Next Article in Journal
Effects of Climate Change and Maternal Morality: Perspective from Case Studies in the Rural Area of Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Perceived Stress Among Different Occupational Groups and the Interaction with Sedentary Behaviour
Previous Article in Special Issue
Challenges to Implementing an Environmental Flow Regime in the Luvuvhu River Catchment, South Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/ijerph16234596
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Influence of Selective Conditions on Various Composite Sorbents for Enhanced Removal of Copper (II) Ions from Aqueous Environments

by
Rebecca O. Adeeyo
1,*,
Joshua N. Edokpayi
2,
Olugbenga S. Bello
3,
Adeyemi O. Adeeyo
1 and
John O. Odiyo
2
1
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Venda, Thohoyandou Private Bag X5050, South Africa
2
Hydrology and Water Resource Department, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Venda, Thohoyandou Private Bag X5050, South Africa
3
Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, P.M.B. 4000, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso 210214, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(23), 4596; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234596
Submission received: 16 September 2019 / Revised: 24 October 2019 / Accepted: 28 October 2019 / Published: 20 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue First International Conference on Environmental Sciences and Sustainability in University of Venda)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Numerous pollutants, including dyes, heavy metals, pesticides, and microorganisms, are found in wastewater and have great consequences when discharged onto natural freshwater sources. Heavy metals are predominantly reported in wastewater. Heavy metals are persistent, non-biodegradable and toxic, transforming from a less toxic form to more toxic forms in environmental media under favourable conditions. Among heavy metals, copper is dominantly found in wastewater effluent. In this review, the effects of high concentration of copper in plants and living tissues of both aquatic animals and humans are identified. The performance of different polymer adsorbents and the established optimum conditions to assess the resultant remediation effect as well as the amount of copper removed are presented. This procedure allows the establishment of a valid conclusion of reduced time and improved Cu (II) ion removal in association with recent nano-polymer adsorbents. Nano-polymer composites are therefore seen as good candidates for remediation of Cu ions while pH range 5–6 and room temperature were mostly reported for optimum performance. The optimum conditions reported can be applied for other metal remediation and development of potent novel adsorbents and process conditions.

1. Introduction

Water quality and its sustainability are essential for the survival of both human and aquatic life on Earth. The quality of water is constantly degrading due to rapid industrialisation and urbanisation This has contributed to an increase in the number of pollutants discharged into water bodies [1,2]. The existence of such water pollutants has been a threat to the entire biosphere, and their elimination or minimisation has become important. Water pollutants include dyes, heavy metals, pesticides and microorganisms which impact the ecology and humanity with diseases and problems. Among these, heavy metals with their non-biodegradable features are known to have high relative densities (greater than 5 g/mL) and atomic weights (between 63.5 and 200.6) [3,4,5].
Copper (II) ions is one of the widely spread heavy metals in the environment causing ecological and human health risk [6]. Copper metal exists in the environment in the form of copper metal (Cu0), cuprous ion (Cu+), and cupric ion (Cu2+), and the latter causes human health problems such as abdominal pain, nausea, renal damage, headache, severe mucosal irritation, central nervous system irritation and depression [6,7,8,9]. However, its high demand as a result of the economic importance will pose a significant increase in the concentration of copper released to the environment by 2050 [10]. Copper released will disperse into water-streams resulting in serious environmental deterioration [11]. Moreover, the release of Cu (II) into the environment is majorly through pipelines, mining, welding processes, electroplating processes, sewage treatment plants, and electrical processes [12]. This metal ion, sometimes at low concentrations, has deteriorated water bodies as well as drinking water and it is easily accumulated in bodies of animals, thereby causing a variety of diseases and disorders [13]. Due to this, the removal of copper II ions is important to reduce the concentration of copper which has been established to protect man and its environment. According to World Health Organization (WHO), the permissible limit for Cu (II) in drinking water is 2.0 mg/L while United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reported that the content of copper ions in industrial effluent should not exceed 1.3 mg/L [14,15].
This review has presented a new insight of optimum value within maximum adsorption capacities of polymer-modified adsorbent as well as emerging polymer nano-composites adsorbents at different experimental conditions (contact time, pH, temperature, initial concentration, etc.) for copper removal and their strength and future challenges are explicitly discussed.

2. Methodology

A desktop study of scholarly published articles was employed. The sources of search included science direct, google scholar and web of science. The search was restricted to articles written in English Language and covered the period 1997 to 2018. A review of studies reporting data on maximum adsorption conditions for both polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents for removing copper from aqueous was performed. The reported data were analysed using simple percentage analysis in Excel spreadsheet.

3. Occurrence of Copper in Environmental Media

The unique chemical and physical properties of copper allow its extensive usage for different environmental applications such as electrical power, electronics, petrochemicals, transportation, machinery, and metallurgy. Thus, there is a great interest in the global production of copper (Figure 1) which sums up to 12 million tons per year with reserves around 300 million tons [15].
The economic activities of humans such as copper production and usage as well as its compound result in the different copper distribution in various environmental media. Table 1 summarises the copper concentration in various environmental media. Copper is known to be a naturally occurring element that is existing in the earth, oceans, lakes, and rivers [16].
Sources can be accessed via native geology, hydrogeology as well as geochemical features of the aquifer [16,18]. Additionally, the rudimentary foundation of copper is polluting the water resources through weathering of sedimentary rocks such as limestone, dolomite, shale, and sandstone. Also, some minerals or ores such as cuprite, malachite and azurite on dissolution increase the concentration of copper in the environment [19,20,21].
Moreover, wind-blown dust, volcanoes, forest fire, sea spray, decaying vegetation, urban runoffs, aerosol particles, and soil erosion are also other natural sources of copper [22]. Hazardous impacts released from volcanic eruptions into the environment have been reported to affect the climate and health of exposed individuals [23].
The major anthropogenic sources of copper are industrial, domestic and agricultural activities. High concentrations of copper from industrial activities such as painting, metal works, mining operations, refining processes, batteries and electronic manufacturing, textile as well as nuclear power, are often deposited into wastewater stream, although atmospheric deposition is also possible [18]. For instance, copper concentration in wastewater from the metal finishing industry can be extreme up to a concentration of about 10,000 mg/L [18]. The annual industrial copper discharges into freshwater is estimated as 1.4 × 1010 g/year, as well as the amounts of copper in sewage sludge and industrial waste that have been dumped into the ocean as 1.7 × 1010 g/year globally [24].
Sewage sludge application on land is a major source of copper into agricultural soil [25,26,27,28]. Moreover, agricultural activities such as the application of fertilizers on farmland, fungicidal spraying, and the use of animal wastes can lead to water pollution through copper deposits [29]. Contamination in agricultural fields by copper ions also depends on the use of various types of pesticides [30,31].
Another anthropogenic source of copper is leachate from municipal landfills and domestic wastewater. Copper concentration in leachates varies depending on the age of the landfill and the kind of waste that is deposited including the socioeconomic status of the people the landfill is serving. The concentration of copper in leachate from municipal landfills have been established to range from 0.005 to 1110 mg/L [32]. Wastewater effluents are most probably the largest contributor of the high concentration of Cu found in different water bodies, which could be from mechanically treated or untreated wastewater supplies from the filters of biological treatment plants, and waste substances from sewage outfall that is discharged into water bodies such as sea [33,34].

4. Toxicological Effects of Copper II Ion

Though copper is significant to man and the ecosystem, its absence could lead to serious limitations to the functioning of the living cell. Moreover, levels above 3 mg/L can negatively impact plants, aquatic biota and human health [24]. One of the essential micronutrients for plant growth is copper, because of its excellent significance in the production of seed, disease resistance, as well as other essential nutrients depending on the solubility of copper in the soil [35]. High concentrations of copper can lead to biochemical alterations, interference of several physiological and cellular processes, which potentially inhibit plant growth, photosynthesis, and respiration. The mechanism of Cu toxicity on photosynthetic electron transport established photosystem II in plants to be a sensitive site to a high concentration of copper [36]. Figure 2 shows the scheme of copper action sites in phytosystem II of plants. Consequently, this results in performance reduction, delay in growth of the root and leaf, as well as ultra-structural and anatomical alterations which frequently result in the formation and accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [37]. Besides, the growth of plants in the presence of a high concentration of copper reveals reduced biomass and chlorotic symptoms [36].
Copper ions affect the environment by inducing damage to aquatic biota and affecting the osmo-regulatory process of freshwater animals. Copper toxicity can be a short or a long-term effect, which may result in a reduction in growth, immune response, reproduction and survival of the aquatic animals. Copper is toxic to some cultured species of fishes such as catfishes and salmonids above specific concentrations [38]. For example, acute toxicity of copper sulphate was compared in tilapia (Orechromis niloticus) and catfish (Clarias gariepinus) species using the toxicity index of 96 h LC50. The author reported that copper is more toxic to Orechromis niloticus than Clarias gariepinus with their 96 h LC50 values to be 58.837 mg/L and 70.135 mg/L respectively [39,40]. The adverse effects have been demonstrated on various fish receptors like gills, olfactory receptors, and lateral line cilia as well as fish DNA [41,42].
Excessive intake of copper in humans can prompt symptoms such as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, damages to renal tubules, respiratory difficulties, hemolysis, memory deficit, vascular collapse, hepatic necrosis, gastrointestinal bleeding, liver and kidney failure, and death [43,44]. Copper may also cause itching, dermatitis, keratinisation of the hands and sole of the feet, due to its toxicity and widespread presence in the industrial applications such as electrical, electro-plating, metal-finishing and paint industries [18,22]. As a result of this, several regulatory bodies (e.g., USEPA) came up with standards for regulating copper discharge into the environment. Table 2 summarises the maximum permissible concentration for copper.

5. Conventional Methods of Removing Cu II ions

Several methods including chemical precipitation, membrane filtration, electrodeposition, ion exchange, adsorption, and membrane separation have been used to remove copper (II) ions from aqueous solution with notable advantages such as simplicity of operation, high efficiency, low energy requirement, and low driving force [46]. Conversely, some inherent limitations have been discovered using these technologies.
These limitations include increased capital and maintenance cost, expensive equipment, great sensitivity to operational conditions, increase in consumption of energy, removal of metal incompletely, generation of toxic sludge and some are ineffective at low concentrations [47]. Table 3 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the physicochemical methods of removing copper ions from wastewater. Moreover, amidst the conventional methods, adsorption is observed as the most favourable, because of its clean and fast operation, high productivity, simplicity, design, reduced cost and accessibility of diverse adsorbents [53,54,55,56].
Several substances have been studied and established for the adsorption of copper ions from wastewater. Such adsorbents have been derived from natural materials including agricultural and industrial solids wastes, montmorillonite and kaolinite, chitosan and polymeric materials [55,56,57,58].
Table 4 presents the maximum capacity of various natural adsorbents for the removal of copper in aqueous solution. Recently, studies on numerous solid-phase adsorbents such as carbon nanotubes, ion imprinted polymers, biosorbents, and nanoparticles that serve as alternatives have been established. These alternative sorbents are efficient and have a high performance during the removal of their targeted metal [59,60,61,62].

6. Polymer-Based Adsorbents

Polymer adsorbents’ properties include adjustable surface chemistry, vast surface area, pore size distribution, seamless mechanical strength and they are very easy to regenerate [79,80,81,82,83]. This makes polymer adsorbents excellent materials for the removal of Cu (II) from water streams.
Polymer adsorbents can be classified into biopolymers and synthetic polymers. Biopolymers such as chitin and its derivatives, cellulose, alginate, carrageenan, lignin, proteins, chitosan and polysaccharides are from renewable resources which are biodegradable, non-toxic and have an excellent capability to mix with a variety of molecules by physical and chemical interactions [84]. The presence of hydroxyl, amine, amide, and carboxyl functional group makes it an equally excellent adsorbent. An investigation on the removal of copper (II) ions by chitosan solution via homogenous adsorption resulted in adsorption capacity of 405 mg/g [85].
Synthetic polymers have been reported to perform excellently during the sequestration of copper ion in aqueous solution when functionalised with amino or carboxylic acid groups for specific interaction. For example, Figure 3 presents a synthetic meso-adsorbent prepared of trace discovery and adsorption of Cu (II) ions at pH 7. These synthetic polymers enhanced the adsorption capacity with a direct association with the chelating groups in the polymer structure [80]. Samadi et al. [86] studied the removal of Cu (II) ions using polymer derivatives of polystyrene-alt-maleic anhydride from aqueous solution. Table 5 presents the optimised conditions using polymer for Cu (II) sequestration.

7. Polymer Nano-Composite Based Adsorbent

Nanocomposites are multi-phasic materials, in which at least one of the phases shows its dimension in the nano range (1–100 nm). Nano-composite materials have currently emerged as substitutes to overcome different limitations in engineering materials and present a high adsorption capacity, granulometric properties, chemical, and thermal stabilities, reproducibility, with better selectivity for the copper ions removal compared to pure organic and inorganic materials [97]. Conversely, they are too small to be used directly because of their large specific surface energies. The combination of nanoparticles with polymer material creates a specific property that enhances the adsorption of copper ions. Figure 4 shows the classification of nanocomposites as well as its combining nanoparticles. Nanocomposites are enhanced with either polymeric or non-polymeric material according to their dispersed matrix. The matrix from polymer material has been proved to be ideal support for the fabrication of composites as adsorbents, considering the adjustable surface functionality and the excellent mechanical strength [98].
Therefore, the synthesised polymer nano-composite adsorbents display some unique properties like easy preparation, cost-effectiveness, dimensional ability, activated functionality, environmental stability, effective binding sites along the walls of the polymers with large surface area, and pore volume, thus making it a significant area of current research and development [100].

Techniques for Preparing Polymer Nano-Composite Adsorbent for Copper (II) Removal

Many methods have been developed to synthesise composites of polymers and nanomaterials. To obtain the expected composite functionality, the development is done according to their ‘preparation path’. The methods of synthesis include direct compounding and in-situ synthesis.
The direct compounding method involves the synthesis of nanomaterials and polymers before blending using different methods. Direct compounding is an excellent method of preparing polymer nanocomposites due to advantages such as its fitness for large scale production and lower cost. The major limitation of this method is that nanoparticles have a high tendency to form aggregates that delay homogenous dispersion of nanoparticles in polymeric matrices. This overcomes the need for addition of dispersants or compatibilisers; application of different surface modifications/chemical treatments to nanomaterial or polymers and optimisation of synthesised parameters such as temperature, shear force, time, mixing speed, and configuration of the reactor [101,102]. In direct compounding, techniques of synthesis involve (i) solution intercalation (ii) sol gel method (iii) electro spinning (iv) self-assembly (v) melting intercalation.
Among these polymer synthesis nano-techniques, electrospinning and in-situ techniques have been efficiently used for the removal of copper (II) in aqueous solution. The electro-spinning method has three parts as a high-voltage supplier which is used to acquire an electrically charged jet of a composite solution in the needle. The charged jet is ejected from the tip of the needle, completely and the solvent is vaporised, which leads to the formation of nanocomposite on the collector [103,104]. The advantages of electrospinning include simplicity, low cost, high speed, vast material selection, and versatility [105]. An example of an electrospinning application for the removal of copper (II) ions in aqueous solution using polyethylene oxide/chitosan nanofiber membrane has been previously described by Aliabadi et al. [106] who concluded that the removal of copper (II) ion is feasible, spontaneous and endothermic.
In situ- polymerisation is the swelling of the filler in monomer solution as the low-molecular-weight monomer seeps amid the interlayers causing the swelling [107]. The use of heat, radiation, initiator diffusion by organic initiator or catalyst fixed through cationic exchange starts the polymerisation process [108]. Intercalated or exfoliated nanocomposites are formed as the monomer polymerises in between the interlayers. The advantage of this technique is the simplicity, effectiveness, and prevention of particle agglomeration while maintaining a good spatial distribution in the polymer matrix. Figure 5 presents the synthesis involved during in-situ polymerisation. Polypyrole nanocomposite (ppy/TiO2) was prepared by in situ polymerisation for the removal of copper (II) ions and was found to be effective within the equilibrium time of 30 min [109]. Table 6 summarises the methods of preparation of nano-polymer adsorbents and their maximum adsorption conditions for the removal of copper (II) ions.

8. Result and Discussion

Factors influencing the adsorption of copper (II) ions are optimum contact time, pH and initial concentration. Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 give the number of maximum adsorption capacity reviewed against contact time, initial concentration and pH.

8.1. Optimum Contact Time

Figure 6 presents optimum contact time for adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents. Contact time for nanopolymer adsorbents at maximum adsorption capacities of 134, 4.98, 5.34, 9.03, 35.8 and 121.95 mg/g occur within 0–100 min contributing 60% of the total adsorption capacity reviewed. Optimum adsorption capacities of 0.05, 25.75, 55.6 and 70 mg/g were recorded for polymer adsorbents within 0–100 min and were found to be 40% of the total adsorption capacity reviewed. There is a notable trend of a decrease in maximum sorption for equilibrium time in nanopolymer adsorbent. The variation in maximum adsorption in the studied materials indicates that material composition also affects maximum adsorption with enhanced optimum sorption processes favoured within the shortest time limit considered (optimum time for adsorption) in nanopolymer composite than in polymer adsorbent. Moreover, various kinetic models such as pseudo-first order, pseudo-second order, intraparticle diffusion, and Elovich’s equation for adsorption efficiency were studied to describe the adsorption processes of Cu (II) and explain the mechanism involved based on the concentration of the solution (mostly 10 mg/L). Pseudo-second order kinetic model described the whole adsorption processes well as chemisorption in nature as the limiting rate step for all the adsorption capacities [120,121].
The short sorption time for nano-polymer adsorbents may be due to the availability of an uncovered surface and active sites in the nanocomposite adsorbent. Heiba et al. [103] revealed a short sorption time of 40 min in the removal of copper II ions using CMC/MMT nanocomposites because vacant binding sites are easily accessible on nanocomposite, which results to further reactivity of these active sites and covered with Cu2+ ions, therefore, no additional binding of Cu2+. Moreover, the percentage rate of copper removal is higher at the commencement of the process to achieve short optimum contact time due to large surface area and pore size of the adsorbent being available for the adsorption process [122]. The shorter equilibrium time means a shorter agitation period (less energy consumption) which offers an economic advantage for the scale application and therefore, result in cost reduction.

8.2. Optimum Initial Concentration

Figure 7 shows the maximum adsorption capacities of copper for initial metal concentration for both polymer and nanopolymer adsorbent. Maximum adsorption capacities reported for nanopolymer adsorbent include 103.5, 134, 4.98, 35.8, 9.03, 5.34 and 9.43 mg/g constituting 87.75% of total maximum adsorption reported and was observed at initial concentration ranging from 0–50 mg/L while polymer adsorbents constituted 25% of the reported results at adsorption capacities of 31.45 mg/g and 25.75 mg/g.
The observed pattern revealed increased initial concentration, a decrease in number and percentage of maximum adsorption capacity occurs for nanopolymer adsorbent (NPA) while the number and percentage maximum adsorption capacities for polymer adsorbents (PA) are inconsistent. These results indicate that initial concentration significantly influences the uptake of copper ion and maximum adsorption in aqueous solution at different optimum initial concentrations.
It was observed that a high adsorption efficiency is likely at low initial concentration for nanopolymer composite adsorbents. Cai et al. [114] explains the reason to be the difference in the concentration gradient between Cu2+ in the initial solution and its absence on the nano-adsorbent which is acting as a driving force, till all the active sorption places are taken, while adsorption process is efficient at high initial concentration of the adsorbate for polymer adsorbents. An increase in the adsorbent mass (optimum being 0.5 g) increases the number of active adsorption sites and adsorption capacity [123]. Moreover, the initial concentration in the removal of copper offers a significant driving force that overcomes all mass transfer resistances of the copper ion between the solid phase and the solution [124].

8.3. Optimum pH

Figure 8 presents optimum pH reported at different maximum adsorption capacities for nanopolymer and polymer adsorbents. Optimum pH values for both nano-polymer and polymer adsorbents occur at pH 5–6.9. The pH of 5–6.9 accounted for about 77.8% in both adsorbents studied which are the maximum. Nano-polymer optimally favoured adsorption of Cu II ion at pH 5–5.9 while polymer adsorbent recorded optimum function at pH of 6–6.9. At low pH (very acidic) and above pH 7, reduction of sorption capacities occurs for both materials under study. Variation in optimal pH may indicate different suitability and function in Cu II ion sorption in aqueous solutions for both materials under consideration.
The results indicate pH as an important parameter that influences the uptake of copper (II) ions because it determines the degree of ionisation, adsorbent surface charge and the speciation of the adsorbate [124]. When pH is low (pH < 4), the acidity of the solution is high, because of an increase in positive charge density and high electrostatic repulsion, which results in lesser uptake of copper ions carrying a positive charge. Thus, there is a decrease in adsorption and reduction in the number of negatively charged sites accessible for copper ions to bind due to protonation of the active sites. Also, there is competition between hydrogen ions and Cu (II), which decreases the adsorption capacity. At higher pH, copper ion is free to bind since the active sites have deprotonated, thus the competition between copper ions and protons is reduced.
Cai et al. [114] explain that precipitation of Cu (II) occurs in form of Cu(OH)2 due to the increasing concentration of OH− ions resulting to the creation of anionic complexes of hydroxide that the maximum adsorption capacity is at 6 and the adsorption decreases by raising or lowering the pH [125]. Therefore, the concentration of the metal ions that dissolved and their adsorption on the active sites would decrease. Plohl et al. [126] reported that the uptake of Cu2+ most likely occurs through the deprotonated primary group (functional group). Also, for the removal of copper using silica magnetic nanocomposite, Cu2+ from copper hydroxide precipitates at pH 6 where the nanocomposite adsorbent is accessible due to electron donor pairing with favourable Cu2+ chelation. The reduction lowers the electrostatic repulsion between the copper ions and the adsorbent surface, which leads to an increase in the uptake of metal ions [127]. Several studies have reported a pH of 6 as the maximum adsorption efficiency for Cu (II) ions [94,128,129,130]. This review has established optimum pH can range from 5–6.9 for the adsorbent.
Generally, other cations such as Na+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+ can be detected in several wastewaters. The existence of these cations results in high ionic strength, which invariably affects the adsorption behaviour. The effect of ionic strength on copper adsorption with these nanopolymer adsorbents were studied using salts such as NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, and CaCl2 in aqueous solution at ionic medium ranging from 0.01 and 0.1mol/L [114,131].

9. Conclusions

The effective adsorption capacity of nano-polymer adsorbents for copper (II) ion removal may be credited to the outstanding characteristics of nano-sized materials as well as the functional group of the synthesised polymer material for the development of novel composite materials that have high surface-active sites and increased specific surface area to volume ratio. Thus, the use of nano-polymer-based adsorbents will provide high adsorption capacities in the purification of copper ions from aqueous solutions. Other factors affecting the adsorption of the copper ion on nano-polymer adsorbents with increasing adsorption capacities are short optimum contact times, agitation, low initial concentration and circumneutral value of pH at pseudo-second order kinetic model and ambient temperature. Nano-polymer composite-based adsorbents at this experimental condition can, therefore, be recommended and used for the development of effective bioprocesses and sequestration of copper ion from aqueous solution in further studies.

10. Future Researches

Although there is great significance in the adsorption conditions contributing to the efficient removal of copper ions using the nano-polymer composite, some gaps still need to be filled to overcome future challenges in this line of research. The re-use and regeneration of the adsorbent material should be studied to support the life cycle impact and encourage sustainability. Moreover, two methods (electrospinning and in situ polymerisation) of synthesis are commonly used, but other techniques of synthesis such as sol-gel method, solution intercalation, melting intercalation and self-assembly should be explored for selective copper removal and removal of other heavy metals from aqueous solutions to reduce the use of solvent and increase the compatibility with industrial processes. The reduction in the use of chemicals and solvents will contribute to the manufacturing of environmentally friendly products, and the sustainability of the environment. Also, industrial treatments to remove heavy metals from aqueous solutions using nano-polymers should be studied considering the influence of the adsorption conditions with little or no modification to encourage cost effectiveness, profitability, and easy engineering application.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: R.O.A.; Supervision: J.O.O., and J.N.E.; Writing–Original draft preparation: R.O.A.; Formal Analysis: A.O.A.; Review and Editing: J.O.O., J.N.E., O.S.B., A.O.A. and R.O.A.; Writing of final draft: R.O.A., J.O.O. and J.N.E.

Funding

The research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Shannon, M.A.; Bohn, P.W.; Elimelech, M.J.; Georgiadis, G.; Mariarias, B.; Mayes, M.A. Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature 2008, 452, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Qu, X.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Li, Q. Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. Water Resour. 2013, 47, 3931–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abbas, A.; Al-Amer, A.M.; Laoui, T.; Al-Marri, M.J.; Nasser, M.S.; Khraisheh, M.; Ali, M. Heavy metal removal from aqueous solution by advanced carbon nanotubes: Critical review of adsorption applications. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 157, 141–161. [Google Scholar]
  4. Srivastava, N.K.; Majumder, C.B. Novel biofiltration methods for the treatment of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 151, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barakat, M.A. New trends in removing heavy metals from industrial wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2011, 4, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aitun, T.; Pehlivan, E. Removal of copper II ion from aqueous solution by walnut, Hazelnut and Almond shells. Clean 2007, 35, 601–606. [Google Scholar]
  7. World Health Organization. IPCS Environmental Health Criteria 200: Copper; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carolin, C.F.; Kumar, P.S.; Saravanan, A.; Joshiba, G.J.; Naushad, M. Efficient Techniques for the removal of toxic heavy metals from the aquatic environment: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2782–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Awual, M.R.; Ismael, M.; Khaleque, M.A.; Yaita, T. Ultra-trace copper (II) detection and removal from wastewater using novel meso-adsorbent. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2014, 20, 2332–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ekmekyapar, F.; Aslan, A.; Bayhan, A.; Çakıcı, A. Biosorption of copper (II) by non- Living lichen biomass of Cladonia rangiformis Hoffm. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bello, O.S.; Ojedokun, A.T. An overview of low-cost Adsorbent or copper II ions removal. J. Biotech. Biomater. 2015, 5, 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ali, S.B.; Jaouali, I.; Souissi, S.N.; Ouederni, A. Characterization and Adsorption capacity of raw pomegranate peel biosorbent for copper removal. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3809–3821. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jaishnkar, M.; Tseten, T.; Anbalagan, N.; Mathew, B.; Beeregowala, K. Toxicity mechanism and health effect of some metals. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2014, 7, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Aydın, H.; Bulut, Y.; Yerlikaya, C. Removal of Copper (II) from Aqueous Solution by Adsorption onto Low-Cost Adsorbents. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 87, 137–145. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pugazhendhi, A.; Ranganathan, K.; Kaliannan, T. Biosorptive removal of copper (II) by Bacillus cereus isolated from contaminated soil of the electroplating industry in India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Georgopoulos, P.G.; Tan, H.C.; Wang, S.W.; Vyas, V.M.; Georgopoulos, I.G.; Yang, Y.C.; Lioy, P.J. A Framework and Data Sources for the Assessment of Exposures to Copper. Technical Report Prepared for the International Copper Association (Draft); International Copper Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; Available online: http://www.CERM.org/copper (accessed on 23 December 2018).
  17. Pais, I.; Benton Jones, J., Jr. The Handbook of Trace Elements; St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  18. Aguado, J.; Arsuaga, J.M.; Arencibia, A.; Lindo, M.; Gascon, V. Aqueous heavy metals removal by adsorption on amine-functionalized mesoporous silica. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 163, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wedepohl, K.H. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Camacho, J.R.; Armienta, M.A. Natural Chromium contamination of groundwater at Leon Valeey Mexico. J. Geochem. Explor. 2000, 68, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ball, J.W.; Izbick, J.A. Occurrence of hexavalent chromium in groundwater in the western Mojave Desert. Calif. Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 1123–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Georgopoulos, A.R.G.; Yonone-Lioy, M.J.; Opiekun, R.E.; Lioy, P.J. Environmental copper: Its dynamics and human exposure issues. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Crit. Rev. 2001, 4, 341–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hansell, A.L.; Horwel, C.J.; Oppenheimer, C. The health hazard of volcanoes and geothermal areas. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 63, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saravanan, D.; Sudha, P.N. Batch Adsorption Studies for the removal of copper from wastewater using Natural Biopolymer. Int. J. Chem. Technol. Res. 2014, 6, 3496–3508. [Google Scholar]
  25. Singh, R.P.; Agrawal, M. Potential benefits and risks of land application of sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 2006, 28, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Srivastava, V.; De Araujo, A.S.F.; Vaish, B.; Bartelt-Hunt, S.; Singh, P.; Singh, R.P. Biological response of using municipal solid waste compost in agriculture as fertilizer supplement. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biol. 2016, 15, 677–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Srivastava, V.; Ismail, S.A.; Singh, P.; Singh, R.P. Urban solid waste management in the developing world with emphasis on India: Challenges and opportunities. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biol. 2015, 14, 317–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sharma, B.; Sarkar, A.; Singh, P.; Singh, R.P. Agricultural utilization of biosolids: A review on potential effects on soil and plant grown. Waste Manag. 2017, 64, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Majumdar, S.S.; Das, S.K.; Saha, T.; Panda, G.C.; Bandyopadhyoy, T.; Guha, A.K. Adsorption behaviour of copper ions on Mucor rouxii biomass through microscopic and FTIR analysis. Colloids Surf. Biointerfaces 2008, 63, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 88, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marrugo-Negrete, J.; Pinedo-Hernández, J.; Díez, S. Assessment of heavy metal pollution, spatial distribution and origin in agricultural soils along the Sinú River Basin, Colombia. Environ. Res. 2017, 154, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tanner, M.S.; Leone, A.; Mercer, J.B.F. Copper Transport and Its Disorder; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 127–137. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zahra, A.; Hashmi, M.Z.; Malik, R.N.; Ahmed, Z. Enrichment and geo-accumulation of heavy metals and risk assessment of sediments of the Kurang Nallah—Feeding tributary of the Rawal Lake Reservoir, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 470–471, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, U.K.; Kumar, B. Pathways of heavy metals contamination and associated human health risk in Ajay River basin, India. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wuana, R.A.; Okiemen, F.E. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: A review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yruela, I. Copper in Plants. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 17, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism on plants under stressful conditions. J. Bot. 2012, 2012, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wani, A.A.; Shikbar-Bar, M.; Khan, K.A. Acute toxicity of copper sulphate to African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). GERF Bull. Biosci. 2013, 4, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Adil, A.; Wani Junaid Malik, S.M. Determination of lethal toxicity of copper to Clarias gariepinus. IJARSE 2018, 4, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ezeonyejiaku, C.D.; Obiakar, M.O.; Ezenwelu, C.O. Toxicity of copper sulphate and behavioural Locomotor Response of Tilapia (Orechromis Nitloticus) catfish (Clarias gariepinus) species. Online J. Anim. Feed Res. 2011, 1, 130–134. [Google Scholar]
  41. Craig, P.M.; Wood, C.M.; McClelland, G.B. Water Chemistry alters gene expression and physiological end points of chronic water borne copper exposure in Zebrafish, Danio rerio. Environ Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2156–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tierney, K.B.; Baldwin, D.H.; Hara, T.J.; Ross, P.S.; Scholz, N.L.; Kennedy, C.J. Olfactory toxicity in fishes. Aquatic Toxicol. 2010, 96, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gaetke, L.M.; Chow, C.K. Copper toxicity, oxidative stress, and antioxidant nutrients. Toxicology 2003, 189, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Uriu-Adams, J.Y.; Keen, C.L. Copper, oxidative stress, and human health. Mol. Aspects Med. 2005, 26, 268–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Babel, S.; Kurniawan, T.A. Low-cost adsorbents for heavy metals uptake from contaminated water: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003, 97, 219–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gunatilade, S.K. Methods of removing Heavy Metals from Industrial wastewater. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Stud. 2015, 1, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  47. Arbabi, M.; Golshani, N. Removal of copper ions Cu (II) from industrial wastewater. Int. J. Epidemiol. Res. 2016, 3, 283–293. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fu, F.; Wang, Q. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kang, S.Y.; Lee, J.U.; Moon, S.H.; Kim, K.W. Competitive adsorption characteristic of Co2+, Ni2+, and Cr3+, by IRN-77 cation exchange resin in synthesized wastewater. Chemosphere 2004, 56, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kurniawan, T.A.; Chan, G.Y.S.; Lo, W.H.; Babel, S. Physico-chemical treatment technique for wastewater laden with heavy metals. Chem. Eng. 2006, 118, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mohammadi, T.; Mohebb, M.; Sarzadeh, M.; Razmi, A. Modelling of metal ion removal from wastewater by electrodialysis. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2005, 41, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Aklil, A.; Mouflihb, M.; Sebti, S. Removal of heavy metal ions from water using Calcined phosphate as new adsorbent. Hazard Mater. 2004, A112, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ahluwalia, S.; Goyal, D. Removal of heavy metals by waste tea leaves from aqueous solution. Eng. Life Sci. 2005, 5, 158–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lazarević, S.; Janković-Častvan, I.; Radovanović, Ž.; Potkonjak, B.; Janaćković, Đ.; Petrović, R. Sorption of Cu2+ and Co2+ ions from aqueous solutions onto sepiolite: An equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic study. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2011, 76, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sud, D.; Mahajan, G.; Kaur, M. Agricultural waste material as potential adsorbent for sequestering heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6017–6027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wan Ngah, W.; Hanafiah, M. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater by chemically modified plant wastes as adsorbents: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3935–3948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ling, Y.S.-L.; Joseph, C.G.; How, S.E. Biosorption of lead contaminated wastewater using cattails (Typha angustifolia) leaves: Kinetic studies. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2011, 76, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bhattacharyya, K.G.; Gupta, S.S. Adsorption of a few heavy metals on natural and modified kaolinite and montmorillonite: A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2008, 140, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lemos, V.A.; Teixeira, L.S.G.; Bezerra, M.A.; Costa, A.C.S.; Castro, J.T.; Cardoso, L.A.M.; Jesus, D.S.; Santos, E.S.; Baliza, P.X.; Santos, L.N. New materials for solid-phase extraction of trace elements. Appl. Spectros. Rev. 2008, 43, 303–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abdel-Halim, E.S.; Al-Deyab, S.S. Removal of heavy metals from their Aqueous solutions through adsorption onto natural polymers. Carbohydr. Polym. 2011, 84, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, X.G.; Feng, H.; Huang, M.R. Strong Adsorbability of Mercury Ions on Aniline Sulfoniasidine Copolymer Nanosorbents. Chem. Eur. J. 2009, 15, 4573–4581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Huang, M.R.; Lu, H.J.; Li, X.G. Synthesis and strong Heavy-Metal Ion Sorption of Copolymer Microparticles from Phenylenediamine and its Sulfonate. J. Mater. Chem. 2009, 22, 17685–17699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zumriye, A.; Isoglu, A.I. Removal of copper II ions from aqueous solution by biosorption onto agricultural waste sugar beet pulp. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 3031–3034. [Google Scholar]
  64. Basci, N.; Kocadagistan, E.; Kocadagistan, B. Sorption of copper II from aqueous solution by wheat shell. Desali 2004, 164, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Krishanani, K.K.; Mang, X.; Chistodoulatos, C.; Boddou, V.M. Bisorption mechanism of nine different heavy metals onto biomatrix from rice husk. J. Hazard Mater. 2008, 53, 1222–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Grimm, A.; Zanzi, R.; Bjornbom, E.; Cukarman, A.L. Comparison of different types of biomass for copper biosrption. Biores. Technol. 2008, 99, 2559–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Li, Q.; Zhai, J.; Zhang, W.; Wang, M.; Zhou, J. Kinetic studies of adsorption of Pb (II), Cr (III) and Cu (II) from aqueous solution by sawdust and modified peanut husk. J. Hazard Mater. 2007, 141, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Reddy, B.R.; Mirghaffari, N.; Gaballah, I. Removal and recycling of copper from aqueous solutions using treated Indian barks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1997, 2, 227–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ozer, A.; Ozer, D.; Ozer, A. The adsorption of copper (II) ions on to dehydrated wheat bran (DWB): Determination of the equilibrium and thermodynamic parameters. Process Biochem. 2004, 39, 2183–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nasernejad, B.; Zadeh, T.E.; Pour, B.B.; Bygi, M.E.; Zamani, A. Comparison for biosorption modeling of heavy metals (Cr (III), Cu(II), Zn(II)) adsorption from wastewater by carrot residues. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 1319–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ibrahim, A.G.; Saleh, S.A.; Elsharma, E.M.; Metually, E.; Siyam, T. Chitosan and Nikel ion from their solution. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 121, 1287–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, K.; Shi, J. Adsorptive removal of copper ions from aqueous solution using cross linked magnetic chitosan beads Separation and science engineering. Chin. Chem. Eng. 2009, 17, 960–966. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mende, M.; Schwarz, D.; Schwarz, S. Chitosan—A Natural Adsorbent for copper ions. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Civil Structural and Environmental Engineering CSEE’ 2016, Prague, Czech Republic, 30–31 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ghazy, S.E.; Ragab, A.H. Removal of copper from water samples by Powered Limestone. Indian J. Chem. Technol. 2007, 14, 507–514. [Google Scholar]
  75. Das, B.; Mondal, N.K.; Bhamik, R.; Roy, P.; Pal, C.; Das, C.R. Removal of Copper from aqueous solution using Alluvial soil of indian origin Equilibrum, Kinetic and thermodynamic Study. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2013, 4, 392–408. [Google Scholar]
  76. Al-Ashah, S.; Banat, F. Adsorption of Zn and Cu ion by the solid waste of the olive oil Industry. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2001, 19, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Satiban, M.; Klasnja, M.; SkrbiÄ, B. Modified softwood sawdust as adsorbent of heavy metal ions from water. J. Hazard Mater. 2006, 136, 266–271. [Google Scholar]
  78. Bajpai, S.K.; Jain, A. Removal of copper II from aqueous solution using spent leaves (STL) as a potential sorbent. SA J. Radiol. 2010, 36, 221–228. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mahmoodi, N.M.; Najafi, F.; Neshat, A. Poly (amidoamine-co-acrylic acid) copolymer: Synthesis, characterization and dye removal ability. Ind. Crops Produc. 2013, 42, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pan, B.; Qiu, H.; Pan, B.; Nie, G.; Xiao, L.; Lv, L.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Shourong, Z. Highly efficient removal of heavy metals by polymer-supported nanosized hydrated Fe(III) oxides: Behavior and XPS study. Water Res. 2010, 44, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Ge, F.; Li, M.; Ye, H. Effective removal of heavy metal ions Cd2+, Zn 2+, Pb 2+, Cu 2+ from aqueous solution by polymer-modified magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 211, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dong, Q.; Liu, J.S.; Song, L.; Shao, G. Novel zwitterionic inorganic-organic hybrids: Synthesis of hybrid adsorbents and their applications for Cu2þ removal. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 1335–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Scampini, Z.G.; Aguiar, A.P.D.; Aguiar, M.R.M.P.; Maria, L.C.D.S. Oxime groups introduction in copolymer networks based on acrolein. Mater. Lett. 2004, 58, 3933–3938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dassanayake, R.S.; Acharya, S.; Abidi, N. Biopolymer-Based materials from polysaccharides properties, processing, characterization and sorption application. In Advanced Sorption Process Applications; Intechopen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  85. Kong, A.; Ji, Y.; Ma, H.; Song, Y.; He, B.; Li, J. A novel route for the removal of Cu(II) and Ni (II) ions via homogenous adsorption by chitosan solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 19, 801–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Samadi, N.; Ansari, R.; Khodavirdelo, B. Removal of copper ions from aqueous solutions using polymer derivations of poly(styrene-alt-maleic anhydride. Egypt. J. Pet. 2017, 26, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Lin, Y.; Chen, H.; Lin, K.; Chen, B.; Chiou, C. Application of Magnetic particles modified with amino group to remove copper ions from aqueous solution. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 23, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sharma, G.; Pathania, D.; Naushad, M. Preparation, characterization, and ion Exchange Behavior of nanocomposite polyaniline zirconium (IV) selenotungs to phosphate for the separation of toxic metal ions. Ionics 2015, 21, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, C.; Liang, X.; Liu, J.; Yuan, W. Desorption of copper ions from the polyamine Functionalized adsorbents: Behaviour and Mechanism. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2015, 34, 455–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Popuri, S.R.; Vijaya, Y.; Boddu, V.M.; Abburi, K. Adsorptive removal of copper and Nickel ions from water using chitosan-coated PVC beads. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Houari, B.; Louhibi, S.; Tizaoui, K.; Boukli-hacene, L.; Benguella, B.; Roisnel, T.; Dorcet, V. New synthetic material-removing heavy metals from aqueous solution and wastewater. Arab. Chem. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rahman, N.; Sato, N.; Yoishioka, S.; Sugiyama, M.; Okebe, H.; Hara, K. Selective Cu (II) adsorption from aqueous solution including Cu (II), Co (II)and Ni(II) by modified Acrylic Acid grafted PET (polyethylene terephthalate film). Polym. Sci. 2013, 2013, 798–806. [Google Scholar]
  93. Celik, A.; Demirbas, A. Removal and heavy metal ions from aqueous solution via Adsorption onto modified lignin from pulping waste. Energy Source 2016, 27, 1167–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Moradi, O.; Mirza, B.; Norouzi, M.; Fakhri, A. Removal of Co (II), Cu (II) and Pb (II) ions by polymer based 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate: Thermodynamics and desorption studies. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2012, 9, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Yu, Y.; Shapter, J.G.; Popelka-Filcoff, R.; Bennett, J.W.; Ellis, A.V. Copper removal using bio inspired polydopamine coated natural zeolites. J. Hazard. Mat. 2014, 273, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. O’ConnellD, W.; Birkinshaw, C.; O’Dwyer, T.F. A chelating cellulose Adsorbent for the removal of Cu (II) ion from aqoues solution. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 99, 2888–2897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sanchez, C.; Julián, B.; Belleville, P.; Popall, M. Applications of hybrid organic-Inorganic nanocomposites. J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 3559–3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhang, Q.; Pan, B.; Chen, X.; Zhang, W.; Pan, B.; Zhang, Q.; Lv, L.; Zhao, X. Preparation of polymer supported hydrated ferric oxide based on Donnan membrane effect and its application for arsenic removal. Sci. China Ser. B Chem. 2008, 51, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ansari, R.; Delavar, A.F. Application of poly 3-methyl thiophene for removal of silver ion from aqueous solutions. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2009, 113, 2293–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lofrano, G.; Carotenuto, M.; Libralato, G.; Domingos, R.F.; Markus, A.; Dini Gautam, L.R.; Baldantoni, D.; Rossi, M.; Sharma, S.K.; Chattopadhyaya, M.C.; et al. Polymer functionalized nanocomposites for metals removal from water and wastewater: An overview. Water Res. 2016, 92, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Amin, M. Methods for preparation of nano-composites for outdoor insulation applications. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2013, 34, 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  102. Zhao, X.; Lv, L.; Pan, B.; Zhang, W. Polymer-supported nanocomposites for environmental application: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 170, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Burger, C.; Hsiao, B.S.; Chu, B. Nanofibrous materials and their applications. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2006, 36, 333–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sawicki, K.M.; Gouma, P. Electrospun composite nanofibers for functional applications. J. Nanopart. Res. 2006, 8, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Huang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Kotaki, M.; Ramakrishna, S. A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 2223–2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Aliabadi, M.; Irani, M.; Ismaeili, J.; Piri, H.; Parnian, M.J. Electrospun Nanofiber membrane of PEO/Chitosan for the adsorption of Copper, Nikel Cadmium, lead ions from aqueous solution. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 220, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mittal, V. Polymer layered silicate nanocomposites: A review. Materials 2009, 2, 992–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Alexandre, M.; Dubois, P. Polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites: Preparation, properties, and uses of a new class of materials. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2000, 28, 1–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nobahar, S.; Parvini, M.; Eisazadeh, H. Removal of copper ions from aqueous solutions using polypyrrole and its nanocomposite. J. Heat Mass Transfer Res. 2014, 1, 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  110. Aluigi, A.; Tonetti, C.; Vineis, C.; Tonin, C.; Mazzuchetti, G. Adsorption of copper (II) ions by keratin (PA6) blend nanofibers. Eur. Polym. J. 2011, 47, 1756–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Tu, H.; Haung, M.; Yi, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhan, Y.; Chen, J.; Wu, Y.; Shi, X.; Deng, H.; Du, Y. Chitosan-rectorite nanospheres immobilized on polystyrene fibrous material via alternate electrospinning/electrospraying techniques for copper ions adsorption. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 426, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mahapatra, A.; Mishra, B.G.; Hota, G. Electrospun Fe2O3-Al2O3 nanocomposite fibers as an efficient adsorbent for removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 258–259, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Heiba, H.F.; Taha, A.A.; Mostafa, A.F.; Mohamed, L.A.; Fahmy, M.A. Synthesis and characterization of CMC/MMT nanocomposite for Cu (II) sequestration in wastewater treatment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 35, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cai, Z.; Song, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhai, T. Electrospun polyindole nanofibers as a nano adsorbent for heavy metals ions adsorption for wastewater treatment. Fibres Polym. 2017, 18, 502–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mohamadnezhad, G.; Moshiri, P.; Dinari, M.; Steinger, F. In situ synthesis of nanocomposite materials based on modified mesoporous silicaMCM-41and Methyl methacrylate for copper adsorption from aqueous. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 426, 545–553. [Google Scholar]
  116. Dinari, M.; Mohammadnezhad, G.; Soltani, R. Fabrication of poly (methylmethacrylate)/Silica Kit-6 nanocomposite via in situ polymerization approach and their application for the removal of copper (II) ions from aqueous solution. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 11419–11429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mohammadnezhad, G.; Soltani, R.; Abad, S.; Dinaro, M. A novel porous nanocomposite of animated Silica MCM-41and Nylon-6: Isotherm, Kinetic and thermodynamic studies on adsorption of Cu (II) and Cd (II). J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 45383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mohammadnezhad, G.; Dinari, M.; Soltani, R. The preparation of Modified boehmite/PMMA nanocomposite by in-situ polymerization and assessment of their capability for Copper removal. N. J. Chem. 2016, 40, 3612–3621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kampalanonwat, P.; Supaphol, P. Preparation of hydrolyzed Electrospun Polyacrylonitrile Fiber mats as chelating substances: A case study of copper (II) ions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 11912–11921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yang, G.X.; Jiang, H. Amino modification of biochar for enhanced adsorption of copper ions from synthetic wastewater. Water Res. 2014, 48, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Kenawy, I.M.; Hafez, M.A.H.; Ismail, M.A.; Hashem, M.A. Adsorption of Cu(II), Cd(II), Hg(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) from aqueous single metal solutions by guanyl-modified cellulose. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 107, 1538–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Zhou, Q.; Liao, B.; Lin, L.; Qiu, W.; Song, Z. Adsorption of Cu(II) and Cd(II) from aqueous solution by ferromanganese binary oxide -biochar composites. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Dang, V.B.H.; Doan, H.D.; Dang-Vu, T.; Lohi, A. Equilibrium and kinetics of biosorption of cadmium (II) and copper (II) ions by wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Saifuddin, M.; Kumaran, P. Removal of heavy metal from industrial wastewater chitosan coated oil palm shell charcoal. Electron. J. Biotechn. 2005, 8, 43–53. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rosales, E.; Ferreira, L.; Sanromán, M.A.; Tavares, T.; Pazos, M. Enhanced selective metal adsorption on optimised agroforestry waste mixtures. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 182, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Plohl, O.; Finšgar, M.; Gyergyek, S.; Ajdnik, U.; Ban, I.; Fras Zemljič, L. Efficient Copper Removal from an Aqueous Environment using a Novel and Hybrid Nanoadsorbent Based on Derived-Polyethyleneimine Linked to Silica Magnetic Nanocomposites. Nanomaterial 2019, 9, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Rezvani-Boroujeni, A.; Javanbakht, M.; Karimi, M.; Akbari-Adergani, B. Adsorption properties of thiol-functionalized silica nanoparticles prepared for application in poly (ether sulfone) nanocomposite membranes. J. Text. Polym. 2017, 5, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  128. Rafatullah, M.; Sulaiman, O.; Hashim, R.; Ahmad, A. Adsorption of copper (II), chromium (III), nickel (II) and lead (II) ions from aqueous solutions by meranti sawdust. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 969–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Rashidi, F.; Sarabi, R.S.; Ghasemi, Z.; Seif, A. Kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies for the removal of lead (II) and copper (II) ions from aqueous solutions by nanocrystalline TiO2. Superlattices Microstruct. 2010, 48, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Yu, B.; Xu, J.; Liu, J.H.; Yang, S.T.; Luo, J.; Zhou, Q.; Wan, J.; Liao, R.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y. Adsorption behavior of copper ions on graphene oxide–chitosan aerogel. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2013, 1, 1044–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Cataldo, S.; Gianguzza, A.; Pettignano, A.; Piazzese, D.; Sammartano, S. Complex formation of copper(II) and cadmium(II) with pectin and polygalacturonic acid in aqueous solution. An ISE-H+ and ISE-Me2+ electrochemical study. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2012, 7, 6722–6737. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 16 04596 g001 550
Figure 1. Global production of copper [15].
Figure 1. Global production of copper [15].
Ijerph 16 04596 g001
Ijerph 16 04596 g002 550
Figure 2. Scheme of copper action sites in phyto system II of plants [36].
Figure 2. Scheme of copper action sites in phyto system II of plants [36].
Ijerph 16 04596 g002
Ijerph 16 04596 g003 550
Figure 3. Efficient meso-adsorbent prepared for trace Cu (II) detection and removal [9].
Figure 3. Efficient meso-adsorbent prepared for trace Cu (II) detection and removal [9].
Ijerph 16 04596 g003
Ijerph 16 04596 g004 550
Figure 4. Classification of nano-composite [99].
Figure 4. Classification of nano-composite [99].
Ijerph 16 04596 g004
Ijerph 16 04596 g005 550
Figure 5. In situ polymerisation method. (A) the polymer was blended with metal ions as starting material, (B) Nanomaterial and the monomer were used as starting material, (C) Preparation of nanoparticles and polymer simultaneously [93].
Figure 5. In situ polymerisation method. (A) the polymer was blended with metal ions as starting material, (B) Nanomaterial and the monomer were used as starting material, (C) Preparation of nanoparticles and polymer simultaneously [93].
Ijerph 16 04596 g005
Ijerph 16 04596 g006 550
Figure 6. Contact time with maximum adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents.
Figure 6. Contact time with maximum adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents.
Ijerph 16 04596 g006
Ijerph 16 04596 g007 550
Figure 7. Concentrations with adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents.
Figure 7. Concentrations with adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbents.
Ijerph 16 04596 g007
Ijerph 16 04596 g008 550
Figure 8. pH at maximum adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbent.
Figure 8. pH at maximum adsorption capacities for polymer and nanopolymer adsorbent.
Ijerph 16 04596 g008
Table
Table 1. Concentration of Copper in natural environmental media [17].
Table 1. Concentration of Copper in natural environmental media [17].
Environmental MediaConcentrationUnit
SoilTotal content in soil2–100µg/g
Soluble content in soil<1µg/g
AtmosphereAerosol1 × 10−7–3.82 × 10−4µg/L
Hydrosphere Fresh water 8 × 10−5µg/L
Sea water 0.01–2.8µg/L
Biota Plant 1–110µg/g
Animal2.4µg/g
Table
Table 2. USEPA Permissible Concentration (PC) for copper in water [45].
Table 2. USEPA Permissible Concentration (PC) for copper in water [45].
Element Copper (mg/L)
PC in water 0.1
PC in wastewater discharge into the public sewage1.0
PC in wastewater discharge into surface water 0.1
Table
Table 3. Advantages and drawbacks of conventional methods for copper ions sequestration from aqueous solution [5,47,48].
Table 3. Advantages and drawbacks of conventional methods for copper ions sequestration from aqueous solution [5,47,48].
Methods Advantages Disadvantages Reference
Ion exchangeTreatment even at low concentration, fast kineticsExpensive, interference of composite ion and regeneration[49]
Coagulation-Flocculation and Sedimentation (CFS)Simplicity and low cost.Low density with bulky sludge[47]
Membrane TechnologyHigh efficiency and small footprintIncreased energy, intense disposal and maintenance difficulty[47]
ElectrolysisEase of operation, No requirement for chemical useExpensive[47]
Chemical PrecipitationHigh percentage removal, simplicity of operationBulky hydroxide and colloidal particles, Expensive [47,50]
Membrane Filtration High efficiency, low energy requirement, a small space due to high packing density, low driving forceHigh operational cost due to membrane fouling[50]
ElectrodialysisTreatment of highly concentrated wastewater, high separation selectivityMembrane replacement and corrosion process, high energy consumption[51]
Microbial treatmentEcofriendlyScaling up, slow, difficult to standardise[45]
AdsorptionHigh capacity, fast operation, simple, high metal bindingLow selectivity, regeneration is expensive[45,52]
Table
Table 4. Maximum adsorption capacity of different natural adsorbents for the removal of copper in aqueous solution.
Table 4. Maximum adsorption capacity of different natural adsorbents for the removal of copper in aqueous solution.
Type of AdsorbentMaximum Adsorption Capacity (mg/g)References
Agricultural waste
Dried sugar beet pulp28.5[63]
Wheatshell8.26[64]
Rice husk modified with NaOH10.9[65]
Moss11.2[66]
Peanut husk10.15[67]
Mango42.60[68]
Soyabean hull154.9[69]
Carrot Residue32.74[70]
Chitosan
Chitosan-g-maleic acid312.4[71]
Cross linked Magnetic Chitosan78.13[72]
Chitosan 150[73]
Montmorillonite
Powdered Limestone0.29[74]
Anuvilia Soil0.63[75]
Industrial solid waste
Olive oil waste16[76]
Saw Dust fir tree12[77]
Tea industry waste8.64[78]
Bold text indicates broad category of adsorbent sub-types.
Table
Table 5. Summarised maximum adsorption conditions and their functional group for various natural and synthetically modified polymer.
Table 5. Summarised maximum adsorption conditions and their functional group for various natural and synthetically modified polymer.
AdsorbentFunctional GroupAdsorption Capacity (mg/g)Contact Time (min)pHTemp (K)Initial Conc. (mg/L)Reference
Amine functionalized silica magnetite-NH210.4114406.5298150[87]
Chitin biopolymer-NH213–154805298100[22]
Grafted cassava starch with 5-chloromethyl-8-hydroxyquinoline (CMQ)-OH25.75906-50[88]
Polyamine-immobilised trimethylaniline -C=O1.47-5--[89]
Chitosan coated with polyvinyl chloride-NH2, -OH87.92105 100[90]
(E)-2-[(1H-Imidazolyl) methylene]-hydrazinecarbo thioamide ligand (EIMH)-NH20.05206--[91]
Modified acrylic acid grafted polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film-OH55.66042982000[92]
Modified Lignin from pulping waste -COO-202404330-[93]
Polyhydroxyethylmethacrylate (PHEMA-HEMA) -31.45120633010[94]
Pristine zeolite-14.95124055-100[95]
Regenerated cellulose-70307-300[96]
Table
Table 6. Summarised methods of preparation of nanopolymer adsorbent and their maximum adsorption conditions for the removal of copper (II) ions.
Table 6. Summarised methods of preparation of nanopolymer adsorbent and their maximum adsorption conditions for the removal of copper (II) ions.
Nano MaterialsPolymer MaterialsMethod of PreparationAdsorbentpHContact Time (min)Temp (K)Initial Conc (mg/L)Adsorption Capacity (mg/g)Reference
KeratinPolyamide 6ElectrospinningKeratin/PA65.81240-35103.5[110]
ChitosanPolystyreneElectrospinningPolystyrene chitosan rectories5.51529350134[111]
FibresFe2O3-Al2O3ElectrospinningElectrospun/Fe2O35.560298304.98[112]
CMCMontmorilloniteElectrospinningCMC/MMTNC540-55.34[113]
Nano FibersPolyindoleElectrospinningElectrospun Polyindole615293100121.95[114]
MCM-41PMMAIn-situ PolymerizationMCM-41/PMMA41402981041.5[115]
Silica Kit 6PMMAIn-situ PolymerizationPMMA/SilicaKit65.590293109.03[116]
Amine Modified MCM-41Nylon 6In situ PolymerizationAmine-modified MCM-41/nylon 66752935035.8[117]
Thiol BoehmitePMMAIn situ PolymerizationBoehmite/PMMA420-109.43[118]
Nano FibresPolyacrylonitrileElectrospinningHydrolysed Electrospun Polyarylonitrile5.0300--31.3[119]
PMMA: Polymethylmethacrylate; CMC/MMTNC: Carboxyl methylcellulose/montmorillonite nanocomposite; PA6: Polyamide 6; MCM 41: mesoporous silica 41; Fe2O3-Al2O3: Iron III Oxide-Aluminum oxide.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Adeeyo, R.O.; Edokpayi, J.N.; Bello, O.S.; Adeeyo, A.O.; Odiyo, J.O. Influence of Selective Conditions on Various Composite Sorbents for Enhanced Removal of Copper (II) Ions from Aqueous Environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234596

AMA Style

Adeeyo RO, Edokpayi JN, Bello OS, Adeeyo AO, Odiyo JO. Influence of Selective Conditions on Various Composite Sorbents for Enhanced Removal of Copper (II) Ions from Aqueous Environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(23):4596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234596

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adeeyo, Rebecca O., Joshua N. Edokpayi, Olugbenga S. Bello, Adeyemi O. Adeeyo, and John O. Odiyo. 2019. "Influence of Selective Conditions on Various Composite Sorbents for Enhanced Removal of Copper (II) Ions from Aqueous Environments" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 23: 4596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234596

APA Style

Adeeyo, R. O., Edokpayi, J. N., Bello, O. S., Adeeyo, A. O., & Odiyo, J. O. (2019). Influence of Selective Conditions on Various Composite Sorbents for Enhanced Removal of Copper (II) Ions from Aqueous Environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4596. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234596

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop