4.7 Article

Electrocoagulation of bio-filtrated landfill leachate: Fractionation of organic matter and influence of anode materials

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 168, Issue -, Pages 1136-1141

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.092

Keywords

Landfill leachate; Electrocoagulation; Humic acids; Fulvic acids; Bio-filtration

Funding

  1. MITACS [IT03162]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Electrocoagulation (EC) was employed to treat residual organic matter from a landfill leachate pretreated by an aerated bio-filter system. Organic matter (humic acids (HA), fulvic acids (FA) and hydrophilic compounds (Hyl)) was fractionated using DAX-8 resin in order to estimate the efficiency of EC on each fraction. Initial characterization of the bio-filtrated landfill leachate showed that humic substances (HA + FA) represented nearly 90% of TOC. The effects of current densities, type of anode (Aluminum versus iron), and treatment time on the performance of COD removal were investigated. The best COD removal performances were recorded at a current density ranging between 8.0 and 10 mA cm(-2) during 20 min of treatment time. Under these conditions, 70% and 65% of COD were removed using aluminum and iron electrodes, respectively. The fractionating of organic matter after EC treatment revealed that HA was completely removed using either aluminum or iron anode. However, FA and Hyl fractions were partially removed, with the percentages varying from 57 to 60% and 37-46%, respectively. FA and Hyl removal were quite similar using either aluminum or iron anode. Likewise, a significant decrease in 254-nm absorbance was recorded (UV254 removal of 79-80%) using either type of anode. These results proved that EC is a suitable and efficient approach for treating the residual refractory organic matter from a landfill leachate previously treated by a biological system. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available