Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhazmat

Treatment of highly concentrated tannery wastewater using

electrocoagulation: Influence of the quality of aluminium used for the
electrode
S. Elabbas a,b , N. Ouazzani a,b , L. Mandi a,b , F. Berrekhis c , M. Perdicakis d , S. Pontvianne e ,
M-N. Pons e , F. Lapicque e , J-P Leclerc e,∗
a
Laboratoire d’Hydrobiologie, Ecotoxicologie et Assainissement (LHEA, URAC 33), Faculté de Sciences Semlalia, BP 2390, Université Cadi Ayyad, Marrakech,
Morocco
b
Centre National d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Eau et l’Energie (CNEREE), Université Cadi Ayyad, BP 511, Marrakech, Morocco
c
Equipe de Physico-chimie des Matériaux, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Université Cadi Ayyad, BP 2400, 40000 Marrakech, Morocco
d
Laboratoire de Chimie Physique et Microbiologie pour l’Environnement (LCPME) UMR 7564, Université de Lorraine—CNRS, 405 rue de Vandœuvre,
F-54602 Villers-lès Nancy Cedex, France
e
Laboratoire Réactions et Génie des Procédés (LRGP) UMR 7274, CNRS, Université de Lorraine, 1 rue Grandville, BP 20451, 54001 Nancy cedex, France

h i g h l i g h t s

• COD and Cr(III) species can be simultaneously removed by electrocoagulation.

• Cu-containing Al alloy is more efficient than pure Al as electrodes.
• Dilution of too concentrated tannery wastewater is required for efficient treatment.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper deals with the ability of electrocoagulation (EC) to remove simultaneously COD and chromium
Received 12 October 2015 from a real chrome tanning wastewater in a batch stirred electro-coagulation cell provided with two
Received in revised form aluminium-based electrodes (aluminium/copper/magnesium alloy and pure aluminium). Effects of oper-
21 December 2015
ating time, current density and initial concentration of Cr(III) and COD have been investigated. The
Accepted 30 December 2015
concentrations of pollutants have been successfully reduced to environmentally acceptable levels even
Available online 4 January 2016
if the concentrated effluent requires a long time of treatment of around 6 h with a 400 A/m2 current
density. The aluminium alloy was found to be more efficient than pure aluminium for removal of COD
Keywords:
Aluminium electrodes
and chromium. Dilution of the waste has been tested for treatment: high abatement levels could be
Chromium obtained with shorter time of treatment and lower current densities. Energy consumption of the electro-
Current density coagulation process was also discussed. The dilution by half of the concentrated waste leads to a higher
Electrocoagulation abatement performance of both COD and chromium with the best energy efficiency.
Tannery wastewater © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Leather production, associated to cloth and craft industries, is a
very important activity in many countries since antiquity. It rep-
resents a large economic input in many developing countries but
is also unfortunately an important source of pollution. The tan-
ning process is a transformation of raw animal hides into leather.
It involves various chemical and mechanical operations to remove
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +33 3 73 32 29 75.
E-mail address: jean-pierre.leclerc@univ-lorraine.fr (J.-P. Leclerc).
the residual meat, fat and hair from the skin, to deeply clean the
skin and to improve its aspect and its functional properties.
Despite the existence of less pollutant treatments, chromium
tanning remains the most employed technique because of the
higher quality of the leather obtained. A report issued in 2003 has
estimated the number of tanneries in Morocco to more than 60
units, most of them using chromium [1]. Tannery wastewater rise
important environmental problems because of their complex com-
position and high concentrations of various organic and inorganic
chemicals reflected in particular by high values of Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) [2,3] and chromium concentration over 5 g/L [4,5].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.067
0304-3894/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
70 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
Although new tanneries use modern equipments with opti-
mal adjustment of the chromium quantity, conventional chromium
bath tanning processes still use chromium salts in excess. Fahim
et al. [5] estimated that the leather takes up only 60 to 80%
of the introduced chromium. Depending on the efficiency of the
operation, wastewater contains chromium species, which must be
removed before disposal. Removal of chromium has been also stud-
ied for drinking water but the concentrations are there far much
lower than in tannery wastewater [6].
Several methods have been attempted and a recent review sum-
marizes the chemical and biological treatment technologies for
leather tannery wastewaters and their efficiencies [7]. In com-
parison between electrocoagulation and chemical precipitation to
remove metals from acidic soil leachate, Meunier et al. [8] have
reported chromium removal of more than 99% with an initial con-
centration of 100 mg/L by chemical precipitation in the presence
of NaOH and Ca(OH)2 . Keerthi et al. [9] have tested a hybrid mem-
brane bioreactor with a COD removal of 72.69% from wastewater
with an initial Cr concentration at 1600 mg/L. Using coagulation
and flocculation, Song et al. [10] have obtained a COD removal of
30–37% with an initial concentration of 3300 mg/L. Adsorption has
also been used for treatment of tannery effluents [4,5,11,12]. Fab-
bricino et al. [4] have reported 90% of Cr(III) removal from an initial
concentration of 6100 mg/L using adsorption in an environment
friendly cycle with recovery of the metal. However this last pro-
cess may be not economically feasible in the treatment of tannery
wastewater because of high costs and the expertise required to
implement and sustain the operation of such processes. Fahim et al.
[5] reported absorption of nearly 99% of the chromium from tan-
nery waste water using activated carbon at an final concentration of
44 mg/L from the initial level at 5500 mg/L. The adsorbent can also
be a natural soil as explored by Tiglyene et al. [12] Use of a cation
exchange resin was reported to remove 96% of Cr(III) from a waste
solution issued by tannery [13]. but the concentrated effluent of
5480 mg/L was previously diluted 10-fold. Recent studies have been
presented to facilitate the use of low chromium solutions by pos-
sible effective chromium recycling through re-concentration using
nanofiltration [2]. Ouaissaa et al. [14] have obtained a 75% COD
abatement of a low polluted tannery wastewater using an intensi-
fied electrocoagulation process by addition of an adsorbent. Costa
et al. [15] have reported a 40% TOC abatement using dimension-
ally stable electrodes (DSA® ), however with the risk of oxidation
of Cr(III) to Cr (VI). Sundarapandiyan et al. [16] have studied the
specific case of a very salty tannery wastewater (around 30 g/L of
Cl− ): the high salinity was shown not to affect the efficiency of the
treatment. Chromium from highly concentrated tannery wastew-
ater (around 2.5 g/L) could be recovered at 99% using Pb anodes
and Cu cathodes after dilution of the effluent to less than 0.3 g/L
[17]. Isarain-Chávez [18] studied several electrochemical processes
to treat around 10 g/L of COD from tannery wastewater effluent
but only the results concerning TOC were presented. Finally, for
treatment of a very concentrated effluent (COD 5470 mg/L and Cr
6900 mg/L) ozonation could be used with COD abatement up to
88% (Houshyar et al. [19]) but this treatment can oxidize Cr(III)
into Cr(VI), which generates another pollution issue. Finally, phy-
toremediation has investigated too for treatment of such waste, as
done by Mandi et al. [20].
Electrocoagulation has been used in several of the above
mentioned results and it has been successfully applied to treat
numerous varieties of wastewater, of either industrial or urban
origin. The main advantage of electrocoagulation is its ability to
treat simultaneously a wide range of type of pollutants includ-
ing organic matter, heavy metals, dyes, and minerals. It was found
to be effective for the removal of dye [21,22], heavy metals from
coal acid drainage wastewater [23], non-biodegradable organic pol-
lution and arsenic from paper mill wastewater [22], and several
others types of effluents often listed in the literature. Phosphates
were also successfully removed from (surface or ground) water
using this technique [24]. Moreover the experimental data gained
in treatment tests could lead to physicochemical modelling of
electrocoagulation process [25]. or in scaling-up and economic con-
siderations [26].
Electrocoagulation uses a direct current source between two
metal electrodes immersed in polluted water. The electrical current
causes the dissolution of anodes made of iron or aluminium into
wastewater. The metal species released in solution, at an appro-
priate pH, can form wide ranges of coagulated species and metal
hydroxides that destabilize and aggregate the suspended particles
or precipitate and adsorb dissolved contaminants. In the case of alu-
minium, Al3+ ions are generated at the anode and combine to OH−
ions provided by the cathode to form various monomeric species,
which finally transform to solid Al(OH)3 (s). Freshly formed amor-
phous Al(OH)3 (s) “sweep flocs” have large surface areas, which are
beneficial for rapid adsorption of soluble organic compounds and
trapping of colloidal particles. These flocs are removed easily from
the aqueous medium by sedimentation or flotation. In addition to
ref [25]. other groups attempted in better understanding EC pro-
cess [27,28] in view to its more efficient integration in overall water
treatment operations.
Numerous papers have compared the effect of the electrodes
nature (namely iron and aluminium) whereas the purity of the
anodes was rarely investigated. Vasudevan et al. [29] pointed out
the lower efficiency of pure aluminium electrodes compared to
aluminium alloys in the remediation of phosphate-contaminated
water. The lower efficiency of pure aluminium was explained by
passive film formation, lower dissolution efficiency, non-uniform
dissolution and higher operating voltage with time. The direct oxi-
dation of dissolved substances is also affected by the nature of the
electrode as pointed out by Kruthika et al. [30].
The aim of the present study was to investigate the treatment of
highly polluted traditional tannery wastewater by electrocoagula-
tion with initial concentrations around 6 g/L COD and 7 g/L Cr(III).
In comparison with pollutant levels usually encountered, these
high concentrations of COD and Cr(III) are due to the nature of the
process involved: natural skin (inducing high organic pollution),
implication of various chemicals during the treatment and incom-
plete chromium absorption by the skin resulting in a high level
of chromium in wastewater [31]. Another reason is that the liq-
uid released during this specific step is rejected directly with other
effluents of the tanning process. Removal of COD and Cr(III) was fol-
lowed in discontinuous tests carried out with recirculation of the
electrolyte solution depending on the operating conditions, and in
particular depending on the nature of the Al-based electrodes. First
tests conducted with the raw wastewater revealed moderate treat-
ment efficiency for both pollutants, presumably because of its high
contents in both Cr species and COD. It was then decided to dilute
the wastewater prior to its treatment, for the sake of more efficient
operation. The optimal dilution factor was determined for the sake
of high removal yield and acceptable energy consumption per m3
of the original wastewater.
2. Mechanism of the electrocoagulation using aluminium
electrodes
In electrocoagulation processes, the coagulating species are pro-
duced in situ and the overall process consists of three successive
stages: (i) formation of coagulants by electrolytic oxidation of the
sacrificial electrode (ii) destabilization of the contaminants, partic-
ulate suspension and breaking of emulsion and (iii) aggregation of
the destabilized phases to form flocs [25,27,28].
The main reactions occurring at the electrodes are:
 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
Fig. 1. Various unit processes and operations in leather processing.
At aluminium anode:
Al → Al3+ + 3e−
At aluminium cathode:
2H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2OH− :
Moreover in the presence of chloride ions, aluminium from the
cathode can dissolve and form hydrogen:
Al + 3 H2 O → Al3+ + 3OH− + 3/2 H2
In the solution:
Al 3+
+ 2OH− → Al(OH)3
Because of the standard potential of the Al/Al3+ couple near
−1.8 V/NHE, occurrence of side reactions e.g. oxygen evolution
or Cr(III) oxidation to Cr(VI) with standard potentials at 1.23 and
1.33 V respectively, is very unlikely and have not been considered
here. Two types of aluminium electrodes were employed, namely
the aluminium alloy (duralumin) and pure aluminium aiming to
assess the effect of the chemical composition of the electrodes on
the treatment effectiveness. For both electrodes, operating time,
current density and dilution rate have been investigated to deter-
mine the optimal conditions for chromium and organic matter
removal and electrical energy consumption but also to point out
the effect of aluminium electrodes composition on efficiency and
super-faradaic charge yields.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Tannery effluent samples
Leather processing involves a number of unit operations as
shown in Fig. 1. The pre-tanning operation includes successively
the following steps: soaking, liming, removal of extraneous tissues
(unhairing), deliming and bating. Furthermore chromium tanning
treatment involves degreasing, pickling by acidification, pressing
and drying. Finally the shaving, dyeing and other operations –
depending on the final use of the leather – are conducted for obtain
a finished leather.
The samples were obtained from the tank used for chromium
tanning step in a small traditional tannery in Marrakech city
(Morocco) having a capacity of treatment of about 500 hides/day.
71
This tank is a large wooden cylinder (3.5 m high and with a radius
of 1.56 m) placed horizontally. The effective volume of the tank
(1)
was 17.14 m3 . The barrel can rotate on two hollow metal shafts for
possible introduction of raw hides, chemicals, dyestuff and water
through the square-shaped hatch of the tank. A gear wheel fixed
(2) on the flange of the barrel allows transmission of rotation. Large
grab samples (10 L) were collected in polyethylene containers and
stored at 4 ◦ C in the dark until use. Their average characteristics are
given in Table 1.
(3) Sub-samples of 2 L liquid were used for each electrocoagula-
tion test. The effluent was characterized by very high chromium
content near 7 g/L and about 6 g/L of COD. The composition of
(4) tannery wastewater is strongly depending on the level of optimiza-
tion of the factory. If the modern industry releases less polluted
wastewater, the majority of semi-traditional industries used very
concentrated solutions of chromium to guaranty the quality of the
treatment. Several publications have shown the efficiency of the
treatment of tannery wastewater, however most of the papers have
focused their interest on the organic pollution characterized by TOC
or COD [9,32]. and the papers including the follow-up of chromium
are based on low chromium concentrations, generally lower than
100 mg/L [33,34].
3.2. Electrode materials
Two types of aluminium electrode have been used in this
present study. Aluminium alloy (duralumin) A-U4G (2017-Al) had
the following metal contents: Cu (4%), Fe (0.7%), Mg (0.7%), Mn
(0.7%), Si (0.5%), Zn (0.25%) and Cr (0.1%). The “pure” aluminium
(1050) electrodes contained actually impurities but to a low level as
listed below: Si (0.25%), Fe (0.4%), Cu (0.05%), Ti(0.05%), Mn(0.05%),
Zn(0.07%).
Table 1
Main characteristics of the wastewater.
Parameter Value
pH 3.8
Conductivity (mS/cm) 54.2
COD (g O2 /L) 5.8
Cl− (g/L) 23.3
SO4 2− (g/L) 1.3
Cr(III) (g/L) 7.0
72 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77

Fig. 2. Experimental set-up for electrocoagulation tests.

3.3. Experimental set-up

Electrocoagulation treatment was carried out in a discontinuous

system under solution recirculation functioning. The electrocoagu-
lation cell used, consisted of two identical polymethylmethacrylate
(Perspex) halves being 20 cm long, 10 cm wide and 5 cm thick.
Metal plates with an area of (15 × 7 cm2 ) acting as facing elec-
trodes were embedded in the polymeric halves, as described in [35].
The active electrode surface was first mechanically polished under
water with abrasive paper, rinsed with ultra-pure water and dried
prior to immersion in the wastewater. The area of each electrode
was 105 cm2 . The gap between anode and cathode was maintained
at 2 cm. The electrodes were connected to a DC power supply (AFX
2930 SB, China) providing current intensities up to 5 A. The current
was ranging from 2.1 to 4.2 A (200–400 A m−2 respectively) in the
present investigation. The current was kept constant during each
run and the cell voltage was monitored. The schematic diagram of
Fig. 3. Effect of current density on the chromium concentration versus time (a)
the complete electro coagulation system is shown in Fig. 2. duralumin (b) pure aluminium.

3.4. Experiments
The experiments were conducted at ambient temperature
(≈20 ◦ C) with 2 L wastewater gently stirred at 200 rpm in the tank.
The solution was continuously circulated in the flow circuit by
means of a peristaltic pump at 50 mL/min. Ten cm3 fractions were
sampled at regular time intervals (every 10 min during the first
hour and every 30 min later), allowed to settle for 24 h, then fil-
tered (0.45 ␮m pore size) before any analysis to determine effluent
COD, Cr(III) and Al(III) concentrations. Experiments with diluted
wastewater (1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6) were also conducted in order
to study the influence of the pollutant concentrations and because
the treatment of highly concentrated effluents was sometimes very
difficult and energy consuming.
The pH was continuously measured with a multi-parameter
instrument (Consort C931, Turnhout, Belgium). COD was measured
by the dichromate method [36] and subsequent measurement of
the optical density using a HACH 2400 spectrophotometer (Love-
land, Colorado). Chromium and aluminium concentration were
analysed by atomic absorption spectrometry after appropriate dilu-
tion in nitric acid solution. The removal efficiency of each pollutant
(R) was calculated using the following equation:
C0 − Ct
R(%) = x100
C0
where C0 and Ct represent, respectively, the initial and the final
concentrations of COD or chromium. Moreover current efficiency
of Al dissolution has been defined as the ratio of the weight amount
of Al present in the solution or in the flocs at time t, mAl , over that
produced by anodic dissolution according to Faraday’s law, with
three electrons exchanged per Al ion formed:
mAl
˚Al = (6)
MAl x 60It
3F
where I is the applied current (A), time t is in minutes, F is the
Faraday constant and MAl is the molar weight of aluminium.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of current density and electrolysis time on treatment
Cell current and electrolysis time are two important parame-
ters in electrochemical processes. The value of the current density
determines the coagulant production rate, adjusts the rate and
size of the bubble production, and is hence to affect the growth
of flocs. These parameters were varied in the range 200–400 A/m2
and 5–360 min respectively. The cell voltage varied typically from
2 to 3 V depending on the operating conditions: the moderate cell
voltage is primarily due to the high conductivity of the waste to be
(5) treated, in particular in the treatment of the original wastewater
(Table 1).
Fig. 3 shows the effect of current density on Cr(III) removal
versus time using both types of electrodes: aluminium alloy (dura-
 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
Fig. 4. Effect of current density on the COD concentration versus time (a) duralumin
(b) pure aluminium.
lumin) (Fig. 3a) and pure aluminium (Fig. 3b) respectively. The
chromium removal efficiency increased with the current density
and electrolysis time but in different proportions depending on
the nature of the electrodes. With duralumin electrodes chromium
removal yields of 93%, 95.4 and 99.7% were achieved after 360 min
at current densities of 200, 300, and 400 A/m2 , respectively. When
aluminium electrodes were used, the abatement was lower at
200 A/m2 (75%) but similar 93 and 99% at 300 and 400 A/m2 respec-
tively.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of current density versus time on COD
removal using both types of electrodes. An increase in current den-
sity from 300 to 400 A/m2 yields to improved efficiency of COD
removal from 81 to 95% for the duralumin electrode after 360 min of
treatment (Fig. 4a). Likewise what has been observed for chromium,
duralumin electrodes are also more efficient than pure aluminium
electrodes to remove COD (Fig. 4b).
From the data shown in Figs. 3 and 4, it can be observed that
the treatment consumes an electrical charge ranging from 2.27 104
to 4.54 104 A s L−1 , which is really large in comparison with usual
charges in other electrocoagulation processes which often range
between 0.2 104 and 104 A s L−1 : assuming a 100% current efficiency
for Al dissolution is to result in Al(III) concentration up to 4.23 g L−1
at the end of the run. At this point it can be wondered whether such
73
Fig. 5. pH versus time (a) duralumin, (b) pure aluminium.
a large amount of electricity consumed is due to particular interac-
tions between the organic matter and Cr(III), or simply to the high
concentrations of the substances to be removed. With pure alu-
minium electrodes, Zongo et al. [37] noticed that the presence of
Cr(VI) at 200 ppm does not affect COD abatement, but there are rel-
atively few papers dealing with the competition between different
types of pollutant at high concentrations.
4.2. Effect of the electrode nature on the process
Initial pH plays an important role in performance of the electro-
coagulation process and its change during the treatment is linked
to the efficiency [38]. The pH increase is mainly attributed to the
production of hydroxide ions (OH− ) that are continuously gener-
ated from water reduction at the cathode as given by equation (3).
However, the various equilibria between the Al hydroxide forms
depending on the pH medium provide the system buffer proper-
ties. The pH of the waste under treatment can then attain a steady
level after sufficient Al dissolution. It is known that the formation
of solid Al(OH)3 is optimal for pH ranging from 6–8.
Fig. 5 shows the variations of the tannery wastewater pH using
both types of electrodes: duralumin (Fig. 5a) and pure aluminium
(Fig. 5b). In both cases, the pH increased continuously with time
for the three current density values considered. With duralumin
electrodes, the final pH was between 6.5 and 7.0 depending on the
current density, whereas with pure aluminium electrodes, a lower
74 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
Fig. 6. Al(III) concentration versus the electrical charge: (a) duralumin, (b) pure
aluminium electrode.
pH increase was observed up to 5.3 at the end of the run. These pH
variations appear greatly dependent on the nature of the electrode
materials.
Fig. 6 shows the concentration of aluminium dissolved versus
the charge passed per liquid volume unit for the two electrode
materials, for all values of the current density. As expected, the
amount of dissolved Al species increases along time; interpreta-
tion of the data show that Al dissolution proceeds with current
efficiency ranging from 1.2 to 3, depending on the operating con-
ditions. The high concentration of chloride ions allows significant
chemical dissolution of aluminium after Reaction (3). Moreover the
amount of Al(III) species is globally slightly higher with duralumin
electrodes than for pure Al, as shown by comparison of Fig. 6a and
b. As a matter of fact Cu-containing Al electrodes are known to be
more prone to pitting corrosion than pure aluminium. Chromium
removal using duralumin was enhanced by the higher formation
rate of Al(OH)3 whose flocs behave as an adsorbent for chromium
ions. When the pH ranges between 4 and 7 co-precipitation of
chromium hydroxides such as Cr(OH)3 can occur. The COD removal
is also slightly higher using duralumin due to the affinity of the
organic material to Al(III) species.
4.3. Effect of pollutant concentration on treatment efficiency and
energy consumption
The effluent has been diluted from 1 to 1/6, corresponding
to conductivities of 60, 43, 31, 23 and 16 mS/cm respectively
and treated by electrocoagulation at 200 A/m2 current density for
Fig. 7. Chromium removed versus Al(III) produced at 200 A m−2 for several dilution
factors: (a) duralumin, (b) pure aluminium.
180 min. Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate the amounts of chromium and COD
removed versus aluminium produced for both electrode materials,
for reaction times limited to 70 min. For the sake of clarity in the
illustration, the results have been zoomed on the first part of the
treatment, i.e. for amount of COD and Cr(III) removed below 3 g/L.
In all cases, the amount of removed species increased obviously
with the amount of Al(III) generated. For the highest dilution fac-
tors (3 or more), a plateau in the removed amounts can be observed,
corresponding to nearly complete treatment. In spite of significant
dispersion all data for low abatement degree below 50% converge
in a regular variation with the amount of Al dissolved. Generation
of Al(III) is little affected by the dilution in spite of lower con-
centration of sodium chloride, as exemplified for the case of pure
aluminium in Fig. 9, also in the first part of the runs: NaCl concen-
tration remained actually at a sufficient level even in 1:6 dilution to
promote Al dissolution, and the current efficiency in Al(III) varied
from nearly 3 in the first minutes, down to 1.1 within 0.2 during the
last hour. Comparable observation was done with duralumin (data
not shown).
Table 2 shows the removal efficiency at the end of the treatment
depending on the dilution factor. Depending on this factor, the ini-
tial concentrations of chromium and COD varied between 915 and
6672 mg/L, and 928 AND 5864 mg O2 /L respectively. The removal
efficiency of COD is very high for the two Al-based materials when
the dilution factor is higher than 1/2. On the contrary the abate-
ment is lower for the concentrated effluents. For chromium, the
abatement is lower but at acceptable level for the diluted effluents.
However, as expressed above, it appears that Cr(III) and COD can
be removed by adsorption of Al(III), therefore more diluted wastes
 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77 75

Fig. 10. Energy consumed for the treatment of 1 m3 diluted waste along the run for
Cr(III) removal. Duralumin electrodes were used at 200 A m−2 .

can be efficiently treated with moderate amounts of coagulant,

contrary to the original wastewater.
The energy consumption was calculated in terms of kWh per m3
of wastewater to analyse the possible positive effect in this specific
case of very concentrated effluents. The following relation has been
used:

UIt103
EEC = (7)
60(C0 − Ct )V

where U is the cell voltage measured during the electrolysis (V), I

the applied electrical current (A), t the current time of treatment
(min), and V the reactor volume (L). C0 and Ct represent the initial
pollutant concentration and the concentration at time t (in mg/L).
Fig. 8. COD removed versus Al(III) produced at 200 A m−2 for several dilution fac- As exemplified in Fig. 10 for the example of Cr(III) removal
tors: (a) duralumin, (b) pure aluminium. using duralumin electrode, the specific energy increases along
the run. Efficient treatment of the raw waste requires more than
20 kWh m−3 : this value is high in comparison to usual energy
demand in electrocoagulation processes but this is probably due
to the high amounts of both COD and Cr(III). Dilution of the waste
allows significant reduction of the energy demand per m3 of liq-
uid treated in the cell: taking into account the dilution made, this
would correspond to values ranging from 10 to 35 kWh m−3 raw
waste depending on the dilution factor.
As a matter of fact the energy demand was calculated per kg of
pollutant removed: Figs. 11 and 12 show the energy consumption
per kg of Cr(III) and COD removed, respectively, for both types of
electrode (duralumin in Figs. Fig. 1111a and Fig. 1212a, pure alu-
minium Figs. Fig. 1111b and Fig. 1212b). For both electrodes the
energy consumption globally increased with an increase in Cr(III)
and COD removal efficiency – with exception of a few data with Al
electrodes for unknown reasons -: abatement of the last percents
from waste is often more energy consuming. In spite of apprecia-
ble scattering of the data, energy consumption appears to be higher
Fig. 9. Concentration of Al(III) produced versus the electrical charge with pure alu- for the highly diluted solution (1:4 and 1:6). This is mainly due to
minium electrodes. Current density = 200 A m−2 .
the reduced conductivity, resulting in higher resistances of the cell
[39] as confirmed by the cell voltage which attained 3.2 V for the 1:6
Table 2
diluted waste. Comparing Table 2 and Fig. 11 show that a limited
Effect of effluent dilution on the maximum COD and chromium removal efficiency
using duralumin and pure aluminium electrodes; operation at 200 A/m2 for 180 min. dilution allows considerable reduction in the chromium concen-
tration in the effluent with very reasonable energy consumption:
Dilution factor
twofold dilution appears as the best compromise, allowing Cr(III)
Removal efficiency (%) 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6 removal with an energy consumption near 1 kWh/kg, in compari-
COD Duralumin 58.1 97.6 100 100 100 son to nearly the double from the raw waste.
Pure Al 43.7 100 100 100 100 The removal of COD in comparison with chromium was found
to be very effective and less energy-demanding for both types of
Cr(III) Duralumin 73.3 91.7 94.5 96.2 98.1
Pure Al 57.2 91.2 92.9 97.9 98.1 electrodes (Fig. 12). The effect of the dilution factor is less visible
than for Cr(III) removal because of the data scattering but diluting
76 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
Fig. 11. Effect of effluent dilution on the energy consumption per kg of chromium
removed versus chromium removal efficiency; current density = 200 A m−2 ; (a)
duralumin, (b) pure aluminium.
two times the waste issued from the tannery plant allowed energy
consumption near 0.7 kWh/kg COD removed.
Electrocoagulation process is very acceptable from the energy
consumption point of view. For the sake of comparison, data
reported in [40] revealed 3.8 kWh/kg COD removed with a 58%
of abatement when treated tannery wastewater using an electro-
Fenton process. Strong variations of the energy consumption can
be expected: Daneshvar et al. [41] reported energy consumption
between 4.7 and 7.57 kWh/kg COD under optimized conditions to
remove dyes by electrocoagulation but it rose to more than 15 kWh
for nearly complete abatement. A trade-off between abatement
degree and energy consumption should be made.
5. Conclusions
The treatment by electrocoagulation of tannery wastewater
highly concentrated in chromium and COD was investigated using
two different types of aluminium based electrodes. Duralumin
aluminium alloy was found to be more efficient for COD and Cr
removal compared to pure aluminium electrodes. The removal of
chromium is mainly due to adsorption on aluminium hydroxide.
Duralumin much more easily dissolved and the concentration of
aluminium versus charge is higher, which favours the removal of
chromium. The COD elimination is also due to the affinity of the
organic material to Al(III) species in the form of Al(OH)3 . Dilution
of the very concentrated effluents can allow reduction in the energy
consumption and improvement of the efficiency of the treatment:
for the waste considered, twofold dilution appeared optimal. The
Fig. 12. Effect of effluent dilution on the energy consumption per kg of COD removal
versus COD removal efficiency; current density = 200 A m−2 ; (a) duralumin, (b) pure
aluminium.
noticeable differences we noticed between electrodes made of pure
aluminium and the Al alloy show the necessity to deeply investi-
gate the influence of the nature of the electrode materials for other
types of effluents.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the France–Morocco
cooperation for the financial support of this work in the frame-
work of the “Water and Environment Competency Pole” project.
In addition, the authors greatly thank the manager for the leather
industry Mr. Slaissi Abd Aljalil for his help.
References
[1] J.D. Sautet, O. Gand, P. Jardin, J.-M. Mornas, A. Daif, Rapport de
synthèse—Etude d’analyse du potentiel du cuir (2003) http://www.abhatoo.
net.ma/maalama-textuelle/developpement-economique-et-social/
developpement-economique/industrie/industrie-du-textile-et-du-cuir/
rapport-de-synthese-etude-d-analyse-du-potentiel-du-secteur-cuir [in
French].
[2] P. Religa, A. Kowalik, P. Gierycz, Application of nanofiltration for chromium
concentration in the tannery wastewater, J. Hazard. Mater. 186 (2011)
288–292.
[3] A. Benhadji, M.-T. Ahmed, R. Maachi, Electrocoagulation and effect of cathode
materials on the removal of pollutants from tannery wastewater of Rouïba,
Desalination 277 (2011) 128–134.
[4] M. Fabbricino, B. Naviglio, G. Tortora, L. d’Antonio, An environmental friendly
cycle for Cr(III) removal and recovery from tannery wastewater, J. Environ.
Manag. 117 (2013) 1–6.
[5] N.F. Fahim, B.N. Barsoum, A.E. Eid, M.S. Khalil, Removal of chromium(III) from
tannery wastewater using activated carbon from sugar industrial waste, J.
Hazard. Mater. B136 (2006) 303–309.
 S. Elabbas et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 319 (2016) 69–77
[6] S. Vasudevan, J. Lakshmi, G. Sozhan, Studies on the Al–Zn–In-alloy as anode
material for the removal of chromium from drinking water in
electrocoagulation process, Desalination 275 (2011) 260–268.
[7] G. Lofrano, S. Meriç, G.E. Zengin, D. Orhon, Chemical and biological treatment
technologies for leather tannery chemicals and wastewaters: a review, J. Sci.
Total Environ. 461–462 (2013) 265–281.
[8] N. Meunier, P. Drogui, C. Montane, R. Hausler, G. Mercier, J.-F. Blais,
Comparison between electrocoagulation and chemical precipitation for
metals removal from acidic soil leachate, J. Hazard. Mater. B 137 (2006)
581–590.
[9] V. Keerthi Suganthi, M. Mahalakshmi, N. Balasubramanian, Development of
hybrid membrane bioreactor for tannery effluent treatment, Desalination 309
(2013) 231–236.
[10] Z. Song, C.J. Williams, R.G.J. Edyvean, Treatment of tannery wastewater by
chemical coagulation, Desalination 164 (3) (2004) 249–259.
[11] S. Elabbas, L. Mandi, F. Berrekhis, M.N. Pons, J.-P. Leclerc, N. Ouazzani,
Removal of Cr(III) from chromium tanning wastewater by adsorption using
two natural carbonaceous materials: Eggshell and powdered marble, Environ.
Manag. J. 166 (2016) 589–595.
[12] S. Tiglyene, A. Jaouad, L. Mandi, Treatment if tannery wastewater by
infiltration percolation:chromium removal and speciation un soil,
Environ.Technol. 29 (2008) 613–624.
[13] S.K. Sahu, P. Meshram, B.D. Pandey, V. Kumar, T.R. Mankhand, Removal of
chromium(III) by cation exchange resin, Indion 790 for tannery waste
treatment, Hydrometallurgy 99 (2009) 170–174.
[14] Y.A. Ouaissaa, M. Chabania, A. Abdelatif, Integration of electro coagulation and
adsorption for the treatment of tannery wastewater—The case of an Algerian
factory, Rouiba, Procedia Eng. 33 (2012) 98–101.
[15] C.R. Costa, C.M.R. Botta, E.L.G. Espindola, P. Olivi, Electrochemical treatment of
tannery wastewater using DSA® electrodes, J. Hazard. Mater. 153 (2008)
616–627.
[16] S. Sundarapandiyan, R. Chandrasekar, B. Ramanaiah, S. Krishnan, P.
Saravanan, Electrochemical oxidation and reuse of tannery saline wastewater,
J. Hazard. Mater. 180 (2010) 197–203.
[17] L. Sirajuddin, G. Kakakhel, M.I. Lutfullah, A. Bhanger, A. Shah, A. Niaz,
Electrolytic recovery of chromium salts from tannery wastewater, J. Hazard.
Mater. 148 (2007) 560–565.
[18] E. Isarain-Chávez, C. De la Rosa, L.A. Godínez, E. Brillas, J.M. Peralta-Hernández,
Comparative study of electrochemical water treatment processes for a
tannery wastewater effluent, J. Electroanal. Chem. 713 (2014) 62–69.
[19] Z. Houshyar, A.B. Khoshfetrat, E. Fatehifar, Influence of ozonation process on
characteristics of pre-alkalized tannery effluents, Chem. Eng. J. 191 (2012)
59–65.
[20] L. Mandi, S. Tiglyene, A. Jaouad, Depuration of tannery effluent by
phytoremediation and infiltration percolation under arid climate, in: M.El
Moeujabber, L. Mandi, G. Trisorio-Liuzzi, I. Martin, A. Rabi, R. Rodriguez (Eds.),
Technological Perspectives for rational Use of Water Resources un the
Mediterranean Region, 009, Bari CIHEAM, 2009, pp. 199–205.
[21] S. Zodi, O. Potier, F. Lapicque, J.-P. Leclerc, Treatment of textile wastewaters
by electrocoagulation: effect of operating parameters on the sludge settling
characteristics, Sep. Purif. Technol. 69 (2009) 29–36.
[22] S. Zodi, B. Merzouk, O. Potier, F. Lapicque, J.-P. Leclerc, Direct red 81 dye
removal by a continuous flow electrocoagulation/flotation reactor, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 108 (2013) 215–222.
[23] M.S. Oncel, A. Muhcu, E. Demirbas, M. Kobya, A comparative study of chemical
precipitation and electrocoagulation for treatment of coal acid drainage
wastewater, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (2013) 989–995.
77
[24] A. Attour, M. Touati, M. Tlili, M. Ben Amor, F. Lapicque, J.-P. Leclerc, Influence
of operating parameters on phosphate removal from water by
electrocoagulation using aluminum electrodes, Sep. Purif. Technol. 123 (2014)
124–129.
[25] P. Cañizares, F. Martinez, C. Jiménez, C. Sáez, M.A. Rodrigo, Coagulation and
electrocoagulation of oil-in-water emulsions, J. Hazard. Mater. 151 (2008)
44–51.
[26] D. Valero, J.M. Ortiz, V. Garcia, E. Espósito, V. Montiel, A. Aldaz,
Electrocoagulation of wastewater from almond industry, Chemosphere 84
(2011) 1290–1295.
[27] M.Y.A. Mollah, R. Schennach, J.R. Parga, D.L. Cocke, Electrocoagulation
(EC)–science and applications, J. Hazard. Mater. B84 (2001) 29–41.
[28] M.Y.A. Mollah, P. Morkovsky, J.A.G. Gomes, M. Kesmez, J. Parga, D.L. Cocke, J.
Hazard. Mater. B 114 (2004) 199–210.
[29] S. Vasudevan, J. Lakshmi, J. Jayaraj, G. Sozhan, Remediation of phosphate
contaminated water by electrocoagulation with aluminum, aluminum alloy
and mild steel anodes, J. Hazard. Mater. 164 (2009) 1480–1486.
[30] N.L. Kruthika, S. Karthika, G. Bhaskar Raju, S. Prabhakar, Efficacy of
electrocoagulation and electrooxidation for the purification of wastewater
generated from gelatin production plant, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (2013)
183–188.
[31] S. Saravanbahavan, P. Thaikaivelan, J. Raghava Rao, N.B. Nair, T. Ramasami,
Natural leathers from natural materials: progressing toward a new arena in
leather processing, J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38 (3) (2004) 871–879.
[32] J. Feng, Y. Sun, Z. Zheng, J. Zhang, S. Li, Y. Tian, Treatment of tannery
wastewater by electrocoagulation, J. Environ. Sci. 19 (2007) 1409–1415.
[33] C. Regina Costa, P. Olivi, Effect of chloride concentration on the
electrochemical treatment of a synthetic tannery wastewater, Electrochim.
Acta 54 (2009) 2046–2052.
[34] F.R. Espinoza-Quiñones, M.M.T. Fornari, A.N. Módenes, S.M. Palácio, F.G. Silva
Jr., N. Szymanski, A.D. Kroumov, D.E.G. Trigueros, Pollutant removal from
tannery effluent by electrocoagulation, Chem. Eng. J. 151 (2009) 59–65.
[35] S. Zodi, J.N. Louvet, C. Michon, O. Potier, M.N. Pons, F. Lapicque, J.P. Leclerc,
Electrocoagulation as a tertiary treatment for paper mill wastewater: removal
of non biodegradableorganic pollution and arsenic, Sep. Purif. Technol. 81
(2011) 62–68.
[36] S. Zodi, Étude de l’épuration d’effluents de composition complexe par
électrocoagulation et des couplages intervenants entre le traitement
électrochimique et l’étape de séparation: application à l’industrie textile et
papetière. PhD Dissertation, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France (2012). [in
French].
[37] I. Zongo, J.-P. Leclerc, H.G. Maiga, J. Wethee, F. Lapicque, Removal of
hexavalent chromium from industrial wastewater by electrocoagulation: a
comprehensive comparison of aluminium and iron electrodes, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 66 (2009) 159–166.
[38] P. Canizares, C. Jiménez, F. Martínez, M.A. Rodrigo, C. Sáez, The pH as a key
parameter in the choice between coagulation and electrocoagulation for the
treatment of wastewaters, J. Hazard. Mater. 163 (2009) 158–164.
[39] H.A. Moreno-Casillas, D.L. Cocke, J.A.G. Gomes, P. Morkovsky, J.R. Parga, E.
Peterson, Electrocoagulation mechanism for COD removal, Sep. Purif. Technol.
56 (2007) 204–211.
[40] U. Kurt, O. Apaydin, M. Talha Gonullu, Reduction of COD in wastewater from
an organized tannery industrial region by Electro-Fenton process, J. Hazard.
Mater. 143 (2007) 33–40.
[41] N. Daneshvar, A. Oladegaragoze, N. Djafarzadeh, Decolorization of basic dye
solutions by electrocoagulation: An investigation of the effect of operational
parameters, J. Hazard. Mater. B 129 (2006) 116–122.