Open access

# Preventing of Cathode Passivation/Deposition in Electrochemical Treatment Methods – A Case Study on Winery Wastewater with Electrocoagulation

Written By

Murat Eyvaz, Ercan Gürbulak, Serdar Kara and Ebubekir Yüksel

Submitted: October 4th, 2013 Published: June 11th, 2014

DOI: 10.5772/58580

From the Edited Volume

## Modern Electrochemical Methods in Nano, Surface and Corrosion Science

Edited by Mahmood Aliofkhazraei

Chapter metrics overview

View Full Metrics

## 1. Introduction

Electrochemical methods and processes have been applied for many years in environmental applications such as water/wastewater treatment, recovery of metals, electroplating and qualitative/quantitative analysis in various aqueous media. Among these processes, electrocoagulation (EC) has gained many interest due to providing simple, reliable and cost effective operation for the treatment of wastewaters without and need for additional chemicals, and thus the secondary pollution. EC is declared an environment-friendly technique since the ‘electron’ is the main reagent and does not require addition of the reagents/chemicals. This will minimize the sludge generation to a great extent and eventually eliminate some of the harmful chemicals used as coagulants in the conventional effluent treatment methods. EC process can effectively destabilize small colloidal particles and generates lower quantity of sludge compared to other processes [1]. This technique uses a direct current (DC) source between metal electrodes immersed in polluted water [2]. In this method, soluble metal electrodes (such as iron and aluminium mostly) form metal hydroxides when subjected to a suitable current. The metal hydroxides act as coagulants and lead to the removal of various contaminants [3]. The pros and cons of the EC are tabulated in Table 1

EC is an efﬁcient technique since adsorption of hydroxide on mineral surfaces are a 100 times greater on ‘in situ’ rather than on preprecipitated hydroxides when metal hydroxides are used as coagulant [3]. Besides, the ‘electron’ is the main reagent and does not require addition of the reagents/chemicals, which will minimize the sludge generation to a great extent and eventually eliminate some of the harmful chemicals used as coagulants in the conventional effluent treatment methods. EC process can effectively destabilize small colloidal particles and generates lower quantity of sludge compared to other processes [1]. EC has been successfully applied to the treatment of a lot of wastewaters including either organic or inorganic pollutants as well as drinking waters due to its benefits: environmental compatibility, versatility, energy efficiency, safety, selectivity, amenability to automation, and cost effectiveness. Additionally, electrochemical based systems allow controlled and rapid reactions, smaller systems become viable and, instead of using chemicals and micro-organisms, the systems employ only electrons to facilitate water treatment [3, 5]. However, the main drawback of conventional EC (DC-EC) is inevitable formation of an impermeable oxide film on the cathode, which results in lower removal performance of pollutants and higher operating costs (due to higher energy consumption) [3, 6].

In the EC process, an electric field is applied to the medium for a short time, and the treated dispersion transferred to an integrated clarifier system where the water–contaminant mixture separates into a floating layer, a mineral-rich sediment, and clear water. The aggregated mass settles down due to gravitational force. The clear water can be extracted by conventional methods [4]. Generally, DC power supply is traditionally employed to generate an electric field and ion transportation between the immersed sacrificial electrodes in the EC reactor. However, the major threat of the EC process using DC is that an impermeable oxide film may be formed on the cathode during the electrolysis. This leads a “cathode passivation”, which decreases the ionic transfer between the anode and cathode directly, hindering the metal dissolution and indirectly preventing metal hydroxide formation. Electrolytic dissolution of anode and electrolytic deposition of cathode in the EC cell employing DC power supply are schematically shown in Fig. 1. The DC-EC technology is inherent with the formation of an impermeable oxide layer on the cathode as well as deterioration of the anode due to oxidation. These limitations of the DC-EC process have been minimized to some extent by the addition of parallel plate sacrificial electrodes in the cell configuration. However, many have preferred the use of alternating current (AC) power supply in EC process [4, 7]. According to the reference [4], the AC cyclic energization is believed to retard the normal mechanisms of electrode attack that are experienced in DC-EC system, and thus, ensure reasonable electrode life. In addition to that, since the AC electric fields in an AC-EC separator do not cause electrophoretic transport of the charged particles due to the frequent change of polarity, it can induce dipole–dipole interactions in a system containing nonspherical charged species. As a result, the AC electric fields may also disrupt the stability of balanced dipolar structures existing in such a system. This is, however, not possible in a DC-EC separator using DC electric fields.

To prevent the main disadvantage of the EC, cathode passivation, AC can be preferred as power supply or anode and cathode can be replaced periodically with each other in DC mode. However, the latter option is not feasible for continuous operations in practical. The alternating pulse current (APC) method was proposed with experimental results in detail for the first time by Mao et al. [8] by using AC power. However, the rectangular wave produced by “a time relay from already existing DC power supply” was declared by Eyvaz et al. [9] for the first time in EC applications.

Mao et al. [8] proposed a novel current feed style in electrocoagulation aiming at preventing the cathode passivation by using AC in synthetic oily wastewater. They investigated the effects of APC on the aluminium electrodes’ surfaces by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), not observing passivation of Al, also achieving uniform dissolution of anode and cathode. Similar to APC, periodic reversal current feed was obtained by a simple time relay device integrated with a DC power supply by Eyvaz et al. [9]. They used this system to prevent electrode passivation of aluminium electrodes in EC of textile dye solutions. Their results indicated that APC was found superior to DC and higher removal efficiencies in shorter operation times and longer fill-and-draw periods could be gained by APC. Removal efficiencies increased in APC system after optimum operation time belongs to DC system as well. In another research containing the comparison of AC and DC, Vasudevan et al. [10] reported that under the identical experimental conditions, similar cadmium removal efficiencies (97.5% and 96.2%) were achieved. However, the benefits of reducing energy consumption were two fold with AC (0.665 and 1.236 kWh/m3 for AC and DC, respectively).

According to the research of Keshmirizadeh et al. [11], equal removal efficiencies were obtained in direct current and alternating pulse current. In the APC mode, the water recovery was very significant, measuring as high as 0.92 m3/m3 wastewater. For DC mode, the water recovery was less than 0.5 m3/m3 of wastewater.The APC mode was found to be more efficient than the DC mode with a lower anode over-voltage, slower anode polarization and passivity, and lower tank voltage. The operating time was 3–25% less when APC mode was used, based on initial Cr(VI) concentration of 50–1000 mg/L, respectively. Because of the reduction in operating time, less energy was consumed, which made the APC mode more cost effective. Application of APC eliminated uneven wear (dissolution) of electrodes; typically, the anode material dissolved and electroreduction products stuck to the cathodes when DC mode was used. When the APC mode was employed, electrocoagulation produced a highly dense or compact sludge at the reactor bottom, resembling dense clay soil layers. It also produced more clear supernatant. The APC mode minimized waste and increased sludge stability.

More recently, periodic electrode reversal methode (PREC) in EC was optimized by response surface methodology (RSM) for color removal of synthetic Methyl Orange wastewater by Pi et al. [12]. Color removals of 97 % with PREC and 82 % with conventional EC were gained in the optimal RSM conditions. It is concluded that EC with PREC can effectively retard cathodic passivation by resulted in lower energy and electrode material consumptions.

Although many researches on treatment of synthetic or real industrial wastewaters with EC are available, very few researches have been carried out on the economical applicability of AC electrocoagulation. Therefore, in this chapter, the effects of power supply type (DC or AC) on EC performance were investigated both technically and economically. An adjustable time relay plugged into the DC power supply was employed to obtain APC to avoid additional AC power supply cost. Winery wastewater was selected as the model electrolyte solution due to its high strength pollutant capacity and APC, an (almost) new method, was applied to the winery wastewaters for the first time with this study.

## 2. Brief description of electrocoagulation

EC is a complicated process involving many chemicals and physical phenomena that use consumable electrodes to supply ions into the wastewater stream. In an EC process the coagulating ions are produced ‘in situ’ and it involves three successive stages: (i) formation of coagulants by electrolytic oxidation of the ‘sacriﬁcial electrode’,(ii) destabilization of the contaminants, particulate suspension, and breaking of emulsions and (iii) aggregation of the destabilized phases to form ﬂocs. The destabilization mechanism of the contaminants, particulate suspension, and breaking of emulsions have been described in broad steps and may be summarized as: (1) Compression of the diffuse double layer around the charged species by the interactions of ions generated by oxidation of the sacriﬁcial anode, (2) Charge neutralization of the ionic species present in wastewater by counter ions produced by the electrochemi-cal dissolution of the sacriﬁcial anode. These counter ions reduce the electrostatic interparticle repulsion to the extent that the van der Waals attraction predominates, thus causing coagulation. A zero net charge results in the process. (3) Floc formation; the ﬂoc formed as a result of coagulation creates a sludge blanket that entraps and bridges colloidal particles still remaining in the aqueous medium. The solid oxides, hydroxides and oxyhydroxides provide active surfaces for the adsorption of the polluting species. EC has been successfully employed in removing metals, suspended particles, clay minerals, organic dyes, and oil & grease from a variety of industrial efﬂuents [3]. A brief literature review of EC efficiency on the treatment of different waters/wastewaters is presented in Table 2.

In this process, a potential is applied to the metal anodes, typically fabricated from either iron or aluminium, which causes two separate reactions: (1) Fe/Al is dissolved from the anode generating corresponding metal ions, which almost immediately hydrolyze to polymeric iron or aluminium hydroxide. These polymeric hydroxides are excellent coagulating agents. The consumable (sacriﬁcial) metal anodes are used to continuously produce polymeric hydroxides in the vicinity of the anode. Coagulation occurs when these metal cations combine with the negative particles carried toward the anode by electrophoretic motion. Contaminants present in the wastewater stream are treated either by chemical reactions and precipitation or physical and chemical attachment to colloidal materials being generated by the electrode erosion. They are then removed by electro-ﬂotation, or sedimentation and ﬁltration. Thus, rather than adding coagulating chemicals as in conventional coagulation process, these coagulating agents are generated in situ. (2) Water is also electrolyzed in a parallel reaction, producing small bubbles of oxygen at the anode and hydrogen at the cathode. These bubbles attract the ﬂocculated particles and, through natural buoyancy, ﬂoat the ﬂocculated pollutants to the surface [3]. The most important reactions are summarised in Fig. 2.

The (EC) process involves generation of coagulants in situ by dissolving sacrificial anodes such as aluminium or iron upon application of a DC. When iron electrode is used as anodes upon oxidation in an electrolytic system, it produces iron hydroxide, Fe(OH)n where n=2 or 3 [14, 15]. The major disadvantage of EC compared to chemical coagulation (usually ferric or aluminium chloride/sulfate) is that high conductivity water is required. This fact is especially relevant for drinking water treatment, as conductivity can not be enhanced by salts due to total dissolved solids (TDSs) limitations in drinking water [16]. Two mechanisms for the production of metal hydroxide have been proposed when iron electrodes are used [17, 18]:

Mechanism I:

Anode: 2Fe2Fe2++ 4e-E1
2Fe2++ 5H2O + 1/2O22Fe(OH)3(s)+ 4H+E2
Cathode: 4H2O + 2e-4OH-+ 2H2(g)E3
Overall reaction: 2Fe + 5H2O + 1/2O22Fe(OH)3(s)+ 4H2(g)E4

Mechanism II:

Anode: FeFe2++ 2e-E5
Fe2++ 2OH-Fe(OH)2(s)E6
Cathode: 2H2O + 2e-H2+ 2OH-E7
Overall reaction: Fe + 2H2OFe(OH)2(s)+ H2(g)E8

When aluminium electrodes in the EC process are used as an anode and a cathode, the main reactions are at the anode as follows [19-22]:

Anode:AlAl3++ 3e-E9
2H2OO2(g)+ 4H+ + 4e-E10
Cathode:3H2O + 3e-3OH-+ 3/2 H2(g)E11
2Al + 6H2O + 2OH-2Al(OH)-4+ 3 H2(g)E12
Overall reaction:Al3++ 3H2OAl(OH)3(s)+ 3H+E13

The performance of the EC process depends on many operational parameters such as pH of the solution, applied current to the reactor, conductivity of the (water/wastewater) solution, electrolysis time as well as electrode spesifications such as arrangement of electrode, electrode shape, distance between the electrodes, etc. Main operational parameters influencing the EC efficiency is schematically given in Fig. 3. The effects of each parameters in details can be found elsewhere in the literature. However, in this study, effects of six of the parameters such as pH of the winery wastewater (by adjusting the pH with acid or base), arrangement of the sacrificial electrodes (parallel or serial connection to power supply), electrolysis time (duration of applying voltage to the wastewater), current density (applied current to the unit area of active electrode surface) and especially power supply type (by changing the polarity of the anodes and cathodes) were investigated.

### 2.1. Brief description of alternating pulse current electrocoagulation

Usually, DC is used in EC systems. In this case, an impermeable oxide layer may form on the cathode material as well as corrosion formation on the anode material due to oxidation. This prevents the effective current transfer between the anode and cathode, so the performance of EC reactor declines. These disadvantages of DC have been diminished by the addition of parallel plate sacriﬁcial electrodes in the EC unit conﬁguration. However, many have preferred the use of AC in EC unit [7]. It is believed that the cyclic energization between the anode–cathode in AC system delays the cathode passivation and anode deterioration that are experienced in DC system, and thus, ensure reasonable electrode life [4]. A hypothesis for the lower electrode consumption with AC is that since DC only flows in one direction, there may be irregular wear on the plates due to the onslaught of the current and subsequent oxidation occurring in the same preferential points of the electrode. In the case of AC, the cyclical energization retards the normal mechanisms of attack on an electrode and makes this attack more uniform, thus ensures longer electrode life [23].

There are a few studies in which (AC) has been tested although typically DC has been used in EC systems. Vasudevan et al. [24] studied the removal of fluoride from water with DC and AC EC systems. They observed similar removal efficiencies with both technologies. However, energy consumption was slightly lower with AC technology. Eyvaz et al. [9] used APC in their study. APC enhanced removal efficiency compared to DC current. Pollutant removal decreases over the course of time with DC systems, possibly due to passivation of electrodes, whereas in an APC system this was not observed. Polarity reversal has also been suggested by other authors to reduce passivation of electrodes [25].

Schematic display of current waves of AC and APC systems are given in Fig. 4. An adjustable time relay plugged into the DC power supply was employed to obtain APC (It also represents AC in our study). According to EC unit with time relay system, turn on and turn off modes switch to positive pole to negative pole or reversion to it. For example, when the time relay is turned on in an EC reactor including two electrodes namely 1 (anode) and 2 (cathode), electrode 1 is then converted to cathode while electrode 2 is becoming anode. When the time relay is turned off, only DC system is in circuit, electrode 1 becomes anode this time. Current wave in real AC is shown as sine wave in Fig. 4.

## 3. Winery industry, winery wastewaters and treatment methods

Wine production processes generate organic and inorganic pollutions mostly associated with solid wastes and liquid efﬂuents. The liquid efﬂuents usually referred as “winery wastewater” are mainly originated inwashing operations during grape harvesting, pressing and ﬁrst fermentation phases of wine processing [26-29]. Winery wastewater is produced in significant volumes around the world [30-32]. Each winery is also unique in wastewater generation, highly variable, 0.8 to 14 L per litre of wine [33-35] and is characterized by high contents of organic material and nutrients, high acidity and large variations in the seasonal ﬂow production [36, 37] and is generated mainly as the result of cleaning practices in winery, such as washing operations during crushing and pressing grapes, rinsing of fermentations tanks, barrels washing, bottling and purges from the cooling process. As a consequence of the working period and the winemaking technologies, volumes and pollution loads greatly vary over the year [35]. The organic matter might reach during vintage periods up to >30,000 mg/L chemical oxygen demand (COD), and the high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR>15) make such water inadequate to be disposed to common sewage systems [37,38].

Although different varieties of grapes and strains of yeasts result in different types of wine and consequently winery wastewaters with different characteristics, in general, the typical raw winery wastewater presents a pH between 3 and 4, COD ranges from 320 to 296,119 mg O2/L and BOD5 values around 125–130,000 mg O2/L [32, 39]. The main organic compounds present in this kind of wastewaters are soluble sugars (fructose and glucose), organic acids (tartaric, lactic and acetic), alcohols (glycerol and ethanol) and high-molecular-weight compounds, such as polyphenols, tannins and lignin [39, 40].

Wine distillery wastewater, the product of the distillation of ethanol, wine and waste biological material, produces large volumes of liquid that involves unacceptable environmental risks [41-47]. The disposal of the untreated waste from the wine sector causing salination and eutrophication of water resources; waterlogging and anaerobiosis and loss of soil structure with increased vulnerability to erosion [33, 35].

Several winery wastewater treatments are available, and among them biological treatment methods have been recognized as a reasonable alternative way for a signiﬁcant degradation of wastewater with high organic content, however, the presence of recalcitrant compounds for the microorganisms frequently makes impossible the complete treatment of a winery wastewater [27, 29]. The winery wastewater treatment technologies can be sorted as natural evaporation in ponds, evaporation–condensation with or without combustion, direct dispersion on soil as a fertilizer and intensiﬁcation of the natural evaporation capacity of the ponds by means of sprinklers and panels as physicochemical methods; aerobic or anaerobic treatment, trickling ﬁlters, lagoons as biological methods [30, 47-49]. These methods classified as schematically in Fig. 5.

### Table 1.

Advantages and drawbacks of the EC process.

COD and BOD of the winery wastewater can be removed signiﬁcantly by biological treatment. However, the color of the wastewater remains dark brown as that before the treatment because of the non-biodegradable colored compounds such as melanoidins that can be degraded only 6–7% by biological treatment [47, 49-51]. EC process produces coagulants such as iron or aluminium (Al) hydroxides having a considerable sorption capacity by anodic dissolution and also pollutants are removed simultaneously by deposition on cathode electrode or by ﬂotation due to the hydrogen gas produced at the cathode [47, 52-55]. Because the wastewater is not enriched with anions, the sludge produced in EC process is more compact than the sludge generated by chemical coagulation [47, 55]. Besides this, EC process has many advantages like simple equipment, easy operation, a shortened reactive retention time and less sludge amount when compared chemical coagulation [2, 47].

In recent years EC technique has been applied to the wastewaters generated from food industry such as distillery and fermentation [1, 49, 51, 56-58], dairy [59-61], potato chips manufacturing [21], pasta and cookie process [62], poultry slaughterhouse [63-65], and yeast [20, 66]. Although in literature, there are a lot of studies including various treatment methods shown in Fig. 5, there have been very few research [46, 47, 67] conducted about technical and economic analysis of EC process on winery industry wastewaters. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to examine the treatment performance of EC process employing Fe and Al electrodes on winery wastewater when investigating the APC on the overall EC efficiency.

### Table 4.

Economic factors used in the total operating cost calculations.

Measurements of COD and total suspended solids (TSS) were performed according to the procedure of Standard Methods (2005). The pH and conductivity of solutions were measured using a multi meter (Hach Lange HQ40d-Düsseldorf, Germany). An UV spectrophotometer (HACH Co., model DR5000-Düsseldorf, Germany) was employed to measure color and turbidity of the wastewater. The initial pH was adjusted to a desired value using NaOH (Merck-Darmstadt, Germany) or H2SO4 (Merck-Darmstadt, Germany).

Pollutant removal efficiencies are calculated as follows:

% Removal efficiency=C0-CC0×100E14

where C is COD, color or turbidity value of treated aqueous solution (mg/L, Pt-Co or NTU) and C0 is the initial relating concentrations (mg/L, Pt-Co or NTU).

## 5.Results and discussions

### 5.1. Determining the optimum experimental parameters to comparison DC & APC systems

#### 5.1.1. Effects of initial pH

The EC process is highly dependent on the initial pH of the solution [3]. In aluminium case, precipitation mechanism of monomeric and polymeric Al(OH)3 species at pH 4.0–6.5 and adsorption mechanism of Al(OH)3 and polymeric Al(OH)3 species at pH > 6.5 are effective on the removal of pollutants. However, in the iron case, good removal efficiency can be achieved on floc formation at pH 6–8 [89-91]. Five pH values (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) were selected to investigate the optimal pH at which maximum removal efficiencies, minimum electrode and energy consumptions were observed for three electrode connection systems as well as both of the electrode material, Fe and Al. The effects of pH have been investigated at constant current density of 40 mA/cm2 and 60 min of operating time. Because there were a lot of parameters (such as pH, current density, operating time, electrode material, electrode arrangement, and current type) of which effects were investigated on the great number of process outputs (such as COD, turbidity and color removals; energy and electrode consumptions; sludge amount, and total operating cost), large amounts of data were collected, therefore, only some of them are given as figures; as for the others, they are presented in tables. However, effects of APC are analyzed and discussed in much more details in the following sections. The effects of initial pH on COD removal are featured in Fig. 9. In both cases of different electrode materials, no great differences are observed between connection modes. As seen from the figure, the highest COD removal efficiencies were observed at pH 5 for Al electrode and at pH 7 for Fe electrode, where also maximum turbidity and color removals as well as minimum energy and electrode consumptions with minimum sludge formations (Table 5) were achieved. According to the Fig. 9, COD removal efficiency increased when pH increased from 4 to 5 and then it decreased at higher pH values, until pH 9. In similar trend, Fe electrode shows maximum performance for COD removal at pH 7, (maxium turbidity and color removals were also obtained at these pHs: 5 and 7, as seen in Table 5). It was concluded that colloid particles were destabilized by the metal ions produced by anodic dissolution and these ions reacted with organic pollutions by adsorption or co-precipitation while they were precipitating in the form of hydroxides at these pH values [54, 71]. According to Table 5 where the optimum pHs are presented for both electrodes, Fe and Al electrodes show similar performances with all connection modes on the removal of color and turbidity. Additionally, almost equal amounts of sludge revealed. However, MP-S and BP-S systems exhibit high consumptions as the consequence of the serial connection requiring higher potential. When electrode consumptions are compared, more electrode material is consumed in iron case than that of aluminium. The lowest total operating cost was gained with MP-P mode as expected.

#### 5.1.2. Effects of current density

Current density is the most important parameter for controlling the reaction rate within the reactor in all electrochemical processes. It is well known that the magnitude of current density determines the amount of Al or Fe ions released from the electrodes and the formation rate of Me(OH)n (coagulant production rate) [92, 93] and adjusts the rate and size of the bubble production, and hence affects the growth of flocs [3, 94, 95]. In this research, all the experiments were applied under pHs 5 and 7 for Al and Fe electrodes, respectively with 60 min of electrolysis time to examine current density effects. Fig. 10 depicts the current density effects on COD removal. The removal percentages reach maximum at 40-50 mA/cm2 and stay constant or decrease at higher current densities. Increment in current density raised the formation of hydroxide flocs and promote the removal efficiency by coagulation but meanwhile it causes an increase in energy consumption. However, after a certain value of current density, cathode passivation occurred and dissolution of anode material stopped or reduced and also floc formation and removal efficiencies decreased. The turbidity and color removal efficiencies were also came in sight the same trend with current density as COD removal efficiency. Because the lower current density with higher removal efficiencies is preferable, depending on the results, 40 mA/cm2 was chosen as the approppriate current density value for the following time experiments. The other results belong to this value are shown in Table 6.

 Al Fe Parameter MP-P MP-S BP-S MP-P MP-S BP-S Initial pH 5 5 5 7 7 7 Current density, mA/cm2 40 40 40 40 40 40 Operating time, min 60 60 60 60 60 60 Initial voltage, V 28 84 85 28 84 85 Final voltage, V 29 85 87 29 85 87 Initial COD, mg/L 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 Initial color, Pt-Co 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 Initial turbidity, NTU 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 COD removal, % 39 39.1 40.3 41 37.6 43.1 Color removal, % 70 69.1 71 73.2 69.1 73.2 Turbidity removal, % 86.3 85.2 82.1 81 80.6 81 Energy consumption, kWh/kg COD 6.83 20.19 19.93 6.49 20.99 18.64 Energy consumption, KWh/m3 36.20 107.34 109.25 36.20 107.34 109.25 Energy cost, $/kg COD 1.16 2.35 3.39 1.16 3.57 3.17 Energy cost,$/m3 6.15 18.25 18.57 6.15 18.25 18.57 Faraday (charge loading), coulomb/m3 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 Electrode consumption, kg Al or Fe/m3 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.88 0.89 0.87 Electrode cost, $/m3 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.44 0.45 0.43 Sludge formation, kg/m3 9.86 9.93 10.17 10.73 10.06 11.16 Sludge formation, kg/kg COD removed 1.86 1.87 1.87 1.92 1.97 1.90 Sludge disposal cost,$/kg 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 Operating cost, $/kg COD removed 0.83 2.35 2.32 0.82 2.47 2.19 Total operating cost,$/m3 6.62 18.74 19.07 6.86 18.96 19.28

### Table 5.

Optimum results obtained from pH experiments.

#### 5.1.3. Effects of operating time

Operating time is another important factor in EC process, which is necessary to provide sufﬁcient current applied to the electrodes where the metal ions generated by the dissolution to form metal hydroxide species. Therefore reasonable electrolysis times should be applied in the EC reactor. To investigate the effects of operating time on the EC, optimum parameters obtained from the former pH and current density experiments were used: pHs 5 and 7 for Al and Fe, respectively; 40 mA/cm2 of current density. Influence of the operating time on COD removal and the other results at the appropriate electrolysis time are presented in Fig. 11 and Table 7 respectively.

 Al Fe Parameter MP-P MP-S BP-S MP-P MP-S BP-S Initial pH 5 5 5 7 7 7 Current density, mA/cm2 40 40 40 40 40 40 Operating time, min 60 60 60 60 60 60 Initial voltage, V 28 84 85 28 84 85 Final voltage, V 29 85 87 29 85 87 Initial COD, mg/L 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 Initial color, Pt-Co 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 Initial turbidity, NTU 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 COD removal, % 39 39.1 40.3 41 37.6 43.1 Color removal, % 70 69.1 71 73.2 69.1 73.2 Turbidity removal, % 86.3 85.2 82.1 81 80.6 81 Energy consumption, kWh/kg COD 6.83 20.19 19.93 6.49 20.99 18.64 Energy consumption, KWh/m3 36.20 107.34 109.25 36.20 107.34 109.25 Energy cost, $/kg COD 1.16 2.35 3.39 1.16 3.57 3.17 Energy cost,$/m3 6.15 18.25 18.57 6.15 18.25 18.57 Faraday (charge loading), coulomb/m3 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 47.40 Electrode consumption, kg Al or Fe/m3 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.88 0.89 0.87 Electrode cost, $/m3 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.44 0.45 0.43 Sludge formation, kg/m3 9.86 9.93 10.17 10.73 10.06 11.16 Sludge formation, kg/kg COD removed 1.86 1.87 1.87 1.92 1.97 1.90 Sludge disposal cost,$/kg 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 Operating cost, $/kg COD removed 0.83 2.35 2.32 0.82 2.47 2.19 Total operating cost,$/m3 6.62 18.74 19.07 6.86 18.96 19.28

### Table 6.

Optimum results obtained from current density experiments.

As seen from Fig.11, COD removal efficiencies of both electrodes in three connection modes increases until a certain operating time value, then, remain steady or decrease. Here, two explanation may be done: Firstly, for an electrolysis time beyond the optimum electrolysis time, the pollutant removal efficiency does not increase as sufficient numbers of flocs are available for the removal of the pollutant [1], secondly, removal efficiency does not increase, on the contrary, it decreases due to the anodic passivation and cathodic polarization which can impede the performance of EC [9, 96]. This situation is also valid in the case of the current density experiments. The optimum operating times (chosen as 90 and 105 min for Fe and Al, respectively), at which the maximum pollutant removals and minimum energy/electrode consumptions were gained, is presented with experimental results in Table 7. Because the removal efficiencies in the Table are close to each other, MP-P connection mode with minimum total operating cost is preferred for the follow-up experiments of the comparison of DC and APC.

 Al Fe Parameter MP-P MP-S BP-S MP-P MP-S BP-S Initial pH 5 5 5 7 7 7 Current density, mA/cm2 40 40 40 40 40 40 Operating time, min 105 105 105 90 90 90 Initial voltage, V 28 84 85 28 84 86 Final voltage, V 29 85 88 29 85 90 Initial COD, mg/L 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 Initial color, Pt-Co 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 Initial turbidity, NTU 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 COD removal, % 55.1 57 59 52.4 46.7 49.9 Color removal, % 96.3 92.1 94.7 81.4 76.7 81.1 Turbidity removal, % 97.7 97 95.4 90.8 88.2 91.5 Energy consumption, kWh/kg COD 8.45 24.23 23.97 7.62 25.35 24.71 Energy consumption, KWh/m3 63.36 187.85 192.29 54.30 161.01 167.68 Energy cost, $/kg COD 1.44 4.12 4.07 1.30 4.31 4.20 Energy cost,$/m3 10.77 31.93 32.69 9.23 27.37 28.51 Faraday (charge loading), coulomb/m3 82.94 82.94 82.94 71.10 71.10 71.10 Electrode consumption, kg Al or Fe/m3 0.75 0.75 0.77 1.33 1.30 1.30 Electrode cost, $/m3 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.66 0.65 0.65 Sludge formation, kg/m3 13.49 13.87 14.31 13.52 12.33 12.98 Sludge formation, kg/kg COD removed 1.80 1.79 1.78 1.90 1.94 1.91 Sludge disposal cost,$/kg 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.16 Operating cost, $/kg COD removed 1.02 2.81 2.77 0.95 2.97 2.89 Total operating cost,$/m3 11.45 32.62 33.39 10.20 28.31 29.46

### Table 7.

Optimum results obtained from operating time experiments.

### 5.2. Comparison of DC & APC systems

As encountered as a problem, cathode passivation, in the current density and operating time experiments, it may be described schematically as given in Fig. 12 similar to the results given in Table 8. To compare DC and APC system, MP-P connection mode selected for both electrode material. Current density and operating time experiments were repeated with time relay integrated with DC power supply to generate polarization between anodes and cathodes at certain intervals. Time relay was set to 300 Hz-1 [9] meaning anode–cathode polarization period of 10 min. The results are depicted in Figs. 13 and 14 for current density and operating time, respectively. As seen in the figures, removal efficiencies are not stopped or decreased at or after a certain current density or time value, moreover, at the same values APC sounds superior to DC. To make a local comparison between APC and DC, the results of APC are presented at optimum experimental conditions that formerly determined for DC system employed Fe or Al electrodes in MP-P connection mode in Table 8. Moreover, few reports in literature about power supply effects on EC process are presented with overall results in Table 9.

 Al Fe Parameter DC APC DC APC Initial pH 5 5 7 7 Current density, mA/cm2 40 40 40 40 Operating time, min 105 105 90 90 Initial voltage, V 28 28 28 28 Final voltage, V 29 29 29 29 Initial COD, mg/L 20,400 20,400 20,400 20,400 Initial color, Pt-Co 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 Initial turbidity, NTU 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 COD removal, % 55.1 77 52.4 75 Color removal, % 96.3 99 81.4 99 Turbidity removal, % 97.7 99 90.8 99 Energy consumption, kWh/kg COD 8.45 6.05 7.62 5.32 Energy consumption, KWh/m3 63.36 63.36 54.30 54.30 Energy cost, $/kg COD 1.44 1.03 1.30 0.91 Energy cost,$/m3 10.77 10.77 9.23 9.23 Faraday (charge loading), coulomb/m3 82.94 82.94 71.10 71.10 Electrode consumption, kg Al or Fe/m3 0.75 0.85 1.33 1.36 Electrode cost, $/m3 0.37 0.43 0.66 0.68 Sludge formation, kg/m3 13.49 18.10 13.52 18.16 Sludge formation, kg/kg COD removed 1.80 1.72 1.90 1.78 Sludge disposal cost,$/kg 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.22 Operating cost, $/kg COD removed 1.02 0.74 0.95 0.67 Total operating cost,$/m3 11.45 11.55 10.20 10.27

### Table 8.

Comparison of DC and APC at the same experimental conditions.

 Pollutants Electrode material Operational parameters investigated Summary of the work Ref. Cr (VI) Aluminium, iron Initial pH, current density, reaction time, initial Cr (IV) concentrations, solution conductivity, electrical energy consumption, type of circuit The APC mode was found to be more efficient than the DC mode with a lower anode over-voltage, slower anode polarization and passivity, and lower tank voltage.The operating time is 3–25% less when APC mode is used.The APC mode minimizes waste and increases sludge stability.In the APC mode, the “water recovery” was very significant, measuring as high as 0.92 m3/m3 wastewater. For DC mode, the water recovery was less than 0.5 m3/m3 of wastewater. [11] Cadmium Aluminium Initial pH, current density, initial Cd concentrations, effect of coexisting ions The optimized removal efficiency of 97.5% and 96.2% was achieved for AC and DC source at a current density of 0.2 A/dm2 and pH of 7.0 using aluminum alloy as anode and cathode.For both AC and DC electrolysis the adsorption of cadmium preferably fitting Langmuir adsorption isotherm better than Freundlich isotherm. [10] Cadmium Zinc Initial cadmium ion concentration, initial pH, current density and temperature. The optimum removal efficiency of cadmium is 97.8% and 96.9% with the energy consumption of 0.665 and 1.236 kWh/m3 was achieved for AC and DC source at a current density of 0.2 A/dm2 and pH of 7.0For both AC and DC electrolysis the adsorption of cadmium preferably fitting Langmuir adsorption isotherm. [97] Synthetic Methyl Orange wastewater Aluminium Initial pH, initial MO concentration, solution conductivity Electrocoagulation with periodic electrode reversal (PREC) can effectively retard cathodic polarization and anodic passivation.Decolorization of MO wastewater is described well by a first-order reaction equation. The rate constant was fitted to be 0.183 min−1 for PREC, an increase of 20% compared to the EC. [12] Dianix Yellow CC, Procion Yellow dyes Aluminium Initial pH, current density, operating time, frequency of anode-cathode polarization. Higher removal efficiencies of TOC and dye can be acquired in shorter operation times by using APC system.Removal efficiencies increase in APC system after optimum operation time belongs to DC system as well. [9]

### Table 9.

A brief literature review of some studies on power supply effects on EC performance

## 4. Conclusions

The EC technique has gained a remarkable attention in the wastewater treatment applications due to its benefits including environmental compatibility, versatility, energy efficiency, safety, selectivity, amenability to automation, and cost effectiveness. The EC process contains an in-situ generation of metal hydroxide ions by electrolytic oxidation of the sacrificial anode. These metal hydroxide ions act as coagulant and remove the pollutants from the solution by sedimentation. Majority of the studies reported in the literature have traditionally used DC in the EC process. However, the traditional process also has the serious disadvantages of cathodic passivation which can impede the electrolytic process in a continuous operation. The use of DC leads to the corrosion formation on the anode due to oxidation. An oxidation layer also form on the cathode reducing the flow of current between the cathode and the anode and thereby lowering the pollutant removal efficiency and highering the operational cost. Therefore, in this research an almost new method, APC electrocoagulation was used to overcome the cathode passivation. A real high strength industrial wastewater, winery wastewater, was selected as the model electrolytic solution. In the EC reactor, aluminium and iron were used as sacrificial electrodes separately in three different connection modes namely, monopolar –parallel,,monopolar-serial, and bipolar serial connections. DC was obtained from a DC power supply operated at galvanostatic mode while APC was obtained by a time relay device integrated with the DC power supply. COD, color, and turbidity removal efficiencies were considered when DC and APC were compared technically. Furthermore, various cost items were used to calculate the total operation cost of both DC and APC systems by means of pollutant removals. A comprehensive literature survey from numerous references is also stated on EC and power supply effects. According to the experimental results, the following conclusions may be exposed:

• Higher removal efficiencies can be acquired in both same and shorter operation times by using APC system. In the same operating time, conditions, APC provide 40% more COD removal than DC. Similarly, APC reach 30 % more faster to DC’ s COD removal performance. Thus, it can be said that anode–cathode polarization reduces the reaction time which is necessary for metal hydroxides removing the pollutants.

• COD, turbidity and color removal efficiencies increase until a certain current density and operation time and then they decrease so long as DC system goes on working. It may be due to the cathode passivization arisen from accumulation of contaminants on the cathode material. Therefore, electrode surfaces are needed to be cleaned and then put into use again. However, removal efficiencies increase in APC system after optimum operation time belongs to DC system as well. Thus, APC system can prolong the electrode life in each batch round of EC process.

• ACP can be easily obtained by a simple time relay device from the existing DC power supply and can be used in EC applications.

• ACP provides regular polarization to each electrode in the EC reactor, so, the sacrificial electrodes could be consumed in reasonable similar times.

• Fill-and-draw periods of reactor could be easily increased for batch EC processes by using time relay to eliminate cathode passivization. An increasing in fill-and-draw periods is important to decrease operating costs for batch processes.

• According to the results of the study, color and turbidity can be removed successfully from winery wastewaters but remained COD concentration is still too high for discharge. So, EC process should be applied with other treatment technologies such as anaerobic treatment that can remove the high COD concentrations.

Based on the promising results achieved in this research, different electrode materials can be used together by changing the anode-cathode polarization; ACP system can be also evaluated for different wastewater types or electrolytic solutions in further researches.

## References

1. 1. Khandegar V, Saroha AK Electrochemical Treatment of Distillery Spent Wash Using Aluminum and Iron Electrodes Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 2013; 20(3) 439-443, ISSN 1004-9541
2. 2. Bayramoglu M, Eyvaz M, Kobya M Treatment of the textile wastewater by electrocoagulation: economic evaluation Chemical Engineering Journal 2007; 128 155–161, ISSN 1385-8947
3. 3. Mollah MYA, Morkovsky P, Gomes JAG, Kesmez M, Parga J, Cocke DL Fundamentals, present and future perspectives of electrocoagulation Journal of Hazardous Material B 2004; 114 199–210, ISSN: 0304-3894
4. 4. Mollah MYA, Schennach R, Parga JR, Cocke DL Electrocoagulation EC-science and applications Journal of Hazardous Material B 2001; 84 29–41, ISSN: 0304-3894
5. 5. Rajeshwar K, Ibanez JG, Swain GM Electrochemistry and the environment by regarding some operational parameters on the process efficiency Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 1994; 24 (11) 1077-1091, ISSN 1572-8838
6. 6. Avsar Y, Kurt U, Gonullu T Comparison of classical chemical and electrochemical processes for treating rose processing wastewater J Hazard Mater 2007; 148 340–345
7. 7. Parekh BK. The role of hydrolyzed metal ions in charge reversal and flocculation phenomena, PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. 1979.
8. 8. Mao X, Hong S, Hua Z Alternating pulse current in electrocoagulation for wastewater treatment to prevent the passivation of Al electrodes, J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed, 2008; 239–241, ISSN 1993-0437
9. 9. Eyvaz M, Kirlaroglu M, Aktas TS, Yuksel E The effects of alternating current electrocoagulation on dye removal from aqueous solutions Chemical Engineering Journal 2009; 153 (1–3) 16-22 ISSN: 1385-8947
10. 10. Vasudevan S, Lakshmi J, Sozhan G Effects of alternating and direct current in electrocoagulation process on the removal of cadmium from water Journal of Hazardous Materials 2011; 192 (1) 26–34 ISSN: 0304-3894
11. 11. Keshmirizadeh E, Yousefi S, Rofouei MK An investigation on the new operational parameter effective in CrVI removal efficiency: A study on electrocoagulation by alternating pulse current Journal of Hazardous Materials 2011; 190 (1–3) 119–124 ISSN: 0304-3894
12. 12. Pi KW, Xiao Q, Zhang HQ, XiaM, Gerson AR Decolorization of synthetic Methyl Orange wastewater by electrocoagulation with periodic reversal of electrodes and optimization by RSM Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2014; In Press Accepted Manuscript http://dxdoiorg/101016/jpsep201402008 ISSN: 0957-5820
13. 13. Vepsäläinen M. Electrocoagulation in the treatment of industrial waters and wastewaters. PhD Thesis. Julkaisija – Utgivare. 2012.
14. 14. Zaroual Z, Azzi M, Saib N, Chainet E Contribution to the study of electrocoagulation mechanism in basic textile effluent Journal of Hazardous Material 2006; 131 73-78 ISSN 0304-3894
15. 15. Daneshvar N, Oladegaragoze A, Djafarzadeh N Decolorization of basic dye solutions by electrocoagulation: An investigation of the effect of operational parameters Journal of Hazardous Material 2006; 129 116-122 ISSN: 0304-3894
16. 16. Dubrawski K L, Fauvel M, Mohseni M Metal type and natural organic matter source for direct filtration electrocoagulation of drinking water Journal of Hazardous Materials 2013; 244–245 135-141 ISSN: 0304-3894
17. 17. Ibanez J G, Singh MM, Szafran Z Laboratory experiments on electrochemical remediation of the environment Part 4 Color removal of simulated wastewater by electrocoagulation–electrocflotation Journal of Chemical Education 1998; 75 1040–1041 ISSN 0021-9584
18. 18. Daneshvar N, Sorkhabi HA, Tizpar A Decolorization of orange II by electrocoagulation method Seperation and Purification Technology 2003; 31 153–162 ISSN 1383-5866
19. 19. APHA AWWA and WEF Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 21st ed American Public Health Association Washington DC 2005
20. 20. Kobya M, Delipinar S Treatment of the baker's yeast wastewater by electrocoagulation Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008; 154 1133–1140 ISSN: 0304-3894
21. 21. Kobya M, Hiz H, Senturk E, Aydiner C, Demirbas E Treatment of potato chips manufacturing wastewater by electrocoagulation Desalination 2006; 190 201–211 ISSN 0011-9164
22. 22. Ponselvan F I A, Kumar M, Malviya JR, Srivastava VC, Mall ID Electrocoagulation studies on treatment of biodigester effluent using aluminum electrodes Water Air & Soil Pollution 2009; 199 371–379 ISSN 1573-2932
23. 23. Cerqueira A A and da Costa Marques M R Electrolytic Treatment of Wastewater in the Oil Industry. New Technologies in the Oil and Gas Industry, 2012. ISBN: 978-953-51-0825-2 InTech
24. 24. Vasudevan S, Kannan B S, Lakshmi J, Mohanraj S, Sozhan G Effects of alternating and direct current in electrocoagulation process on the removal of fluoride from water Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 2011; 86 428–436 ISSN 1097-4660
25. 25. Wang L K, Hung Y, Shammas NK Advanced Physicochemical Treatment Technologies Humana Press USA 2007; 57–106 ISBN 978-1-59745-173-4
26. 26. Mosteo R, Ormad MP, Ovelleiro J L Photo-Fenton processes assisted by solar light used as preliminary step to biological treatment applied to winery wastewaters Water Science and Technology 2007; 56 89–94 ISSN 0273-1223
27. 27. Lucas MS, Peres JA, Puma GL Treatment of winery wastewater by ozone-based advanced oxidation processes O3, O3 /UV and O3 /UV/H2O2 in a pilot-scale bubble column reactor and process economics Seperation and Purification Technology 2010; 72 235–241 ISSN: 1383-5866
28. 28. Mulidzi AR Winery and distillery wastewater treatment by constructed wetland with shorter retention time Water Science and Technology 2010; 61 2611–2615 ISSN 0273-1223
29. 29. Valderrama C, Ribera G, Bahí N, Rovira M, Giménez T, Nomen R, Lluch S, Yuste M, Martinez-Lladó X Winery wastewater treatment for water reuse purpose: Conventional activated sludge versus membrane bioreactor MBR: A comparative case study Desalination 2012; 306 15 1-7 ISSN 0011-9164
30. 30. Bustamante M, Paredes C, Moral R, Moreno-Caselles J, Pérez-Espinosa A, Pérez-Murcia M D Uses of winery and distillery effluents in agriculture: characterisation of nutrient and hazardous components Water Science and Technology 2005; 51 (1) 145-51 ISSN 0273-1223
31. 31. Kumar A, Kookana R. Impact of winery wastewater on ecosystem health – an introductory assessment, Final Report Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation Adelaide, Australia.2006.
32. 32. Mosse K, Patti A, Christen E, Cavagnaro T Review: winery wastewater quality and treatment options in Australia Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2011, 17 111–122 ISSN 1755-0238
33. 33. van Schoor L H Guidelines for the management of wastewater and solid waste at existing wineries Winetech, 2005, 35
34. 34. Moletta R Biological treatment of wineries and distillery wastewater Proceedings of 5th International Specialized Conference on Sustainable Viticulture Winery Wastes and Ecological Impact Management 2009; 389-398 ISBN 978-88-8443-284-1
35. 35. Oliveira M, Duarte E Winery Wastewater Treatment-Evaluation of the Air Micro-Bubble Bioreactor Performance Mass Transfer-Advanced Aspects Dr Hironori Nakajima Ed 2011. ISBN: 978-953-307-636-2 http://wwwintechopencom/books/mass-transfer-advanced-aspects/winery-wastewater-treatment-evaluation-of-the-air-micro-bubble-bioreactor-performance
36. 36. Masi F, Conte G, Martinuzzi N, Pucci, B. Winery high organic contentwastewater treated by constructed wetlands in mediterranean climate in: Conference Proceedings, 2002, IWA 8thInternational, 1 274–282
37. 37. Rytwo G, Rettig A, Gonen Y Organo-sepiolite particles for efficient pretreatment of organic wastewater: Application to winery effluents Applied Clay Science 2011; 51 (3) 390-394 ISSN 1872-9053
38. 38. Brito AG, Peixoto J, Oliveira JM, Oliveira JO, Costa C, NogueiraR, Rodrigues A Brewery and winery wastewater treatment: some focal points of design and operation In: Oreopoulou Utilization of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry 2006; 3 109–131
39. 39. Souza B S, Moreira FC, Dezotti M W C, Vilar V J P, Boaventura R A R Application of biological oxidation and solar driven advanced oxidation processes to remediation of winery wastewater Catalysis Today 2013; 209 201-208 ISSN 0920-5861
40. 40. Chapman J, Baker P, Wills S Winery Wastewater Handbook: Production, Impacts and Management Winetitles Publishers Adelaide, South Australia 2001
41. 41. Sheehan GJ, Greenfeld PF Utilization, treatment and disposal of distillery wastewater Water Research 1980; 14 257–277 ISSN 0043-1354
42. 42. Vlissidis A, Zouboulis AJ Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of alcohol distillery wastewaters Bioresource Technology 1993; 43 131–140 ISSN 0960-8524
43. 43. Wilkie AC, Riedesel KJ, Owens JM Stillage characterization and anaerobic treatment of ethanol stillage from conventional and cellulosic feedstocks Biomass Bioenergy 2000; 19 63–102 ISSN 0961-9534
44. 44. Keyser M, Witthuhn RC, Ronquest LC, Britz TJ Treatment of winery ef?uent with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket UASB—granular sludges enriched with enterobacter sakazakii Biotechnology Letters 2003; 25 22 1893–1898 ISSN: 1573-6776
45. 45. Melamane XL, Strong PJ, Burgess JE Treatment of wine distillery wastewater: a review with emphasis on anaerobicmembrane reactors South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture 2007; 28 1 25–36 ISSN 0253-939X
46. 46. Kirzhner F, Zimmels Y, Shraiber Y Combined treatment of highly contaminated winery wastewater Separation and Purification Technology 2008; 631-1 38-44 ISSN 1383-5866
47. 47. Kara S, Gurbulak E, Eyvaz M and Yüksel E Treatment of Winery Wastewater by Electrocoagulation Process Desalination and Water Treatment 2013; 51 28-30 5421-5429 ISSN 1944-3986
48. 48. Jimenez AM, Rafael B, Martin A Aerobic–anaerobic biodegradation of beet molasses alcoholic fermentation wastewater Process Biochemistry 2003; 38 1275–1284 ISSN 1359-5113
49. 49. Yavuz Y EC and EF processes for the treatment of alcohol distillery wastewater Seperation and Purification Technology 2007; 53 1 135–140 ISSN 1383-5866
50. 50. Pena M Coca M Gonzalez G Rioja R Garcia MT Chemical oxidation of wastewater from molasses fermentation with ozone Chemosphere 2003; 51 893–900
51. 51. Thakur C, Srivastava V C, Mall I D Electrochemical treatment of a distillery wastewater: Parametric and residue disposal study Chemical Engineering Journal 2009; 148 2–3 496-505 ISSN 1385-8947
52. 52. Chen W J, Su W T, Hsu H Y Continuous flow electrocoagulation for MSG wastewater treatment using polymer coagulants via mixture-process design and response-surface methods Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 2012; 43 246–255 ISSN: 1876-1070
53. 53. Drogui P, Blais J F, Mercier G Review of electrochemical technologies for environmental applications Recent Patents on Engineering 2007; 1 3 257–272 ISSN: 1872-2121
54. 54. Drogui P, Asselin M, Brar S K, Benmoussa H, Blais J F Electrochemical removal of pollutants from agro-industry wastewaters Seperation and Purification Technology 2008; 61 301–310 ISSN 1383-5866
55. 55. Asselin M, Drogui P, Brar SK, Benmoussa H, Blais J F Organics removal in oily bilgewater by electrocoagulation process Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008; 151 2–3 446-455 ISSN: 0304-3894
56. 56. Asaithambi P, Susree M, Saravanathamizhan R, Matheswaran M Ozone assisted electrocoagulation for the treatment of distillery effluent Desalination 2012; 297 1-7 ISSN 0011-9164
57. 57. Kannan N, Karthikeyan G, Tamilselvan N Comparison of treatment potential of electrocoagulation of distillery effluent with and without activated Areca catechu nut carbon Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006; 137 3 1803-1809 ISSN 0304-3894
58. 58. Susree M, Asaithambi P, Saravanathamizhan R, Matheswaran M Studies on various mode of electrochemical reactor operation for the treatment of distillery effluent Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2013; 1 3 552-558 ISSN 2213-3437
59. 59. Tchamango S, Nanseu-Njiki C P, Ngameni E, Hadjiev D, Darchen A Treatment of dairy effluents by electrocoagulation using aluminium electrodes Science of The Total Environment 2010; 4084 947-952 ISSN 0048-9697
60. 60. Şengil İ A, Özacar M Treatment of dairy wastewaters by electrocoagulation using mild steel electrodes Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006; 137 2 1197-1205 ISSN 0304-3894
61. 61. Ün U T, Ozel E Electrocoagulation of yogurt industry wastewater and the production of ceramic pigments from the sludge Separation and Purification Technology 2013; 120 386-391 ISSN 1383-5866
62. 62. Roa-Morales G, Campos-Medina E, Aguilera-Cotero J, Bilyeu B, Barrera-Díaz C Aluminum electrocoagulation with peroxide applied to wastewater from pasta and cookie processing Separation and Purification Technology 2007; 54 1 124-129 ISSN 1383-5866
63. 63. Bayar S, Yıldız Y Ş, YılmazA E, İrdemez Ş The effect of stirring speed and current density on removal efficiency of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater by electrocoagulation method Desalination 2011; 280 1–3 103-107 ISSN 0011-9164
64. 64. Bayramoglu M, KobyaM, Eyvaz M, Senturk E Technical and economic analysis of electrocoagulation for the treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater Separation and Purification Technology 2006; 51 3 404-408 ISSN 1383-5866
65. 65. Kobya M, Senturk E, Bayramoglu M Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewaters by electrocoagulation Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006; 133 1–3 172-176 ISSN 0304-3894
66. 66. Gengec E, Kobya M, Demirbas E, Akyol A, Oktor K Optimization of baker's yeast wastewater using response surface methodology by electrocoagulation Desalination 2012; 286 200-209 ISSN 0011-9164
67. 67. Orescanin V, Kollar R, Nad K, Mikelic I L, Gustek S F Treatment of winery wastewater by electrochemical methods and advanced oxidation processes Journal of environmental science and health Part A Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering 2013; 48 12 1543-7 ISSN 1532-4117
68. 68. Katal R, Pahlavanzadeh V Influence of different combinations of aluminum and iron electrode on electrocoagulation efficiency: Application to the treatment of paper mill wastewater Desalination 2011; 265 1–3 199-205 ISSN 0011-9164
69. 69. Vepsäläinen M, Kivisaari H, Pulliainen M, Oikari A, SillanpääM Removal of toxic pollutants from pulp mill effluents by electrocoagulation Separation and Purification Technology 2011, 81 2 141-150 ISSN 1383-5866
70. 70. Zodi S, Louvet J N, Michon C, Potier O, Pons M N, Lapicque F, Leclerc J P Electrocoagulation as a tertiary treatment for paper mill wastewater: Removal of non-biodegradable organic pollution and arsenic Separation and Purification Technology 2011; 81 1 62-68 ISSN 1383-586
71. 71. Kobya M, Bayramoglu M and Eyvaz M Techno-economical evaluation of electrocoagulation for the textile wastewater using different electrode connections Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007, 148 1-2 311-318 ISSN: 0304-3894
72. 72. Yuksel E, Eyvaz M, Gurbulak E Electrochemical treatment of colour index reactive orange 84 and textile wastewater by using stainless steel and iron electrodes Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 2013; 32 1 60–68 ISSN 1944-7450
73. 73. Yilmaz A E, Boncukcuoğlu R, Kocakerim M M An empirical model for parameters affecting energy consumption in boron removal from boron-containing wastewaters by electrocoagulation Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007; 144 1–2 101-107 ISSN 0304-3894
74. 74. Sayiner G, Kandemirli F, Dimoglo A Evaluation of boron removal by electrocoagulation using iron and aluminum electrodes Desalination 2008; 230 1–3 205-212 ISSN 0011-9164
75. 75. Isa M H, Ezechi E H, Ahmed Z, Magram S F, Kutty S R Boron removal by electrocoagulation and recovery Water Research 2014; 51 113-123, ISSN 0043-1354
76. 76. Yetilmezsoy K, Ilhan F, Sapci-Zengin Z, Sakar S, Gonullu M T Decolorization and COD reduction of UASB pretreated poultry manure wastewater by electrocoagulation process: A post-treatment study Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009; 162 1 120-132 ISSN 0304-3894
77. 77. Labanowski J, Pallier V, Feuillade-Cathalifaud G Study of organic matter during coagulation and electrocoagulation processes: Application to a stabilized landfill leachate Journal of Hazardous Materials 2010; 179 1–3 166-172 ISSN: 0304-3894
78. 78. Li X, Song J, Guo J, Wang Z, Feng Q Landfill leachate treatment using electrocoagulation Procedia Environmental Sciences Part B 2011; 10 1159-1164 ISSN 1878-0296
79. 79. Ghosh D, Medhi CR, Purkait MK Treatment of fluoride containing drinking water by electrocoagulation using monopolar and bipolar electrode connections Chemosphere 2008; 73 9 1393-1400 ISSN 0045-6535
80. 80. Mólgora C C, Domínguez A M, Avila E M, Drogui P, Buelna G Removal of arsenic from drinking water: A comparative study between electrocoagulation-microfiltration and chemical coagulation-microfiltration processes Separation and Purification Technology 2013; 118 645-651 ISSN 1383-5866
81. 81. Ün Ü T, Uğur S, Koparal AS, Öğütveren Ü B Electrocoagulation of olive mill wastewaters Separation and Purification Technology 2006; 52 1 136-141 ISSN 1383-5866
82. 82. Khoufi S, Feki F, Sayadi S Detoxification of olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation and sedimentation processes Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007; 142 1–2 58-67 ISSN 0304-3894
83. 83. Hanafi F, Assobhei O, Mountadar M Detoxification and discoloration of Moroccan olive mill wastewater by electrocoagulation Journal of Hazardous Materials 2010; 174 1–3 807-812 ISSN 0304-3894
84. 84. Fouad YO Separation of cottonseed oil from oil–water emulsions using electrocoagulation technique Alexandria Engineering Journal In Press 2013; Corrected Proof ISSN 1110-0168
85. 85. HarizI B, Halleb A, Adhoum N, Monser L Treatment of petroleum refinery sulfidic spent caustic wastes by electrocoagulation Separation and Purification Technology 2013; 107 150-157 ISSN 1383-5866
86. 86. Akbal F, Camcı S Copper, chromium and nickel removal from metal plating wastewater by electrocoagulation Desalination 2011; 269 1–3 214-222 ISSN 0011-9164
87. 87. Al Aji B, Yavuz Y, Koparal A S Electrocoagulation of heavy metals containing model wastewater using monopolar iron electrodes Separation and Purification Technology 2012; 86 248-254 ISSN 1383-5866
88. 88. Tong X, Xu R Removal of CuII from acidic electroplating effluent by biochars generated from crop straws Journal of Environmental Sciences 2013; 25 4 652-658 ISSN 1001-0742
89. 89. Eyvaz M. Treatment of textile wastewaters by using electrocoagulation with different electrode connections Fe and Al. MSc Thesis. In Turkish Kocaeli Turkey. 2006.
90. 90. Rebhun M, Lurie M Control of organic matter by coagulation and ﬂoc separation Water Science and Technology 1993; 27 1–20 ISSN 0273-1223
91. 91. Pykhteev O Y, Oﬁmov A A, Moskvin L N Hydrolysis of iron III aqua complexes Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry 1999; 72 9–20 ISSN: 1070-4272
92. 92. Pouet M F, and Grasmick A Urban wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation and flotation Water Science and Technology 1995; 31 275–283 ISSN 0273-1223
93. 93. Ün Ü T, Koparal A S, Öğütveren Ü B Hybrid processes for the treatment of cattle-slaughterhouse wastewater using aluminum and iron electrodes Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009; 164 580–586 ISSN: 0304-3894
94. 94. Chen G Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment Separation and Purification Technology 2004; 38 (1) 11-41 ISSN 1383-5866
95. 95. Bellebia S, Kacha S, Bouyakoub A Z, Derriche Z Experimental ınvestigation of chemical oxygen demand and turbidity removal from cardboard paper mill effluents using combined lectrocoagulation and adsorption processesi Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 2011; 31 (3) 361–370 ISSN 1944-7450
96. 96. Martínez-Huitle C A, Brillas E Decontamination of wastewaters containing synthetic organic dyes by electrochemical methods: a general review Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2009; 87 105–145 ISSN 0926-3373
97. 97. Vasudevan S & Lakshmi J Effects of alternating and direct current in electrocoagulation process on the removal of cadmium from water – A novel approach Separation and Purification Technology 2011; 80 3 18 643–651 ISSN 1383-5866
98. 98. Dubrawski K L, Mohseni M Standardizing electrocoagulation reactor design: Iron electrodes for NOM removal Chemosphere 2013; 91 55–60 ISSN 0045-6535

Written By

Murat Eyvaz, Ercan Gürbulak, Serdar Kara and Ebubekir Yüksel

Submitted: October 4th, 2013 Published: June 11th, 2014