KEY FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFICIENCY OF ELECTROCOAGULATION IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/b5x1zj97Keywords:
Electrocoagulation, Wastewater Treatment, Current Density, pH, Conductivity, Electrode Configuration, Reactor Design, Energy Consumption, Pollutant Removal, Hybrid SystemsAbstract
Electrocoagulation (EC) has emerged as an effective method for wastewater treatment due to its ability to remove a wide range of contaminants with low chemical input. This study provides a comprehensive review of the key factors influencing EC efficiency, including operational parameters, water quality characteristics, and reactor design. The analysis shows that current density, pH, conductivity, electrode material, and electrolysis time play a critical role in determining treatment performance. Under optimized conditions, EC achieves removal efficiencies exceeding 90% for COD, turbidity, and color, while maintaining relatively low sludge production. However, process efficiency varies significantly depending on wastewater composition, requiring system-specific optimization. Performance evaluation highlights the importance of energy consumption and electrode dissolution as key economic factors. Advanced optimization methods, such as Response Surface Methodology, allow identification of optimal operating conditions under multiple interacting variables. Despite its advantages, challenges such as electrode passivation, lack of standardized reactor design, and operational costs limit large-scale implementation. Recent developments focus on hybrid systems and renewable energy integration, which have demonstrated removal efficiencies up to 100% for specific pollutants. Electrocoagulation represents a promising solution for sustainable wastewater treatment, particularly when combined with optimized design and integrated treatment approaches.
References
UN Water, Ed., Water and climate change. in The United Nations world water development report, no. 2020. Paris: UNESCO, 2020.
United Nations, World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. in Statistical Papers - United Nations (Ser. A), Population and Vital Statistics Report. UN, 2019. doi: 10.18356/13bf5476-en.
Centre for International Development and Environmental Research, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany, 35390 et al., “implications for research, higher education, and science-policy interaction,” CAJWR, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47–58, 2025, doi: 10.29258/CAJWR/2025-R1.v11-1/47-58.eng.
G. Chen, “Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment,” Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 11–41, Jul. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2003.10.006.
M. Y. A. Mollah, R. Schennach, J. R. Parga, and D. L. Cocke, “Electrocoagulation (EC) — science and applications,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 29–41, Jun. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00176-5.
J. N. Hakizimana et al., “Electrocoagulation process in water treatment: A review of electrocoagulation modeling approaches,” Desalination, vol. 404, pp. 1–21, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.011.
Mohammad. M. Emamjomeh and Muttucumaru. Sivakumar, “Review of pollutants removed by electrocoagulation and electrocoagulation/flotation processes,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1663–1679, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.011.
M. Kobya, E. Demirbas, O. Can, and M. Bayramoglu, “Treatment of levafix orange textile dye solution by electrocoagulation,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 132, no. 2–3, pp. 183–188, May 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.084.
M. Mousazadeh et al., “Electrocoagulation as a Promising Defluoridation Technology from Water: A Review of State of the Art of Removal Mechanisms and Performance Trends,” Water, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 656, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/w13050656.
K. Ansari et al., “Optimization and Operational Analysis of Domestic Greywater Treatment by Electrocoagulation Filtration Using Response Surface Methodology,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 22, p. 15230, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142215230.
F. Y. AlJaberi et al., “Can electrocoagulation technology be integrated with wastewater treatment systems to improve treatment efficiency?,” Environmental Research, vol. 214, p. 113890, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113890.
S. Boinpally, A. Kolla, J. Kainthola, R. Kodali, and J. Vemuri, “A state-of-the-art review of the electrocoagulation technology for wastewater treatment,” Water Cycle, vol. 4, pp. 26–36, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.watcyc.2023.01.001.
A. A. Al-Raad et al., “Treatment of Saline Water Using Electrocoagulation with Combined Electrical Connection of Electrodes,” Processes, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 242, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.3390/pr7050242.
M. Ebba, P. Asaithambi, and E. Alemayehu, “Development of electrocoagulation process for wastewater treatment: optimization by response surface methodology,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, p. e09383, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09383.
K. Quispe-Ramos et al., “Energy-Efficient Coaxial Electrocoagulation for Integrated Treatment of Urban Wastewater and Acid Mine Drainage: A Response-Surface Approach,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 19, p. 10452, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app151910452.
M. R. Martínez-Gallardo et al., “Microbial communities of the olive mill wastewater sludge stored in evaporation ponds: The resource for sustainable bioremediation,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 279, p. 111810, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111810.
