مجله آب و فاضلاب

مجله آب و فاضلاب

تحلیل عملکرد انعقاد الکتریکی در حذف کروم با رویکرد ارزیابی چرخه عمر الکترودهای مختلف

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
امیرحسین رجبی پور 1
محسن خضرلو اقدم 1
نسترن اسکندری 2
تقی عبادی 3
1 کارشناسی ارشد، گروه آب و محیط‌زیست، دانشکده مهندسی عمران و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه آب و محیط‌زیست، دانشکده‌ مهندسی عمران و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار، گروه آب و محیط‌زیست، دانشکده‌ مهندسی عمران و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران
10.22093/wwj.2025.499125.3458
چکیده
کروم یکی از آلاینده‌های سمّی و سرطان‌زا در فاضلاب‌های صنعتی مانند آبکاری، تولید رنگ و چرم‌سازی است که حذف آن از منابع آبی اهمیت زیادی دارد. انعقاد الکتریکی، به‌عنوان یک روش کارآمد، پتانسیل بالایی در حذف کروم دارد. در این پژوهش، تأثیر جنس و زبری سطح الکترودهای آهن، آلومینیوم و استیل ضدزنگ بر کارایی این فرایند برای حذف کروم بررسی شد. برای اولین بار، زبری سطح به‌عنوان یک عامل مؤثر بر عملکرد انعقاد الکتریکی مطالعه شد. همچنین این پژوهش از ابزار ارزیابی چرخه عمر برای ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی الکترودهای مختلف و تحلیل پایداری روش انعقاد الکتریکی بهره گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که آهن و استیل نسبت به آلومینیوم عملکرد بهتری در حذف کروم دارند. آلومینیوم به دلیل کارایی حذف پایین (40/14درصد) و مصرف انرژی بالا (kWh/m3739/3) گزینه مناسبی محسوب نمی‌شود. افزایش زبری سطح باعث بهبود کارایی حذف کروم در آلومینیوم (2/57 درصد) و کاهش مصرف انرژی در استیل (74/10 درصد) شد، اما موجب افزایش میزان جرم لایه‌ غیر‌فعال‌کننده و مصرف الکترود در آهن و استیل شد. درمجموع، الکترود استیل زبر با کارایی حذف 25/96 درصد، مصرف الکترود 332/0 گرم و جرم لایه‌ غیر‌فعال‌کننده 062/0 گرم بهترین عملکرد را داشت. علاوه بر این، ارزیابی چرخه عمر مطابق استاندارد ISO 14040 نشان داد که استیل بیشترین تأثیر زیست‌محیطی را در شاخص‌های ODP، POCP، EP، HTP، GWP وADP (F) داشت. در نهایت، با معیار قرار دادن ارزیابی چرخه عمر، الکترود آهن با کارایی حذف 05/98 درصد و تأثیر زیست‌محیطی کمتر، به‌عنوان گزینه بهینه معرفی شد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
انعقاد الکتریکی
کروم
ارزیابی چرخه عمر
الکترود
تصفیه
اثرات زیست‌محیطی

عنوان مقاله English

Sustainable Chromium Removal Using Electrocoagulation: Life Cycle Assessment of Different Electrode Materials

نویسندگان English

Amirhossein Rajabipour 1
Mohsen Khezerloo Aghdam 1
Nastaran Eskandari 2
Taghi Ebadi 3
1 MSc. Graduated, Dept. of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 MSc. Student, Dept. of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Chromium is a significant and hazardous pollutant found in wastewater generated from industries such as electroplating, dye production, and leather manufacturing. Due to its high toxicity, carcinogenicity, and negative impact on human health and ecosystems, chromium removal from water sources is essential. Electrocoagulation has emerged as a highly effective technology for treating water and wastewater pollutants. This study assesses the effectiveness and sustainability of this procedure in removing chromium using three conventional electrode materials: iron, aluminum, and stainless steel. An analysis was conducted on the effects of two qualitative parameters: electrode material and surface quality. In this study, a novel parameter (surface quality) that includes both solid and rough textures was introduced. The results indicated that iron and stainless steel have superior chromium removal efficiencies in comparison to aluminum. Aluminum was found to be inefficient for chromium removal because of its low removal efficiency (14.4%) and high energy consumption (3.739 kwh/m3). Surface roughness demonstrated diverse impacts on different materials, enhancing aluminum removal efficiency by 57.2% and decreasing energy consumption for stainless steel by 10.74%, indicating rough surfaces can be a functional energy-saving approach. However, roughness also has disadvantages on steel and iron, increasing electrode consumption by 15.3% and 29.5%, respectively, and increasing the bulk of the passivation layer by 182% and 131%, respectively. To assess the environmental impacts of this process, three electrode materials were defined as distinct scenarios. These were evaluated through life cycle assessment in accordance with ISO 14040 guidelines. The impacts were evaluated by the CML baseline method, taking into account the electrode and energy consumption. Results revealed that stainless steel had considerable environmental burdens on impact categories including ODP, POCP, EP, HTP, GWP and ADP (F), accounting for 35–43% across these categories. In comparison to the other materials, iron had minimal effects on environmental performance, contributing only 9% to FAETP, whereas Al and SS contribute 58 and 33%, respectively. Consequently, solid iron is recommended as the most environmentally sustainable electrode, whereas rough stainless steel continues to be the most efficient electrode material.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Electrocoagulation
Chromium
Life Cycle Assessment
Electrode Material
Wastewater Treatment
Ahangarnokolaei, M. A., Attarian, P., Ayati, B., Ganjidoust, H. and Rizzo, L., 2021. Life cycle assessment of sequential and simultaneous combination of electrocoagulation and ozonation for textile wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 9, 106251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106251.
Al-Marri, J. S., Abouedwan, A. B., Ahmad, M. I. and Bensalah, N., 2023. Electrocoagulation using aluminum electrodes as a sustainable and economic method for the removal of kinetic hydrate inhibitor (polyvinyl pyrrolidone) from produced wastewaters. Frontiers in Water, 5, 1305347. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1305347.
Aryanti, P. T. P., Nugroho, F. A., Phalakornkule, C. and Kadier, A., 2024. Energy efficiency in electrocoagulation processes for sustainable water and wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 114124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.114124.
Bharti, M., Das, P. P. and Purkait, M. K., 2023. A review on the treatment of water and wastewater by electrocoagulation process: advances and emerging applications. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 11, 111558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.111558.
Choudhary, V., Goyal, H., Varma, A. K., Shankar, R., Chakma, S. Malviya, P. et al., 2024. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the lead, chromium, and cadmium removal from water through electrocoagulation. Materials Today: Proceedings, 111, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.08.297.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J. S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H. F., Morera, S. et al., 2013. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Research, 47, 5480-5492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.049.
Costigan, E., Wu, S., Eckelman, M., Fernandez, L., Mueller, A., Alshawabkeh, A. et al., 2025. Chromium removal from concentrated ammonium-nitrate solution: electrocoagulation with iron in a plug-flow reactor. Separation and Purification Technology, 354, 129353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2024.129353.
Ecoinvent, 2022. Ecoinvent Version 3.8 [Online]. Ecoinvent: Ecoinvent. [Link]
Goyal, H. and Mondal, P., 2022. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the arsenic and fluoride removal from groundwater through adsorption and electrocoagulation: a comparative study. Chemosphere, 304, 135243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135243.
Guinée, J. B., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, Springer Netherlands. [Link]
Hakizimana, J. N., Gourich, B., Chafi, M., Stiriba, Y., Vial, C., Drogui, P. et al., 2017. Electrocoagulation process in water treatment: a review of electrocoagulation modeling approaches. Desalination, 404, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.011.
Ingelsson, M., Yasri, N. and Roberts, E. P., 2020. Electrode passivation, faradaic efficiency, and performance enhancement strategies in electrocoagulation-a review. Water Research, 187, 116433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116433.
ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Waste Management for the Food Industries, Elsevier Pub. Greece. [Link]
Kazim, H., Sabri, M., Al-Othman, A. and Tawalbeh, M., 2024. Utilizing scrap metals in electrocoagulation: revolutionizing water treatment with AI applications for enhanced resource recovery. Journal of Resource Recovery, 2. https://doi.org/10.61186/jrr.2405.1024.
Kumar, A. and Basu, D., 2023. Parametric optimization of hexavalent chromium removal by electrocoagulation technology with vertical rotating cylindrical aluminum electrodes using Taguchi and ANN model. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 21, 255-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-023-00859-w.
Kumar, M., Maurya, N. S., Singh, A. and Rai, M. K., 2023. Efficient removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution by using tannery by-product (Buffing Dust). Heliyon, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15038.
Li, G., Zheng, B., Zhang, W., Liu, Q., Li, M. and Zhang, H., 2024. Phosphate removal efficiency and life cycle assessment of different anode materials in electrocoagulation treatment of wastewater. Sustainability, 16, 3836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093836.
Liu, H., Li, Q., Li, G. and Ding, R., 2020. Life cycle assessment of environmental impact of steelmaking process. Complexity, 2020, 8863941. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8863941.
Maćerak, A. L., Duduković, N., Kiss, F., Slijepčević, N., Pešić, V., Bečelić-Tomin, M. et al., 2024. Electrocoagulation in treatment of municipal wastewater–life cycle impact assessment. Chemosphere, 355, 141701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141701.
Mouedhen, G., Feki, M., De Petris-Wery, M. and Ayedi, H., 2009. Electrochemical removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous media using iron and aluminum as electrode materials: towards a better understanding of the involved phenomena. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 168, 983-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.02.117.
Moussa, D. T., El-Naas, M. H., Nasser, M. and Al-Marri, M. J., 2017. A comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water treatment: potentials and challenges. Journal of Environmental Management, 186, 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.032.
Nidheesh, P. and Singh, T. A., 2017. Arsenic removal by electrocoagulation process: recent trends and removal mechanism. Chemosphere, 181, 418-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.082.
Rezaei, A., Hosseini, H., Massoumbeygi, H. and Darvishi Cheshmeh Soltani, R., 2013. Feasibility of Cr (VI) removal from aqueous solution using electrochemical bipolar aluminum electrodes. Journal of Water and Wastewater, 24(2), 123-128. (In Persian). [Link]
Rybaczewska-Błażejowska, M. and Jezierski, D., 2024. Comparison of ReCiPe 2016, ILCD 2011, CML-IA baseline and IMPACT 2002+ LCIA methods: a case study based on the electricity consumption mix in Europe. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29, 1799-1817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02326-6.
Safwat, S. M., Mohamed, N. Y. and El-Seddik, M. M., 2023. Performance evaluation and life cycle assessment of electrocoagulation process for manganese removal from wastewater using titanium electrodes. Journal of Environmental Management , 328, 116967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116967.
Yasri, N. G., Ingelsson, M., Nightingale, M., Jaggi, A., Dejak, M., Kryst, K. et al., 2022. Investigation of electrode passivation during electrocoagulation treatment with aluminum electrodes for high silica content produced water. Water Science and Technology, 85, 925-942. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.012.
Zongo, I., Leclerc, J. P., Maïga, H. A., Wéthé, J. and Lapicque, F., 2009. Removal of hexavalent chromium from industrial wastewater by electrocoagulation: a comprehensive comparison of aluminium and iron electrodes. Separation and Purification Technology, 66, 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2008.11.012.