Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Molecular Liquids

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

Investigating the residual aluminum elimination from conventional and

enhanced coagulation by phosphate compounds in wastewater
treatment process
S. Agarwal a, I. Tyagi b, V.K. Gupta a,⁎, M.H. Dehghani c,d,⁎⁎, R. Ghanbari c
a
Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
b
Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, 247667, India
c
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Tehran, IR, Iran
d
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Institute for Environmental Research, Center for Solid Waste Research, Tehran, IR, Iran

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

Article history: Aluminum salts are important chemical materials which are extensively used next to in water treatment process-
Received 26 May 2016 es. High concentration of Al in drinking water may produce health problems. Post coagulant addition of phos-
Accepted 14 June 2016 phate compounds could reduce the concentrations of residual metals without the need of installing new unit
Available online 16 June 2016
processes in existing water treatment plants. Concentrations of residual metals in conventional coagulation
were different in various pHs and minimum and maximum concentrations of Al were in pHs of 6.5 and 5.5. Max-
Keywords:
Water treatment
imum removal of Al took place in pH = 5.5 with 0.37 mg/l reduction. Maximum and minimum concentrations of
Conventional coagulation residual phosphate were detected at pHs of 8.5 and 5.5 respectively. In natural pH concentrations of Al in en-
Enhanced coagulation hanced coagulation had been increased versus coagulant dose increase (from 0.21 mg/l to 0.35 mg/l). Maximum
Residual aluminum removal of Al took place by alum dosage of 20 mg/l which reduce the concentration from 0.28 mg/l to 0.07 mg/l.
Phosphate compounds Residual Al concentration in enhanced coagulation at pH of 5.5 increased from 0.55 mg/l to 2.4 mg/l with the in-
crease of coagulant dosages from 10 to 50 mg/l. Maximum removal of residual Al happened in coagulant dosage
of 50 mg/l. Temperature increases permanently increased the concentrations of soluble metals and consequently
removal efficiency.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction temperature, and pH of finished water. After treatment of water with

Aluminum exists naturally in some of the water resource and is used
as a coagulant in water treatment processes. In natural conditions, alu-
minum is converted to its insoluble form and separated from water. But
some amounts of aluminum commonly remain in soluble form, so that
its concentration is higher than that in raw water. High concentration of
aluminum in water can cause adverse effects on human health [1–4].
Aluminum in raw and treated water in these four treatment plants
was in its soluble form at first. Concentration of soluble aluminum in in-
fluent was partly low and generally increased after the treatment. Total
aluminum concentration was N 0.1 mg/l in finished water of all four
treatment plants, consisting of about 10–80% soluble aluminum. Resid-
ual concentration of aluminum is affected by pH of coagulation,
⁎ Corresponding author.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: M.H. Dehghani, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of
Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Tehran, IR, Iran.
E-mail addresses: vinodg@uj.ac.za, vinodfcy@gmail.com (V.K. Gupta),
hdehghani@tums.ac.ir (M.H. Dehghani).
alum, concentration of total recyclable aluminum will decrease, and
total soluble aluminum and extractable soluble aluminum will increase.
For raw water, in one hand, soluble aluminum is just a small portion of
total aluminum, for finished water; on the other hand, almost all the
total aluminum is soluble and completely extractable. Aluminum com-
ponent may exist in finished water, as a residual from coagulation pro-
cess with aluminum salts [5–7].
The results from other studies show that aluminum concentration
varies from 0.014 mg/l in ground waters to 2.57 mg/l in surface waters,
which are treated with alum. In the USA, aluminum concentration is re-
ported to be in the range of 140–290 μg/l and 16–1170 μg/l in ground
waters and surface waters, respectively. The concentration of this ele-
ment in acidic water and the waters in forest areas in UK is reported
to be 200–300 μg/l and 400–600 μg/l, respectively. It should be noted
that acid rain can cause aluminum downwash from the land, eventually
increasing its concentration in water resources [8–11].
Aluminum concentration in finished water with aluminum salt de-
pends on primary concentration of this element in raw water, amount
of coagulant used, pH, temperature, and presence of complexing agents.
Aluminum is deposited in water distribution networks and leads to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2016.06.051
0167-7322/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
674 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684
scale formation. These deposits increase slowly along the distribution
network, so aluminum concentration increases in water [12–14]. The
result of investigation conducted [15] for assessing residual aluminum
in distribution network in Borazjan suggests that the average aluminum
concentration in drinking water in this area, which is due to alum used
in Bandar Abbas treatment plant, was 170.2 μg/l with minimum concen-
tration of 150 μg/l and maximum concentration of 180 μg/l.
According to other studies, it has been found that in most of treat-
ment plants which use alum as a coagulant in treatment process, the re-
sidual aluminum concentration is in the range of 10–1300 μg/l. In
addition, it is reported that aluminum concentration following the use
of alum as a coagulant lies in the range of 10–2370 μg/l, which is more
than that exists in raw water, so that leading to scale formation in distri-
bution network [16–18]. Formmel et al. [19] investigated the effect of
addition of phosphate compounds in rapid mixing in Michigun Lake to
eliminate residual aluminum. Addition of orthophosphate in Bench–
scale test reduced the residual aluminum concentration down to stan-
dard level of 350 μg/l. These tests included addition of Alum and phos-
phate and long time mixing of about 8 h. Filtrated samples showed
that addition of orthophosphate lead to reduction of residual aluminum
concentration in all the concentration (pHs of 7, 7.5, and 8.8, and tem-
perature range of 4–31 °C). World health organization (WHO) has not
recommended any guidelines for aluminum and only a concentration
of 0.2 mg/l aluminum in drinking water is recommended to prevent
color in distribution network.
The main objective of the present study is: Investigating effective-
ness of phosphate compounds in removal of residual aluminum from
conventional and enhanced coagulation in water treatment.
The specific objectives are as follows:
1. Determining the effect of phosphate on residual aluminum concen-
tration from conventional coagulants in finished water
2. Determining the effect of phosphate dosages on residual aluminum
from conventional coagulants in finished water
3. Determining the effect of water temperature on residual aluminum
from conventional coagulants in finished water
4. Determining the effect of pH on residual aluminum from convention-
al coagulants in finished water
2. Materials and methods
This research is conducted in order to determine the possibility of re-
sidual aluminum elimination from conventional and enhanced coagula-
tion by phosphate compounds. This research is an applied study and its
result can be used to improve the quality of drinking water having resid-
ual metals due to metal coagulation. It is possible that some percentage
of residual dissolved metals be eliminated without the requirement of
adding another unit in the treatment plants using phosphate com-
pounds. It implies that with spending minimum cost, a good efficiency
in removal of residual dissolved metal is reachable.
In order to do the research and determining the effect of the factors
involved in aluminum removal, achieving above mentioned objectives,
and possibility of the tests repetition, synthesized water samples were
used. Alum is generally used as the main coagulant agent in water treat-
ment plants, so we used the same coagulant in this research. All the tests
were carried out according to Standard Methods for Examination of
Water and Wastewater (2012).
Aluminum sulfate (alum): powdered aluminum sulfate with a mo-
lecular weight of 666.42 g/mol was used. This solution was prepared
during the tests with concentration of 1 g/l as Al2 (SO4) as the coagulant
stock solution.
Sodium orthophosphate: Powdered sodium orthophosphate
(Na2HPO4·2H2O) with a molecular weight of 178.13 g/mol was used.
This solution was prepared once with concentration of 1 g/l as PO4
and used for all the tests.
Sodium polyphosphate: Powdered sodium polyphosphate
[((Na2(PO3))n]with a molecular weight of 666.42 g/mol was used. This
solution was prepared once with concentration of 1 g/l as PO3.
2.1. Preparing synthetic raw water samples
Natural clay was used to make samples. The clay was first sieved and
then 1.5 mg/l of it was weighted by a scale and poured into water sam-
ple and mixed for 10 min to become homogenous. The solution was left
for 24 h and then was mixed again and used for the tests after 30 min
sedimentation.
2.2. Jar test
Jar test (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation) was done in
room temperature using a standard jar test device having six 1 l con-
tainers. Note that all the jars and mixing paddles were washed before
each test with hydrochloric acid and rinsed with deionized water. Phos-
phate compounds were added during rapid mixing and 1 min before or
after alum coagulant addition. Phosphate compounds were added to jar
containers in concentrations of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 and 3.5 mg/l. Howev-
er, in all the jar tests no phosphate was added to one of the jar con-
tainers to specify the amount of residual metal in each case. Dosage of
10 mg/l alum was used for conventional coagulation and doses of 20,
30, 40, and 50 mg/l alum were used for enhanced coagulation.
In this research, Jar tests were used for investigation of residual Al re-
moval by use of phosphate compounds in conventional and enhanced
coagulation and also for determination of affecting parameters. Jar
tests (coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation) were done by a
standard Jar instrument which was consisted of six jars (volume of
each was 1 l). Jar tests were performed on sequences of rapid mixing
(120 rpm in 2 min), slow mixing (20 rpm in 20 min) and sedimentation
(30 min). All the containers had been washed and have been rinsed
with acid and distilled water. Phosphate compounds were added to
the jars in concentrations of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 and 3.5 mg/l. But in all
of these tests, one jar remained phosphate free as the blank for investi-
gating the true concentration of soluble metals in each condition. Dos-
ages of alum in conventional coagulation test were 10 mg/l and these
tests had been accomplished in different temperatures (35, 22 and 5 °
C) and pHs (8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5). For enhanced coagulation tests, dos-
ages of alum were 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 mg/l which have been used in
different pHs (5.5 and natural pH of water). All the samples had been fil-
tered through 0.45 μm filters before analyses.
2.3. Statistical analyses
Different statistical analyses including correlation, independent
samples t-test and regression were employed in SPSS software.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of increased dose of sodium orthophosphate and sodium
polyphosphate
Effect of increased dose of sodium orthophosphate and sodium
polyphosphate is shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen from the figure,
polyphosphate just eliminates 0.4 mg/l of residual aluminum, while
this amount for orthophosphate is 0.16 mg/l. This result is consistent
with the previously obtained results [19–27], but the residual aluminum
concentration in using polyphosphate was more than that reported by
prior studies (The residual concentration in this study was 0.16 mg/l
which was approximately two times higher than their results). This is
mainly because of different chemical quality of water used in these
two Studies. In present study, concentration of residual aluminum in
usage of orthophosphate (0.16 mg/l) was higher than that observed
i.e. 0.9 mg/l [19]. According to statistical analyzes, there is a statistically
 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684 675

Fig. 1. The amount of decline in water Al content due to different dosages of orthophosphate and polyphosphate at natural pH of water.

significant relationship between concentration of phosphate in both
compounds used and aluminum reduction rate. However, the P values
were quite different (P b 0.001 for orthophosphate and P b 0.042 for
polyphosphate). Hence, there is a significant difference between alumi-
num removal rates of the two compounds (P b 0.019). In implies that
sodium orthophosphate is more efficient in residual aluminum removal.
Therefore, orthophosphate was used in the rest of the study.
3.2. Effect of point of orthophosphate addition (before or after addition of
the main coagulant)
Orthophosphate was added into the water in rapid mixing stage,
once 1 min before addition of the main coagulant, and once 1 min
after addition of the main coagulant. Fig. 2 shows the level of aluminum
removal in different phosphate dosages and points of phosphate addi-
tion. Since the data were normally distributed, Independent sample t-
test was employed. Statistical analyzes showed no statistically signifi-
cant difference among the data. Paired sample t-test showed no statisti-
cally significant difference either. Fig. 3 shows residual turbidity in two
different points of phosphate addition. According to statistical analyzes,
these data had normal distribution. In addition, no statistically signifi-
cant difference was observed between residual turbidities in the two
jar tests. According to [20], the flocks formed in the presence of phos-
phate were much weaker than those formed before exposure to phos-
phate. This is mainly due to contribution of phosphate in floe
formation. However, addition of phosphate after having formed the
flock's, leads only to its observation on produced hydroxides. Residual
phosphate concentration in the two jar tests are illustrated in Figs. 4
and 5. As shown in the figure, residual phosphate concentration is
quite low if added before the coagulant. This is consistent with the re-
sults obtained i.e. 440-480 μg/l residual phosphate if added before the
coagulant, compared to 250 μg/l residual phosphate if added after the
coagulant [19]. Percentage of possible removal is shown in Fig. 6. On
the other hand, concentration of residual phosphate increases with
phosphate dosage. According to [20] concentration of residual phos-
phate after precipitation of alum depends on PO4/Al ratio. As mentioned
above, since concentration of residual phosphate increases with phos-
phate dosage, point of phosphate addition was selected to be after addi-
tion of the main coagulant.
3.3. Effect of pH variation
Fig. 7 shows percentage of aluminum reduction in different pHs and
dosage of 10 mg/l. As shown in this figure, concentration of residual

Fig. 2. The amount of decline in water Al content due to orthophosphate dosing point variation at natural pH of water.
676 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684

Fig. 3. Comparing water turbidities versus different dosages of Al, in dosing point, before and after the coagulant.

Fig. 4. The amount of decline in water Al versus different dosages of orthophosphate, due to water pH variation.

Fig. 5. The amount of water residual phosphate, in coagulation with ferric chloride versus different dosages of orthophosphate, due to water pH variation.
 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684 677

Fig. 6. Comparing phosphate removal percent, in coagulation with Al, versus different dosages of orthophosphate, due to water pH variation.

aluminum differs with pH and its maximum (0.55 mg/l) and minimum
levels are observed in pHs of 5.5 and 6.5, respectively. In addition, con-
centrations of residual aluminum are 0.21 and 0.52 in pHs of 7.5 and 8.5,
respectively. In the study conducted by [19], 670 out of 700 μg/l of
added aluminum were precipitated in pH 7, while this was lowered to
560 and 140 in pHs of 7.5 and 8, respectively. Maximum decrease of
about 0.37 mg/l after addition of orthophosphate was observed in
pH 5.5 and aluminum concentration decreased down to standard levels
. In pH 8.5, aluminum concentration decreases down to 0.25 mg/l, which
is still higher than standard level. According to the result of regression
analysis, there is a significant relationship between concentration of re-
sidual aluminum and phosphate dose. Resulting regression formula is as
follow:
Remained metal ¼ 0:310–0:063 ðphosphate dosesÞ
Where, R2 = 0.178
In addition, result of a multivariate regression analysis showed a sta-
tistically significant relationship between concentrations of residual
Aluminum and the parameters of temperature and phosphate dose. Ob-
tained regression formula is as follow:
þ0:006ðtemperatureÞRemainedmetal
¼ 0:144–0:058ðphosphate dosesÞ
Figs. 8 and 9 show the level of phosphate removed in different pHs.
As shown in the Fig. minimum removal is observed in pH 8.5 and in-
crease as pH decrease. In the study conducted by [19] mean loss de-
creases with pH (mean phosphate losses of 75, 48 and 26% in pHs of 7,
7.5 and 8, respectively). This is mainly due to participation of phosphate
compounds in pH 6. Because of corrosion that more occurs in low pHs,
higher phosphate dosage is required. Percentages of phosphate removal
in various pHs are also shown in Fig. 10. According to the result of re-
gression analysis, there is a statically significant relationship between
concentration of residual phosphate and the parameters of pH and

Fig. 7. The amount of decline in water Al versus different dosages of orthophosphate due to water pH variation.
678 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684

Fig. 8. The amount of water residual phosphate versus different dosages of orthophosphate, in various dosages of orthophosphate due to water pH variation.

phosphate dosage. Resulting formula is as follows:
RemainedPhosphate ¼ −2:00 þ 0:654ðphosphate dosesÞ þ 0:270ðpHÞ
It can, therefore, be concluded that concentration of residual phos-
phate depends more on phosphate dosage than pH. Result of regression
analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between concen-
tration of residual metal and parameter of phosphate dosage and, so
temperature was omitted. Obtained regression formula is as follow:
þ0:280ðpHÞRemainedmetal ¼ −2:099 þ 0:694ðphosphate dosesÞ
decreases from 0.28 down to 0.07 mg/l. Concentration of residual alumi-
num in the dosage of 30 and 40 mg/l decreased from 0.31 and 0.35
down to 0.13 and 0.17, respectively. Concentration of residual alumi-
num decreased down to standard level as phosphate dosage increased
up to 1 mg/l. In the dosages of 30 and 40 mg/l, concentration of residual
aluminum decreases down to standard level as phosphate dosage in-
creased up to 2.5 mg/l. According to the result of regression analysis,
there is a statically significant relationship between concentration of re-
sidual metal and the parameter of coagulant dosage as well as phos-
phate dosage.
Resulting formula is as follows:

3.4. Effect of increased coagulant dosage on removal of residual metals in Remainedmetal ¼ 0:172–0:056ðphosphate dosesÞ
natural pH of water þ 0:004ðCoagulantdosesÞ

Fig. 11 illustrates aluminum removal in natural pH of water. In this Concentrations of residual phosphate in different aluminum dosage
pH, concentration of residual aluminum increased from 0.21 to are illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13. As shown in the Fig., in Alum dosages
0.35 mg/l as the dosage increased from 10 to 50 mg/l. Maximum remov- of 10 and 20 mg/l, residual phosphate decreases as phosphate dosages in-
al is seen in the dosage of 20 mg/l, which aluminum concentration creases over 1 mg/l. In other Alum dosages, however, concentration of

Fig. 9. The amount of water residual phosphate versus different dosages of orthophosphate, in various dosages of orthophosphate due to water pH variation.
 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684 679

Fig. 10. Comparing phosphate removal percent, in coagulation with Al, versus different dosages of orthophosphate, at different pHs of water.

residual phosphate is negligible, except for phosphate dosage of over
3 mg/l. Result of regression analysis indicates a significant relationship
between residual phosphate concentration and the parameters of coagu-
lant dose and phosphate dose .resulting regression formula is as follows:
RemainedPhosphate ¼ 0:751 þ 0:321ðphosphate dosesÞ–0:029ðCoagulantDosesÞ
Percentages of phosphate removal in different Alum dosage are
shown in Fig. 14. As shown in this figure, phosphate removal highly in-
creases with coagulate dose.
.maximum removal in presence of phosphate is observed at dosage of
50 mg/l. however, aluminum concentration is still higher than standard
level. In this pH, aluminum concentration did not decrease down to
standard level in any coagulant dosage. Result of regression analysis
showed a statistically significant relationship between concentration
of residual metal and parameters of coagulant and phosphate dosage.
Resulting regression formula is as follows:
Remainedmetal ¼ −0:079–0:125ðphosphatedosesÞ
þ 0:048ðCoagulantdosesÞ

3.5. Effect of coagulate dose in pH 5.5
Removal of aluminum in different dosage of coagulates and added
phosphate in shown in Fig. 15. In this pH residual aluminum concentra-
tion increases as coagulant dose increase from 0.55 to about 24 mg/l
It can, therefore, be suggested that residual metal concentration
depends more on the coagulant dose than phosphate dose. Concen-
tration of residual phosphate in pH 5.5 and different coagulant dos-
age are illustrated in Figs. 16 and 17. As can be seen from the
figure, residual phosphate concentration decreases as the coagulant

Fig. 11. The amount of Al decline from water versus different dosages of Al at natural pH of water.
680 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684

Fig. 12. The amount of water residual phosphate versus different dosages orthophosphate, in various dosages of Al, at natural pH of water.

dose increases. For example, in phosphate dosage of 3.5 mg/l residual
phosphate concentration are 1.25, 0.48, 0.25, 0.05 and 0.01 mg/l in
coagulant dosage of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 mg/l, respectively. In
Alum dosage of higher than 20–30 mg/l residual phosphate is only
observed in phosphate dosage of higher than 3 mg/l. Result of regres-
sion analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship be-
tween concentrations of residual phosphate concentration and
parameters of coagulant dose and phosphate dose. Resulting regres-
sion formula is as follows:
RemainedPhosphate ¼ 0:270
þ0:112ðphosphatedosesÞ–0:010ðCoagulantDosesÞ
3.6. Effect of temperature
Figs. 18–20 shows aluminum removal against different dosage of or-
thophosphate at different temperature. Residual Al concentrations are
0.13, 0.21, and 0.41 mg/l in temperatures of 5, 22, and 35 °C. As
shown, residual Al highly increases with temperature. This is consistent
with the results obtained by formula et al. thought residual Al concen-
trations slightly differ due to different chemical characteristics of
water samples used in the two studies. Maximum removal (0.27 mg/l)
was observed in the temperature of 35 °C. For all temperature, the con-
centration of dissolved Al decreased down to standard level. Result of
regression analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship be-
tween residual metal concentration and the parameters of water tem-
perature phosphate dose. Resulting regression formula is as follows:

Higher phosphate dosage seems to be necessary in this pH in order Remainedmetal ¼ 0:097–0:052ðphosphatedosagesÞ

to prevent from corrosion and aluminum removal. þ 0:006ðTemperatureÞ

Fig. 13. The amount of water residual phosphate versus different dosages orthophosphate, in various dosages of Al, at natural pH of water.
 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684 681

Fig. 14. Comparing phosphate removal percent versus different dosages of Al at natural pH of water.

In addition, result of a multivariate regression analysis suggested a It can, therefore, be concluded that residual phosphate concentra-
significant relationship between residual metal concentration and the tion depends more on phosphate dosage than temperature.
parameters of temperature and phosphate dose. Resulting regression
formula is as follows: 4. Conclusion

þ0:006ðtemperatureÞRemainedmetal Enhanced coagulation is the best available technology for achieving

¼ 0:144–0:058ðphosphatedosesÞ
Concentrations of residual phosphate in different temperature are il-
lustrated in Figs. 19 and 20. As can be seen, residual phosphate concen-
trations is not affected by temperature. Result of regression analysis
indicated a statistically significant relationship between residual phos-
phate concentration parameters of water temperature phosphate dos-
age. Resulting regression formula is as follows:
standard levels of disinfection by products. Many surface water treat-
ment plants have adopted this method in order to prevent from the
need for changes in process line even the type of disinfectant used.
However, this method loads to finished water with high concentrations
of aluminum even higher than that of inlet water. This directed re-
searches to find a method for removed of aluminum from water. Addi-
tion of phosphate after application of Alum leads to decreased
aluminum precipitation potential in water distribution network.
Acknowledgement

Remainedmetal ¼ ‐0:149 þ 0:781ðphosphatedosagesÞ This research has been supported by Tehran University of Medical
þ 0:002ðTemperatureÞ Sciences (6142-27-03-86).

Fig. 15. The amount of Al decline from water versus different dosages of orthophosphate , in various dosages of Al , at pH = 5.5.
682 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684

Fig. 16. The amount of water residual phosphate versus different dosages of orthophosphate, in various dosages of Al, at pH = 5.5.

Fig. 17. Comparing the amounts of water residual phosphate versus different dosages of orthophosphate, in various dosages of Al, at pH = 5.5.

Fig. 18. The amount of Al decline from water versus different dosages of orthophosphate at different temperatures.
 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684 683

Fig. 19. The amount of water residual phosphate in coagulation with Al versus different dosages of orthophosphate at different temperatures.

Fig. 20. The amount of water residual phosphate in coagulation with Al versus different dosages of orthophosphate at different temperatures.

References
[1] R.D. Letterman, C.T. Driscoll, Survey of residual aluminum in finished water, J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 80 (1988) 154–158.
[2] G. Kastl, I. Fisher, V. Jegatheesan, Evaluation of chlorine decay kinetics expressions
for drinking water distribution system, Aqua 48 (1999) 219–226.
[3] G. Kastl, I.H. Fisher, C. Peizhong, A Tool for Accurate Simulation of Chlorine and
THMs Concentration Profile in Drinking Water Distribution Systems from Laborato-
ry Data, IWA Specialised Conference, Management of Productivity at Water Utilities,
Prague 2002, pp. 88–94.
[4] G.C. Budd, A.F. Hess, H. Shorney-Darby, J.J. Neemann, C.M. Spencer, J.D. Bellamy, P.H.
Hargette, Coagulation, application for new treatment goals, J. Am. Water Works
Assoc. 96 (2004) 102–113.
[5] R.D. Miller, F.C. Kopfler, K.C. Kelty, J.A. Stober, N.S. Ulmer, The occurrence of alumi-
num in drinking water, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 76 (1984) 84–91.
[6] C.J. Sollars, A.M. Bragg, A.M. Simpson, R. Perry, Aluminum in European drinking wa-
ters, J. Environ. Technol. Lett. 10 (1989) 130–150.
[7] F.Y. Cui, M.C. Hu, Y. Zhang, C.W. Cui, Investigation on aluminum concentration in
drinking water in part of China's cities, J. China Water and Wastewater 18 (2002)
4–7.
[8] W.D. Wang, H.W. Yang, X.C. Wang, J. Jiang, W.P. Zhu, Factors effecting aluminum
speciation in drinking water by laboratory research, J. Environ. Sci. 22 (2010)
47–55.
[9] W.D. Wang, H.W. Yang, X.C. Wang, J. Jiang, W.P. Zhu, Reaction mechanism of fulvic
acid with aluminum in natural water, J. Environ. Sci. 22 (2010) 211–217.
[10] L.P. Weng, E.J.M. Temminghoff, W.H. Van-Riemsdijk, Aluminum speciation innatural
waters: measurement using Donnan membrane technique and modeling using
NICA-Donnan, Water Res. 36 (2002) 4215–4222.
[11] P.T. Srinivasan, T. Viraraghavan, K.S. Subramanian, Aluminium in drinking water: an
overview, Water SA 25 (1999) 47–57.
[12] A. Aryal, A. Sathasivan, R.A. Adhikari, Evidence that BAC treatment enhances the
DOC removal by enhanced coagulation, Desalination 280 (2011) 326–331.
[13] AWWA, Water Quality & Treatment: A Handbook on Drinking Water (Water Re-
sources and Environmental Engineering Series)Chapter 6 Coagulation and
Fluccolation, fifth ed.McGraw- Hill Companies Publisher 1999, pp. 6.1–6.61.
[14] H. Liu, R. Liu, C. Tian, H. Jiang, X. Liu, R. Zhang, J. Qu, Removal of natural organic mat-
ter for controlling disinfection by-products formation by enhanced coagulation: a
case study, Sep. Purif. Technol. 84 (2012) 41–45.
[15] K. Imandel, D. Farhud, A. Derakhtian, The occurance of aluminium in municipal
treated water supply of Bushehr and Borazjan area of Iran, Iran. J. Public Health
23 (1994) 33–40.
[16] J.E. Van-Bennshoten, J.K. Edzwald, Measuring aluminum during water treatment:
methodology and application, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 82 (1990) 71–79.
[17] M. Edwards, M. Boller, M. Benjamin, Effect of preozonation on removal of organic
matter during water treatment plant operation, J. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (1993)
37–45.
684 S. Agarwal et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 221 (2016) 673–684
[18] B. Eikebrokk, T. Juhna, S.W. Qsterhus, Water Treatment by Enhanced Coagulation:
Operational Status and Optimization Issues, TECHNEAU, 2007 1–7.
[19] D.M. Frommel, C.M. Feld, B.M. Snoeyink, B. Melcher, C. Feizoul, Aluminum residual
control using orthophosphate, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 96 (2004) 99–109.
[20] J.P. Boisvert, T.T. Cong, A. Berrak, C. Jolicoeur, Phosphate adsorption in flocculation
processes of aluminum sulfate and poly-aluminum-silicate-sulfate, Water Res. 31
(1997) 1939–1946.
[21] T.A. Saleh, V.K. Gupta, Column with CNT/Magnesium oxide Composite for Lead (II)
Removal from Water, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 19 (2012) 1224–1228.
[22] V.K. Gupta, S.K. Srivastava, D. Mohan, S. Sharma, Design Parameters for fixed bed re-
actors of activated carbon developed from fertilizer waste material for the removal
of some heavy metal ions, Waste Manag. 17 (1998) 517–522.
[23] V.K. Gupta, S. Agarwal, T.A. Saleh, Synthesis and characterization of alumina-coated
carbon nanotubes and their application for lead removal, J. Hazardous Mat. 185
(2011) 17–23.
[24] V.K. Gupta, I. Ali, T.A. Saleh, A. Nayak, Agarwal, Chemical Treatment Technologies for
Wastewater Recycling –a Review, RSC Adv. 2 (2012) 6380–6388.
[25] V.K. Gupta, A. Nayak, Cadmium removal and recovery from aqueous solutions by
novel adsorbents prepared from orange peel and Fe2O3 nanoparticles, Chem. Eng.
J. 180 (2012) 81–90.
[26] V.K. Gupta, A.K. Jain, G. Maheshwari, Novel Aluminum (III) selective potentiometric
sensor based on morin in poly (vinyl chloride) matrix, Talanta 72 (2007)
1469–1473.
[27] V.K. Gupta, M.R. Ganjali, P. Norouzi, H. Khani, A. Nayak, Shilpi Agarwal, Electrochem-
ical Analysis of some Toxic Metals and Drugs by Ion Selective Electrodes, Crit. Rev.
Anal. Chem. 41 (2011) 282–313.