Abstract

Response surface methodology (RSM) is used to optimize the electrocoagulation/electro-flotation process applied for the removal of turbidity from surface water in an internal loop airlift reactor. Two flat aluminium electrodes are used in monopolar arrangement for the production of coagulants. The central composite design is used as a second-order mathematical model. The model describes the change of the measured responses of turbidity removal efficiency and energy consumption according to the initial conductivity (X1), applied voltage (X2), treatment time (X3) and inter-electrode distance (X4). The evaluation of the model fit quality is done by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Fisher's F-test is used to provide information about the linear, interaction and quadratic effects of factors. Multicriteria methodology, mainly the desirability function (D), is used to determine optimal conditions. The results show that, for a maximal desirability function D = 0.79, optimal conditions estimated are X1 = 1,487 μS/cm, X2 = 5 V, X3 = 6.5 min, X4 = 14 mm. The corresponding turbidity removal rate and energy consumption are 84.15% and 0.215 kWh/m3 respectively. A confirmation study is then carried out at laboratory scale using the optimal conditions estimated. The results show a turbidity removal rate of 72.05% and an energy consumption of 0.210 kWh/m3.

INTRODUCTION

Surface waters are used for the production of drinking water. However, the presence of many undesirable agents such as silts, clays, and algae causes them to become turbid and makes them unsuitable for human consumption. These particles have a small size ranging from 0.1 to 0.01 μm (Moussa et al. 2016; Naje et al. 2016) and remain suspended in water. Therefore, agglomeration of particles into a larger floc is a necessary step for their removal by flotation or sedimentation. A chemical coagulation/flocculation (CC/F) process is often used for destabilization and agglomeration of suspended particles by the addition of salts (i.e. alum). This method has some drawbacks like handling large quantities of chemicals, proper assessment of requirements, feeding of chemicals and production of a large volume of sludge causing a disposal problem and loss of water (Paul 1996). The regulations for drinking water, as well as for wastewater discharge, and new environmental considerations have allowed electrochemical technologies to gain an important place worldwide during the past two decades (Chen 2004). These technologies are characterized by low sludge production, and do not require the addition of chemical reagents.

Electrocoagulation/electro-flotation (EC/EF) is an electrochemical technology which allows the generation of coagulants in situ by electrodissolution of a soluble anode. Metal ions (Al3+, Fe2+ or Fe3+) are generated at the anode while hydrogen gas bubbles are produced at the cathode. EC/EF has numerous advantages and some drawbacks as reported by many authors (Mouedhen et al. 2008; Zaroual et al. 2009; Khandegar & Saroha 2013). The electrode arrangement can be in a monopolar or bipolar mode (Kobya et al. 2011). Chemical reactions when aluminium is used as an electrode material are as follows:

  • At the anode (oxidation of the metal): 
    formula
    (1)
In the case of high anode potential, secondary reactions may occur (Hakizimana et al. 2017). This is the case of oxygen gas formation: 
formula
(2)
  • At the cathode: 
    formula
    (3)

EC/EF efficiency is a function of three fundamental processes: electrochemical (electrolytic reactions at the surface of electrodes), coagulation (formation of coagulants in aqueous phase and adsorption of soluble or colloidal pollutants on coagulants), and flotation process (solid/liquid separation). The results of these processes and their interactions within the EC/EF reactor allow the removal of pollutants. However, their performance depends on some parameters such as pH, initial conductivity, treatment time, and applied voltage. To improve EC/EF efficiency, operating parameters have to be at their optimum values.

Most of the studies dealing with kinetics optimization make use of the traditional one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) approach, examining the effect of one parameter on response, while holding all others constant. The result of this univariate analysis shows inadequate optimization towards response(s) (Sakkas et al. 2010). Indeed, the OFAT approach is time consuming, does not provide interaction effects and requires a large number of experiments (Zaroual et al. 2009). There is now increasing recognition that the OFAT approach is not efficient and ought to be replaced by soundly based chemometric methods such as response surface methodology (RSM) based on statistical design of experiments (DOEs). RSM is a multivariate analysis technic. It is based on the fit of a polynomial equation to the experimental data, which must describe the behaviour of a data set with the objective of making statistical previsions (Bezerra et al. 2008).

In this paper, a chemometric approach, especially RSM, is used to model and optimize turbidity removal efficiency (TR) from surface water using the EC/EF process in an internal loop airlift reactor (ILAR) as a function of initial conductivity (X1), applied voltage (X2), treatment time (X3), and inter-electrode distance (X4).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of the reconstituted solution

A reconstituted solution made by mixing clay particles and distilled water is used as a surface water. The clay particles are first ground and then sieved in order to remove particles exceeding 45 μm. Surface waters contain colloidal particles with a size ranging from 1 to 10−3 μm (Mickova 2015). In order to approach this characteristic, we study the sedimentation velocity of an isolated spherical particle in water (refer to Appendix A for the full survey results).

The reconstituted solution is characterized by an initial turbidity (Ti) of 107 NTU, which is the approximate turbidity value for surface waters (Bejjany et al. 2017), and pH = 7.3. The initial conductivity value is adjusted using sodium chloride (NaCl) as the electrolyte. An HI 99300 portable conductivity meter is used to measure the initial conductivity value. Turbidity is measured using a HACH series 2100 N brand turbidimeter. Tests are carried out in an ILAR with a volume capacity of 1 L. A sample of 850 mL from reconstituted solution is used for each test. Two flat aluminium electrodes are used in monopolar configuration and placed in a riser (refer to Appendix D) for the production of coagulants. TR is given by: 
formula
(4)
where Ti and Tf represent initial and final turbidity respectively.
The energy consumption (WC) in electrocoagulation is calculated from: 
formula
(5)
where U is the voltage applied (V), V the sample volume (m3), te the treatment time (hours), and I the current (A).

Statistical analysis

Mathematical model

Central composite design (CCD) is used as a second-order response surface model in order to take into consideration extreme values. This design consists of three types of points: cube points that come from factorial design (2k), axial points (2k) and central points (C0). The central points are used to calculate experimental error (Sakkas et al. 2010). The experiment number is given by the following expression: 
formula
(6)
where k represents the number of factors.

Four factors are used in this study (k = 4). The experiment number can be divided into three groups as follows: 2k = 24 factorial experiments, 2k = 2*4 axial experiments and C0 = 7 central experiments (25–31, refer to Appendix C). Hence, 31 experiments are investigated in this study.

The second-order model can be expressed as follows: 
formula
(7)
where Y is the theoretical response function, Xi, Xj represent the factors, β0 is the constant term, and βi, βij, βii represent respectively main (linear), interaction and quadratic effects coefficients. Table 1 shows the codification of real values (refer to Appendix B for full method calculations).
Table 1

Real and coded factors

Real factor (Units Symbols Factor coding
 
− 2 − 1 
Conductivity (μS/cm) X1 250 725 1,200 1,675 2,150 
Applied voltage (V) X2 10 
Treatment time (min) X3 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 
Inter-electrode distance (mm) X4 10 14 18 22 
Real factor (Units Symbols Factor coding
 
− 2 − 1 
Conductivity (μS/cm) X1 250 725 1,200 1,675 2,150 
Applied voltage (V) X2 10 
Treatment time (min) X3 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 
Inter-electrode distance (mm) X4 10 14 18 22 

Optimization approach

The Derringer or desirability function is the most important and most current technique of optimization used when the optimal values for each response are located in different regions (Bezerra et al. 2008; Sakkas et al. 2010). The scale of the individual desirability function ranges from d = 0, for a completely undesirable response, to d = 1 for a fully desired response, above which other improvements would have no importance (Bezerra et al. 2008). The overall desirability is calculated as follows: 
formula
(8)
where n represents the number of responses to optimize and di the individual desirability.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Preliminary experiments at the laboratory scale allowed factors to be highlighted which influence TR from surface water by electrocoagulation/electro-flotation. The experimental domain is as follows: 250–2,150 μS/cm, 2–10 V, 0.5–8.5 min, 6–22 mm, for X1, X2, X3 and X4 respectively.

Figure 1 shows the prediction profiler for TR and WC. The prediction profiler is often used to show how the prediction model changes as the settings of individual factors change. According to Figure 1, TR and WC increase with X1, X2 and X3. On the other hand, when X4 increases, TR and WC decrease.

Figure 1

Prediction profiler of TR and WC.

Figure 1

Prediction profiler of TR and WC.

Mouedhen et al. (2008) reported that the amount of Al3+ released in the aqueous solution is a function of the NaCl concentration of the electrolyte (conductivity). Indeed, the increase in X1 leads to the breakdown of the anodic passive film. This allows the amount of Al3+ dissolved in the reactor to be increased, and therefore, suspended particles are quickly destabilized (Mouedhen et al. 2008). This result corresponds to those reported by Bejjany et al. (2017). In addition, the increase in X1 during EC/EF is known to increase the production of hydrogen gas bubbles. In ILAR, electrodes are placed in a riser. Thus, hydrogen gas bubbles produced at the cathode are located in the riser. The increase in the amount of hydrogen gas bubbles leads to the creation of a density difference between the riser and downcomer (ρriser < ρdowncomer), which allows recirculation movement. This phenomenon properly disperses Al3+ dissolved in the reactor and allows mixing of the suspension. Therefore, the collision of particles is promoted, which leads to the agglomeration of destabilized particles and their removal by flotation.

Applied voltage is a key parameter in EC/EF, which controls the amount of Al3+ dissolved, as well as hydrogen gas bubble production within the reactor (Bande et al. 2008). When X2 increases, the amount of Al3+ dissolved, as well as the amount of hydrogen gas bubbles, increases in the reactor, which leads to the destabilization of suspended particles and their agglomeration.

TR and WC are strongly influenced by X3. A longer X3 leads to improved TR and to increased WC.

During the EC/EF process, a very fine film of metal hydroxides would get formed on, the anode, generating an extra resistance (Ghosh et al. 2008). The inter-electrode distance is one of the parameters on which this resistance (IR) strongly depends. The IR refers to the resistance of the media during the flow of electrical current through the cell. When X4 increases, resistance to mass transfer becomes larger, therefore there is a smaller amount of Al3+ cations at the anode, leading to slower formation of coagulants in the middle (Ghosh et al. 2008). The rate of clay particle aggregation and adsorption of clays becomes lower, which explains the decrease in TR. Nasrullah et al. (2012) and Khaled et al. (2015) report the same results.

WC is defined as the electrical power consumed per unit volume. WC is a function of X1, X2, X3 and X4 as shown in Figure 1. According to Figure 1, WC increases with X1, X2 and X3 as reported by Bejjany et al. (2017), Bazrafshan et al. (2014) and Zaroual et al. (2009), respectively. Inter-electrode distance has an opposite effect in comparison with other factors. Indeed, when X4 increases, WC decreases.

Table 2 shows experimental and predicted data for two responses. ANOVA is used to test the statistical significance of the ratio of mean square variation due to regression and mean square residual error. The P-value is used to estimate whether the F-ratio is large enough to indicate statistical significance. The model is statistically significant when the P-value is lower than 0.05 (Yi et al. 2010).

Table 2

Experimental and predicted values for TR and WC

Standard Run TR (%)
 
WC (kWh/m3)
 
Experimental values Predicted values Experimental values Predicted values 
−4.229 0.0296 0.03216 
−18.15 0.0174 0.08764 
50.99 46.29 0.081 0.05749 
11.98 29.15 0.0466 0.02024 
0.99 21.43 0.142 0.13959 
5.549 0.0831 0.04634 
87.62 76.84 0.3754 0.40204 
66.13 57.75 0.207 0.21607 
12.94 23.72 0.0604 0.03779 
10 14.77 0.0359 0.01624 
11 72.64 71.08 0.1664 0.21014 
12 76.96 58.92 0.08 0.09587 
13 75.88 62.71 0.3327 0.36604 
14 44.7 51.8 0.1858 0.19577 
15 94.42 114.97 0.8593 0.77552 
16 92.62 100.85 0.5081 0.51253 
17 4.736 0.0347 0.02169 
18 86.92 75.78 0.3042 0.32377 
19 1.92 7.09 0.0113 0.00139 
20 86.25 74.68 0.509 0.52547 
21 2.88 −5.46 0.018 −0.00261 
22 92.16 94.11 0.3123 0.33947 
23 72.4 66.93 0.2923 0.30204 
24 39.8 38.88 0.0977 0.09452 
25 73.84 68.277 0.1783 0.167986 
26 65.67 68.277 0.1613 0.167986 
27 71.05 68.277 0.1647 0.167986 
28 69.32 68.277 0.1743 0.167986 
29 67.78 68.277 0.1669 0.167986 
30 57.88 68.277 0.1658 0.167986 
31 72.4 68.277 0.1646 0.167986 
Standard Run TR (%)
 
WC (kWh/m3)
 
Experimental values Predicted values Experimental values Predicted values 
−4.229 0.0296 0.03216 
−18.15 0.0174 0.08764 
50.99 46.29 0.081 0.05749 
11.98 29.15 0.0466 0.02024 
0.99 21.43 0.142 0.13959 
5.549 0.0831 0.04634 
87.62 76.84 0.3754 0.40204 
66.13 57.75 0.207 0.21607 
12.94 23.72 0.0604 0.03779 
10 14.77 0.0359 0.01624 
11 72.64 71.08 0.1664 0.21014 
12 76.96 58.92 0.08 0.09587 
13 75.88 62.71 0.3327 0.36604 
14 44.7 51.8 0.1858 0.19577 
15 94.42 114.97 0.8593 0.77552 
16 92.62 100.85 0.5081 0.51253 
17 4.736 0.0347 0.02169 
18 86.92 75.78 0.3042 0.32377 
19 1.92 7.09 0.0113 0.00139 
20 86.25 74.68 0.509 0.52547 
21 2.88 −5.46 0.018 −0.00261 
22 92.16 94.11 0.3123 0.33947 
23 72.4 66.93 0.2923 0.30204 
24 39.8 38.88 0.0977 0.09452 
25 73.84 68.277 0.1783 0.167986 
26 65.67 68.277 0.1613 0.167986 
27 71.05 68.277 0.1647 0.167986 
28 69.32 68.277 0.1743 0.167986 
29 67.78 68.277 0.1669 0.167986 
30 57.88 68.277 0.1658 0.167986 
31 72.4 68.277 0.1646 0.167986 

Figure 2 comes from linear regression between observed (experimental) and predicted values. It shows the fit of the predicted model to the experimental data. According to Figure 2, the P-values for the TR and WC regressions are lower than 0.05 (P-value < .0001). This result means that at least one of the terms in the regression equation has a significant correlation with the response variable. In conclusion, the form of model used in this study to explain the factors and response relationship is correct.

Figure 2

Graphic model representation of (a) TR and (b) WC.

Figure 2

Graphic model representation of (a) TR and (b) WC.

Furthermore, model precision is evaluated by a determination coefficient (R2). The R2 values for TR and WC are 0.92 and 0.98, respectively. These results imply that 92% and 98% of the sample variation for TR and WC, respectively, are attributed to the four factors. Only about 8% and 2% of the total variation for TR and WC, respectively, cannot be explained by the model. This indicates that the accuracy and general ability of the polynomial model are good.

The ANOVA table also provides a term for residual error, which measures the amount of variation in the response data left unexplained by the model. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) is 13.554 and 0.037 for the TR and WC model, respectively.

Unlike one-factor-at-a-time methodology, RSM also provides information about the interaction and quadratic effects of factors. This analysis is done by Fisher's F-test. In general, the smaller the value of P-values (<0.05), the larger the magnitude of the F-ratio, and the more significant is the corresponding coefficient term. The estimated regression coefficients, F-ratio and P-values for all the linear, quadratic and interaction effects of the parameters are given in Tables 3 and 4 for TR and WC, respectively. In Table 3, it is observed that the linear effect of X1, X2, X3, and X4, and the quadratic effect of X1 (X12), X2 (X22) and X3 (X32) are significant model terms. The corresponding P-value of all linear effects is <.0001, while the P-values of the quadratic effects are 0.0127, 0.0144 and 0.0287, respectively. All other model terms (all interaction effects and quadratic effect of X4) can be said to be not significant (P-values > 0.05).

Table 3

Estimated regression coefficients, F-ratio and P-values for TR

Terms Estimated coefficients Degree of freedom Sum of square F-ratio P-values 
Constant 68.277 – – – <.0001* 
X1 17.345 7,220.724 39.3033 <.0001* 
X2 17.313 7,193.69 39.1562 <.0001* 
X3 24.475 14,377.105 78.2564 <.0001* 
X4 −7.429 1,324.472 7.2093 0.0163* 
X1*X2 3.957 250.51 1.3636 0.26 
X1*X3 −1.413 31.951 0.1739 0.6822 
X1*X4 0.618 6.113 0.0333 0.8575 
X2*X3 1.849 54.723 0.2979 0.5928 
X2*X4 0.136 0.294 0.0016 0.9686 
X3*X4 −1.429 32.69 0.1779 0.6788 
X12 −7.108 1,444.903 7.8648 0.0127* 
X22 −6.952 1,382.08 7.5228 0.0144* 
X32 −6.093 1,061.728 5.7791 0.0287* 
X42 −3.948 445.792 2.4265 0.1389 
Terms Estimated coefficients Degree of freedom Sum of square F-ratio P-values 
Constant 68.277 – – – <.0001* 
X1 17.345 7,220.724 39.3033 <.0001* 
X2 17.313 7,193.69 39.1562 <.0001* 
X3 24.475 14,377.105 78.2564 <.0001* 
X4 −7.429 1,324.472 7.2093 0.0163* 
X1*X2 3.957 250.51 1.3636 0.26 
X1*X3 −1.413 31.951 0.1739 0.6822 
X1*X4 0.618 6.113 0.0333 0.8575 
X2*X3 1.849 54.723 0.2979 0.5928 
X2*X4 0.136 0.294 0.0016 0.9686 
X3*X4 −1.429 32.69 0.1779 0.6788 
X12 −7.108 1,444.903 7.8648 0.0127* 
X22 −6.952 1,382.08 7.5228 0.0144* 
X32 −6.093 1,061.728 5.7791 0.0287* 
X42 −3.948 445.792 2.4265 0.1389 

*Significant model term (P-values <0.05).

Table 4

Estimated regression coefficients, F-ratio and P-values for WC

Terms Estimated coefficient Degree of freedom Sum of square F-ratio P-values 
Constant 0.1679 – – – <.0001* 
X1 0.0755 0.13688151 99.8671 <.0001* 
X2 0.131 0.41199501 300.5864 <.0001* 
X3 0.0855 0.17553151 128.0656 <.0001* 
X4 −0.052 0.06459475 47.1275 <.0001* 
X1*X2 0.0552 0.04876368 35.5774 <.0001* 
X1*X3 0.0367 0.02161635 15.771 0.0011* 
X1*X4 −0.0192 0.00593285 4.3285 0.0539 
X2*X3 0.059 0.05622827 41.0234 <.0001* 
X2*X4 −0.037 0.02211913 16.1378 0.0010* 
X3*X4 −0.023 0.00859793 6.2729 0.0235* 
X12 0.0012 0.00004021 0.0293 0.8661 
X22 0.0238 0.01628072 11.8782 0.0033* 
X32 −0.00011 0.00000035 0.0003 0.9874 
X42 0.0075 0.00164013 1.1966 0.2902 
Terms Estimated coefficient Degree of freedom Sum of square F-ratio P-values 
Constant 0.1679 – – – <.0001* 
X1 0.0755 0.13688151 99.8671 <.0001* 
X2 0.131 0.41199501 300.5864 <.0001* 
X3 0.0855 0.17553151 128.0656 <.0001* 
X4 −0.052 0.06459475 47.1275 <.0001* 
X1*X2 0.0552 0.04876368 35.5774 <.0001* 
X1*X3 0.0367 0.02161635 15.771 0.0011* 
X1*X4 −0.0192 0.00593285 4.3285 0.0539 
X2*X3 0.059 0.05622827 41.0234 <.0001* 
X2*X4 −0.037 0.02211913 16.1378 0.0010* 
X3*X4 −0.023 0.00859793 6.2729 0.0235* 
X12 0.0012 0.00004021 0.0293 0.8661 
X22 0.0238 0.01628072 11.8782 0.0033* 
X32 −0.00011 0.00000035 0.0003 0.9874 
X42 0.0075 0.00164013 1.1966 0.2902 

*Significant model term (P-values <0.05).

In addition, X3 is the most significant model term with an F-ratio equal to 78.2564. The corresponding estimated coefficient value is 24.475. Based on the F-ratio values, the ranking of the significant model terms for TR is as follows: X3 > X1 > X2 > X12 > X22 > X4 > X32.

In the same way, estimated regression coefficients, F-ratio and P-value results of WC are indicated in Table 4. It shows that all linear effects of X1, X2, X3 and X4 are significant model terms (P-value < .0001). The two-level interaction effects of X1*X2, X1*X3, X2*X3, X2*X4 and X3*X4 are significant model terms. Their corresponding P-values are <.0001, 0.0011, <.0001, 0.0010 and 0.0235, respectively. Only the quadratic effect of X2 (X22) is a significant model term with a P-value = 0.0033. Thus, the two-level interaction effect of X1*X4 and the quadratic effects of X1 (X12), X3 (X32) and X4 (X42) are not significant model terms. Based on F-ratio values, X2 is the most significant model term (F-ratio = 300.5864, estimated coefficient = 0.131). The ranking of significant model terms according to the F-ratio values for WC is as follows: X2 > X3 > X1 > X4 > X2*X3 > X1*X2 > X2*X4 > X1*X3 > X22 > X3*X4.

The regression model equations (second-order polynomial) relating TR and WC are developed and given in Equations (9) and (10), respectively. These equations only contain the significant model terms associated with their estimated coefficients. The regression model equations are written as follows.

TR model: 
formula
(9)
WC model: 
formula
(10)

Figures 3 and 4 show two-dimensional contour plots and three-dimensional response surface plots of TR and WC, respectively. These figures show interaction effects for two factors (the factors with most effect) when others are kept constant in their central values. These representations are often used to search optimal conditions of parameter process, especially when optimal values are located in the same region.

Figure 3

2D contour plot of (a) TR (X2 = 6 V and X4 = 14 mm) and (b) WC (X1 = 1,200 μS/cm and X4 = 14 mm).

Figure 3

2D contour plot of (a) TR (X2 = 6 V and X4 = 14 mm) and (b) WC (X1 = 1,200 μS/cm and X4 = 14 mm).

Figure 4

3D response surface plot of (a) TR (X2 = 6V and X4 = 14mm) and (b) WC (X1 = 1,200 μS/cm and X4 = 14mm).

Figure 4

3D response surface plot of (a) TR (X2 = 6V and X4 = 14mm) and (b) WC (X1 = 1,200 μS/cm and X4 = 14mm).

According to Figures 3 and 4, the optimum values of each response are located in different regions. For example, in Figure 3(a) (or Figure 4(a)), for a constant initial conductivity value (with X2 = 6 V and X4 = 14 mm), increase in treatment time leads to improvement in TR. On the other hand, Figure 3(b) (or Figure 4(b)) shows that at a constant value of applied voltage, increase in treatment time leads to increase in WC (with X1 = 1,200 μS/cm and X4 = 14 mm). Thus, changes in the level of a factor can improve one specific response and have a very negative effect on another one. Multicriteria methodology, especially the desirability function, is used to overcome this problem. Table 5 shows the scale of the individual desirability function for TR and WC. The scale of the individual desirability function ranges from d = 0.01, for a completely undesirable response (low TR or high WC) to d = 0.98, for a fully desired response (high TR or low WC). The overall desirability (D) close to 1 expressing the maximum of TR and the minimum of the WC is equal to 0.79. The optimum conditions relating to this value for each factor in coded values are 0.6046869 (X1 = 1,487 μS/cm), −0.5 (X2 = 5 V), 1 (X3 = 6.5 min) and 0 (X4 = 14 mm). The corresponding estimated values for TR and WC are 84.15% and 0.215 kWh/m3, respectively. These values are used at the laboratory scale for the confirmation study as shown in Table 6.

Table 5

The scale of the individual desirability function for TR and WC

  TR
 
WC
 
TR (%) Desirability WC (KWh/m3Desirability 
High value 100 0.98 0.8 0.01 
Mean value 50 0.5 0.45 0.5 
Low value 0.01 0.98 
  TR
 
WC
 
TR (%) Desirability WC (KWh/m3Desirability 
High value 100 0.98 0.8 0.01 
Mean value 50 0.5 0.45 0.5 
Low value 0.01 0.98 
Table 6

Optimum conditions for TR by EC/EF in an ILAR

Factors Units Estimated values Experimental values 
X1 μS/cm 1,487 1,500 
X2 
X3 min 6.5 6.5 
X4 mm 14 14 
TR 84.15 72.05 
WC kWh/m3 0.215 0.210 
Factors Units Estimated values Experimental values 
X1 μS/cm 1,487 1,500 
X2 
X3 min 6.5 6.5 
X4 mm 14 14 
TR 84.15 72.05 
WC kWh/m3 0.215 0.210 

Table 6 shows the results of the confirmation study. It shows that TR and WC under optimal conditions carried out at the laboratory scale are 72.05% and 0.210 kWh/m3, respectively. The results found by Bejjany et al. (2017) for the same TR value (72%) report a WC of 0.357 kWh/m3 under X1 = 351 μS/cm, X2 = 12 V, X3 = 7.5 min and X4 = 18 mm conditions. In comparison with our results, we note that the RSM allowed us to obtain a WC value of 41% less for the same TR value.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, RSM is used in conjunction with CCD to optimize the removal of turbidity from surface water by EC/EF in an ILAR. The validation of the model is carried out by an appropriate analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results revealed that the model prediction used to explain factors and response relationship is correct with P-values <.0001. Furthermore, the determination coefficients of TR and WC are 0.92 and 0.98, respectively. Fisher's test is used to check the significance of all model terms on two responses. Therefore, corresponding regression equations are developed. These equations are used to build 3D response surface and 2D contour plots. These graphical representations allow the optimal conditions of parameter process to be searched. Since optimal values are located in different regions, a desirability function is used to allow the determination of optimal conditions for each response simultaneously. For the overall desirability function of 0.79, the optimal conditions are 1,487 μS/cm, 5 V, 6.5 min and 14 mm, respectively for X1, X2, X3 and X4. Under these conditions, the estimated TR and WC are 84.15% and 0.215 kWh/m3, respectively. The confirmation study at the laboratory scale using optimal conditions shows 72.05% for TR and 0.210 kWh/m3 for WC.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Bande
R. M.
,
Prasad
B.
,
Mishra
I. M.
&
Wasewar
K. L.
2008
Oil field effluent water treatment for safe disposal by electro-flotation
.
Chemical Engineering Journal
137
,
503
509
.
Bazrafshan
E.
,
Mahvi
A. H.
&
Zazouli
M. A.
2014
Textile wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation process using aluminum electrodes
.
Iranian Journal of Health Sciences
2
(
1
),
16
29
.
Bejjany
B.
,
Lekhlif
B.
,
Eddaqaq
F.
,
Dani
A.
,
Mellouk
H.
&
Digua
K.
2017
Treatment of the surface water by electrocoagulation–electroflotation process in internal loop airlift reactor: conductivity effect on turbidity removal and energy consumption
.
Journal of Materials and Environmental Sciences
8
(
8
),
2757
2768
.
Bezerra
M. A.
,
Santelli
R. S.
,
Oliveira
E. P.
,
Villar
L. S.
&
Escaleira
L. A.
2008
Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry
.
Talanta
76
(
5
),
965
977
.
Chen
G.
2004
Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment
.
Separation and Purification Technology
38
(
1
),
11
41
.
Ghosh
D.
,
Solanki
H.
&
Purkait
M. K.
2008
Removal of Fe(II) from tap water by electrocoagulation technique
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
155
,
135
143
.
Hakizimana
J.
,
Gourich
B.
,
Chafi
M.
,
Stiriba
Y.
,
Vial
C.
,
Drogui
P.
&
Naja
J.
2017
Electrocoagulation process in water treatment: a review of electrocoagulation modeling approaches
.
Desalination
404
,
1
21
.
Khaled
B.
,
Wided
B.
,
Béchir
H.
,
Elimame
E.
,
Mouna
L.
&
Zied
T.
2015
Investigation of electrocoagulation reactor design parameters effect on the removal of cadmium from synthetic and phosphate industrial wastewater
.
Arabian Journal of Chemistry
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2014.12.012
.
Khandegar
V.
&
Saroha
A. K.
2013
Electrocoagulation for the treatment of textile industry effluent: a review
.
Journal of Environmental Management
128
,
949
963
.
Kobya
M.
,
Ulu
F.
,
Gebologlu
U.
,
Demirbas
E.
&
Oncel
M. S.
2011
Treatment of potable water containing low concentration of arsenic with electrocoagulation: different connection modes and Fe–Al electrodes
.
Separation and Purification Technology
77
(
3
),
283
293
.
Mickova
I. L.
2015
Advanced electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment part I: electrocoagulation
.
American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences
14
(
2
),
233
257
.
Mouedhen
G.
,
Feki
M.
,
De Petris Wery
M.
&
Ayedi
H. F.
2008
Behaviour of aluminum electrodes in electrocoagulation process
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
150
(
1
),
124
135
.
Moussa
D. T.
,
El-Naas
M. H.
,
Nasser
M.
&
Al-Marri
M. J.
2016
A comprehensive review of electrocoagulation for water treatment: potentials and challenges
.
Journal of Environmental Management
186
(
1
),
24
41
.
Naje
A. S.
,
Chelliapan
S.
,
Zakaria
Z.
,
Ajeel
M. A.
&
Alaba
P. A.
2016
A review of electrocoagulation technology for the treatment of textile wastewater
.
Reviews in Chemical Engineering
33
(
3
),
263
292
.
Nasrullah
M.
,
Singh
L.
&
Wahid
Z. A.
2012
Treatment of sewage by electrocoagulation and the effect of high current density
.
Energy and Environmental Engineering Journal
1
(
1
),
27
31
.
Paul
A. B.
1996
Electrolytic treatment of turbid water in package plant
. In:
22nd WEDC Conference
, pp.
286
288
.
Sakkas
V. A.
,
Azharul Islam
M.
,
Stalikas
C.
&
Albanis
T. A.
2010
Photocatalytic degradation using design of experiments: a review and example of the Congo red degradation
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
175
,
33
44
.
Zaroual
Z.
,
Chaair
H.
,
Essadki
A. H.
,
El Ass
K.
&
Azzi
M.
2009
Optimizing the removal of trivalent chromium by electrocoagulation using experimental design
.
Chemical Engineering Journal
148
(
2–3
),
488
495
.

Supplementary data