Treatment of Metal Plating

Wastewater by
Electrocoagulation
Feryal Akbal and Selva Camc
Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Ondokuz Mays University, 55139 Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey;
[email protected] (for correspondence)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.10546

In this study, the performance of electrocoagulation process in the treatment of metal plating wastewater was investigated using different combinations
of aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe) electrodes. The effect
of applied current, metal concentration, and treatment time on the metal removal efciency was investigated. The results show that electrocoagulation can
effectively reduce metal ions to a very low level. The
Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations were more
effective for the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni from metal
plating wastewater. Almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr,
and Ni was achieved with initial Cu concentration of
335 mg/L, Cr concentration of 193 mg/L, Ni concentration of 526 mg/L after 60 min of electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with Fe-Al electrode combination. 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 00: 000000, 2011

Keywords: electrocoagulation, metal plating wastewater, aluminum electrodes, iron electrodes

INTRODUCTION

Plating wastewaters contain various kinds of toxic

substances such as acid cyanide, alkaline cleaning
agent, degreasing solvents, oil and fat, and heavy
metals. Most of the heavy metals such as copper,
nickel, chromium, zinc, etc., in wastewater are harmful when they are discharged directly to the environment. Hence, treatment of them before discharging
becomes necessary [1]. Various techniques have been
employed for the treatment of heavy metals, including precipitation [2], coagulation [3], adsorption [4],
2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

biosorption [5], ion-exchange [6], electrodialysis [7],

electrodeionization [8, 9], and membrane separation
[1013]. Among these techniques chemical precipitation is widely used for heavy metal removal from
wastewaters. The dissolved metal ions are converted
to the insoluble solid via a chemical reaction with a
precipitant agent such as lime. Advantages of using
lime precipitation include the simplicity of the process, inexpensive equipment requirement, and convenient and safe operations, making it a popular
method for metal removal from contaminated wastewater. In spite of its advantages, chemical precipitation requires a large amount of chemicals to reduce
metals to an acceptable level for discharge. Other
drawbacks are its excessive sludge production that
requires further treatment, the increasing cost of
sludge disposal, slow metal precipitation, poor
settling, the aggregation of metal precipitates, and
the long-term environmental impacts of sludge
disposal [14].
Electrocoagulation has the potential to eliminate
the disadvantages of the classical treatment techniques and to achieve a sustainable and economic
treatment of polluted wastewater. This technique
does not require any supplementary addition of
chemicals, and it reduces the volume of produced
sludge [15]. The coagulating ions are produced in
situ and the treatment process involves many chemical and physical phenomena, such as discharge,
anodic oxidation, cathodic reduction, coagulation,
electrophoretic migration, and adsorption [16]. Electrocoagulation has been successfully used for the
treatment of wastewaters such as electroplating
wastewater [17], chemical mechanical polishing
wastewater [18, 19], textile wastewater [20], olive mill

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Month 2011 1

wastewater [2123], laundry wastewater [24], tannery

wastewater [25, 26], pulp and paper mill industry
wastewater [27, 28], bakers yeast wastewater [29],
and slaughterhouse wastewater [30].
In the present work, treatment of the metal plating
wastewaters containing copper, chromium, and nickel
by electrocoagulation was investigated. The effect of
operational parameters such as applied current, electrode material and combination, metal concentration,
and treatment time on the removal efciency have
been assessed.

The electrocoagulation process is based on the

continuous in situ production of a coagulant in the
contaminated water. The most widely used electrode
materials in electrocoagulation process are aluminum
and iron. In the case of aluminum, the main reactions
at the anode and cathode are:
Als ! Al

3e

Fe2 2OH
! FeOH2

(1)

(2)

On the other hand, at high pH values both cathode

and anode may be chemically attacked by OH2 ions.
2Al 6H2 O 2OH
! 2 AlOH

4 3H2

(3)

Al31 and OH2 ions generated by electrode reactions

(1) and (2) react to form various monomeric species
1
2
such as Al(OH)21, Al(OH)1
2 , Al2(OH)2 , Al(OH)4 , and
31
41
,
polymeric species such as Al6(OH)15 , Al7(OH)17
41
71
51
Al8(OH)20 , Al13O4(OH)24 , and Al13(OH)34 , which
transform nally into Al(OH)3(s) according to complex precipitation kinetics.
Al3 3H2 O ! AlOH3 3H

(4)

Freshly formed amorphous Al(OH)3(s) sweep ocs

have large surface areas, which are benecial for a
rapid adsorption of soluble organic compounds and
trapping of colloidal particles. Finally, these ocs are
removed easily from aqueous medium by sedimentation or H2 otation [3133].
When an iron anode is utilized in electrocoagulation, Fe21 is dissolved in the wastewater from Fe oxidation at the anode as follows:
Fe ! Fe2 2e

(5)

whereas hydroxide ion and H2 gas are generated at

the cathode from the reaction:
2H2 O 2e
! 2OH
H2

(6)

OH2 production from reaction (6) causes an increase

in pH during electrolysis. Insoluble Fe(OH)2 precipi2 Month 2011

(8)

In the presence of O2, dissolved Fe21 is oxidized to

insoluble Fe(OH)3:
4Fe2 10H2 O O2 ! 4FeOH3 8H

(9)

and protons can be directly reduced to H2 gas at the

cathode:
8H 8e
! 4H2

3H2 O 3e
! 3=2H2g 3OH

(7)

and the overall reaction for the electrolytic process

from the sequence of reactions (5)(7) is:
Fe 2H2 O ! FeOH2 H2

DESCRIPTION OF ELECTROCOAGULATION PROCESS

tates at pH > 5.5 and remains in equilibrium with

Fe21 up to pH 9.5 or with monomeric species such
as Fe(OH)1, Fe(OH)2, and Fe(OH)2
3 at higher pH values. The formation of insoluble Fe(OH)2 can be written as:

(10)

The corresponding overall reaction obtained by combining reactions (5), (9), and (10) is:
4Fe 10H2 O O2 ! 4FeOH3 4H2

(11)

Insoluble Fe(OH)3 ocs can remove pollutants by

surface complexation or electrostatic attraction, followed by coagulation [34].
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Characterization of the Wastewaters

Three different wastewater samples supplied by
metal plating plant were used in the electrocoagulation experiments. The wastewaters were ltered using
a screen lter to remove large suspended solids
before being used for the subsequent studies. The
main characteristics of these wastewaters were presented in Table 1.
Electrocoagulation Procedure
The experimental equipment schematically is
shown in Figure 1. The monopolar electrocoagulation
unit consisted of a 1 L electrochemical reactor with
three anodes and three cathodes. The iron (98.94%)
and aluminum (98.86%) plates were used as electrodes with four different arrangements. Total effective
electrode area was 202 cm2 and the spacing between
electrodes was 10 mm. The current was maintained
constant by means of a precision DC power supply
(GW GPC-3060D). All the electrocoagulation experiments were performed for 60 min at the original pH
(pH 3.0) of the wastewater. Applied current was varied between 0.5 and 2.0 A, which corresponded to
current density between 25 and 100 A/m2. Sodium
chloride (10%) was used to increase the conductivity
of the wastewater. In each run, 650 mL of wastewater

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Table 1. Characteristics of wastewaters.

Characteristics
Cu (mg/L)
Cr (mg/L)
Ni (mg/L)
pH
Conductivity (mS/cm)

Wastewater I

Wastewater II

Wastewater III

45
44.5
394
3.00
2.00

155
116
452
3.00
4.00

335
193
526
3.00
4.00

Analytical Procedure
The pH of the wastewater was measured using a
pH meter (InoLab WTW). A Jenway Conductivity
Meter (Model 4071) was employed to determine
the conductivity of the wastewater. The concentrations of the metal ions (Cu, Cr, and Ni) in the
wastewater were analyzed by an atomic absorption
spectrometer (UNICAM 929) according to the standard methods [36].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1. Experimental system.

was placed into the electrocoagulation cell. A magnetic stirrer was used to stir the wastewater at 200
rpm. The operation started when the current was
adjusted to a desired value. At different time intervals,
the samples were taken from the reactor and ltered
before analysis. During electrocoagulation pH, conductivity, and metal concentrations of wastewater
were measured.
The energy consumption was calculated using the
following equation [35].
E

U I t
V

(12)

where E is the energy consumption (kwh/m3), U is

the applied voltage (V), I is the current (A), t is the
electrocoagulation time (h), and V is the volume of
the treated wastewater (L).
The amount of electrode dissolved was calculated
theoretically by using Faradays law [35].
C

I tM
Z F V

(13)

where C (g/L) is the iron or aluminum concentration

in the electrolytic cell, I is the current (A), t is the
electrocoagulation time (s), M is the molecular weight
of anode (g/mol), Z is the chemical equivalence, F is
the Faradays constant (96,500 C/mol), and V is the
volume of treated wastewater (L).

Effect of Applied Current

In all electrochemical processes, applied current is
the most important parameter for controlling the
reaction rate within the electrochemical reactor. The
current determines the coagulant dosage rate, the
bubble production rate, and uid regime (mixing)
within the reactor. Hence the collision between particles, the oc growth, and the potential for material
removal, both pollutant and coagulant, by otation
are determined by the current [37]. To investigate the
effect of current on metal removal, electrocoagulation
process was carried out using various currents varying from 0.5 to 2.0 A at pH 3.0 and conductivity of 2
mS/cm. Figure 2 shows the effect of applied current
on Cu removal from metal plating wastewater by
electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations. The removal rate of Cu increased with
increasing current, and the highest current (2.0 A)
produced the quickest removal rate. Increasing the
current causes higher coagulant dissolution, and OH2
production resulted in a more efcient and faster
removal [18]. After 15 min of electrocoagulation,
Cu removal was 68.7% and 99.2% for Fe-Fe electrode
combination, 56.7% and 99.7% for Al-Al electrode combination, 56.1% and 99.9% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 47.5% and 91.4% for Al-Fe electrode
combination at currents of 0.5 and 2.0 A, respectively. Complete removal of Cu was achieved after
10 min of electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with
Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations.
Figure 3 shows the effect of applied current on Cr
removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations.
An increase in current from 0.5 to 2.0 A yields an
increase in the efciency of Cr removal from 78.4%
to 99.9% for Fe-Fe electrode combination after 10
min of electrocoagulation. As the current increased,
the electrolysis time needed to achieve same removal
efciency decreased. At current of 0.5 and 2.0 A,

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Month 2011 3

Figure 2. Effect of applied current on copper removal from electroplating wastewater (Cu: 45 mg/L, pH: 3.0,

conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

30 min and 10 min of electrocoagulation time was

sufcient for complete removal of Cr. After 10 min of
electrocoagulation, Cr removal ranged between 66.3%
and 93.2% for Al-Al electrode combination, 80.3%
99.7% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 73.9%
96.9% for Al-Fe electrode combination.
Figure 4 shows the effect of applied current on Ni
removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different electrode combinations.
The Ni removal increased from 51% to 98% for the
Fe-Fe electrode combination, from 47.9% to 96.5% for
the Al-Al electrode combination, from 52.9% to 99.9%
for the Fe-Al electrode combination, and from 44% to
76.3% for the Al-Fe electrode combination when current increased from 0.5 to 2.0 A after 20 min of electrocoagulation. The Ni removal efciencies were
higher for Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations,
compared with the Al-Al and Al-Fe electrode combinations.
Table 2 shows the initial and residual metal concentrations, metal removal efciencies, and energy
and electrode consumptions at different currents. It
can be seen that the metal removal efciency, energy
consumption, and electrode consumption increased
with increasing the current. Almost 100% removal of
Cu, Cr, and Ni was achieved with Fe-Al electrode
combination at curent of 2.0 A and electrocoagulation
time of 20 min with energy consumption of 10.07
4 Month 2011

kwh/m3 and electrode consumption of 1.08 kg/m3. At

high currents, the extent of anodic dissolution of iron
and aluminum increases, resulting in a greater
amount of precipitate and removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni.
The rate of bubble-generation increases and the bubble size decreases with increasing current; both of
these trends are benecial in terms of high pollutantremoval efciency by H2 otation [38, 39].
Effect of Metal Concentration
The effect of metal concentration was investigated
using four different combinations of aluminum and
iron electrodes at current of 2.0 A, pH 3.0, and conductivity of 4 mS/cm. Figure 5 shows Cu removal
from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation
using four different combinations of aluminum and
iron electrodes. The Cu removal efciency decreased
from 99.8% to 66% for Fe-Fe electrode combination
at 10 min of electrocoagulation, while in case of Al-Al
electrode combination from 96.7% to 35% by increasing the concentration of Cu from 45 to 335 mg/L. The
Cu removal efciency was 99.3% and 74.8% with FeAl electrode combination and 99.8% and 41.6% with
Al-Fe electrode combination after 10 min of electrocoagulation at Cu concentration of 45 mg/L and 335
mg/L, respectively. Complete removal of Cu was
achieved after 20 and 40 min of electrocoagulation at

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 3. Effect of applied current on chromium removal from electroplating wastewater (Cr: 44.5 mg/L, pH:

3.0, conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

Cu concentrations of 45 and 155 mg/L for all electrode combinations.

Figure 6 shows Cr removal from metal plating
wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different
combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes. As
expected, it appears that the removal rate has
decreased with increasing initial Cr concentration.
The removal efciencies of Cr were 99.9%, 96.7%,
and 81.1%, for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 94.4%,
92.5%, and 89.9% for Al-Al electrode combination,
99.8%, 94.3%, and 90.6% for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 99.9%, 84.4% and 62.4% for Al-Fe
electrode combination at 5 min of electrocoagulation
with the initial concentrations of 44.5, 116, and 193
mg/L, respectively. At initial Cr concentrations of
44.5, 116, and 193 mg/L, 5, 15, and 20 min of electrocoagulation time was sufcient for completely
removal of Cr with Fe-Fe electrode combination.
When the other electrode combinations were used,
longer electrocoagulation times are necessary for the
complete removal of Cr.
Figure 7 shows Ni removal from metal plating
wastewater by electrocoagulation using four different
combinations of aluminum and iron electrodes. Efciencies of Ni removal after 20 min of electrocoagulation at Ni concentrations of 394, 452, and 526 mg/L
were obtained as 99.9%, 94.5%, and 75.9%, for Fe-Fe

electrode combination, 99.4%, 94.4%, and 48.1% for

Al-Al electrode combination, 99.9%, 96.3%, and 78.8%
for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 99.9%, 64.6%,
and 46.5% for Al-Fe electrode combination, respectively. The removal rate of Ni was higher with Fe-Fe
and Fe-Al electrode combinations than with Al-Al and
Al-Fe electrode combinations. The residual Ni
concentration was 0.8 mg/L for Fe-Al electrode combination, 4.2 mg/L for Fe-Fe electrode combination,
10.7 mg/L for Al-Al electrode combination, and 15.2
mg/L for Al-Fe electrode combination at an initial
concentration of 526 mg/L after 60 min of electrocoagulation.
As the results indicated, the metal removal efciencies were higher for Fe-Fe and Fe-Al electrode combinations compared with the Al-Al and Al-Fe electrode
combinations. The reason for this behavior could be
that the adsorption capacity of ferric oxides is much
higher than aluminum oxides. The metal removal efciency decreased with an increase in metal concentration. According to Faradays law, constant amount of
Fe21 passed to the solution at the same current and
time for all metal concentrations. Consequently, the
same amount of ocs would be produced in the solutions. As a result, the ocs produced at high metal
concentration were insufcient to adsorb all of the
metal molecules of the solution [40, 41].

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Month 2011 5

Figure 4. Effect of applied current on nickel removal from electroplating wastewater (Ni: 394 mg/L, pH: 3.0,

conductivity: 2 mS/cm).

Table 2. Initial and residual metal concentrations, metal removal efciencies, and corresponding energy and

electrode consumptions at different currents.

0.5 A

1.0 A

2.0 A

Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe Fe/Fe Al/Al Fe/Al Al/Fe
Electrocoagulation
time (min)
Initial Cu (mg/L)
Initial Cr (mg/L)
Initial Ni (mg/L)
Residual Cu (mg/L)
Residual Cr (mg/L)
Residual Ni (mg/L)
Cu removal (%)
Cr removal (%)
Ni removal (%)
Initial conductivity
(mS/cm)
Final conductivity
(mS/cm)
Mean voltage (V)
Energy consumption
(kwh/m3)
Electrode consumption
(kg/m3)

6 Month 2011

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

45
44.5
394
14.1
0.2
192
68.5
99.6
51
2.00

45
44.5
394
17.2
8.8
205
61.7
80.3
47.9
2.00

45
44.5
394
6.12
3.0
185
86.4
93.1
52.9
2.00

45
44.5
394
21.3
6.8
220
52.5
84.7
44
2.00

45
44.5
394
1.1
0
124
97.5
100
68.5
2.00

45
44.5
394
4.6
5.1
142
89.8
88.5
63.8
2.00

45
44.5
394
4.3
2.6
142
90.5
94.2
63.8
2.00

45
44.5
394
4.8
2.2
195
89.4
94.9
50.4
2.00

45
44.5
394
0
0
7.6
100
100
98.0
2.00

45
44.5
394
0
0.1
13.6
100
99.8
96.5
2.00

45
44.5
394
0
0
0.2
100
100
99.9
2.00

45
44.5
394
1.9
0.71
93.5
95.6
98.4
76.3
2.00

1.75

1.52

1.44

1.39

1.63

1.43

1.08

1.24

1.59

1.39

1.43

1.31

3.28
0.78

3.38
0.86

3.24
0.90

2.68
0.71

5.28
2.70

5.50
2.75

4.54
2.65

4.78
2.65

9.08
9.86

8.56
9.45

9.18
10.07

7.36
7.58

0.26

0.08

0.26

0.08

0.54

0.17

0.26

0.08

1.08

0.35

1.08

0.35

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 5. Copper removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, conduc-

tivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 6. Chromium removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, con-

ductivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 7. Nickel removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation (Current: 2.0 A, pH: 3.0, conduc-

tivity: 4 mS/cm).

Figure 8. Variations of pH values during electrocoagulation of metal plating wastewater. (Current: 2.0 A,

pH: 3.0, conductivity: 4 mS/cm).

Table 3. Comparison of metal removal efciencies of various treatment processes.

Treatment
method
Coagulation
Electrodeionization

Metal
Cu
Ni
Cu
Cr
Cu

Cu

Cu

Ultraltration

Cu
Cr
Ni
Ni

Reverse osmosis
Electrocoagulation

Cu
Cr
Ni
Cu
Cr
Ni

Coagulant/membrane/electrode
Polyferric sulphate, PAM, DDTC
Polyethylene anion and cation
exchange membrane
Polyethylene anion and cation
exchange membrane
Polyethylene anion and cation
exchange membrane
Mixed-bed resin in the
concentrate compartment;
mixed-bed resin in the dilute
compartment, RF 5 13, 20V
Cation resin in the concentrate
compartment;
mixed-bed resin in the dilute
compartment, RF 5 13, 20V
No resin in the concentrate
compartment; mixed-bed resin
in the dilute compartment,
RF 5 13, 20V
FUS 0181 UF membrane,
CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure,
pH 7.0
FUS 0181 UF membrane,
CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure, pH 7.0
FUS 0181 UF membrane,
CMC 1g/L, 1 bar pressure, pH 7.0
UPM 20 membrane,
200 kPa pressure
ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0
ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0
ULPROM, 450 Kpa pressure, pH 7.0
Fe/Al electrode
Fe/Al electrode
Fe/Al electrode

The change in nal pH with electrocoagulation

time was shown in Figure 8. For all electrode combinations, nal pH values gradually increased with
increasing electrocoagulation time. The nal pH of
metal plating wastewater remained between 5.3 and
8.1 for Fe-Fe electrode combination, 5.77.7 for AlAl electrode combination, 5.19.8 for Fe-Al electrode combination, and 4.98.5 for Al-Fe electrode
combination after 60 min of electrocoagulation.
Hydrogen evolution at the cathode resulted in progressive increase of the pH [42]. For the removal of
Cu and Cr as hydroxides by precipitation, a pH
value of 8 is necessary whereas for the precipitation of Ni hydroxides the pH should be 10. Consequently, Cu and Cr were mainly removed by precipitation as hydroxides by the hydroxyl ions
formed at the cathode via water electrolysis and by
coprecipitation with aluminium and iron hydroxides, and Ni was mainly removed by coprecipitation
with aluminium and iron hydroxides.

Initial metal
concentration
(ppm)
20
87.9

Removal
efciency
(%)
99.6
99.9

Reference
[3]
[8]

94.9

99.9

[8]

89.5

99.8

[8]

51

99.8

[9]

54

99.8

[9]

47

99.4

[9]

25

98.6

[10]

25

99.1

[10]

25

95.1

[10]

25

99.9

[11]

17
167
26
335
193
526

98.7
99.4
99.0
100
100
100

[12]
[12]
[12]
This study
This study
This study

Metal Removal Efciencies of Various

Treatment Processes
The comparison of metal removal with different
processes were given in Table 3. Li et al. [3]
employed sodium diethyl-dithiocarbamate (DDTC) as
a trapping agent and polyferric sulphate and polyacrylamide as the occulants to treat copper electroplating wastewater. They found that an almost complete removal of Cu could be achieved with an initial
Cu concentration of 20 mg/L when the molar ratio of
DDTC to Cu is between 0.8 and 1.2. Feng et al. [8]
studied the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni ions from electroplating wastewater by a hybrid system combining
ion exchange with electrodialysis. About 100% rejection was achieved with an initial Cu concentration of
94.9 mg/L and Cr concentration of 89.5 mg/L and Ni
concentration of 87.9 mg/L. Semmens et al. [9] investigated the ability of continuous electrodeionzation
(CEDI) process for copper sulfate recovery from synthetic rinsewater. They evaluated three bench-scale

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Month 2011 9

congurations of CEDI modules under varying ow

and voltage conditions. They reported that module performance was best with no ion exchange resin in the
concentrate compartments. By operating at a voltage of
20 V, copper removal from diluted stream higher than
99% was achieved in all of the modules tested. Barakat
and Schmidt [10] employed polymer-enhanced ultraltration process for the removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni ions
from synthetic solution. They reported that 98.6% Cu
rejection, 99.1% Cr rejection, and 95.1% Ni rejection
were achieved with an initial metal concentration of 25
mg/L and 1 bar of pressure. Kryvoruchko et al. [11]
investigated purication of the water contaminated by
Ni ions by use of ultraltration in combination with
chelation. They reported that the maximum retention
coefcient of Ni ions by the UPM-20 membrane was
almost be 100%, when poly (ethylene imine) was used
as a chelating agent. Ozaki et al. [12] investigated the
removal performance of an ultra-lowpressure reverse
osmosis membrane (ULPROM) for the separation of
Cu, Cr, and Ni ions from both synthetic and electroplating wastewater. They reported 99.4% Cr rejection,
98.7% Cu rejection, and 99% Ni rejection with an initial
Cr concentration of 167 mg/L, Cu concentration of 17
mg/L, and Ni concentration of 26 mg/L at pH 7.0 and
feed pressure of 450 kPa. In this study almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni was obtained after 60 min of
electrocoagulation at current of 2.0 A with initial Cu
concentration of 335 mg/L, Cr concentration of 193
mg/L, and Ni concentration of 526 mg/L.
CONCLUSION

In this study, the applicability of electrocoagulation

in the treatment of electroplating wastewater was investigated. Iron and aluminium plates in four different
combinations were tested to identify the optimum electrode combination. The results show that electrocoagulation can effectively reduce metal ions to a very low
level. The Cu, Cr, and Ni removal efciency increased
with increasing current and electrocoagulation time and
decreased with increasing metal concentration. At
higher current, formation rate of aluminium and iron
hydroxide ocs increased and the aluminium and iron
hydroxide ocs act as adsorbents for metal ions and
eliminate them from the wastewater. The Fe-Fe and FeAl electrode combinations were more effective for the
removal of Cu, Cr, and Ni. Electrocoagulation of the
metal plating wastewater with Fe-Al electrode combination was able to achieve almost 100% removal of Cu, Cr,
and Ni after 20 min of electrocoagulation with a current
of 2.0 A at Cu, Cr, and Ni concentrations of 45, 44.5, and
394 mg/L. The same removal was achieved after 60 min
of electrocoagulation at Cu, Cr, and Ni concentrations of
335, 193, and 526 mg/L, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of Ondokuz

Mays University Research Fund of this project (No.
MF-114).
Abbreviations
Al
aluminum
CEDI
continuous electrode ionzation
10 Month 2011

DDTC
Fe
ULPROM

diethyl-dithiocarbamate
iron
ultra-lowpressure
reverse
membrane

osmosis

LITERATURE CITED

1. Hunsom, M., Pruksathorn, K., Damronglerd, S.,

Vergnes, H., & Duverneuil, P. (2005). Electrochemical treatment of heavy metals (Cu21, Cr61,
Ni21) from industrial efuent and modeling of
copper reduction, Water Research, 39, 610616.
2. Feng, D., Aldrich, C., & Tan, H. (2000). Treatment of
acid mine water by use of heavy metal precipitation
and ion exchange, Minerals Engineering, 13, 623642.
3. Li, Y., Zeng, X., Liu, Y., Yan, S., Hu, Z., & Ni, Y.
(2003). Study on the treatment of copper-electroplating wastewater by chemical trapping and occulation,
Separation and Purication Technology, 31, 9195.
4. Wang, Y.-H., Lin, S.-H., & Juang, R.-S. (2003). Removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using various low-cost adsorbents, Journal
of Hazardous Materials B, 102, 291302.
5. Wang, J., & Chen, C. (2009). Biosorbents for
heavy metals removal and their future, Biotechnology Advances, 27, 195226.
6. Dabrowski, A., Hubicki, Z., Podkoscielny, P., &
Robens, E. (2004). Selective removal of the heavy
metal ions from waters and industrial wastewaters by
ion-exchange method, Chemosphere, 56, 91106.
7. Tzanetakis, N., Taama, W.M., Scott, K., Jachuck,
R.J.J., Slade, R.S., & Varcoe, J. (2003). Comparative performance of ion exchange membranes for
electrodialysis of nickel and cobalt, Separation
and Purication Technology, 30, 113127.
8. Feng, X., Wu, Z., & Chen, X. (2007). Removal of
metal ions from electroplating efuent by EDI
process and recycle of puried water, Separation
and Purication Technology, 57, 257263.
9. Semmens, M.J., Dillon, C.D., & Riley, C. (2001).
An evaluation of continuous electrodeionization
as an in-line process for plating rinsewater recovery, Environmental Progress, 20, 251260.
10. Barakat, M.A., & Schmidt, E. (2010). Polymerenhanced ultraltration process for heavy metals
removal from industrial wastewater, Desalination,
256, 9093.
11. Kryvoruchko, A., Yurlova, L., & Kornilovich, B.
(2002). Purication of water containing heavy metals
by chelating-enhanced ultraltration, Desalination,
144, 243248.
12. Ozaki, H., Sharmab, K., & Saktaywirf, W. (2002).
Performance of an ultra-low-pressure reverse osmosis membrane (ULPROM) for separating heavy
metal: Effects of interference parameters, Desalination, 144, 287294.
13. Qin, J.-J., Wai, M.-N., Oo, M.-H., & Wong, F.-S.
(2002). A feasibility study on the treatment and
recycling of a wastewater from metal plating,
Journal of Membrane Science, 208, 213221.
14. Kurniawan, T.A., Chan, G.Y.S., Lo, W.-H., & Babel, S. (2006). Physico-chemical treatment techniques for wastewater laden with heavy metals,
Chemical Engineering Journal, 118, 8398.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

15. Heidmann, I., & Calmano, W. (2010). Removal of

Ni, Cu and Cr from a galvanic wastewater in an
electrocoagulation system with Fe- and Al-electrodes, Separation and Purication Technology,
71, 308314.
16. Cheng, H. (2006). Cu(II) Removal from lithium
bromide refrigerant by chemical precipitation and
electrocoagulation, Separation and Purication
Technology, 52, 191195.
17. Adhoum, N., Monser, L., Bellakhal, N., & Belgaied, J.-E. (2004). Treatment of electroplating
wastewater containing Cu21, Zn21 and Cr(VI) by
electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 112, 207213.
18. Lai, C.L., & Lin, S.H. (2003). Electrocoagulation of
chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) wastewater
from semiconductor fabrication, Chemical Engineering Journal, 95, 205211.
19. Drouiche, N., Ghaffour, N., Lounici, H., &
Mameri, M. (2007). Electrocoagulation of chemical mechanical polishing wastewater, Desalination, 214, 3137.
20. Kobya, M., Can, O.T., & Bayramoglu, M. (2003).
Treatment of textile wastewaters by electrocoagulation using iron and aluminium electrodes, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 100, 163178.
21. Adhoum, N., & Monser, L. (2004). Decolourization
and removal of phenolic compounds from olive
mill wastewater by electrocoagulation, Chemical
Engineering and Processing, 43, 12811287.
22. I_nan, H., Dimoglo, A., S ims ek, H., & Karpuzcu,
M. (2004). Olive oil mill wastewater treatment by
means of electro-coagulation, Separation and Purication Technology, 36, 2331.
gutveren,
n, U
.T., Ugur, S., Koparal, A.S., & O
23. U
.B. (2006). Electrocoagulation of olive mill
U
wastewaters, Separation and Purication Technology, 52, 136141.
24. Ge, J., Qu, J., Lei, P., & Liu, H. (2004). New bipolar electrocoagulation-electrootation process for
the treatment of laundry wastewater, Separation
and Purication Technology, 36, 3339.
25. Feng, J., Sun, Y., Zheng, Z., Zhang, J., Li, S., &
Tian, Y. (2007). Treatment of tannery wastewater
by electrocoagulation, Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 19, 14091415.
zacar, M. (2006). Treatment of
26. S engil, I.A., & O
dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation using
mild steel electrodes, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 137, 11971205.
27. Khansorthong, S., & Hunsom, M. (2009). Remediation of wastewater from pulp and paper mill
industry by the electrochemical technique, Chemical Engineering Journal, 151, 228234.
28. Ugurlu, M., Gurses, A., Dogar, C., & Yalcn, M.
(2008). The removal of lignin and phenol from
paper mill efuents by electrocoagulation, Journal of Environmental Management, 87, 420428.
29. Kobya, M., & Delipinar, S. (2008). Treatment of the
bakers yeast wastewater by electrocoagulation,
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 154, 11331140.

30. Kobya, M., Senturk, E., & Bayramoglu, M. (2006).

Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters
by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous
Materials B, 133, 172176.
31. Bayramoglu, M., Kobya, M., Can, O.T., & Sozbir,
M. (2004). Operating cost analysis of electrocoagulation of textile dye wastewater, Separation
and Purication Technology, 37, 117125.
32. Ylmaz, A.E., Boncukcuoglu, R., Kocakerim,
M.M., & Keskinler, B. (2005). The investigation of
parameters affecting boron removal by electrocoagulation method, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 125, 160165.
33. Zaied, M., & Bellakhal, N. (2009). Electrocoagulation treatment of black liquor from paper industry,
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 163, 9951000.
34. Martnez-Huitle, C.A., & Brillas, E. (2009). Decontamination of wastewaters containing synthetic
organic dyes by electrochemical methods: A general review, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental,
87, 105145.
35. Ghosh, D., Medhi, C.R., & Purkait, M.K. (2008). Treatment of uoride containing drinking water by electrocoagulation using monopolar and bipolar electrode connections, Chemosphere, 73, 13931400.
36. APHA, AWWA, & WPCF. (1995). Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater
(19th Edition), Washington, APHA.
37. Hana, F., Assobhei, O., & Mountadar, M. (2010).
Detoxication and discoloration of Moroccan
olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 174, 807812.
38. Daneshvar, N., Oladegaragoze, A., & Djafarzadeh,
N. (2006). Decolorization of basic dye solutions
by electrocoagulation: An investigation of the
effect of operational parameters, Journal of Hazardous Materials B, 129, 116122.
39. Song, S., He, Z., Qiu, J., Xu, L., & Chen, J. (2007).
Ozone assisted electrocoagulation for decolorization of C.I. Reactive Black 5 in aqueous solution:
An investigation of the effect of operational parameters, Separation and Purication Technology,
55, 238245.
40. Daneshvar, N., Khataee, A.R., Ghandim, A.R.A., &
Rasoulifard, M.H. (2007). Decolorization of C.I.
Acid Yellow 23 solution by electrocoagulation
process: Investigation of operational parameters
and evaluation of specic energy consumption
(SEEC), Journal of Hazardous Materials, 148, 566
572.
41. Modirshahla, N., Behnajady, M.A., & Kooshaiian,
S. (2007). Investigation of the effect of different
electrode connections on the removal efciency
of Tartrazine from aqueous solutions by electrocoagulation, Dyes and Pigments, 74, 249257.
42. Zongo, I., Leclerc, J.-P., Maiga, H.A., Wethe, J., &
Lapicque, F. (2009) Removal of hexavalent chromium from industrial wastewater by electrocoagulation: A comprehensive comparison of aluminium and iron electrodes, Separation and Purication Technology, 66, 159166.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.00, No.00) DOI 10.1002/ep

Month 2011 11