4.7 Article

Hybrid processes for the treatment of cattle-slaughterhouse wastewater using aluminum and iron electrodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 164, 期 2-3, 页码 580-586

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.045

关键词

Electrocoagulation; Abattoir; Electro-Fenton process; Aluminum; Iron

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrocoagulation (EC) of cattle-slaughterhouse wastewater, which is characterized by (i) high turbidity (up to 340 Nephelometric turbidity units), (ii) increased chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration (4200 mg L-1), and (iii) a dark color, was investigated with the purpose of lowering the turbidity and COD concentration to levels below the permitted direct-discharge limits. Iron and aluminum were used as electrode materials. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of current density, initial pH, and supporting electrolyte (Na2SO4) dosage on the performance of the system. COD removal increased with increase in current density. The original pH of wastewater (7.8) was found to be preferable for both the electrode materials. Higher concentrations of Na2SO4 caused an increase in COD removal efficiency, and energy consumption was considerably reduced with increasing conductivity. Hybrid processes were applied in this work to achieve higher COD removal efficiencies. In the case of aluminum electrode, poly-aluminurn chloride (PAC) was used as the coagulant aid for the aforesaid purpose. COD removal of 94.4% was obtained by adding 0.75 g L-1 PAC. This removal efficiency corresponded to effluent COD concentration of 237 mg L-1, which meets the legal requirement for discharge from slaughterhouses in Turkey. In the case of iron electrode, EC was conducted concurrent with the Fenton process. As a result, 81.1% COD removal was achieved by adding 9% H2O2. Consequently, hybrid processes are inferred to be superior to EC alone for the removal of both COD and turbidity from cattle-slaughterhouse wastewater. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据