Waste Biomass and Biomaterials Adsorbents for Wastewater Treatment

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the commonly used bio-based materials studied for their applicability as adsorbents in wastewater treatment. Additionally, few processing techniques employed to enhance the ability and or affinity of the adsorbents for wastewater treatment have been discussed. More so, some of the commonly used characterization techniques such as Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Fourier Transform InfraRed (FTIR) spectroscopy among others often employed in a bid to elucidate the properties and morphologies of the adsorbents as well as the potential mechanism(s) underlying the adsorbate-adsorbent interaction(s) has also been extensively conferred. The potential draw-backs, recommendations and future perspectives on the use of bio-based materials as adsorbents in wastewater treatment has also been discussed in the concluding section of this paper.

Usefulness of the Biomass of Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) for The Elimination of Chromium (VI) from Polluted Waters

“…About, the A. sativa biomass, eliminate 100 mg/L of chromium (VI) after 8 h, pH 1.0, 1 g of biosorbent, and 28 °C [9], with D. rotundata, the removal of hexavalent chromium, was of 325.88 mg/L, in 200 min, pH 2.0 (0.03 g de biosorbent) [12], for E. Officinalis (2.5 g/L of biomass) was report a capacity Universal Journal of Green Chemistry of removal of 416 mg/L, in 100 min [13], with O. sativa L. there was a biosorption of 94.3 mg/L, pH 5.2, 2 h at 28 °C [14], and with the A. cepa biomass, the removal was of 49 mg/L [50 mg/L of initial concentration of chromium (VI)] pH 1.0, 28 °C, and 0.5 g/L of biomass [18]. The differences founded in these conditions, could partly explain, by changes in the permeability of unknown origin, providing greater or lesser exposure of the functional groups of the cell wall of the biomass analysed [8,29].…”

“…On the other hand, industrial effluents often contain more than one type of metal ion, which can interfere in the elimination/recovery of the metal of interest by the biomasses to be studied [8]. In this work, the presence of other metals in solution such as cadmium (II), mercury (II), cobalt (II), and copper (II) (100 mg/L), does not interfere with the removal of the metal in solution in this study, but on the contrary, the removal of the metal under study increases from 72% to 84.5%-91%, in presence of the other heavy metals, and this coincides with some reports in the literature for other biomasses where it is reported like the biomass of two comercial strains of Agaricus bisporus [30], the biomass of Farfantepenaeus duorarum [31], for Zhihengliuella sp., ISTPL4 does not interfere the removal of different heavy metals in the presence of others [32].…”

“…Different materials have already been studied as potential biosorbents to eliminate this metal. Those materials include microorganisms, like bacteria, mushrooms, algae, waste and lignocellulosic material, and others, like shellfish, which can be removal CO2 from the atmosphere [5][6][7], and several studies have shown that metal bonding occurs especially through a chemical functional group (carboxyl and hydroxyl groups) [8]. Some reports in the literature that use low-cost materials for the elimination, reduction and/or removal of this metal are: oat biomass (Avena sativa) [9], tella residue and pea seed shell (Pisum sativum) [10], avocado seed [11] inert biomasses of Dioscorea rotundata and Elaeis guineensis [12], amla wood sawdust (Emblica officinalis) [13], rice husk [14], Arachis hypogea husk [15], Heinsia crinita seed coat biomass [16], bagasse [17], onion waste [18], and modified biomass of rice husk (Oriza sativa L.) [19].…”

Electricidad Y Electrónica Industrial; Módulo De La Carrera De Ingeniería Industrial en El Tecnm, Campus Veracruz, Preparado a Través Del Aprendizaje Colaborativo

“…[50 mg/L of initial concentration of chromium (VI)] pH 1.0, 28 o C, and 0.5 g/L of biomass (Prokopov et al, 2021). The differences founded in this conditions, could partly explain, by changes in the permeability of unknown origin, providing greater or lesser exposure of the functional groups of the cell wall of the biomass analyzed (Boakye et al, 2022;Vega-Cuellar et al, 2022).…”

“…Different materials have already been studied as potential biosorbents to eliminate this metal. Those materials include microorganisms, like bacteria, mushrooms, algae, waste and lignocellulosic material, and others, like shellfish, which can be removal CO2 from the atmosphere (Pertile et al, 2021;Moore, 2020;Petros et al, 2021), and several studies have shown that metal bonding occurs especially through a chemical functional group (carboxyl and hydroxyl groups) (Boakye et al, 2022). Some reports in the literature that use low-cost materials for the elimination, reduction and/or removal of this metal are: oat biomass (Avena sativa) (Pacheco-Castillo et al, 2017), tella residue and pea seed shell (Pisum sativum) (Kebede et al, 2022), avocado seed (Mejía-Barajas, 2020), inert biomasses of Dioscorea rotundata and Elaeis guineensis (Villabona-Ortíz et al, 2022), amla wood sawdust (Emblica officinalis) (Kushwaha & Chakraborty, 2021), rice husk (Khalil et al, 2021), Arachis hypogea husk (Bayuo et al, 2020), Heinsia crinita seed coat biomass (Dawodu et al, 2020), bagasse (Kumar et al, 2020), onion waste (Prokopov et al, 2022), and modified biomass of rice husk (Oriza sativa L.) (Rodríguez-Pérez et al, 2022).…”