| Literature DB >> 35630932 |
Ecaterina Matei1, Andra Mihaela Predescu1, Maria Râpă1, Anca Andreea Țurcanu1, Ileana Mateș1, Nicolae Constantin1, Cristian Predescu1.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to bring together the main natural polymer applications for environmental remediation, as a class of nexus materials with advanced properties that offer the opportunity of integration in single or simultaneous decontamination processes. By identifying the main natural polymers derived from agro-industrial sources or monomers converted by biotechnology into sustainable polymers, the paper offers the main performances identified in the literature for: (i) the treatment of water contaminated with heavy metals and emerging pollutants such as dyes and organics, (ii) the decontamination and remediation of soils, and (iii) the reduction in the number of suspended solids of a particulate matter (PM) type in the atmosphere. Because nanotechnology offers new horizons in materials science, nanocomposite tunable polymers are also studied and presented as promising materials in the context of developing sustainable and integrated products in society to ensure quality of life. As a class of future smart materials, the natural polymers and their nanocomposites are obtained from renewable resources, which are inexpensive materials with high surface area, porosity, and high adsorption properties due to their various functional groups. The information gathered in this review paper is based on the publications in the field from the last two decades. The future perspectives of these fascinating materials should take into account the scale-up, the toxicity of nanoparticles, and the competition with food production, as well as the environmental regulations.Entities:
Keywords: PM; heavy metals; nanocomposites; polymers; soil remediation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630932 PMCID: PMC9146209 DOI: 10.3390/nano12101707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Natural polymers and nanocomposites for environmental applications.
Figure 2Eco-friendly approach of chitosan/silver nanocomposite used for dye removal for potable water. “Reprinted with permission from [66]. Copyright 2022, Elsevier”.
Figure 3The performance of MOFs for air filtering media [9].
Chitosan and its nanocomposites with double functionality for water–soil system decontamination.
| Type of Polymer or/and Nanocomposite | Water Performances/Mechanism | Soil Performances/Mechanism | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chitosan composite with magnesium oxide biochar (from rice husk), 2–22 nm. | 59.66 mg/g Cd | 2% composite: reduced Cd content bioavailable by 22.32%, Cd extractable in acid by 24.77%, and increased Cd residual by 22.24%. | [ |
|
Chitosan graft-copolymerized with montmorillonite rich | 0.1 g composite with 25 mg/L metal solutions (50 mL), pH values between 1 and 8. | 1 g soil/0.1 g composite with metal retention capacity by 3.4, 3.2, 4.9 | [ |
|
Nano-fungal chitosan nanopaticles (NCt) (from cross-linking with sodium | Pb: 87.51 mg/g (300 ppm) and Cu: 89.12 mg/g (300 ppm). | 0.25 and 0.5% NCt. Pb removal efficiencies for different samples: between 71.3 and 98.6%. Corresponding with bulk Cts: between 45.6 and 74.3%. Cu removal efficiencies for different samples: between 88.8% and 97.3%. | [ |
| Composite carboxylated graphene oxide/chitosan/cellulose beads, about d = 2 mm. | 22.4 mg/g Cu(II) for 40 μg/mL. | 99.6% Cu(II) immobilization efficiency for 60 mg/L (88.6% for soil alone). | [ |
Natural polymers and their nanocomposites used for water pollutant removal.
| Type of Polymer or/and Its Nanocomposite | Water Pollutants and Performances | References |
|---|---|---|
| Chitosan/clay nanocomposite by dip-coating technique, with the lowest pore size for ultrafiltration membrane: 13 nm | 100% removal of 500 µg/L Hg(II) and 1000 µg/L As(III) | [ |
| Chitosan hollow fibers/nanosized Fe3O4 as Fenton-like catalysts | 89.4% removal of Reactive Blue 19 (RB 19) dye in continuous system and 74.4% for reused catalyst | [ |
| Graphite oxide/poly(acrylic acid) grafted chitosan nanocomposite | Removal of dorzolamide (from pharmaceutical industry), 447 mg/g | [ |
| Chitosan/gum arabic/carbon nanotube (CNT) as beads and membrane functionalized, BET surface area: between 78 and 198 cm2/g | Removal of solids from waters | [ |
| Chitosan–montmorillonite membrane, with montmorillonite amount from 10% to 50% by mass. | Adsorbent for 80 mg/L Bezactiv orange V-3R dye, Qmax: 279.3 mg/g | [ |
| Magnetic mesoporous carbon/β-cyclodextrinechitosan | Removal of fluoroquinolones, efficiency 90.7–99.7%, 130–165 mg/g | [ |
| Glutaraldehyde cross-linked chitosan-coated Fe3O4 nanocomposites | Methylene blue (MB) removal, efficiency 96–98%, 758 mg/g | [ |
| Chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)/zeolite nanocomposite | Congo red removal, efficiency 94%, 5.33 mg/g | [ |
| Quaternized chitosane organic rectorite intercalated composites | [ | |
| Chitosane–zinc oxide nanocomposite | Removal of permethrin, efficiency 99% | [ |
| Polyethylene glycol (PEG)/chitosan nanocomposite | Removal of nitrates from waters, 50.58 mg/g | [ |
| Chitosan/Al2O3/Fe3O4 nanofiber | Phosphates removal, 135.1 mg/g | [ |
| Nano-SiO2-Cross-linked Chitosan-Nano-TiO2 nanocomposite | Removal of Hg, efficiency 98–99.5%, 1515.2 mg/g | [ |
| EPSs as bioflocculant and bio-adsorbent (bacterial cells and natural polysaccharides, lignins, proteins). | 1–10 mg/L EPS: 50% removal Pb(II) and Hg(II). | [ |
| Novel sodium alginate (SA) supported tetrasodium thiacalix [ | Pb(II) > Cd(II) > Cu(II) > Cr(III) > Co(II) > Ni(II) at pH = 7. Adsorption capacity mg/g and % removal with TSTC[4]AS-s-SA: mg/g (%) Co 64.5 (12.9), Cd 89.14 (17.82), Pb 84.5 (16.9), Cu 87.82 (17.56), Ni 62.9 (12.58), Cr3+ 77.3 (15.46). Fe3O4@TSTC[4]AS-s-SA mg/g (%): 74.9 (14.98), 94.5 (18.9), 99.8 (19.96), 90.56 (18.11), 67.4 (13.48), 79.2 (15.48) | [ |
| Novel adsorbent poly (methyl methacrylate)-grafted alginate/Fe3O4 nanocomposite by oxidative-free radical-graft copolymerization reaction. | 62.5 mg/g Pb(II) and 35.71 mg/g Cu(II) at pH 5. Freundlich model at 50 °C. | [ |
| Novel magnetic nanocomposite alginate beads, a3:4:1 aspect ratio (alginate: nanocomposite: xanthan gum) is used for fabrication of the beads. | The beads show removal percentage for phosphate at 97.9%, copper at 81.8%, and toluene at 43.4% and adsorption capacities of 60.24 mg/g, 120.77 mg/g and 25.52 mg/g, respectively. Isothermal studies show that the Langmuir isotherm model is the best governing equation for sorption. A pseudo-second-order model is the governing equation for the kinetics of sorption. The sorption process is also spontaneous and exothermic. The beads showed greater affinity in the order— | [ |
| PVA/SA beads via blending PVA with SA and the glutaraldehyde as cross-linking agent. The zeolite nanoparticles (Zeo NPs) were incorporated in the PVA/SA resulting in Zeo/PVA | 99.5% Pb (II), 99.2% Cd(II), 98.8% Sr(II), 97.2% Cu(II), 95.6% Zn(II), 93.1% Ni(II), 92.4% Mn(II), 74.5% Li(II) for pH 6.0. | [ |
| Cobalt ferrite—alginate nanocomposite synthesized, ex situ polymerization | 6.75 mg/g Reactive Red 195 and 6.06 mg/g Reactive Yellow 145 from a textile dye effluent in a binary component system | [ |
| PVA/graphene oxide (GO)-SA nanocomposite hydrogel beads, in situ cross-linking, 0.15–0.2 μm. | 279.43 mg/g Pb(II). Second-order kinetic model and Langmuir adsorption isotherm. | [ |
| Alginate beads | 107.53 mg/g Cu(II), 5 cycles of adsorption and desorption: 92% Cu(II). | [ |
| Alginate/montmorillonite beads | Removal of Pb, with maximum of 244.6 mg/g at pH 6 and minimum of 76.6 mg/g at pH 1. | [ |
| Alginate/Ag hydrogel, with Ag nanoparticles of 19 nm size | 213.7 mg/g MB, Langmuir adsorption. | [ |
| Cellulose/CuO nanoparticles | Microbial disinfection of waters: antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. | [ |
| CA/Fe nanoparticle membrane | 99% CA—0.5% Fe nanoparticle blend ultrafiltration membrane applied for sulphates and organics removal, as biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) for textile industry effluent. | [ |
| NH2-functionalized CA/silica composite nanofibrous membranes by sol-gel combined with electrospinning technology | 19.46 mg/g as maximum adsorption capacity for Cr(VI) | [ |
| TiO2/cellulose composite films by sol-gel method | Catalyst for phenol degradation | [ |
| CA/Zinc oxide–Zeolite nanocomposite | Removal of Benzophenone-3, efficiency 98% | [ |
| Lignocellulose/montmorillonite nanocomposite | Removal of Ni, 94.86 mg/g | [ |
| Starch/Fe3O4 | Removal of Pb2+, Cu2+, and Ni2+ | [ |
| Starch/polyaniline nanocomposite | Removal of Reactive Black 5, efficiency 99%, 811.3 mg/g | [ |
| Chitosan/activated carbon/PVA (CS-AC-PVA) hybrid composite beads | Capacity of Pb2+ adsorbed was 0.2808 mg/g. pH of 5 at temperature of 25 °C; kinetics model followed pseudo-second-order kinetics, evidenced that Pb2+ ion was mainly adsorbed on the adsorbent surface via chemical interactions; chemical adsorption was exothermic in nature. | [ |
| Zr/Fe/Al-modified chitosan beads | Adsorption capacity of fluoride was 37.49 mg/g | [ |
Natural polymers and their nanocomposites used for soil remediation.
| Type of Polymer or/and Nanocomposite | Soil Pollutants and Performances | References |
|---|---|---|
| Chitosan and PVA were added to alginate (10 wt.%) and cross-linked with epichlorohydrin (ECH) | 70% adsorption efficiency, after 6 cycles of adsorption/desorption. | [ |
| Nano-chitosan–urea composite encapsulation of urea with the chitosan polymer, 33.39 ± 11.84 nm, and 113.55 ± 19.02 nm chitosan | 25% N as fertilizer required level as 75 kg N/ha recommended dose. | [ |
| Chitosan–urea encapsulated persulfate for low-release synthesized by an emulsion cross-linking method | 80% removal rate for pyrene in weakly acidic or neutral soil environments | [ |
| Novel chitosan/clay/biochar nanobiocomposite. Biochar mesopores (pores 2–50 nm) and mean pore diameter: 1.9842 nm. | 121.5 mg/g Cu, 336 mg/g Pb, and 134.6 mg/g Zn. Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure: 10 g soil with 10% nanobiocomposite in synthetic rain water (20 g/L), 24 h. | [ |
| Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) support for montmorillonite-stabilized iron sulfide composite | 90.7% Cr(VI) after 30 days, with 5% (composite–soil mass proportion), measured using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. | [ |
| CMC—nanozerovalent iron (CMC-nZVI), with 80–120 nm nZVI | Leachability: 100% Cr(VI) and 95.8% Cr total, with 2.5 g/Kg CMC-nZVI. Immobilization: 45.4% Crtotal and 17.9%Cr(VI) with 1 g/kg; 72.8% Crtotal and 58.6% Cr(VI) with 2.5 g/kg; | [ |
| CMC bone-char/CMC stabilized FeS composite = 1:1:1 | 452.99 mg/g, pH: 2.0–6.0, 65.47%. | [ |
| Alginate for composite powder: Fe-AC-alg | Over 96% efficiency with 1g composite for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (anthracene (Ant), phenanthlene (Phe), fluoranthene (Flu), pyrene (Py), benz[a]anthrathene (BaA), chrysene (Chr), benzo[b]fluroranthene (BbF), benzo[k]fluroranthene (BkF), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), | [ |
| Alginate spheres with magnetic hollow carbon composite | 44.02% Cd removal with 1.5 g composite/60 g soil. Composite recyclability: 88.87% in flooding soil and 94.45% in non-flooding soil. | [ |
| SA gel beads incorporated silicon sulfuretted nanoscale zero valent iron (FeSSi) with specific surface 101.61 m2/g | Removal efficiency: 80.10% (Cd), 99.96% (Pb), 66.80% (Ni), and 80.46% (Cr) with pseudo-second-order model. Leaching tests for recovery rate (Rr) of heavy metals from solution (Rr/w) and soil (Rr/s): 59.79–98.70% and 25.94–62.67% with 0.3 g SA-FeSSi. | [ |
| Lignin, CMC, and SA amendments | Leaching concentrations: 5.46–71.1% and 4.26–49.6%, 1.0 g of soil, pH 2.88, 18 h, 30 rot/min. | [ |
Figure 4The mechanism diagram of Cd adsorption onto MgO-BCR-W [84].
Figure 5Four major types of particle filtration mechanisms: impaction, interception, diffusion, and electrostatic attraction [196].
Figure 6Example of green electrospinning process combined with UV treatment [178]. Fabrication process for antibacterial and hierarchical CS-PVA nanofibrous membranes by combination of (a) electrospinning, one step UV reduction and cured. (b) Filtration process of the CS-PVA@SiO2 NPs-Ag NPs air filtration membranes. (c) The chemical structure of CS/ PVA/TEGDMA/1173.
Main performances of natural polymers as filtration substrates for air decontamination.
| Pollutant | Type of Polymer | Performances/Mechanism | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| PM 2.5 and 10 μm | Uniform silk protein nanofibers by electrospinning process | Air filtration efficiencies: 90% and 97%, exceeding the performances of commercial semi high-efficiency particulate air (semi-HEPA) filters. Nanofibers are naturally degraded. | [ |
| PM 10 μm, including aerosol particles: DEHS (diisooctyl sebacate particles as organic particle matter) and NaCl (sodium chloride particles as inorganic matter) | Chitosan/PVA nanofibers with SiO2/Ag nanoparticles as air filtration nanofibrous membrane | Filtration efficiency: 96% for particles between 300 nm–1 μm and 100% for micron level particles. Composite membrane weights: between 1.48 and 6.2 g/m2 for filtration efficiency: NaCl particles from 42.97% (pressure drop is 33.67) to 96.60% (pressure drop is 305.67); DEHS particles from 51.01% (pressure drop: 33.67) to 99.12% (pressure drop: 296.17). | [ |
| PM 2.5 and 10 μm | Biodegradable | Efficiency: 99.3%. Even after 6 h of filtration time, the PLLA filtration membrane still exhibits a 15% improvement in quality factor for PM 2.5 particles compared to the 3M respirator. Similarly for PM 10 particles, these quality factors of the (poly(D-lactic acid)) PDLA and poly(L-lactic acid)PLLA membranes exhibited 3% and 4.6% improvements compared to the 3M respirator after 6 h filtration time. Furthermore, the PLLA filter membrane also exhibited a high porosity of 91.9%, a specific surface area of 4.5 m2/g, and a dust-holding capacity of 7.36 g/m2. | [ |
| PM 2.5 | The average diameter of the electrospun nanofibers used was 239 nm, ranging from 113 to 398 nm. | Aerosol particles (diameters from 7 to 300 nm). Experimental results indicated that the nanofibers showed good permeability (10−11 m2) and high-efficiency filtration for aerosol nanoparticles (about 100%), which can include BC and the new coronavirus. The pressure drop was 1.8 kPa at 1.6 cm/s, which is similar to that reported for some high-efficiency nanofiber filters. In addition, it also retains BC particles present in air, which was about 90% for 375 nm and about 60% for the 880 nm wavelength. | [ |
| PM 0.3, PM10 | ZnO@PVA/konjac glucomannan (KGM) membranes | ZnO@PVA/KGM filtration efficiency: 99.99% for ultrafine particles with the size of 300 nm. | [ |
| PM 2.5, | Soy protein isolate (SPI)/PVA electrospinning membrane | Filtration efficiency: 99.99% for PM < 2.5 µm and inhibiting effect on | [ |