3.8 Proceedings Paper

Electrocoagulation Process by Using Aluminium and Stainless Steel Electrodes to Treat Total Chromium, Colour and Turbidity

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proche.2016.03.070

关键词

Electrocoagulation; initial pH; applied voltages; electrodes; Aluminium and Stainless Steel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research works involve the study of removal of Total Chromium, Colour and Turbidity contaminations in landfill leachate by electrocoagulation process. This project focused on leachate landfill from Pulau Burung, Nibong Tebal, Penang as an electrolyte solution. Heavy metals are the main factor contributing to pollution in leachate landfill. Leachate is the main pollution factors from landfill sites and must be treated before it is released into the environment(1). Landfill leachate contain high amount of heavy metals that can cause serious health problems to human, if the wastewater that contained heavy metals is not treated properly(2). This project tried to reduce and treat the heavy metal that contain in the landfill leachate. Types of electrodes used in this study were Aluminium ( grade 5052) and Stainless Steel (grade 316). The ranges of initial pH applied were pH (3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) and voltages applied were 1.5V, 2.0V and 2.5V. At the end of electrocoagulation process, the solutions were stored and analysed using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) to determine the final concentration of electrolyte solution. It was found that, the difference electrodes have different effectiveness in removing Total Chromium, colour and turbidity, relies on the types of electrodes (Aluminium or Stainless Steel). Based on the result, can be concluded that Aluminium Electrodes are best for removal of turbidity and colour. Stainless Steel Electrodes is best for removal Total Chromium. The initial pH also gives the significant effect to removal of heavy metal and the maximum voltages give higher removal of heavy metal. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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