Investigation of the removal of physicochemical pollutants in the Kızılırmak River by aluminum sulfate and iron sulfate coagulants

Kinem Özbay, Sevgi Güneş-Durak

Article ID: 3319
Vol 6, Issue 2, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/ps3319
Received: 19 February 2025; Accepted: 20 March 2025; Available online: 11 April 2025; Issue release: 30 June 2025


Download PDF

Abstract

This study evaluated the optimal dosage and pH for removing turbidity, chloride, alkalinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and sulfate from Kızılırmak River water using iron sulfate and aluminum sulfate (10–60 mg/L). Maximum turbidity removal efficiencies were 98.84% for iron sulfate and 78.99% for aluminum sulfate at pH 4.5. Chloride removal was 77.12% at pH 7.0 for aluminum sulfate and 74.33% at pH 6.0 for iron sulfate. Aluminum sulfate reduced alkalinity by 90.40% at pH 8.0, while iron sulfate achieved 99.21% removal at pH 4.5. TDS removal efficiencies were 99.58% for aluminum sulfate at pH 8.0 and 95.61% for iron sulfate, although total dissolved solids concentrations increased with dosage. Sulfate removal was 97.85% at pH 6.0 for aluminum sulfate and 85.92% at pH 7.0 for iron sulfate. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 to assess the relationships between coagulant type, pH, and dosage on pollutant removal. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was applied, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significance. The model explained 70.7% of variance (R2 = 0.707, p < 0.001). pH (p = 0.003), pH2 (p = 0.002), and dosage2 (p = 0.049) were significant. Kernel Ridge Regression was used for TDS removal due to overestimation in RSM. Both coagulants were effective in removing pollutants, with optimal performance depending on pH and dosage. Aluminum sulfate exhibited higher turbidity and alkalinity removal at certain pH levels, while iron sulfate achieved greater sulfate and TDS removal under acidic conditions.

Keywords

aluminum sulfate; coagulation; iron sulfate; Kızılırmak River; jar test


References

  1. Tomaszewska M, Mozia S, Morawski AW. Removal of organic matter by coagulation enhanced with adsorption on PAC. Desalination. 2004; 161(1): 79-87. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(04)90042-2
  2. Vicente C, Silva JR, Santos AD, et al. Combined Electrocoagulation and Physicochemical Treatment of Cork Boiling Wastewater. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7): 3727. doi: 10.3390/su14073727
  3. Benalia A, Derbal K, Amrouci Z, et al. Application of Plant-Based Coagulants and Their Mechanisms in Water Treatment: A Review. Journal of Renewable Materials. 2024; 12(4): 667-698. doi: 10.32604/jrm.2024.048306
  4. Gregory J, Duan J. Hydrolyzing metal salts as coagulants. Pure and Applied Chemistry. 2001; 73(12): 2017-2026. doi: 10.1351/pac200173122017
  5. Rizzo L, Di Gennaro A, Gallo M, et al. Coagulation/chlorination of surface water: A comparison between chitosan and metal salts. Separation and Purification Technology. 2008; 62(1): 79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2007.12.020
  6. Yang Z, Gao B, Yue Q. Coagulation performance and residual aluminum speciation of Al2(SO4)3 and polyaluminum chloride (PAC) in Yellow River water treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2010; 165(1): 122-132. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2010.08.076
  7. Singh NK, Pandey S, Singh S, et al. Post treatment of UASB effluent by using inorganic coagulants: Role of zeta potential and characterization of solid residue. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2016; 4(2): 1495-1503. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2016.02.020
  8. Matilainen A, Lindqvist N, Tuhkanen T. Comparison of the Effiency of Aluminium and Ferric Sulphate in the Removal of Natural Organic Matter During Drinking Water Treatment Process. Environmental Technology. 2005; 26(8): 867-876. doi: 10.1080/09593332608618502
  9. Zhao J, Li B, Wang A, et al. Floc formation and growth mechanism during magnesium hydroxide and polyacrylamide coagulation process for reactive orange removal. Environmental Technology; 2022.
  10. Padilla JRR, Andrade ET, Araújo BLO, and Rios PdA. Moringa oleifera L. Cake as a potential substitute for aluminum sulphate coagulant for the treatment of surface water. Theoretical and Applied Engineering; 2023.
  11. Benavides CHS, Diaz JJF, Mercado T. Phytotoxicity of Natural and Synthetic Coagulants by Zea mays Lethality Assays in Treated Waters from the Magdalena River, Colombia. International Journal of ChemTech Research. 2018.
  12. Labastida-Núñez I, Velasco-Pérez M, Pablo-Reyes EP, et al. Evaluation of Wastewater Coagulation/Flocculation with Chitosan from Shrimp Exoskeletons Waste and Aluminum Sulfate. Revista Terra Latinoamericana; 2023. doi: 10.28940/terra.v41i0.1743
  13. APHA/AWWA/WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Standard Methods; 2017.
  14. Aziz HA, Alias S, Adlan MN. The use of alum, ferric chloride and ferrous sulphate as coagulants in removing suspended solids, colour and COD from semi-aerobic landfill leachate at controlled pH. Waste Manage Res; 2007.
  15. Malik QH. Performance of alum and assorted coagulants in turbidity removal of muddy water. Applied Water Science. 2018; 8(1). doi: 10.1007/s13201-018-0662-5
  16. Daryabeigi A, Baghvand A, Zand AD, et al. Optimizing Coagulation Process for Low to High Turbidity Waters Using Aluminum and Iron Salts. American Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2010;6(5):442–8.
  17. Saritha V, Srinivas N, Srikanth Vuppala NV. Analysis and optimization of coagulation and flocculation process. Applied Water Science. 2015; 7(1): 451-460. doi: 10.1007/s13201-014-0262-y
  18. Mamelkina MA, Cotillas S, Lacasa E, et al. Removal of sulfate from mining waters by electrocoagulation. Separation and Purification Technology. 2017; 182: 87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.03.044
  19. Loloei M, Alidadi H, Nekonam G, et al. Study of the coagulation process in wastewater treatment of dairy industries. International Journal of Environmental Health Engineering. 2014; 3(1): 12. doi: 10.4103/2277-9183.132684
  20. Amin A, Al Bazedi Gh, Abdel-Fatah MA. Experimental study and mathematical model of coagulation/sedimentation units for treatment of food processing wastewater. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 2021; 12(1): 195-203. doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2020.08.001
  21. Bratby J. Coagulation and Flocculation in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Water Intelligence Online. 2016; 15(0): 9781780407500-9781780407500. doi: 10.2166/9781780407500
  22. Silva JR, Carvalho F, Vicente C, et al. Electrocoagulation treatment of cork boiling wastewater. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2022; 10(3): 107750. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.107750
  23. Das N, Rajput H, Aly Hassan A, et al. Application of Different Coagulants and Cost Evaluation for the Treatment of Oil and Gas Produced Water. Water. 2023; 15(3): 464. doi: 10.3390/w15030464
  24. Gzar HA, Jasim NA, Kseer KM. Electrocoagulation and Chemical Coagulation for Treatment of Al-Kut Textile Wastewater: A Comparative Study. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences; 2020.
  25. Febrianti N, Permana RNW, Ariani IK. Utilization of aloe vera as a biocoagulant for turbidity, total dissolved solid (TDS), and iron (Fe) removal in well water. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2024; 1312(1): 012007. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1312/1/012007
  26. Afarinandeh A, Ahmadpari H, Jahanpour A. Investigation of Chemical Coagulation and Flocculation Efficiency of Different Coagulants in Phosphorus pentoxide and Fluoride Removal from Kimia Daran Kavir Factory Wastewater. J Biochem Tech (2020) Special Issue. 2014.
  27. Chen J, Zhou Y, Chen J, et al. Self-hydrolyzing Submerged Flow Technology for Acid Coal Mine Drainage Treatment: Effective Removal of Iron Ions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2024; 2706(1): 012093. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2706/1/012093
  28. Sun R, Zhang L, Wang X, et al. Elemental sulfur-driven sulfidogenic process under highly acidic conditions for sulfate-rich acid mine drainage treatment: Performance and microbial community analysis. Water Research. 2020; 185: 116230. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116230
  29. Wu Z, Zhang X, Pang J, et al. High-poly-aluminum chloride sulfate coagulants and their coagulation performances for removal of humic acid. RSC Advances. 2020; 10(12): 7155-7162. doi: 10.1039/c9ra10189f

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Author(s)

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).