Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential

Djamel Ghernaout; Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy; Mohamed Wahib Naceur; Ahmed Boucherit; Noureddine Ait Messaoudene; Mohamed Aichouni; Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi; Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential

Djamel Ghernaout, Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy, Mohamed Wahib Naceur, Ahmed Boucherit, Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, Mohamed Aichouni, Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi, Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri

Published in American Journal of Environmental Protection (Volume 4, Issue 5-1)

Received: 28 March 2015 Accepted: 8 April 2015 Published: 29 April 2015

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This review concerns the using of Zeta and streaming potentials in the coagulation process control. Coagulation process is usually explained by charge neutralization mechanism. The negative charge may be quantified by Zeta potential or streaming potential measures. Prior to the advent of streaming current monitors, Zeta meters were the primary instruments for measuring electrokinetic properties as related to coagulant dose. Both instruments measure the potential and indirectly the particle surface charge, but use very different methods. Even if the on-line streaming current monitor can provide coagulation process optimization when properly installed, maintained, and interpreted, jar tests experiments and Zeta meters remain indispensable.

Published in	American Journal of Environmental Protection (Volume 4, Issue 5-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue Cleaner and Sustainable Production
DOI	10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
Page(s)	16-27
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Electrophoretic Mobility, Zeta Potential, Streaming Potential, Streaming Current, Streaming Current Detector, Coagulation Control

References

[1]	D. Ghernaout and M.W. Naceur, Ferrate(VI): In situ generation and water treatment – A review, Desalin. Water Treat., 30 (2011) 319–332.
[2]	B. Ghernaout, D. Ghernaout and A. Saiba, Algae and cyanotoxins removal by coagulation/flocculation: A review, Desalin. Water Treat., 20 (2010) 133–143.
[3]	W. Yu, J. Gregory and L.C. Campos, Breakage and re-growth of flocs formed by charge neutralization using alum and polyDADMAC, Water Res., 44 (2010) 3959-3965.
[4]	R. J. François, Strength of aluminium hydroxide flocs, Water Res., 21 (1987) 1023-1030.
[5]	W. Barron, B.S. Murray, P.J. Scales, T.W. Healy, D.R. Dixon and M. Pascoe, The streaming current detector: a comparison with conventional electrokinetic techniques, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 88 (1994) 129-139.
[6]	S.R. Gray and C.B. Ritchie, Effect of organic polyelectrolyte characteristics on floc strength, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 273 (2006) 184–188.
[7]	W. Xu, B. Gao, Y. Wang, Z. Yang and X. Bo, Role of Al13 species in removal of natural organic matter from low specific UV absorbance surface water and the aggregates characterization, Chem. Eng. J., 171 (2011) 926– 934.
[8]	C. Huang and H. Shiu, Interactions between alum and organics in coagulation, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 113 (1996) 155-163.
[9]	J. Oh and S. Lee, Influence of streaming potential on flux decline of microfiltration with in-line rapid pre-coagulation process for drinking water production, J. Membr. Sci., 254 (2005) 39–47.
[10]	H. Liu, C. Hu, H. Zhao and J. Qu, Coagulation of humic acid by PACl with high content of Al13: The role of aluminum speciation, Sep. Purif. Technol., 70 (2009) 225–230.
[11]	S. Byun, J. Oh, B.-Y. Lee and S. Lee, Improvement of coagulation efficiency using instantaneous flash mixer (IFM) for water treatment, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 268 (2005) 104–110.
[12]	W.F. Gerdes, A new instrument -- The streaming current detector, Paper presented at the 12th National ISA Analysis Instrument Symposium, pp. 181-198, Houston, Texas, May 11-13, 1966.
[13]	(a) S. Xia, X. Li, Q. Zhang, B. Xu and G. Li, Ultrafiltration of surface water with coagulation pretreatment by streaming current control, Desalination, 204 (2007) 351–358. (b) H.N. Jang, D.S. Lee and S.O. Ko, The effects of coagulation with MF/UF membrane filtration in drinking water treatment, Desalin. Water Treat., 19 (2010) 138–145.
[14]	S.K. Dentel, A.V. Thomas and K.M. Kingery, Evaluation of the streaming current detector--I. Use in jar tests, Water Res., 23 (1989) 413-421.
[15]	Laboratory streaming current monitor defines best coagulation chemistry, http://www.chemtrac.com/products/cca3100/documents/Laboratory_SCM.pdf (accessed on 29/06/11).
[16]	B.A. Dempsey, Coagulant characteristics and reactions (Ch. 2), In: G. Newcombe and D. Dixon (Eds.), Interface science in drinking water treatment, Elsevier, 2006. (a) W.E. Neuman, Optimizing coagulation with pilot filters and zeta potential, J. Am. Water Works Ass. 73 (1981) 472-475. (b) A.V. Delgado, F. González-Caballero, R.J. Hunter, L.K. Koopal and J. Lyklema, Measurement and interpretation of electrokinetic phenomena, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 309 (2007) 194-224.
[17]	(a) E.L. Bean, S.J. Campbell, F.R. Anspach, R.W. Ockershausen, C.J. Peterman, Zeta potential measurements in the control of coagulation chemical doses, J. Am. Water Works Ass. 56 (1964) 214-227. (b) M. Elimelech, W.H. Chen and J.J. Waypa, Measuring the zeta (electrokinetic) potential of reverse osmosis membranes by a streaming potential analyzer, Desalination, 95 (1994) 269-266.
[18]	D. Ghernaout, B. Ghernaout and M.W. Naceur, Embodying the chemical water treatment in the green chemistry—A review, Desalination, 271 (2011) 1–10.
[19]	R. Wäsche, M. Naito and V.A. Hackley, Experimental study on zeta potential and streaming potential of advanced ceramic powders, Powder Technol., 123 (2002) 275–281.
[20]	P.R. Johnson, A comparison of streaming and microelectrophoresis methods for obtaining the ζ potential of granular porous media surfaces, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 209 (1999)264–267.
[21]	S. Wall, The history of electrokinetic phenomena, Current Opinion Colloid Interface Sci., 15 (2010) 119–124.
[22]	(a) D. Edney, Introduction to the theory of the streaming current meter, http://www.accufloc.com/downloads/SCMTheory.pdf (accessed on 29/06/11). (b) W. Olthuis, B. Schippers, J. Eijkel and A. van den Berg, Energy from streaming current and potential, Sensors Actuators B, 111–112 (2005) 385–389.
[23]	(a) G. Lagaly, Colloid clay science (Ch. 5), In: F. Bergaya, B.K.G. Theng and G. Lagaly (Eds.), Handbook of clay science, Developments in clay science (Vol. 1), Elsevier, 2006. (b) T. Ishibashi, Coagulation mechanisms: An electron microscopic study using aluminum sulfate, J. Am. Water Works Ass. 72 (1980) 514-518.
[24]	D. Ghernaout, B. Ghernaout and A. Kellil, Natural organic matter removal and enhanced coagulation as a link between coagulation and electrocoagulation, Desalin. Water Treat., 2 (2009) 203–222.
[25]	J. Zhang and J. Buffle, Kinetics of hematite aggregation by polyacrylic acid: Importance of charge neutralisation, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 174 (1995) 500-509.
[26]	M. Zembala, Electrokinetics of heterogeneous interfaces, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 112 (2004) 59– 92.
[27]	F. Mietta, C. Chassagne and J.C. Winterwerp, Shear-induced flocculation of a suspension of kaolinite as function of pH and salt concentration, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 336 (2009) 134–141.
[28]	M.A. Yukselen and J. Gregory, The reversibility of floc breakage, Int. J. Miner.Process., 73 (2004) 251– 259.
[29]	I.G. Droppo, K. Exall and K. Stafford, Effects of chemical amendments on aquatic floc structure, settling and strength, Water Res., 42 (2008) 169-179.
[30]	K. Sadlej, Streaming potential and streaming current of a particle covered surface, Part 2: Virial expansion and simulations, http://fluid.ippt.gov.pl/seminar/text/sadlej280109.pdf, 28/01/09 (accessed on 29/06/11).
[31]	Streaming current, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_current (accessed on 28/06/11).
[32]	Encyclopedia2, Streaming current,http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Streaming+current%2Fpotential (accessed on 28/06/11).
[33]	M.-S. Chun, S.-Y.Lee, and S.-M. Yang, Estimation of zeta potential by electrokinetic analysis of ionic fluid flows through a divergent microchannel, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 266 (2003) 120–126.
[34]	(a) Dispersion technology, Inc.,Streaming Current isochoric and non-isochoric. Seismoelectric effect, http://www.dispersion.com/streaming-current.html (accessed on 29/06/11). (b) A.S. Dukhin, V.N. Shilov, The seismoelectric effect: A nonisochoric streaming current 2. Theory and its experimental verification, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 346 (2010) 248–253.
[35]	C.A. Walker, J.T. Kirby and S.K. Dentel, The streaming current detector: A quantitative model, J. Colloid Interface Sci.,182 (1996) 71–81.
[36]	Accufloc, Should I use a zeta potential meter or a streaming current meter? http://www.accufloc.com/zeta_sc.html (accessed on 28/06/11).
[37]	Zeta-meter,Everything you want to know about Zeta Potential, http://www.zeta-meter.com/everything.pdf (accessed on 28/06/11).
[38]	C. Igarashi and K. Nishizawa, Effect of turbulent flow condition on streaming potential measurement using cylindrical cells, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 303 (2007) 235–240.
[39]	(a) M.J. Jaycock, Assumptions made in the measurement of zeta-potential by streaming current/potential detectors, Paper Technol., 36 (1995) 35-38. (b) Malvern Zetasizer®,Zeta potential measurement using laser Doppler electrophoresis (LDE), http://www.malvern.com/LabEng/technology/zeta_potential/zeta_potential_LDE.htm (accessed on 20/12/11). (c) L. Li, H. Zhang, G. Pan, Influence of zeta potential on the flocculation of cyanobacteria cells using chitosan modified soil, J. Environ. Sci. 28 (2015) 47-53.
[40]	J. Wang, Finding the optimal flocculation point with a streaming potential instrument, J. Am. Water Works Assoc., November (2001) 54-56, http://www.sentrolsystems.com/AWWA_paper.pdf (accessed on 28/06/11).
[41]	Z. Adamczyk, M. Nattich and M. Zaucha, Electrokinetics of particle covered surfaces, Current Opinion Colloid Interface Sci., 15 (2010) 175–183.
[42]	K. Sadlej, Streaming potential and streaming current of a particle covered surface, Part 1, http://fluid.ippt.gov.pl/seminar/text/sadlej210109.pdf, 21/01/09 (accessed on 29/06/11).
[43]	T.J. Day, On-line control of coagulants, polymer dosing with streaming current technology, http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/article-display/200746/articles/waterworld/volume-20/issue-3/editorial-focus/on-line-control-of-coagulants-polymer-dosing-with-streaming-current-technology.html, 21/06/11 (accessed on 28/06/11).
[44]	O. El-Gholabzouri, M.A. Cabrerizo and R. Hidalgo-Àlvarez, Comparative electrophoretic mobility and streaming current study for ζ-potential determination, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 159 (1999) 449–457.
[45]	S.K. Dentel, A.V. Thomas and K.M. Kingery, Evaluation of the streaming current detector--II. Continuous flow tests, Water Res., 23 (1989) 423-430.
[46]	A.E. Childress and M. Elimelech, Effect of solution chemistry on the surface charge of polymeric reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes,J. Membr. Sci., 119 (1996) 253-268.
[47]	T. Cserfalvi, T. Meisel and E. Pungor, Determination of the electrokinetic potential of dispersion and macromolecular colloids by measurement of the streaming potential. I., Electroanalytical Chem. InterfactalElectrochem., 53 (1974) 365-370.
[48]	P. H. Cardwell, Adsorption studies using a streaming current detector, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 22 (1966) 430-437.
[49]	(a) S.-K. Kam and J. Gregory, The interaction of humic substances with cationic polyelectrolytes, Water Res., 35 (2001) 3557–3566. (b) L.H. Mikkelsen, Applications and limitations of the colloid titration method for measuring activated sludge surface charges, Water Res., 37 (2003) 2458–2466. (c) S. Bratskaya, A. Golikov, T. Lutsenko, O. Nesterova and V. Dudarchik, Charge characteristics of humic and fulvic acids: Comparative analysis by colloid titration and potentiometric titration with continuous pK-distribution function model, Chemosphere, 73 (2008) 557-563.
[50]	X. Wu, X. Ge, D. Wang and H. Tang, Distinct mechanisms of particle aggregation induced by alum and PACl: Floc structure and DLVO evaluation, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 347 (2009) 56-63.
[51]	(a) C. Ye, D. Wang, B. Shi, J. Yu, J. Qu, M. Edwards and H. Tang, Alkalinity effect of coagulation with polyaluminum chlorides: Role of electrostatic patch, Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, 294 (2007) 163-173. (b) Y.-L. Cheng, R.-J. Wong, J.C.-T. Lin, C. Huang, D.-J. Lee, A.S. Mujumdar, Water coagulation using electrostatic patch coagulation (EPC) mechanism, Drying Technol. 28 (2010) 850-857.
[52]	F. Xiao, X. Zhang and C. Lee, Is electrophoretic mobility determination meaningful for aluminum(III)coagulation of kaolinite suspension?, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 327 (2008) 348-353.
[53]	F. Xiao, X. Zhang and J. Ma, Indecisiveness of electrophoretic mobility determination in evaluating Fe(III) coagulation performance, Sep. Purif. Technol., 68 (2009) 273-278.
[54]	F. Xiao, J. Ma, P. Yi and J.-C.H. Huang, Effects of low temperature on coagulation of kaolinite suspensions, Water Res., 42 (2008) 2983-2992.
[55]	S.K. Dentel, Coagulant control in water treatment, Crit. Rev. Environ. Control, 21(1991) 41-135.
[56]	O. Oriekhova, S. Stoll, Investigation of FeCl3 induced coagulation processes using electrophoretic measurement, nanoparticle tracking analysis and dynamic light scattering: Importance of pH and colloid surface charge, Colloid Surface A 461 (2014) 212-219.
[57]	E.A. López-Maldonado, M.T. Oropeza-Guzman, J.L. Jurado-Baizaval,A. Ochoa-Terán, Coagulation–flocculation mechanisms in wastewater treatment plants through zeta potential measurements, J. Hazard. Mater., 279 (2014) 1-10.
[58]	D. Ghernaout, S. Moulay, N. Ait Messaoudene, M. Aichouni, M.W. Naceur, A. Boucherit, Coagulation and chlorination of NOM and algae in water treatment: A review, Intern. J. Environ. Monitor. Analysis, 2 (2014) 23-34.
[59]	D. Ghernaout, The hydrophilic/hydrophobic ratio vs. dissolved organics removal by coagulation – A review, J. King Saud University – Sci., 26 (2014) 169-180.
[60]	D. Ghernaout, The best available technology of water/wastewater treatment and seawater desalination: Simulation of the open sky seawater distillation, Green Sustain. Chem., 3 (2013) 68-88.
[61]	D. Ghernaout, B. Ghernaout, Sweep flocculation as a second form of charge neutralisation—a review, Desalin. Water Treat. 44 (2012) 15-28.
[62]	J. Duan, J. Wang, T. Guo, J. Gregory, Zeta potentials and sizes of aluminum salt precipitates – Effect of anions and organics and implications for coagulation mechanisms, J. Water Process Eng. 4 (2014) 224-232.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Djamel Ghernaout, Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy, Mohamed Wahib Naceur, Ahmed Boucherit, Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. (2015). Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 4(5-1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Djamel Ghernaout; Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy; Mohamed Wahib Naceur; Ahmed Boucherit; Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2015, 4(5-1), 16-27. doi: 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Djamel Ghernaout, Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy, Mohamed Wahib Naceur, Ahmed Boucherit, Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. Am J Environ Prot. 2015;4(5-1):16-27. doi: 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12,
  author = {Djamel Ghernaout and Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy and Mohamed Wahib Naceur and Ahmed Boucherit and Noureddine Ait Messaoudene and Mohamed Aichouni and Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi and Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri},
  title = {Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Protection},
  volume = {4},
  number = {5-1},
  pages = {16-27},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  abstract = {This review concerns the using of Zeta and streaming potentials in the coagulation process control. Coagulation process is usually explained by charge neutralization mechanism. The negative charge may be quantified by Zeta potential or streaming potential measures. Prior to the advent of streaming current monitors, Zeta meters were the primary instruments for measuring electrokinetic properties as related to coagulant dose. Both instruments measure the potential and indirectly the particle surface charge, but use very different methods. Even if the on-line streaming current monitor can provide coagulation process optimization when properly installed, maintained, and interpreted, jar tests experiments and Zeta meters remain indispensable.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential
AU  - Djamel Ghernaout
AU  - Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy
AU  - Mohamed Wahib Naceur
AU  - Ahmed Boucherit
AU  - Noureddine Ait Messaoudene
AU  - Mohamed Aichouni
AU  - Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi
AU  - Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri
Y1  - 2015/04/29
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
SP  - 16
EP  - 27
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5699
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
AB  - This review concerns the using of Zeta and streaming potentials in the coagulation process control. Coagulation process is usually explained by charge neutralization mechanism. The negative charge may be quantified by Zeta potential or streaming potential measures. Prior to the advent of streaming current monitors, Zeta meters were the primary instruments for measuring electrokinetic properties as related to coagulant dose. Both instruments measure the potential and indirectly the particle surface charge, but use very different methods. Even if the on-line streaming current monitor can provide coagulation process optimization when properly installed, maintained, and interpreted, jar tests experiments and Zeta meters remain indispensable.
VL  - 4
IS  - 5-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Djamel Ghernaout

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria
Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy

Binladin Research Chair on Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
Mohamed Wahib Naceur

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria
Ahmed Boucherit

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria
Noureddine Ait Messaoudene

Binladin Research Chair on Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
Mohamed Aichouni

Binladin Research Chair on Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi

Binladin Research Chair on Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia
Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri

Binladin Research Chair on Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Construction Industry, College of Engineering, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Djamel Ghernaout, Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy, Mohamed Wahib Naceur, Ahmed Boucherit, Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. (2015). Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 4(5-1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Djamel Ghernaout; Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy; Mohamed Wahib Naceur; Ahmed Boucherit; Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2015, 4(5-1), 16-27. doi: 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Djamel Ghernaout, Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy, Mohamed Wahib Naceur, Ahmed Boucherit, Noureddine Ait Messaoudene, et al. Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential. Am J Environ Prot. 2015;4(5-1):16-27. doi: 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12,
  author = {Djamel Ghernaout and Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy and Mohamed Wahib Naceur and Ahmed Boucherit and Noureddine Ait Messaoudene and Mohamed Aichouni and Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi and Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri},
  title = {Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Protection},
  volume = {4},
  number = {5-1},
  pages = {16-27},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12},
  abstract = {This review concerns the using of Zeta and streaming potentials in the coagulation process control. Coagulation process is usually explained by charge neutralization mechanism. The negative charge may be quantified by Zeta potential or streaming potential measures. Prior to the advent of streaming current monitors, Zeta meters were the primary instruments for measuring electrokinetic properties as related to coagulant dose. Both instruments measure the potential and indirectly the particle surface charge, but use very different methods. Even if the on-line streaming current monitor can provide coagulation process optimization when properly installed, maintained, and interpreted, jar tests experiments and Zeta meters remain indispensable.},
 year = {2015}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Controlling Coagulation Process: From Zeta Potential to Streaming Potential
AU  - Djamel Ghernaout
AU  - Abdulaziz Ibraheem Al-Ghonamy
AU  - Mohamed Wahib Naceur
AU  - Ahmed Boucherit
AU  - Noureddine Ait Messaoudene
AU  - Mohamed Aichouni
AU  - Ammar Abdallah Mahjoubi
AU  - Noureddine Ali Elboughdiri
Y1  - 2015/04/29
PY  - 2015
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
SP  - 16
EP  - 27
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5699
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeps.s.2015040501.12
AB  - This review concerns the using of Zeta and streaming potentials in the coagulation process control. Coagulation process is usually explained by charge neutralization mechanism. The negative charge may be quantified by Zeta potential or streaming potential measures. Prior to the advent of streaming current monitors, Zeta meters were the primary instruments for measuring electrokinetic properties as related to coagulant dose. Both instruments measure the potential and indirectly the particle surface charge, but use very different methods. Even if the on-line streaming current monitor can provide coagulation process optimization when properly installed, maintained, and interpreted, jar tests experiments and Zeta meters remain indispensable.
VL  - 4
IS  - 5-1
ER  -

Copy | Download