English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Batch electrocoagulation (BEC), continuous electrocoagulation (CEC), and chemical precipitation (CP) were compared in struvite (MgNH4PO4·6H2O) precipitation from synthetic and authentic water. In synthetic water treatment (SWT), struvite yield was in BEC 1.72, CEC 0.61, and CP 1.54 kg/m3. Corresponding values in authentic water treatment (AWT) were 2.55, 3.04, and 2.47 kg/m3. In SWT, 1 kg struvite costs in BEC, CEC, and CP were 0.55, 0.55, and 0.11 €, respectively, for AWT 0.35, 0.22 and 0.07 €. Phosphate removal in SWT was 93.6, 74.5, and 71.6% in BEC, CEC, and CP, respectively, the corresponding rates in AWT were 89.7, 77.8, and 74.4%. Ammonium removal for SWT in BEC, CEC, and CP were 79.4, 51.5, and 62.5%, respectively, rates in AWT 56.1, 64.1, and 60.9%. Efficiency in CEC and BEC are equal in nutrient recovery in SWT, although energy efficiency was better in CEC. CP is cheaper than BEC and CEC.

Phosphate and Ammonium Removal from Water through Electrochemical and Chemical Precipitation of Struvite