Performance of Graphite and Titanium as Cathode Electrode Materials on Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment

Materials

Tatyana Uryumtseva¹  Lyazzat Tastanova²  Timoth Mkilima³  Kulyash Meiramkulova⁴  Aliya Kydyrbekova⁴  Saida Marzanova⁵  Davud Devrishov⁵  Nurbiy Marzanov⁶ 

[1] Department of Agriculture and Bioresources, Innovative University of Eurasia, Lomov street 45, 14008 Pavlodar, Kazakhstan;Department of Chemistry and Technology, K.Zhubanov, Aktobe Regional State University, A.Moldagulova avenue, 34, 030000 Aktobe, Kazakhstan;Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Architecture and Construction, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Satpayev street 2, 010000 Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan;Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Faculty of Natural Sciences, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Satpayev street 2, 010000 Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan;Department of Immunology and Biotechnology, Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology, 23 Scryabin street, 109472 Moscow, Russian;Laboratory of molecular basis of breeding, L.K.Ernst Federal Science Center for Animal Husbandry, Dubrovitsy 60, Podolsk Municipal District, 142132 Moscow Region, Russia, [e-mail];

关键词: electrode material;    aluminium;    graphite;    titanium;    poultry slaughterhouse;    wastewater treatment;   

DOI  :  10.3390/ma13204489

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Despite the potential applicability of the combination between aluminium (anode) and graphite or titanium (cathode) for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, their technical and economic feasibilities have not been comprehensively captured. In this study, aluminium (anode) and graphite and titanium as cathode electrode materials were investigated and compared in terms of their performance on poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment. The wastewater samples collected from the Izhevsk Production Corporative (PC) poultry farm in Kazakhstan were treated using a lab-based electrochemical treatment plant and then analyzed after every 20 and 40 min of the treatment processes. Cost analysis for both electrode combinations was also performed. From the analysis results, the aluminium–graphite electrode combination achieved high removal efficiency from turbidity, color, nitrite, phosphates, and chemical oxygen demand, with removal efficiency ranging from 72% to 98% after 20 min, as well as 88% to 100% after 40 min. A similar phenomenon was also observed from the aluminium–titanium electrode combination, with high removal efficiency achieved from turbidity, color, total suspended solids, nitrite, phosphates, and chemical oxygen demand, ranging from 81% to 100% after 20 min as well as from 91% to 100% after 40 min. This means the treatment performances for both aluminium–graphite and aluminium–titanium electrode combinations were highly affected by the contact time. The general performance in terms of removal efficiency indicates that the aluminium–titanium electrode combination outperformed the aluminium–graphite electrode combination. However, the inert character of the graphite electrode led to a positive impact on the total operating cost. Therefore, the aluminium–graphite electrode combination was observed to be cheaper than the aluminium–titanium electrode combination in terms of the operating cost.

【 授权许可】

Unknown