EO Level 1 · Decision gate: Treatability Study

Is Electrochemical Oxidation Right for Your Wastewater?

Four numbers from a lab report do most of the deciding here — BOD:COD ratio, COD concentration, chloride, and whatever limit you actually have to hit. This specific page is a filter, not a pitch: work through it and you land on one of three next steps, not a demo request, what is more we never do things we can not accomplish, what is more, electrochemical oxidation is not “jack of all trades”, so explore what can electorchemical oxidation can do, and we are gonna be honest all the time.

Your wastewater chemistry BOD:COD · COD band · chloride · discharge target Decision gate Four numbers, one filter, no vendor calls yet GO Chemistry supports EO → treatability study NOT SURE A number is missing → full checklist NO A different tech fits better → compare alternatives Why a gate, not a brochure Most EO write-ups start with the electrode chemistry. This one starts with your lab report, because a boron-doped diamond anode does not care how interesting your process is — it cares about BOD:COD, chloride and concentration. Get the routing answer first, then read the electrode chemistry on the pages that answer routes you to.

How to use this page

What this gate decides — and what it doesn't

This is the entry point to our whole electrochemical oxidation knowledge base, and it does one job: sort your stream into GO, NOT SURE, or NO before you spend a week comparing vendors or a cent on a pilot skid. It does not size a reactor, pick an anode, or quote a system — that work happens downstream, once the fit question is answered.

We’ve commissioned electrode stacks against pulp mill condensate, textile dye baths, landfill leachate and a handful of streams that read well on a spec sheet and failed on a bench test for reasons the spec sheet never mentioned. The thresholds below come from that record, not from a datasheet. Treat every number as a starting point for your own lab work, not a substitute for it — and if a discharge permit is involved, run the final call past whoever holds compliance sign-off at your facility, not past this page.

The hard constraints

The four numbers that decide fit

Pull these off a certified lab report before you take a single vendor call. If any two of the four are missing, you’re not ready to answer this gate — you’re ready for the checklist below.

BOD:COD under roughly 0.3

Run EO where biology has already given up. A BOD:COD ratio below about 0.3 signals a refractory organic load — the fraction the hydroxyl radical was built to break. Above that line, aeration beats EO on cost per kilogram of COD removed almost every time.

COD in a workable concentration band

Most published pilot work sits in a 500–5,000 mg/L COD range. Below that band, current efficiency collapses — there isn't enough substrate at the electrode surface to justify the amperage, and you end up paying for oxygen evolution instead of pollutant destruction.

A chloride number you've actually checked

Above roughly 1,000–2,000 mg/L chloride, active-chlorine and BDD-driven pathways start pushing conversion toward chlorate and perchlorate. That's a permit risk to design around before day one, not a footnote for after a compliance letter arrives.

A named limit, not a wish

Projects that close have a number: a COD limit, an AOX limit, a colour spec, an EC50 toxicity threshold, or one flagged compound. "Cleaner water" without a target is how a pilot runs forever and a budget never gets approved.

The second-order factors that still swing the answer

None of these five disqualify a stream on their own — they change the design, not the verdict. A low-conductivity stream can still work with a modest electrolyte dose; a batch process can still run through EO with the right tankage in front of it.

What they do is move a borderline chemistry result from a clean GO to a NOT SURE, because the answer now depends on a cost trade-off specific to your site rather than on the chemistry alone. That’s exactly what the feasibility and compatibility tools further down this page are built to resolve.

Underneath this gate

The five clusters this decision routes to

Everything below this page exists to support one of three verdicts. Here’s what each cluster covers, so you know where you’ll land before you click through.

Before the full checklist

Run the 90-second version yourself

Six lines, all answerable from a lab report and a site walk. This isn’t the full assessment — it’s the version you can do before your coffee’s cold.
Three or more unchecked lines usually means not yet rather than no — that’s what the full checklist and the two scoring tools underneath it exist to resolve.

Why fit decisions go wrong

Five mistakes that show up as a bad fit decision

These aren’t electrode problems — they’re gate problems. Get any one of them wrong at this stage and the whole project looks like a technology failure later.
If a stream isn’t degrading because biology has never actually been tried, that’s a flowsheet decision showing up disguised as an EO fit question. Full page: /using-eo-as-primary-treatment/.
Chasing COD to zero when the limit sits 40% higher burns current density and capital a partial-oxidation design didn’t need — and it makes a workable stream look uneconomical at the gate. Full page: /overdesigning-eo-systems/.
Getting this wrong at the assessment stage inflates the perceived operating risk of the whole technology before it’s even been given a fair trial. Full page: /misunderstanding-electrode-fouling/.
The number that justified the project on paper is rarely the number the plant runs at in month six — and a gate decision built on it will look wrong within a year. Full page: /ignoring-operational-cost-scaling/.
“Textile wastewater” and “landfill leachate” are not chemistry. Two streams carrying the same label can land on opposite sides of this gate. Full page: /incorrect-wastewater-matching/.

Positioning, not promotion

What EO actually replaces

Here at Evoaeo, we won’t pitching eletrochemical oxidation technology as “one for all”, that is: If the answer to this gate is GO, this is what you’re actually adding to your train — not a general-purpose treatment plant.

A polishing step, not a plant

Sits after biological or physical treatment to finish what those stages can't touch — the last slice of refractory COD, colour, or a named toxic species.

Refractory organics biology won't eat

PFAS precursors, certain dyes, pharmaceutical residues and other structures that pass through activated sludge intact.

A compliance step ahead of discharge

Where a permit limit — not a general desire for cleaner water — is the actual driver of the project.

One stage in a longer train

Paired with equalisation, clarification, or membrane polishing rather than run as a solitary process.

The actual gate

Where this decision goes next

Every assessment on this site ends at one of three doors. Take the one your numbers actually support — not the one that’s easiest to click.

GO — the chemistry supports EO

BOD:COD is low, COD sits in a workable band, chloride is manageable, and you have a number to hit. The next step is sizing a real trial, not another comparison.

NOT SURE — a number is missing

Most streams land here on the first pass, usually because chloride, conductivity, or a target limit hasn't been pinned down. Work the full checklist before ruling anything in or out.

NO — a different technology fits better

High BOD:COD, dilute bulk flow, or municipal-scale volume usually means biological treatment, ozonation, or membrane filtration hits the same target for less money.

Straight answers

Common questions about this fit decision

A lab report tells you whether the pilot is worth paying for — it shouldn’t be the basis for a purchase order. BOD:COD, COD, chloride and conductivity from a certified lab are enough to pass or fail this gate. Sizing a full system still needs bench or pilot data on your actual stream, because current efficiency is matrix-specific in ways a spec sheet can’t predict.
That’s a NOT SURE, not a NO. Run the feasibility assessment and the compatibility score before deciding — energy cost per kilogram removed depends on your local power tariff and your target limit, and either one can move the answer.
No — it changes the electrode choice and the control strategy. Mixed metal oxide anodes handle chloride-mediated oxidation deliberately; boron-doped diamond needs byproduct monitoring designed in from day one. It’s a design constraint, not an automatic no.
It means EO is worth testing, not that it’s confirmed. A stalled biological process usually points to a refractory fraction, which is exactly what EO targets — but concentration, chloride and your discharge target still decide the actual fit.
A bench-scale trial on an actual sample, run against your named target, typically produces a usable current-efficiency and energy number in one to three weeks — faster than most teams’ first round of vendor comparisons.

Why trust this gate

Built from commissioning records, not a data sheet

The thresholds on this page came from stack commissioning work — pulp and paper condensate, textile dye baths, landfill leachate, and streams that read well on a spec sheet and failed on a bench test for reasons the spec sheet never mentioned. That’s a different starting point than a comparison chart built from published papers alone.

None of it replaces your own process engineer, and none of it should be the sole basis for a capital decision. Where a discharge permit or an environmental approval sits behind the project, get the final call signed off by whoever holds that compliance responsibility at your facility — this page gets you to the right conversation faster, not around it.

Scroll to Top