| Literature DB >> 32050582 |
Abstract
Clean water is a vital element for survival of any livingEntities:
Keywords: adsorption; decolorization; dye pollution; nanomaterials; water treatment
Year: 2020 PMID: 32050582 PMCID: PMC7075180 DOI: 10.3390/nano10020295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1Water scarcity recorded for the world between 1996 and 2005. Reproduced with permission [1]. Copyright 2016, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Classification of dyes and their corresponding properties, applications, and toxicities (Reproduced with permission [5]. Copyright 2015, Elsevier).
| Dyes | Properties | Applications | Toxicity | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acidic | Soluble in water, anionic | Nylon, wool, silk, paper, leather, ink-jet printing | Carcinogenic | Acid red 183, acid orange 10, acid orange 12, acid orange 8, acid red 73, acid red 18, sunset yellow, acid green 27, methyl orange, amido black 10B, indigo carmine |
| Cationic | Soluble in water, and liberates colored cations | Paper, PAN, treated nylons, treated polyesters, as antiseptic for biomedicine | Carcinogenic | MB, janus green, basic green 5, basic violet 10, rhodamine 6G |
| Disperse | Insoluble in water, non-ionic, for the aqueous/hydrophobic dispersions | Polyester, nylon, cellulose, cellulose acetate, acrylic fibers | Allergenic (skin), carcinogenic | Disperse orange 3, disperse red, disperse red 1, disperse yellow 1 |
| Direct | Soluble in water, anionic, promotes wash fastness in case chelated with metal salts | Cotton, regenerated cellulose, paper, leather | Bladder cancer | CR, direct red 23, direct orange 39, direct blue 86 |
| Reactive | Very high wash fastness thanks to its covalent bond with fiber, generates brighter colors compared to the direct dyes | Cotton, wool, nylon, ink-jet printing of textiles | Dermatitis, allergic conjunctivitis, rhinitis, occupational asthma | Reactive black 5, reactive green 19, reactive blue 4, reactive red 195, reactive red 198, reactive blue 19, reactive red 120 |
| Vat | employs soluble leuco salts following reduction in an alkaline bath (NaOH) | Cellulosic fibers | - | Vat blue 4, vat green 11, vat orange 15, vat orange 28, vat yellow 20 |
Figure 2Various classes of the dye nano-adsorbents from the dimensionality standpoint. The used images for 0D, 1D, and 3D nano-adsorbents were reproduced with permission [25,26,27], respectively. The image related to the 2D nano-adsorbent was under a CC license.
Figure 3(a) Camera images demonstrate the various stages of water decolorization by the magnetic nanoparticles. Reproduced with permission [55]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (b) The schematic shows the synthesis procedure of the amino-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles and their adsorption efficiency for the CR dye model. Reproduced with permission [56]. Copyright 2018, Elsevier. (c) TEM image implies embedment of Fe/Ni magnetic nanoparticles within the mesoporous carbon. Reproduced with permission [57]. Copyright 2015, Elsevier.
Figure 4(a) A nanocomposite adsorbent comprising polydopamine/chitosan/magnetite nanoparticle core. Reproduced with permission [64]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (b) The schematic illustrates the photocatalysis process of TiO2 engendering the dissociation of the neighboring MB molecules. Reproduced with permission [67].
Figure 5(a) The synthesis procedure for SiO2-Co core-shell nanoparticles. TEM images imply the SiO2-Co core-shell nanoparticles prepared from two different Co2+ precursor amounts of (b) 1 mM and (c) 2 mM Co2+ (Scale bar in the main image and inset represents 100 nm and 50 nm, respectively). UV/Vis spectra indicate the model dye degradation by the core-shell nanoparticles over time (note that the solutions’ pH was acidic (pH 2.5) and the initial dye concentration was 0.076 mM) (d) Methyl Orange. (e) Orange G. (f) Amaranth. Reproduced with permission [103]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier.
Figure 6(a) The schematic illustrates the construction procedure of the a-CO/G adsorbent membrane (the scale bars represent 2 µm and 1 µm for the first two and third images, respectively). (b) MB removal efficiency of the a-CO/G adsorbent (the inset shows the feed and permeate samples, respectively) and (c) the solution flux of the a-CO/G adsorbent. Reproduced with permission [117]. Copyright 2018, John Wiley and Sons.
Figure 7(a) The functionalization reaction that engenders the Meldrum’s acid modified cellulose nanofiber. (b) Time-dependent CV adsorption efficiency of the Meldrum’s acid modified cellulose nanofiber versus that of the control samples including the PVDF nanofibers and the neat cellulose nanofibers + PVDF nanofibers. (c) The upper row schematically illustrates the CV adsorption process of the Meldrum’s acid modified cellulose nanofiber placed on a PVDF support layer while the lower row showcases the underlying adsorption mechanism. Reproduced with permission [26]. Copyright 2017, American Chemical Society.
Figure 8(a–c) TEM (left) and SEM (right) images imply the morphology of the Cu exchanged ZnS nanosheets, nanobelts, and nanorods, respectively. HRTEM images (d,e) and FFT pattern (f) of a Cu-exchanged ZnS nanorod. In these images (d and e), the yellow marks and lines represent the stacking faults and planar defects, respectively. In addition, the red lines (e) and arrows (f) mark the lattice orientations and defects, respectively. (g) RhB removal efficiency of the Cu-exchanged ZnS nano-adsorbents in different morphologies varies depending on the adsorbent concentration. Reproduced with permission [127]. Copyright 2017, Elsevier.
Figure 9MB adsorption capacity for the V2O5/PES nanofibers with different nanofiller contents depending on (a) pH and (b) temperature (at pH 10). (c) The digital image shows the aqueous solutions decolorized by the V2O5/PES nanofiber adsorbents under a high temperature and pH compared to the untreated MB solution (A–C: exposed to PES, 1 wt.% V2O5/PES and 5 wt.% V2O5/PES nanofibers, respectively). (d) The SEM image witnesses the porosity available in the cross-section as well as on the surface of the V2O5/PES nanofibers (5 wt.%). Reproduced with permission [6]. Copyright 2016, MDPI. (e) The SEM image shows the morphology of the TiO2/PES nanofibers (8 wt.%) (from top to bottom the scale bars represent 5 and 0.2 µm, respectively). (f) The distribution mode of the TiO2 nanoparticles across the PES nanofibers’ cross section is shown in the TEM image. (g) The MB removal efficiency for the TiO2/PES (8 wt.%) nanofibers versus the neat ones induced by UV-irradiation (pH 10 and 9 mg·L−1 MB aqueous solution). (h) The uniaxial tensile test results witness the superior mechanical properties, i.e., elastic modulus and tensile strength, for the TiO2/PES nanofibers compared to the neat ones’. However, the nanocomposite nanofibers are less ductile and are brittle and upon UV-irradiation, they lose their enhanced properties down to the level of the neat nanofibers. Reproduced with permission [67].
Figure 10The AO8 and DR23 dyes are adsorbed onto GO via (a) electrostatic interaction between the protonated hydroxyl and carboxyl groups of GO and the anionic dyes, and via (b) H-bonding and π–π stacking. Reproduced with permission [150]. Copyright 2017, Elsevier.
Figure 11(a) 3D schematic illustration of the structure of MoS2, implying each single layer is 6.5 Å thick. Individual layers can be separated by scotch tape and via micromechanical cleavage. (b) AFM micrograph of a single MoS2 layer, overlaying a silicon substrate. (c) The cross-sectional plot monitored on the red line shown in b. Reproduced with permission [162]. Copyright 2011, Springer Nature.
Figure 12(a–d) FESEM images show the morphology of the BiOClBr1− flower-like 3D structures at different magnifications. Reproduced with permission [27]. Copyright 2015, John Wiley and Sons. (e) SEM images implying the morphology of BiOClI1− (x = 1, 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4) synthesized in ethylene glycol (the first two columns from left) and water (the last column). The inset camera pictures imply the color of the related samples. Reproduced with permission [197]. Copyright 2014, Elsevier. (f) Schematic illustration of the underlying mechanism for the enhanced MO adsorption in a BiOClxIy solid solution. Reproduced with permission [198]. Copyright 2016, Elsevier.
Figure 13(a,b) FESEM and (c,d) HRTEM micrographs show the morphology and structure of the 3D MoS2 flowers. (e) The time-dependent MB removal percentage at various MB concentrations. (f) The time-dependent dye removal efficiency for the acidic and alkaline dye models. Reproduced with permission [210]. Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society.
A summary of the diverse nanosized adsorbents introduced in this review.
| Adsorbent System | Dimension-ality | Dye Models Studied | Adsorption Mechanism | Production Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fungal chitosan nanoparticles | 0D | RBB, MO, DR, NBB, CSB | electrostatic interaction | ionic gelation method | [ |
| α-chitin nanoparticles | 0D | MB, BPB, CBB | physical adsorption | chemical treatment of | [ |
| cellulose nanoparticles in chitosan | 0D | Rh | hydrogen binding and electrostatic interaction | freeze drying and compacting | [ |
| Davankov-type hyper-crosslinked-polymer (HCP) nanoparticles | 0D | MB, nigrosine, and AO | π–π stacking | emulsion polymerization then the Friedel–crafts crosslinking reaction using FeCl3 as the catalyst | [ |
| Fe2O3, CoO, and NiO nanoparticles | 0D | MB | ionic bonding | laser irradiation in the liquid for amorphization | [ |
| Cr-doped ZnO nanoparticles | 0D | MO | ionic bonding | solvothermal treatment | [ |
| amino-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles | 0D | CR | π–π stacking, hydrogen binding, and electrostatic interaction | mussel-inspired polymerization | [ |
| chitosan/Al2O3/magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle | 0D | MO | electrostatic interaction | dispersion of iron oxide nanoparticles in aluminium isopropoxide/ethanol solution. The as-prepared core-shell nanoparticles were then dispersed in chitosan solution. | [ |
| hollow cobalt nanoparticles | 0D | MO | reductive degradation | A galvanic replacement reaction using aluminum nanoparticle templates | [ |
| poly HEMA-CS-f-MWCNT | 1D | MO | electrostatic interaction | functionalization of the nanotube with chitosan and polyHEMA | [ |
| Fe3O4/CNTs | 1D | sudan I, sudan II, sudan III, and sudan IV dye | electrostatic interaction | hydrothermal synthesis of Fe3O4 nanoparticles onto carbon nanotube | [ |
| OMWCNT-κ-carrageenan-Fe3O4 nanocomposites | 1D | MB | π–π stacking, hydrogen binding, and electrostatic interaction | chemical oxidation of CNTs and their functionalization with κ-carrageenan | [ |
| a-CO | 1D | MB | electrostatic interaction and π–π stacking | electrospinning and carbonization of PAN nanofibers | [ |
| Functionalized cellulose nanofibers | 1D | CV | electrostatic interaction | functionalization of the cellulose nanofibers using Meldrum’s acid (2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxane-4,6-dione) | [ |
| Cu(I)-exchanged ZnS 1D nanorods | 1D | Rh B | electrostatic interaction | cation exchange of ZnS with CuCl | [ |
| ZnO/SnO2 hybrid electro-spun nanofibers | 1D | MB, CR, MO, and ER | photocatalysis | electrospinning, sol-gel process and pyrolysis | [ |
| V2O5/PES nanofibers | 1D | MB | electrostatic interaction | sol-gel and electrospinning | [ |
| TiO2/PES nanofibers | 1D | MB | Electrostatic interaction and photocatalysis | sol-gel and electrospinning | [ |
| TNTs@GO | 1D | MB | electrostatic interaction and photocatalysis | hydrothermal treatment | [ |
| cysteine-modified rGO | 2D | IC and NR | π–π stacking, and electrostatic interaction | hydrothermally (or hydrazine based) reduced GO | [ |
| NiO nano-disks | 2D | MB | photocatalysis | hydrothermal treatment | [ |
| MoS2/rGO | 2D | CR | π–π stacking | hydrothermal treatment | [ |
| MoS2/CuS nanosheet | 2D | RhB, MB, MO and RhB 6G | molecular diffusion, the van der Waals, and the electrostatic interactions | hydrothermal treatment | [ |
| Ag/BN nanosheets | 2D | RhB | lewis acid/base interactions | one-pot pyrolysis | [ |
| BiOCl nanosheets doped with carbon quantum dots | 2D | RhB | photocatalysis | solvothermal treatment | [ |
| BiOCl | 3D | MO | photocatalysis | glycol-assisted hydrothermal treatment | [ |
| dahlia-like BiOClxI1−x ( | 3D | RhB | photocatalysis | solid-state chemical approach | [ |
| N/S-GHs | 3D | MG, MB, and CV | π–π stacking, hydrogen, and covalent bonding | using glutathione as the binding and reducing material | [ |
| 3D MoS2 | 3D | MB, MG, rhodamine 6G, FA, and CR | physio-sorption induced by weak Van der Waals forces or dipole-based interactions, electrostatic interactions | synthesized based on a polyethylene glycol (PEG 200) template | [ |
| MoS2 flowers onto CoFe2O4 nanorods | 3D | CR, MB, and MO | photocatalysis | electrospinning and then hydrothermal treatment | [ |