4.7 Article

Removal of brilliant green tannery dye by electrocoagulation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2022.116223

关键词

Synthetic dyestuff; Tannery wastewater; Water treatment; Iron electrodes; Iron flocs

资金

  1. University of Guanajuato [CIIC 167/2020]
  2. CONACYT (Mexico) [894987]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the electrocoagulation process for removing brilliant green tannery dye from synthetically prepared water. The results show that under specific operating conditions, a high decolorization rate of 100% and COD removal rate of 86% can be achieved.
This paper deals with the removal of brilliant green (BG) tannery dye from synthetically prepared water (chemical oxygen demand 660 <= COD <= 2065 mg L-1, in 6000 mg L-1 Cl- at pH 6.0) by electrocoagulation (EC) using a continuous up-flow parallel plate EC reactor. The reactor employed two 1018 steel plates as sacrificial electrodes. The influence of flocculation time (15 <=tau(f) <= 35 min) on the dye removal efficiency was examined, using a jar test coupled to the exit of the EC reactor. The effect of hydrodynamics, in terms of mean linear flow rate and Reynolds number (0.69 <= u <= 3.47 cm s(-1) and 72 <= Re <= 362), and current density, applied to the EC reactor, and the initial BG dye concentration on the elimination of color and COD was systematically analyzed. The range of Reynolds numbers studied in the EC reactor obeys a laminar flow, Re < 2100. Laminar flow pattern allows the initial floc growth to occur orderly within the EC reactor. The decolorization and COD removal reached values up to 100% and 86%, respectively, at j = 6 mA cm(-2) and u = 0.69 cm s(-1) (Re = 72), giving electrolytic energy consumption and overall operating cost of 0.077 kWh m(-3) (0.134 kWh (kg COD)(-1)) and of 0.193 USD m(-3) (0.34 USD (kg COD)(-1)), respectively. XRD, XRF-EDS, SEM, FTIR, and OEA analysis of the dried flocs indicated the removal of BG by adsorption on iron oxyhydroxides flocs.

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