% Sigma Label Standard
O K series 16.97 0.1697 22.5 1.63 SiO2 Yes
Fe K series 118.61 0.39913 46.03 0.99 Fe Vit Yes
Na K series 1.84 0.00776 1.25 0.08 Albite Yes
Mg K series 2.82 0.01874 1.93 0.07 MgO Yes
Al K series 3.97 0.02849 2.19 0.07 Al2O3 Yes
Si K series 2.36 0.01868 1.1 0.04 SiO2 Yes
P K series 0.56 0.0031 0.16 0.03 GaP Yes
S K series 1.33 0.01148 0.49 0.03 FeS2 Yes
Cl K series 0.66 0.00578 0.23 0.03 NaCl Yes
K K series 0.37 0.0031 0.11 0.02 KBr Yes
Ca K series 4.44 0.03968 1.34 0.04 Wollastonite Yes
Fe K series 62.42 0.6242 22.66 0.49 Fe Yes
Total: 100
 Section C(e)

Anti-Viral Effect of
the Modified EC
Treatment Process
Evaluation of Antiviral Activity of Modified EC Process
 The antiviral study of the treatment was performed using
influenza virus (164/broiler/H9N2) with lab code
A/chicken/SKP/164-BS/2018/H9N2 in Institute of
Microbiology, University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (UVAS), Lahore-Pakistan

 The initial HA titer of virus was HA9

 The dilutions were made in autoclaved water sample

(DWS1) using this viral culture in 3 duplicate 100 mL
beakers with calculation of 4HA value

 These virus suspensions were treated with CEC process

using iron anode, with MEC process using Fe-Zn anode
Evaluation of Antiviral Activity of Modified EC Process
 The treated samples were placed for 30 minutes. These
suspensions were filtered and inoculated in 9 days old
embryonated chicken eggs with 0.2 mL of inoculum.

 Each treatment matrix was inoculated in 10 eggs batch.

Negative and positive controls were also inoculated in
other set of 10 eggs each

 Autoclaved water (without virus) was used as negative

control while suspension of water and virus & virus only
(without water) were used as positive controls.
Evaluation of Antiviral Activity of Modified EC Process

 The inoculated eggs were incubated for 48 hours for the

interaction of virus with embryo.

 The haemoagglutination assay (HA) of each egg’s

allantoic fluid was checked for the presence of virus
using 2% suspension of Red Blood Cells (RBCs)
following the standard method (Allan & Gough, 1974).

 A negative control batch was applied in first treatment

(T1) by inoculation of autoclaved DWS1 in chicken
embryonated eggs. The zero HA of all these inoculations
shown no presence of virus as well as no effect on the
viability of the chicken embryo.
Evaluation of Antiviral Activity of Modified EC Process
 The succeeding two treatments (T2 & T3) were used as positive
controls. In T2 direct virus was inoculated while in T3 virus water
suspension (4HA) was inoculated in eggs

 The HA of amniotic fluid of both these treatments shown the

presence of viral with HA range from 8-11 in T2 and from 5-9 in
T3 respectively.

 In fourth treatment (T4), the CEC process treated 4HA viral

suspension shown 1-4 HA in inoculated eggs amniotic fluid

 In fifth treatment (T5), the modified Fe-Zn anode shown a

remarkable result with the complete removal and disinfection of
the virus population in the treated samples filtrate
 Evaluation of Antiviral Activity of Modified EC Process
Sample Description of
Results
Composition Treatment

T1
Egg ID E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 E36 E37 E38 E39 E40
Water only No
treatment HA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T2 Egg ID E41 E42 E43 E44 E45 E46 E47 E48 E49 E50
Virus only No
treatment HA 10 11 8 9 10 8 9 8 10 11

T3 Egg ID E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30
Virus + water No
treatment HA 9 7 8 8 5 9 7 5 8 9
T4
Convention Egg ID E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20
Virus + water al Fe
Anode HA 3 1 4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2

T5 Egg ID E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10
Amended
Virus + water Fe-Zn
HA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anode
Antiviral EC Treatment Efficiency
 Section C(f)

HPLC analysis of
Pesticides
(Deltamethrine and
triazophos)
 HPLC analysis of Pesticides (Deltamethrine and
triazophos)
 In current study the EC treatment was also applied
to check its impact on any structural change and
degradation of deltamethrine and triazophos in
water samples.

 The HPLC analysis was carried out to compare the

before EC treatment and after EC treatment
spectra.
 The retention times and concentrations of both
compounds before and after EC treatments were
deeply examined.
 HPLC analysis of Pesticides (Deltamethrine and
triazophos)
 The HPLC-UV analysis clearly demonstrated that
the designed EC treatments had no effect on both
pesticides concentrations.

 Based upon the analysis, it can be concluded that

EC treatment has no impact of deltamethrine and
triazophos in under study water samples.

 It was established that EC treatment was not able

to degrade the deltamethrine and triazophos present
in water under currently designed experimental
conditions.
 Comparative HPLC Analysis of the Deltamethrine by
CEC & MEC Process

Figure: Deltamethrine Standard Figure: Deltamethrine 5% Sample Peak Before Treatmen

Figure: Deltamethrine 5% sample after Iron Anode Treatment Figure: Deltamethrine 5% sample after Iron-Zinc Anode
Treatment
Comparative HPLC Analysis of the Triazophos by CEC &
MEC Process

Figure: Triazophos Standard Figure: Triazophos 5% Sample Before Treatment

Figure: Triazophos 5% Sample after Iron Anode Figure: Triazophos 5% Sample after Iron-Zinc
Treatment Anode Treatment
 Section C(g)

FTIR Analysis of EC
treatment Sludge
 FTIR Analysis of EC treatment Sludge

 The sludge of the iron anode treated sample

was analyzed at FTIR to get its
compositional analysis for IR absorption
spectra.

 The IR spectra of the sludge from the EC

treatment shown no additional peaks other
than the water present in the flocs sludge.

 It was compared with deionized water

spectra, which shown no additional peaks
FTIR Analysis of EC treatment Sludge
 Section C(g)

FTIR Analysis of
Sludge of Sodium
naphthalene
Sulphonate
 FTIR Analysis of Sludge of Sodium naphthalene Sulphonate

 The samples were prepared from the pure chemicals of

sodium naphthalene sulphonate.
 Sodium naphthalene sulphonate is used as cleaning
detergents, shampoos and emulsion polymerization.
 The impact of EC treatment was assessed on degradation
of sodium naphthalene sulphonate.
 The FTIR spectrum of sodium naphthalene sulphonate
was obtained by making its raw suspension.
 Then these suspensions were subjected to the
conventional and modified EC treatment process for five
minutes under standard previously set conditions to
check its efficiency for any degradation or structural
modification in sodium naphthalene sulphonate
FTIR Analysis of Sludge of Sodium naphthalene Sulphonate

FTIR Spectra of Iron Anode EC Treated

Suspension of Sodium naphthalene
sulphonate (Resomol 8908)

FTIR Spectra of Sodium Naphthalene

Sulphonate Suspension (Resomol 8908) FTIR Spectra of Iron-Zinc Anode EC Treated
Suspension of Sodium naphthalene sulphonate
(Resomol 8908)
 Conclusions
The MEC process has established the integrated hybrid novel technique for simultaneous
removal of commonly occurring contaminants from drinking water samples.

The CEC process removed major natural chemical and heavy metals contaminants including
nitrates, fluorides, phosphates, arsenic and manganese from potable drinking water samples.

The contaminated sample with multilement CRM having K, P, Fe, Sr, Al, Ce, Mg, Se, Ca, Pb,
As, Hg, Ni, Cr, V, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Li, Mg and Ag metals with variable concentrations.

The CEC & MEC process have successfully removed (100%) most of these metals from water
samples within 5-minutes treatment when checked from the filtrates.

The CEC process was not able to remove bacterial contaminations from natural and artificially
contaminated samples.

To serve the purpose for microbiological disinfection of EC process, it was modified with the
addition of antimicrobial anode metals along with iron.

The Fe-Zn, Fe-Cu, Fe-Ag and Fe-Al anodes were applied in MEC process for microbiological
disinfection purpose.
 Conclusions
The microbial disinfection efficiency MEC process with Fe-Cu anode was highest within 2
minutes followed by Fe-Zn within 3 minutes, then by Fe-Ag within 4 minutes and on least for
Fe-Al within 5 minutes.

The Fe-Cu and Fe-Zn modified anodes applied on two different drinking water samples and the
contaminants removal efficiency was successfully verified for all major chemical, heavy metals
and microbiological parameters in simultaneous process.

Fe-Zn anode was preferred for drinking water samples treatment because of the health benefits
as compared to Fe-Cu health hazardous drawbacks.

The drinking water sample was made artificially contaminated with pure bacterial ATCC
cultures of E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus.

The MEC process has successfully removed all these microbiological contaminants with Fe-Zn
anode treatment. The heterotrophic bacterial load was also removed completely by Fe-Zn anode
treatment. The 7 logs removal of gram positive and negative bacteria was also obtained by this
MEC process.
The MEC process has also established good antiviral activity for influenza virus tested on
embryonated poultry eggs.
 Conclusions
The results of the MEC process for antimicrobial and heavy metals removal has been
validated by the most advanced analytical techniques including energy dispersion X-ray
spectrometry (EDX), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), High Pressure Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC), Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) analysis, Atomic Absorption
Spectrometer (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-
OES).

The analytical results of the research have established the electrocoagulation technique as a
reliable, safe, ecofriendly and multifunctional substitute technique for drinking water
treatment.

The practical use and upscaling of the MEC process on large community scale will enhance
the options for safe and economic treatment for municipal and regulatory authorities and will
certainly reduce the financial treatment burden, improve the health of the users, make them
safe from water borne and water related diseases ultimately reduce hospital admissions and
treatment costs.
 Research Paper

Electrochemical process for simultaneous removal of chemical and

biological contaminants from drinking water
Munawar Hussain1 & Quratulain Syed2 & Rashida Bashir3 & Ahmad
Adnan1

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (IF 5.19)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13669-0
Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
https://
hjrs.hec.gov.pk/index.php?r=site%2Fresult&id=991111#journal_res
ult
 References
 APHA. Standard methods for examination water and wastewater. American Public Health Association. 23rd Edn.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington D.C, USA. 2017.

 Imran, S., Anwaar, K., Bukhari, L. N., & Ashraf, M. (2016). Water Quality Status of Major Cities of Pakistan 2015-
16. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Ministry of Science and Technology.

 Rasheed, H., Altaf, F., Anwaar, K., & Ashraf, M. (2021). Drinking Water Quality in Pakistan: Current Status and
Challenges. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Islamabad. 141.

 Ghernaout, D., A. Alghamdi and B. Ghernaout (2019). "Microorganisms’ killing: Chemical disinfection vs.
electrodisinfection." Applied Engineering 3: 13-19.
 Ghernaout, D. and B. Ghernaout (2010). "From chemical disinfection to electrodisinfection: The obligatory
itinerary?" Desalination and Water Treatment 16(1-3): 156-175.
 Ghernaout, D., B. Ghernaout and A. Kellil (2009). "Natural organic matter removal and enhanced coagulation as a
link between coagulation and electrocoagulation." Desalination and Water Treatment 2(1-3): 203-222.
 Soomro, M., M. Khokhar, W. Hussain and M. Hussain (2011). "Drinking water Quality challenges in Pakistan."
Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Lahore: 17-28.
 Organization, W. H. (2021). "Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2020: five years
into the SDGs."
 References
 Hernández, M. C., et al. (2012). "Heavy metal removal by means of electrocoagulation using aluminum electrodes
for drinking water purification." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 42(9): 809-817
 Farooqi, A., et al. (2007). "Distribution of highly arsenic and fluoride contaminated groundwater from east Punjab,
Pakistan, and the controlling role of anthropogenic pollutants in the natural hydrological cycle."
Geochemical Journal 41(4): 213-234
 Daud, M., et al. (2017). "Drinking water quality status and contamination in Pakistan." BioMed research
international 2017
 Tahir, M. A., Rasheed, H., & Imran, S. (2010). Water quality status in rural areas of Pakistan: Pakistan Council of
Research in Water Resources.
 McClain, C. J., Kasarskis Jr, E., & Allen, J. (1985). Functional consequences of zinc deficiency. Progress in food &
nutrition science, 9(1-2), 185-226.
 McClain, C. J., Kasarskis Jr, E., & Allen, J. (1985). Functional consequences of zinc deficiency. Progress in food &
nutrition science, 9(1-2), 185-226.
 Müller, D., Stirn, C. N., & Maier, M. V. (2021). Arsenic Removal from Highly Contaminated Groundwater by Iron
Electrocoagulation— Investigation of Process Parameters and Iron Dosage Calculation. Water, 13(5), 687.
 Gong, C., Zhang, J., Ren, X., He, C., Han, J., & Zhang, Z. (2022). A comparative study of electrocoagulation
treatment with iron, aluminum and zinc electrodes for selenium removal from flour production wastewater.
Chemosphere, 303, 135249
 References
 Organization, W. H. (2008). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: second addendum. Vol. 1, Recommendations,
World Health Organization.

 Petrusevski, B., et al. (2007). "Arsenic in drinking water." Delft: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
17(1): 36-44.

 Nations, U. (2018). "Revision of world urbanization prospects." United Nations: New York, NY, USA 799.

 Petrusevski, B., et al. (2007). "Arsenic in drinking water." Delft: IRC International Water
and Sanitation Centre 17(1): 36-44

 Nwabor, O. F., et al. (2016). "Water and waterborne diseases: a review." Int. J. Trop. Dis.
Health 12(4): 1-14.
 Poster Presentation, GCU Lahore

S Arsenic
Risk Out of Effect
# Level (ppb)

1 2.5 1 1000 Cancer

2 10 12-18 10,000 Females Lung and

3 10 14-23 10,000 Males Bladder cancer

4 50 21 1000 Death

5 500 1 10 Death

Schematic Flow Sheet

Reaction
Chamber

1. WHO 2003. Quantifying selected major risks to health. The World Health Report 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva (Chapter 4).
2. Mandal, B and Suzuki, K. (2002) Arsenic round the World: A Review. Talanta, 58, 201-235
3. Muhammad S, et al. 2011. Health risk assessment of heavy metals and their source apportionment in drinking water of Kohistan region, northern Pakistan. Microchemical
Journal 98: 334-344.
 Acknowledgement
I would like pay special thanks to;
 Prof. Dr. Ahmad Adnan, GCU, Lahore
 Prof. Dr. Ayoub Rashid, GCU, Lahore
 Dr. Quratulain Syed (DG PCSIR)
 Dr. Muhammad Nawaz (UVAS)
 Dr. Hifza Rasheed DG, PCRWR
 Dr. Zajif Hussain Sr. Scientist (LUMS)
 Dr. M. Arshad, GCU (EPA)
 Dr. M. Maqsood (BUITEMS), Quetta
 Dr. Syed Ali Raza, GCU (Irr. Deptt.)
for their affection and technical support
Thank You