| Literature DB >> 35807983 |
Salim Boulkhessaim1, Amel Gacem1, Samreen Heena Khan2, Abdelfattah Amari3,4, Virendra Kumar Yadav5, Hamed N Harharah3, Abubakr M Elkhaleefa3, Krishna Kumar Yadav6, Sami-Ullah Rather7, Hyun-Jo Ahn8, Byong-Hun Jeon8.
Abstract
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have become a major global concern due to their large amount of utilization every year and their calcitrant nature. Due to their continuous utilization and calcitrant nature, it has led to several environmental hazards. The conventional approaches are expensive, less efficient, laborious, time-consuming, and expensive. Therefore, here in this review the authors suggest the shortcomings of conventional techniques by using nanoparticles and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has shown immense potential for the remediation of such POPs within a short period of time with high efficiency. The present review highlights the use of nanoremediation technologies for the removal of POPs with a special focus on nanocatalysis, nanofiltration, and nanoadsorption processes. Nanoparticles such as clays, zinc oxide, iron oxide, aluminum oxide, and their composites have been used widely for the efficient remediation of POPs. Moreover, filtrations such as nanofiltration and ultrafiltration have also shown interest in the remediation of POPs from wastewater. From several pieces of literature, it has been found that nano-based techniques have shown complete removal of POPs from wastewater in comparison to conventional methods, but the cost is one of the major issues when it comes to nano- and ultrafiltration. Future research in nano-based techniques for POP remediation will solve the cost issue and will make it one of the most widely accepted and available techniques. Nano-based processes provide a sustainable solution to the problem of POPs.Entities:
Keywords: degradation; nanomaterials; persistent organic pollutants; remediation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807983 PMCID: PMC9268313 DOI: 10.3390/nano12132148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Type and categories of POPs.
List of POPs as per Stockholm Convention.
| S. No | Chemical | Category |
|---|---|---|
| As per the 2001 Amendment (The Dirty Dozen) | ||
| 1 | PCB | Industrial waste/byproduct |
| 2 | PCD | Byproduct |
| 3 | PCDF | Byproduct |
| 4 | Chlordane | Pesticide |
| 5 | Mirex | Pesticide |
| 6 | Endrin | Pesticide |
| 7 | Aldrin | Pesticide |
| 8 | Dieldrin | Pesticide |
| 9 | HCB | Pesticide |
| 10 | Heptachlor | Pesticide |
| 11 | Toxaphene | Pesticide |
| 12 | DDT | Pesticide |
| As per the 2009 Amendment | ||
| 13 | Lindane | Pesticide |
| 14 | Chlordecone | Pesticide |
| 15 | Pentachloro benzene | Pesticide and Byproduct |
| 16 | Alpha-HCH | Pesticide and Byproduct |
| 17 | Beta-HCH | Pesticide and Byproduct |
| 18 | PFO and constituents PFOSF | Industrial |
| 19 | Hexabromobiphenyl | Industrial |
| 20 | Hexa-BDE and Hepta-BDE | Industrial |
| 21 | Tetra-BDE and Penta-BDE | Industrial |
| As per the 2011 Amendment | ||
| 22 | Endosulfan | Pesticide |
Figure 2Conventional treatment technologies.
Comparison between conventional and advanced nanotechnological processes.
| Method | Technique | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | Oxidation | Effective, rapid, and destructive | High cost, |
| Physical | Adsorption | Fast but comparatively less effective | The formation of by-products, cannot break the organic pollutant, high operational costs, low removal efficiency |
| Thermal | Combustion | Rapid and destructive, no by-product formed | High cost, complex process, not suggested for the recalcitrant compound |
| Biological | Microbial degradation | Destructive, | Comparatively slow, high cost, less effective, toxic by-products/end-products, cost-benefit ratio is low |
| Nano-based | Photocatalysis | Superfast, high removal capacity, highly selective, highly efficient, excellent porosity, charge-based repulsion, comparatively less pressure, better selectivity | High cost, high operational cost and management, nanotoxicological concerns, membrane blocking, difficult to scale up |
Reviews in the field of POP removal using different nano-based processes.
| S.NO | Technique | Nanomaterial Used | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Sulfate-radical-based advanced oxidation processes (SR-AOPs) for refractory organic contaminants | SR-AOPs using heterogeneous catalysis | [ |
| 2. | Hybrid photocatalytic membrane reactors for removal of POPs | Photocatalysis and membrane filtration | [ |
| 3. | Adsorptive and photocatalytic removal of POPs | Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) | [ |
| 4. | Nanocatalysts and other nanomaterials for remediation of POPs | Oxidation, adsorption | [ |
| 5. | Photodegradation of POPs by GR-based composites | Catalysis and reduced graphene for photodegradation | [ |
| 6. | Nanoremediation for removal of POPs | Different nanomaterials, i.e., nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI), CNT, silica (SiO2), magnetic and metallic nanoparticles, graphene oxide, covalent organic frameworks (COFs), and MOFs | [ |
| 7. | Biogenic nanomaterials for the remediation of organic and inorganic pollutants | NMs, NPs, nanomembranes, and nanopowders for detection as well as for the removal of toxic metals and organic compounds | [ |
| 8. | Nanotechnology for pesticide removal from aqueous solutions | Nanomaterials, nanocomposites | [ |
| 9. | Removal of POPs using various multifunctional materials | Thermal, electrochemical, and photocatalytic remediation processes | [ |
| 10. | Remediation of water contaminated by poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances | Modified CNTs, modified nano-iron oxides, metal-based nanophotocatalysts | [ |
| 11. | Green synthesized nanoengineered materials for water/wastewater remediation | Green nanomaterials for POP removal | [ |
| 12. | Removal of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from waters and wastewaters | Ionizing radiation, advanced oxidation and reduction processes (AO/RPs) | [ |
| 13. | Zinc oxide-based photocatalytic degradation of persistent pesticides | Photocatalytic degradation using ZnO | [ |
| 14. | Nanocatalysts and other nanomaterials for remediation of organic pollutants | Oxidation, adsorption, degrading organic pollutants for water remediation. | [ |
| 15. | Treatment of persistent organic pollutants in wastewater | Synergistic efficiency hydrodynamic cavitation with the advanced oxidation process | [ |
| 16. | Biofabricated nanoparticles for mitigating the environmental pollutants | Removal of pollutants via adsorption, immobilization, and reduction mechanisms | [ |
| 17. | Solid-phase microextraction of toxic pollutants using nanotechnology | Carbon-based materials, metal and metal-oxide nanomaterials | [ |
| 18. | Advanced nanotechnology and hybrid membrane-based treatment | Ag, Fe, Zn, Ti metal nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes | [ |
| 19. | Sustainable nanotechnology-based wastewater treatment | Graphene-based nanoparticles, their oxides (GO) and reduced graphene oxide (rGO), single-walled carbon nanotubes, multiple walled carbon nanotubes, covalent organic frameworks, metal, and metal-oxide-based nanoparticles | [ |
| 20. | Emerging contaminants removal from wastewater | Nanoscale materials such as nanosorbents, nanofilters, and nanocatalysts in the degradation of emerging contaminants | [ |
| 21. | Advanced oxidative processes for remediation of persistent organic pollutants from water | AOPs, such as sulfate radical, ionizing radiation, heterogeneous photocatalysis, electrohydraulic discharge system, ozonation, and Fenton processes | [ |
| 22. | Photocatalyst for organic-pollutant degradation | Carbon quantum-dot-supported zinc oxide (ZnO/CQDs) | [ |
Nanomaterials are used for the removal of POPs.
| Contaminant | Nanomaterials | References |
|---|---|---|
| Organic Pollutant | Ag/ZnO, ZnO-Bi, ZnO | [ |
| Mesoporous silica | [ | |
| Graphene oxide-Ag NP | [ | |
| TiO2 | [ | |
| ZnO | [ | |
| TiO2-rGO | [ | |
| Palladium and AgNp-embedded-zinc oxide nanostars | [ | |
| RE3+-doped nano-TiO2 | [ | |
| MoS2/ZnS embedded in N/S doped carbon | [ | |
| Magnetite and cobalt ferrite-decorated graphene oxide composite. | [ | |
| CuO and NiO nanoparticles | [ | |
| Chlorpyrifos | ZnO/ZnO-Bi/ZnO-Ag/ZnO-Fe | [ |
| Potato-peel biochar | [ | |
| Aldrin | TiO2 | [ |
| Heptachlor | Fe/Cu nanoparticles | [ |
| Fe2O3 | [ | |
| NZVI | [ | |
| Beta arsenene nanotubes | [ | |
| Mirex | Beta arsenene nanotubes | [ |
| Cu/Fe bimetal | [ | |
| Dimethoate | Gold Nanospheres and Nanorods | [ |
| Chlordane | Graphene/Ni nanocomposite | [ |
| Cu/Fe bimetal | [ | |
| Endrin | Virgin (Fe0) and microbially regenerated (Fe2+) iron | [ |
| HCBs | Magnetic micro/nano FexOy-CeO2 composite | [ |
| Mg-doped Fe3O4 | [ | |
| Nano Pd (0) | [ | |
| Nano zero-valent iron/activated carbon composite | [ | |
| Co-Fe-O | [ | |
| Zero-valent magnesium/graphite | [ | |
| nZVI | [ | |
| PCBs | Nano Pd/Fe | [ |
| Zero Valent iron (ZVI) | [ | |
| ZVI | [ | |
| Pd nanocatalyst | [ | |
| Ti-Ag Nanocomposite | [ | |
| Fe2O3 | [ | |
| Au-Ag NP and Pd-Fe Bimetallic NP | [ |
Figure 3Nanotechnological processes used for the treatment of POPs.
Figure 4Photocatalysis over the surface of the nanomaterial.
Figure 5Types and benefits of nanoadsorption.