IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i17p9164-d625971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eco-Friendly Coagulant versus Industrially Used Coagulants: Identification of Their Coagulation Performance, Mechanism and Optimization in Water Treatment Process

Author

Listed:
  • Nadiah Khairul Zaman

    (Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia)

  • Rosiah Rohani

    (Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia
    Research Centre for Sustainable Process Technology, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia)

  • Izzati Izni Yusoff

    (Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia)

  • Muhammad Azraei Kamsol

    (Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia)

  • Siti Aishah Basiron

    (Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia
    Makmal Pusat, Syarikat Air Melaka Berhad, Jalan Padang Keladi, Durian Tunggal, Melaka 76100, Malaysia)

  • Aina Izzati Abd. Rashid

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, UKM, Bangi 43600, Malaysia)

Abstract

The evaluation of complex organic and inorganic coagulant’s performances and their relationships could compromise the surface water treatment process time and its efficiency. In this work, process optimization was investigated by comparing an eco-friendly chitosan with the industrially used coagulants namely aluminum sulfate (alum), polyaluminum chloride (PAC), and aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) in compliance with national drinking water standards. To treat various water samples from different treatment plants with turbidity and pH ranges from 20–826.3 NTU and 5.21–6.80, respectively, 5–20 mg/L coagulant dosages were varied in the presence of aluminum, ferum, and manganese. Among all, 10 mg/L of the respective ACH and chitosan demonstrated 97% and 99% turbidity removal in addition to the removal of the metals that complies with the referred standard. However, chitosan owes fewer sensitive responses (turbidity and residual metal) with the change in its input factors (dosage and pH), especially in acidic conditions. This finding suggested its beneficial role to be used under the non-critical dosage monitoring. Meanwhile, ACH was found to perform better than chitosan only at pH > 7.4 with half dosage required. In summary, chitosan and ACH could perform equally at a different set of optimum conditions. This optimization study offers precise selections of coagulants for a practical water treatment operation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadiah Khairul Zaman & Rosiah Rohani & Izzati Izni Yusoff & Muhammad Azraei Kamsol & Siti Aishah Basiron & Aina Izzati Abd. Rashid, 2021. "Eco-Friendly Coagulant versus Industrially Used Coagulants: Identification of Their Coagulation Performance, Mechanism and Optimization in Water Treatment Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9164-:d:625971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9164/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9164/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Setyo Budi Kurniawan & Siti Rozaimah Sheikh Abdullah & Muhammad Fauzul Imron & Nor Sakinah Mohd Said & Nur 'Izzati Ismail & Hassimi Abu Hasan & Ahmad Razi Othman & Ipung Fitri Purwanti, 2020. "Challenges and Opportunities of Biocoagulant/Bioflocculant Application for Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment and Its Potential for Sludge Recovery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-33, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alicja Knap-Bałdyga & Monika Żubrowska-Sudoł, 2023. "Natural Organic Matter Removal in Surface Water Treatment via Coagulation—Current Issues, Potential Solutions, and New Findings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Dae Wook Kim & Sung Il Yu & Kyuyong Im & Juhee Shin & Seung Gu Shin, 2022. "Responses of Coagulant Type, Dosage and Process Conditions to Phosphate Removal Efficiency from Anaerobic Sludge," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-9, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ibrahim Muntaqa Tijjani Usman & Yeek-Chia Ho & Lavania Baloo & Man-Kee Lam & Pau-Loke Show & Wawan Sujarwo, 2023. "Comprehensive Review of Modification, Optimisation, and Characterisation Methods Applied to Plant-Based Natural Coagulants (PBNCs) for Water and Wastewater Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Alicja Knap-Bałdyga & Monika Żubrowska-Sudoł, 2023. "Natural Organic Matter Removal in Surface Water Treatment via Coagulation—Current Issues, Potential Solutions, and New Findings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Dae Wook Kim & Sung Il Yu & Kyuyong Im & Juhee Shin & Seung Gu Shin, 2022. "Responses of Coagulant Type, Dosage and Process Conditions to Phosphate Removal Efficiency from Anaerobic Sludge," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-9, February.
    4. Ibrahim Muntaqa Tijjani Usman & Foo-Wei Lee & Yeek-Chia Ho & Han-Ping Khaw & Qi-Wen Chong & Yong-Ming Kee & Jun-Wei Lim & Pau-Loke Show, 2023. "Evaluation of Annona diversifolia Seed Extract as A Natural Coagulant for Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9164-:d:625971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.