Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Mineral Resources with Automated Mineralogy Techniques: The Case of Colquiri in the Central Andean Tin Belt
Previous Article in Journal
Artificial Intelligence-Based Hyperspectral Classification of Rare Earth Element-Related Heavy Mineral Sand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Recovery of Valuable Raw Materials Using KOMAG Jig Beneficiation Laboratory Studies and Industrial Implementations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Minerals
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/min15101016
minerals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life Cycle Assessment of Fluoride Removal from Mining Effluents Using Electrocoagulation and Biogenic CO2

by
Elbert Muller Nigri
1,
André Luiz Alvarenga Santos
2 and
Sônia Denise Ferreira Rocha
3,*
1
SENAI Innovation and Technology Center (CIT-SENAI), Belo Horizonte 31035-536, Brazil
2
Center for Mineral Technology (CETEM), Rio de Janeiro 21941-908, Brazil
3
Department of Mining Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2025, 15(10), 1016; https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101016
Submission received: 1 August 2025 / Revised: 16 September 2025 / Accepted: 22 September 2025 / Published: 25 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recycling of Mining and Solid Wastes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Fluoride-containing wastewater poses a significant environmental challenge, especially in the mineral processing sector. This study applies a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate an electrocoagulation-based treatment process, integrating biogas-derived CO2 for pH regulation and cogeneration of electricity, using the Egalitarian perspective, which is the most precautionary that takes into account the longest time frame and impact types that are not yet fully established but for which some indication is available. The LCA considered five subsystems: electrocoagulation, pH adjustment, sedimentation, pumping, and sludge transport, across three operational scenarios. Scenario 1 (S1) employed hydrochloric acid for pH control, Scenario 2 (S2) used biogas exclusively for pH regulation, and Scenario 3 (S3) combined biogas-based pH adjustment with power generation. Results showed an environmental impact ranking of S3 < S1 < S2, with S3 reducing overall impacts from 12.5 Pt to 6.4 Pt compared to S1. The electrocoagulation unit was the dominant contributor to environmental burdens; however, in S3, the pH adjustment subsystem delivered a net environmental benefit through surplus electricity generation. Additionally, sludge reuse as a raw material for brick production, implemented in all scenarios, further mitigated impacts. Human health emerged as the most affected endpoint, driven mainly by toxicity (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), climate change potential, marine ecotoxicity, and particulate matter formation. These findings highlight the benefits of integrating biogas utilization and sludge valorization into industrial wastewater management strategies.

1. Introduction

Industrial fluoride-containing wastewater significantly contributes to the pollution of groundwater, surface water bodies, and soil, with substantial adverse environmental impacts [1,2]. Fluoride concentrations in industrial effluents are often substantially higher than in natural waters, ranging from 10 to 6500 mg.L−1 [3,4,5,6,7]. These effluents typically originate from the production of niobium (hydrofluoric acid is used as an activator in flotation) and phosphates, (fluorapatite-bearing) ore processing, aluminum fluoride, semiconductors, fertilizers, the glass industry, and the production of high-strength and superconducting metal alloys [8,9]. Chronic exposure to fluoride concentrations above 2 mg.L−1 can lead to dental fluorosis and, in severe cases, skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, male infertility, Alzheimer’s disease, and damage to the liver, kidneys, or parathyroid gland [10,11,12].
The impact of fluoride on human health is well known [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Under chronic fluoride exposure at 100 ppm, the highest accumulation was observed in the liver, followed by the kidneys and heart. This distribution was associated with significant biochemical alterations, including elevated plasma levels of dehydrogenase, aminotransferases, kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), and other renal biomarkers, together with a reduction in total plasma proteins and albumin. The findings demonstrate that fluoride accumulation exerts concentration-dependent hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic, and cardiotoxic effects, underscoring the substantial health risks posed by chronic fluoride intake in endemic areas [13].
Various technologies have been applied to adjust fluoride concentrations to acceptable levels for discharge or human consumption [14]. Among them, electrocoagulation (EC) has proved to be particularly effective for both drinking water and industrial wastewater treatment [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. EC offers several advantages such as simple and compact design, ease of automation, no need for chemical additives, quick operation, and minimal sludge production [24,25]. However, pH control is a critical factor in EC-based fluoride removal. This is because effective formation of Al(OH)3, a key agent in the process, depends on pH and is favored in the pH range of 6–8 [7,26]. This commands the use of pH regulators to maintain the optimal pH range during the treatment.
From another perspective, systems for CO2 capture from flue gases and other systems have a potential effect on reducing the impacts of climate change. Various technologies have been developed to capture CO2 from flue gases and other sources, each one with distinct advantages and limitations. These technologies include absorption, adsorption, membrane separation, cryogenic distillation, and electrochemical processes [27]. The effectiveness of these systems in reducing emissions and their potential to mitigate climate change vary based on their application, cost, and efficiency. This paper addresses the use of CO2 for pH control, as an alternative to traditional acids such as HCl or H2SO4, avoiding the introduction of chloride or sulfate ions into the treated water and contributing to reducing CO2 emissions. Control of pH is crucial for enhancing CO2 absorption in water, as it facilitates the conversion of CO2 into bicarbonate (HCO3−). Absorption must be carried out at an optimal pH to obtain maximum efficiency. This method may be particularly beneficial for smaller plants that emit limited amounts of CO2, as it does not require extensive transport and storage infrastructure [28]. Considering the high content of CO2 in biogas (35–40% in vol) and the need to separate it from methane (55–60% in vol) [w], integrating biogas into the treatment process can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the impact of CO2 on the environment. In a previous work, the separation of CO2 from biogas produced in anaerobic biodigesters allowed its separation from methane, enhancing its use for energy generation [29].
Evaluation of the environmental performance of diverse polutants treatment processes may be carried out by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools [30,31,32,33,34], providing a comprehensive assessment of environmental burdens related to material and energy inputs. This has been widely applied to assess and compare wastewater treatment technologies [34,35,36,37,38]. LCA methodologies have also evolved to assess associated toxicity impacts on human health and ecosystems [34,39]. Although there are many studies on fluoride removal by electrocoagulation [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26], studies on LCA applied specifically to fluoride electrocoagulation (EC) are scarce. An environmental performance comparison of two technologies for removing arsenic (As3+) and fluoride (F−) from groundwater is presented in the literature [40]. This study used GaBi software Database Edition 2022, CUP 2022.01 with midpoint methods (CML 2001 and TRACI) and reported that, compared to adsorption, EC is identified as a more sustainable and cost-effective option for community-level groundwater treatment.
On the other hand, LCA also accounts for indirect environmental impacts, such as those related to the production of fuels and energy used in effluent treatment processes [35]. Using renewable energy to power EC systems can mitigate concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil-based electricity [41,42]. The electrocoagulation (EC) process produces sludge with significant potential for resource recovery and environmental sustainability. The valorization of EC-generated sludge offers potential for waste minimization and further impact reduction [43]. Potential applications of this fluoride-containing sludge in construction materials [44,45], as adsorbents [46,47,48], and as active corrosion inhibitors for aluminum [49] can be cited. Nevertheless, challenges related to energy consumption and electrode stability remain and must be addressed to optimize the process for widespread use.
In the context of fluoride-containing wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation, where strict pH control is required and reducing CO2 emissions is a priority, this study applies the LCA methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts of different pH control strategies in a full-scale electrocoagulation plant. The three strategies considered are as follows: (i) pH adjustment using hydrochloric acid (HCl), (ii) pH regulation with biogenic CO2 derived from biodigester-sourced biogas, and (iii) combined use of biogenic CO2 for pH regulation together with methane-enriched biogas for electricity generation.

2. Description of System and Conditions

2.1. LCA Methodology

The LCA methodology defined by the ISO 14040:2006 series [50,51] was applied in this study. LCA modeling and impact estimation were performed using SimaPro® 9.1. This software was selected because it provides access to multiple databases and impact assessment methods, along with a robust graphical interface that facilitates the identification of the processes with the greatest impacts [52]. The ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 endpoint method was applied to estimate the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment. The Egalitarian (E) perspective was selected, as it is the most precautionary approach, accounting for the longest time horizon and including impact categories that are not yet fully established, but for which preliminary evidence exists [53,54]. ReCiPe allows choosing to use midpoint indicators or endpoint indicators. Each method has been created from three different perspectives.
The endpoint method deals with human health, natural resources, and the environment and offers long-term environmental impacts associated with uncertainty compared to the midpoint analysis. The global environmental impact is the weighted sum of endpoint damages to human health, ecosystems, and resources, providing a single overall indicator of environmental burden [55].

2.2. Goal and Scope of the Study

The functional unit for the electrocoagulation process was defined as 1 m3 of treated effluent [56], with a final fluoride concentration of less than 10 ppm. The process was divided into 5 subsystems (Figure 1): electrocoagulation unit, pH control unit, sedimentation unit, pumping, and waste transport.
Three different scenarios (Table 1) were evaluated. In S1, HCl (Synth, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil) was used to control the pH, while in S2 and S3, CO2 biogas was applied. Additionally, in S3, after pH control, the residual gas was used to produce electrical energy. The generated energy was reused in the system. The “Gate-to-Gate” methodology, that is, starting with the collection of effluent and ending with its discharge, was considered.

2.3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Experiments were carried out on a lab scale according to the schematic setup shown in Figure 2. The biodigester used in this study (Homebiogas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) was fed with 5 kg of corn straw, able to produce about 700 L of biogas per week. The biogas (50.1% CO2, 47.9% CH4, 0.8% O2, 40 ppm CO, and 7 ppm H2S) was analyzed by a Landtec GEM5000 gas analyzer (Landtec, Manchaca, TX, USA). For comparative purposes, experiments were also carried out using acid for pH control.
The energy spent, wear of aluminum plates, volume of gas or acid, and residual fluoride concentration, among other measurements, were recorded from experiments and computed as a function of the volume of treated effluent. More information can be found in [30].
Based on experimental and literature data [30], an electrocoagulation unit of 23 m3/day was designed, as was the measurement of pumping energy expenditure [57]. The unit shown in Figure 3 also includes solid–liquid separation by sedimentation.
The sludge generated in the process is stored in a stockpile, collected, and transported to a brick factory. The inputs used in the structural part of the project, as well as the spending during use, such as aluminum, energy, and reagents, are shown in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, divided into subsystems as described in Section 2.2.
A real stream from the mining industry with the characteristics shown in Table 2 was used in this study. According to the Brazilian guidelines [58], the residual fluoride in a treated effluent cannot exceed 10 mg.L−1. After treatment, the effluent presented 7.9–10.3 mg.L−1 of fluoride with a pH of 6.5–7.1, thus complying with the regulation [30].

2.4. Electrocoagulation

The electrocoagulation reactor (1 × 1 × 0.8 m3) was fabricated from polyethylene, selected for its favorable economic performance, long service life, and lower cost compared with alternative materials.Energy expenditures and aluminum plates were obtained experimentally, as mentioned above. In S3, the energy generated by biogas was allocated to the process, and the excess was accounted for as output in the system. Data are shown in Table 3.

2.5. Sedimentation Unit

The costs of inputs and energy with the structure and operation of the sedimentation unit were estimated based on the study of Cashman et al. [59], as presented in Table 4. The sedimentation unit of concrete and steel frame structures supported the polyethylene apparatus and stirring system. For all scenarios, the output of effluent treated to 10 mg.L−1 of fluoride was considered, including the other parameters shown in Table 2, except for COD (chemical oxygen demand) and aluminum.

2.6. pH Adjustment Unit

The pH adjustment unit is composed of a 200 L polyethylene barrel and receives the pH-controlling reagents (Table 5). As mentioned earlier, in S2 and S3, biogas was injected into the effluent for pH control. According to Nigri et al. [26], only the CO2 reacts with the effluent, reducing the pH. Methane content in biogas increases due to CO2 removal, which benefits the energy generation process.
The consumption of CO2 of 5.31 kg.m−3 was obtained by modeling the system using PHREEQC geochemical software, Version 3.4.0.1 2927 (llnl.dat), for a closed system. Furthermore, the energy capacity of gas after pH control can be increased by the generation of hydrogen in the electrocoagulation process. For S2, the output of methane (1894 kg.m−3) was allocated to the atmosphere, regarding the consumption of CO2 in the process. Considering that biogas can generate 8.25 kWh.m−3, as indicated by Dalpaz [60], and a 40% yield due to losses in the collection and in the process of obtaining electricity, the energy generated by the volume of gas spent in the process was 17.81 kWh.m−3. In S3, the biogas was converted into electrical energy that was used in the process.

2.7. Pumping Unit

The pumping unit (Table 6) is composed of pumps (4 units) and pipelines (30 m). Structural data were estimated based on the study of Cashman et al. [59], and the energy expenditures were based on the study of Singh et al. [57].

2.8. Transport and Use of Sludge

The sludge removed from the sedimentation unit is conditioned in an open-air place to reduce its humidity. The sludge was transported 40.5 km from the storage area to the brick factory with a moisture content of 20%. In the adopted project, the sludge replaces 10% of mass compounds used in the production of bricks [44]. Thus, at this stage, the clay that will be replaced by the sludge is considered as an output (Table 7).

2.9. System Constraints and Uncertainties

This study simplifies the environmental impact assessment by considering selected constraints: installing the electrocoagulation unit, wiring and electrical systems, pumps, sludge removal and transport, disposal from the treatment unit, and used HCl transport. Biogas production impacts were modeled in SimaPro® as biogas (CH) from grass—APOS, Aluminum plate exchange was excluded, and outdoor storage of sludge incurred no energy or moisture loss costs.
The parameters for obtaining an effluent with a fluoride concentration below 10 mg/L, such as cathode consumption and energy expenditure, were obtained at a laboratory scale and estimated for a full-scale unit, which can cause some degree of variation. The amount of biogas used in the process, and consequently the CO2 consumed, was estimated by simulation in PHREEQC software. A yield of 40% was considered, including the process of obtaining electricity. However, the actual value depends on the generator used and the efficiency of capturing the gas, which was not carried out in this study. The variation of 7.9–10.3 mg.L−1 in fluoride concentration with a pH variation of 6.5–7.1 was considered.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Environmental Impacts Assessed by Scenario

The life cycle environmental impacts of the three scenarios were assessed using the ReCiPe Endpoint Method (E) and are shown in Figure 4. In general, the environmental impact presented in S3 (6.37 Pt) was lower than S1 (12.52 Pt) and S2 (13.09 Pt), mainly due to the use of biogas for pH control and electricity cogeneration. S2 shows the largest environmental impact, even with biogas as a pH regulator. This means that exclusive substitution of HCl for biogas was not beneficial, even though this originates from biomass residues. Perhaps, this increment in the impact evaluation comes from the release of methane and carbon dioxide into the environment. Moreover, the effects on human health proved to be more significant than those on natural resources and ecosystems.
In general, the fluoride removal process by electrocoagulation had a negative environmental impact, despite the use of biogas for electric energy cogeneration and the use of sludge in the production of bricks. It was observed that there was a reduction in the overall score from 12.5 (S1), commonly used, to 6.4 (S3) when biogas was used, i.e., 50% lower environmental impact. The use of sludge in brick production was constant across all scenarios, so further consideration of this factor was unnecessary.
The individual impacts across 22 categories (in percentages) were assessed with the ReCiPe midpoint method, as shown in Figure 5. S3 had the lowest overall environmental impact but showed a drawback in stratospheric ozone depletion. Its primary benefit is converting biogas into electrical energy for process use, with additional surplus generation.
Figure 6 compares environmental impacts by category and normalized score. The main impacts from fluoride removal were human non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity, global warming, human health, marine ecotoxicity, and fine particulate formation. Scenario 3 had the lowest environmental impact.
Among the subsystems evaluated (electrocoagulation unit, pH adjustment unit, sedimentation unit, pumping unit, and sludge transport unit), the electrocoagulation unit exhibits the greatest environmental impact. Conversely, in S3 (Figure 7), the pH adjustment unit demonstrates a net negative impact, attributed to electricity generation from biogas.

3.2. Environmental Impacts by Subsystems

Figure 8 shows the individual impacts. S3 has the greatest environmental impact, likely because of differences in electrical energy sources. Since Brazil’s energy mainly comes from hydroelectric power, its impact is lower than that of biogas, which emits CO2 directly.
In the analysis of the pumping and sedimentation subsystems (Figure 9), the processes differ only in their sources of electrical energy. Electricity derives from biogas combustion, which releases CO2 and other gases associated with human non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity, as well as terrestrial ecotoxicity. These effects are reduced when electricity is produced by a hydroelectric power plant.
Figure 10 illustrates the adverse environmental impacts associated with employing biogas for electricity generation and pH adjustment subsystems. This outcome is attributed to the excess electricity produced in S3. It should be noted that employing biogas exclusively for pH adjustment results in a higher environmental impact (S2) compared to conducting pH adjustment with acid (S1). In the sludge transport and utilization subsystem (Figure 11), a negative environmental effect has been identified when electrocoagulation waste is used as an input for brick production [44]. Additionally, there were no significant differences observed among these scenarios; the environmental impacts remained consistent across S1, S2, and S3 within the scope of this study.

4. Conclusions

Using biogas-derived CO2 for cogeneration reduced environmental impacts from 12.52 Pt (S2) to 6.37 Pt (S3). In contrast, using biogas solely for pH adjustment (S2) increased impacts compared with traditional hydrochloric acid (S1). The main contributions, particularly toxicity, global warming potential, marine ecotoxicity, and particulate matter formation, were associated with the electrocoagulation subsystem. Although S3 showed slightly higher impacts in these categories due to biogas combustion, this was offset by the energy gains and sludge reuse. Overall, the results indicate that biogas utilization provides environmental benefits primarily when applied to cogeneration, rather than as a substitute for HCl. Among all impact categories, effects on human health were the most pronounced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.N., A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Methodology, E.M.N., A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Software, E.M.N.; Validation, E.M.N. and S.D.F.R.; Formal analysis, E.M.N., A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Investigation, E.M.N., A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Resources, S.D.F.R.; Data curation, E.M.N., A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Writing—original draft, E.M.N.; Writing—review and editing, A.L.A.S. and S.D.F.R.; Visualization, S.D.F.R.; Supervision, S.D.F.R.; Project administration, S.D.F.R.; Funding acquisition, S.D.F.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Brazilian research funding agencies CAPES; CNPq (Process 308044/2018-5) and FAPEMIG.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank SimaPro® for providing a free academic license.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Santhi, V.M.; Periasamy, D.; Perumal, M.; Sekar, P.M.; Varatharajan, V.; Aravind, D.; Senthilkumar, K.; Kumaran, S.T.; Ali, S.; Sankar, S.; et al. The global challenge of fluoride contamination: A comprehensive review of removal processes and implications for human health and ecosystems. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahmad, S.; Singh, R.; Arfin, T.; Neeti, K. Fluoride contamination, consequences and removal techniques in water: A review. Environ. Sci. Adv. 2022, 1, 620–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reardon, E.J.; Wang, Y. A limestone reactor for fluoride removal from wastewaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 3247–3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Luna, M.D.G.; Warmadewanthi; Liu, J.C. Combined treatment of polishing wastewater and fluoride-containing wastewater from a semiconductor manufacturer. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2009, 347, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chiu, T.C.; Huang, H.-C.; Chen, L.J. Treatment of semiconductor wastewater by dissolved air flotation. J. Environ. Eng. 2002, 128, 974–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Drouiche, N.; Ghaffour, N.; Aoudj, S.; Hecini, M.; Ouslimane, T. Fluoride removal from photovoltaic wastewater by aluminum electrocoagulation and characteristics of products. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2009, 17, 1651–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ezzeddine, A.; Bedoui, A.; Hannachi, A.; Bensalah, N. Removal of fluoride from aluminum fluoride manufacturing wastewater by precipitation and adsorption processes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 54, 2280–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khatibikamal, V.; Torabian, A.; Janpoor, F.; Hoshyaripour, G. Fluoride removal from industrial wastewater using electrocoagulation and its adsorption kinetics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 179, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Toyoda, A.; Taira, T. A new method for treating fluorine wastewater to reduce sludge and running costs. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 2000, 13, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Harrison, P.T.C. Fluoride in water: A UK perspective. J. Fluor. Chem. 2005, 126, 1448–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tripathy, S.S.; Bersillon, J.-L.; Gopal, K. Removal of fluoride from drinking water by adsorption onto alum impregnated activated alumina. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2006, 50, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xiong, X.; Liu, J.; He, W.; Xia, T.; He, P.; Chen, X.; Yang, K.; Wang, A. Dose–effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environ. Res. 2007, 103, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, P.; Verma, P.K.; Sood, S.; Singh, M.; Verma, D. Impact of chronic sodium fluoride toxicity on antioxidant capacity, biochemical parameters, and histomorphology in cardiac, hepatic, and renal tissues of Wistar rats. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2022, 200, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, Y.; Zhang, C.; Ma, J.; Sun, W.; Shah, K.J. Review of fluoride removal technology from wastewater environment. Desalin. Water Treat. 2023, 299, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mameri, N.; Yeddou, A.R.; Lounici, H.; Belhocine, D.; Grib, H.; Bariou, B. Defluoridation of septentrional Sahara water of North Africa by electrocoagulation process using bipolar aluminum electrodes. Water Res. 1998, 32, 1604–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guzmán, A.; Nava, J.L.; Coreño, O.; Rodríguez, I.; Gutiérrez, S. Arsenic and fluoride removal from groundwater by electrocoagulation using a continuous filter press reactor. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 2113–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Drondina, R.V.; Drako, I.V. Electrochemical technology of fluorine removal from underground and waste waters. J. Hazard. Mater. 1994, 37, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, C.-L.; Dluhy, R. Electrochemical generation of aluminum sorbent for fluoride adsorption. J. Hazard. Mater. 2002, 94, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Shen, F.; Chen, X.; Gao, P.; Chen, G. Electrochemical removal of fluoride ions from industrial wastewater. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2003, 58, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Emamjomeh, M.M.; Sivakumar, M. An empirical model for defluoridation by batch monopolar electrocoagulation/flotation (ECF) process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 131, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhu, J.; Zhao, H.; Ni, J. Fluoride distribution in electrocoagulation defluoridation process. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 56, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tezcan Un, U.; Koparal, A.S.; Ogutveren, U.B. Fluoride removal from water and wastewater with a batch cylindrical electrode using electrocoagulation. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 223, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sandoval, M.A.; Fuentes, R.; Nava, J.L.; Rodríguez, I. Fluoride removal from drinking water by electrocoagulation in a continuous filter press reactor coupled to a flocculator and clarifier. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 134, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yetilmezsoy, K.; Dehghani, M.H.; Saeedi, R.; Dalvand, A.; Heibati, B.; Askari, M.; Alimohammadi, M.; McKay, G. Elimination of natural organic matter by electrocoagulation using bipolar and monopolar arrangements of iron and aluminum electrodes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 14, 2125–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Garg, U.K.; Sharma, C.; Garg, U.K. Electrocoagulation: Promising technology for removal of fluoride from drinking water—A review. Biol. Forum 2016, 8, 248–254. Available online: http://www.researchtrend.net (accessed on 18 March 2019).
  26. Nigri, E.; Santos, A.; Rocha, S. Electrocoagulation associated with CO2 mineralization applied to fluoride removal from mining industry wastewater. Desalin. Water Treat. 2021, 209, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Astuti, A.R.A.; Mutiara, S.; Saputera, N. Advances in carbon control technologies for flue gas: A step towards sustainable industrial CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2024, 123, 103587. [Google Scholar]
  28. Beiron, J.; Normann, F.; Kristoferson, L.; Strömberg, L.; Gardarsdóttir, S.Ö.; Johnsson, F. Enhancement of CO2 absorption in water through pH control and carbonic anhydrase—A technical assessment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 14275–14283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Werkneh, A.A. Biogas impurities: Environmental and health implications, removal technologies and future perspectives. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ahangarnokolaei, R.; Rahmanian, N.; Ramezani, M.; Khataee, A. Environmental performance of electrocoagulation and ozonation for wastewater treatment: A life cycle assessment approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Choudhary, N.; Singh, P.; Kumar, R.; Gupta, S. Life cycle assessment of electrocoagulation processes: Energy consumption and global warming potential. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 408, 137137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Q.; Wang, J. Performance of aluminum electrodes in electrocoagulation for removal of heavy metals and phosphorus. Chemosphere 2024, 351, 139876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zailani, S.; Zin, R.M. Electrocoagulation for wastewater treatment: Influence of electrode material and process parameters. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 10, 123–131. [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, W.; Xiong, W.; Ye, Q.; Hou, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, P. Life cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes: Involving 126 pharmaceuticals and personal care products in life cycle inventory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 238, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pell, R.; Tijsseling, L.; Palmer, L.W.; Glass, H.J.; Yan, X.; Wall, F.; Zeng, X.; Li, J. Environmental optimisation of mine scheduling through life cycle assessment integration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rahman, S.M.; Eckelman, M.J.; Onnis Hayden, A.; Gu, A.Z. Comparative life cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes for removal of chemicals of emerging concern. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 11346–11358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Opher, T.; Friedler, E. Comparative LCA of decentralized wastewater treatment alternatives for non-potable urban reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Castellet, L.; Molinos-Senante, M. Efficiency assessment of wastewater treatment plants: A data envelopment analysis approach integrating technical, economic, and environmental issues. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 167, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Corominas, L.; Foley, J.; Guest, J.S.; Hospido, A.; Larsen, H.F.; Morera, S.; Shaw, A. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State of the art. Water Res. 2013, 47, 5480–5492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Goyal, H.; Mondal, P. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the arsenic and fluoride removal from groundwater through adsorption and electrocoagulation: A comparative study. Chemosphere 2022, 304, 135243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thakur, L.S.; Goyal, H.; Mondal, P. Simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride from synthetic solution through continuous electrocoagulation: Operating cost and sludge utilization. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Çetinkaya, A.Y. Integration of electrocoagulation and solar energy for sustainable wastewater treatment: A thermodynamic and life cycle assessment study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025, 197, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharma, P.; Joshi, H. Utilization of electrocoagulation treated spent wash sludge in making building blocks. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rajaniemi, K.; Tuomikoski, S.; Lassi, U. Electrocoagulation sludge valorization—A review. Resources 2021, 10, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhu, P.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Zhou, R.; Liu, Y. Reuse of hazardous calcium fluoride sludge in ceramic products. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 855–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yilmaz, A.E.; Boncukcuoğlu, R.; Kocakerim, M.; Karakaş, İ.H. Waste utilization: The removal of textile dye (Bomaplex Red CR-L) from aqueous solution on sludge waste from electrocoagulation as adsorbent. Desalination 2011, 277, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. García Gómez, C.; Rivera Huerta, M.L.; Almazán García, F.; Martín Domínguez, A.; Romero Soto, I.C.; Burboa Charis, V.A.; Gortáres Moroyoqui, P. Electrocoagulated metal hydroxide sludge for fluoride and arsenic removal in aqueous solution: Characterization, kinetic, and equilibrium studies. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Golder, A.K.; Samanta, A.N.; Ray, S. Removal of phosphate from aqueous solutions using calcined metal hydroxides sludge waste generated from electrocoagulation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2006, 52, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Santana, J.J.; Mena, V.F.; Betancor Abreu, A.; Rodríguez Raposo, R.; Izquierdo, J.; Souto, R.M. Use of alumina sludge arising from an electrocoagulation process as functional mesoporous microcapsules for active corrosion protection of aluminum. Prog. Org. Coat. 2021, 151, 106044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (2nd ed.). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  51. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (1st ed.). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  52. Bonton, A.; Bouchard, C.; Barbeau, B.; Jedrzejak, S. Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 2012, 284, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; de Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level; Report I: Characterisation; Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM): The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009; Available online: https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  54. Zepon Tarpani, R.R.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of advanced wastewater treatment techniques for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 215, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Nakhate, P.H.; Moradiya, K.K.; Patil, H.G.; Marathe, K.V.; Yadav, G.D. Case study on sustainability of textile wastewater treatment plant based on life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hauschild, M.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Olsen, S.I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Singh, P.; Carliell-Marquet, C.; Kansal, A. Energy pattern analysis of a wastewater treatment plant. Appl. Water Sci. 2012, 2, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. CONAMA. Resolução 430. 2011. Available online: http://www.suape.pe.gov.br/images/publicacoes/CONAMA_n.430.2011.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  59. Cashman, S.; Gaglione, A.; Mosley, J.; Weiss, L.; Hawkins, T.; Ashbolt, N.; Cashdollar, J.; Xue, X.; Ma, C.; Arden, S. Environmental and Cost Life Cycle Assessment of Disinfection Options for Municipal Drinking Water Treatment; Report; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2014. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=298570 (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  60. Dalpaz, R. Avaliação Energética do Biogás com Diferentes Percentuais de Metano na Produção de Energia Térmica e Elétrica. Master’s Thesis, Universidade do Vale do Taquari—Univates, Lajeado, Brazil, 2019. Available online: https://www.univates.br/bduserver/api/core/bitstreams/025b6593-53da-4343-862a-1416feb4b694/content (accessed on 15 September 2025).
Minerals 15 01016 g001
Figure 1. System and subsystem units applied in this study.
Figure 1. System and subsystem units applied in this study.
Minerals 15 01016 g001
Minerals 15 01016 g002
Figure 2. Experimental setup: A—wastewater storage; B—peristaltic pump; C—biodigester or acid; D—gas and wastewater mixer; E—DC power supply; F—electrochemical cell; G—gas/wastewater sprinkler; H—magnetic stirrer; I—aluminum electrodes.
Figure 2. Experimental setup: A—wastewater storage; B—peristaltic pump; C—biodigester or acid; D—gas and wastewater mixer; E—DC power supply; F—electrochemical cell; G—gas/wastewater sprinkler; H—magnetic stirrer; I—aluminum electrodes.
Minerals 15 01016 g002
Minerals 15 01016 g003
Figure 3. Schematic of the electrocoagulation treatment plant for fluoride removal.
Figure 3. Schematic of the electrocoagulation treatment plant for fluoride removal.
Minerals 15 01016 g003
Minerals 15 01016 g004
Figure 4. Overall impacts of three water treatment scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 4. Overall impacts of three water treatment scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g004
Minerals 15 01016 g005
Figure 5. Percentage-based normalized environmental impacts for 22 categories, generated from three scenarios using the ReCiPe endpoint method. S1 refers to Scenario 1, S2 to Scenario 2, S3 to Scenario 3.
Figure 5. Percentage-based normalized environmental impacts for 22 categories, generated from three scenarios using the ReCiPe endpoint method. S1 refers to Scenario 1, S2 to Scenario 2, S3 to Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g005
Minerals 15 01016 g006
Figure 6. Individual environmental impacts normalized for 22 categories generated from three scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method. S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 6. Individual environmental impacts normalized for 22 categories generated from three scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method. S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g006
Minerals 15 01016 g007
Figure 7. Overall impacts of subsystems units from three water treatment scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 7. Overall impacts of subsystems units from three water treatment scenarios using ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g007
Minerals 15 01016 g008
Figure 8. Environmental impacts from electrocoagulation subsystem with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 8. Environmental impacts from electrocoagulation subsystem with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g008
Minerals 15 01016 g009
Figure 9. Environmental impacts from pumping and sedimentation subsystems with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 9. Environmental impacts from pumping and sedimentation subsystems with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g009
Minerals 15 01016 g010
Figure 10. Environmental impacts from pH adjustment subsystem with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 10. Environmental impacts from pH adjustment subsystem with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g010
Minerals 15 01016 g011
Figure 11. Environmental impacts from sludge transport subsystem and its use as an input in brick production with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Figure 11. Environmental impacts from sludge transport subsystem and its use as an input in brick production with ReCiPe endpoint method (E). S1—Scenario 1; S2—Scenario 2; S3—Scenario 3.
Minerals 15 01016 g011
Table 1. Scenario description.
Table 1. Scenario description.
ScenarioReagentFunction
S1HClpH control
S2CO2 from biogaspH control
S3CO2 from biogaspH control and energy source
In S1, S2, and S3, the generated sludge was used to manufacture building bricks.
Table 2. Chemical characterization of the wastewater [30].
Table 2. Chemical characterization of the wastewater [30].
ParameterValue
pH7.8
Conductivity (µS.cm−1)6056.0
Fluoride (mg.L−1)134.0
Calcium (mg.L−1)4.4
Sodium (mg.L−1)632.0
Aluminum (mg.L−1)<5.0 *
Chloride (mg.L−1)1424.0
Sulfate (mg.L−1)69.0
Alkalinity carbonates and hydroxides (mg.L−1)0.0
Alkalinity bicarbonates (mg.L−1)660.0
Total phosphorus (mg.L−1)8.0
COD (mgO2.L−1)106.0
* Detection limit of the adopted analysis.
Table 3. Electrocoagulation unit.
Table 3. Electrocoagulation unit.
ScenarioInputQuantitySimaPro® Data
S1, S2, S3Polyethylene (kg)2.4948 × 10−4 Polyethylene high-density granulates (PE-HD), production mix, at-plant RER
S1, S2, S3Polyethylene molding (kg)2.4948 × 10−4 Injection molding (CA-QC)—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Aluminum plate (kg)2.52Aluminum, cast alloy GLO market for APOS, S
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)2.25 Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)2.25Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Functional unit: 1 m3 of effluent; lifetime 25 years.
Table 4. Sedimentation unit.
Table 4. Sedimentation unit.
ScenarioInputQuantitySimaPro® Data
Sedimentation tank structureS1, S2, S3Steel (kg)8.8 × 10−4 Iron and steel, production mix/US
S1, S2, S3HDPE (kg)5.8 × 10−6 Polyethylene high-density granulates (PE-HD), production mix, at-plant RER
S1, S2, S3Concrete (m3) 1.0 × 10−5 Concrete, normal (BR) market for concrete, normal—APOS, S
MotorS1, S2, S3Steel (kg)2.4 × 10−8 Iron and steel, production mix/US
S1, S2, S3Steel (kg)6.0 × 10−9 Iron and steel, production mix/US
S1, S2, S3Cast iron (kg)1.8 × 10−7 Cast iron (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Aluminum (kg)5.4 × 10−9 Aluminum alloy, AlLi (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Cooper (kg)4.6 × 10−9 Copper sheet, technology mix, consumption mix, at-plant, 0.6 mm thickness EU-15 S
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)0.092Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)0.092Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Functional unit: 1 m3 of effluent; lifetime of sedimentation tank: 100 years; motor lifetime: 25 years. APOS (allocation at the point of substitution).
Table 5. pH adjustment unit inventory.
Table 5. pH adjustment unit inventory.
ScenarioInputOutputQuantitySimaPro® Data
S1, S2, S3Polyethylene (g) 0.044074Polyethylene high-density granulates (PE-HD), production mix, at-plant RER
S1, S2, S3Polyethylene molding (g) 0.044074Injection molding (CA-QC) injection molding—APOS, S
S1HCl (L) 2.627Hydrochloric acid, Mannheim process (30% HCl), at-plant/RER Mass
S2, S3Biogas (L) 5.3966 Biogas, from grass (CH) biogas production from grass—APOS S
S3 Electricity (kwh)* 15.04857Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Functional unit: 1 m3 of effluent; lifetime: 25 years. * Excess energy in the process.
Table 6. Pumping unit inventory.
Table 6. Pumping unit inventory.
ScenarioInputQuantitySimaPro® Data
Pickup pumpS1, S2, S3Cast iron (kg)2.4 × 10−5 Cast iron (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Stainless steel (kg)2.2 × 10−6Steel, stainless 304, flat rolled coil/kg/RNA
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)0.203Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)0.203Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Acid or biogas injection pumpS1, S2, S3Cast iron (kg)1.3 × 10−7Cast iron (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Stainless steel (kg)9.1 × 10−8Steel, stainless 304, flat rolled coil/kg/RNA
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)0.0156Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)0.0156Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Sludge pumpS1, S2, S3Cast iron (kg)2.8 × 10−7Cast iron (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Stainless steel (kg)1.9 × 10−7Steel, stainless 304, flat rolled coil/kg/RNA
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)0.0165Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)0.0165Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
Treated effluent pumpS1, S2, S3Cast iron (kg)2.4 × 10−5Cast iron (GLO) market—APOS, S
S1, S2, S3Stainless steel (kg)2.2 × 10−6Steel, stainless 304, flat rolled coil/kg/RNA
S1, S2Electricity (kWh)0.183Electricity, low-voltage (BR—south-eastern grid) market for electricity, low-voltage APOS, S
S3Electricity (kWh)0.183Electricity, low-voltage (CH) biogas, burned in micro gas turbine 100 kWe—APOS, S
PipelineS1, S2, S3PVC pipeline (m) 3.0983 × 10−5PVC pipe E
Functional unit: 1 m3 of effluent; pump lifetime: 25 years; pipe lifetime: 100 years (30 m; 100 mm).
Table 7. Transport and use of sludge unit inventory.
Table 7. Transport and use of sludge unit inventory.
ScenarioInputOutputQuantitySimaPro® Data
S1, S2, S3Transport (t.km) 0.360045 Transport, truck 10–20 t, EURO5, 80%LF, empty return/GLO Mass
S1, S2, S3 Sludge (kg)7.41 Clay (RoW) market for clay—APOS.U
Functional unit: 1 m3 of effluent; distance 40.5 km; t.km—tons.km.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nigri, E.M.; Santos, A.L.A.; Rocha, S.D.F. Life Cycle Assessment of Fluoride Removal from Mining Effluents Using Electrocoagulation and Biogenic CO2. Minerals 2025, 15, 1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101016

AMA Style

Nigri EM, Santos ALA, Rocha SDF. Life Cycle Assessment of Fluoride Removal from Mining Effluents Using Electrocoagulation and Biogenic CO2. Minerals. 2025; 15(10):1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nigri, Elbert Muller, André Luiz Alvarenga Santos, and Sônia Denise Ferreira Rocha. 2025. "Life Cycle Assessment of Fluoride Removal from Mining Effluents Using Electrocoagulation and Biogenic CO2" Minerals 15, no. 10: 1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101016

APA Style

Nigri, E. M., Santos, A. L. A., & Rocha, S. D. F. (2025). Life Cycle Assessment of Fluoride Removal from Mining Effluents Using Electrocoagulation and Biogenic CO2. Minerals, 15(10), 1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/min15101016

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop