Advertisement

Electrical determination of optimum alum dose for water treatment

  • Moharram FouadEmail author
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

The optimum alum dose has been estimated electrically based on the difference between the electrical charges in the treated and the raw water under the same conditions. For each level of turbidity and algae, a direct relationship was obtained between the alum dose and the difference values of the electrical charges in the raw and treated water under the same conditions. It was found that the electrical charges inside the same water come down directly with the reduction in the turbidity and algae values, especially under insignificant algae levels. Therefore, relationships between the electrical charge differences and turbidity and algae removal were obtained with error values of 0.0, 5, and 10.0 for algae concentration of 0.0, 103, and 106, respectively. Finally, the electrical charge difference between the turbid and treated water has been amplified and used instantaneously to control the required alum dose of the water. Further, an additional feedback signal has been set after settling process to ensure that there are no residual charges in the settled water. As a result, dynamic and instantaneous control of the alum dose has been achieved accurately. This technique can be used successfully in water treatment plants that have variable turbidity levels throughout the day to overcome the most human mistakes associated with alum feeding.

Keywords

Water Treatment Alum Optimization Electrical Charges 

References

  1. Almeida, C. A., de Souza, M. T. F., Freitas, T. K. F. S., Ambrósio, E., Geraldino, H. C. L., & Garcia, J. C. (2017). Vegetable residue of Chayote (Sechium edule SW.) as a natural coagulant for treatment of textile wastewater. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 1(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
  2. Asadi, A., Moayedi, H., Huat, B. B., Boroujeni, F. Z., Parsaie, A., & Sojoudi, S. (2011). Prediction of zeta potential for tropical peat in the presence of different cations using artificial neural networks. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 6(4), 1146–1158.Google Scholar
  3. Bae, H., Kim, S., & Kim, Y. J. (2006). Decision algorithm based on data mining for coagulant type and dosage in water treatment systems. Water Science and Technology, 53(4–5), 321–329.Google Scholar
  4. Das, S., & Majumder, M. (2017). Development of a multipurpose water reuse and power production system. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 1(1), 47–61.Google Scholar
  5. Den, W., & Huang, C. P. (2005). Electrocoagulation for removal of silica nano-particle from chemical-mechanical-planarization wastewater. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem Eng. Aspects, 254, 81–89.Google Scholar
  6. Fouad, M., & Hassan, S. (2018). The performance of sludge blanket clarifier against conventional settler under high water turbidity conditions. Water Practice and Technology, 13(3), 642–653.Google Scholar
  7. Greville, A. S., & Environmental, E. T. (1997). How to select a chemical coagulant and flocculant. In Alberta Water & Wastewater Operators Association 22th Annual Seminar (Vol. 14, pp. 1–24), 11 March.Google Scholar
  8. Holt, P., Barton, G., Wark, M., & Mitchell, C. (2002). A quantitative comparison between chemical dosing and electrocoagulation. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 211, 233–248.Google Scholar
  9. Koohestanian, M., Hosseini, M., & Abbasian, Z. (2008). The separation method for removing of colloidal particles from raw water. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, 4(2), 266–273.Google Scholar
  10. Malian, A., Rezayan, H., Sakkizadeh, M., & Farhang, Z. (2017). Reservoir water temperature modeling by geostatistical analysis of ASTER images (Case Study: Dez Dam, Iran). International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 1(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  11. Mollah, M., Pathak, S., Patil, P., Vayuvegula, M., Agrawal, S., Gomes, J., et al. (2004). Treatment of orange azo-dye by electrocoagulation (EC) technique in a continuous flow cell using sacrificial iron electrodes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B109, 165–171.Google Scholar
  12. Morfesis, A., Jacobson, A., Frollini, R., Helgeson, M., Billica, J., & Gertig, K. (2009). Role of zeta (ζ) potential in the optimization of water treatment facility operations. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 48(5), 2305–2309.Google Scholar
  13. Park, S. M., Jun, H. B., Jung, M. S., & Koo, H. M. (2006). Effects of velocity gradient and mixing time on particle growth in a rapid mixing tank. Water Science and Technology, 53(7), 95–102.Google Scholar
  14. Saeedi, M., & Fahlyani, A. K. (2011). Treatment of oily wastewater of a gas refinery by electrocoagulation using aluminum electrodes. Water Environ Res. No, 83(3), 256–264.Google Scholar
  15. Shui, W., Sergio, P., & Rosa, M. N. (2007). Preparation, characterization and salt rejection of negatively charged polyamide Nano filtration membranes. Sociedad Química de México, 51(3), 129–135.Google Scholar
  16. Zainal, M., Aris, A., Yusof, F., Abdul, Z., Selamat, A., & Omar, S. (2012). Optimizing the coagulation process in a drinking water treatment plant—comparison between traditional and statistical experimental design jar tests. Water Science & Technology, 65(3), 496–503.Google Scholar
  17. Zhanpeng, J., & Yuntao, G. (2006). Flocculation morphology: effect of particulate shape and coagulant species on flocculation. Water Science and Technology, 53(7), 9–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations