Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Low-Cost Adsorbents Procedure by Means of Heavy Metal Elimination from Wastewater

Version 1 : Received: 31 January 2019 / Approved: 1 February 2019 / Online: 1 February 2019 (10:33:23 CET)

How to cite: Devanna, N.; Begum, B.A.; Chari, M. Low-Cost Adsorbents Procedure by Means of Heavy Metal Elimination from Wastewater. Preprints 2019, 2019020013 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201902.0013.v1). Devanna, N.; Begum, B.A.; Chari, M. Low-Cost Adsorbents Procedure by Means of Heavy Metal Elimination from Wastewater. Preprints 2019, 2019020013 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201902.0013.v1).

Abstract

The beginning of industrialization human being has observed a variety of environmental troubles in the world. This industrialization has not only brought growth and affluence but ultimately troubled the ecosystem. One of the crashes is visible, in form of water contamination. Here the current study heavy metal contamination of water body has been discussed. Effluents from a great number of industries viz., tannery, textile, pigment & dyes, paint, wood processing, petroleum refining, electroplating, leather etc., have a major amount of heavy metals in their wastewater. The conventional technique of handling heavy metal pollution includes chemical oxidation, chemical precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, membrane separation, electrodialysis etc. These processes are expensive, energy intensive and frequently related with generation of poisonous by-product. Therefore, the adsorption has been examined as a cost-efficient technique of elimination of heavy metals from wastewater. In the current study different low-cost adsorbent has been a review as an abatement of heavy metal contamination from wastewater. These adsorbent comprise materials of natural origin like peat moss, zeolites, clay, and chitin are found to be an effective agent for removal of deadly heavy metals like Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Hg, Cr etc. Separately from these, a variety of agricultural wastes like rice husk, waste tea, neem bark, black gram; Turkish coffee, walnut shell etc. were also known as a powerful adsorbent for heavy metal removal. at the side of that low-cost industrial byproduct like fly ash, lignin, iron (III) hydroxide and red mud, coffee husks, Areca waste, tea factory waste, sugar beet pulp, battery industry waste, blast furnace sludge, waste slurry, sea nodule remains and grape stalk wastes have been discovered for their technical possibility to eliminate toxic heavy metals from impure water.

Subject Areas

Heavy metal; Agricultural waste; Low-cost adsorbent; Wastewater; Toxicity

Comments (7)

Importance: How significant is the paper to the field?
Outstanding/highlight paper
66.67%
Significant contribution
33.33%
Incremental contribution
0%
No contribution
0%
Soundness of evidence/arguments presented:
Conclusions well supported
100%
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)
0%
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)
0%
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle
0%
Comment 1
Received: 2 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Good Contribution
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 2 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: good Work
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 3
Received: 2 February 2019
Commenter: ramesh chandra
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: A very good article I like the article author is done well abrarunnisa & Dr. N Devanna & Dr. chari
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 4
Received: 2 February 2019
Commenter: syed
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Article should be published its very good
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 5
Received: 2 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: good hard work
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 6
Received: 2 February 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: nice work
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 7
Received: 12 February 2019
Commenter: Edmond Sanganyado (Click to see Publons profile: )
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Potentially toxic metals are continuously discharged into the environment due to anthropogenic activities (e.g. mining, tanning, and electronic industries). I agree with the authors that there is a need for development of low-cost adsorbents for the removal of potentially toxic metals from the environment. However, I have several questions and suggestions that the authors may want to consider.

1. Avoid generalizations. For example, in the abstract, it is important to note not all conventional metal removal processes produce toxic waste.

2. Support claims using primary research evidence. For example, in the introduction, the authors claimed low-cost adsorbents can effectively remove 1 mg/L of metals. This is probably depended on amount and type of adsorbent as well as the target metal. Including a primary research citation would have answered those concerns.

3. What is the difference between activated carbon and low-cost adsorbents derived from biomass following activation? The authors claimed activated carbon has limited application in wastewater treatment. However, numerous studies have demonstrated that low-cost activated carbon (adsorbents) can be obtained from volarization of solid waste.

3. Is including a full section on occurrence and toxicity of metals expedient considering this is known knowledge and numerous extensive reviews have covered this previously?

4. Is it necessary to include three full sections on adsorption that do not add much to the topic? The functional definition and types of adsorption are textbook knowledge. The authors should probably focus on the mechanism of adsorption and the factors that influence removal of metals in wastewater.

5. Why did the authors list the different types of low-cost adsorbents without critically examining their mechanisms, removal efficiencies (citing primary research data), factors influencing effectiveness (e.g. pH, particle size, initial COD, temperature, and co-pollutants), and kinetic isotherms.

6. Data from the authors' literature search could have been represented better using detailed figures and tables. For example, the authors could have placed the different types of low-cost adsorbents in use or under research into different categories and then created a diagram that demonstrates this. Secondly, a table listing different types of low-cost adsorbents, optimum operating conditions, target metals and wastewater, removal efficiency and key observations and the pertinent references could have helped to better understand removal of metals in wastewater.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 7
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.