Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0345965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345965

Integrated optimization of electroplating wastewater treatment: A comparative assessment of physicochemical treatment configurations and process enhancement using response surface methodology

Soumaya Ibrahimi 1,*, Aicha Gasmi 1, Karim Kriaa 2, Farid Fadhillah 2,*, Majeed Ali Habeeb 3, Djamel Ghernaout 4, Noureddine Elboughdiri 4, Ahmed Hannachi 1
Editor: Sovik Das5
PMCID: PMC13496402  PMID: 42627816

Abstract

This study assesses physicochemical treatment methods for industrial electroplating wastewater (EPW). Monitoring at a full-scale Tunisian facility revealed considerable instability in conventional systems. Residual nickel concentrations ranged from 0.02 ± 0.01 to 60 ± 0.4 mg/L. Chloride levels consistently exceeded regulatory thresholds, ranging from 442 ± 9–1418 ± 10 mg/L. Over 24 weeks, three treatment configurations were evaluated: ferric chloride-based coagulation (Configuration 1), polyaluminum chloride coagulation (Configuration 2), and lime slurry-based chemical attack (Configuration 3). Configuration 3 showed the most consistent performance. It achieved 99% chromium removal, 97% nickel removal, and 50% chloride reduction, while reducing chemical operating costs by 69% (0. 134 €· m ³ compared to 0. 432 €·m−3). A novel optimization strategy is presented that explicitly incorporates variability in influent nickel concentration ([Ni]ᵢ, 33–92 mg/L) as an independent factor. This is applied within a Response Surface Methodology–Central Composite Design, alongside pH (6.3–9.7) and flocculant dosage (2.2–9.4 mg/L). Fluctuations in wastewater composition are treated as a controlled design variable rather than experimental noise. This approach produces a robust predictive model ([Ni]f = f([Ni]ᵢ, pH, [A-PAM]) with high accuracy (R² = 0.9917). The resulting equation enables real- time adaptive chemical dosing. Operators can calculate optimal pH and flocculant requirements based on measured influent concentrations. Statistical analysis identified significant pH-metal loading interactions (F = 5.70, p = 0.044). This confirms that optimal parameters systematically shift with influent composition. Under model-predicted conditions, residual nickel consistently remained below 2 mg/L, despite substantial influent variability. This ensures regulatory compliance. The integrated approach shows that variability- responsive optimization enhances treatment efficacy, operational stability, and economic efficiency.

1. Introduction

Electroplating is essential in modern manufacturing, adding surface layers that help prevent rust, improve strength, and enhance the appearance of products across industries such as automotive, electronics, and aerospace, as well as everyday items [1]. However, these processes produce wastewater with high levels of heavy metals (HMs)—such as chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, and lead—along with saline water, changes in acidity, and numerous organic pollutants from additional chemicals, soaps, and cleaners [2,3]. Wastewater from electroplating can also contain new types of contaminants, such as N-nitrosamines [4], which are worrisome because they can cause cancer and persist in water. If this wastewater is not properly treated, it can harm both the environment and public health due to the toxic and long-lasting nature of heavy metals and these new contaminants [5,6]. Although a full study would examine all types of pollutants in this wastewater, this research primarily focuses on removing heavy metals first, because regulators monitor them most closely and they cause most of the toxic effects. The main reason is that removing heavy metals directly addresses the biggest environmental issues. It is expected that some of the new contaminant sources will also be partially removed along with organic matter during chemical treatment, as indicated by lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) [5,6].

Among heavy metal (HM) contaminants, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) and divalent nickel (Ni(II)) are of particular concern because of their extensive use in electroplating and well-documented toxicological effects [7]. Cr(VI) is associated with carcinogenicity and acute ecotoxicity [2], whereas nickel is linked to carcinogenic, allergenic, and chronic ecological effects [8].

Consistent removal of these contaminants by conventional physicochemical treatments remains technically challenging for two primary reasons. First, chloride-based coagulants such as ferric chloride (FeCl3), commonly used for heavy metal precipitation, introduce additional chloride into treated effluents. This can result in chloride concentrations exceeding discharge standards and limit opportunities for water reuse [2,9]. Second, strong metal–organic complexes formed by plating additives can inhibit standard precipitation mechanisms, allowing residual dissolved metals to persist even when chemical dosing and pH are appropriately controlled [2,10].

Consequently, discharge regulations have become increasingly stringent worldwide, necessitating treatment systems that maintain stable compliance under variable operating conditions [11,12]. Within this regulatory framework, Tunisia has adopted the NT 106.002 standard (INNORPI, Tunisian Institute of Standardization) as a mandatory reference for industrial effluent quality control. The standard sets maximum permissible limits for physicochemical parameters and is particularly applicable to metal-finishing processes, including electroplating [11]. Specifically, NT 106.002 establishes the following limits for the primary pollutants addressed in this study: for discharge into the Public Hydraulic Domain (PHD), the maximum allowable concentrations are 0.5 mg/L for Cr(III), 0.2 mg/L for Ni(II), and 600 mg/L for Cl−. For discharge into the public sewerage network (ONAS), the respective limits are 2 mg/L, 1 mg/L, and 700 mg/L.

Multiple strategies are used to treat EPW, including chemical precipitation [13], coagulation-flocculation [9], electrochemical treatment [14,15], adsorption [16,17], electrodialysis [18], and membrane filtration [19]. Advanced sequential treatment approaches have been developed to address the complexity of EPW pollutants [20–23]. Despite these advancements, each technology has practical limitations that restrict its standalone industrial applicability [24,25]. Electrochemical methods, although effective, require high energy input and significant capital investment [14]. Adsorption processes require expensive regeneration or disposal of saturated media [16]. Membrane filtration and electrodialysis are prone to fouling and incur substantial operational costs, especially at elevated pollutant concentrations [18,19]. As a result, chemical treatment, particularly precipitation and coagulation-flocculation, remains fundamental to EPW management at the industrial scale due to its demonstrated effectiveness at high pollutant concentrations, operational simplicity, and comparatively low cost [2]. Nevertheless, the performance of chemical treatment is highly sensitive to operating conditions. It is often unstable in industrial environments, primarily due to fluctuations in wastewater composition arising from production cycles, bath renewal, and rinsing practices [1].

Despite extensive research, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding the long-term performance, operational robustness, and economic sustainability of physicochemical (PC) treatment systems under real-world industrial conditions. Most studies are limited to laboratory-scale experiments or short-term trials using synthetic or compositionally stable wastewaters [7,10,14], which do not capture the temporal and compositional variability of actual industrial effluents [1]. For example, Bhagavath et al. [26] achieved satisfactory nickel removal with synthetic solutions but observed substantial performance declines when treating real effluents, underscoring the limitations of laboratory-based findings. At full scale, Gao et al. [1] reported persistent treatment instability in an eight-stage automated system, attributing recurrent non-compliance to improper dosing and insufficient adaptation to influent variability. This evidence shows that operational complexity alone does not ensure treatment robustness. Furthermore, process optimization has traditionally relied on univariate methods or statistical designs that assume constant influent characteristics, neither of which accurately reflects industrial conditions, and both of which limit system adaptability [27].

In this context, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is a powerful yet underutilized approach for systematically optimizing treatment processes for electroplating wastewater (EPW) [28,29]. However, most RSM-based studies do not explicitly incorporate variability in influent metal concentration as a design parameter, instead treating it as experimental noise or artificially stabilizing it. Overcoming this limitation is critical to developing adaptive, robust treatment strategies that maintain high performance under real-time fluctuations in the influent.

This study presents an integrated experimental and analytical framework to evaluate, optimize, and economically assess alternative PC treatment configurations for industrial EPW. The primary objectives are as follows: (i) to assess the long-term performance of a full-scale conventional treatment system under real-world operating conditions; (ii) to compare three configurations usinPCg FeCl3, polyaluminum chloride (PAC), and lime slurry (LS) in terms of efficiency, stability, and economic performance; (iii) to conduct a comparative economic analysis focused on chemical consumption costs; and (iv) to implement an RSM-based optimization strategy that explicitly incorporates variability in influent nickel concentration as an independent design variable, along with pH and flocculant dosage. This approach is applied to EPW treatment for the first time.

Explicitly incorporating influent variability into the optimization framework moves beyond conventional static treatment design and enables a variability-aware, predictive control strategy. This approach supports the development of a quantitative dosing model that links influent metal concentration to optimal operating conditions, providing a practical tool for real-time process adjustment. The study’s primary contribution is transforming influent variability from a limiting constraint into a central optimization parameter, offering a robust pathway toward more resilient, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable EPW treatment under variable industrial conditions.

2. Materials and methodology

2.1 Conventional physicochemical (PC) treatment process and electroplating wastewater (EPW) segregation

EPW samples analyzed in this study were collected from the industrial facility under investigation in Tunisia. The samples were segregated at the source by chemical type to prevent incompatible reactions and improve treatment efficiency. Specifically, chromic acidic effluents (E1) and alkaline effluents (E2) were managed separately because of their distinct chemical properties and treatment requirements. Chromic acidic effluents (E1) primarily originated from surface treatment and rinsing operations, whereas alkaline effluents (E2) were generated during degreasing and alkaline cleaning stages.

The industrial treatment process uses a conventional PC scheme widely implemented in electroplating facilities. This approach consists of the following sequential unit operations:

  • Dechromatization: E1 effluents initially undergo a chromium reduction process, in which highly toxic chromiuhexavalentm (Cr(VI)) is converted to the less toxic trivalent form (Cr(III)) by adding sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3) under strongly acidic conditions (pH 1.8–2.0). At this stage, the resulting Cr(III) ions remain in solution and are subsequently removed by hydroxide precipitation during the downstream neutralization step.

  • Coagulation: The dechromatized E1 effluents are combined with the alkaline E2 streams to produce a mixed effluent that undergoes coagulation. In this step, a chemical coagulant is introduced under rapid agitation to destabilize colloidal particles and suspended matter through charge neutralization and sweep floc formation. The effectiveness of destabilization is monitored using zeta potential measurements, which quantitatively assess the electrokinetic stability of the colloidal suspension. Optimal coagulation is achieved when the zeta potential approaches neutrality (approximately 0 mV), indicating that electrostatic repulsive forces have been sufficiently reduced to permit interparticle aggregation [30]. This process facilitates the formation of primary microflocs that act as nucleation sites for subsequent metal hydroxide precipitation, while also reducing turbidity and enhancing the settling characteristics of the treated effluent.

  • Neutralization (chemical precipitation): After coagulation, the pH of the mixed effluent is adjusted to 6.5–9.0 by adding an alkaline reagent, which supplies hydroxide ions to precipitate Cr(III) and Ni(II) as insoluble metal hydroxides. The speciation and solubility of both metals depend strongly on pH. For Cr(III), minimum solubility occurs between pH 7.5 and 9.0. Above pH 10, amphoteric dissolution becomes significant due to the formation of the soluble chromate anion [Cr(OH)4]−, which can cause andredissolution deterioration of effluent quality [31]. For Ni(II), minimum solubility occurs in the pH range 8.5–9.5. Above pH 10–11, partial formation occurs through redissolution of soluble hydroxo-complexes [Ni(OH)3]− and [Ni(OH)4]2− [32]. Therefore, maintaining an operational pH of 8.5–9.0 is the optimal compromise for effective simultaneous precipitation of both metals in the bimetallic Cr–Ni system [33].

  • Flocculation: After precipitation, an anionic polyacrylamide (A-PAM) flocculant is added under slow agitation. This promotes aggregation of primary O(NiH)2 and Cr(OH)3 microflocs into larger, settleable aggregates via polymer bridging.

  • Solid–liquid separation and sludge dewatering: The flocculated metal hydroxide sludge is separated from the clarified effluent by gravitational settling. The settled sludge is then dewatered using a filter press and sent to an approved disposal or valorization facility.

  • Final pH adjustment: Before discharge, the clarified and filtered effluent undergoes a final pH correction to ensure compliance with applicable discharge standards.

The effluent from mixing the dechromatized E1 and alkaline E2 streams, before coagulation and pH adjustment, serves as the initial reference wastewater (E3) used throughout this study.

2.2 Performance monitoring of the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW) after actual process

This assessment aims to characterize the temporal variability of treated EPW under real-world process conditions and to evaluate how fluctuations in influent quality affect overall treatment performance. Wastewater quality and operating conditions of the reference treatment process were comprehensively characterized by collecting samples at key points along the treatment line, including the treatment stage (E3) and the final clarified effluent (f-EPW).

Weekly sampling campaigns were conducted over one full operational year, from January 2, 2024, to March 20, 2025, under the precipitation-based treatment process. This approach captured temporal variability associated with production schedules, operational fluctuations, and seasonal effects. After collection, samples were preserved at 4°C and transported to the laboratory for analysis. All PC analyses were completed within 48 hours to minimize degradation and ensure data reliability.

The monitored parameters included pH, electrical conductivity (ECw), total suspended solids (TSSs), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD₅), chloride concentration, and HM content (i.e., Cr³⁺ and Ni²⁺).

Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of E3 and f-EPW, highlighting both the effectiveness and critical limitations of the current treatment system. The process achieves complete pH remediation, demonstrating effective pH neutralization. However, organic matter reduction is inconsistent, with COD removal efficiencies ranging from 49% to 90% and BOD₅ reductions from 20% to 86%. While minimum f-EPW values meet regulatory standards, substantial fluctuations and peak concentrations exceed NT 106.002 thresholds. The TSS of the initial effluent E3 is inherently negligible (2 ± 0.3 mg/L), indicating that turbidity, governed by the suspended particulate load, is also negligible and does not serve as a meaningful performance indicator or limiting parameter for this specific industrial wastewater matrix. The observed TSS variability in f-EPW (2 ± 1–118 ± 2 mg/L) is attributable to operational inconsistencies in the settling stage rather than to coagulation deficiency, confirming that suspended solids removal is not the primary challenge in this treatment system. In contrast, the most significant deficiencies are associated with HMs and chloride concentrations, which have been identified as the primary limiting factors for regulatory compliance and environmental impact. These parameters, therefore, constitute the central focus of the comparative performance assessment in this study.

Table 1. Temporal variations in key physicochemical (PC) parameters of electroplating wastewater (EPW) and comparisons with regulatory discharge limits. (COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand; ECw: Electrical Conductivity of Water; f-EPW: final treated electroplating wastewater; TSS: Total Suspended Solids; E3: Initial Reference Wastewater).

Parameter E3 f-EPW Discharge limits NT 106.002
PHDa ONASb
pH 2.1 ± 0.5 6.5 ± 0.1-9 ± 0.1 6.5-8.5 6.5-9
TSS (mg/L) 2 ± 0.3 2 ± 1-118 ± 2 30 400
ECw (μS/cm) 7923 ± 22-261 ± 6 2720 ± 10-6100 ± 14 – –
COD (mg/L) 299 ± 1-464 ± 2 30 ± 3-235 ± 8 90 1000
BOD5 (mg/L) 74 ± 1-226 ± 0.9 10 ± 3-180 ± 14 30 400
Cl− (mg/L) 1171 ± 2-1815 ± 8 442 ± 9-1418 ± 11.2 600 700
Cr3+ (mg/L) 70 ± 1-132 ± 3 0.01 ± 0.002-6.03 ± 0.09 0.5 2
Ni (mg/L) 33 ± 1-92 ± 1 0.02 ± 0.01-60 ± 0.4 0.2 1

aNT 106.002 for discharge into Public Hydraulic Domain (PHD).

bNT 106.002 for discharge into National Office of Sanitation (ONAS) public sewerage network.

The temporal evolution of trivalent chromium (Cr(III)) concentrations (Fig 1) indicates that Cr(III) levels remained relatively low during most of the operational period; however, sporadic peaks reaching up to 6.03 ± 0.09 mg/L were recorded, occasionally exceeding the discharge limit of 2 mg/L. These episodic exceedances suggest that the conventional process is sensitive to sudden changes in influent composition and operational disturbances.

Fig 1. Temporal variation in Cr3+ concentration in final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW).

Fig 1

Fig 2 shows that nickel removal performance was highly unstable. Residual nickel concentrations in the treated effluent varied substantially, from 0.02 ± 0.01 to 60 ± 0.4 mg/L. Multiple episodes of elevated concentrations were recorded, suggesting that the conventional process does not consistently achieve regulatory compliance when the influent nickel loading increases. This significant variability indicates that nickel removal efficiency is highly sensitive to changes in influent characteristics.

Fig 2. Temporal variations in nickel (Ni) concentration in the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW).

Fig 2

Chloride concentration is the primary constraint in conventional treatment. Fig 3 shows that chloride levels in the treated effluent ranged from 442 ± 9–1418 ± 10 mg/L during the monitoring period, frequently exceeding the Tunisian discharge limit of 700 mg/L. This persistent chloride enrichment is primarily due to the extensive use of FeCl3 as the principal coagulant [9]. Upon dissolution, FeCl3 releases chloride ions (Cl−) and to form ferric hydroxhydrolyzeside precipitates, which are essential for coagulation. However, excessive dosing increases chloride loading and generates acidity, consuming alkalinity and lowering pH. These effects lead to operational instability and require additional chemical inputs for pH adjustment, increasing chemical consumption and operating costs (OCs). Furthermore, elevated chloride concentrations restrict the reuse potential of the treated effluent and hinder regulatory compliance.

Fig 3. Temporal variations in chloride ion (Cl−) concentration in the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW).

Fig 3

Long-term monitoring results indicate that, although the conventional treatment process performs adequately under favorable operating conditions, its efficiency is significantly constrained by pronounced temporal variability in EPW composition. These results underscore the limitations of the current treatment strategy and justify developing and evaluating alternative or optimized processes that minimize chloride accumulation and maintain stable, efficient heavy metal removal. This rationale forms the basis for investigating the second treatment process, presented and discussed in the following section.

2.3 Methodological framework and treatment configurations

Fig 4 illustrates the experimental framework, designed to progressively enhance EPW treatment performance by comparing three successive treatment configurations. Each configuration follows the global PC treatment scheme outlined in Section 2.1 and shown in Fig 4. The same influent reference (E3), representing the mixed alkaline and dechromatized effluent, was consistently used as the initial wastewater stream.

Fig 4. Conceptual framework illustrating the experimental methodology and the treatment configurations evaluated in this study.

Fig 4

The three treatment processes differ only in the chemical precipitation step, while all upstream and downstream unit operations—including neutralization, solid–liquid separation, sludge dewatering, and final pH adjustment—remain identical. This design enables a direct, consistent comparison of the effects of precipitation chemistry on pollutant removal efficiency, treatment stability, and effluent quality.

  • Configuration 1: Reference conventional precipitation configuration

In the conventional treatment sequence, ferric chloride is added first to destabilize suspended particles and promote metal complexation. This step is followed by pH adjustment (neutralization) to precipitate as insolubmetalsheavy le hydroxides, such as Ni(OH)2 and Cr(OH)3. Premature pH elevation can cause uncontrolled precipitation and hinder effective coagulant dispersion. This sequence was maintained because it reflects the treatment protocol currently used at the industrial facility examined in this study. Adjusting pH after coagulation ensures that metal hydroxide precipitation occurs under controlled conditions and does not interfere with coagulation chemistry.

  • Configuration 2: Enhanced precipitation process with optimized coagulation

To address the limitations of the reference configuration while preserving the overall treatment structure, a modified process (Configuration 2) was developed. In this configuration, FeCl3 was replaced with PAC as the coagulant, and pH was adjusted before the precipitation step to optimize PAC hydrolysis speciation. This approach leverages PAC’s strong pH dependence, which is most effective within a narrow pH range. After coagulation, a final pH adjustment (neutralization to pH 8.0–8.6) was performed to complete metal hydroxide precipitation and ensure regulatory compliance. The primary objective of this modification was to reduce chloride input from chemical addition while improving the efficiency of pollutant destabilization and aggregation. The overall treatment layout remained consistent with Configuration 1.

  • Configuration 3: Chemical attack by lime slurry (LS)

A second alternative configuration, referred to as Configuration 3, was implemented by replacing the conventional coagulation-based precipitation step with a lime slurry (LS)–based chemical process. In this approach, lime (Ca(OH)2) serves as both the coagulant and the pH-adjusting agent. Direct addition of LS raises the pH in the precipitation zone (pH 6.5–9), resulting in the simultaneous formation and aggregation of metal hydroxide flocs in a single step. This approach eliminates the need for sequential pH adjustment and coagulant addition, thereby simplifying the process and enhancing overall performance.

After implementation, Configuration 3 was selected for further optimization using RSM in combination with a Central Composite Design (CCD) to determine optimal operating conditions and maximize treatment performance.

Overall, this comparative methodological framework provides a systematic basis for evaluating precipitation strategies, thereby supporting the selection and optimization of the most efficient precipitation treatment configuration.

2.4 Analytical methods

The physicochemical (PC) parameters used to evaluate EPW performance in this study were systematically analyzed using standardized, validated methods.

pH was measured with a calibrated digital pH meter (AZ Instrument, model 86501) following APHA Method 4500-H ⁺ B [APHA, 2017]. Electrical conductivity (ECw, µS/cm), an indicator of wastewater ionic strength and total dissolved salts, was determined with a benchtop conductivity meter (Eutech Instruments, model CON2700) following APHA Method 2510B [APHA, 2017].

Total suspended solids (TSS) were quantified using the standard gravimetric method in accordance with APHA guidelines (APHA, 2017) [34]. Samples were filtered through pre-weighed membrane filters, then dried at 105°C and reweighed to determine suspended particulate concentrations.

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was measured using the dichromate reflux method (ISO 15705) [35], which quantifies the total organic matter oxidizable by dichromate in wastewater. Biochemical oxygen demand over five days (BOD₅) was determined by the standard dilution and incubation procedure (APHA, 2017) [34], providing an estimate of the biodegradable organic load.

Chloride ions (Cl−, mg/L) were usingtitration argentometric by analyzed Mohr’s method (APHA et al., 2017) [34]. Heavy metals (HMs), including chromium (Cr(III)), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), and lead (Pb), were quantified by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES, Activa-HORIBA JOBIN YVON).

This analytical technique enabled accurate determination of trace metal concentrations, which serve as critical indicators for assessing EPW contamination and treatment efficiency.

2.5 Operating Cost (OC) analysis

Using the comparative methodological framework, an OC analysis was conducted to evaluate the economic performance of the three PC treatment configurations (Processes 1, 2, and 3). To ensure consistency and comparability, the assessment focused exclusively on the chemical operating cost (Cchem, €·m−3), which reflects the consumption of chemical reagents directly attributable to each configuration.

All three configurations operated under identical hydraulic and operational conditions, including treatment capacity, mixing intensity, and hydraulic residence time. Consequently, the electrical energy demand for pumping and agitation was considered equivalent across configurations and excluded from the comparative analysis. Under these controlled conditions, the primary economic differentiation among the processes stems from the type and dosage of chemical reagents used.

Emphasizing Cchem provides a rigorous and meaningful basis for comparing the relative economic performance of the three treatment configurations without introducing bias related to infrastructure or energy consumption [1].

Cchem was calculated using Equation (1).

Cchem=∑i(DixPi)i (1)

In this context, i denotes the chemical reagents in each configuration: FeCl3, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), antifoaming agent (AF), and flocculant for Configuration 1; PAC 100, H2SO4, AF, and for Configuration 2flocculant; and LS, AF, and flocculant for Configuration 3. Di (kg·m−3) is the dosage of reagent i, and Pi (€/kg) is its unit price.

2.6 Experimental setup and operational parameters for optimizing the treatment process (Configuration 3)

Configuration 3 was optimized using a standard jar-test apparatus with six programmable paddle mixers and parallel 1-L beakers (Fig 5). Three primary operational parameters were systematically evaluated: initial nickel concentration ([Ni]ᵢ) in the E3 effluent, initial pH (adjusted with LS), and flocculant dosage (anionic polyacrylamide, [A-PAM]). LS was selected as the neutralizing agent for its demonstrated effectiveness in heavy-metal precipitation and cost-effectiveness in industrial-scale EPW treatment [36,37].

Fig 5. Experimental jar-test apparatus and instrumentation.

Fig 5

For each experimental run, 300 mL of E3 effluent was dispensed into six parallel jars, and predetermined doses of LS and flocculant were added according to the experimental design matrix. The treatment sequence comprised two main stages. First, neutralization was conducted at 64 rpm for 5 minutes to ensure pH adjustment, complete reagent dispersion, and floc formation. During this stage, the relatively high rotational speed generated turbulent flow, which maximized diffusion-driven transport of coagulant species toward metal-bearing colloidal and complexed phases, thereby increasing the collision frequency between destabilized particles and facilitating initial microfloc formation [38]. This was followed by slow flocculation at 41 rpm for 15 minutes, during which the reduced mixing intensity shifted the hydrodynamic regime toward laminar conditions favorable for orthokinetic aggregation. This allowed growing flocs to collide and consolidate without being subjected to disruptive shear forces that could cause floc breakage [38]. The second stage involved quiescent settling for 30 minutes, during which the absence of mechanical energy input enabled gravitational separation of mature floc structures while preserving their physical integrity. This progressive reduction in mixing intensity reflects a deliberate balance between maximizing mass transfer efficiency during the early coagulation stage and preserving floc structural stability during subsequent growth and separation stages, both of which directly influence the final treated effluent quality.

The operational parameters, specifically mixing speeds and durations, were aligned with the current industrial treatment process to enable direct comparison and practical application. After sedimentation, supernatant samples were collected from each jar to measure residual pollutant concentrations, including nickel, chromium, COD, and other specified parameters. All experiments were conducted at ambient temperature (20–25°C) and performed in triplicate to ensure statistical reliability.

2.7 Response Surface Methodology (RSM) model

2.7.1 Preliminary trials: pH adjustment and metal hydroxide precipitation behavior.

Preliminary experiments investigated pH-adjustment behavior and the characteristics of metal hydroxide precipitation in EPW ([Ni]ᵢ = 92 mg/L). The presence of chromium significantly affects nickel precipitation behavior in the bimetallic system.

Although previous studies report individual precipitation optima at pH 6.4 for Cr(III) and pH 8.5 for Ni(II) [36], the titration curve (Fig 6) shows that complete neutralization and alkaline conditions (pH 9–10) occur at LS dosages above 5 mL/L (400 mg/L, based on an LS concentration of 80 g/L). This pH range enables simultaneous precipitation of both metal hydroxides, as indicated by the pH-stabilization plateau. The steep transition zone between 3–5 mL/L (240–400 mg/L), corresponding to pH 6–9, marks the equivalence point, where buffering capacity is minimal and pH control is critical. Therefore, maintaining pH values above 9 with an adequate lime dosage is essential to maximize metal removal efficiency in the bimetallic Cr-Ni system.

Fig 6. Variation in pH with Lime Slurry (LS) dosage during preliminary neutralization experiments with electroplating wastewater (EPW).

Fig 6

2.7.2 Experimental design.

A CCD was implemented within the RSM framework to systematically evaluate how key operational parameters affect nickel removal efficiency from EPW. CCD is a well-established second-order experimental design that estimates quadratic and interaction effects while minimizing the number of experimental runs, making it particularly suitable for process optimization studies. In this study, experimental design, data analysis, and model development were performed using Design-Expert® software.

Based on comparative experimental results, the most effective of the three wastewater treatment processes previously investigated was selected for further optimization.

After determining the optimal treatment process, three independent variables were selected for optimization based on preliminary experiments and supporting literature. These variables, [Ni]ᵢ, solution pH, and flocculant dosage ([A-PAM]), were identified as the primary factors influencing nickel hydroxide precipitation, floc formation, settling behavior, and overall purification performance [26,37].

A-PAM was selected as the for itsflocculant strong affinity for Ni(OH)2 precipitates and its demonstrated effectiveness in treating EPW [39]. Flocculant dosage was systematically varied using a CCD to assess its effects on nickel removal efficiency and floc settling performance.

The experimental ranges for the selected variables were established using preliminary results and datasets from the electroplating plant. [Ni]ᵢ, representing the nickel concentration measured immediately after the dechromatization step, ranged from 33 to 92 mg/L. This interval was chosen to reflect the annual variability of post-dechromatization nickel concentrations (E3) documented in the industrial monitoring database. Accordingly, the selected interval reflects realistic operating conditions and enhances the practical relevance of the experimental design. The pH range and [A-PAM] concentrations were determined based on preliminary tests and literature data on PAM application in EPW treatment [26,39]. These ranges were chosen to include both suboptimal and near-optimal operating conditions, facilitating the identification of significant linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. The primary response variable was the residual nickel concentration in the treated effluent. Table 2 summarizes the experimental domain and the corresponding coded levels of the independent variables used in the CCD.

Table 2. Experimental ranges and levels of independent variables used in the Response Surface Methodology (RSM). (A-PAM: anionic polyacrylamide; [Ni]i: nickel concentration prior to treatment.).
Variable -α −1 0 +1 +α
A: [Ni]i (mg/L) 33 45 62.5 80 92
B: pH 6.32 7 8 9 9.68
C: [A-PAM] (mg/L) 2.6 4 6 8 9.36

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Comparative evaluation of treatment configurations across successive operating periods and assessment of process stability

3.1.1 Quality of final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW) and pollutant removal efficiency.

Long-term stability is a key performance criterion for industrial wastewater treatment processes because these systems must operate reliably despite temporal fluctuations in the influent composition [1]. Figs 7–9 present the 24-week monitoring results for chloride, chromium, and nickel concentrations in the treated effluents of the three configurations, with post-dechromatization wastewater (E3) serving as the reference influent.

Fig 7. Chloride concentration in the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW) indicates process stability over 24 weeks.

Fig 7

Fig 9. Nickel concentration in the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW) indicates process stability over 24 weeks.

Fig 9

Fig 8. Chromium concentration in the final treated electroplating wastewater (f-EPW) indicates process stability over 24 weeks.

Fig 8

Before interpreting the experimental results, it is necessary to consider the chemical speciation of metals in the E3 effluent matrix. This matrix is significantly more complex than a simple metal-hydroxide system because it contains strong chelating agents commonly found in electroplating bath formulations, including ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), gluconates, citrates, and various surfactants. These agents form thermodynamically stable organometallic complexes with nickel and chromium. A substantial portion of these metals remains in solution and is not readily available for hydroxide precipitation, which accounts for discrepancies between theoretical and experimentally observed residual metal concentrations. The coagulants used in this study influence the dissociation of these complexes in distinct ways. LS acts through both competitive calcium-ion binding to EDTA and sustained alkalinity supply, thereby shifting equilibria toward precipitation. In contrast, ferric chloride releases chelated metals via the competitive affinity of Fe³⁺ for EDTA. Still, this process results in the formation of soluble iron-EDTA complexes that are resistant to further precipitation [40].

Chloride management varied considerably among the three configurations, underscoring the direct impact of coagulant selection on effluent chloride loading. In Configuration 1, effluent chloride concentrations ranged from 800 to 1500 mg/L and showed high temporal variability throughout the monitoring period, consistently exceeding the NT 106.002 discharge limits. This performance is primasuboptimalrily attributed to the use of FeCl3 as a coagulant, which, upon dissolution and hydrolysis, releases additional Cl− into the treated effluent, thereby increasing the chloride load rather than mitigating it [41,42].

Configuration 2 showed a marked improvement over Configuration 1, with effluent chloride concentrations stabilizing between 800 and 1100 mg/L and exhibiting greater temporal consistency. Replacing FeCl3 with polyaluminum chloride (PAC) eliminated the secondary chloride input associated with iron-based coagulation, thereby reducing the overall effluent chloride load. Although PAC contains chloride in its chemical structure, its contribution per unit dose is significantly lower than that of FeCl3, which explains the partial improvement observed [43]. However, actual Cl− removal through incorporation into precipitated solids remains negligible, as chloride ions do not form insoluble hydroxide or carbonate phases under the prevailing treatment conditions.

The most substantial improvement occurred with Configuration 3, where effluent chloride concentrations progressively decreased and stabilized at 550–750 mg/L during the final monitoring phase, particularly in weeks 17–24. This represents an approximate 50% reduction compared to the effluent levels of Configuration 1. However, this reduction does not indicate true Cl− precipitation or removal from the aqueous phase, as chloride ions remain soluble under all physicochemical treatment conditions and are not subject to hydroxide co- precipitation [41]. Instead, the observed reduction is primarily due to the complete elimination of FeCl3 as a secondary chloride source. At the coagulant dosage used in Configuration 1 (0. 864 kg/m ³), FeCl3 hydrolysis releases an estimated 530 mg Cl−/L into the treated effluent. This substantial secondary chloride load is entirely avoided in Configuration 3 by substituting FeCl3 with chloride- free lime slurry (Ca(OH)2).

Although chloride removal showed clear efficiency gains across the tested configurations, chromium removal was more variable in stability than in average efficiency. Configurations 1 and 2 exhibited substantial variability, with concentration peaks of 2 to 2.5 mg/L during weeks 1–2 for Configuration 1 and fluctuating values that occasionally exceeded 2 mg/L for Configuration 2, particularly during weeks 9–11. In contrast, Configuration 3 consistently maintained low chromium concentrations, predominantly below 1 mg/L during weeks 17–24, with only occasional measurements approaching 1 mg/L. The sequential acidification and neutralization strategy offers enhanced control over chromium speciation and precipitation kinetics [44].

Among the three target pollutants, nickel removal posed the greatest challenge due to the high residual concentration after dechromatization. Configurations 1 and 2 showed pronounced variability, similar to their chromium removal patterns, with effluent concentrations ranging from approximately 2 mg/L to peaks of 12 mg/L in Configuration 2 at week 11 and 17 mg/L in Configuration 1 during week 1. This instability highlights the limited buffering capacity of the conventional coagulation system.

Consistent with trends observed for chloride and chromium, process configuration 3 showed improved performance in reducing the final residual nickel concentration ([Ni]f), with effluent concentrations typically ranging from 1 to 5 mg/L. Occasional increases reached approximately 6.5 mg/L, particularly in week 17. During the stable operating period from weeks 19–24, concentrations often approached or fell below 1 mg/L, supporting the effectiveness of lime-based precipitation with optimized pH control [44]. However, residual fluctuations suggest that this configuration remains somewhat sensitive to influent variability, though less so than conventional methods.

The consistent superiority of Configuration 3 across all monitored parameters stems from several synergistic factors. Lower standard deviations for chromium and nickel indicate enhanced operational resilience, attributable to the buffering capacity of excess lime, accelerated hydroxide precipitation kinetics, and the formation of more stable metal hydroxide phases rather than the metal–coagulant complexes observed in conventional systems [45]. These factors yield higher average removal efficiencies and significantly reduced temporal variability.

Despite these advantages, all three configurations share a fundamental limitation: reliance on fixed chemical dosing strategies. Variability in nickel concentrations, driven by changes in electroplating operations, rinsing practices, and dechromatization efficiency, cannot be effectively managed under static operating conditions [1]. As a result, periods of under- or over-dosing are unavoidable, negatively affecting both treatment consistency and chemical consumption efficiency. This limitation is especially pronounced during the initial weeks of operation for each configuration, when adaptation to influent characteristics requires gradual optimization.

In summary, Configuration 3 demonstrates the highest effectiveness among current treatment strategies, achieving approximately 50% chloride removal, over 99% chromium removal with exceptional stability during the final monitoring period, and approximately 95–97% nickel removal, all with enhanced stability under realistic industrial conditions. To ensure consistently robust performance under highly variable influent conditions, this configuration should be integrated with advanced control strategies, such as real-time metal monitoring and adaptive dosing systems [46]. This process intensification would enable dynamic adjustment of lime dosage and pH set-points, thereby transforming Configuration 3 from a superior static process into a fully adaptive, industrially resilient treatment solution.

3.1.2 Economic feasibility and cost-effectiveness analysis.

The economic feasibility of industrial wastewater treatment processes is a critical criterion for technology selection because OCs directly affect long-term sustainability. OCs typically include energy consumption, chemical reagents, equipment maintenance, and sludge management [1].

In this comparative assessment, all three configurations operated under identical hydraulic conditions and used the same pumping, mixing, and solid–liquid separation equipment. Consequently, energy consumption and routine maintenance were treated as equivalent, making chemical consumption the primary cost-differentiating factor. As summarized in Table 3, the economic comparison focused on the specific chemical operating cost (Cchem, €·m−3) per cubic of treated wastmeterewater, which included all reagents such as coagulants, pH adjustment chemicals, antifoaming agents (AF), and polymer flocculant.

Table 3. Calculation of chemical operating cost (Cchem). (AF: antifoaming: anionPAM agent, A-ic polyacrylamide, PAC: polyaluminum chloride, LS: lime slurry, Di: dosage of reagent i, Pi: unit price of reagent i).
Pi (€·kg−1) Di (kg·m−3) Cchem (€·m−3)
Configuration 1 FeCl3 0.41 0.864 0.432
H2SO4 0.21 0.309
AF 16.16 3 E-07
A-PAM 1.07 0.016
Configuration 2 PAC100 0.28 0.62 0.303
H2SO4 0.21 0.309
AF 16.16 3 E-07
A-PAM 1.1 0.02
Configuration 3 LS 0.2 0.59 0.134
AF 16.16 3 E-07
A-PAM 1.07 0,016

Configuration 1, which used FeCl3 coagulation, had the highest operating cost of 0.432 €·m−3. This outcome was primarily due to the relatively high unit cost of FeCl3 and the substantial dosages required to achieve acceptable treatment performance. Although this conventional approach is widely used in industrial applications, it becomes economically unfavorable for high-strength electroplating wastewater (EPW), where chemical costs account for the majority of operating expenses.

Configuration 2, which uses PAC as the primary coagulant, reduced chemical costs to 0.303 €·m−3, representing approximately 30% savings compared to Configuration 1. This reduction is attributed to PAC’s higher coagulation efficiency, which enables lower reagent dosages while maintaining comparable performance. Consequently, Configuration 2 offers a cost-effective intermediate solution that requires minimal process modifications.

Process Configuration 3, which uses lime-driven chemical attack, achieved the lowest cost at 0.134 €·m−3, corresponding to approximately 69% and 56% reductions compared to Configurations 1 and 2, respectively. This economic advantage stems from lime’s multifunctional role, which enables pH adjustment, metal precipitation, and coagulation, thereby eliminating the need for multiple chemical inputs. Furthermore, the wastewater’s intrinsic acidity was sufficient for the chemical attack stage, eliminating the need for supplementary acid. These findings indicate that optimized reaction pathways can provide both enhanced treatment efficiency and significant cost savings.

In addition to direct chemical costs, Configuration 3 offers further economic advantages in sludge management. The literature indicates that coagulation-flocculation processes generate sludges with higher volumes, poorer dewaterability, and lower quality than those from lime precipitation [41].

Sludges from coagulant-based processes contain substantial residual polymers and metal-organic complexes, increasing volume and complicating disposal [42]. In contrast, lime precipitation primarily produces crystalline metal hydroxide sludges that settle and dewater more readily, yielding lower dewatered cake volumes and lower transportation and disposal costs [41,44].

Furthermore, lime sludge (LS) has greater potential for recycling because metal hydroxides can be efficiently recovered via acidification or thermal treatment [20,38]. Empirical studies confirm that lime precipitation yields more stable sludge with reduced heavy metal (HM) leaching potential, mitigating environmental risks and lowering regulatory compliance costs [44,45].

The nickel-rich sludge produced by Configuration 3 has significant valorization potential, as the recovered nickel can serve as a catalyst in hydrogen production [47]. Moreover, eliminating chloride-based coagulants reduces equipment corrosion, lowering maintenance costs and extending service life [48].

Configuration 3 is the most cost-effective treatment option, delivering the lowest operating costs and stable, superior performance. The substantial savings, approaching 70% compared with conventional coagulation, make a strong economic case for upgrading electroplating facilities’ processes. These findings demonstrate that regulatory compliance, environmental performance, and economic competitiveness can be achieved simultaneously through well-designed treatment strategies, thereby supporting the transition to more sustainable industrial wastewater management practices.

3.2 Optimization of treatment process configuration 3

3.2.1 Application of response surface methodology (RSM) and model development.

Configuration 3 was optimized using RSM with a CCD to systematically evaluate how key operational parameters interact to influence nickel removal efficiency. The experimental design matrix, shown in Table 4, includes three independent variables: initial nickel concentration ([Ni]ᵢ) in the E3 effluent, solution pH, and anionic polyacrylamide concentration ([A-PAM]).

Table 4. Experimental design matrix and corresponding responses ([Ni]i: nickel concentration before treatment; [A-PAM]: anionic polyacrylamide dosage; [Ni]f: nickel concentration after treatment).
Run A: [Ni]i

(mg/L)
B:

pH
C: [A-PAM]

(mg/L)
A B C [Ni]f (mg/L)
Actual value Predicted value
1 −1 −1 −1 45 7 4 8.61 9.51
2 1 −1 −1 80 7 4 12.53 12.14
3 −1 1 −1 45 9 4 0.60 0.12
4 1 1 −1 80 9 4 0.37 0.35
5 −1 −1 1 45 7 8 7.64 7.44
6 1 −1 1 80 7 8 9.50 9.76
7 −1 1 1 45 9 8 0.93 0.99
8 1 1 1 80 9 8 2.02 0.90
9 −1.68 0 0 33 8 6 0.56 0.22
10 1.68 0 0 92 8 6 1.70 2.35
11 0 −1.68 0 62.5 6.318 6 20.3 19.85
12 0 1.68 0 62.5 9.682 6 3.76 4.52
13 0 0 −1.68 62.5 8 2.6 2.01 1.90
14 0 0 1.68 62.5 8 9.36 0.20 0.62
15 0 0 0 62.5 8 6 0.93 0.92
16 0 0 0 62.5 8 6 0.93 0.92

Experimental data from CCD trials were analyzed using regression to develop a predictive model linking operational parameters to the final nickel concentration ([Ni]f) in the treated effluent. Statistical analysis and model development were performed using Design-Expert software. The relationship between the independent variables and the response is described by a second-order polynomial equation that shows significant curvature and interaction effects within the experimental range. Equations (2) and (3) present the model in coded and actual terms, respectively, enabling both comparative assessment of factors and practical application in process control.

𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦: 𝐘=0.5859+1.07A−4.2B−0.3301C−1.34AB+0.1783AC+0.735BC+0.6423A2+3.98B2+0.1205C2 (2)
Actual form: [Ni]𝐟=293.49+0.273[Ni]i−68.34pH−3.35[A−PAM]−0.034[Ni]i·pH−0.002[Ni]i·[A−PAM]+0.368pH·[A−PAM]+0.000422[Ni]i2+3.98pH2+0.030[A−PAM]2 (3)

In this context, Y denotes the coded response, [Ni]f is the final nickel concentration (mg/L), [Ni]ᵢ is the initial nickel concentration (mg/L), pH is the solution pH, and [A-PAM] is the anionic polyacrylamide dosage (mg/L). The coded equation enables direct comparison of factor effects by normalizing the coefficients to dimensionless units. In contrast, the actual equation provides practical predictions of effluent quality under defined operating conditions.

Coefficient analysis clarifies how factors influence nickel removal. The large negative pH coefficient (−4.20 in coded form) shows that increasing pH within the experimental range substantially reduces [Ni]f, consistent with the pronounced decrease in Ni(OH)2 solubility from pH 7–9. Thermodynamically, each unit increase in pH decreases the equilibrium Ni² ⁺ concentration by about two orders of magnitude, a trend qualitatively captured by this coefficient. The positive quadratic pH coefficient (3.98) produces a response surface minimum and reflects the established re-dissolution of Ni(OH)2 at very high pH, attributed to the formation of soluble [Ni(OH)3]− and [Ni(OH)4]2− hydroxo-complexes [32]. The inflection point near pH 9–10, consistent with published solubility diagrams, indicates an optimal pH beyond which further increases in pH may reduce removal efficiency, likely due to hydroxide resolubilization under highly alkaline conditions or the formation of soluble hydroxo complexes [32]. The negative AB interaction coefficient (−1.34) suggests that the beneficial effect of pH on nickel removal diminishes at higher [Ni]ᵢ, in agreement with precipitation kinetics. At elevated [Ni²⁺], the molar stoichiometric demand for OH− increases, necessitating higher pH to maintain the same driving force for nucleation and growth of Ni(OH)2 crystals, rather than merely reflecting saturation of precipitation capacity or kinetic limitations under increased metal loading. The positive linear [Ni]ᵢ coefficient (+1.07) indicates that higher influent concentrations yield higher residual concentrations, consistent with mass-balance constraints near the precipitation capacity. The positive BC interaction coefficient (+ 0.735) indicates that A- PAM flocculation is more effective when Ni(OH)2 precipitates are fully formed (pH ≥ 8.5), as the anionic polymer bridges positively surface-charged hydroxide colloids. At low pH, incomplete precipitation produces fewer bridgeable particles, thereby limiting the flocculant’ s contribution to nickel removal.

3.2.2 Statistical analysis and model validation.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess model significance, adequacy, and predictive capability. The results, presented in Table 5, indicate strong model performance, with an F-value of 111.37 (p-value < 0.0001). This result indicates that the likelihood of obtaining such a large F-value due to random noise is less than 0.01%. Therefore, the developed model effectively captures the relationships between operational parameters and nickel removal performance rather than reflecting random experimental variation.

Table 5. Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA). Abbreviations: MS, mean square; DF, desirability function; p-value, probability value; F-value, Fisher value.
Source DF MS F-value p-value
Model 9 56.75 111.37 < 0.0001 Significant
A 1 1.23 2.40 0.1596 Not Significant
B 1 149.11 292.64 < 0.0001 Significant
C 1 0.9219 1.81 0.2155 Not Significant
AB 1 2.90 5.70 0.0440 Significant
AC 1 0.0512 0.1005 0.7594 Not Significant
BC 1 4.32 8.48 0.0195 Significant
A2 1 0.2116 0.4153 0.5373 Not Significant
B2 1 200.68 393.85 < 0.0001 Significant
C2 1 0.1837 0.3604 0.5649 Not Significant

Analysis of individual term significance indicated that pH (B) had the greatest influence on nickel removal, as evidenced by an F-value of 292.64 (p-value < 0.0001). This pronounced effect underscores the pivotal role of pH in controlling the equilibria of nickel hydroxide precipitation, with solubility minima observed within defined pH intervals. The quadratic pH term (B²) was also highly significant (F-value = 393.85, p-value < 0.0001), confirming notable curvature in the pH-response relationship and suggesting an optimal pH for maximum nickel removal. The interaction terms AB ([Ni]ᵢ × pH, F-value = 5.70, p-value = 0.044) and BC (pH × flocculant dosage, F-value = 8.48, p-value = 0.020) were statistically significant, indicating that the effect of pH on nickel removal is modulated by both influent metal concentration and polymer dosing rate. These interactive effects demonstrate the complexity of the treatment system and support the use of RSM over traditional one-factor-at-a-time approaches.

[Ni]ᵢ (A) and flocculant dosage (C) did not show individual statistical significance as main effects (p-value > 0.05), indicating that their influence is primarily mediated through interactions with pH rather than acting as independent variables. This finding aligns with established precipitation chemistry, in which pH predominantly governs metal speciation and hydroxide formation [2], while influent concentration and flocculant dosage affect the extent and efficiency of these pH-dependent processes. The lack of significance for certain terms does not preclude their inclusion in the model, as they preserve the hierarchical structure and support the inclusion of significant interaction terms.

Model adequacy was evaluated using several statistical metrics (Table 6). The correlation coefficient (R² = 0.9917) indicates that 99.17% of the variability in nickel removal is explained by the model, demonstrating an excellent fit to the experimental data. The adjusted R² (0.9832) accounts for the number of model terms and confirms that the high R² is not inflated by excessive parameters. The predicted R² (0.9352) reflects the model’s predictive performance for new observations. Its close agreement with the adjusted R² (difference less than 0.2) suggests the absence of overfitting and supports the model’s robustness for predictive applications beyond the experimental dataset. The adequate precision ratio of 37.08, which substantially exceeds the threshold of 4, indicates a strong signal-to-noise ratio and confirms that the model can reliably distinguish true effects from experimental error across the design space.

Table 6. Statistical summary of the developed model (R²: correlation coefficient; R²adj: adjusted R²; R²pred: predicted R²).
Response R 2 R adj 2 R pred 2 Adequate precision
[Ni]f (mg/L) 0.9917 0.9832 0.9352 37.0842

Fig 10 shows a strong correlation between predicted and experimental values, with data points clustering tightly around the diagonal line of perfect prediction, visually confirming the model’s accuracy and the absence of systematic bias.

Fig 10. Comparison of predicted and experimental final nickel concentrations [Ni]f (mg/L).

Fig 10

The rationale for this study stems from the need to address challenges posed by variable influent characteristics in nickel removal processes. Comprehensive statistical analysis shows that the developed RSM model is a reliable tool for improving the performance of Configuration 3. The model shows how different operating conditions affect nickel removal. It provides a clear way to identify the best treatment options that balance removal rates, chemical use, and process stability, even as incoming water changes. This approach addresses earlier problems by using fixed settings to help users make data-driven choices and adapt to real-time changes in wastewater.

3.2.3 Interactive effects visualization.

Three-dimensional (3D) response surface plots (Fig 11) illustrate the complex relationships among operational parameters and nickel removal efficiency. These plots reveal interaction effects and delineate optimal operating regions within the experimental domain.

Fig 11. Three-dimensional (3D) response surface plots showing the optimization of nickel removal: (a) the effects of initial nickel concentration ([Ni]i) and pH at [A-PAM] = 6 mg/L; (b) the effects of pH and [A-PAM] at [Ni]i = 80 mg/L; and (c) the effects of [Ni]i and [A-PAM] at pH values of 6, 7, 7.5, and 9.

Fig 11

Fig 11a presents the response surface for [Ni]f as a function of [Ni]ᵢ and pH at a constant [A-PAM] of 6 mg/L. The surface shows pronounced second-order polynomial curvature, with a distinct valley corresponding to optimal conditions. pH exerts a dominant influence (F-value: 292.64), producing a steep gradient from pH 6–8–9, confirming its controlling role in nickel hydroxide precipitation kinetics [1].

At pH values below 7, insufficient alkalinity leads to elevated residual nickel concentrations across all metal loadings, indicating incomplete precipitation. Optimal conditions occur at pH 8–9, where Ni(OH)2 solubility is, and prminimizedecipitation becomes thermodynamically favorable [13,26].

The surface topology reveals a significant pH/[Ni]ᵢ interaction, as indicated by the negative AB coefficient (−1.34). At moderate loadings (10−30 mg/L), performance changes gradually with pH, indicating lower sensitivity to pH optimization. Conversely, at elevated concentrations (60−100 mg/L), steeper pH-dependent gradients indicate that precise pH control is critical for acceptable effluent quality. Contour projections indicate that achieving [Ni]f < 5 mg/L requires pH > 8 for influents at 80−100 mg/L, whereas pH 7–7.5 suffices for [Ni]ᵢ < 50 mg/L, guiding adaptive process control strategies.

Fig 11b shows the response surface for [Ni]f as a function of pH and [A-PAM] at a constant [Ni]ᵢ (80 mg/L). The surface shows pH dominance, with [A-PAM] effects becoming significant only under favorable precipitation conditions. At pH ≤ 7, the surface remains elevated ([Ni]f > 15 mg/L) regardless of flocculant dosage, confirming that insufficient alkalinity prevents effective treatment and that increased polymer addition cannot compensate for thermodynamically unfavorable conditions [26].

As pH increases to 7.5–8, the response surface declines and shows greater curvature along the [A-PAM] axis, underscoring the growing importance of optimizing flocculant use. The optimal [A-PAM] concentration is 6–8 mg/L, at which polymer-enhanced flocculation promotes the aggregation and settling of colloidal hydroxide precipitates. Dosing above 10 mg/L yields diminishing returns and may impair performance by causing charge reversal or destabilizing flocs.

At pH values of 8.5 or higher, the response surface reaches its minimum ([Ni]f < 2–3 mg/L) and exhibits relatively gentle gradients, indicating operational robustness and reduced sensitivity to variations in [A-PAM]. This resilience offers practical benefits by accommodating influent variability without compromising effluent quality. However, the positive B² coefficient (3.98) suggests caution at pH values above 9.5 to prevent potential hydroxide resolubilization under highly alkaline conditions.

Fig 11c shows response surface slices at fixed pH values (6, 7, 7.5, and 9), illustrating how the [Ni]ᵢ/[A-PAM] interaction evolves with pH. At pH 6, the nearly planar surface topology ([Ni]f = 20–35 mg/L) suggests minimal interaction between variables, as both factors exert limited influence under conditions where pH-controlled precipitation is fundamentally constrained.

At pH 7, the response surface begins to curve at [Ni]f = 6–15 mg/L, indicating increased sensitivity to both parameters as hydroxide precipitation becomes thermodynamically favorable.

At pH 7.5, increased curvature indicates a pronounced [Ni]ᵢ/[A-PAM] interaction, and the optimal flocculant dosage shifts slightly higher at elevated metal loadings to accommodate increased solids content and maintain effective flocculation [44].

At pH 9, the system maintains consistently low residual nickel concentrations ([Ni]f < 3 mg/L) across the entire [Ni]ᵢ/[A-PAM] domain, indicating that optimal pH provides the thermodynamic basis for effective treatment. Comprehensive analysis shows that maintaining pH between 8.5 and 9.0, with [A-PAM] dosed at 6–7 mg/L for an influent of 80 mg/L, consistently achieves removal efficiencies greater than 97.5%, thereby ensuring regulatory compliance.

These findings indicate that pH setpoints and flocculant dosing rates should be dynamically adjusted in response to variations in influent concentration to sustain optimal performance in treating post-dechromatization electroplating wastewater (EPW) [2].

As illustrated in Fig 11c, the response surface slices show that increasing pH shifts the system from load-sensitive to load-robust, enabling stable nickel removal across a broad range of influent variability when pH is at least 7.5.

3.2.4 Model validation under industrial conditions.

The predictive reliability of the developed RSM-CCD model was evaluated by validating it against real EPW samples. This approach assessed the model’s accuracy and robustness under industrial conditions, which are characterized by natural fluctuations in influent composition.

The influent nickel concentration was initially determined through laboratory analysis. Using this measured input, the established predictive model was used to calculate the optimal operating conditions, specifically pH and [A-PAM]. Treatment was then applied under these model-recommended conditions, and the resulting effluent nickel concentration was measured to verify the model’s predictions.

The results in Table 7 show strong agreement between predicted and experimentally measured effluent nickel concentrations. For an influent concentration of 62 mg/L, the model predicted a residual nickel concentration of 0.822 mg/L, while the measured value was 0.91 mg/L, yielding a prediction error of 9.67%. This deviation is within acceptable limits for industrial wastewater treatment applications, confirming the model’s predictive accuracy.

Table 7. Validation of the optimization model under real-world industrial conditions. (A-PAM: anionic polyacrylamide; [Ni]f: final nickel concentration).
Conditions Response: [Ni]f (mg/L) Error (%)
Predicted value Actual value
[Ni]i = 62 mg/L

pH = 7.96

[A-PAM] = 7.94 mg/L

Desirability = 0.158
0.822 0.91 9.67

These findings demonstrate that the developed optimization model performs reliably when applied to industrial wastewater samples. The model’s ability to accurately predict treatment outcomes under real-world operating conditions supports its practical applicability for full-scale implementation and process control.

3.2.5 Experimental verification of the quadratic pH effect and its thermodynamic correlation.

To experimentally validate the significant quadratic effect of pH on nickel removal identified by the response surface methodology (RSM) model (B² = +3.98, F = 393.85, p < 0.0001), a dedicated laboratory-scale experiment was conducted using authentic industrial E3 effluent. The pH was varied incrementally from 6.0 to 12.0. All other parameters were held constant ([Ni]i = 62 mg/L, [A-PAM] = 7.94 mg/L, temperature = 20–25°C, rapid mixing at 64 rpm for 5 min, followed by slow mixing at 41 rpm for 15 min, and sedimentation for 30 min). The experimental results, illustrated in Fig 12, reveal a characteristic U-shaped solubility profile consistent with the thermodynamic behavior of Ni(OH)2. These results are interpreted across three distinct zones as follows.

Fig 12. Experimental [Ni]f as a function of pH, compared with the theoretical Ni(OH)2 solubility curve (Ksp = 5.5 × 10−16 [49]). Conditions: authentic induE3strial effluent; [Ni]i = 62 mg/L; [A-PAM] = 7.94 mg/L.

Fig 12

Zone 1: pH 6.0–7.5 (Incomplete precipitation): Residual nickel concentrations remained elevated throughout this range, indicating thermodynamically unfavorable conditions for Ni(OH)2 nucleation. At these pH values, the ionic product (Q = [Ni²⁺][OH−]²) does not exceed the solubility product of Ni(OH)2 [49], thereby inhibiting bulk precipitation.

Zone 2 — pH 8.0–9.5 (Minimum solubility region — optimal zone): Residual Ni reached its experimental minimum within this range, falling well below the NT 106.002 ONAS discharge limit of 1 mg/L. Notably, the experimentally measured residual concentrations were lower than those predicted by the theoretical solubility curve from the complete Ni(II) speciation model [49] (Equation (4)):

[Ni]=[Ni2+]×(1+β1[OH−]+β2[OH−]2+β3[OH−]3+β4[OH−]4) (4)

In this context, [Ni²⁺] is defined as dividedKsp by [OH−]², and β₁–β4 denote the cumulative formation constants of Ni(II) hydroxo-complexes [49]. The observed sub-theoretical performance is attributed to additional removal mechanisms in the bimetallic Cr–Ni system. These include: (i) heterogeneous co-precipitation, in which Ni² ⁺ adsorbs onto the surfaces of freshly formed Cr(OH)3 flocs, which are most abundant at pH 7.5–9.0, thereby providing additional removal capacity beyond that predicted by Ni(OH)2 solubility equilibrium alone [50]; and (ii) enmeshment of residual colloidal Ni(OH)2 microparticles within A-PAM polymer bridging networks, which capture fine suspended precipitate that would otherwise evade sedimentation. The RSM-predicted optimum (pH 8.0–9.0) is approximately 0.5 pH units below the theoretical thermodynamic minimum (pH 9.0–9.5 under ideal conditions of pure water at 25°C). This systematic offset aligns with three concurrent real-matrix effects: (i) metal–organic complexation by EDTA-type ligands and gluconates present in the E3 effluent, which maintain a fraction of Ni²⁺ in the dissolved complexed phase and shift the effective precipitation optimum toward lower pH values, where Ca² ⁺ released by lime competitively displaces Ni²⁺ from its organic complexes [33]; (ii) co-precipitation enhancement by Cr(OH)3 surfaces, which is atmaximized pH 7.5–9.0 [50]; and (iii) kinetic limitations inherent to jar-test timescales (30 minutes total contact), during which diffusion-controlled nucleation and crystal growth of Ni(OH)2 are incomplete relative to thermodynamic equilibrium predictions.

Zone 3 — pH 9.5–12.0 (Re-dissolution region): At pH values above 9.5, residual Ni concentrations increased progressively, directly confirming the re-dissolution phenomenon indicated by the positive quadratic response surface methodology (RSM) coefficient B² = +3.98. This trend is attributed to the sequential formation of soluble anionic hydroxo-complexes under high-alkalinity conditions [49] (Equations (5) and (6)):

Ni(OH)2(s)+OH−→[Ni(OH)3]− (logβ3=11.33) (5)
Ni(OH)2(s)+2OH−→[Ni(OH)4]2− (logβ4=13.60) (6)

When pH exceeds 10, effluent nickel concentrations exceed the NT 106.002 ONAS discharge limit of 1 mg/L, indicating that excessive alkalization is as operationally detrimental as insufficient alkalization and must be rigorously controlled. The positive quadratic coefficient B² reflects two distinct, experimentally validated physicochemical phenomena: the thermodynamic driving force for Ni(OH)2 precipitation, maximized between pH 8.5 and 9.0, and the hydroxo-complex re-dissolution penalty, which becomes significant above pH 9.5. The strong concordance between the RSM-predicted optimum (pH 8.0–9.0) and the experimentally determined minimum solubility region demonstrates that the RSM model effectively captures the thermodynamic and kinetic constraints governing Ni(OH)2 precipitation in the complex bimetallic Cr–Ni industrial matrix, despite its empirical foundation.

3.3 Innovations and comparative performance of electroplating wastewater (EPW) treatment systems in the context of existing literature

As shown in Table 8, the comparative assessment places the present study within the broader landscape of EPW treatment technologies, highlighting critical trade-offs among performance, economic viability, and operational complexity. A distinguishing feature of this work is its full-scale industrial validation over 24 weeks under real-world process conditions, in contrast to predominantly laboratory-scale investigations [7,10,14], where treatment durations rarely exceed several days under controlled conditions. While laboratory studies consistently report removal efficiencies of 95–99%, the present study’s extended dataset provides empirical evidence that optimized lime-based precipitation maintains high removal efficiencies (99% for Cr, 97% for Ni) despite compositional fluctuations, demonstrating operational resilience that laboratory investigations cannot adequately assess.

Table 8. Comparison of electroplating wastewater (EPW) treatment methods reported in the literature and those employed in the current full-scale study.

Ref. Scale Treatment Key Pollutants — Influent→ Effluent (mg/L) (Removal) Cost (€·m−3) Remarks
This study Full-scale + Lab PC— Multi-stage

3 configurations: C1: FeCl, C2: PAC and C3: LS
Cr: 70–132 → 0.1–1.03 (99%)

Ni: 33–92 → 0.61–4.6 (97%)

Cl−: 1171–1418 → 588–792 (50%)
C1: 0.432

C2: 0.303

C3: 0.134
RSM–CCD model (R² = 0.9917); adaptive dosing; best cost-efficiency
[1] Full-scale PC — Multi-stage (PAC/PAMNaCl O, Na2S, FeSO4) Cr: 4–332 → 0.53–7.61 (up to 99.8%)

Ni: 20–499 → variable (40–90%)

COD: 1000–2500 → 400–1000 (24–79%)
Chem: ~ 2.05/ Sludge: ~ 4.97 Inconsistent performance; very high
[26] Lab + Industrial PC — Coagulation with A. squamosa biomass Ni: 200–1700 → ~87.6 (90–91%)

Turbidity: → 60–64 NTU (>98%)
Low (expected) Green coagulant; sludge reduced 4 × vs. alum
[10] Lab Subcritical hydrothermal + Redox + Adsorption (PVC co-treatment) Ni² ⁺ : real EPW → ~0.03% residual (99.97%) — Exceptional removal; dual-waste valorization; not upscaled
[7] Lab Adsorption — UBSB biochar Cr: 0.44 → ~0 (100%)

Ni: 10.1 → variable (variable)

Cu: 36.7 → ~0 (90–100%)
Low (expected) Real EPW tested; long contact time; variable Ni/Zn
[12] Lab + Pilot Electrochemical — PE-SACC (sinusoïdal AC, Fe electrodes) Cu: 50 → 0.12 (99.3%)

Zn: 50 → 0.63 (99.1%)

Ni: 50 → 0.08 (98.4%)
~0.019 (EEC: 0.105 kWh/m³) −37% energy vs. DCC; −67% sludge; low COD removal
[14] Lab Electrochemical — EO (Ti/TiO2-GO-SnO2 electrode) Cr(VI): 100 → 2.45 (97.6%)

Zn: 100 → 4.34 (95.7%)

COD: 800 → 101 (87.3%)
~1.12 (14.97 kWh/m³) Novel electrode; high energy cost; continuous mode viable
[25] Lab Membrane hybrid — AGMD + SLM + ED Ni: real EPW → concentrated/recovered AGMD (99.4%)· SLM (76%)· ED (81%) — Ni recovery focus; complex multi-stage; not yet upscaled

PC: PhysicochemicalConfiguration; C1, C2, C3: 1, 2, 3; FeCl3: Ferric chloride; PAC: Polyaluminum chloride; NaClO; Nahypochlorite: Sodium 2S: Sodium sulfide; FeSO4: Ferrous sulfate; Cr: Chromium; Ni: Nickel; Cu: Copper; Zn: Zinc; Cl−: Chloride; Chemical ox: CODygen demand; NTU: Nephelometric turbidity unit; EPW: Electroplating wastewater; PVC: Polyvinyl chloride; UBSB: biochar; PE-SACC: Photovoltaic energy-sinusoidal alternating current coagulation; AC: Alternating current; DCC: Direct current control; EEC: Electrical energy consumption; EO: Electrooxidation; Ti/TiO2-GO-SnO2: Titanium/titanium dioxide-graphene oxide-tin dioxide composite electrode; SS: Stainless steel; AGMD: Air-gap membrane distillation; SLM: Supported liquid membrane; ED: Electrodialysis; RSM: Response surface methodology; CCD: Central composite design; R²: Correlation coefficient; Lab: Laboratory scale; LS: Lime slurry.

A comparison with Gao et al. [1], who operated a sophisticated eight-stage system at full scale, is particularly instructive. Despite automated controls and cascaded treatment stages, the facility experienced persistent instability, and treated wastewater frequently failed to meet standards because of improper dosing and unreliable monitoring. These findings indicate that increased system complexity does not ensure treatment stability. The streamlined approach of Configuration 3, which achieves superior performance through optimized chemistry rather than advanced processes, demonstrates that robust treatment fundamentally depends on controlling chemical mechanisms rather than on incorporating multiple unit operations.

The chemical cost of Configuration 3, at 0.134 €·m−3, represents an approximately 69% reduction compared to conventional FeCl3-based treatment—thereby positioning lime precipitation as one of the most cost-effective options reported. The cost advantage stems from lime’s multifunctional role, which enables pH adjustment, metal precipitation, and coagulation in a single step. This eliminates the need for multiple specialized reagents typically used in conventional systems.

A comparison with the operation described by Gao et al. [1], which reports total costs exceeding 7.80 €·m−3, highlights the economic burden associated with process complexity. Elevated costs are attributed to multiple chemical additions across eight stages and significant sludge management expenses (4.97 €·m−3). These expenses result from coagulant-polymer precipitation, which generates large volumes of sludge with poor dewatering characteristics. In contrast, lime-based systems produce crystalline metal hydroxide sludges with superior settling properties. This is supported by Bhagavath et al. (2021) [26], who observed a reduction in sludge volume when alum was replaced with lime combinations.

Advanced technologies offer notable benefits but also pose significant challenges. Tang et al.‘s [12] photovoltaic-powered electrocoagulation (EC) achieves high removal efficiency (>98%) at a low operational cost (~0.019 €·m−3). However, this method requires substantial capital investment, frequent electrode maintenance (cleaning every 7 days), and the regular addition of conductive salt.

Hybrid membrane processes involve sequential operations, extended treatment times (240 minutes), and complex protocols, making them suitable only for recovering high-value metals [25]. These comparisons indicate that, although advanced technologies demonstrate strong laboratory performance, their operational complexity and economic demands may limit their applicability in standard industrial settings.

A major limitation in existing research is reliance on synthetic effluents, which tend to overestimate industrial treatment performance. In contrast, this study evaluates authentic post-dechromatization wastewater, characterized by variable nickel concentrations (33–92 mg/L), residual chromium, competing metals, organic complexants, and elevated chloride levels, thereby offering a more realistic assessment. Bhagavath et al. [26] reported 90–91% nickel removal from synthetic solutions but observed a significant performance decline with real effluents containing over 1000 mg/L Ni, which required dilution. The identification of metal-ligand complexation, chloride interference, and fixed-dosing limitations reveals challenges common across multiple treatment modalities that are seldom addressed in laboratory studies. These findings emphasize that successful treatment depends on understanding complex wastewater matrices rather than solely on technology selection.

The comparative analysis confirms that the present approach is scientifically rigorous, economically competitive, and industrially viable. Configuration 3 demonstrates high efficiency, 24 weeks of operational stability, and exceptional cost-effectiveness, positioning it favorably against both conventional multi-stage systems and emerging technologies. Systematic optimization of existing chemical treatments, rather than relying on complex new technologies, shows that significant advances remain possible within proven frameworks. Continued progress will require thoughtful process design, full-scale validation, and adaptive optimization using real-time sensing and automated dosage adjustment, building incrementally on principles that have proven effective in industrial practice.

4. Environmental implications and research perspectives

Configuration 3 delivers significant environmental improvements that exceed regulatory requirements. Effluent nickel concentrations are consistently reduced from 33–92 mg/L to below 2 mg/L and, with response surface methodology (RSM)-optimized dosing, to below 1 mg/L. This reduction eliminates the acute ecotoxicological risk associated with nickel discharge into receiving water bodies, where bioaccumulation in benthic organisms and fish is a documented concern [51]. Chromium removal rates exceeding 99% mitigate the carcinogenic and mutagenic risks posed by residual Cr(VI) and Cr(III) in aquatic environments [52]. Replacing FeCl3 with chloride-free lime reduces secondary chloride loading by approximately 530 mg/L per treatment cycle. As a result, effluent chloride concentrations are maintained at 550–750 mg/L, enabling reuse of treated water for non-potable industrial applications, such as equipment rinsing and cooling circuits, thereby reducing freshwater withdrawal at the facility.

Sludge generated by lime-based precipitation poses both an environmental challenge and an opportunity for resource recovery. Configuration 3 yields crystalline O(NiH)2 and Cr(OH)3 sludges with improved settling, leading to lower filter press energy use, reduced dewatered cake volume, and lower transportation costs than Configurations 1 and 2. The Ni(OH)2-enriched fraction is a promising secondary raw material, recoverable via acidic leaching followed by electrowinning [53]. The Cr(OH)3 fraction can be converted to Cr2O3 via calcination at 800–900°C for use as a pigment, refractory material, or tanning agent [53], thereby facilitating closure of the chromium material cycle. These recovery strategies convert hazardous waste streams into valuable secondary resources, improving the economic viability of the treatment process. Comprehensive sludge characterization, including X-ray Diffraction (XRD) phase analysis, Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area measurement, and quantification of metal content under adaptive dosing conditions, is a key priority for future research aimed at evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of these valorization pathways.

Several avenues should be prioritized in future research. The response surface methodology (RSM) framework, currently focused on nickel as the primary response variable, should be expanded to a multi-response design that simultaneously optimizes the removal of chromium, copper, and zinc, thereby capturing cross-metal interaction effects that this study does not address. Integrating the predictive model into a continuous-flow automated control system that combines online influent monitoring with real-time adaptive dosing constitutes a significant near-term implementation step.

A comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis, incorporating energy consumption, sludge valorization revenues, and capital amortization, is necessary to fully assess the economic benefits of Configuration 3 beyond chemical operating costs. Surface interaction studies, including Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm fitting, SEM-EDX and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) characterization, and zeta potential measurements as functions of pH and coagulant dose, would clarify the relative contributions of precipitation and surface adsorption to nickel removal, elucidate the electrostatic mechanisms underlying A-PAM bridging efficiency and optimal particle destabilization, and enhance the mechanistic interpretation of the RSM model coefficients. The fate of emerging micro-contaminants (EMCs), including N-nitrosamine precursors from plating-bath surfactants, requires dedicated analytical investigation due to their potential for co-removal with metal hydroxide sludges during precipitation. The variability-responsive RSM methodology developed in this study is also directly applicable to other compositionally variable industrial effluents, such as acid mine drainage, pharmaceutical, and agro-industrial streams. Treating influent fluctuations as explicit design variables rather than uncontrolled disturbances represents a significant methodological advancement for adaptive, regulation-compliant treatment system design.

5. Conclusions

Strategic physicochemical reconfiguration, combined with variability-responsive statistical optimization, delivers superior treatment performance, enhanced operational stability, and exceptional economic efficiency in electroplating wastewater treatment. Over 24 weeks of full-scale industrial operation, lime slurry-based Configuration 3 achieved optimal results, removing 99% of chromium and 97% of nickel and reducing chloride levels by approximately 50% compared with conventional FeCl3-based treatment. This configuration operated at 0.134 €·m−3, representing a 69% reduction relative to Configuration 1 (0.432 €·m−3). The principal scientific contribution is a variability-responsive RSM-CCD model ([Ni]f = f([Ni]i, pH, [A-PAM], R² = 0.9917) that explicitly incorporates fluctuations in influent nickel concentration (33–92 mg/L) as an independent design factor. This approach, implemented for the first time in electroplating wastewater treatment, generates adaptive optimal dosing targets (pH 8.5–9.0, [A-PAM] 6–7 mg/L) that dynamically respond to influent variability, ensuring residual nickel remains below 2 mg/L throughout the operational domain. The quadratic pH effect (B2 = +3.98, p < 0.0001) was experimentally validated and linked to ththermodynamicallye Ni(OH)2 solubility minimum, confirming the physical significance of the model coefficients. These findings demonstrate that substantial performance improvements are achievable within established physicochemical treatment frameworks through intelligent process chemistry and adaptive statistical control, without reliance on capital-intensive emerging technologies.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Underlying data for Figs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12.

(XLSX)

pone.0345965.s001.xlsx (193.8KB, xlsx)

Abbreviations

A-PAM

Anionic polyacrylamide

AGMD

Air-gap membrane distillation

AF

Antifoaming agent

Al2O3

Aluminum oxide

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

BET

Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (surface area measurement method)

BOD₅

Biochemical oxygen demand (5 days)

β₁–β4

Cumulative formation constants;

C1, C2, C3

Configuration 1, 2, 3

C chem

Chemical operating cost (€•m−3)

CCD

Central composite design

Cl−

Chloride ion

COD

Chemical oxygen demand

Cr(III)

Trivalent chromium

Cr(VI)

Hexavalent chromium

Cu (Cu²⁺)

Copper

DCC

Direct current coagulation

DF

Desirability function

D i

Dosage of reagent i (kg•m−3)

DXA

Twips Per Pixel (docx unit specification)

EC

Electrocoagulation

ECw

Electrical conductivity of water

ED

Electrodialysis

EDTA

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

EEC

Electrical energy consumption

E1

Chromic acidic effluents

E2

Alkaline effluents

E3

Initial reference wastewater

EMCs

Emerging contaminants

EO

Electrooxidation

EPW

Electroplating wastewater

°C

Degrees Celsius

€•m−3

Euros per cubic meter

F-value

Fisher value

Fe

Iron

FeCl3

Ferric chloride

FeSO4

Ferrous sulfate

f-EPW

Final treated electroplating wastewater

FTIR

Fourier transform infrared Spectroscopy

H2SO4

Sulfuric acid

h

Hours

HMs

Heavy metals

ICP

Inductively coupled plasma

INNORPI

Tunisian Institute of Standardization

[Ni]ᵢ

Initial nickel concentration

[Ni]f

Final nickel concentration

K sp

Solubility product constant

LMH

Liters per square meter per hour

LS

Lime slurry

LSTM

Long Short-Term Memory (neural network)

mg/L

Milligrams per liter

min

Minutes

MS

Mean square

NaCl

Sodium chloride

NaClO

Sodium hypochlorite

Na2S

Sodium sulfide

NaHSO3

Sodium bisulfite

NH4⁺-N

Ammonium nitrogen

Ni(II)

Divalent nickel

NO3−-N

Nitrate nitrogen

NT 106.002

Tunisian Standard 106.002

NTU

Nephelometric turbidity unit

OC

Operating cost

ONAS

National Office of Sanitation

OPs

Organic pollutants

PAC

Polyaluminum chloride

PAM

Polyacrylamide

Pb

Lead

PC

Physicochemical

PE-SACC

Photovoltaic energy–sinusoidal alternating current coagulation

PHD

Public hydraulic domain

Pi

Unit price of reagent i (€/kg)

PLC

Programmable logic controller

p-value

Probability value

PV

Photovoltaic

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride

Q

Ionic product

R²

Correlation coefficient

R²adj

Adjusted correlation coefficient

R²pred

Predicted correlation coefficient

rpm

Revolutions per minute

RSM

Response Surface Methodology

SACC

Sinusoidal alternating current coagulation

SEM-EDX

Scanning Electron Microscopy - Energy Dispersive X-ray

SLM

Supported liquid membrane

SS

Stainless steel

TN

Total nitrogen

TOC

Total organic carbon

TP

Total phosphorus

TSS

Total suspended solids

UBSB

Biochar

XRD

X-ray Diffraction

Zn (Zn²⁺)

Zinc

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).

References

  • 1.Gao J, Han H, Zhu J, Zhou J. Navigating challenges in electroplating wastewater management: a study on pollutant removal characteristics and economic impacts by physicochemical treatment. Colloids Surf C: Environ Asp. 2025;3:100060. doi: 10.1016/j.colsuc.2025.100060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Li Z, Du C. Current status and research trends of electroplating wastewater treatment: systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Desalination. 2025;613:119004. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2025.119004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Babilas D, Chromikova J, Kopyto D, Leszczynska-Sejda K, Dydo P. Application of electrodialysis enhanced with complex formation integrated with electrolysis for treatment of electroplating wastewaters as a new approach to selective copper recovery. Chem Eng J. 2024;494:152707. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.152707 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Huang H, Chen Z, Su Y, Zeng H, Li H, Chen Y, et al. N-nitrosamines in electroplating and printing/dyeing industrial wastewater treatment plants: removal efficiency, environmental emission, and the influence on drinking water. Water Res. 2024;255:121537. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang L, Qin L, Ma L, Shen Z, Jin Y, Chen S. Treatment of electroplating wastewater using electrocoagulation and integrated membrane. Water Sci Technol. 2024;89(9):2538–57. doi: 10.2166/wst.2024.136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li Z, Bi Y, Li Y, Dong P, Zhang Y, Huang Z, et al. Synergistic benefits of pollution and carbon emissions reduction in the resource utilization of electroplating wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng. 2025;13:117825. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2025.117825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arriola-Villaseñor E, Ardila AN, Rolando Barrera Z, Hernández J. Using banana waste biochar for simultaneous removal of heavy metals from raw real wastewater from the electroplating industry. Desalin Water Treat. 2023;314:88–102. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2023.30079 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mahmood Z, Yuan Y, Garg S, Chen Y, Li X, Cui T, et al. Boosting adsorption of organically complexed Ni onto thin-layered porous biomass-derived carbon. Water. 2026;18(3):371. doi: 10.3390/w18030371 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.García-Ávila F, Mayancela-Santander E, Alvarado-Pacheco B, Valdiviezo-Gonzales L, Cadme-Galabay M, Zhindón-Arévalo C, et al. Comparative analysis of coagulants for selective removal of iron and aluminum from galvanic wastewater: a practical and effective approach. Ain Shams Eng J. 2025;16(7):103393. doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2025.103393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Xiu FR, Zhang Y, Du J, Qi Y. Treatment of waste PVC by subcritical nickel-containing electroplating wastewater: crucial redox effect on PVC dechlorination and nickel removal. J Environ Chem Eng. 2025;13:119050. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2025.119050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ibrahimi S, Gasmi A, Elboughdiri N, Aydi SS, Ghernaout D, Hannachi A. Nanofiltration and electrocoagulation treatment of Moorish Bath wastewater for irrigation purposes: case study of El-Hamma, southeastern Tunisia. J Water Process Eng. 2025;70:106955. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.106955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tang X, Xu T, Hu S, Liu K, Zeng Z, Wu Q, et al. Design and implementation of control system for electroplating wastewater treatment by photovoltaic energy sinusoidal alternating current coagulation technology. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2024;182:405–15. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2023.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kamar MT, Elattar H, Mahmoud AS, Peters RW, Mostafa MK. A critical review of state-of-the-art technologies for electroplating wastewater treatment. Int J Environ Anal Chem. 2024;104:4143–76. doi: 10.1080/03067319.2022.2098486 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rajoria S, Vashishtha M, Sangal VK. Electroplating wastewater treatment by electro-oxidation using synthesized new electrode: experimental, optimization, kinetics, and cost analysis. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2024;183:735–56. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.01.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Almazán-Ruiz FJ, Caballero F, Cruz-Díaz MR, Rivero EP, Vazquez-Arenas J, González I. Nickel recovery from an electroplating rinsing effluent using RCE bench scale and RCE pilot plant reactors: the influence of pH control. Chem Eng Res Des. 2015;97:18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2015.02.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Song J, Ran B, An Q, Deng S, Feng Z, Zhao B, et al. Dual cross-linked hydrogel microbial reactor: an improved microbial immobilization technology to treat mixed electroplating wastewater. Process Biochem. 2025;150:57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2025.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang J, Guan Y, Guo M, Gao J, Yang M, Liu Y, et al. New insights into the remediation of chromium-contaminated industrial electroplating wastewater by an innovative nano-modified biochar derived from spent mushroom substrate: mechanisms, batch study, stability and application. Chemosphere. 2024;367:143621. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Scarazzato T, Panossian Z, Tenório JAS, Pérez-Herranz V, Espinosa DCR. A review of cleaner production in electroplating industries using electrodialysis. J Clean Prod. 2017;168:1590–602. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.152 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Karimi S, Engstler R, Hosseinipour E, Wagner M, Heinzler F, Piepenbrink M, et al. High-pressure batch reverse osmosis (RO) for zero liquid discharge (ZLD) in a Cr(III) electroplating process. Desalination. 2024;580:117479. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2024.117479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yu X, Hou Y, Ren X, Sun C, Wang M. Research progress on the removal, recovery and direct high-value materialization of valuable metal elements in electroplating/electroless plating waste solution. J Water Process Eng. 2022;46:102577. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102577 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Peng C, Song S, Lu S, López-Valdivieso A. Electroplating wastewater treatment through chemical precipitation and electrodialysis. Eur J Miner Process Environ Prot. 2004;4:210–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moersidik SS, Nugroho R, Handayani M, Kamilawati, Pratama MA. Optimization and reaction kinetics on the removal of Nickel and COD from wastewater from electroplating industry using Electrocoagulation and Advanced Oxidation Processes. Heliyon. 2020;6(2):e03319. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lin S, Yi B, Hu X, Fang L, Yu S, Yu S, et al. Advanced sequential treatment approach for enhanced recovery in tungsten-nickel electroplating wastewater. J Water Process Eng. 2025;71:107421. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2025.107421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hidalgo LA, Mihaylov L, Croft CF, Nagul EA, Spassov TG, Kolev SD. Development and application of polymer inclusion beads for the recovery of Zn(II) from simulated industrial waste electroplating solutions. Sep Purif Technol. 2025;378:134581. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2025.134581 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Qoriati D, Tsai DW, You SJ, Wang YF. Experimental investigation on synergistic integrated MD-SLM-ED for nickel recovery from electroplating wastewater: Influence of operating parameters and optimization. Chem Eng J. 2025;506:160277. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2025.160277 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bhagavath R, Subrahmanian S, Narendrakumar G. Enhanced removal of Ni(II) from electroplating effluents using herbal biomass as alum substituents. Desalin Water Treat. 2021;244:241–52. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2021.27912 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gasmi A, Ibrahimi S, Elboughdiri N, Tekaya MA, Ghernaout D, Hannachi A, et al. Comparative study of chemical coagulation and electrocoagulation for the treatment of real textile wastewater: optimization and operating cost estimation. ACS Omega. 2022;7(26):22456–76. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c01652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Amari A, Aljibori HSS, Algarni Z, Elboughdiri N, Diab MA, Baek KH. A novel S-scheme photocatalyst Fe2O3/Bi2O3/g-C3N4 with enhanced visible-light photocatalytic performance for antibiotic degradation and CO2 reduction: RSM-based optimization. J Ind Eng Chem. 2024;140:599–616. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2024.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ibrahimi S, Gasmi A, Ben Jamaa N, Elboughdiri N, Ghernaout D, Bagane M, et al. Response surface methodology optimization of greener cement production: exploring the effects of tunisian phosphogypsum and raw meal fineness on energy efficiency and high-performance cement manufacturing. ACS Omega. 2026;11(2):2851–67. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.5c08931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bratby J. Coagulation and flocculation in water and wastewater treatment. 3rd ed. IWA Publishing; 2016. doi: 10.2166/9781780402321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rai D, Sass BM, Moore DA. Chromium(III) hydrolysis constants and solubility of chromium(III) hydroxide. Inorg Chem. 1987;26(3):345–9. doi: 10.1021/ic00250a002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Plyasunova NV, Zhang Y, Muhammed M. Critical evaluation of thermodynamics of complex formation of metal ions in aqueous solutions. IV. Hydrolysis and hydroxo-complexes of Ni²⁺ at 298.15 K. Hydrometallurgy. 1998;48(1):43–63. doi: 10.1016/S0304-386X(97)00070-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fu F, Wang Q. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: a review. J Environ Manag. 2011;92(3):407–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Baird RB, Eaton AD, Rice EW. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 23 ed. Washington (DC): American Public Health Association; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.International Organization for Standardization. Water quality—Determination of the chemical oxygen demand index (ST-COD)—Small-scale sealed-tube method. ISO 15705:2002. Geneva: ISO; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kumar V, Dwivedi SK. A review on accessible techniques for removal of hexavalent chromium and divalent nickel from industrial wastewater: recent research and future outlook. J Clean Prod. 2021;295:126229. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126229 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Abou-Elela SI, El-Kamah HM, Aly HI. Waste minimization in the electroplating industry (case study). Int J Environ Stud. 1998;55:287–96. doi: 10.1080/00207239808711186 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bouyer D, Coufort C, Liné A, Do-Quang Z. Experimental analysis of floc size distributions in a 1-L jar under different hydrodynamics and physicochemical conditions. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2005;292(2):413–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2005.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lee CS, Robinson J, Chong MF. A review on application of flocculants in wastewater treatment. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2014;92(6):489–508. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.04.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Xu Z, Wu T, Cao Y, Chen C, Ke S, Zeng X, et al. Efficient decomplexation of heavy metal-EDTA complexes by Co²⁺/peroxymonosulfate process: the critical role of replacement mechanism. Chem Eng J. 2020;392:123639. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123639 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Aguilar MI, Sáez J, Lloréns M, Soler A, Ortuño JF, Meseguer V, et al. Improvement of coagulation-flocculation process using anionic polyacrylamide as coagulant aid. Chemosphere. 2005;58(1):47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Amuda OS, Amoo IA, Ipinmoroti KO, Ajayi OO. Coagulation/flocculation process in the removal of trace metals present in industrial wastewater. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2006;10:159–62. doi: 10.4314/jasem.v10i3.17339 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Abdul Fattah AB, Azhar AH. Treatment of automotive wastewater by coagulation-flocculation using poly-aluminum chloride (PAC), ferric chloride (FeCl3) and aluminum sulfate (alum). AIP Conf Proc. 2013;1571:524–31. doi: 10.1063/1.4858708 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen Q, Yao Y, Li X, Lu J, Zhou J, Huang Z. Comparison of heavy metal removals from aqueous solutions by chemical precipitation and characteristics of precipitates. J Water Process Eng. 2018;26:289–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nordkalk. Water treatment—Lime products for water and wastewater treatment. [cited 2023 Jan 1]. Available from: https://www.nordkalk.com/water-treatment-with-lime-products/
  • 46.Kavaliauskas Ž, Blažiūnas G, Šajev I, Iljinas A, Gimžauskaitė D. Development and optimization of an automated industrial wastewater treatment system using PLC and LSTM neural network. Appl Sci. 2025;15:8990. doi: 10.3390/app15168990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Adeniyi AG, Ighalo JO. A review of steam reforming of glycerol. Chem Pap. 2019;73:2619–35. doi: 10.1007/s11696-019-00840-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Revie RW, Uhlig HH. Corrosion and corrosion control: an introduction to corrosion science and engineering. 4th ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Stumm W, Morgan JJ. Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters. 3rd ed. Wiley; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kostrzewa M, Staszak K, Ginter-Kramarczyk D, Kruszelnicka I, Góra W, Baraniak M, et al. Chromium(III) removal from nickel(II)-containing waste solutions as a pretreatment step in a hydrometallurgical process. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(18):6217. doi: 10.3390/ma15186217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. 4th ed. WHO Press; 2011. ISBN: 9789241548151. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548151 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Arsenic, metals, fibres and dusts. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2012;100C:147–67. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304377/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Laokhen P, Ma-ud N, Yingnakorn T, Patcharawit T, Khumkoa S. Recovery of nickel from spent electroplating solution by hydrometallurgical and electrometallurgical process. J Met Mater Miner. 2022;32(2):95–100. doi: 10.55713/jmmm.v32i2.1253 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sovik Das

27 Apr 2026

Dear Dr. Ibrahimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 11 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sovik Das

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602). “

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. ]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents an attempt to optimize operating parameters for electroplating wastewater treatment using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). While the approach is relevant, this paper lacks a novelty statement. The technical depth of the work is also insufficient, with limited mechanistic insight and inadequate justification of the chosen parameters. The manuscript is somewhat confusing and lacks coherence, making it difficult to follow the overall narrative. The flow between sections is weak, and the study lacks a logically connected progression of ideas. Additionally, some of the underlying assumptions and basis of the study appear questionable and are not adequately supported by scientific reasoning. Overall, the manuscript requires substantial improvement in terms of originality, technical rigour, clarity, and logical structuring before it can be considered for publication. Comments can be referred to in the attached PDF.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a comparative evaluation of physicochemical treatment configurations for electroplating wastewater and introduces an RSM-based optimization framework incorporating influent variability. The work is relevant and practically valuable, especially due to its full-scale industrial dataset and cost analysis. However, the manuscript requires major revisions, particularly in the mechanistic interpretation of treatment processes and discussion of human/environmental implications.

Address the following comments:

1. What are the discharge limits for the concerned pollutants and mention standards in the introduction?

2. What operating conditions critically influence the precipitation process?

3. State some of the previous RSM related studies for industrial effluents, their major outcomes and then correlate with the research gaps.

4. The manuscript consists of many short paragraphs. Authors are requested to properly format and improve the scientific language of manuscript.

5. TSS removal exhibits extreme variability (2-118 mg/L in f-EPW vs. 2 ± 0.3 mg/L in E3), why there is standard deviation missing at some places

6. Authors are requested to discuss the mechanism in detail for metal speciation and precipitation chemistry in the manuscript

7. Electroplating wastewater contains strong chelating agents such as EDTA, surfactants. How the mentioned coagulants break the metal-organic complexes and their kinetics effect the precipitation process?

8. The coefficients from the model should be more related to real chemistry

9. Why are emerging contaminants discussed only in the introduction but not in results and discussion?

10. The PC parameters used to evaluate the performance of the EPW investigated in this study were systematically analyzed using standardized and validated analytical methods. Mention the references or cite it

11. The manuscript report ~50% chloride removal which is unlikely as chloride mostly remain soluble. Explain it and perform the mass balance.

12. Unit and notations should be consistent

13. Some figures don’t have error bars

14. Discuss about sludge management, recyclability and how it effect the economic aspect

15. Can authors explain the superiority of lime treatment over current research trends such as adsorption, electrocoagulation, and membrane processes

16. The manuscript reports a significant quadratic effect of pH on nickel removal. Experimentally validate it by evaluating residual Ni over pH range to identify minimum solubility region, re-dissolution at higher pH

17. Correlate RSM optimum pH with minimum thermodynamic solubility

18. Surface interaction studies can be performed to analyse the role of adsorption alongwith precipitation. Isotherm model can be fitted.

19. Discuss the role of mixing speed during jar test, how it effects the diffusion?

20. Environmental and health implication can be discussed in separate section

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-12528.pdf

pone.0345965.s002.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-12528 Comments.docx

pone.0345965.s003.docx (13.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0345965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345965.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jun 2026

We have carefully addressed all reviewer and editor comments. Our detailed responses are provided in the attached file named "Response to Reviewers", and are also copied in full below for your convenience.

Response to Reviewers

Journal of PLOS ONE | Manuscript No. PONE-D-26-12528

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions. All feedback has been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been extensively revised in response. These revisions have strengthened the manuscript's scientific rigor, clarity, technical depth, and overall organization.

All modifications in the revised manuscript are marked in red for clarity.

Below, we present a detailed point-by-point response to each comment.

Responses to the Academic Editor

Comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response:

The manuscript has been meticulously reformatted to comply with the official PLOS ONE guidelines, including manuscript structure, section organization, figure and table formatting, references, abbreviations, and file naming conventions. The revised version is now fully compliant with all journal formatting requirements.

Comment 2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript.

Response:

No custom computational code or proprietary software was developed for this study. Statistical analyses and response surface methodology (RSM) modeling were conducted using the commercially available Design-Expert® software. All experimental data, model equations, operating conditions, and statistical outputs required to reproduce the results are provided in the manuscript and the Supporting Information files.

Comment 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).“ Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Response:

One of the project requirements is to include the funding statement and acknowledgments exactly as they appear in the manuscript, without any changes. Thank you to keep it as it is (you can refer to this published paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133205 Funding Statement/ acknowledgement are the same).

The Funding Statement/ acknowledgement: “This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602). The funder was actively involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, and the preparation of the manuscript.

Comment 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

-The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Response:

We thank the editor for this clarification. We confirm that our submission now contains all raw data required to replicate all findings reported in the study. A new Supporting Information file (S1 Data) has been added, containing the underlying data. All relevant data for Figures 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are now provided. The Data Availability Statement has been updated accordingly to: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Comment 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Response:

One of the project requirements is to include the funding statement and acknowledgments exactly as they appear in the manuscript, without any changes. Thank you to keep it as it is (you can refer to this published paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133205 Funding Statement/ acknowledgement are the same).

The Funding Statement/ acknowledgement: “This research was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2602).

Comment 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Response:

The reviewers did not recommend any specific references for citation.

Responses to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the thorough and constructive evaluation. Reviewer 1's technically insightful comments have substantially strengthened the manuscript's scientific rigor, mechanistic depth, and overall coherence. All revisions in response to Reviewer 1 are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1. When coagulation process is discussed, techniques like zeta potential are considered, which is missing as of now. Also, for any coagulation process, turbidity and coagulant dosage curve is important, which is also missing. Also, sludge characterization can be added to solidify your paper. It is suggested to add more data or results which are related to coagulation and flocculation process.

Response:

We thank the Reviewer for these insightful technical comments. We acknowledge that the coagulation and flocculation characterization section required further development, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We address each point in detail below.

Point 1 — Zeta Potential:

We concur that zeta potential is a fundamental parameter in coagulation science, as it governs colloidal stability and the charge-neutralization mechanism that determines destabilization efficiency. However, we note that direct zeta potential measurements were not conducted during the full-scale monitoring campaign because online zeta potential analyzers were unavailable at the Tunisian facility.

A dedicated paragraph has been added to the revised manuscript (page 12, lines 281-291) to discuss the role of zeta potential in the coagulation process.

"Coagulation: The dechromatized E1 effluents are combined with the alkaline E2 streams to produce a mixed effluent that undergoes coagulation. In this step, a chemical coagulant is introduced under rapid agitation to destabilize colloidal particles and suspended matter through charge neutralization and sweep floc formation. The effectiveness of destabilization is monitored using zeta potential measurements, which quantitatively assess the electrokinetic stability of the colloidal suspension. Optimal coagulation is achieved when the zeta potential approaches neutrality (approximately 0 mV), indicating that electrostatic repulsive forces have been sufficiently reduced to permit interparticle aggregation [30]. This process facilitates the formation of primary microflocs that act as nucleation sites for subsequent metal hydroxide precipitation, while also reducing turbidity and enhancing the settling characteristics of the treated effluent."

Point 2 — Turbidity and coagulant dosage curve:

The initial effluent E3 contains a negligible concentration of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (2 ± 0.3 mg/L), as shown in Table 1. Because turbidity is determined by suspended particulate matter, it is negligible and not a relevant process performance indicator in this context. The primary water quality concerns in E3 are elevated concentrations of heavy metals and chlorides, which exceed regulatory discharge limits.

To further support this justification, Section 2.2 (pages 14 and 15, lines 356-366) has been revised to explicitly clarify that removal of suspended solids is not the primary challenge for this treatment system. Instead, the assessment focuses on heavy metal removal as the central performance criterion.

"The TSS of the initial effluent E3 is inherently negligible (2 ± 0.3 mg/L), indicating that turbidity, governed by the suspended particulate load, is also negligible and does not serve as a meaningful performance indicator or limiting parameter for this specific industrial wastewater matrix. The observed TSS variability in f-EPW (2 ± 1 – 118 ± 2 mg/L) is attributable to operational inconsistencies in the settling stage rather than to coagulation deficiency, confirming that suspended solids removal is not the primary challenge in this treatment system. In contrast, the most significant deficiencies are associated with HMs and chloride concentrations, which have been identified as the primary limiting factors for regulatory compliance and environmental impact. These parameters, therefore, constitute the central focus of the comparative performance assessment in this study."

Point 3 — Sludge Characterization:

We acknowledge that comprehensive quantitative sludge characterization was not conducted during the monitoring campaign. Nevertheless, preliminary field observations indicated that lime-based treatment (Configuration 3) produced higher sludge volumes due to calcium-based byproducts (CaCO₃, Ca(OH)₂). This configuration also showed improved settling behavior, increased dry solids content, and enhanced dewaterability, which partially offset disposal costs.

A dedicated paragraph summarizing these observations has been added to the new section "4. Environmental implications and research perspectives," which recommends standardized sludge characterization as future work. This paragraph is marked in red in the revised manuscript (pages 68-69, lines 1662-1674) (see also Response to Reviewer 2, Comment 14). Additionally, a preliminary discussion appears on pages 42-43 (lines 1039-1056) and is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2. How is this method novel?

Response:

The innovation lies not in the individual techniques employed (RSM, coagulation, flocculation, precipitation), which are well established, but in reframing the optimization problem conceptually.

Conventional RSM-based studies treat influent composition as a fixed parameter, optimizing treatment conditions for a single, predefined wastewater quality. In contrast, this study introduces influent nickel concentration as an independent variable in the RSM-CCD design, yielding a predictive model of the form [Ni]f = f([Ni]i, pH, [A-PAM]). This model dynamically calculates optimal dosing based on the measured influent load, enabling real-time adaptive process control. The statistical identification of a significant pH–metal loading interaction (F = 5.70, p = 0.044) provides quantitative evidence that optimal parameters shift with influent composition. This variability-responsive framework, validated over 24 weeks at full industrial scale, represents a methodological advance beyond static laboratory optimizations.

Comment 3. How this sentence is connected to the previous lines? how this is problematic in terms of the heavy metal?

Response:

We acknowledge that the transition between the toxicological characterization of Cr(VI) and Ni(II) and the subsequent discussion of chloride-based coagulants was insufficiently explicit. The intended connection is as follows: after establishing the need to remove these heavy metals, the text addresses the persistent challenges of their removal. Specifically, chloride-based coagulants such as FeCl₃, although effective for metal precipitation, introduce secondary chloride contamination that can violate discharge standards.

The paragraph has been restructured into two distinct sections: one establishing the toxicological rationale and another outlining the technical limitations. This revision is presented on pages 7 and 8 (lines 172-183) of the revised manuscript (marked in red). The revised paragraph is as follows:

" Among heavy metal (HM) contaminants, hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) and divalent nickel (Ni(II)) are of particular concern because of their extensive use in electroplating and well-documented toxicological effects [7]. Cr(VI) is associated with carcinogenicity and acute ecotoxicity [2], whereas nickel is linked to carcinogenic, allergenic, and chronic ecological effects [8].

Consistent removal of these contaminants by conventional physicochemical treatments remains technically challenging for two primary reasons. First, chloride-based coagulants such as ferric chloride (FeCl₃), commonly used for heavy metal precipitation, introduce additional chloride into treated effluents. This can result in chloride concentrations exceeding discharge standards and limit opportunities for water reuse [2,9]. Second, strong metal–organic complexes formed by plating additives can inhibit standard precipitation mechanisms, allowing residual dissolved metals to persist even when chemical dosing and pH are appropriately controlled [2,10]."

Comment 4. NT 106.002 what is this? This is not clear. can you please add more?

Response:

NT 106.002, issued by the Tunisian Institute of Standardization (INNORPI), establishes the national regulatory framework for wastewater quality in Tunisia, specifically for discharges into receiving water bodies. This standard sets legally b

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0345965.s005.docx (74.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sovik Das

8 Jul 2026

Dear Dr. Ibrahimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sovik Das

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: How the speciation was performed? Suggestion is to use Visual Minteq OR appropriate reference for speciation.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0345965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345965.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Jul 2026

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript PONE-D-26-12528R1

Title: Integrated optimization of electroplating wastewater treatment: A comparative assessment of physicochemical treatment configurations and process enhancement using response surface methodology

Journal: PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sovik Das and Reviewers,

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for the careful re-evaluation of our manuscript and for confirming that all previous comments have been adequately addressed. We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to the remaining point raised in this round of review. Our point-by-point response is provided below, with reviewer comments reproduced in italics and our responses given underneath. Changes made to the manuscript are indicated where relevant.

Journal Requirements (Academic Editor)

Comment A: “If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited.”

Response: We thank the Editor for this note. Reviewer’s comment did not recommend any specific previously published work to be cited; the comment concerned the methodology used for chemical speciation (addressed in detail under Reviewer #2, Comment 3 below). No additional citation was therefore required in response to this point.

Comment B: “Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.”

Response: We confirm that the full reference list has been carefully reviewed for this revision. All references have been checked for completeness and accuracy (authors, titles, journal names, years, volumes, and DOIs where available), and none of the cited works have been identified as retracted. No changes were made to the reference list in this revision round.

Reviewer #2

Comment 1: “All comments have been addressed.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment and for confirming that all comments raised in the previous round of review have been satisfactorily addressed.

Comment 2: Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? — “Yes.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for this favorable evaluation confirming that the manuscript is technically sound and that the data support the conclusions drawn.

Comment 3: Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? — “No” (no specific methodological concern was described in the accompanying comments).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this evaluation and would welcome any further clarification, as the written comments provided relate exclusively to the chemical speciation point addressed below (Comment 6), with no additional statistical concern specified. We would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the statistical rigor underlying our RSM model, as detailed in Section 3.2.2 (“Statistical Analysis and Model Validation”) of the manuscript. The experimental design and statistical analysis were performed using Minitab software based on a central composite design (CCD). Model significance was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), yielding a highly significant model F-value of 111.37 (p < 0.0001), together with significant individual and interaction terms (pH, [Ni]i × pH, pH × flocculant dosage, and the quadratic pH term) consistent with the underlying precipitation chemistry (Table 5). Model adequacy was further confirmed through multiple validation metrics (Table 6): a correlation coefficient R² = 0.9917, an adjusted R² of 0.9832, and a predicted R² of 0.9352, whose close mutual agreement (difference < 0.2) rules out overfitting. The adequate precision ratio of 37.08, well above the minimum acceptable threshold of 4, further confirms an excellent signal-to-noise ratio. We trust that these results reaffirm the statistical soundness of the analysis, and we remain fully available to expand on any specific aspect the reviewer may wish to see clarified further in the manuscript.

Comment 4: Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? — “Yes.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for confirming that the underlying data have been made fully available, in accordance with the PLOS Data Availability policy.

Comment 5: Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? — “Yes.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for confirming that the manuscript is clearly and correctly written in standard English.

Comment 6: “How was the speciation performed? Suggestion is to use Visual Minteq OR appropriate reference for speciation.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We would like to clarify that this point had already been addressed during the previous (major) revision round, in which we added a dedicated subsection (“Experimental Validation of the Quadratic pH Effect and Thermodynamic Correlation”) explicitly treating nickel speciation on the basis of an established thermodynamic reference rather than software-based modeling. Specifically, the residual soluble Ni fraction at each pH was interpreted using the classical Ni(II) hydrolysis/speciation framework of Stumm & Morgan (1996), which provides the solubility product of Ni(OH)₂ (Ksp = 5.5 × 10⁻¹⁶ at 25°C) together with the cumulative stability constants of the successive Ni(II) hydroxo-complexes (log β₁–β₄ = 4.97, 8.55, 11.33 and 13.60, respectively).

In that subsection, the theoretical soluble Ni(II) concentration was calculated as a function of pH from the full speciation expression:

[Ni] = [Ni²⁺] × (1 + β₁[OH⁻] + β₂[OH⁻]² + β₃[OH⁻]³ + β₄[OH⁻]⁴), with [Ni²⁺] = Ksp / [OH⁻]²

This theoretical solubility curve was directly compared with our experimental residual Ni concentrations measured across pH 6.0–12.0 on authentic industrial effluent (Fig. 12 of the manuscript). The comparison confirms that the RSM-derived quadratic pH effect (B² = +3.98, p < 0.0001) is thermodynamically consistent with Ni(OH)₂ speciation behavior, capturing (i) incomplete precipitation below pH 7.5, (ii) a minimum-solubility zone at pH 8.0–9.5 driven by Ni(OH)₂ precipitation together with co-precipitation onto Cr(OH)₃ flocs and A-PAM enmeshment, and (iii) re-dissolution above pH 9.5 due to the formation of soluble anionic hydroxo-complexes [Ni(OH)₃]⁻ and [Ni(OH)₄]²⁻.

It should be clarified that the residual Ni concentration was measured by ICP, a technique that quantifies the total elemental metal content but does not, by its nature, allow the different chemical forms present in solution to be distinguished. It is precisely for this reason that the interpretation of Ni speciation was performed a posteriori, using the thermodynamic framework of Stumm & Morgan (1996), by comparing the ICP-measured total Ni concentrations with the theoretical Ni(OH)₂ solubility curve calculated as a function of pH.

We believe that this thermodynamic speciation analysis, grounded in the well-established reference of Stumm & Morgan (1996) and validated against our own experimental data, satisfactorily addresses the reviewer’s request and reinforces the mechanistic robustness of the RSM model. Visual MINTEQ was not additionally used, as the analytical speciation framework already accounts for the full set of Ni(II) hydroxo-complexes relevant to our effluent matrix.

We thank the Academic Editor and Reviewer #2 once again for their constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen the scientific rigor of our manuscript. We hope that the revised version is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

Dr. Soumaya Ibrahimi

On behalf of all co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0345965.s006.docx (18.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Sovik Das

6 Aug 2026

<p>Integrated optimization of electroplating wastewater treatment: A comparative assessment of physicochemical treatment configurations and process enhancement using response surface methodology

PONE-D-26-12528R2

Dear Dr. Ibrahimi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sovik Das

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors' careful revision of the manuscript and their detailed responses to the reviewers' comments. The concerns raised in the previous review have been satisfactorily addressed, and the manuscript is now suitable for publication. I recommend acceptance.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Sovik Das

PONE-D-26-12528R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ibrahimi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Sovik Das

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Underlying data for Figs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0345965.s001.xlsx (193.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-12528.pdf

    pone.0345965.s002.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-12528 Comments.docx

    pone.0345965.s003.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0345965.s005.docx (74.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0345965.s006.docx (18.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES