| Literature DB >> 35160996 |
Vanpaseuth Phouthavong1, Ruixin Yan2, Supinya Nijpanich1, Takeshi Hagio1,3, Ryoichi Ichino1,3, Long Kong2, Liang Li2.
Abstract
The remediation of water streams, polluted by various substances, is important for realizing a sustainable future. Magnetic adsorbents are promising materials for wastewater treatment. Although numerous techniques have been developed for the preparation of magnetic adsorbents, with effective adsorption performance, reviews that focus on the synthesis methods of magnetic adsorbents for wastewater treatment and their material structures have not been reported. In this review, advancements in the synthesis methods of magnetic adsorbents for the removal of substances from water streams has been comprehensively summarized and discussed. Generally, the synthesis methods are categorized into five groups, as follows: direct use of magnetic particles as adsorbents, attachment of pre-prepared adsorbents and pre-prepared magnetic particles, synthesis of magnetic particles on pre-prepared adsorbents, synthesis of adsorbents on preprepared magnetic particles, and co-synthesis of adsorbents and magnetic particles. The main improvements in the advanced methods involved making the conventional synthesis a less energy intensive, more efficient, and simpler process, while maintaining or increasing the adsorption performance. The key challenges, such as the enhancement of the adsorption performance of materials and the design of sophisticated material structures, are discussed as well.Entities:
Keywords: magnetic adsorbent; material structure; synthesis methods; water treatment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160996 PMCID: PMC8838955 DOI: 10.3390/ma15031053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Number of publications that contain the keywords “magnetic + adsorbent + separation” and “magnetic + adsorbent + water treatment” in Scopus. (Accessed on 2 January 2022).
Magnetic adsorbents, their conventional synthesis routes, and performance on adsorption of organic and inorganic pollutants in water.
| Adsorbents | Synthesis Method | Magnetic Properties | Pollutant(s) | Adsorption or | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Microsized Fe | Commercial | Ms = 1725 kA/m | Phosphate | qm = 18.83 mg/g | [ |
| Nanosized Fe3O4 | Sol–gel precipitation and re-crystallization | Ms = 477 kA/m | Phosphate | qm = 27.15 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4 | Ferrite process | Not reported | Phosphate | qm = 1.9–3.7 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Not reported | Phosphate | qm = 15.2 mg/g | [ |
| Mixed Fe3O4 and | Microemulsion | Not reported | Phosphate | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Mixed α-Fe2O3 and | Dispersion-precipitation | Ms = 20 emu/g | Arsenite | qm = 46.5 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4 | Simple mixing and sintering | Ms = 57.4 emu/g | As(V) | qm = 20.24 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 56.86 emu/g | As(V) | qm = 44.99 mg/g | [ |
| Mixed Fe3O4 and | Co-precipitation | Ms = 67 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 617.3 mg/g | [ |
| Biogenic Fe3O4 | Fe3+-reducing bacterial enrichment culture | Not reported | Co(II) | qm = 27.44 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 65.33 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 53.11 mg/g | [ |
|
| |||||
| Clinoptilolite–Fe3O4 | Mechanical method | Not reported | Cd(II) | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Zeolite–Fe3O4 | Using organic adhesive | Not reported | Pb(II) | qm = 133 mg/g | [ |
| Faujasite zeolite-CoFe2O4 | Ultrasonication | Ms = 18.93 emu/g | Pb(II) | Removal efficiency = 99% | [ |
| Wheat stalk-derived chars–Fe3O4 | Simple mixing | Ms = 28.6 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 179.85 mg/g | [ |
| Rice husk-derived chars–Fe3O4 | Simple mixing | Ms = 26.1 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 95.44 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon–Fe3O4 | Simple mixing | Ms = 27.2 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 43.38 mg/g | [ |
| Zeolite–Fe3O4 | Simple dispersion | Not reported | Zn(II) | qm = 30 mg/g | [ |
| Na-P1 and hydroxysodalite–Fe3O4 | Mechanical method | Not reported | U(VI) | qm = 22.4 mg/g | [ |
| Kaolin-based zeolite A– Fe3O4 | Maceration and dispersion | Ms»37.1 emu/g | Ca(II) | qm = 54 mg/g | [ |
| Kaolin-based zeolite P– Fe3O4 | Maceration and dispersion | Ms»37.1 emu/g | Ca(II) | qm = 51 mg/g | [ |
| Zeolite–chitosan–Fe3O4 | Simple mixing | Not reported | Cr(VI) | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Thiol and amine functionalized cellulose–Fe3O4 | Stirring | Not reported | Pt(IV) | qm = 40.48 mg/g | [ |
| Hydroxyapatite/chitosan cross-linked with green tea derived polyphenol–Fe3O4 | Stirring | Ms = 53.6 emu/g | Ni(II) | qm = 112.36 mg/g | [ |
| Iminodiacetate functionalized PGMA–Fe3O4 | High-energy ball milling | Ms = 22.56 emu/g | Uranyl | qm = 122.9 mg/g | [ |
| Iminodiphosphonate functionalized PGMA–Fe3O4 | High-energy ball milling | Ms = 21.14 emu/g | Uranyl | qm = 147.0 mg/g | [ |
| Phenol modified ZIF-8 functionalized carboxymethyl cellulose–Fe3O4 | Ultrasonication | Not reported | Rb(I) | qm = 109 mg/g | [ |
| [Epichlorohydrin-co-triethylenetetramine]n-graft-CSSNa–Fe3O4 microspheres | Ultrasonication | Ms = 50.51 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 293.38 mg/g | [ |
| NiAl LDH–guar gum polymer–Fe3O4 | Ultrasonication | Not reported | Cr(VI) | qm = 101 mg/g | [ |
| MgAl LDH–Fe3O4 | Ultrasonication | Not reported | Congo red | qm = 505 mg/g | [ |
| Graphene oxide–Fe3O4 | Liquid-self assembly | Ms = 18.2 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 172.6 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon–Fe3O4 | Ball milling | Ms = 33.8 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 500.5 mg/g | [ |
| Larch wood derived lignin hollow microsphares–Fe3O4 | Mechanical mixing | Ms = 22.7 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 31.23 mg/g | [ |
| Poplar wood derived lignin hollow microsphares–Fe3O4 | Mechanical mixing | Ms = 22.7 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 25.95 mg/g | [ |
| Silica aerogel–Fe3O4 | Simple stirring | Not reported | Rhodamine B and oil | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Coffee waste–Fe3O4 | Dispersion | Ms = 21.5 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm ≈ 128 mg/g | [ |
| Zeolite–Fe3O4 | Simple mixing | Not reported | Reactive orange 16 | qm = 1.1 mg/g | [ |
| Polyethylene–Fe3O4 | Ball milling | Ms = 28.43 emu/g | Pesticides | Recovery = 88–99% | [ |
|
| |||||
| Humic acid–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Not reported | Phosphate | qm = 28.9 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon/MgAl-LDH–Fe3O4 | Thermal decomposition | Ms = 20.12 emu/g | I− | Adsorption efficiency = 86% | [ |
| Calcined orange peel–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation and calcination | Ms = 14.6 emu/g | As(III) | qm = 10.3 mg/g | [ |
| NaY zeolite–γ Fe2O3 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 18 emu/g | Cr(III) | qm = 49 mg/g | [ |
| Polyacrylic acid– | Co-precipitation | Ms = 50 emu/g | Mn(II) | qm = 7.97 mg/g | [ |
| MoS2–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 35.6 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 218.27 mg/g | [ |
| Lignosulfonate–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 43.98 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 57.14 mg/g | [ |
| Guanidinylated chitosan nanobiocomposite–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 43.66 emu/g | Pb(II) | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Chitosan–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Ms = 13 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 243 mg/g | [ |
| Carboxymethyl chitosan–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Ms = 15 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 141 mg/g | [ |
| DTPA functionalized chitosan–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 35.9 emu/g | U(VI) | qm ≈ 160 mg/g | [ |
| Graphene oxide modified with OPO3H2/mesoporous Zr-MOF–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 8 emu/g | U(VI) | qm = 416.7 mg/g | [ |
| Cd2+ imprinted polymer on carbon nanotube–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Not reported | Cd(II) | qm = 81 mg/g | [ |
| Polystyrene resins on oleic acid–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Not reported | Cd(II) | qm = 88.56 mg/g | [ |
| Polystyrene–divinylbenzene–Cyanex272–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 3.2 emu/g | Cd(II) | qm = 17.77 mg/g | [ |
| Humic acid/L-cystein–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Not reported | Hg(II) | qm = 206.5 mg/g | [ |
| Holloysite nanotube–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 27.91 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 18.44 mg/g | [ |
| Ce-MOF modified activated carbon–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 21.39 emu/g | Methylene blue | Removal efficiency | [ |
| N-vinylpyrrolidon/chitosan nanocomposite hydrogel–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 12 emu/g | Methyl orange | qm ≈ 750 mg/g | [ |
| β-cyclodextrin grafted carbon nanotube–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 7.15 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 196.5 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon– | Solvothermal | Ms > 30 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 196.5 mg/g | [ |
| Mineral derived silica–Fe2O3 and plant derived silica–Fe2O3 | Precipitation, impregnation, and calcination | Ms ≈ 0.5–1.3 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 7.0–27.3 mg/g | [ |
| Activated sericite clay–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 2.17–8.12 emu/g | Methylene blue | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Poly(itaconic acid)/Fe3O4–sepiolite | Co-precipitation | Ms = 21.78 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 196.08 mg/g | [ |
| Bentonite/APTMA–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 0.7 emu/g | Crystal violet | qm = 2286 mg/g | [ |
| MoS2@bentonite–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 11.448 emu/g | Crystal violet | qm = 384.61 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon–γFe2O3/Fe3O4/α-FeOOH | Co-precipitation | Ms = 38.5 emu/g | Malachite green | qm = 486 mg/g | [ |
| Lignosulfonate–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 43.98 emu/g | Rhodamine B | qm = 22.47 mg/g | [ |
| Reduced graphene oxide–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 51.76 emu/g | Rhodamine B | qm = 432.91 mg/g | [ |
| Mesoporous carbon–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Ms = 28.89 emu/g | Ciprofloxacin | qm = 98.28 mg/g | [ |
| Polyacrylonitrile–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Not reported | Tetracycline | qm = 257.07 mg/g | [ |
| Polypyrrole–chitosan–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms = 22.30 emu/g | Carbamazepine | qm = 121.95 mg/g | [ |
| Graphene oxide/cyclodextrin composite–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Ms = 43.96 emu/g | Brivaracetam | qm = 36.38 mg/g | [ |
| Carbon nanofiber aerogels–Fe/Fe3O4 core-shell | Co-precipitation | Ms = 102 emu/g | Oil and organic solvents | qm = 37,000–87,000 mg/g | [ |
|
| |||||
| La(OH)3–Fe3O4 | Precipitation | Ms = 15–20 emu/g | Phosphate | qm = 11.77 mg/g | [ |
| C18-functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 39.19 emu/g | Phosphate | qm = 0.3143 mg/g | [ |
| P zeolite–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Ms = 2.8855 emu/g | K(I) | qm = 215.1 mg/g | [ |
| Mordenite zeolite–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Magnetic collection rate = 95% | Cs(I) | Removal efficiency >95% | [ |
| Amino functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 60.6 emu/g | Cr(III) | qm = 8.22 mg/g | [ |
| Poly(m-phenylenediamine)–Fe3O4 | Oxidation-polymerization | Ms = 73.78–127.33 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 125.62–246.09 mg/g | [ |
| SDS-PAN functionalized alumina–Fe3O4 | Direct precipitation | Not reported | Co(II) | Recovery | [ |
| ZSM-5 zeolite–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Ms = 0.8743 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 176.76 mg/g | [ |
| Graphene oxide–LDH–Fe3O4 | Milling and hydrothermal | Ms = 3.5 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 39.7 mg/g | [ |
| Amino functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 29.3 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 238 mg/g | [ |
| NaA zeolite–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | χρ = 225–515 m3/kg | Cu(II) | qm = 146 mg/g | [ |
| ZIF-8–Fe3O4 | Stirring | Ms = 37.26 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 719.42 mg/g | [ |
| Carboxymethylated lignin functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Not reported | Pb(II) | qm = 150.33 mg/g | [ |
| MnO2–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Ms = 14.19 emu/g | Cu(II) | qm = 498.575 mg/g | [ |
| Siloxydithiocarbamate functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms ≈ 70 emu/g | Hg(II) | Removal efficiency > 99.8% | [ |
| DPTH-functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Not reported | Hg(II) | qm = 8.39 mg/g | [ |
| Sulfur functionalized amide linked organic polymer–MNP-NH2 | Sol–gel | Ms = 15 emu/g | Hg(II) | qm = 512 mg/g | [ |
| Microbial extracellular polymeric substances coated Fe3O4 | Oxidative copolymerization | Ms = 79.01 emu/g | Ag(I) | qm = 48 mg/g | [ |
| Hydrothermal carbon modified with NaOH–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Not reported | U(VI) | qm = 761.20 mg/g | [ |
| Amidoxime functionalized flower-like TiO2 microspheres–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 15.19 emu/g | U(VI) | qm = 313.6 mg/g | [ |
| Amino-methylene-phosphonic-functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Not reported | Sb(III) | qm ≈ 130 mg/g | [ |
| Thiol functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Not reported | [AuCl4]− | qm = 115 mg/g | [ |
| C18-Silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 41.31 emu/g | Sudan dyes | Recovery = 91–104% | [ |
| TiO2/HKUST-1–Fe3O4 | Spray-assisted synthesis | Ms = 1.62 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm > 700 mg/g | [ |
| ZIF-8–Fe3O4 | Mixing and heating | Ms = 14.38 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 20.2 mg/g | [ |
| Poly(propylene imine)-functionalized UiO-66–Fe3O4 | Solvothermal | Ms = 10.5 emu/g | Acid blue 92 | qm = 122.5 mg/g | [ |
| Chitosan-based adsorbent modified with AO–Fe3O4 | Sol-gel | Ms = 12.03 emu/g | Orange II | qm = 955.0 mg/g | [ |
| Polydopamine-coated Fe3O4 modified with deep eutectic solvents | Self-polymerization | Ms = 65.71 emu/g | Malachite green | qm = 277.78 mg/g | [ |
| Sulfamic acid-functionalized polyamidoamine–Fe3O4 | Ultrasonication | Ms = 25 emu/g | Malachite green | qm = 1250 mg/g | [ |
| Sulfonic acid functionalized covalent organic polymer–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 20.2 emu/g | Malachite green | qm = 333.4 mg/g | [ |
| Cationic surfactant functionalized silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Not reported | Metal ion-8-hydroxyquinoline complexes | Recovery = 93–113% | [ |
| C18-functionalized Fe3O4 caged in Ba2+-alginate | Solvothermal | Ms = 49.31 emu/g | PAHs Phthalate esters | Recovery = 72–108% | [ |
| C18-modified interior pore wall mesoporous silica–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 40.8 emu/g | Phthalates | Not reported | [ |
| Graphene oxide–LDH–Fe3O4 | Milling and hydrothermal | Ms = 3.5 emu/g | 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid | qm = 173 mg/g | [ |
| Agarose coated silica modified with SDS–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 21.57 emu/g | Phenazopyridine monohydrochloride | qm = 41 mg/g | [ |
| Covalent organic framework–Fe3O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 15.8 emu/g | Diclofenac sodium | qm = 565 mg/g | [ |
Ms: saturation magnetization; χρ = magnetic susceptibility; qm: maximum adsorption capacity; AO: acryloyloxyethyl dimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride; APTMA: 3-acrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride; CSSNa: sodium dithiocarbamate; DTPA: diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid; HKUST-1: Cu3(1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylate)2; LDH: layered double hydroxide; MNP-NH2: Fe3O4@SiO2−NH2; MOF: metal organic framework; PAHs: polyaromatic hydrocarbons; PAN: 1-(2-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol; PGMA: polyglycidyl methacrylate; SDS: sodium dodecylsulfate; ZIF-8: Zn(2-methylimidazole)2.
Figure 2Brief depiction of the synthesis and environmental applications of nZVI (Reprinted from Chem. Eng. J., 287, Stefaniuk, M.; Oleszczuk, P.; Ok, Y.S. Review on nano zerovalent iron (nZVI): From synthesis to environmental applications, 618–632. Ref. [143], Copyright © 2022 with permission from Elsevier).
Figure 3Preparation procedures of Fe3O4 by (a) coprecipitation and (b) solvothermal synthesis. (Reprinted from J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 468, Rajput, S.; Pittman Jr., C.U.; Mohan, D. Magnetic magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticle synthesis and applications for lead (Pb2+) and chromium (Cr6+) removal from water, 334–346. Ref. [65], Copyright © 2022 and J. Alloys Compd. 816, Fotukian, S.M.; Barati, A.; Soleymani, M.; Alizadeh, A.M. Solvothermal synthesis of CuFe2O4 and Fe3O4 nanoparticles with high heating efficiency for magnetic hyperthermia application, 152548 Ref. [153], Copyright © 2022 with permission from Elsevier).
Figure 4Illustration of attachment methods between adsorbents and magnetic particles.
Figure 5Representative preparation procedures of (a) magnetic biochar/ZnS, (b) Fe3O4/PAN composite nanofibers (NFs), and (c) magnetic carbon fiber aerogels. (Reprinted with permission from (a) ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1, 125–132 Ref. [164] Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society and (b) ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 14573−14583 Ref. [105] Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society.).
Figure 6Brief procedures of conventional synthesis methods for adsorbents on magnetic particles.
Figure 7Schematic classification of the conventional synthesis methods of magnetic adsorbents covered in this review with their issues and advancements.
Advanced synthesis methods of magnetic adsorbents, and their performance on adsorption of organic and inorganic pollutants in water.
| Adsorbents | Synthesis Method | Magnetic Properties | Pollutant(s) | Adsorption or | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Sulfur-doped Fe3O4 | Simple mixing and sintering | Ms = 37.1 emu/g | As(V) | qm = 58.38 mg/g | [ |
| Dendrimerlike biosorbent–Fe3O4/Fe2O3 based on orange peel waste | Co-precipitation | Not reported | As(V) | qm = 81.3 mg/g | [ |
| Sulfur-doped Fe3O4 | Simple mixing and sintering | Ms = 32.97 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 500 mg/g | [ |
| β-cyclodextrin-stabilized Fe3S4 | Thermal decomposition | Ms = 37.1 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 256.41 mg/g | [ |
| Fe3S4-reduced graphene oxide | Thermal decomposition and sulfuration | Ms = 20.67 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 285.71 mg/g | [ |
| Fe/FeS | Sulfidation | Ms = 78.0 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 69.7 mg/g | [ |
| MgFe2O4 | Sol–gel | Ms = 9.4 emu/g | Indigo carmine dye | qm = 46 mg/g | [ |
| CuFe2O4 | Solution combustion | Ms = 18.1 emu/g | Malachite green | qm = 22 mg/g | [ |
| Bio-synthesized Fe3O4 | Simple precipitation using microalgae extract | Ms = 0.2705 emu/g | Crystal violet | qm = 256.41 mg/g | [ |
| Bio-synthesized Fe3O4 | Simple precipitation using microalgae extract | Ms = 0.2705 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 312.5 mg/g | [ |
| Starch-coated Fe3O4 | Green co-precipitation | Ms = 46.8 emu/g | Optilan blue | Removal efficiency | [ |
| S-nZVI | Sulfidation | Not reported | Florfenicol | Removal efficiency | [ |
| S-nZVI | Sulfidation | Not reported | Diclofenac | Removal efficiency | [ |
|
| |||||
| Pinewood-derived biochar–MnFe2O4 | Direct pyrolysis | Not reported | As(V) | qm = 3.44 g/kg | [ |
| Pinewood-derived biochar–γ-Fe2O3 | Direct pyrolysis | Not reported | As(V) | qm = 428.7 mg/kg | [ |
| Sodium alginate-dispersed nZVI | Sulfidation | Not reported | Cr(VI) | Removal efficiency | [ |
| Fe-coated bamboo charcoal | Impregnation and microwave heating | Not reported | Pb(II) | qm = 200.38 mg/g | [ |
| Bagasse-derived biochar | Co-precipitation | Ms = 0.49–1.17 emu/g | 17β-estradiol | qm = 34.06–50.24 mg/g | [ |
| Biotemplate-fabricated ZnFe2O4/MgAl LDH | Thermal decomposition | Ms = 31.8 emu/g | Congo red | qm = 294.12 mg/g | [ |
| Ag–C–Fe3O4 | Solution combustion | Ms = 2.6 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 152.62 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon–Fe3O4 | Solution combustion | Ms = 4.82–13.5 emu/g | Acid yellow 42 | qm = 62.36 mg/g | [ |
| C–Fe3O4 | Solution combustion | Ms = 2.43 emu/g | Acid orange 7 | qm = 126.19 mg/g | [ |
|
| |||||
| Faujasite-type zeolite–Fe3O4 | Seed-assisted hydrothermal with seed crystal/Fe3O4 mixture | Not reported | Methylene blue | qm = 35.7 mg/g | [ |
| Activated carbon–Fe3O4 | Carbonization of Fe3O4 embedded polymer precursor | Not reported | Methylene blue | qm = 650 mg/g | [ |
| BEA-type zeolite–Fe3O4 | Dry-gel conversion of Fe3O4 pre-mixed precursor gel | Not reported | Methylene blue | qm = 133 mg/g | [ |
| Zn-based zeolitic Imidazolate MOF-basil seed mucilage nanocomposite | Ultrasonication | Ms = 2.22 emu/g | Methylene blue | qm = 9.09 mg/g | [ |
| MOR-type zeolite–Fe3O4 | Seed-assisted hydrothermal with seed crystal/Fe3O4 mixture | Not reported | Benzene | qm = 6.9 mg/g | [ |
|
| |||||
| ZrO2–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation | Ms > 23.65 emu/g | Phosphate | qm = 27.93–69.44 mg/g | [ |
| Ma/Al/La–Fe3O4 | Co-precipitation and calcination | Not reported | F− | qm = 65.75 mg/g | [ |
| Triethylene tetramine functionalized chitosan resin–Fe3O4 | Precipitation and crosslinking | Ms = 30 emu/g | Uranyl | qm = 166.6 mg/g | [ |
| MgAl LDH on carbon–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal self-assembly and Sol–gel | Ms = 5.84 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 152.0 mg/g | [ |
| Rice husk-derived carbonaceous material–Fe3O4 | Carbon-thermal | Ms = 77.8 emu/g | Cr(VI) | qm = 157.7 mg/g | [ |
| Sludge biochar–Fe3O4 | Hydrothermal | Ms = 29.94 emu/g | Pb(II) | qm = 174.216 mg/g | [ |
| Biochar–Fe3O4 | Electromagnetization and pyrolysis | Ms = 26.79 emu/g | Acid orange 7 | qm = 382.01 mg/g | [ |
| Fullerene–Fe3O4 | Solvent-free catalytic thermal decomposition | Ms = 7.002 emu/g | Acid blue 25 | qm = 806.5 mg/g | [ |
| Polyvinylpyrrolidone–Fe3O4 | Modified hydrothermal | Not reported | Crude oil | Removal efficiency | [ |
Ms: saturation magnetization; qm: maximum adsorption capacity; LDH: layered double hydroxide; MOF: metal organic framework; S-nZVI: sulfidized nano zerovalent iron.
Figure 8Preparation procedures of Fe3O4 loaded on (a) magnetic biochar and activated carbon, (b) nanosized biochar particles and (c) RGO. (Reprinted from (a) Sci. Total Environ. 722, Li, Y.; Zimmerman, A.R.; He F.; Chen, J.; Han, L.; Chen, H.; Hu, X.; Gao, B. Solvent-free synthesis of magnetic biochar and activated carbon through ball-mill extrusion with Fe3O4 nanoparticles for enhancing adsorption of methylene blue. 137972. Ref. [223], Copyright © 2022 and (b) Chem. Eng. J. 352, Dong, X.; He, L.; Hu, H.; Liu, N.; Gao, S.; Piao, Y. Removal of 17β-estradiol by using highly adsorptive magnetic bio-char nanoparticles from aqueous solution. 371–379. Ref. [185], Copyright © 2022 with permission from Elsevier and (c) Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 4, 1225–1232 Ref. [224] Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society).
Figure 9Brief procedures of the advanced synthesis of adsorbents on magnetic particles. (a) Embedding Fe3O4 into polymer precursors to yield magnetic activated carbon. (b) Pre-milling of Fe3O4 with zeolite seed crystals together to produce magnetic zeolites. (c) Pre-mixing Fe3O4 with zeolite precursors to form dried precursor gel before dry gel conversion to magnetic zeolite. (d) Pre-attaching gelatinous material coated Fe3O4 with metal ion precursor with subsequent formation of MOFs.
Figure 10Illustrations of procedures for co-synthesis methods. (a) Hydrothermal, (b) heat treatment, and (c) co-synthesis methods. ((c) Reprinted from Appl. Surf. Sci. 366, Wang, Z.; Xing, M.; Fang, W.; Wu, D. One-step synthesis of magnetite core/zirconia shell nanocomposite for high efficiency removal of phosphate from water, 67–77. Ref. [26], Copyright © 2022 with permission from Elsevier).