3.8 Article

The Performance of Electrocoagulation Process in Removing Organic and Nitrogenous Compounds from Landfill Leachate in a Three-Compartment Reactor

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 235-245

出版社

POLISH SOC ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING-PTIE
DOI: 10.12911/22998993/145290

关键词

current densities; electrocoagulation; humic substances; stabilized leachate; wastewater treatment

资金

  1. Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effectiveness of electrocoagulation (EC) in reducing organic and nitrogenous contaminants in landfill leachate. The results showed that the highest removal of COD and NH4+ was achieved at pH 4. In addition, EC effectively removed humic substances in the leachate, but higher current densities led to higher energy consumption.
In this study, the effectiveness of the electrocoagulation (EC) process was evaluated based on the reduction of organic and nitrogenous contaminants in landfill leachate. A three-compartment electrochemical reactor as pre-treatment of stabilized landfill leachate was carried out ahead of biological treatment. The removal efficiencies of COD, BOD, ammonia, and nitrate were analyzed at pH 4, 6, and 8 with the current densities of 20.83 and 29.17 mA.cm(-2). At pH 4, the highest removal of COD and NH4+ was obtained, i.e.. in the range of 72-81% and 43-59%, respectively. The ratio of BOD5/COD was increased after EC, from initially 0.11 to 0.32 at pH 4. In addition, EC effectively removed humic substances in the leachate by targeting a large amount of high molecular weight humic substances. with around 10(3) kDa. However, the higher removal efficiency observed at higher current density leads to higher specific energy consumption. At a current density of 29.17 mA.cm(-2). the specific energy consumption obtained in EC was around 10-17 Wh.g(-1) COD and 99-148 Wh.g(-1) NH4+. This could be decreased up to 50% at an applied current density of 20.83 mA.cm(-2) with slightly lower efficiencies.

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

3.8
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