4.6 Review

Electrocoagulation as a Promising Defluoridation Technology from Water: A Review of State of the Art of Removal Mechanisms and Performance Trends

Journal

WATER
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13050656

Keywords

electrocoagulation; groundwater treatment; water treatment; fluoride removal

Funding

  1. Qazvin University of Medical Sciences [IR.QUMS.REC.1399.472]
  2. Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF) [15/11529]
  3. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Mexico (CONACYT) [386022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fluoride ions in drinking water are beneficial within proper levels, but excessive intake can lead to health problems. The World Health Organization recommends a permissible limit of 1.5 mg L-1 for fluoride. Electrocoagulation technology is favored for its economic effectiveness, environmental versatility, amenability to automation, and low sludge production.
Fluoride ions present in drinking water are beneficial to human health when at proper concentration levels (0.5-1.5 mg L-1), but an excess intake of fluoride (>1.5 mg L-1) may pose several health problems. In this context, reducing high fluoride concentrations in water is a major worldwide challenge. The World Health Organization has recommended setting a permissible limit of 1.5 mg L-1. The application of electrocoagulation (EC) processes has received widespread and increasing attention as a promising treatment technology and a competitive treatment for fluoride control. EC technology has been favourably applied due to its economic effectiveness, environmental versatility, amenability of automation, and low sludge production. This review provides more detailed information on fluoride removal from water by the EC process, including operating parameters, removal mechanisms, energy consumption, and operating costs. Additionally, it also focuses attention on future trends related to improve defluoridation efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available