2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.08.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Treatment of table olive processing wastewaters using electrocoagulation in laboratory and pilot-scale reactors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After 56 min of treatment, COD removals for 100, 200 and 300 mg.L −1 MO dye solutions were 66.7%, 54.6% and 43.2%, respectively; color removals were 91.1%, 63.2% and 52.6%, respectively and dye removals were 96.6%, 64.7% and 57.6%, respectively; indicating the highest removal efficiency for the lowest dye concentration (100 mg.L −1 ). Additionally, removal efficiencies increased with increasing electrolysis time for 100 mg.L −1 dye solution, whereas higher concentrations (200 and 300 mg.L −1 ) showed limiting removal efficiencies, which were supported by previous studies ( Benekos et al., 2019 ; El-Ashtoukhy et al., 2017 ; Zeboudji et al., 2013 ). Researchers recommended this effect due to the presence of insufficient amounts of flocs and exhaustion of adsorption capability of these limited flocs for higher contaminant concentrations ( Ahmadzadeh et al., 2017 ; An et al., 2017 ; Kabdaşlı et al., 2012 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…After 56 min of treatment, COD removals for 100, 200 and 300 mg.L −1 MO dye solutions were 66.7%, 54.6% and 43.2%, respectively; color removals were 91.1%, 63.2% and 52.6%, respectively and dye removals were 96.6%, 64.7% and 57.6%, respectively; indicating the highest removal efficiency for the lowest dye concentration (100 mg.L −1 ). Additionally, removal efficiencies increased with increasing electrolysis time for 100 mg.L −1 dye solution, whereas higher concentrations (200 and 300 mg.L −1 ) showed limiting removal efficiencies, which were supported by previous studies ( Benekos et al., 2019 ; El-Ashtoukhy et al., 2017 ; Zeboudji et al., 2013 ). Researchers recommended this effect due to the presence of insufficient amounts of flocs and exhaustion of adsorption capability of these limited flocs for higher contaminant concentrations ( Ahmadzadeh et al., 2017 ; An et al., 2017 ; Kabdaşlı et al., 2012 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…In the current study, Fe electrodes were used due to their higher treatment efficiency, longer durability, lower cost and non-toxic nature than Al electrodes ( Ghalwa et al., 2016 ; Ghernaout et al., 2011 ; Moreno et al., 2009 ). Also, Al electrodes eliminate contaminants only by EC mechanism whereas, Fe electrodes remove contaminants by both EC and electro-oxidation (EO) mechanisms ( Benekos et al., 2019 ; Nasrullah et al., 2018 ). The anodic electrochemical reactions of Fe follow two mechanisms and generate Fe(OH) 3 and Fe(OH) 2 ( Table 2 ) ( Ghernaout, 2018 ; Mollah et al., 2001 ; Zodi et al., 2009 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The treatment of COD removal also produces biogas, as reported by a previous study. The result shows that the COD removal of OOMW using the electrocoagulation process produces biogas around 0.741 g/L COD [90].…”
Section: Olive Oil Mill Wastewatermentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Ozonization [1,2], electrocoagulation [3] and electrochemical treatments [4,5] could, to a large extent, reduce the chemical oxygen demand contamination of the table olive wastewaters. Aerobic and anaerobic treatments alone, or in combination with another technique, have also been researched with promising results for the organic contamination reduction in these [6,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%