4.6 Article

Performance and mechanistic study on electrocoagulation process for municipal wastewater treatment based on horizontal bipolar electrodes

出版社

HIGHER EDUCATION PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11783-020-1215-3

关键词

Electrocoagulation; Bipolar electrodes; Municipal wastewater; Simulations

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51822806, 51678184, 51761145031]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [HIT.BRETIV.201905]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The design of electrodes is crucial to electrocoagulation process (EC), specifically, with respect to pollutant removal and energy consumption. During EC, the mechanisms for interaction between different electrode arrangement and electrode reactions remain unclear. This work presents an integrated EC process based on horizontal bipolar electrodes (BPEs). In the electrochemical cell, the graphite plates are used as driving cathode while either Fe or Al plates serves as driving anode and BPEs. The BPEs are placed horizontally between the driving electrodes. For municipal wastewater treatment, the pollutant removal efficiency and energy consumption in different configurations of two-dimension electrocoagulation (2D-EC) system with horizontal BPEs were investigated. The removal efficiency of turbidity, total phosphorus and total organic carbon increased significantly with the number of BPEs. Noted that the energy consumption for TP removal decreased by 75.2% with Fe driving anode and 81.5% with Al driving anode than those of 2D-EC, respectively. In addition, the physical field simulation suggested the distributions of potential and current in electrolyte and that of induced charge density on BPE surface. This work provides a visual theoretical guidance to predict the distribution of reactions on BPEs for enhanced pollutant removal and energy saving based on electrocoagulation process for municipal wastewater treatment. (c) Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

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

4.6
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