Treatment Technologies
Coagulation & Flocculation Companies
Coag/floc solution providers, chemistry, jar testing, clarifier and DAF design for particulate and colloid removal.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Coagulation/Flocculation or Ion Exchange capabilities
- Suppliers with utilities sector experience
- Providers operating in Netherlands or China
- Providers
- 81
- Verified
- 4
- Countries
- 22
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a coagulation & flocculation provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
4 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a Coagulation & Flocculation Provider
Showing 1-20 of 81
81 results from 81 matched providers
Optimizing Coagulation and Flocculation for Clarification and Filtration Performance
Coagulation and flocculation are the foundational steps in most surface water treatment trains, converting colloidal and fine suspended particles into settleable or filterable floc. Coagulation—the charge neutralization step—must occur under intense rapid mixing conditions (G values of 700–1,000 s⁻¹) for 30–60 seconds to allow the coagulant (typically aluminum or ferric salts, or polyaluminum chloride) to contact all colloidal particles before the reaction equilibrium shifts. Under-mixing produces insufficient charge neutralization; over-mixing can break nascent floc before it grows to settleable size. Coagulant dose and pH must be optimized together—aluminum coagulation operates in a narrow pH window of 6.0–7.5, while ferric coagulation is effective over a wider range of 5.0–8.0.
Flocculation—the particle agglomeration step—follows coagulation in a series of tapered-energy mixing zones (G values typically declining from 60 to 20 s⁻¹ across 20–30 minutes of detention time) designed to allow micro-floc particles to collide and bind into larger, faster-settling macrofloc. Polymer coagulant aids and flocculant aids (high-molecular-weight anionic or cationic polyacrylamides) are dosed in the flocculation stage to strengthen floc and improve settling velocity. Jar testing is essential for optimizing both coagulant dose and polymer type and dose under current feedwater conditions, as seasonal NOM character changes significantly affect optimal treatment conditions.
Inline coagulation—applying coagulant with minimal detention time directly upstream of a membrane filter—is a different design paradigm used for ultrafiltration pre-treatment in surface water plants. Here the goal is not to form large settleable floc but to destabilize colloids and NOM just enough to improve membrane adsorption and reduce irreversible fouling, with the membrane itself performing the separation. Inline coagulation doses are typically much lower than conventional coagulation doses, and overdosing can accelerate membrane fouling rather than preventing it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I determine the optimal coagulant dose for my water treatment plant?
Jar testing is the standard method for coagulant dose optimization. Run a coagulant dose-response curve (typically 4–6 dose increments) at your current feedwater turbidity, NOM concentration (measured as UV₂₅₄ absorbance or TOC), and temperature. Measure settled turbidity, final pH, and residual aluminum or iron at each dose. The optimal dose is the lowest dose that achieves your target effluent turbidity while keeping residual coagulant within regulatory limits. Jar testing should be repeated seasonally as NOM character and temperature change, and whenever source water quality shifts significantly.
What is enhanced coagulation and when is it required?
Enhanced coagulation is a treatment strategy that optimizes coagulant dose and pH to maximize total organic carbon (TOC) removal beyond what is needed just for turbidity reduction, targeting specific percent TOC removal requirements under EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule and Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR). It is required for surface water utilities in TOC removal percentage tiers defined by source water TOC and alkalinity. Enhanced coagulation typically requires operating at a lower pH (5.5–6.0 for alum) and higher coagulant dose than conventional turbidity-removal coagulation.
How do I select between aluminum sulfate (alum), ferric chloride, and polyaluminum chloride (PAC)?
Alum is the lowest-cost option and performs well in warm water (above 10°C) at moderate NOM concentrations and in the pH range of 6.0–7.5. Ferric chloride is preferred for cold water performance, higher NOM concentrations, and source waters requiring lower residual pH operation. PAC (polyaluminum chloride) typically outperforms both at lower temperatures, produces less sludge per unit of TOC removal, and works over a wider pH range, but costs 2–4 times more per kg than alum. Pilot testing or jar testing under your specific conditions is the only reliable way to compare performance for your feedwater.
What are the signs that my coagulation/flocculation process is underperforming?
Common indicators include filter effluent turbidity above 0.3 NTU on a consistent basis (suggesting poor floc formation and filter breakthrough), high filter head loss development rate (suggesting large, weak floc is blinding the filter surface rather than penetrating the bed), visible pinpoint floc in the settled effluent (indicating incomplete flocculation), and increasing filter-to-waste volumes needed at startup (suggesting coagulation optimization is needed). Increasing disinfection byproduct formation in the finished water is a secondary indicator of inadequate NOM removal during coagulation.
A treatment works drawing from a lowland reservoir with high seasonal colour (up to 180 Hazen units in winter) and elevated NOM was failing to achieve consistent THM precursor removal, with trihalomethane concentrations in treated water approaching 90% of the WS(WQ)R 2016 parametric value during autumn peak-colour events.
Enhanced coagulation was implemented using polyaluminium chloride (PACl) at an optimised dose of 45 to 60 mg/L (as Al2O3) with pH depression to 6.3, guided by online UV254 monitoring feeding an automated coagulant dose controller. Jar testing was repeated monthly through the seasonal colour peak to recalibrate the dose-response relationship.
TOC removal in coagulation increased from 35% to 65% during high-colour periods, reducing THM formation in treated water to below 50 micrograms/L across all seasonal events. The automated coagulant dose controller reduced average chemical consumption by 18% versus the previous fixed-dose approach, saving approximately GBP 55,000 per year in reagent costs.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
What coagulant type and dose range do you recommend based on our feedwater UV254 absorbance and alkalinity profile, and how does this change seasonally?
Optimal coagulant choice and dose are feedwater-specific and season-specific; a provider recommending a fixed dose without seasonal adjustment will underperform during NOM peak events.
- 2
Are you proposing a fixed-dose or online feedback-controlled coagulant dosing system, and what sensor drives the control algorithm?
Online coagulant control based on UV254 or streaming current reduces chemical waste and improves effluent quality compared to fixed-dose systems during variable source water conditions.
- 3
What G-value and detention time are you designing for in the rapid mix and flocculation stages, and how do you prevent floc shear in the transition between zones?
Incorrect G-values are a primary cause of poor floc formation; the engineering basis for mixer design should be documented and referenced against established design standards.
- 4
How does the process respond when source water turbidity spikes above the design envelope, and is there an automated response such as increased detention time or reduced flow?
Storm-driven turbidity spikes are the most common cause of coagulation failures in surface water works; the design must explicitly address this scenario.
- 5
What are the predicted residual aluminium or iron concentrations in settled water at maximum design dose, and do they comply with WS(WQ)R 2016 parametric values?
Excess coagulant residual is itself a regulatory compliance issue; the design must demonstrate compliance at worst-case dose as well as at average dose.
What Drives Cost in This Category
PACl costs 2 to 4 times more per kg than alum but often requires lower dosing rates and produces less sludge; the total cost per m3 treated depends on which product achieves target performance at lowest combined chemical and sludge disposal cost.
UV254 sensors and streaming current detectors for automated coagulant control add GBP 15,000 to GBP 50,000 in instrumentation capital but typically recover their cost within 1 to 2 years through reduced reagent consumption.
Higher coagulant doses produce more sludge; sludge dewatering and disposal costs can represent 30 to 50% of total coagulation operating cost on high-NOM surface water sources.
Tapered-energy flocculation requires adequate detention time (typically 20 to 30 minutes) and correctly specified mixer power; undersized tanks built to save capital cost are the primary reason for pinpoint floc and poor clarifier performance.
Key Regulations & Standards
Sets parametric values for aluminium (200 micrograms/L), iron (200 micrograms/L), turbidity (1 NTU), and TOC in treated drinking water that coagulation performance must reliably achieve.
Any new coagulant or coagulant aid to be used in a public water supply must receive prior DWI approval, including toxicological review and process validation data.
Standard method for determination of phosphorus in water, used when phosphorus reduction is a design objective alongside turbidity removal in enhanced coagulation programs.
All coagulant chemicals and dosing equipment in contact with potable water must appear on the WRAS approved products and materials lists.