Next Article in Journal
Understanding Atherosclerosis Pathophysiology: Can Additive Manufacturing Be Helpful?
Next Article in Special Issue
Synthesis and Characterization of a pH- and Temperature-Sensitive Fe3O4-SiO2-Poly(NVCL-co-MAA) Nanocomposite for Controlled Delivery of Doxorubicin Anticancer Drug
Previous Article in Journal
Improving Dispersion of Carbon Nanotubes in Natural Rubber by Using Waterjet-Produced Rubber Powder as a Carrier
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biocompatible Silica-Polyethylene Glycol-Based Composites for Immobilization of Microbial Cells by Sol-Gel Synthesis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/polym15030482
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Chitosan-Based Polymer Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation of Mercury Pollution

by
Mvula Confidence Goci
1,
Anny Leudjo Taka
1,*,
Lynwill Martin
2,3 and
Michael John Klink
1,*
1
Department of Biotechnology/Chemistry, Vaal University of Technology, Andries Potgieter Boulevard, Vanderbijlpark 1911, South Africa
2
Cape Point Global Atmosphere Watch Station, South African Weather Service, c/o CSIR, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa
3
Chemical Resource Beneficiation, Atmospheric Chemistry Research Group, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2023, 15(3), 482; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030482
Submission received: 15 November 2022 / Revised: 19 December 2022 / Accepted: 22 December 2022 / Published: 17 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Synthesis and Applications of Polymer-Based Nanocomposites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mercury is a well-known heavy metal pollutant of global importance, typically found in effluents (lakes, oceans, and sewage) and released into the atmosphere. It is highly toxic to humans, animals and plants. Therefore, the current challenge is to develop efficient materials and techniques that can be used to remediate mercury pollution in water and the atmosphere, even in low concentrations. The paper aims to review the chitosan-based polymer nanocomposite materials that have been used for the environmental remediation of mercury pollution since they possess multifunctional properties, beneficial for the adsorption of various kinds of pollutants from wastewater and the atmosphere. In addition, these chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites are made of non-toxic materials that are environmentally friendly, highly porous, biocompatible, biodegradable, and recyclable; they have a high number of surface active sites, are earth-abundant, have minimal surface defects, and are metal-free. Advances in the modification of the chitosan, mainly with nanomaterials such as multi-walled carbon nanotube and nanoparticles (Ag, TiO2, S, and ZnO), and its use for mercury uptake by batch adsorption and passive sampler methods are discussed.

1. Introduction

Mercury (Hg) is one of the most toxic trace elements released into the atmosphere and is regarded as one of the “ten prominent chemicals of concern” due to its hazardous effects on human health and the environment [1,2]. Mercury is generally found in geological formations as sulfide ore (cinnabar–HgS), while as a trace element it is also found in other naturally occurring deposits, e.g., coal [3]. Special properties of mercury include its high vapor pressure; unlike other heavy metals, mercury can be vaporized into the surrounding air at low temperatures. It occurs in the atmosphere in three main forms; gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM), and particulate-bound mercury (PBM), of which GEM is the predominant form in the atmosphere, accounting for 95–99% of all mercury in the atmosphere [4,5,6].
Furthermore, mercury is found in wastewater as methylmercury, which is produced from inorganic mercury through methylation (a microbial process controlled by certain bacteria and enhanced by chemical and environmental variables such as the presence of organic matter). Methylmercury affects many water bodies that do not have obvious sources of mercury, and this is because mercury emissions travel far into the atmosphere before being deposited on the Earth’s surface [6,7]. The toxicity of methylmercury is of concern because it is highly soluble in water. Even at low concentrations in drinking water, it can damage the central nervous system [8]. There is a huge and rapidly growing area of scientific literature on the distribution of mercury in multiple ecosystems. The atmosphere is the main transport route for Hg emissions, while soil and water play significant roles in mercury redistribution in multiple ecosystems [9]. Once mercury is released into the atmosphere, it can be transported in its elemental form [Hg (0)]. The predominant route for this elemental mercury is deposition in soil or water after oxidation to divalent mercury [Hg(II)] [10]. Mercury deposited on land surfaces is mainly taken up by soil and vegetation, but can also enter water bodies through drainage, runoff and erosion processes [11]. When inorganic mercury compounds are deposited in water and/or soil, they undergo microbial metabolism and are attenuated to methylmercury, which has the ability to bioaccumulate and concentrate in the food chain, particularly in fish and marine mammals. In addition, mercury has been shown to indirectly and directly affect human health and aquatic biota due to its toxicity and carcinogenicity. It also causes bad taste, color or odor problems in the water [12]. Anthropogenic events such as fuel use and artisanal gold mining discharge high concentrations of mercury into the air, soil, and water [13]. Like other heavy metals, mercury cannot be degraded in ecosystems, so remediation should be based on removal or control processes. Thus, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have set the maximum permissible Hg concentrations in drinking water at 0.002 mg L−1 and 0.001 mg L−1, respectively [14,15].
There are numerous techniques including adsorption, solvent extraction, chemical precipitation, membrane filtration, solvent extraction, and ion exchange to remove mercury from wastewater and atmosphere. Table 1 presents a summary of these techniques with their advantages and limitations
The main objective of these techniques is to remove mercury from contaminated media (water or atmosphere) or to convert toxic types of mercury into less toxic ones in order to comply with the permissible limits required by law [24]. Regardless of the fact that these methods are effective, they are expensive, with high sludge production and by-product formation [25]. One of the most promising techniques is adsorption due to its affordability, high efficiency, and minimal use of chemicals, process flexibility, and ease of implementation in wastewater treatment plants. For these purposes, selective, economical, and ideal materials or adsorbents with high adsorptivity have to be developed [25].
Almost all previous studies found that the main disadvantage of the uptake rate of mercury from wastewater is the limited surface area of the adsorbent and complicated conjugation chemistries. A passive mercury sampler was affected by meteorological factors such as temperature, humidity and wind speed [26,27,28]. In addition, these conventional adsorbents are not environmentally friendly and have demonstrated poor recyclability, require a significant number of sample preparation steps and large volumes, limiting their application as adsorbents and passive samplers for mercury removal. Furthermore, these adsorbents have shown limitations such as their high operational cost and incapability to remove mercury contaminants from wastewater and atmosphere to acceptable concentration levels (0.002 mg L−1 and 0.001 mg L−1). The search for an ideal adsorbent material, which is cheap, inexpensive, earth-abundant, green, and is capable of selectively trapping mercury, remains a challenge.
Hence, nanotechnology is currently regarded as the most promising method for water decontamination and removal of environmental pollutants. The application of nanotechnology in environmental decontamination involves the use of nanomaterials as adsorbent materials which are called nano sorbents to remove or adsorb the pollutants from water or air. These nano sorbents are nanostructured materials with pore sizes between 1 and 100 nm onto which the pollutant molecules (inorganics, organics, antimicrobials, pathogens, and microorganisms can be adsorbed [29,30]. Among the various nanomaterial adsorbents, chitosan-based polymer nanocomposite materials have attracted great research attention because they possess multifunctional properties, useful for the adsorption of various kinds of pollutants from wastewater and the atmosphere. In addition, these chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites are made of non-toxic or less toxic materials that are environmentally friendly, highly porous, biocompatible, biodegradable, and recyclable. They have a high number of surface active sites, are earth-abundant, have minimal surface defects, and are metal-free. These green properties of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites make them efficient nano sorbent materials for the environment [31,32,33,34]. Such biopolymer-based nanocomposites have emerged as a promising adsorption material for the uptake of mercury from wastewater and the atmosphere. These biopolymer-based nanocomposite materials (e.g., chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites) have attracted much research attention. They consist of several phases, with one of the phases containing additives in the nano range. They also possess excellent multifunctional properties resulting from the combination of the individual components. These biopolymer-based nanocomposites have been shown to improve adsorption efficiency due to the electron-rich functional groups present on the polymer backbone [35].
Therefore, the focus of this paper is to review the advances in the modifications of chitosan mainly with nanomaterials such as multi-walled carbon nanotube and nanoparticles (Ag, TiO2, S, and ZnO) to obtain chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites. Additionally, the potential of these chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites, respectively, as adsorbents in batch adsorption techniques for the removal of mercury from contaminated water and as passive samplers for gaseous mercury removal from the atmosphere, is discussed.

2. Mercury as an Environmental Pollutant and Occurrence in the Atmosphere

Mercury is identified by the symbol Hg, derived from hydrargyrum, its Latin name, meaning silver water [36]. In its elemental form, it exists as a silver liquid at room temperature, since Hg has a melting point of −38.87 ℃ [36,37]. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment, with more than 25 Hg-containing minerals known to occur in the Earth’s mantle [37]. The most abundant Hg-bearing ore is cinnabar (HgS) [36,38,39]. Mercury as an environmental pollutant poses a global threat due to its known toxicology and its ability to bioaccumulate in ecosystems [4,40]. Humans are susceptible to this potent toxin, mainly through eating contaminated fish, which can cause severe neurological defects [41,42]. In addition, mercury is very volatile and exists in the gaseous state in the atmosphere and is easily reduced to the elemental form (Hg), thus being relatively unreactive and not very soluble in water. These particular properties allow mercury to have an atmospheric residence time of around 6–12 months, which could allow mercury to travel thousands of kilometers before being removed through either wet or dry deposition, thus acting as a global pollutant [4,6].
Additionally, mercury is a naturally occurring metal that combines with other elements to form inorganic pollutants found in wastewater. Mercury deposited on land surfaces is mainly taken up by soil and vegetation, but can also enter water bodies through drainage, runoff and erosion processes [11]. When inorganic mercury compounds are deposited in water and/or soil, they undergo microbial metabolism and are attenuated to methylmercury, which has the ability to bioaccumulate and concentrate in the food chain, particularly in fish and marine mammals. In addition, mercury has been shown to indirectly and directly affect human health and aquatic biota due to its toxicity and carcinogenicity. It also causes bad taste, color or odor problems in the water [12].
The global total of mercury pollutant released into the atmosphere is estimated at about 7527 t.y-1 [43]. South Africa is currently considered the sixth largest emitter of mercury worldwide [43], with estimated anthropogenic emissions between 27.9 t.y-1 and 50 t.y-1 [44,45,46,47]. In 2013, South Africa became a signatory to the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global agreement to reduce global mercury emissions [47]. Therefore, it is expected that mercury could be considered a critical pollutant in South Africa’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the near future [48]. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report (UNEP, 2018), global mercury emissions from anthropogenic sources to air amounted to about 2220 tons in 2015. Among anthropogenic sources, stationary burning of fossil fuels accounts for 24% of the estimated emissions, mainly from coal burning (21%). It is estimated that the concentration of mercury in the atmosphere has increased 3 to 5 times over the past century as a result of anthropogenic activities and has tripled in the surface waters of the oceans [49]. Streets et al. (2019) estimated that global anthropogenic mercury emissions increased from about 2188 t in 2010 to about 2390 t in 2015 (9.2% increase) [50].
The literature discloses several types of adsorbents that have been studied for mercury concentration monitoring or mercury remediation in wastewater or in the atmosphere. Conventional adsorbents such as zeolites [51], clay minerals [52], natural and modified bentonite [53], and impregnated activated carbon [28], have been used to remove mercury pollution in wastewater and gaseous mercury in the atmosphere. For example, researchers from Peking University and the University of Toronto used sulfur-impregnated activated carbon for a passive mercury sampler [28,54]. These materials, although effective adsorbents, are cost-prohibitive. Abbas et al. (2018) synthesized a novel mesoporous conjugated adsorbent based on pentasil zeolite (ZSM-5 type) for adsorption of mercury in aqueous solution, and the maximum adsorption capacity reached 172.6 mg/g. Bao et al. (2017) used silica-coated magnetic nanoparticles to extract mercury from wastewater. Li and co-workers have designed and implemented ZnS nanoparticles (NPs) in various approaches to remove mercury from polluted environments [55].

3. Chitosan and its Modifications

Chitosan is a partially deacetylated polymer derived from the fundamental deacetylation of chitin, an unbranched, glucose-based polysaccharide that is abundant in the major components of cell-wall of fungi, crustaceans, and insect exoskeletons, as well as some bacterial and fungal cell walls [56,57,58]. Chitosan consists of linear β-(1, 4)-linked N-acetyl-glucosamine units as shown in Figure 1. The quality of chitosan depends on the source of chitin and its separation and degree of deacetylation [59].
In addition, depending on the origin of the polymer and treatment during the extraction process, chitosan shows crystallinity and polymorphism. Chitin, or 0% deacetylated and fully deacetylated chitosan, or 100% deacetylated, had the highest crystallinity. In acidic environments, chitosan with straight, unbranched morphology and increased molecular content enhances viscosity [60]. The chemical structure of chitosan compared to other polysaccharides (cellulose or starch) allows particular modifications due to a large electrostatic attraction mechanism to build polymers for specific applications [61]. Chitosan polymers are non-toxic, antimicrobial, biodegradable, biocompatible, and they are natural amino-polysaccharides with unique structures, multidimensional properties, excellent functions and wide-ranging applications in biomedical and other industrial fields [34].
However, in most organic solvents and water at neutral pH, chitosan is insoluble in its original form (pristine). This insolubility of pristine chitosan limits its applications to some extent [58,62]. Hence, physical or chemical modification is crucial to improve solubility (over a wide pH range in water and organic solvents) and develop properties useful for further chemical reactions and applications [63]. Therefore, various modification methods have been developed such as physical and chemical modifications [64,65]. Functionalization (or modification) of chitosan has been demonstrated to introduce the desired mechanical, chemical, and physical properties, which are vital for enhancing its reactivity with nanomaterials in further reactions [56,58,64,65,66,67,68,69].
Chemical methods involve the direct preparation of the inorganic nanoparticles (NPs) (metal oxide and metal) in the polymer matrix solution used as the reaction medium. Chemical methods involve techniques such as cross-linking, surface grafting, and introducing coordination atoms with different supporting materials [56,58,65,67,70]. For instance, uniform size and shape of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites are often obtained when using chemical methods. This chemical modification is beneficial for their use in water purification and environmental remediation. Physical methods first necessitate the preparation of the NPs, followed by their addition to the polymer matrix used as the dispersion medium [63,71]. For example, functionalization of chitosan using physical methods includes ultraviolet irradiation, electron beam irradiation, ultrasonication, physical mixing, Y-ray irradiation, mixing, plasma irradiation, sputtering, and coating processes [67]. In addition, this method includes the fabrication of beads, membranes, and chitosan nanocomposite films [63]. Among these two techniques, chemical methods are preferred because during the preparation of the polymer nanocomposites, the polymer matrix helps to control the size and shape of the NPs by acting as a capping agent or stabilizer to avoid agglomeration of NPs [31,72]. Moreover, the chemical modification of chitosan to produce new functionalized chitosan-based polymer composite materials is of primary interest because such procedure would generate novel properties and functions of functionalized chitosan favorable for their use in various applications especially in water treatment and removal in gaseous mercury from the atmosphere [33].
Depending on the nature of the polymer, various techniques can be used to effect crosslinking. Crosslinking can occur through polymerization of monomers with more than two functionalities (through condensation) or through covalent bonding between polymer chains through irradiation or chemical reactions by the addition of various chemicals in conjunction with heating and sometimes pressure [73]. The addition of crosslinking between polymer chains affects the physical properties of the polymer depending on the degree of crosslinking and the presence and absence of crystallinity. Crosslinking leads to elasticity, decrease in viscosity, insolubility of the polymer, increase in strength and toughness, decrease in melting point and conversion of thermoplastics to thermosets [31].

4. Progress on the Synthesis of Chitosan Functionalized with Nanomaterials

The research progress in the synthesis of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites has attracted a high level of awareness due to their intriguing chemical and physical properties that offer various potential applications. In particular, chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites containing carbon nanotubes and/or NPs such as Ag, TiO2, S, and ZnO fixed in the biopolymer matrix have been developed for their use as adsorbents to remove mercury from wastewater and the atmosphere [74,75,76].
These chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites have shown to improve adsorption and degradation of pollutants, as well as having antibacterial activity. This can be proved via the excellent mechanical and physico-chemical properties offered by these nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes, which are also valuable for enhancing the properties of chitosan [27,33,77,78,79,80,81]. For instance, functionalized chitosan modified with nanomaterials to obtain chitosan-based nanocomposites improve chemical stability, diffusion properties, surface area, number of adsorption sites and porosity, as well as adsorption capacity and reusability [31,34,80,81,82,83]. Table 2 presents a properties comparison of different adsorbents with their advantages and disadvantages.

4.1. Chitosan Modified with Carbon Nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) were discovered by Lijima in 1991 [89]. Carbon nanotubes are carbon allotropes (which include diamond, graphite, and graphene) and emerged in the field of nanotechnology because of their nano-size and unique properties. They are of great interest due to their simplicity and easy synthesis [90]. In general, CNTs are classified into three main types: single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), double-walled carbon nanotubes, and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). SWCNT is defined as a layer of graphene sheet rolled into a single cylinder, DWCNT is a two-layer graphene sheet rolled into a double cylinder, while MWCNT is a multiple-rolled layer of graphene sheets as shown in Figure 2. These rolled graphene sheets are held together by van der Waals interactions, which cause CNTs to bundle together and lead to the formation of large aggregates [91,92,93].
CNTs can be produced by laser ablation, arc discharge, and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [95,96,97]. The CNTs, when produced, are insoluble and less dispersive substances. Therefore, it is essential to improve their surface properties for enhanced solubility in most solvents, increased chemical reactivity, biocompatibility, and reduced cytotoxicity [33,34,96]. Functionalization of CNTs can be achieved using various approaches such as covalent and non-covalent methods, as illustrated in Figure 3. For example, the functionalization by covalent method can be conducted by acid treatment which favours the introduction of functional groups such as carbonyl, hydroxyl, and carboxylic groups on the surface of CNTs. These functional groups are useful for the further modification of CNTs with other chemical moieties or materials (eg. chitosan) [31,93,96,98].
Therefore, to overcome the limitations of CNTs, a surface modification process is essential to improve their surface properties by changing the surface of the materials [100]. For instance, the properties of functionalized CNTs make them good adsorbents for the selective removal of specific pollutants.
Modified CNTs have gained recognition as attractive adsorbents for wastewater treatment and environmental remediation applications. This is due to their remarkably high sorption capacity resulting from the efficiency, affinity and interaction between CNT surface’s functional groups and pollutants [101,102]. In addition, CNTs have high surface-to-volume ratio, uniform pore distribution, and highly porous and hollow structures which make them good candidates as superior adsorbents for removal of heavy metal ions [103,104] dyes [105], and organic pollutants [102] from aqueous solution.
Carbon nanotubes, especially multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), are known as superior adsorbents and have been used as one of the components in chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites. Because of their excellent mechanical, electronic, and optical properties, MWCNTs are among the most widely studied and synthesized new materials [106]. Chitosan-CNTs based nanocomposites have attracted great interest in a variety of research activities due to their high adsorption capacities [106,107,108,109,110,111]. For example, the strength imparted to the polymer nanocomposite by MWCNT ensures good stability, supports good adsorption capacities at low concentration, and improves the recyclability and recovery of the synthesized polymer [112].
Salam and co-workers synthesized homogeneous MWCNTs/chitosan nanocomposites by cross-link polymerization of MWCNTs using glutaraldehyde as a cross-linking agent. The synthesized MWCNTs/chitosan nanocomposites were evaluated for the uptake of metal ion impurities (Cd, Cu, Zn, Hg, and Ni) from aqueous solution by column adsorption. Their study proved that MWCNTs/chitosan nanocomposite can efficiently remove metal ions from aqueous solutions due to the beneficial effect of cross-linking MWCNTs with chitosan [78]. Mbianda and co-workers modified the oxidized CNTs obtained after acid treatment with an aminophosphonate together with amino-alcohol to produce phosphorylated CNTs (pCNTs) [107]. Zhu et al. (2013) report the fabrication of chitosan-modified magnetic graphitized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CS-m-GMCNTs) using a suspension cross-linking method [113].

4.2. Chitosan Modified with Metal Nanoparticles: Silver, Titanium Dioxide, Sulfur, and Zinc Oxide

Nanoparticles have two key properties that make them particularly attractive as sorbents. On a mass basis, they have much larger surface areas than bulk particles. Nanoparticles can be classified as either organic or inorganic, and they can also be functionalized with different chemical groups to increase their affinity for target compounds [114]. Furthermore, depending on the functionalization or charges on the nanoparticle (NP) shells, ordered thin-film or 3D structures can also be designed by drop-casting, which is one of the simplest and cheapest deposition techniques [115], although it is rarely able to build up homogeneous layers, especially on large surfaces, mainly due to different evaporation rates through the substrate or fluctuations in concentration, which can lead to variations in the internal structure and film thickness.
These nanoparticles have been used to remove heavy metal ions (chromium, mercury and lead), organic and micro-organism pollutants from wastewater [116,117]. However, the literature has demonstrated that using these NPs on their own as adsorbent materials usually results to agglomeration and is not environmentally green [118]. Hence, the immobilization of these NPs onto a carbon nanomaterial or polymer matrix (chitosan), before they can be used for environmental remediation, is crucial.

4.2.1. Chitosan Modified with Silver Nanoparticles

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have gained popularity due to their high stability and enhanced antimicrobial activities. This could be attributed to their small size and large surface-to-volume ratio, making them an improvement over their large counterparts. They have been shown to have effective antimicrobial activity even against resistant microbial strains at very low concentrations [119]. Hence, a variety of methods such as chemical, physical, photochemical, and biological methods have been employed to synthesize silver nanoparticles, which are recrystallized and purified [120]. For example, the chemical method is the most common method used to synthesize silver nanoparticles (as depicted in Figure 4), and it uses silver salt, stabilizer, and capping agent as the three main components to control the growth of Ag-NPs. Among these, silver nitrate is a silver salt that is widely used due to its chemical stability and low cost.
The stabilizers include surfactants and ligands or polymers containing functional groups such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone, poly (ethylene glycol) and poly (methacrylic acid). In addition, polymers (e.g., collagen, chitosan) can also serve as stabilizers and capping agents for the synthesis of the polymer nanocomposites based silver nanoparticles [122]. For example, Al-Sherbini (2019) have prepared chitosan/poly (vinylidene chloride)/Ag (CS/PVDC/Ag) nanocomposite film using a chemical reduction method. The prepared CS/PVDC/Ag nanocomposite was used as an antibacterial agent against G. Bacillus and E. coli in water treatment. The synthesized chitosan/PVDC/Ag was also applied as a adsorbent for the removal of metal ions (Pb, Hg, Fe). Moreover, silver intercalation into the chitosan structure can boost antimicrobial efficacy and antibacterial action, opposing all types of bacteria [123]. Tyliszczak et al. (2017) synthesized hydrogel materials based on chitosan and modified with silver nanoparticles for measuring the swelling capacity and in vitro tests in distilled water. The study by Hani and Hui reported the synthesis of AgFeO2 and AgFeO2-modified chitosan (AgFeO2@CTS-NPs) using a hydrothermal method and was applied to the separation of biothiols [124].

4.2.2. Chitosan Modified with Titanium Dioxide

Titanium dioxide, also known as titania, is widely used as a photocatalyst for environmental remediation because it is environmentally friendly and has excellent photocatalytic and antimicrobial properties [125,126,127]. In addition, TiO2 mostly exists in three phases, namely anatase, rutile and brookite, with anatase being the most favourable dominant phase [126]. Among the nano photocatalysts used in the treatment of wastewater, TiO2 has been extensively studied; previous studies have shown that TiO2 nanoparticles have the potential to degrade wastewater contaminants [128]. Nowadays, the metal and metal oxide nanoparticles are synthesized by both chemical and physical methods such as hydrothermal [81], microwave [129], and sol-gel method [130]. Among all these synthesis techniques, the sol-gel method is mostly used for the synthesis of titanium dioxide as shown in Figure 5.
Moreover, new developments on the synthesis of chitosan-based TiO2 nanocomposites have been achieved by Bahal and co-workers. They have accomplished the synthesis of the chitosan-TiO2 nanocomposites using both chemical and physical methods. This synthesis was achieved as a result of a free radical polymerization reaction in the presence of potassium persulfate through grafting of acrylic acid unto chitosan. Then, the grafted acrylic acid/chitosan was modified with TiO2 nanoparticles by the ultrasonication technique [132].
Accordingly, Karthikeyan et al. (2017) reported the photocatalytic and antimicrobial activities of chitosan-TiO2 nanocomposite. It was effective against both Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria and a zone of inhibition between 10.333 ± 0.5773 and 25.667 ± 1.5275 (mm) was observed [133]. In a study by Dhanya and Aparna, they synthesized TiO2/chitosan-based hydrogel and almost completely removed azo and anthraquinone dyes from the wastewater [134].

4.2.3. Chitosan Modified with Sulfur Nanoparticles

Sulfur nanoparticles (SNPs) constitute a chemically and biologically active element, with behaviours ranging from antioxidant action to antimicrobial properties [135]. In addition, sulfur and its abundance of chemically diverse organic and inorganic compounds are known to exhibit a broad and often diverse spectrum of biological activities, ranging from antioxidant effects to antimicrobial and even anticancer properties. SNPs are widely used as antimicrobial agents and are used in lithium-sulfur batteries and in sulfur-based photocatalysts, sulphuric acid production, and carbon nanotube modification [136,137,138].
Sulfur nanoparticles can be prepared by different methods such as acid hydrolysis of sodium thiosulphate, ultrasonic treatment of sulfur-cystine solution, and aqueous surfactant solutions [139,140]. Despite the existence of many exciting methods, there are only a few mentions in the recent literature that deal with the synthesis of sulfur nanoparticles. Deshpande et al. (2008) prepared sulfur nanoparticles from H2S gas using biodegradable iron chelate catalyst in reverse micro-emulsion technique, and Shankar et al. (2018) synthesized sulfur nanoparticles (SNPs) using chitosan as a capping and stabilizing agent [141,142]. Figure 6 illustrates the process of synthesizing sulfur nanoparticles, whereby dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as the solvent to dissolve the sulphur.
Moreover, Xiurong Zhai et al. (2017) synthesized nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur co-doped porous carbons (N,P,S@PC) dispersed in the chitosan (CS) acid solution, particularly through covalent interaction, which could avoid N,P,S@PC aggregation in most solvents [143]. Shankal prepared sulfur nanoparticles (SNPs) using sodium thiosulfate and hydrochloric acid capped with chitosan to show potent antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus [144]. Yuezhong Wen et al. (2015) developed carbonaceous sulfur-containing chitosan–Fe (III) for the removal of copper (II) from water. The adsorbent showed excellent copper removal performance due to its fast kinetic behaviour, high adsorption capacity and relatively good ability to withstand acidic conditions [145].

4.2.4. Chitosan Modified with Zinc Oxide

Zinc oxide (ZnO) is mostly exploited in nano dimensions due to its exceptional scientific properties attributed to its band gap and large excitonic binding energy [146]. In addition, ZnO possesses very characteristic chemical and physical properties such as higher physicochemical stability, high chemical coupling ability, broad spectrum of radiation absorptivity and higher photostability [147,148]. It is commonly added to sunscreens, coatings and paints to absorb UV light and plays an important role in various industries. ZnO is a white to off-white crystalline powder that is nearly soluble in water. Its most common structures are wurtzite (hexagonal) and zinc blender [149].
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) can be derived or synthesized from various zinc salts using various techniques including vapour deposition, water precipitation methods, hydrothermal synthesis, sol-gel methods, and mechanical size reduction [150]. Among these techniques, sol-gel is mostly used due to many advantages such as low operational cost, and ease of the process, with reliability, and reproducibility of a similar product. The reaction also requires milder conditions for nanoparticle fabrication [151,152].
Qiu and co-workers prepared nitrogen-doped ZnO for photocatalytic degradation of bisphenol under visible light [153]. Yue et al. (2013) synthesized ZnO NPs using the sol–gel technique with zinc 2-ethylhexanoate as precursor salt and Propan-2-ol as a solvent [148]. In addition, Taghavi Fardood et al. (2019) fabricated ZnO nanoparticles using zinc acetate and aluminium nitrate as precursors by a sol-gel method [154]. The aluminium nitrate was dissolved in zinc acetate drop wise, followed by centrifugation, drying, and calcination at 200 ℃, yielding zinc oxide nanoparticles as shown in Figure 7.
Moreover, previous work has also reported on the modification of ZnO with chitosan. For instance, Hassan et al. reported the use of a chitosan-silica composite to immobilize zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles into a chitosan/silica/ZnO nanocomposite [156]. Shahram Moradi Dehaghi and co-workers synthesized chitosan–ZnO nanoparticles (CS–ZnONPs) composite beads by a polymer-based method [157]. The study by Selvaraj Preethi et al. (2020) report an eco-friendly synthesis of chitosan/zinc oxide (CS/ZnO) nanocomposite using S. lycopersicum leaf extract by a bio-inspired method [158].

5. State of Art on Chitosan Modified with Nanomaterials for Environmental Remediation to Mercury Pollution

Table 3 summarizes recent work on the use of chitosan-based polymer for environmental remediation mainly focused on mercury. Based on the literature search, one can notice that since the past ten years, research studies on the synthesis of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites, mainly resulting from the modification of chitosan with either CNTs, TiO2, Ag, ZnO or S nanoparticles, for application on environmental remediation to mercury have been scarce. Hence more work is still needed in this area.
The mechanism of adsorption of these heavy metal (Hg, Pb, Cu, and Cr) and inorganic contaminants turned out to be complex and the most commonly reported are: electrostatic attraction, physical adsorption (mainly due to van der Waal forces), adsorption-precipitation and chemical interaction (occurs between functionalized MWCNTs and metal ion pollutants). Additionally, the adsorption mechanism can also be studied using the kinetic models (first and second order pseudo-models) and the thermodynamic parameters such as the changes in enthalpy (H), entropy and Gibbs energy. It has also been reported that a combination of adsorption precipitation and electrostatic attraction can occur during the uptake of metal ions [111]. The study by Amanulla and co-worker, observed that besides the electron-hole pairs generated by light photons, hydroxide radicals also play an important role in the mercury degradation mechanism. The study indicates that the photocatalysts produced were very stable at room temperature and can be recycled and reused for up to four successful cycles without major loss of performance [160]. Moreover, the mechanism of adsorption of pollutants (mercury) by the adsorbents has also been studied using different adsorption isotherm models such as Langmuir, Freudlich, Redlich–Peterson, Dubinin–Radushkevich and Temkin models. This is because these isotherm models are essential for the design and operation of the adsorption system [111]. For instance, a study by Mahmoud et al. (2018) has successfully explained the sorption of divalent mercury and copper by three isotherm models (Langmuir, Freundlich and Dubinin–Radushkevich) and shown favorable operations. The nanocomposite retained its selectivity and sorption power for mercury and copper even in the presence of other interfering ions [164].

6. Adsorption Techniques for the Removal of Mercury from Contaminated Water and Atmosphere

Adsorption is defined as the transport of certain compounds (adsorbates or pollutants) from one phase (e.g., liquid) to adhere to the surface of another substance (e.g., solid adsorbent). It is a surface chemical process that occurs at the interface between adsorbent and adsorbate and mainly depends on the type of adsorbate, adsorbent and operating conditions. It is important to note that liquid-solid, gas-solid, gas-liquid, and liquid-liquid are the different interfaces normally involved in adsorption processes. However, in the case of water purification, only the liquid-solid interface is considered [165,166].
Currently, adsorption techniques have emerged as promising methods for water treatment and environmental monitoring due to their simplicity, lower cost, and potential for recycling the adsorbent materials [166,167]. Moreover, the adsorption process is considered to be the most feasible method because it is likely used to remove all types of pollutants including organic and inorganic matter from industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater, synthetic water, sewage, groundwater, and surface water including drinking water, because this method is competent, inexpensive, flexible in design, user-friendly and utilises a globally available adsorbent, with simple regeneration process of some used adsorbent and low energy consumption [168].
There are different types of adsorption techniques such as fixed-bed adsorption, batch adsorption, and passive samplers; and each adsorption technique has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, fixed bed adsorption is widely used to purify liquid mixtures, including mixtures from industrial effluents [169]. Therefore, the contact time is not as long as in batch adsorption and hence equilibrium is not reached for a given adsorption. It can be said that the results from batch studies may not be accurate due to the reduced contact time for scale-up column adsorption [52]. Hence, it is crucial to study the practicality of using adsorbents in continuous mode. Batch adsorption studies provide important data and parameters for adsorbate removal, while passive samplers are an abiotic device used to monitor for chemicals or pollutants in an environmental medium [98,170,171].
Among adsorption techniques, batch adsorption is preferred by researchers in laboratory-scale studies because it consumes a small amount of material and is less time-consuming. In addition, studies of adsorption by equilibrium in batch mode allow adsorbent performance to be predicted prior to larger-scale application. The equilibrium study also provides important information about the effectiveness of a particular adsorbate-adsorbent system [172].
In this section, the attention is mainly on the application of chitosan-based nanocomposites as adsorbents for the removal of mercury from contaminated water by batch adsorption techniques and the removal of gaseous mercury from the atmosphere using the passive sampler adsorption method.

6.1. Removal of Mercury from Wastewater Using Batch Adsorption Study

Batch adsorption experiments are common for laboratory scale studies, and are performed to evaluate the adsorption isotherms of metal ions (such as mercury) on the surface of the adsorbent (Figure 8) [105,173].
Thus, in this paper review, the focus is on chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites used as adsorbents in batch adsorption studies, as this is a promising method for water purification and environmental monitoring due to its simplicity, low cost, and potential to recycle the adsorbent nanomaterials [27,31,57,116,175,176,177]. The adsorption by functionalized chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites is a remarkable process due to the natural richness of the materials and non-toxic ability to exchange ions. The surface area has been shown to be the key factor influencing the adsorption capacity and efficiency of the adsorbent materials [107,110]. Moreover, chitosan also shows increased adsorption limits towards metal particles and other ionic atoms due to its different functional groups [178]. Investigations in one study showed that chitosan adsorbents have very high adsorption potentials for several types of heavy metals such as lead, chromium and mercury [179]. However, the adsorption of mercury has been demonstrated to be influenced by factors or parameters such as pH, adsorbent dosage, the contact time, adsorbate concentration, and temperature [180].

6.1.1. pH

The effect of pH is critical in the adsorption process and is one of the most important process variables that can directly affect the uptake of Hg by adsorbents as it can affect the extent of Hg ionization as well as the surface properties of an adsorbent. For example, pH affects the overall charge on the adsorbent surface functional groups and their protonation, and it also affects the extent of ionization and speciation of the pollutants (Hg, Pb, and Cr) in the feed solution [181]. It has also been proved that the adsorption of pollutants such as metal ions is small at a pH value lower than the pH value of the zero-charge point due to the neutralization of the surface charge, while the pH value of the pollutant solution is higher than the pH value of the zero-charge point [111].

6.1.2. Adsorbent Dosage

The adsorbent dose of solute adsorption increases with increasing concentration of an adsorbent because increasing adsorbent concentration results in increased active exchangeable adsorption sites. However, after increasing the adsorbent concentration, the total adsorption of solutes per unit weight of an adsorbent may decrease due to interference caused by the interaction of active sites of an adsorbent [182,183].

6.1.3. Temperature

The temperature of the solution mainly affects the enlargement of adsorbents. At high operating temperature, it may be preferable for pollutant molecules to diffuse more quickly into the adsorbent, allowing for rapid bed saturation and short breakthrough time. Due to the increase in temperature, an endothermic process with an increase in adsorption capacity was observed [167].

6.1.4. The Contact Time

The contact time can also influence the economics of the process and the adsorption kinetics. Therefore, the contact time is another performance-determining factor in the adsorption process and it significantly affects the adsorption process [184]. For instance, equilibrium for Pb2+ is reached after 60, 50 and 20 min for the initial concentration of 30, 20 and 10 ppm, respectively, when TiO2/MWCNTs or MWCNTs are used as adsorbents [111]. The study by Mamba and co-workers confirmed that equilibrium was reached after 60 min (for 4-CP) and 80 min (for Co2+) when pMWCNT-CD polymer was used at an initial concentration of 10 ppm [107].

6.1.5. Initial Concentration of Pollutant

The influence of the initial concentration on the adsorption mechanism also depends on the type of adsorbent used. The study by Mamba et al. (2013) showed that the CD nanosponge polymer modified with functionalized CNTs performed much better than functionalized CNTs at low concentration (10 ppm). For example, removals by the polymer of 68% and 67% were recorded for lead, and cobalt, respectively [107,110]. It has also been reported that the concentration of anionic species in desorption solutions affects the regeneration of the adsorbent [185].

6.2. Removal of Mercury from the Atmosphere Using a Passive Sampler Adsorption Method

Passive air sampling (PAS) is another common strategy for gaseous Hg adsorption and measurement. PAS is widely used for environmental monitoring of mercury and other airborne pollutants [186]. Although passive air samplers (PAS) are not real-time monitoring systems, they overcome the limitations of other approaches such as active monitoring systems because they allow simultaneous spatial Hg measurement in different areas and thus create a map of the Hg concentration surrounding emission sources [187].
Typically, in this technique, the adsorbent material in a PAS is located in a container protected by a membrane on a disc or columnar geometry surrounded by a cylindrical diffusion barrier as shown in Figure 9b [188]. The PAS consisted of a clear borosilicate vessel, a cap made of a nylon membrane for gas diffusion and particle stopping, a locking ring to keep the adsorbent membrane on the vessel bottom, and finally the adsorbent membrane on the quartz fibre substrate. The PAS used the axial diffusion path of the gaseous mercury through a diffusion membrane along a glass vessel (diffusion path) until it reached the adsorbing membrane (Figure 9a).
Samplers based on chitosan nanomaterial thin films or nanoparticles (NPs) [191,192] have been developed because of the strong electrostatic attraction mechanism. They are based on the second most abundant biopolymer and are inexpensive, re-usable and biodegradable; hence, they are used in passive mercury samplers for mercury uptake [61]. Moreover, chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites are used in water treatment because of their good flocculation properties, heavy metals adsorption (mercury) and ability to reduce the COD of organics; they have qualities such as fast removal rates and greater removal efficiency [193].
Furthermore, the uptake or performance of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites is much more reliable when the nanostructured materials are incorporated into the matrix of the polymer. Incorporation of these nanostructured materials into the polymer matrix helps to control the shape, structural morphology, and size of the nanoparticles and improve the uptake efficiency of pollutants from the atmosphere [31,82,83,194,195,196,197,198,199].

7. Conclusions

According to various studies, chitosan has several natural benefits, including high porosity, biodegradability, structural integrity, and non-toxicity. The modification of chitosan with nanomaterials has been demonstrated to improve its properties and usefulness for various applications. In particular, functionalised chitosan-based composite materials (e.g., chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites) have attracted much attention as suitable adsorbents for dyes, oil spills, and heavy metal ions such as cobalt, mercury, and copper. Furthermore, these chitosan-based composite materials have been shown to possess excellent multifunctional properties resulting from the combination of the individual components. They have also been shown to improve adsorption efficiency due to the electron-rich functional groups present on the polymer backbone. In summary, these chitosan-based nanocomposites, produced by modifying functionalized chitosan with carbon nanostructured (carbon nanotubes) and nanoparticles (Ag, TiO2, ZnO, and S), have shown exceptional qualities, making them strong candidates as a promising method for environmental and wastewater remediation.

8. Future Perspectives

The research studies on the synthesis of chitosan-based polymer nanocomposites, mainly resulting from the modification of chitosan with CNTs, TiO2, Ag, ZnO or S nanoparticles, for application on environmental remediation to mercury have been scarce. Therefore, it is highly recommended that more investigations are undertaken in this area.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, M.C.G.; writing—review and editing, A.L.T.; supervision, M.J.K., L.M. and A.L.T.; project administration, M.J.K. and L.M.; funding acquisition, M.J.K. and L.M.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by SOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICES (SAWS). South African Weather Services (SAWS): South African Mercury Network (SAMNet) SAMNet a Department of Science and Innovation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This work did not require ethical approval.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Faculty of Applied and Computer Science, Vaal University of Technology South Africa. I would also like to acknowledge South African Weather Services (SAWS) for financial support. This publication forms part of the output of the South African Mercury Network (SAMNet) funded by the Department of Science and Innovation as part SA’s contribution towards the Global Observation System for Mercury (GOS4M), a Group on Earth Observations (GEO) flagship program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Additionally, the funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gworek, B.; Dmuchowski, W.; Baczewska, A.H.; Brągoszewska, P.; Bemowska-Kałabun, O.; Wrzosek-Jakubowska, J. Air Contamination by Mercury, Emissions and Transformations—A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. WHO. Environmentally Sustainable Health Systems: A Strategic Document; World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: Geneve, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dabrowski, J.M.; Ashton, P.J.; Murray, K.; Leaner, J.J.; Mason, R. Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in South Africa: Coal Combustion in Power Plants. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 6620–6626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lyman, S.N.; Gustin, M.S.; Prestbo, E.M. A Passive Sampler for Ambient Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ebinghaus, R.; Kock, H.H.; Coggins, A.M.; Spain, T.G.; Jennings, S.G.; Temme, C. Long-Term Measurements of Atmospheric Mercury at Mace Head, Irish West Coast, between 1995 and 2001. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 5267–5276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fang, G.C.; Wu, Y.S.; Chang, T.H. Comparison of Atmospheric Mercury (Hg) among Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan during 2000–2008. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 162, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. USGS Science for Changing World. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  8. Chemnasiri, W.; Hernandez, F.E. Gold Nanorod-Based Mercury Sensor Using Functionalized Glass Substrates. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2012, 173, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, M.-K.; Zoh, K.-D. Fate and Transport of Mercury in Environmental Media and Human Exposure. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 2012, 45, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. O’Connor, D.; Hou, D.; Ok, Y.S.; Mulder, J.; Duan, L.; Wu, Q.; Wang, S.; Tack, F.M.G.; Rinklebe, J. Mercury Speciation, Transformation, and Transportation in Soils, Atmospheric Flux, and Implications for Risk Management: A Critical Review. Environ. Int. 2019, 126, 747–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kocman, D.; Horvat, M.; Pirrone, N.; Cinnirella, S. Contribution of Contaminated Sites to the Global Mercury Budget. Environ. Res. 2013, 7, 4–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bjørklund, G.; Dadar, M.; Mutter, J.; Aaseth, J. The Toxicology of Mercury: Current Research and Emerging Trends. Environ. Res. 2017, 157, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vélez-Torres, I.; Vanegas, D.C.; McLamore, E.S.; Hurtado, D. Mercury Pollution and Artisanal Gold Mining in Alto Cauca, Colombia: Woman’s Perception of Health and Environmental Impacts. J. Environ. Dev. 2018, 27, 415–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Noyma, N.P.; de Magalhaes, L.; Furtado, L.L.; Mucci, M.; van Oosterhout, F.; Huszar, V.L.M.; Marinho, M.M.; Lürling, M. Controlling Cyanobacterial Blooms through Effective Flocculation and Sedimentation with Combined Use of Flocculants and Phosphorus Adsorbing Natural Soil and Modified Clay. Water Res. 2016, 97, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Awual, M.R. Novel Nanocomposite Materials for Efficient and Selective Mercury Ions Capturing from Wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 307, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sarma, G.K.; Sen Gupta, S.; Bhattacharyya, K.G. Nanomaterials as Versatile Adsorbents for Heavy Metal Ions in Water: A Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 6245–6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vikrant, K.; Kim, K.-H. Nanomaterials for the Adsorptive Treatment of Hg (II) Ions from Water. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 358, 264–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kumar, B.; Smita, K.; Flores, L.C. Plant Mediated Detoxification of Mercury and Lead. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S2335–S2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zhao, D.; Zhang, Q.; Xuan, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, K.; Feng, S.; Alsaedi, A.; Hayat, T.; Chen, C. EDTA Functionalized Fe3O4/Graphene Oxide for Efficient Removal of U (VI) from Aqueous Solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 506, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gore, C.T.; Omwoma, S.; Chen, W.; Song, Y.-F. Interweaved LDH/PAN Nanocomposite Films: Application in the Design of Effective Hexavalent Chromium Adsorption Technology. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 284, 794–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, T.; Liu, Y.; Peng, Q.; Hu, X.; Liao, T.; Wang, H.; Lu, M. Removal of Lead (II) from Aqueous Solution with Ethylenediamine-Modified Yeast Biomass Coated with Magnetic Chitosan Microparticles: Kinetic and Equilibrium Modeling. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 214, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yepsen, O.; Contreras, D.; Santander, P.; Yanez, J.; Mansilla, H.D.; Amarasiriwardena, D. Photocatalytic Degradation of Thimerosal in Human Vaccine’s Residues and Mercury Speciation of Degradation by-Products. Microchem. J. 2015, 121, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ghazy, S.E.; Abu El-Reash, G.M.; Al-Gammal, O.A.; Yousef, T. Flotation Separation of Mercury (II) from Environmental Water Samples Using Thiosemicarbazide Derivatives as Chelating Agents and Oleic Acid as Surfactant. Chem. Speciat. Bioavailab. 2010, 22, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lewis, A.S.; Huntington, T.G.; Marvin-Dipasquale, M.C.; Amirbahman, A. Mercury Remediation in Wetland Sediment Using Zero-Valent Iron and Granular Activated Carbon. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 212, 366–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Awad, F.S.; AbouZied, K.M.; Abou El-Maaty, W.M.; El-Wakil, A.M.; Samy El-Shall, M. Effective Removal of Mercury(II) from Aqueous Solutions by Chemically Modified Graphene Oxide Nanosheets. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 2659–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McLagan, D.S.; Mitchell, C.P.J.; Huang, H.; Abdul Hussain, B.; Duan Lei, Y.; Wania, F. The Effects of Meteorological Parameters and Diffusive Barrier Reuse on the Sampling Rate of a Passive Air Sampler for Gaseous Mercury. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2017, 10, 3651–3660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, L.; Zeng, Y.; Cheng, Z. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions Using Chitosan and Modified Chitosan: A Review. J. Mol. Liq. 2016, 214, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, W.; Tong, Y.; Hu, D.; Ou, L.; Wang, X. Characterization of Atmospheric Mercury Concentrations along an Urban–Rural Gradient Using a Newly Developed Passive Sampler. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 47, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Amin, M.T.; Alazba, A.A.; Manzoor, U. A Review of Removal of Pollutants from Water/Wastewater Using Different Types of Nanomaterials. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Bora, T.; Dutta, J. Applications of Nanotechnology in Wastewater Treatment—A Review. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014, 14, 613–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leudjo Taka, A.; Pillay, K.; Yangkou Mbianda, X. Nanosponge Cyclodextrin Polyurethanes and Their Modification with Nanomaterials for the Removal of Pollutants from Waste Water: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 159, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leudjo Taka, A.; Klink, M.J.; Yangkou Mbianda, X.; Naidoo, E.B. Chitosan Nanocomposites for Water Treatment by Fixed-Bed Continuous Flow Column Adsorption: A Review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 255, 117398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Keshvardoostchokami, M.; Babaei, S.; Piri, F.; Zamani, A. Nitrate Removal from Aqueous Solutions by ZnO Nanoparticles and Chitosan-Polystyrene–Zn Nanocomposite: Kinetic, Isotherm, Batch and Fixed-Bed Studies. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 101, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Leudjo Taka, A.; Doyle, B.P.; Carleschi, E.; Youmbi Fonkui, T.; Erasmus, R.; Fosso-Kankeu, E.; Pillay, K.; Mbianda, X.Y. Spectroscopic Characterization and Antimicrobial Activity of Nanoparticle Doped Cyclodextrin Polyurethane Bionanosponge. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2020, 115, 111092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morin-Crini, N.; Lichtfouse, E.; Torri, G.; Crini, G. Applications of Chitosan in Food, Pharmaceuticals, Medicine, Cosmetics, Agriculture, Textiles, Pulp and Paper, Biotechnology, and Environmental Chemistry. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1667–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bank, M.S. Mercury in the Environment: Pattern and Process, 1st ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schroeder, W.H.; Munthe, J. Atmospheric Mercury—An Overview. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 32, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rytuba, J.J. Mercury from Mineral Deposits and Potential Environmental Impacts. Environ. Geol. 2003, 43, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gray, J.E.; Hines, M.E.; Higueras, P.L.; Adatto, I.; Lasorsa, B.K. Mercury Speciation and Microbial Transformations in Mine Wastes, Stream Sediments, and Surface Waters at the Almadén Mining District, Spain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4285–4292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Zhu, Y.; Li, C.; Lyu, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Du, X.; Zhai, Y. Insight into the Effect of SO2 on the Hg0 Removal Performance over a 1V-8Ce/AC Sorbent at Low Temperatures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Driscoll, C.T.; Mason, R.P.; Chan, H.M.; Jacob, D.J.; Pirrone, N. Mercury as a Global Pollutant: Sources, Pathways, and Effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4967–4983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ekino, S.; Susa, M.; Ninomiya, T.; Imamura, K.; Kitamura, T. Minamata Disease Revisited: An Update on the Acute and Chronic Manifestations of Methyl Mercury Poisoning. J. Neurol. Sci. 2007, 262, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pirrone, N.; Aas, W.; Cinnirella, S.; Ebinghaus, R.; Hedgecock, I.M.; Pacyna, J.; Sprovieri, F.; Sunderland, E.M. Toward the next Generation of Air Quality Monitoring: Mercury. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 80, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Masekoameng, K.E.; Leaner, J.; Dabrowski, J. Trends in Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Estimated for South Africa during 2000–2006. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 3007–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brunke, E.; Ebinghaus, R.; Kock, H.; Labuschagne, C.; Slemr, F. Emissions of Mercury in Southern Africa Derived from Long-Term Observations at Cape Point, South Africa. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12, 7465–7474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Leaner, J.J.; Dabrowski, J.M.; Mason, R.P.; Resane, T.; Richardson, M.; Ginster, M.; Gericke, G.; Petersen, C.R.; Masekoameng, E.; Ashton, P.J. Mercury Emissions from Point Sources in South Africa. In Mercury Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Chapter 5; pp. 113–130. [Google Scholar]
  47. Scott, G.M.; Mdluli, T.N. The Minamata Treaty/Protocol: Potential Implications for South Africa. Clean Air J. Tydskr. vir Skoon Lug 2012, 22, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Government Gazette. The 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management in the Republic of South Africa. 2018; pp. 39–42. Available online: https://www.gov.za/documents/national-environmental-management-air-quality-act-2017-national-framework-air-quality (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  49. Pirrone, N.; Fino, A.; Sprovieri, F.; Macagnano, A.; Zampetti, E.; Papa, P. Development of a Plan for Global Monitoring of Human Exposure to and Environmental Concentration of Mercury; UNEP-GEF: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  50. Streets, D.G.; Horowitz, H.M.; Lu, Z.; Levin, L.; Thackray, C.P.; Sunderland, E.M. Global and Regional Trends in Mercury Emissions and Concentrations, 2010–2015. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 201, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koukouzas, N.; Vasilatos, C.; Itskos, G.; Mitsis, I.; Moutsatsou, A. Removal of Heavy Metals from Wastewater Using CFB-Coal Fly Ash Zeolitic Materials. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sari, A.; Tuzen, M.; Soylak, M. Adsorption of Pb(II) and Cr(III) from Aqueous Solution on Celtek Clay. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 144, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, T.; Hsu-Kim, H. Photolytic Degradation of Methylmercury Enhanced by Binding to Natural Organic Ligands. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. McLagan, D.S.; Mazur, M.E.E.; Mitchell, C.P.J.; Wania, F. Passive Air Sampling of Gaseous Elemental Mercury: A Critical Review. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 3061–3076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Li, H.; Feng, S.; Qu, W.; Yang, J.; Liu, S.; Liu, Y. Adsorption and Oxidation of Elemental Mercury on Chlorinated ZnS Surface. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 7745–7751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shukla, S.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Arotiba, O.A.; Mamba, B.B. Chitosan-Based Nanomaterials: A State-of-the-Art Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2013, 59, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, S.; Ye, F.; Dobretsov, S.; Dutta, J. Chitosan Nanocomposite Coatings for Food, Paints, and Water Treatment Applications. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Rizeq, B.R.; Younes, N.N.; Rasool, K.; Nasrallah, G.K. Synthesis, Bioapplications, and Toxicity Evaluation of Chitosan-Based Nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Wang, J.; Chen, C. Chitosan-Based Biosorbents: Modification and Application for Biosorption of Heavy Metals and Radionuclides. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 160, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. El Kadib, A. Chitosan as a Sustainable Organocatalyst: A Concise Overview. ChemSusChem 2015, 8, 217–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vidal, R.R.L.; Moraes, J.S. Removal of Organic Pollutants from Wastewater Using Chitosan: A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 1741–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Casettari, L.; Vllasaliu, D.; Castagnino, E.; Stolnik, S.; Howdle, S.; Illum, L. PEGylated Chitosan Derivatives: Synthesis, Characterizations and Pharmaceutical Applications. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 659–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. González-López, M.E.; Laureano-Anzaldo, C.M.; Pérez-Fonseca, A.A.; Arellano, M.; Robledo-Ortíz, J.R. Chemically Modified Polysaccharides for Hexavalent Chromium Adsorption. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2021, 50, 333–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chu, C.-C.; Zhong, C. Organo-Soluble Chitosan Salts and Chitosan-Derived Biomaterials Prepared Thereof. U.S. Patent US8841440B2, 1 April 2009. [Google Scholar]
  65. Gagnon, J.; Binette, A. Chitosan Salts, Methods of Manufacture and Uses Thereof. WO Patent WO2008141452A1, 27 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
  66. Negm, N.A.; Hefni, H.H.H.; Abd-Elaal, A.A.A.; Badr, E.A.; Abou Kana, M.T.H. Advancement on Modification of Chitosan Biopolymer and Its Potential Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 152, 681–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhao, Y.; Guo, L.; Shen, W.; An, Q.; Xiao, Z.; Wang, H.; Cai, W.; Zhai, S.; Li, Z. Function Integrated Chitosan-Based Beads with throughout Sorption Sites and Inherent Diffusion Network for Efficient Phosphate Removal. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 230, 115639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Escudero-Oñate, C.; Martínez-Francés, E. A Review of Chitosan-Based Materials for the Removal of Organic Pollution from Water and Bioaugmentation. In Chitin-Chitosan: Myriad Functionalities in Science and Technology; Dongre, R.S., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018; Chapter 4; ISBN 978-1-78923-407-7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yang, J.; Hou, B.; Wang, J.; Tian, B.; Bi, J.; Wang, N.; Li, X.; Huang, X. Nanomaterials for the Removal of Heavy Metals from Wastewater. Nano 2019, 9, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fiorani, G.; Saoncella, O.; Kaner, P.; Altinkaya, S.A.; Figoli, A.; Bonchio, M.; Carraro, M.; Kaner, P.; Figoli, A. Chitosan-Polyoxometalate Nanocomposites: Synthesis, Characterization and Application as Antimicrobial Agents. J. Clust. Sci. 2014, 25, 839–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Alshabanat, M.N.; Al-Anazy, M.M. An Experimental Study of Photocatalytic Degradation of Congo Red Using Polymer Nanocomposite Films. J. Chem. 2018, 2018, 9651850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Triebel, C.; Vasylyev, S.; Damm, C.; Stara, H.; Özpınar, C.; Hausmann, S.; Peukert, W.; Münstedt, H. Polyurethane/Silver-Nanocomposites with Enhanced Silver Ion Release Using Multifunctional Invertible Polyesters. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 21, 4377–4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jaya, M.; Vivek, K.S. Cross-Linking in Hydrogels—A Review. Am. J. Polym. Sci. 2014, 4, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mallakpour, S.; Khodadadzadeh, L. Biocompatible and Biodegradable Chitosan Nanocomposites Loaded with Carbon Nanotubes. In Biodegradable and Biocompatible Polymer Composites; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; pp. 187–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Masheane, M.L.; Nthunya, L.N.; Malinga, S.P.; Nxumalo, E.N.; Mhlanga, S.D. Chitosan-Based Nanocomposites for de-Nitrification of Water. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 2017, 100, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bui, G.T.; Wang, J.H.; Lin, J.L. Optimization of Micropump Performance Utilizing a Single Membrane with an Active Check Valve. Micromachines 2018, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. ZabihiSahebi, A.; Koushkbaghi, S.; Pishnamazi, M.; Askari, A.; Khosravi, R.; Irani, M. Synthesis of Cellulose Acetate/Chitosan/SWCNT/Fe3O4/TiO2 Composite Nanofibers for the Removal of Cr(VI), As(V), Methylene Blue and Congo Red from Aqueous Solutions. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 140, 1296–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Salam, M.A.; Makki, M.S.I.; Abdelaal, M.Y.A. Preparation and Characterization of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes/Chitosan Nanocomposite and Its Application for the Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution. J. Alloys Compd. 2011, 509, 2582–2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Moridi, Z.; Mottaghitalab, V.; Haghi, A.K. A Detailed Review of Recent Progress in Carbon Nanotube/Chitosan Nanocomposites. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 2011, 45, 549–563. [Google Scholar]
  80. Byrne, J.A.; Fernandez-Ibañez, P.A.; Dunlop, P.S.M.; Alrousan, D.M.A.; Hamilton, J.W.J.; Sabry, M.; Mottaleb, A. Photocatalytic Enhancement for Solar Disinfection of Water: A Review. Int. J. Photoenergy 2011, 2011, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Yu, Z.; Day, D.; Ciston, S. Improving Solar Water Disinfection (Sodis) with a Photoreactive TiO2/SWCNT Composite on Plastic Pet Bottles. J. Exp. Second. Sci. 2012, 1, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
  82. Domènech, B.; Muñoz, M.; Muraviev, D.N.; Macanás, J. Polymer-Silver Nanocomposites as Antibacterial Materials. Microb. Pathog. Strateg. Combat. them Sci. Technol. Educ. 2013, 1, 630–640. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhang, A.Q.; Cai, L.J.; Sui, L.; Qian, D.J.; Chen, M. Reducing Properties of Polymers in the Synthesis of Noble Metal Nanoparticles. Polym. Rev. 2013, 53, 240–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhou, Z.; Liu, X.; Li, C.; Elvis Cao, X.; Xu, M. Seawater-Assisted Synthesis of MnCe/Zeolite-13X for Removing Elemental Mercury from Coal-Fired Flue Gas. Fuel 2020, 262, 116605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cao, T.; Li, Z.; Xiong, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xu, S.; Bisson, T.; Gupta, R.; Xu, Z. Silica-Silver Nanocomposites as Regenerable Sorbents for Hg0 Removal from Flue Gases. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11909–11917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, J.; Deng, B.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.; Zheng, J. Removal of Aqueous Hg(II) by Polyaniline: Sorption Characteristics and Mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 5223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tawabini, B.; Al-Khaldi, S.; Atieh, M.; Khaled, M. Removal of Mercury from Water by Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 61, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gao, J.; Bonzongo, J.-C.J.; Bitton, G.; Li, Y.; Wu, C.-Y. Nanowastes and the Environment: Using Mercury as an Example Pollutant to Assess the Environmental Fate of Chemicals Adsorbed onto Manufactured Nanomaterials. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 808–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Chae, S.H.; Lee, Y.H. Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene towards Soft Electronics. Nano Converg. 2014, 1, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Abdalla, S.; Al-Marzouki, F.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Abdel-Daiem, A. Different Technical Applications of Carbon Nanotubes. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Ferreira, F.V.; Francisco, W.; De Menezes, B.R.C.; Cividanes, L.D.S.; Coutinho, A.D.R.; Thim, G.P. Carbon Nanotube Functionalized with Dodecylamine for the Effective Dispersion in Solvents. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2015, 357, 2154–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Patiño, Y.; Díaz, E.; Ordóñez, S.; Gallegos-Suarez, E.; Guerrero-Ruiz, A.; Rodríguez-Ramos, I. Adsorption of Emerging Pollutants on Functionalized Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes. Chemosphere 2015, 136, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Ma, P.C.; Siddiqui, N.A.; Marom, G.; Kim, J.K. Dispersion and Functionalization of Carbon Nanotubes for Polymer-Based Nanocomposites: A Review. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2010, 41, 1345–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kumar, M.; Kumar, P.; Shukla, D.K. Static and Dynamic Study of Carbon Nano Epoxy Composite. Int. J. Comput. Math. Sci. 2018, 7, 10. [Google Scholar]
  95. Darabont, A.; Nemes-Incze, P.; Kertész, K.; Tapasztó, L.; Koós, A.A.; Osváth, Z.; Sárközi, Z.; Vértesy, Z.; Horváth, Z.E.; Biró, L.P. Synthesis of Carbon Nanotubes by Spray Pyrolysis and Their Investigation by Electron Microscopy. J. Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 2005, 7, 631–636. [Google Scholar]
  96. Motchelaho, M.A.M.; Xiong, H.; Moyo, M.; Jewell, L.L.; Coville, N.J. Effect of Acid Treatment on the Surface of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Prepared from Fe–Co Supported on CaCO3: Correlation with Fischer–Tropsch Catalyst Activity. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 2011, 335, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mondal, S.; Aikat, K.; Halder, G. Ranitidine Hydrochloride Sorption onto Superheated Steam Activated Biochar Derived from Mung Bean Husk in Fixed Bed Column. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Futalan, C.M.; Kan, C.C.; Dalida, M.L.; Pascua, C.; Wan, M.W. Fixed-Bed Column Studies on the Removal of Copper Using Chitosan Immobilized on Bentonite. Carbohydr. Polym. 2011, 83, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jun, L.Y.; Mubarak, N.M.; Yee, M.J.; Yon, L.S.; Bing, C.H.; Khalid, M.; Abdullah, E.C. An Overview of Functionalised Carbon Nanomaterial for Organic Pollutant Removal. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 67, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yin, F.; Gu, B.; Lin, Y.; Panwar, N.; Tjin, S.C.; Qu, J.; Lau, S.P.; Yong, K.T. Functionalized 2D Nanomaterials for Gene Delivery Applications. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2017, 347, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zare, K.; Kumar Gupta, V.; Moradi, O.; Salam Hamdy Makhlouf, A.; Sillanpää, M.; Nadagouda, M.N.; Sadegh, H.; Shahryari-ghoshekandi, R.; Pal, A.; Wang, Z.; et al. A Comparative Study on the Basis of Adsorption Capacity between CNTs and Activated Carbon as Adsorbents for Removal of Noxious Synthetic Dyes: A Review. J. Nanostructure Chem. 2015, 5, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Yu, J.G.; Zhao, X.H.; Yang, H.; Chen, X.H.; Yang, Q.; Yu, L.Y.; Jiang, J.H.; Chen, X.Q. Aqueous Adsorption and Removal of Organic Contaminants by Carbon Nanotubes. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 482–483, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Delkash, M.; Ebrazi Bakhshayesh, B.; Kazemian, H. Using Zeolitic Adsorbents to Cleanup Special Wastewater Streams: A Review. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2015, 214, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tofighy, M.A.; Mohammadi, T. Adsorption of Divalent Heavy Metal Ions from Water Using Carbon Nanotube Sheets. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Dutta, A.K.; Ghorai, U.K.; Chattopadhyay, K.K.; Banerjee, D. Removal of Textile Dyes by Carbon Nanotubes: A Comparison between Adsorption and UV Assisted Photocatalysis. Phys. E Low-Dimens. Syst. Nanostructures 2018, 99, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mamba, B.B.; Krause, R.W.; Malefetse, T.J.; Mhlanga, S.D.; Sithole, S.P.; Salipira, K.L.; Nxumalo, E.N. Removal of Geosmin and 2-Methylisorboneol (2-MIB) in Water from Zuikerbosch Treatment Plant (Rand Water) Using β-Cyclodextrin Polyurethanes. Water SA 2007, 33, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Mamba, G.; Mbianda, X.Y.; Govender, P.P. Phosphorylated Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube-Cyclodextrin Polymer: Synthesis, Characterisation and Potential Application in Water Purification. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 98, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Liu, X.; Chen, G.R.; Lee, D.J.; Kawamoto, T.; Tanaka, H.; Chen, M.L.; Luo, Y.K. Adsorption Removal of Cesium from Drinking Waters: A Mini Review on Use of Biosorbents and Other Adsorbents. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 160, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Salipira, K.L.; Krause, R.W.; Mamba, B.B.; Malefetse, T.J.; Cele, L.M.; Durbach, S.H. Cyclodextrin Polyurethanes Polymerized with Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Synthesis and Characterization. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2008, 111, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mamba, G.; Mbianda, X.Y.; Govender, P.P.; Mamba, B.B.; Krause, R.W. Application of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube-Cyclodextrin Polymers in the Removal of Heavy Metals from Water. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 10, 940–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Ihsanullah; Abbas, A.; Al-Amer, A.M.; Laoui, T.; Al-Marri, M.J.; Nasser, M.S.; Khraisheh, M.; Atieh, M.A. Heavy Metal Removal from Aqueous Solution by Advanced Carbon Nanotubes: Critical Review of Adsorption Applications. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 157, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Salipira, K.L.; Mamba, B.B.; Krause, R.W.; Malefetse, T.J.; Durbach, S.H. Cyclodextrin Polyurethanes Polymerised with Carbon Nanotubes for the Removal of Organic Pollutants in Water. Water SA 2008, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Zhu, H.; Fu, Y.; Jiang, R.; Yao, J.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; Xiao, L.; Zeng, G. Preparation, Characterization and Adsorption Properties of Chitosan Modified Magnetic Graphitized Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes for Highly Effective Removal of a Carcinogenic Dye from Aqueous Solution. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 285, 865–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dhermendra, K.T.; Behari, J.; Prasenjit, S. Application of Nanoparticles in Waste Water Treatment. World Appl. Sci. J. 2008, 3, 417–433. [Google Scholar]
  115. Xu, J.; Bravo, A.G.; Lagerkvist, A.; Bertilsson, S.; Sjöblom, R.; Kumpiene, J. Sources and Remediation Techniques for Mercury Contaminated Soil. Environ. Int. 2015, 74, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Prachi; Gautam, P.; Madathil, D.; Brijesh Nair, A.N. Nanotechnology in Waste Water Treatment: A Review. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2013, 5, 2303–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Liu, S.; Lim, M.; Fabris, R.; Chow, C.; Chiang, K.; Drikas, M.; Amal, R. Removal of Humic Acid Using TiO2 Photocatalytic Process—Fractionation and Molecular Weight Characterisation Studies. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Alonso, A.; Macanás, J.; Davies, G.-L.; Gounko, Y.; Muñoz, M.; Muraviev, D. Environmentally-Safe Catalytically Active and Biocide Polymer-Metal Nanocomposites with Enhanced Structural Parameters. In Advances in Nanocomposite Technology; Hashim, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; Chapter 8. [Google Scholar]
  119. Khodashenas, B.; Ghorbani, H.R. Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles with Different Shapes. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 1823–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Iravani, S.; Korbekandi, H.; Mirmohammadi, S.V.; Zolfaghari, B. Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles: Chemical, Physical and Biological Methods. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 9, 385. [Google Scholar]
  121. Liu, T.; Baek, D.R.; Kim, J.S.; Joo, S.-W.; Lim, J.K. Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles with Size Distribution Depending on Reducing Species in Glycerol at Ambient PH and Temperatures. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 16246–16254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Chen, N.; Zhang, Z.; Feng, C.; Li, M.; Chen, R.; Sugiura, N. Investigations on the Batch and Fixed-Bed Column Performance of Fluoride Adsorption by Kanuma Mud. Desalination 2011, 268, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Al-Sherbini, A.S.A.; Ghannam, H.E.A.; El-Ghanam, G.M.A.; El-Ella, A.A.; Youssef, A.M. Utilization of Chitosan/Ag Bionanocomposites as Eco-Friendly Photocatalytic Reactor for Bactericidal Effect and Heavy Metals Removal. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Abdelhamid, H.N.; Wu, H.-F. Facile Synthesis of Nano Silver Ferrite (AgFeO2) Modified with Chitosan Applied for Biothiol Separation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 45, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dong, H.; Zeng, G.; Tang, L.; Fan, C.; Zhang, C.; He, X.; He, Y. An Overview on Limitations of TiO2-Based Particles for Photocatalytic Degradation of Organic Pollutants and the Corresponding Countermeasures. Water Res. 2015, 79, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nyamukamba, P. Preparation of Photocatalytic TiO2 Nanoparticles Immobilized on Carbon Nanofibres for Water Purification. Master’s Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  127. Mahlambi, M.M.; Ngila, C.J.; Mamba, B.B. Recent Developments in Environmental Photocatalytic Degradation of Organic Pollutants: The Case of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles—A Review. J. Nanomater. 2015, 29, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Naheed, Z.; Bushra, U.; Muhammad Bilal, K.N.; Shamaila, S.; Ghufrana, S.; Muhammad, J.A.; Sikander, R. Fabrication & Characterization of Chitosan Coated Biologically Synthesized TiO2 Nanoparticles against PDR E. Coli of Veterinary Origin. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2020, 2020, 8456024. [Google Scholar]
  129. Falk, G.S.; Borlaf, M.; López-Muñoz, M.J.; Fariñas, J.C.; Rodrigues Neto, J.B.; Moreno, R. Microwave Assisted Synthesis of TiO2 Nanoparticles:Photocatalyticactivity of Powder Sand Thin Films. J. Nanoparticles Res. 2018, 20, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Taka, A.L. Metal-Decorated Carbon Nanostructures for Photocatalytic Reduction of CO2; University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2014; ISBN 9798738661815. [Google Scholar]
  131. Arularasu, M.V. Effect of Organic Capping Agents on the Optical and Photocatalytic Activity of Mesoporous TiO2 Nanoparticles by Sol–Gel Method. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bahal, M.; Kaur, N.; Sharotri, N.; Sud, D. Investigations on Amphoteric Chitosan/TiO2 Bionanocomposites for Application in Visible Light Induced Photocatalytic Degradation. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2019, 2019, 2345631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Karthikeyan, K.T.; Nithya, A.; Jothivenkatachalam, K. Photocatalytic and Antimicrobial Activities of Chitosan-TiO2 Nanocomposite. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104, 1762–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Dhanya, A.; Aparna, K. Synthesis and Evaluation of TiO2/Chitosan Based Hydrogel for the Adsorptional Photocatalytic Degradation of Azo and Anthraquinone Dye under UV Light Irradiation. Procedia Technol. 2016, 24, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Thakur, V.K.; Thakur, M.K. Eco-Friendly Polymer Nanocomposites: Processing and Properties. In Processing and Properties; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  136. Roy Choudhury, S.; Goswami, A. Supramolecular Reactive Sulphur Nanoparticles: A Novel and Efficient Antimicrobial Agent. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Roy Choudhury, S.; Roy, S.; Goswami, A.; Basu, S. Polyethylene Glycol-Stabilized Sulphur Nanoparticles: An Effective Antimicrobial Agent against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 1134–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  138. Thakur, S.; Das, G.; Raul, P.K.; Karak, N. Green One-Step Approach to Prepare Sulfur/Reduced Graphene Oxide Nanohybrid for Effective Mercury Ions Removal. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 7636–7642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Gao, Y.; Xie, J.; Chen, H.; Gu, S.; Zhao, R.; Shao, J.; Jia, L. Nanotechnology-Based Intelligent Drug Design for Cancer Metastasis Treatment. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 761–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Mohammed Suleiman, A.A.A.; Hussein, A.; Hammouti, B.; Hadda, T.B.; Warad, I. Sulfur Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterizations and Their Applications. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2013, 5, 1029–1033. [Google Scholar]
  141. Deshpande, A.S.; Khomane, R.B.; Vaidya, B.K.; Joshi, R.M.; Harle, A.S.; Sulfur, K.B. Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterizations and Their Applications. Nanoscale Res. Lett 2008, 3, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Shankar, S.; Rhim, J.W. Preparation of Sulfur Nanoparticle-Incorporated Antimicrobial Chitosan Films. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 82, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhai, X.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Yue, C.; Lei, X. Electrochemical Sensor for Detection of Hydrogen Peroxide Modified with Prussian Blue Electrodeposition on Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulfur Co-Doped Porous Carbons-Chitosan. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 77, 1242–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Shankar, S.; Pangeni, R.; Park, J.W.; Rhim, J.-W. Preparation of Sulfur Nanoparticles and Their Antibacterial Activity and Cytotoxic Effect. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2018, 92, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Wen, Y.; Ma, J.; Chen, J.; Shen, C.; Li, H.; Liu, W. Carbonaceous Sulfur-Containing Chitosan–Fe(III): A Novel Adsorbent for Efficient Removal of Copper (II) from Water. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 259, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Gurgur, E.; Oluyamo, S.S.; Adetuyi, A.O.; Omotunde, O.I.; Okoronkwo, A. Green Synthesis of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Zinc Oxide-Silver, Zinc Oxide-Copper Nanocomposites Using Bridelia Ferruginea as Biotemplate. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Shankar, S.; Rhim, J.-W. Effect of Zn Salts and Hydrolyzing Agents on the Morphology and Antibacterial Activity of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1105–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Yue, S.; Yan, Z.; Shi, Y.; Ran, G. Synthesis of Zinc Oxide Nanotubes within Ultrathin Anodic Aluminum Oxide Membrane by Sol–Gel Method. Mater. Lett. 2013, 98, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Dimapilis, E.A.S.; Hsu, C.S.; Mendoza, R.M.O.; Lu, M.C. Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles for Water Disinfection. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018, 28, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Syeed Tofa, T.; Kunjali, K.L.; Paul, S.; Dutta, J. Visible Light Photocatalytic Degradation of Microplastic Residues with Zinc Oxide Nanorods. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1341–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Benhebal, H.; Chaib, M.; Salmon, T.; Geens, J.; Leonard, A.; Lambert, S.D.; Crine, M.; Heinrichs, B. Photocatalytic Degradation of Phenol and Benzoic Acid Using Zinc Oxide Powders Prepared by the Sol–Gel Process. Alexandria Eng. J. 2013, 52, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Ismail, A.M.; Menazea, A.A.; Kabary, H.A.; El-Sherbiny, A.E.; Samy, A. The Influence of Calcination Temperature on Structural and Antimicrobial Characteristics of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Synthesized by Sol–Gel Method. J. Mol. Struct. 2019, 1196, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Qiu, Y.; Yang, M.; Fan, H.; Xu, Y.; Shao, Y.; Yang, X.; Yang, S. Synthesis and Characterization of Nitrogen Doped ZnO Tetrapods and Application in Photocatalytic Degradation of Organic Pollutants under Visible Light. Mater. Lett. 2013, 99, 105–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Taghavi Fardood, S.; Ramazani, A.; Moradnia, F.; Afshari, Z.; Ganjkhanlu, S.; Yekke Zare, F. Green Synthesis of ZnO Nanoparticles via Sol-Gel Method and Investigation of Its Application in Solvent-Free Synthesis of 12-Aryl-Tetrahydrobenzo[α]Xanthene-11-One Derivatives Under Microwave Irradiation. Chem. Methodol. 2019, 3, 632–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Scientific Figure on Research Gate Nanotechnology-Based Controlled Release of Sustainable Fertilizers: A Review. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fabrication-of-zinc-oxide-ZnO-nanoparticles-by-sol-gel-method-employing-zinc-acetate_fig4_359962592 (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  156. Hassan, H.; Salama, A.; El-ziaty, A.K.; El-Sakhawy, M. New Chitosan/Silica/Zinc Oxide Nanocomposite as Adsorbent for Dye Removal. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 131, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Moradi Dehaghi, S.; Rahmanifar, B.; Moradi, A.M.; Azar, P.A. Removal of Permethrin Pesticide from Water by Chitosan–Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Composite as an Adsorbent. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2014, 18, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Preethi, S.; Abarna, K.; Nithyasri, M.; Kishore, P.; Deepika, K.; Ranjithkumar, R.; Bhuvaneshwari, V.; Bharathi, D. Synthesis and Characterization of Chitosan/Zinc Oxide Nanocomposite for Antibacterial Activity onto Cotton Fabrics and Dye Degradation Applications. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 164, 2779–2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Ran, Q.; Sheng, F.; Chang, G.; Zhong, M.; Xu, S. Sulfur-Doped Reduced Graphene Oxide@chitosan Composite for the Selective and Sensitive Electrochemical Detection of Hg2+ in Fish Muscle. Microchem. J. 2022, 175, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Amanulla, B.; Perumal, K.N.; Ramaraj, S.K. Chitosan Functionalized Gold Nanoparticles Assembled on Sulphur Doped Graphitic Carbon Nitride as a New Platform for Colorimetric Detection of Trace Hg2+. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2019, 281, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Shawky, H.A.; El-Aassar, A.H.M.; Abo-Zeid, D.E. Chitosan/Carbon Nanotube Composite Beads: Preparation, Characterization, and Cost Evaluation for Mercury Removal from Wastewater of Some Industrial Cities in Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 2011, 125, E93–E101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Sharma, P.; Mourya, M.; Choudhary, D.; Goswami, M.; Kundu, I.; Dobhal, M.P.; Tripathi, C.S.P.; Guin, D. Thiol Terminated Chitosan Capped Silver Nanoparticles for Sensitive and Selective Detection of Mercury (II) Ions in Water. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 268, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Zhou, L.; Xiong, W.; Liu, S. Preparation of a Gold Electrode Modified with Au–TiO2 Nanoparticles as an Electrochemical Sensor for the Detection of Mercury(II) Ions. J. Mater. Sci. 2015, 50, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mahmoud, M.E.; Nabil, G.M.; Abdel-Aal, H.; Fekry, N.A.; Osman, M.M. Imprinting “Nano-SiO2-Crosslinked Chitosan-Nano-TiO2” Polymeric Nanocomposite for Selective and Instantaneous Microwave-Assisted Sorption of Hg(II) and Cu(II). ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 4564–4573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Dąbrowski, A. Adsorption—From Theory to Practice. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2001, 93, 135–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Patel, H.; Yadav, S. A Study on Application of Queuing Theory at Petrol Retail Outlet. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Tour. Hosp. 2019, 2, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Ni, L.; Meng, X.; Hu, Z.; Zhong, G.; Meng, M.; Wang, Y.; Han, J. Efficient Static and Dynamic Removal of Sr(II) from Aqueous Solution Using Chitosan Ion-Imprinted Polymer Functionalized with Dithiocarbamate. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1061–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Xue, J.; Liao, C.; Wang, J.; Cryder, Z.; Xu, T.; Liu, F.; Gan, J. Development of Passive Samplers for in Situ Measurement of Pyrethroid Insecticides in Surface Water. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 224, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Yelebe, Z.R.; Yelebe, B.Z.; Samuel, R.J. Design of Fixed Bed Column for the Removal of Metal Contaminants from Industrial Wastewater. J. Eng. Appl. Sci 2013, 5, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
  170. Alvarez, D. Overview of Passive Samplers for Assessing Contaminants in Water; USGS, Columbia Environmental Research Center: Columbia, MO, USA, 2019; pp. 1–49. [Google Scholar]
  171. Mulgundmath, V.P.; Jones, R.A.; Tezel, F.H.; Thibault, J. Fixed Bed Adsorption for the Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Nitrogen: Breakthrough Behaviour and Modelling for Heat and Mass Transfer. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 85, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Saltalı, K.; Sarı, A.; Aydın, M. Removal of Ammonium Ion from Aqueous Solution by Natural Turkish (Yıldızeli) Zeolite for Environmental Quality. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 141, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ahmed, M.J.; Hameed, B.H. Removal of Emerging Pharmaceutical Contaminants by Adsorption in a Fixed-Bed Column: A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 149, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Elwakeel, K.Z.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Khan, Z.A.; Almughamisi, M.S.; Al-Bogami, A.S. Perspectives Regarding Metal/Mineral-Incorporating Materials for Water Purification: With Special Focus on Cr(vi) Removal. Mater. Adv. 2020, 1, 1546–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Berekaa, M.M. Nanotechnology in Wastewater Treatment; Influence of Nanomaterials on Microbial Systems. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2016, 5, 713–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Qu, X.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Li, Q. Applications of Nanotechnology in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Water Res. 2013, 47, 3931–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Diallo, M.; Savage, N.; Diallo, M.; Duncan, J.; Street, A.; Sustich, R. Nanotechnology Applications for Clean Water; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  178. Mahmoodi, N.M.; Salehi, R.; Arami, M.; Bahrami, H. Dye Removal from Colored Textile Wastewater Using Chitosan in Binary Systems. Desalination 2011, 267, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Crini, G. Non-Conventional Low-Cost Adsorbents for Dye Removal: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 1061–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Patel, H. Fixed-Bed Column Adsorption Study: A Comprehensive Review. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Dlamini, M.L. Nanostructured Conducting Polymers for the Removal of Organic Pollutants from Aqueous Solutions: Batch and Column Studies. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  182. Xie, J.; Lin, Y.; Li, C.; Wu, D.; Kong, H. Removal and Recovery of Phosphate from Water by Activated Aluminum Oxide and Lanthanum Oxide. Powder Technol. 2015, 269, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Das, N.; Das, D. Recovery of Rare Earth Metals through Biosorption: An Overview. J. Rare Earths 2013, 31, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Srivastava, V.; Sharma, Y.C.; Sillanpää, M. Green Synthesis of Magnesium Oxide Nanoflower and Its Application for the Removal of Divalent Metallic Species from Synthetic Wastewater. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 6702–6709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Chiban, M.; Soudani, A.; Sinan, F.; Persin, M. Wastewater Treatment by Batch Adsorption Method onto Micro-Particles of Dried Withania Frutescens Plant as a New Adsorbent. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, S61–S65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Kot-Wasik, A.; Zabiegała, B.; Urbanowicz, M.; Dominiak, E.; Wasik, A.; Namieśnik, J. Advances in Passive Sampling in Environmental Studies. Anal. Chim. Acta 2007, 602, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Mclagan, D.S.; Monaci, F.; Huang, H.; Lei, Y.D.; Mitchell, C.P.J.; Wania, F. Characterization and Quantification of Atmospheric Mercury Sources Using Passive Air Samplers. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2019, 124, 2351–2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Król, S.; Zabiegała, B.; Namieśnik, J. Monitoring VOCs in Atmospheric Air II. Sample Collection and Preparation. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2010, 29, 1101–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Tang, H.; Sandeluk, J.; Lin, L.; Lown, J.W. A New All-Season Passive Sampling System for Monitoring H2S in Air. Sci. World J. 2002, 2, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Macagnano, A.; Papa, P.; Avossa, J.; Perri, V.; Marelli, M.; Sprovieri, F.; Zampetti, E.; De Cesare, F.; Bearzotti, A.; Pirrone, N. Passive Sampling of Gaseous Elemental Mercury Based on a Composite TiO2NP/AuNP Layer. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Papa, P.; Fratoddi, I.; Venditti, I.; Vichi, F.; Macagnano, A.; Zampetti, E.; Bearzotti, A. Materials Use of Gold Nanoparticles as Substrate for Diffusive Monitoring of Gaseous Mercury. Materials 2018, 11, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Bearzotti, A.; Papa, P.; Macagnano, A.; Zampetti, E.; Venditti, I.; Fioravanti, R.; Fontana, L.; Matassa, R.; Familiari, G.; Fratoddi, I. Environmental Hg Vapours Adsorption and Detection by Using Functionalized Gold Nanoparticles Network. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 4706–4713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Nechita, P. Applications of Chitosan in Wastewater Treatment. In Biological Activities and Application of Marine Polysaccharides; Shalaby, E.A., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  194. Karimi, F.; Ayati, A.; Tanhaei, B.; Sanati, A.L.; Afshar, S.; Kardan, A.; Karaman, C. Removal of Metal Ions Using a New Magnetic Chitosan Nano-Bio-Adsorbent; A Powerful Approach in Water Treatment. Environ. Res. 2022, 203, 111753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Chadha, U.; Selvaraj, S.K.; Thanu, S.V.; Cholapadath, V.; Mathew, A.; Zaiyan, M.; Manikandan, M.; Paramsivam, V. A Review of the Function of Using Carbon Nanomaterials in Membrane Filtration for Contaminant Removal from Wastewater. Mater. Res. Express 2022, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Kulkarni, K.; Chadha, U.; Yadav, S.; Tarun, D.M.; Thenmukilan, K.G.; Bhardwaj, P.; Sonar, P. Latest Trends and Advancement in Porous Carbon for Biowaste Organization and Utilization. ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 011003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Ambaye, T.G.; Vaccari, M.; Prasad, S.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Rtimi, S. Preparation and Applications of Chitosan and Cellulose Composite Materials. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Kashyap, P.L.; Xiang, X.; Heiden, P. Chitosan Nanoparticle Based Delivery Systems for Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 77, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Lee, S.J.; Heo, D.N.; Moon, J.H.; Ko, W.K.; Lee, J.B.; Bae, M.S.; Park, S.W.; Kim, J.E.; Lee, D.H.; Kim, E.C. Electrospun Chitosan Nanofibers with Controlled Levels of Silver Nanoparticles. Preparation, Characterization and Antibacterial Activity. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014, 111, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polymers 15 00482 g001 550
Figure 1. Formation of chitosan by partial deacetylation of chitin.
Figure 1. Formation of chitosan by partial deacetylation of chitin.
Polymers 15 00482 g001
Polymers 15 00482 g002 550
Figure 2. Types of carbon nanotubes: single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNTs (a)), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNTs (b)) and multiple-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNTs (c)) [94].
Figure 2. Types of carbon nanotubes: single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNTs (a)), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNTs (b)) and multiple-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNTs (c)) [94].
Polymers 15 00482 g002
Polymers 15 00482 g003 550
Figure 3. Functionalization methods of carbon nanotubes [99], with permission from Elsevier, 2022.
Figure 3. Functionalization methods of carbon nanotubes [99], with permission from Elsevier, 2022.
Polymers 15 00482 g003
Polymers 15 00482 g004 550
Figure 4. Chemical synthesis of silver nanoparticles with silver nitrate and glycerol under natural conditions [121].
Figure 4. Chemical synthesis of silver nanoparticles with silver nitrate and glycerol under natural conditions [121].
Polymers 15 00482 g004
Polymers 15 00482 g005 550
Figure 5. Preparation of TiO2 nanoparticles by sol-gel method [131], with permission from Springer Nature, 2022.
Figure 5. Preparation of TiO2 nanoparticles by sol-gel method [131], with permission from Springer Nature, 2022.
Polymers 15 00482 g005
Polymers 15 00482 g006 550
Figure 6. The synthesis process of sulfur nanoparticles [140].
Figure 6. The synthesis process of sulfur nanoparticles [140].
Polymers 15 00482 g006
Polymers 15 00482 g007 550
Figure 7. Preparation of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles by sol-gel method employing zinc acetate and aluminium nitrate as precursors [155].
Figure 7. Preparation of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles by sol-gel method employing zinc acetate and aluminium nitrate as precursors [155].
Polymers 15 00482 g007
Polymers 15 00482 g008 550
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of batch adsorption [174].
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of batch adsorption [174].
Polymers 15 00482 g008
Polymers 15 00482 g009 550
Figure 9. Field-used passive air samplers (PAS (a)) [189], and passive sampler with nylon filter and the glass jar with the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ring inside (b) [190], with permission from Elsevier, 2008.
Figure 9. Field-used passive air samplers (PAS (a)) [189], and passive sampler with nylon filter and the glass jar with the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ring inside (b) [190], with permission from Elsevier, 2008.
Polymers 15 00482 g009
Table
Table 1. Mercury removal techniques with advantages and limitations.
Table 1. Mercury removal techniques with advantages and limitations.
TechniquesAdvantagesLimitationsReference
AdsorptionHigh efficiency
Cost effective
Availability of a wide selection of adsorbents
High adsorption rates
Easy to operate		Low selectivity[16,17]
Solvent extractionHigh Hg(II) selectivityTime consuming
Generation of secondary wastes
Requires post-treatment step because of low separation efficiency		[17,18]
Chemical precipitationSimple and convenient
Not energy intensive		Large amounts of chemicals are needed
Usually uses corrosive chemical
Inefficient in wastewater with low concentrations of Hg ions
Generation of sludge causing secondary contamination		[19,20,21]
PhotocatalyticInexpensive depending on catalyst usedFormation of volatile Hg(0), which is also toxic and requires trapping[22]
FlotationHighly efficient
High Hg selectivity
Low detention periods		High initial capital costs[23]
Ion exchangeSimple
Cost-effective
Efficient when thio based resins are used
Tends to be cheap when natural zeolites are used		Requires a pretreatment step
High cost of resins
Resins used during the process require chemical regeneration that creates secondary pollution		[17,21]
Phytoremediation bio-remediationLow cost
Formation of less harmful by-products		For live microorganisms, the method is ineffective when metal concentration is high
May affect plant growth and photosynthesis ability
Sensitive to operational environment		[18]
Table
Table 2. Properties comparison of different adsorbents for mercury remediation.
Table 2. Properties comparison of different adsorbents for mercury remediation.
Materials AdvantagesDisadvantagesReference
MnCe/zeoliteHigh thermal stability
Superior and high activity		High cost operation[84]
Ag-SBA-15Multi-functional materials
Outstanding regeneration capability
Strong tolerance to complex flue gas
High thermal and mechanical stability		High operating cost
High operating temperatures.		[85]
Ag nanoparticlesHigh removal rate,
Ultrahigh Ag atom utilization (150%)
High selectivity and stability		High cost[86]
MWCNTsHigh efficiencyLow selectivity
High cost		[87]
SiO2–TiO2High stability Poor photocatalytic activity[88]
Activated carbonGood adsorption capacity popular for the removal of pollutant from waste water.They are costly (the higher the quality the greater the cost)
Low selectivity		[29]
Table
Table 3. Enhancement in modification and applications as a result of chitosan composite formation.
Table 3. Enhancement in modification and applications as a result of chitosan composite formation.
Chitosan-Based NanomaterialTechniquesTarget Media (H2O or atm)Removal CapacityReference
Sulfur-doped reduced graphene oxide@chitosan compositeBatch adsorptionH2O0.125 to 6 μM Hg2+ with a detection limit of 1.6 nM.[159]
Ch functionalized Au@S-g-C3N4Passive samplingatmLimit of detection 0.275 nM[160]
Chitosan/CNTsBatch adsorptionH2O148.7 mg/g (CS);
183.2 mg/g
(MWCNT-COOH-impregnated CS beads);
167.5 mg/g
(MWCNT-impregnated CS beads); and
172.7 mg/g
(SWCNT-impregnated CS composite beads)		[161]
Thiol terminated chitosan capped silver nanoparticles
(Mod-Ch-Ag NPs)		Batch adsorptionH2ODetection limit is 5 ppb and response time is 5 s[162]
Au-TiO2 nanoparticles/chitosan/gold
(Au–TiO2 NPs/Ch/Au)		Passive sampleratm5.0–400.0 nM.
In addition, the limit of detection is 1.0 nM with a 240 s preconcentration		[163]
Nano-SiO2-Crosslinked chitosan-nano-TiO2Microwave-assisted sorptionH2O8000 μmol g–1[164]
Abbreviation: Ch—Chitosan; Au—Gold; TiO2—Titanium dioxide; CNTs—Carbon nanotubes; S—Sulfur; SiO2—Silicon dioxide; H2O—Water; atm—atmosphere.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Goci, M.C.; Leudjo Taka, A.; Martin, L.; Klink, M.J. Chitosan-Based Polymer Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation of Mercury Pollution. Polymers 2023, 15, 482. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030482

AMA Style

Goci MC, Leudjo Taka A, Martin L, Klink MJ. Chitosan-Based Polymer Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation of Mercury Pollution. Polymers. 2023; 15(3):482. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030482

Chicago/Turabian Style

Goci, Mvula Confidence, Anny Leudjo Taka, Lynwill Martin, and Michael John Klink. 2023. "Chitosan-Based Polymer Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation of Mercury Pollution" Polymers 15, no. 3: 482. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030482

APA Style

Goci, M. C., Leudjo Taka, A., Martin, L., & Klink, M. J. (2023). Chitosan-Based Polymer Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation of Mercury Pollution. Polymers, 15(3), 482. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15030482

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop