Next Article in Journal
A High-Throughput Method for Quantifying Drosophila Fecundity
Previous Article in Journal
Uptake, Elimination and Metabolism of Brominated Dibenzofurans in Mice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/toxics12090657
toxics-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

A Comprehensive Review of Lab-Scale Studies on Removing Hexavalent Chromium from Aqueous Solutions by Using Unmodified and Modified Waste Biomass as Adsorbents

by
Manikant Tripathi
1,*,
Sukriti Pathak
1,
Ranjan Singh
2,
Pankaj Singh
1,
Pradeep Kumar Singh
3,
Awadhesh Kumar Shukla
4,
Sadanand Maurya
4,
Sukhminderjit Kaur
5 and
Babita Thakur
5
1
Biotechnology Program, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya 224001, Uttar Pradesh, India
2
Department of Microbiology, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya 224001, Uttar Pradesh, India
3
Department of Biochemistry, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya 224001, Uttar Pradesh, India
4
Department of Botany, K.S. Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya 224001, Uttar Pradesh, India
5
Department of Biotechnology, Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, Punjab, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2024, 12(9), 657; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090657
Submission received: 10 July 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 6 September 2024 / Published: 8 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Toxicity Reduction and Environmental Remediation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Anthropogenic activities and increasing human population has led to one of the major global problems of heavy metal contamination in ecosystems and to the generation of a huge amount of waste material biomass. Hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] is the major contaminant introduced by various industrial effluents and activities into the ecosystem. Cr(VI) is a known mutagen and carcinogen with numerous detrimental effects on the health of humans, plants, and animals, jeopardizing the balance of ecosystems. Therefore, the remediation of such a hazardous toxic metal pollutant from the environment is necessary. Various physical and chemical methods are available for the sequestration of toxic metals. However, adsorption is recognized as a more efficient technology for Cr(VI) remediation. Adsorption by utilizing waste material biomass as adsorbents is a sustainable approach in remediating hazardous pollutants, thus serving the dual purpose of remediating Cr(VI) and exploiting waste material biomass in an eco- friendly manner. Agricultural biomass, industrial residues, forest residues, and food waste are the primary waste material biomass that could be employed, with different strategies, for the efficient sequestration of toxic Cr(VI). This review focuses on the use of diverse waste biomass, such as industrial and agricultural by-products, for the effective remediation of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions. The review also focuses on the operational conditions that improve Cr(VI) remediation, describes the efficacy of various biomass materials and modifications, and assesses the general sustainability of these approaches to reducing Cr(VI) pollution.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With increasing global population and industrialization, the resultant population poses a significant risk to our ecosystem, which comprises living beings and the environment. Hazardous chemicals, including heavy metals, are released into the environment by several industries, including tanneries, paper mills, and others, that have detrimental effects on the environment [1,2,3,4,5]. Elements with a density greater than 5 g/cm3 are classified as heavy metals [4]; even at low concentrations, these elements can be dangerous [5]. According to Fan et al. [6], heavy metals are hazardous, non-biodegradable, and present in the environment, posing several risks to various living things. Hexavalent chromium Cr(VI) is regarded as toxic heavy metal since it poses a major risk to both the environment and human health [7,8]. There are many different oxidation states of the heavy metal chromium. The most stable forms of the metal are trivalent chromium Cr(III) and Cr(VI); Cr(VI) is widely distributed in a variety of environments [9,10,11]. According to Rakhunde et al. [12], Cr(VI) can be found in natural waters either as an oxyacid (H2Cr2O7/H2CrO4) or as oxyanions, which include HCrO4−, CrO42−, HCr2O7−, Cr2O72−. According to researchers [9,13], Cr(VI) has higher mutagenic and hazardous effects compared to Cr(III).
On the other hand, Cr(III) is essential for human metabolism, helping to maintain levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose [14,15,16]. However high concentrations of Cr can have negative consequences [9,17]. Given that Cr(VI) is more harmful than Cr(III), it is imperative to remove this from the ecosystem using a variety of sustainable techniques [17,18,19]. Human disorders may be caused by the presence of Cr(VI) in the food chain. When plants are grown close to chromium-polluted areas, Cr(VI) has adverse effects on the plants [20,21]. According to Singh et al. [22] and Brusseau and Artiola [23], the pollutant may have different types of toxic effects on living forms. Some legislative rules have been linked to the monitoring and release of chromium across many sectors due to the grave health risks associated with this element. A maximum limit of 0.05 mg/L for Cr(VI) discharge has been imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for wastewater discharge from industrial sectors [9,23]. The limit for Cr in drinking water in India is 0.05 mg/L, while for treated wastewater from industrial discharge, it is 0.1 mg/L, according to the regulatory body [9,24].
The WHO (World Health Organization) states that 50 µg/L, is the standard for drinkable water [25]. According to Agarwal et al. [26], some physical and chemical techniques, including solvent extraction, ion exchange, electrochemical reduction/oxidation, reverse osmosis, precipitation, and photo-catalysis, have been used for chromium remediation. Nevertheless, these approaches are rather expensive, require a high level of skill and meticulous procedure control, and are not able to fully remove chromium [9,11]. However, due to its high efficacy, affordability, ease of use, and versatility in removing contaminants from contaminated systems, the adsorption strategy is gaining favor among researchers as a preferable method [27,28].
Many adsorbents, including activated carbon, biochar, and agricultural wastes, have been used for the remediation of heavy metals [29,30,31]. As a result, there is a need for adsorbents that can effectively remove chromium from wastewater while also being economically viable [2]. One of the best methods for treating water is the adsorption of Cr(VI) by sustainable and affordable adsorbents, which has several benefits, such as reusable properties and zero secondary contamination, which reduce potential drawbacks [32,33,34].
A variety of natural adsorbent materials have been used for different types of environmental pollutants [34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. In one study, activated banana peel was applied by Khalil et al. [41], while alkaline-hydrolyzed Garcinia kola shell was employed by Popoola et al. [42] to remove Cr(VI) from contaminated water. The emergence of waste material biomass as a potent adsorbent for the sequestration of Cr(VI) from contaminated wastewater was made possible by these and other investigations. Although several studies are available that claim the effectiveness of different biomass materials in Cr(VI) removal, still there is a lack of reports demonstrating the scale-up efficiency of their techniques in field trials. There is also a lack of studies in the literature on economic analyses for integrating these techniques into existing treatment strategies.
There are several methods, including physical, chemical and biological methods, that have been employed for the remediation of Cr(VI) from the polluted aquatic environment. However, the adsorption of Cr(VI) on a waste material biomass is a cost-effective treatment technology that is environmentally friendly. This review studied the toxicity levels of, and health hazards posed by, Cr(VI) accumulation, and analyzed the effectiveness of different waste biomass in Cr(VI) removal and their practical implications. This review also summarized mechanisms for Cr(VI) remediation employing unmodified and modified different waste material biomass in a sustainable manner.

2. Sources and Toxicity

Cr(VI) compounds are a broad class of compounds that have several properties, including robustness, stiffness, and resistance to corrosion [43]. As a result, they are used in a wide range of applications. Chromium trioxide, potassium chromate, ammonium chromate, sodium chromate, chromic acid, and calcium chromate are a few examples of compounds that include Cr(VI) [44]. The main commercial source of chromium is chromite (FeCrO4), which is extracted as a primary product [45]. Chromium is mostly used in chemistry, metallurgy, and refractories.
It is used as pigments for paints, inks, plastics, and anti-corrosion coatings (as zinc and lead chromate), textile dyes, leather tanning, wood preservatives, and stainless steel. According to Saha et al. [46], anthropogenic and natural sources are the two main sources of Cr(VI). Ultramafic igneous and metamorphic rocks, such as serpentinites and periodontitis, as well as the soil that was formed from them, are typically linked to natural sources of Cr(VI) in rocks, soils, and sediments. Mafic rocks may occasionally be involved in high chromium concentrations as well [47,48]. Cr(VI) can exist naturally as CrO42− in ground or surface water [46], but it can also be released into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions, meteoric dust, forest fires, wind-blown sand, and volcanic eruptions [49]. According to Saha et al. [46], there is typically a greater mass deposition of chromium in metropolitan regions compared to isolated and rural places. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [50], chrome plating has been found to be the main cause of atmospheric pollution by Cr(VI), generating high amounts of Cr(VI) annually. Surface water has an excessive level of chromium due to the textile, electroplating, and leather tanning industries [50,51]. Several researchers have studied metal contamination in different areas [52,53,54].
According to DesMarais and Costa [55], chromium exposure has occurred in humans due to the ingestion of contaminated water or contact with contaminants. Researchers [56] also studied the toxic effect of Cr(VI) on plants. According to several studies [9,57,58,59], Cr(VI) is a known carcinogen, mutagen, and toxicological agent. Studies have investigated the possibility that those who are exposed to chromium may become acutely unwell from it. Many exposure variables, such as chromium time duration, form, source, or dosage, can cause a variety of acute or moderate illnesses [50,51,52].
Three categories—acute, intermediate, and chronic—are based on the length and timing of Cr(VI) exposure [60,61]. (Cr(VI) exposure can occur primarily by ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact [60]. The exposure of Cr(VI) can have a wide range of harmful consequences on plants, animals, and other living things.

3. Toxicity of Cr(VI)

3.1. Toxic Effects on Human Health

Cr(VI) is one of the major environmental pollutants. According to Nigam et al. [62], there are two possible ways that people might be exposed to Cr(VI): by inhalation (breathing) during an occupational exposure, or through food or water. In another study, Vendruscolo et al. [63] reported that Cr(VI) toxicity may have a variety of negative effects on health, including contact dermatitis, emphysema, internal bleeding, liver and kidney illness, hypersensitivity responses, and DNA damage, as shown in Figure 1. DesMarais and Costa [55] reported that the oxidative stress that Cr(VI) causes in cells might lead to the development of DNA adducts, cardiovascular disorders, and neurological illnesses. An individual may develop lung cancer or irritation/damage to their respiratory tract if they inhale large amounts of Cr(VI) [64]. Cr(VI) toxicity cause health hazards through adverse effects [60,64]. These findings suggest that exposure to Cr(VI) should be avoided for a healthy life, as it causes various types of illnesses in humans.
Compared to individuals of the same gender and age, the workers exposed to Cr(VI) in industries had an increased risk of oral, gastric, respiratory, throat, and prostate cancer, with an increased risk of cancer overall [65]. Similarly, Zhitkovich et al. [66] reported that Cr(VI) may produce unstable radicals such as hydroxide radicals, superoxide anions, thiol groups, and H2O2 and hence induce genotoxicity. Because of its considerable potential to induce a variety of malignancies, including sinus, bladder, nasal, stomach, paranasal, and nasal cancers, Cr(VI) has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 1 occupational carcinogenic agent [67,68,69,70]. A range of respiratory conditions, including pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduced lung function, have also been noted in workers in chromium-related sectors [50]. Long-term exposure to Cr(VI) may also cause skin irritation and a burning feeling in the skin, which may lead to allergic contact dermatitis [44,50]. According to Li et al. [71], the high nephrotoxicity of Cr(VI) caused kidney damage, poor renal absorption, proteinuria, glycosuria, and renal dysfunction. Epidemiological investigations on female workers exposed to Cr(VI) have also shown reproductive system damage (developmental toxicity), with issues during pregnancy, delivery, and gestational development having been noted [72,73].

3.2. Toxic Effects on Plants

Cr(VI) is hazardous to plants and leads to the inhibition of various activities and may even cause complete damage to plants [74,75]. The toxicity of Cr(VI) reduces productivity, plant growth antioxidant enzyme activity, and photosynthetic pigments [76]. Due to high concentrations of Cr(VI) in soil, alfalfa seed germination was decreased, and bean development was also impacted [77]. Researchers have also noted a host of other symptoms in plants caused by Cr(VI) toxicity, including necrosis, chlorosis, lipid peroxidation, damage to root tissue, reduced enzyme activity, and impaired plant growth, including the reduced development of leaves, roots, and stems, the suppression of seed germination, and reduced photosynthesis [78,79,80].

3.3. Toxic Effects on Animals

Numerous research endeavors examined the detrimental impacts of Cr(VI) on fauna. Chen et al. [81], discovered that Cr(VI) may induce oxidative damage to roosters’ kidneys and damage to hens’ livers [82]. Similarly, Zhang et al. [83] noted that prolonged exposure to Cr(VI) in mice may result in colorectal cancer. In another study, Li et al. [84], investigated the changes in gut microbiota (gut microbial dysbiosis) brought on by prolonged exposure to Cr(VI) in chickens, while Yu et al. [85] reported on the increased suppression of immunity, digestion, and antioxidant capacity in Channa asiatica as a result of Cr(VI) exposure. Suljević et al. [86] used male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) as a toxicological model to evaluate Cr(VI) toxicity and found that it decreased the immune response and caused hypochromic and microcytic anemia.

3.4. Toxic Effects of Cr(VI) on Microbes

Microbes that are not tolerant to Cr(VI) may be at risk from higher concentrations of Cr(VI). Microbial alpha diversity is decreased in chromium-polluted areas [87,88]. Microbes that are resistant to Cr(VI) can, however, convert Cr(VI) to Cr(III) and withstand the toxicity [87,88,89]. Many researchers reported that different species of Bacillus were not only Cr(VI)-tolerant, but were also capable of remediating Cr(VI) [89,90]. In one study, Wyszkowska et al. [91] studied the toxic effects of Cr(VI) on the diversity of microorganisms found in soil. They reported that the presence of Cr(VI) in soil adversely impacted the population of organotrophic bacteria, indicating the toxic effects of the metal. In another study, Kang et al. [92] reported on the remediation of Cr(VI) by a potential bacterial isolate Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which was also tolerant to lead, cobalt, copper, mercury, and cadmium. In a recent research investigation, Ye et al. [90] also reported on Cr(VI) remediation a using Bacillus mobilis CR3 strain isolated from a Cr(VI)-polluted site. These studies revealed that the Cr(VI) posed negative effects on the growth of microorganisms; however, some microorganisms are tolerant to Cr(VI), and are also capable of removing such toxicants from contaminated environments.

4. Remediation Strategies for Cr(VI)

The methods employed to remove Cr(VI) from contaminated sources can be classified as physical, chemical and biological methods. There are various disadvantages associated with physical and chemical methods of remediation such as limited capacity, hazardous secondary waste generation, low removal efficiency, and costly setups [9,11]. Biological techniques explore the natural abilities of microorganisms and plants to remove Cr(VI) by adsorption or transformation. Lately, a great deal of attention has been paid to the development of low-cost, high-efficiency adsorbents for adsorption and high chromium removal [93,94]. The adsorption and extraction of Cr(VI) from the environment could be accomplished using various, more environmentally friendly biosorption techniques using biomass waste materials, as shown in Figure 2.

4.1. Agricultural Residues

Agricultural waste materials biomass is a feasible resource found in ample quantities across the world [95,96]. Agricultural waste biomass has piqued interest in the generation of adsorbents and is preferred more than commercial adsorbents due to their several advantageous qualities, such as cost-efficient operation, and for their various bio-chemical properties [97,98,99]. Multiple agricultural residues can especially be obtained in an agri-abundant country like India [100]. Various agricultural residues can be used for Cr(VI) remediation such as rice husk, sugarcane bagasse, and corn cobs. The remediation of Cr(VI) utilizing agricultural biomass as adsorbents has been the subject of several investigations. Using rice husk ash and silica, Adelagun et al. [101] effectively removed Cr(VI) at pH values greater than 6. The highest adsorption capabilities of rice husk ash were reported to be 55.98 mg/g, and rice husk silica to be 67.45 mg/g, for the removal of Cr(VI). In 2020, Ogata et al. [102] conducted a study on the removal of Cr(VI) from wheat bran biomass. In another study, Yadav et al. [103] investigated the biosorption of Cr(VI) by rice husk biomass and found that the high amount of Cr(VI) could be adsorbed at a lower pH.

4.2. Food Waste

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 40% or more of the food produced is wasted [104]. In terms of the creation of fruit and vegetable waste, India ranks in fourth place, behind China, the United States, and the Philippines [100]. Fruit peels, for example, are a cheap and readily accessible food waste that may be used as an affordable adsorbent for the remediation of Cr(VI). Tie et al. [105] utilized food waste biomass for the formation biomass-derived biochar for the removal of Cr(VI) and found the highest adsorption rate of 20.4 mg/g at a pH of 2. Wang et al. [106] employed pomelo peel (PP) and ferric-chloride modified (FeCl3 modified) pomelo peel (FPP) for the adsorption of Cr(VI) and reported a 21.55 mg/g maximum Cr(VI) adsorption capacity by FPP and a 0.57 mg/g adsorption capacity by PP at a pH of 2 and a temperature 40 °C. In another study, Sahlabji et al. [107] employed pea peels as food waste for the preparation of environmentally friendly activated carbon to remediate Cr(VI), obtaining a maximum adsorption capacity of 480.05 mg/g for a 400 mg/L initial Cr(VI) concentration. Pomegranate peel (PG) and pomegranate peel-derived biochar (PG-B) were studied by Chen et al. [108] for the removal of Cr(VI); the maximum adsorption efficiency was found to be 90.50% by PG-B in 30 min while PB demonstrated a 78.01% Cr(VI) adsorption efficiency at 60 min. These studies indicate that food waste may be used as an effective adsorbent material for the remediation of Cr(VI).

4.3. Industrial Waste

Industrial waste, or the leftovers from several industrial operations, is a major environmental problem that may also be a useful resource for reducing pollution. Heavy metals may be successfully extracted from wastewater using these wastes, which include fly ash, blast furnace slag, brewer’s leftover grain, and sludge [109]. More specifically, Cr(VI) may be eliminated using these industrial wastes. For example, Zafu et al. [110] used magnetically activated carbon made from brewer’s leftover grain to remove Cr(VI), reaching a maximum removal efficiency of 97.5% at the ideal pH of 2, 30 min of contact time, and 5 g/L of adsorbent. In another study, Geremias et al. [111] reported that waste grain biochar from Brewer has an adsorption capacity of 78.13 ± 0.87 mg/g for Cr(VI), after using it to adsorb Cr(VI). Brewer’s waste grain was also used by Vendruscolo et al. [112] to remove Cr(VI) by adsorption. They removed Cr(VI) from pre-treated brewery waste grain using acid, alkali, petroleum ether, and H2O2. At a pH of 2 and an adsorbent dose of 2 g/L, the percentages of Cr(VI) removed were 97%, 21%, 0.9%, and 0.5%, respectively. Zhou et al. [113] used distiller grain-prepared biochar that had been treated with phosphoric acid (H3PO4) and WPPA modification (wet process–phosphoric acid modification) to remove Cr(VI). They reported a sustained release of nutrients and a maximum remediation rate of 83.57% for chromium.

4.4. Forest Waste

Forestry wastes are the lignocellulosic waste that could assist in the removal of chromium and also possess numerous benefits such as, low economical value, abundant availability, high efficiency in the removal of metal ions from wastewater and the metal ions adsorbed could be converted as well as can be reused too [114,115,116,117,118]. A variety of forestry wastes, including bark and leaves, can be used to remove Cr(VI). Barbosa et al. [119] used eucalyptus residues that had been converted into cellulose macro- and nanofibers for the sorption of Cr(VI), and they reported a 54% elimination of Cr(VI). In contrast, Yang et al. [120] used pine tree (Pinus sp.) bark to remediate Cr(VI) and found that the bark’s maximum ability to remove Cr(VI) was 376.3 mg/g. Activated carbon prepared from Ficus carica leaves and modified activated carbon with ethyl diamine was utilized by Baassou et al. [121] for the adsorption of Cr(VI) and obtained maximum chromium adsorption capacities of 155.22 mg/g and 203.25 mg/g by AC-100 (activated carbon) and modified form, respectively.

5. Biomass-Based Adsorption Mechanisms for Cr(VI) Removal

The efficient and environmentally friendly methods of removing Cr(VI) via biomass-based adsorption are well-known, especially when they employ agricultural biowaste. Complex mechanisms including electrostatic attraction, reduction-coupled adsorption, and ion exchange are all involved in these techniques [122]. Fruit peels and other agricultural biowaste, such as crop residues, are subject to ion exchange, where Cr(VI) ions interact with functional groups such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, and amine groups on their surface. The pH of the solution has a major impact on the process of exchanging these functional groups’ cations for Cr(VI) anions [123]. The biowaste surface becomes more attractive to negatively charged Cr(VI) ions at lower pH values because of protonation, whereas deprotonation of functional groups at higher pH levels results in decreased ion exchange efficiency [124].
The efficacy of adsorption is significantly influenced by the physical characteristics of agricultural biowaste, including surface area, porosity, and particle size. Greater surface area and porosity in biowaste provide more adsorption sites; smaller particle sizes raise the surface area-to-volume ratio and enhance the biowaste’s interactions with Cr(VI) ions [125]. Furthermore, through competitive adsorption, the presence of additional ions or contaminants in the solution might influence the adsorption process and ultimately the effectiveness of Cr(VI) removal. To improve the effectiveness of agricultural biowaste-based Cr(VI) removal and make it a sustainable and ecologically friendly technique of purifying water, it is imperative to comprehend and optimize these interactions and factors [126].

6. Adsorption Strategies Using Waste Biomass for Cr(VI) Removal

A sustainable approach to the efficient management of generated wastes is provided by waste material biomass, such as agricultural waste and lignocellulose wastes, used as an adsorbent [127,128,129]. The removal of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) from wastewater mostly depends on adsorption, which takes advantage of the ion’s surface adhesion to an adsorbent material. The raw biomass source is agricultural waste, which is selected on the basis of its desirable characteristics such as low cost, high affinity for metal, availability in large quantities, and the easy desorption of the adsorbed metal ions [130]. Several researchers reported on Cr(VI) removal through the adsorption phenomenon [130,131,132]. In one study, researchers discussed adsorbate removal efficiency or the required amounts of adsorbents during an adsorption study [133].
Different types of waste material biomass are used as adsorbents. The two main approaches that are important in the Cr(VI) remediation process are discussed below.

6.1. Cr(VI) Remediation Using Unmodified Biomass Adsorbents

A variety of biomass waste materials are used as adsorbents, after being ground and sieved, for remediating toxic Cr(VI). Several researchers have reported on the removal of Cr(VI) using waste material biomass [134,135,136,137]. This method uses unmodified waste material biomass, such as peels, leaves, etc., that have been cleaned, dried, and then ground and sieved to reduce the size of the materials, as shown in Figure 3. This provides more surface area for adsorption. For the removal of Cr(VI) with biomass waste, several studies have used this method and had successful outcomes. This is a basic technique that involves grinding, sieving, oven drying, and washing the biomass with distilled water. In one study, Verma et al. [138] studied the removal of Cr(VI) from polluted water by using coconut husks. To create a fine adsorbent, coconut husks were cut into tiny pieces, mixed, and dried in an oven for 24 h. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the technique in sequestering Cr(VI).
An orange peel, a typical fruit waste, was used as a biosorbent by Khalfaoui et al. [139] to remove Cr(VI) from water. After being cleaned of contaminants with tap water and then distilled water, the orange peels were left to dry in the sun for a few days. The dried orange peels were crushed and sieved. Orange peel powder was used as an adsorbent for each experiment. The conventional method yielded around 97.8% effective removal of Cr(VI) using orange peel as a biosorbent. To remove Cr(VI) from water containing Cr(VI) ions, Mondal et al. [140] also used a traditional method, employing mosambi peel dust (Citrus limetta) as an adsorbent. The removal percentage of Cr(VI) was high, indicating that the adsorbent material was successful in remediating the toxicant and demonstrated its possible application for the on-site treatment of a Cr(VI)-polluted environment.
Various researchers have reported on Cr(VI) remediation using waste biomass to remove or reduce the toxicity of Cr (Table 1).

6.2. Cr(VI) Remediation Using Modified Biomass Adsorbents

The use of modified biomass involves treating adsorbents differently to improve their adsorption effectiveness and effectively remediate Cr(VI). The efficient removal of pollutants from wastewater has also been accomplished with modified waste material biomass. Various chemical treatments can modify the functional groups on adsorbents and improve the active sites on their surface, increasing the adsorbents’ effectiveness [155]. Biochar is a multifaceted material with several oxygen-based functional groups on its surface that help with the adsorption and retention of pollutants such as organic materials and heavy metals. Moreover, it has a greater capacity for ion exchange, which makes it easier for it to adsorb contaminants [156]. It has been demonstrated that waste material biomass, when converted into biochar, is an effective adsorbent material for cleaning up environmental pollutants [157,158,159]. Because of its limited ability to adsorb anionic pollutants, such as phosphates and chromates [159], biochar can be modified using a variety of techniques to increase the effectiveness of adsorption [160,161]. Cr(VI) can also be remedied using activated carbon that has been activated by different activating agents [162]. Other researchers also reported the activated adsorbent materials for their applications [163,164]. These approaches may be employed in research on the remediation of Cr(VI). In one study, Chanda et al. [19] employed charcoal made from cauliflower stem waste. Using a contemporary approach, the biochar demonstrated an effective Cr(VI) adsorption capability.
In another study, Ali et al. [2] made use of amide-modified biochar, which was produced by low-temperature pyrolysis of ground rice husks. With modified biochar, a reduction in Cr(VI) was achieved. Researchers reported on Cr(VI) removal through a biosorption process [165,166]. Other cutting-edge techniques include the extremely successful and economical technique, using carbonized rice husk modified by nano-hydroxy apatite and supported by biochar used by Zou et al. [167], in which they succeeded in removing Cr(VI) at an acidic pH. When using rice husk ash nano-silica for Cr(VI) remediation, Kandasamy et al. [168] achieved an effective removal of 88.3%. For the effective removal of Cr(VI), a variety of adsorbents with chemical modifications can also be used. After crushing banana peels, Huang et al. [169] employed chemically altered banana peel powder with 50% H2SO4 at 50 °C for 24 h. Consequently, increasing the adsorbent’s surface area led to an 80% removal rate of Cr(VI). Numerous additional investigations have also shown how well Cr(VI) is remediated with contemporary methods for altering the adsorbents made from waste material biomass (Table 2). Figure 4 showed Cr(VI) remediation process using modified waste material biomass as adsorbents.

7. Factors Influencing the Remediation of Cr(VI)

7.1. pH

Adsorption effectiveness is greatly impacted by carefully regulated operating conditions, which are necessary for optimal performance in Cr(VI) remediation utilizing waste biomass adsorbents. The selection of remediation methods, biological interactions, chemical qualities, and environmental variables all play a role in the efficacious removal of Cr(VI) from polluted settings. It is essential to comprehend these elements to create effective plans for reducing the effects of Cr(VI) pollution. For Cr(VI) to effectively adsorb on an adsorbent, the pH must be at its ideal level. A study by Khalil et al. [41] reported on the efficient removal of Cr(VI) at a pH of 5.2. Areti et al. [174] and Garg et al. [176] demonstrated that the efficient removal of Cr(VI) was obtained at a pH of 2.

7.2. Adsorbent Dosage

The dose of the adsorbent affects Cr(VI) ion adsorption in aquatic environments [183,184,185]. The removal of Cr(VI) is reduced at higher adsorbent doses because of the overlapping of adsorbent particles, which reduces the binding sites for Cr(VI) adsorption [41,178]. Optimization of different process parameters is required for determining the appropriate conditions and the amount of adsorbent for the effective remediation of Cr(VI) from polluted wastewater as well as for possible large-scale on-site applications.

7.3. Temperature

The impact of temperature on the adsorption of Cr(VI) by a mosambi peel adsorbent was investigated by Mondal et al. [140]. The researchers discovered that whereas Cr(VI) removal increased steadily from 35 to 45 °C, it declined beyond 45 °C. According to the study, the removal of Cr(VI) with a mosambi peel adsorbent is an endothermic process. The removal rate of Cr(VI) increases as a result of the higher temperature, which helps to produce more new sorption sites on the surface of adsorbents. Using powdered corn cob for the biosorption of Cr(VI) from an aqueous solution, Sallau et al. [186] similarly noted the same trend of enhanced Cr(VI) removal by raising the temperature and subsequently noted decreased removal after 80 °C. In another study, Fontecha-Cámara et al. [187] studied the endothermic nature of the adsorption process for the herbicide diuron from aqueous solutions on activated carbon fiber. They reported that the endothermic adsorptions revealed overall processes involving the combination of endothermic (probably dehydration) and exothermic steps (adsorption). In such situations, the usual van’t Hoff law cannot be applied, as the overall process involves the combination of endothermic and exothermic processes (adsorption).

7.4. Initial Cr(VI) Concentration and Co-Occurring Ions

A trend of increasing adsorption with a rise in the initial Cr(VI) concentration was reported by Niam et al. [188], who noted a reduction in adsorption beyond a specific point in the solution’s Cr(VI) concentration. At the lower concentration of Cr(VI), the available sites for the adsorption of Cr(VI) ions are greater; however, at a higher concentration, the adsorption sites are fewer. The presence of co-occurring ions may also affect the removal of specific metals. It was shown that the adsorption of Cr(VI) on the adsorbents might be significantly impacted by the presence of these ions [41]. According to Khalil et al. [41], sulfate ions have a greater potential to influence Cr(VI) elimination than nitrate and phosphate ions.

7.5. Effect of Contact Time

According to Srividya and Mohanty [189], it is essential in the chemistry of adsorption to provide the solution with enough time to reach an equilibrium condition. As the contact period rises, more vacant sites become available for adsorption, which leads to an increase in the adsorption of Cr(VI) ions on the adsorbent. At a certain moment, equilibrium is reached, indicating that all the sites are occupied at equilibrium. Nevertheless, when adsorption increases, Cr(VI) ions occupy the vacant sites [9]. Pant et al. [190] also reported a similar result, with an increment in adsorption with time and equilibrium after 180 min while using CALS for the adsorption of Cr(VI).

7.6. Modification Methods

The removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions may be greatly improved by employing biomass waste and a variety of cutting-edge modification methods. The surface chemistry of biomass can be altered chemically by applying bases and acids, which deprotonate surface sites and introduce carboxyl and hydroxyl groups, to increase the number of functional groups available for Cr(VI) binding. Cr(VI) is converted to the less poisonous Cr(III) via metal impregnation with salts, such as iron or aluminum, improving elimination [191]. While particle size reduction improves the surface area-to-volume ratio, physical alterations, such as high-temperature heat activation, provide activated carbon or biochar with improved surface area and porosity. Adsorption is further improved by biological alterations, such as composting or microbial treatments, which provide more functional groups or enzymatic activity. Despite the possible higher costs, modified adsorbents often exhibit larger adsorption capacities, quicker kinetics, and enhanced removal efficiencies, making these procedures a sustainable and cost-effective alternative for Cr(VI) remediation [192,193].

8. Challenges and Future Prospects

When using biomass from agricultural waste to treat complicated industrial effluents, biosorption has proven to be an economically feasible approach for heavy metal remediation. Because of the difficulties, such as chromium’s various oxidation states, that make the management and monitoring of biosorption more difficult, biosorption is still mostly limited to laboratory settings, even though its efficacy has been well studied. The large-scale supply of biomass, its regeneration and reuse, the limited robustness of biosorbents, and the interference from co-occurring ions are practical challenges that commonly plague conventional remediation procedures, which also struggle with efficiency.
Many aspects need to be taken into account in order to overcome these obstacles and improve the practical use of biomass adsorbents for chromium (VI) remediation. Pilot-scale trials and other technical feasibility studies are necessary to move from laboratory research to real-world applications. The total efficacy of water treatment methods, such as chemical precipitation and membrane filtration, might be enhanced by being integrated with biosorption. An understanding of the environmental implications requires evaluating the sustainability of utilizing waste biomass using carbon footprint studies and life cycle assessments (LCA). Financial feasibility and ideal market sectors may be ascertained with the use of economic analyses, including cost–benefit and market potential evaluations. It is also critical to create a regulatory environment that is favorable and to guarantee worker safety while managing biomass adsorbents. Involving local communities and stakeholders may help to promote its acceptability and draw attention to social advantages such the development of jobs.
Expanding adsorption studies should be the main goal of future studies, especially when applying continuous column techniques to industrial effluents. Progress in nanomaterials, such as adding graphene or carbon nanotubes to biomass, might improve adsorption efficiency dramatically. Efficiency might be enhanced by mixing biomass with synthetic materials or modifying it with chemical agents to generate hybrid adsorbents. A deeper understanding of adsorption processes may be gained by utilizing kinetic studies and molecular dynamics simulations. Cleanup efforts might also be optimized by creating adsorbents that are self-cleaning and regenerative, and by combining adsorption with cutting-edge technologies like photocatalysis or electrochemical reduction. More efficient, sustainable, and financially feasible Cr(VI) remediation methods will be possible with the integration of green chemistry concepts and field testing. These methods will yield important information on the viability and efficacy of these strategies.

9. Conclusions

Waste material biomass has been shown to be quite efficient in the remediation of Cr(VI) in aquatic environments. Cr(VI) is hazardous for the overall health of our ecosystem, affecting various facets of the ecosystem. Therefore, utilizing waste biomass for the sequestration of Cr(VI) has been identified as a resilient and cost- effective technique. Adsorbents derived from waste material biomasses have been reported to be exceptionally efficient. The modification of adsorbents to enhance remediation efficiency has additionally demonstrated the potential of this technique. This approach has been identified as a potent technique in facilitating the detoxification of Cr(VI) from the environment. Therefore, the utilization of this simple, sustainable, and inexpensive strategy using waste material biomass is a promising solution for remediating a hazardous contaminant from the environment. However, further research is needed to improve the effectiveness of this environmentally friendly technology and broaden its use in the remediation of Cr(VI) from contaminated sites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, reviewing and editing, supervision, M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, review and editing, visualization, B.T.; writing—original draft preparation, visualization, S.P.; Analysis, writing—review and editing, R.S., P.S., P.K.S., A.K.S., S.M. and S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to their parent institutions for providing a platform to study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, N.; Yin, Z.; Liu, F.; Zhang, M.; Lv, Y.; Hao, Z.; Pan, G.; Zhang, J. Environmentally persistent free radicals mediated removal of Cr (VI) from highly saline water by corn straw biochars. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 260, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ali, A.; Alharthi, S.; Al-Shaalan, N.H.; Naz, A.; Fan, H.J.S. Efficient removal of hexavalent chromium (Hexavalent chromium) from wastewater using amide-modified biochar. Molecules 2023, 28, 5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Nazir, A.; Zahra, F.; Sabri, M.U.; Ghaffar, A.; Ather, A.Q.; Khan, M.I.; Iqbal, M. Charcoal prepared from bougainvillea spectabilis leaves as low cost adsorbent: Kinetic and equilibrium studies for removal of iron from aqueous solution. Z. Für Phys. Chem. 2021, 235, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fulke, A.B.; Kotian, A.; Giripunje, M.D. Marine microbial response to heavy metals: Mechanism, implications and future prospect. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2020, 105, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mishra, S.; Bharagava, R.N. Toxic and genotoxic effects of Hexavalent chromium in environment and its bioremediation strategies. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part C 2016, 34, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fan, X.; Liu, H.; Anang, E.; Ren, D. Effects of electronegativity and hydration energy on the selective adsorption of heavy metal ions by synthetic NaX zeolite. Materials 2021, 14, 4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. GracePavithra, K.; Jaikumar, V.; Kumar, P.S.; Sundar Rajan, P. A review on cleaner strategies for chromium industrial wastewater: Present research and future perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jiang, Y.; Dai, M.; Yang, F.; Ali, I.; Naz, I.; Peng, C. Remediation of chromium (VI) from groundwater by metal-based biochar under anaerobic conditions. Water 2022, 14, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Garg, S.K.; Tripathi, M.; Srinath, T. Strategies for Chromium (VI) Bioremediation from Tannery Effluent. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 217, 75–140. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hlihor, R.M.; Figueiredo, H.; Tavares, T.; Gavrilescu, M. Biosorption potential of dead and living Arthrobacter viscosus biomass in the removal of Hexavalent chromium: Batch and column studies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 108, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Itankar, N. Development of Eco-Friendly Sorption Process for Removal and Recovery of Hexavalent Chromium from Industrial Effluents. Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rakhunde, R.; Deshpande, L.; Juneja, H.D. Chemical speciation of chromium in water: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 42, 776–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chojnacka, K. Biosorption and bioaccumulation–the prospects for practical applications. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Monga, A.; Fulke, A.B.; Dasgupta, D. Recent developments in essentiality of trivalent chromium and toxicity of hexavalent chromium: Implications on human health and remediation strategies. J. Hazard. Mat. Adv. 2022, 7, 100113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ray, A.; Jankar, J.S. A Comparative Study of Chromium: Therapeutic Uses and Toxicological Effects on Human Health. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2022, 13, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prasad, A. Role of chromium compounds in diabetes. Indian, J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2016, 3, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Krishna, K.R.; Philip, L. Bioremediation of Hexavalent chromium in contaminated soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2005, 121, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bala, S.; Garg, D.; Thirumalesh, B.V.; Sharma, M.; Sridhar, K.; Inbaraj, B.S.; Tripathi, M. Recent Strategies for Bioremediation of Emerging Pollutants: A Review for a Green and Sustainable Environment. Toxics 2022, 10, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chanda, R.K.; Jahid, T.; Hassan, M.N.; Yeasmin, T.; Biswas, B.K. Cauliflower stem-derived biochar for effective adsorption and reduction of Hexavalent chromium in synthetic wastewater: A sustainable approach. Environ Adv. 2024, 15, 100458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Oliveira, H. Chromium as an environmental pollutant: Insights on induced plant toxicity. J. Bot. 2012, 375843, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. López-Bucio, J.S.; Ravelo-Ortega, G.; López-Bucio, J. Chromium in plant growth and development: Toxicity, tolerance and hormesis. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 312, 120084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Singh, A.; Sharma, A.; Verma, R.K.; Chopade, R.L.; Pandit, P.P.; Nagar, V.; Aseri, V.; Choudhary, S.K.; Awasthi, G.; Awasthi, K.K.; et al. Heavy metal contamination of water and their toxic effect on living organisms. In The Toxicity of Environmental Pollutants; Intech Open: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  23. Brusseau, M.L.; Artiola, J.F. Chemical contaminants. In Environmental and Pollution Science; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 175–190. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dhal, B.; Thatoi, H.N.; Das, N.N.; Pandey, B.D. Chemical and microbial remediation of Hexavalent chromium from contaminated soil and mining/ metallurgical solid waste: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 250, 272–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. World Health Organization. Chromium in Drinking Water. 2020. Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/338062 (accessed on 4 November 2019).
  26. Agrawal, A.; Kumar, V.; Pandey, B.D. Remediation options for the treatment of electroplating and leather tanning effluent containing chromium: A review. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 2006, 27, 99–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bibi, I.; Niazi, N.K.; Choppala, G.; Burton, E.D. Chromium (VI) removal by siderite (FeCO3) in anoxic aqueous solutions: An X-ray absorption spectroscopy investigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640, 1424–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Satyam, S.; Patra, S. Innovations and challenges in adsorption-based wastewater remediation: A comprehensive review. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Shahrokhi- Shahraki, R.; Benally, C.; El-Din, M.G.; Park, J. High efficiency removal of heavy metals using tire-derived activated carbon vs commercial activated carbon: Insights into the adsorption mechanisms. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wu, J.; Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, W.-P. A novel modified method for the efficient removal of Pb and Cd from wastewater by biochar: Enhanced the ion exchange and precipitation capacity. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Maharana, M.; Manna, M.; Sardar, M.; Sen, S. Heavy Metal Removal by Low-Cost Adsorbents. In Green Adsorbents to Remove Metals, Dyes and Boron from Polluted Water; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 245–272. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mzinyane, N.N.; Mnqiwu, K.M.; Moukangoe, K.M. Adsorption of Hexavalent Chromium Ions Using Pine Sawdust Cellulose Fibres. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yazid, H.; Bouzid, T.; El mouchtari, E.m.; Bahsis, L.; El Himri, M.; Rafqah, S.; El haddad, M. Insights into the Adsorption of Cr(VI) on Activated Carbon Prepared from Walnut Shells: Combining Response Surface Methodology with Computational Calculation. Clean Technol. 2024, 6, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, W.; Lei, G.; Quan, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, B.; Hu, H.; Li, L.; Ma, H.; Yin, C.; Feng, F.; et al. The Removal of Cr(VI) from Aqueous Solutions with Corn Stalk Biochar. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lu, Y.C.; Kooh, M.R.R.; Lim, L.B.L.; Priyantha, N. Effective and simple NaOH-modification method to remove methyl violet dye via Ipomoea aquatica roots. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2021, 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zaidi Mohamad, N.A.H.; Sallehuddin, F.N.; Lim, L.B.L.; Kooh, M.R.R. Surface modification of Artocarpus odoratissimus leaves using NaOH, SDS and EDTA to enhance adsorption of toxic crystal violet dye. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2023, 103, 1836–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al-Homaidan, A.A.; Al-Qahtani, H.S.; Al-Ghanayem, A.A.; Ameen, F.; Ibraheem, I.B.M. Potential Use of Green Algae as a Biosorbent for Hexavalent chromium Removal from Aqueous Solutions. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 1733–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Amel, K.; Hassena, M.A.; Kerroum, D. Isotherm and Kinetics Study of Biosorption of Cationic Dye onto Banana Peel. Energy Procedia 2012, 19, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khalfaoui, A.; Meniai, A.H. Application of Chemically Modified Orange Peels for Removal of Copper (II) from Aqueous Solutions. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 2012, 46, 732–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khalfaoui, A.; Bendjamaa, I.; Bensid, T.; Meniai, A.H.; Derbal, K. Effect of Calcination on Orange Peels Characteristics: Application of an Industrial Dye Adsorption. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 38, 361–366. [Google Scholar]
  41. Khalil, U.; Shakoor, M.B.; Ali, S.; Ahmad, S.R.; Rizwan, M.; Alsahli, A.A.; Alyemeni, M.N. Selective removal of Hexavalent chromium from wastewater by rice husk: Kinetic, isotherm and spectroscopic investigation. Water 2021, 13, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Popoola, L.T. Parameter Influence, Characterization and Adsorption Mechanism Studies of Alkaline-Hydrolyzed Garcinia kola Hull Particles for Hexavalent chromium Sequestration. Environ. Health Insights 2024, 18, 11786302231215667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. NIOSH. Criteria for a Recommended Standard Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2013-128; Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2014.
  44. Hessel, E.V.; Staal, Y.C.; Piersma, A.H.; den Braver-Sewradj, S.P.; Ezendam, J. Occupational exposure to Hexavalent chromium. Part I. Hazard assessment of non-cancer health effects. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 126, 105048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jacobs, J.A.; Testa, S.M. Chromium (VI) Handbook; Guertin, J., Jacobs, J.A., Avakian, C.P., Eds.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  46. Saha, R.; Nandi, R.; Saha, B. Sources and toxicity of Hexavalent chromium. J. Coord. Chem. 2011, 64, 1782–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roberts, B.A.; Proctor, J. (Eds.) The Ecology of Areas with Serpentinized Rocks; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  48. Alloway, B.J. Heavy metals in soils, trace metals and metalloids in soils and their bioavailability. In Environmental Pollution, 3rd ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 22. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nriagu, J.O.; Pacyna, J.M. Quantitative quantification of worldwide contamination of air, water and soils by trace metals. Nature 1988, 333, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2012 Toxicological Profile for Chromium. U.S. Department of Health, and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2022).
  51. World Health Organization. Chromium (Environmental Health Criteria 61); International Programme on Chemical Safety: Geneva, Switzerland, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  52. Klein, L.A.; Lang, M.; Nash, N.; Kirscher, S.L. Sources of metals in New York City wastewater. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1974, 46, 2653–2662. [Google Scholar]
  53. Suruchi, S.; Khanna, P.K. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in different vegetables grown in and around urban areas. Res. J. Environ. Toxicol. 2011, 5, 162–179. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fagliano, J.A.; Savrin, J.; Udasin, I.; Gochfeld, M. Community exposure and medical screening near chromium waste sites in New Jersey. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1997, 26 Pt 2, S13–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. DesMarais, T.L.; Costa, M. Mechanisms of chromium-induced toxicity. Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 2019, 14, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singh, D.; Sharma, N.L.; Singh, C.K.; Sarkar, S.K.; Singh, I.; Dotaniya, M.L. Effect of chromium (VI) toxicity on morpho-physiological characteristics, yield, and yield components of two chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Venitt, S.; Levy, L.S. Mutagenicity of chromates in bacteria and its relevance to chromate carcinogenesis. Nature 1974, 250, 493–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nishioka, H. Mutagenic activities of metal compounds in bacteria. Mut. Res. 1975, 31, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pellerin, C.; Booker, S.M. Reflections on Hexavalent chromium: Health hazards of an industrial heavy weight. Environ. Health 2000, 108, A402–A407. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shekhawat, K.; Chatterjee, S.; Joshi, B. Chromium toxicity and its health hazards. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2015, 3, 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yang, W.; Song, W.; Li, J.; Zhang, X. Bioleaching of heavy metals from wastewater sludge with the aim of land application. Chemosphere 2020, 249, 126134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nigam, H.; Das, M.; Chauhan, S.; Pandey, P.; Swati, P.; Yadav, M.; Tiwari, A. Effect of chromium generated by solid waste of tannery and microbial degradation of chromium to reduce its toxicity: A review. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 2015, 6, 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vendruscolo, F.; da Rocha Ferreira, G.L.; Antoniosi Filho, N.R. Biosorption of Hexavalent chromium by microorganisms. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 119, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sharma, P.; Singh, S.P.; Parakh, S.K.; Tong, Y.W. Health hazards of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) and its microbial reduction. Bioengineered 2022, 13, 4923–4938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Deng, Y.; Wang, M.; Tian, T.; Lin, S.; Xu, P.; Zhou, L.; Dai, C.; Hao, Q.; Wu, Y.; Zhai, Z.; et al. The effect of Hexavalent chromium on the incidence and mortality of human cancers: A meta-analysis based on published epidemiological cohort studies. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Zhitkovich, A. Chromium in drinking water: Sources, metabolism, and cancer risks. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2011, 24, 1617–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Straif, K.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Baan, R.; Grosse, Y.; Secretan, B.; El Ghissassi, F.; Cogliano, V. A review of human carcinogens—Part C: Metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10, 453–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Loomis, D.; Guha, N.; Hall, A.L.; Straif, K. Identifying occupational carcinogens: An update from the IARC Monographs. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 75, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Welling, R.; Beaumont, J.J.; Petersen, S.J.; Alexeeff, G.V.; Steinmaus, C. Chromium VI and stomach cancer: A meta-analysis of the current epidemiological evidence. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 72, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hara, T.; Hoshuyama, T.; Takahashi, K.; Delgermaa, V.; Sorahan, T. Cancer risk among Japanese chromium platers, 1976–2003. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2010, 36, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, W.J.; Yang, C.L.; Chow, K.C.; Kuo, T.W. Hexavalent chromium induces expression of mesenchymal and stem cell markers in renal epithelial cells. Mol. Carcinog. 2016, 55, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shmitova, L.A. The course of pregnancy in women engaged in the production of chromium and its compounds. Sverdlovsk 1978, 19, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
  73. Shmitova, L.A. Content of hexavalent chromium in the biological substrates of pregnant women and puerperae engaged in the manufacture of chromium compounds. Gigienatrudaiprofessional’nyezabolevaniia 1980, 2, 33–35. [Google Scholar]
  74. Chandra, P.; Kulshreshtha, K. Chromium accumulation and toxicity in aquatic vascular plants. Bot. Rev. 2004, 70, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shanker, A.K.; Cervantes, C.; Loza-Tavera, H.; Avudainayagam, S. Chromium toxicity in plants. Environ. Int. 2005, 31, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ali, S.; Bharwana, S.A.; Rizwan, M.; Farid, M.; Kanwal, S.; Ali, Q.; Khan, M.D. Fulvic acid mediates chromium (Cr) tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through lowering of Cr uptake and improved antioxidant defense system. Environ. Sci. Pol. Res. 2015, 22, 10601–10609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. López-Luna, J.; González-Chávez, M.C.; Esparza-Garcia, F.J.; Rodríguez-Vázquez, R. Toxicity assessment of soil amended with tannery sludge, trivalent chromium and Hexavalent chromium, using wheat, oat and sorghum plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 163, 829–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stambulska, U.Y.; Bayliak, M.M.; Lushchak, V.I. Chromium (VI) toxicity in legume plants: Modulation effects of rhizobial symbiosis. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 8031212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Guo, S.; Xiao, C.; Zhou, N.; Chi, R. Speciation, toxicity, microbial remediation and phytoremediation of soil chromium contamination. Environ. Chem. Let. 2021, 19, 1413–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mohanty, S.; Benya, A.; Hota, S.; Kumar, M.S.; Singh, S. Eco-toxicity of Hexavalent chromium and its adverse impact on environment and human health in Sukinda Valley of India: A review on pollution and prevention strategies. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2023, 5, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chen, P.; Zhu, Y.; Wan, H.; Wang, Y.; Hao, P.; Cheng, Z.; Liu, J. Effects of the oral administration of K2Cr2O7 and Na2SeO3 on Ca, mg, Mn, Fe, cu, and Zn contents in the heart, liver, spleen, and kidney of chickens. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2017, 180, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wan, H.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, P.; Wang, Y.; Hao, P.; Cheng, Z.; Liu, J. Effect of various selenium doses on chromium (IV)-induced nephrotoxicity in a male chicken model. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, Z.; Cao, H.; Song, N.; Zhang, L.; Cao, Y.; Tai, J. Long-term Hexavalent chromium exposure facilitates colorectal cancer in mice associated with changes in gut microbiota composition. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 138, 111237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Li, A.; Ding, J.; Shen, T.; Han, Z.; Zhang, J.; Abadeen, Z.U.; Li, K. Environmental Hexavalent chromium exposure induces gut microbial dysbiosis in chickens. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 227, 112871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yu, Z.; Xu, S.F.; Zhao, J.L.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, A.Z.; Li, M.Y. Toxic effects of Hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) on bioaccumulation, apoptosis, oxidative damage and inflammatory response in Channa asiatica. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 87, 103725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Suljević, D.; Sulejmanović, J.; Fočak, M.; Halilović, E.; Pupalović, D.; Hasić, A.; Alijagic, A. Assessing Hexavalent chromium tissue-specific accumulation patterns and induced physiological responses to probe chromium toxicity in Coturnix japonica quail. Chemosphere 2021, 266, 129005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Sheik, C.S.; Mitchell, T.W.; Rizvi, F.Z.; Rehman, Y.; Faisal, M.; Hasnain, S.; Krumholz, L.R. Exposure of soil microbial communities to chromium and arsenic alters their diversity and structure. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Yan, G.; Gao, Y.; Xue, K.; Qi, Y.; Fan, Y.; Tian, X.; Liu, J. Toxicity mechanisms and remediation strategies for chromium exposure in the environment. Front. Environ. Sci. 2013, 11, 1131204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sun, Y.; Jin, J.; Li, W.; Zhang, S.; Wang, F. Hexavalent chromium removal by a resistant strain Bacillus cereus ZY-2009. Environ. Technol. 2023, 44, 1926–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ye, Y.; Hao, R.; Shan, B.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Lu, A. Mechanism of Cr(VI) removal by efficient Cr(VI)-resistant Bacillus mobilis CR3. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 40, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. Sensitivity of Zea mays and Soil Microorganisms to the Toxic Effect of Chromium (VI). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kang, C.; Wu, P.; Li, Y.; Ruan, B.; Zhu, N.; Dang, Z. Estimates of heavy metal tolerance and chromium(VI) reducing ability of Pseudomonas aeruginosa CCTCC AB93066: Chromium(VI) toxicity and environmental parameters optimization. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 30, 2733–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Pakade, V.E.; Tavengwa, N.T.; Madikizela, L.M. Recent advances in Hexavalent chromium removal from aqueous solutions by adsorptive methods. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 26142–26164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Rzig, B.; Guesmi, F.; Sillanpää, M.; Hamrouni, B. Modelling and optimization of Hexavalent chromium removal from aqueous solution by adsorption on low-cost agricultural waste biomass using response surface methodological approach. Water Sci. Technol. 2021, 84, 552–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Padam, B.S.; Tin, H.S.; Chye, F.Y.; Abdullah, M.I. Banana by-products: An under-utilized renewable food biomass with great potential. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 3527–3545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Yaashikaa, P.R.; Karishma, S.; Jeevanantham, S.; Swetha, S. Mixed biosorbent of agro waste and bacterial biomass for the separation of Pb (II) ions from water system. Chemosphere 2021, 277, 130236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 16, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Isikgor, F.H.; Becer, C.R. Lignocellulosic biomass: A sustainable platform for the production of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polym. Chem. 2015, 6, 4497–4559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Othmani, A.; Magdouli, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Kapoor, A.; Chellam, P.V.; Gökkuş, Ö. Agricultural waste materials for adsorptive removal of phenols, chromium (VI) and cadmium (II) from wastewater: A review. Environ. Res. 2022, 204, 111916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Itankar, N.; Patil, Y. Employing waste to manage waste: Utilizing waste biomaterials for the elimination of hazardous contaminant [Hexavalent chromium] from aqueous matrices. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2021, 239, 103775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Adelagun, R.O.A.; Etim, E.E.; Ushie, O.A.; Kamba, A.E.; Aikhoje, E.F. Biosorptive removal of hexavalent chromium by rice husk ash and silica from aqueous solution. Chem. Mate. Res. 2021, 13, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  102. Ogata, F.; Nagai, N.; Itami, R.; Nakamura, T.; Kawasaki, N. Potential of virgin and calcined wheat bran biomass for the removal of chromium (VI) ion from a synthetic aqueous solution. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yadav, A.K.; Singh, S.; Sen, R.; Jha, P.; Tungare, K.; Bhori, M.; Jobby, R. Biosorption and bioreduction of Hexavalent chromium by rice husk and toxicity analysis on zebrafish embryos. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  104. Kumar, H.; Bhardwaj, K.; Sharma, R.; Nepovimova, E.; Kuča, K.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Kumar, D. Fruit and vegetable peels: Utilization of high value horticultural waste in novel industrial applications. Molecules 2020, 25, 2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tie, J.; Zhang, M.; Shen, C.; Liu, H.; Du, C. Preparation of Ce/ferroferric oxide/food waste-derived biochar for aqueous Hexavalent chromium adsorption. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2023, 98, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wang, Q.; Zhou, C.; Kuang, Y.J.; Jiang, Z.H.; Yang, M. Removal of Hexavalent chromium in aquatic solutions by pomelo peel. Water Sci. Eng. 2020, 13, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sahlabji, T.; El-Nemr, M.A.; Nemr, A.E.; Ragab, S.; Alghamdi, M.M.; El-Zahhar, A.A.; Said, T.O. High surface area microporous activated carbon from Pisum sativum peels for Hexavalent chromium removal from aquatic environment. Toxin Rev. 2022, 41, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chen, Y.; Yang, J.; Abbas, A. Enhanced Chromium (VI) Adsorption onto Waste Pomegranate-Peel-Derived Biochar for Wastewater Treatment: Performance and Mechanism. Toxics 2023, 11, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ahmaruzzaman, M. Industrial wastes as low-cost potential adsorbents for the treatment of wastewater laden with heavy metals. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 166, 36–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Zafu, B.G. Magnetically Recyclable Activated Carbon Prepared from Brewer’s Spent Grain for Hexavalent Chromium Remediation. Doctoral Dissertation, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  111. Geremias, R.; Pelissari, C.; Libardi, N.; Carpiné, D.; Ribani, R.H. Chromium adsorption studies using brewer’s spent grain biochar: Kinetics, isotherm and thermodynamics. Ciência Rural 2023, 53, e20210914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vendruscolo, F.; Reis, C.L.F.D.S.E.; Silva, J.G. Brewery spent grain: A potential biosorbent for Hexavalent chromium. J. Inst. Brew. 2021, 127, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhou, X.; Xu, D.; Yang, J.; Yan, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhong, B.; Wang, X. Treatment of distiller grain with wet-process phosphoric acid leads to biochar for the sustained release of nutrients and adsorption of Hexavalent chromium. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 441, 129949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Volesky, B. Detoxification of metal-bearing effluents: Biosorption for the next century. Hydrometallurgy 2001, 59, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Park, D.; Lim, S.R.; Yun, Y.S.; Park, J.M. Development of a new Hexavalent chromium-biosorbent from agricultural biowaste. Biores. Technol. 2008, 99, 8810–8818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Vaghetti, J.C.; Lima, E.C.; Royer, B.; Brasil, J.L.; da Cunha, B.M.; Simon, N.M.; Noreña, C.P.Z. Application of Brazilian-pine fruit coat as a biosorbent to removal of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution—Kinetics and equilibrium study. Biochem. Eng. J. 2008, 42, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Santos, F.A.; Idrees, M.; Silva, M.; de Lima, P.H.E.; Bueno, N.; Nome, F.; Pires, M. Cr (III) biosorption by forest wastes from Araucaria angustifolia and Pinus elliottii: Biosorbent surface characterization and chromium quantification by spectrofluorimetry in micellar medium. Desalination Water Treat. 2013, 51, 5617–5626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Santos, F.A.; Alban, L.; Frankenberg, C.L.C.; Pires, M. Characterization and use of biosorbents prepared from forestry waste and their washed extracts to reduce/remove chromium. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Barbosa, R.F.D.S.; Zanini, N.C.; Mulinari, D.R.; Rosa, D.D.S. Hexavalent chromium sorption by modified cellulose macro and nanofibers obtained from eucalyptus residues. J. Pol. Environ. 2020, 30, 3852–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yang, H.; Kim, N.; Park, D. Superior removal of toxic hexavalent chromium from wastewaters by natural pine bark. Separations 2023, 10, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Baassou, Z.; Benmahdi, F.; Reffas, A.; Benhaya, A. The effect of impregnation ratio and surface modification on the characteristics and performance of activated carbon derived from Ficus carica leaves for Hexavalent chromium removal. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Assefa, H.; Singh, S.; Olu, F.E.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Mani, D.; Khan, N.A.; Singh, J.; Ramamurthy, P.C. Advances in Adsorption Technologies for Hexavalent Chromium Removal: Mechanisms, Materials, and Optimization Strategies. Desalination Water Treat. 2024, 319, 100576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Njoya, O.; Zhao, S.; Kong, X.; Shen, J.; Kang, J.; Wang, B.; Chen, Z. Efficiency and Potential Mechanism of Complete Cr (VI) Removal in the Presence of Oxalate by Catalytic Reduction Coupled with Membrane Filtration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 275, 118915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Xie, H.; Wan, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiong, G.; Wang, L.; Xu, Q.; Li, X.; Zhou, Q. Cr (VI) Adsorption from Aqueous Solution by UiO-66 Modified Corncob. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Leng, L.; Xiong, Q.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, S.; Li, H.; Huang, H. An Overview on Engineering the Surface Area and Porosity of Biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 763, 144204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Chen, Z.; Pan, K. Enhanced Removal of Cr (VI) via in-Situ Synergistic Reduction and Fixation by Polypyrrole/Sugarcane Bagasse Composites. Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Reddi, M.G.; Gomathi, T.; Saranya, M.; Sudha, P.N. Adsorption and kinetic studies on the removal of chromium and copper onto Chitosan-g-maliec anhydride-g-ethylene dimethacrylate. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 104, 1578–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bansal, M.; Garg, R.; Garg, V.K.; Garg, R.; Singh, D. Sequestration of heavy metal ions from multi-metal simulated wastewater systems using processed agricultural biomass. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 133966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jeyaseelan, C.; Gupta, A. Green tea leaves as a natural adsorbent for the removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions. Air Soil. Water Res. 2016, 9, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Fseha, Y.H.; Eniola, J.O.; Sizirici, B.; Stephen, S.; Yildiz, I.; Khaleel, A.; Adamson, A. Application of Natural Earth-Based Materials as Adsorbents for the Treatment of Chromium (VI)-Contaminated Tannery Wastewater: Box-Behnken and Fixed-Bed Column Optimization. Sustain. Chem. Environ. 2024, 7, 100127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bedia, J.; Peñas-Garzón, M.; Gómez-Avilés, A.; Rodriguez, J.J.; Belver, C. A Review on the Synthesis and Characterization of Biomass-Derived Carbons for Adsorption of Emerging Contaminants from Water. C 2018, 4, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Erwa, I.Y.; Ibrahim, A.A. Removal of Chromium (VI) Ions from Aqueous Solution Using Wood Sawdust as Adsorbent. J. Nat. Med. Sci. 2016, 17, 112. [Google Scholar]
  133. Chung, H.K.; Kim, W.H.; Park, J.; Cho, J.; Jeong, T.Y.; Park, P.K. Application of Langmuir and Freundlich Isotherms to Predict Adsorbate Removal Efficiency or Required Amount of Adsorbent. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 28, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ahmed, I.; Attar, S.J.; Parande, M.G. Removal of Hexavalent chromium (Hexavalent chromium) from Industrial Wastewater by Using Biomass Adsorbent (Rice Husk Carbone). Int. J. Adv. Eng. Stud. 2012, 1, 92–94. [Google Scholar]
  135. Park, D.; Yun, Y.S.; Ahn, C.K.; Park, J.M. Kinetics of the reduction of Hexavalent chromium with the brown seaweed Ecklonia biomass. Chemosphere 2007, 66, 939–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Khalil, U.; Shakoor, M.B.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M. Tea Waste as a Potential Biowaste for Removal of Hexavalent chromium from Wastewater: Equilibrium and kinetic studies. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Villabona-Ortíz, A.; Tejada-Tovar, C.; González-Delgado, Á.D. Statistical Modelling of Biosorptive Removal of Hexavalent chromium Using Dry Raw Biomasses of Dioscorea rotundata, Elaeisguineensis, Manihot esculenta, Theobroma cacao and Zea mays. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Verma, R.; Maji, P.K.; Sarkar, S. Comprehensive investigation of the mechanism for Hexavalent chromium removal from contaminated water using coconut husk as a biosorbent. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 128117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Khalfaoui, A.; Benalia, A.; Selama, Z.; Hammoud, A.; Derbal, K.; Panico, A.; Pizzi, A. Removal of Chromium (VI) from Water Using Orange peel as the Biosorbent: Experimental, Modeling, and Kinetic Studies on Adsorption Isotherms and Chemical Structure. Water 2024, 16, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mondal, N.K.; Basu, S.; Sen, K.; Debnath, P. Potentiality of mosambi (Citrus limetta) peel dust toward removal of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution: An optimization study. Appl. Water Sci. 2019, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kant, M.; Yadav, A.; Rawat, S.; Singh, J.; Sen, M. Optimization by the full factorial method for the removal of Hexavalent chromium using maize cob husk. React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 2024, 137, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Gning, A.S.; Gaye, C.; Kama, A.B.; Diaw, P.A.; Thiare, D.D.; Fall, M. Hexavalent chromium Hexavalent chromium Removal from Water by Mango Kernel Powder. J. Mat. Sci. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 84–103. [Google Scholar]
  143. Kukić, D.; Ivanovska, A.; Vasić, V.; Lađarević, J.; Kostić, M.; Šćiban, M. The overlooked potential of raspberry canes: From waste to an efficient low-cost biosorbent for Hexavalent chromium ions. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2024, 14, 4605–4619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Mancilla, H.B.; Cerrón, M.R.; Aroni, P.G.; Paucar, J.E.P.; Tovar, C.T.; Jindal, M.K.; Gowrisankar, G. Effective removal of Hexavalent chromium ions using low-cost biomass leaves (Sambucus nigra L.) in aqueous solution. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2023, 30, 106982–106995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Sangeetha, A.; Rabitha, R.; Sivasree, B.; Nivedha, B.; Stanlin, J.S.; Arun, C.; Shanmugam, K.; Balakumar, P. Adsorbent potential of the leaf powder of Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.(jackfruit) in efficiently removing hexavalent chromium from landfill leachate. Global NEST J. 2023, 25, 88–96. [Google Scholar]
  146. Badessa, T.S.; Wakuma, E.; Yimer, A.M. Bio-sorption for effective removal of chromium (VI) from wastewater using Moringa stenopetala seed powder (MSSP) and banana peel powder (BPP). BMC Chem. 2020, 14, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Rambabu, K.; Bharath, G.; Banat, F.; Show, P.L. Biosorption performance of date palm empty fruit bunch wastes for toxic Hexavalent chromium removal. Environ. Res. 2020, 187, 109694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mondal, N.K.; Samanta, A.; Roy, P.; Das, B. Optimization study of adsorption parameters for removal of hexavalent chromium using Magnolia leaf biomass by response surface methodology. Sust. Water Res. Manag. 2019, 5, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar]
  149. Hariharan, A.; Harini, V.; Sandhya, S.; Rangabhashiyam, S. Waste Musa acuminata residue as a potential biosorbent for the removal of Hexavalent chromium from synthetic wastewater. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Suganya, E.; Saranya, N.; Patra, C.; Varghese, L.A.; Selvaraju, N. Biosorption potential of Gliricidia sepium leaf powder to sequester Hexavalent chromium from synthetic aqueous solution. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 103112. [Google Scholar]
  151. Dawodu, F.A.; Akpan, B.M.; Akpomie, K.G. Sequestered capture and desorption of Hexavalent chromium from solution and textile wastewater onto low cost Heinsia crinita seed coat biomass. Appl. Water Sci. 2020, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Loulidi, I.; Boukhlifi, F.; Ouchabi, M.; Amar, A.; Jabri, M.; Kali, A.; Hadey, C. Assessment of untreated coffee wastes for the removal of chromium (VI) from aqueous medium. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Diaf, R.; Bendjeffal, H.; Metidji, T.; Ali Ahmed, A.; Mamine, H.; Berredjem, Y.; Hattab, Z. A chemometric strategy based on a Box–Behnken design to optimize the removal of hexavalent chromium from water using pomegranate peels as an eco-friendly adsorbent. React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 2023, 136, 2667–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hernández, G.M.L.; Romero, D.M.L. Removal of Hexavalent chromium in contaminated water using banana peel (Paradisiac musea) as adsorbent. Revista 2020, 8, 168–178. [Google Scholar]
  155. Šoštarić, T.D.; Petrović, M.S.; Pastor, F.T.; Lončarević, D.R.; Petrović, J.T.; Milojković, J.V.; Stojanović, M.D. Study of heavy metals biosorption on native and alkali-treated apricot shells and its application in wastewater treatment. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 259, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Lu, L.; Yu, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, K.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, B. Application of biochar-based materials in environmental remediation: From multi-level structures to specific devices. Biochar 2020, 2, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Inyang, M.I.; Gao, B.; Yao, Y.; Xue, Y.; Zimmerman, A.; Mosa, A.; Pullammanappallil, P.; Ok, Y.S.; Cao, X. A review of biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy metal removal. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 406–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Jacob, M.M.; Ponnuchamy, M.; Kapoor, A.; Sivaraman, P. Bagasse based biochar for the adsorptive removal of chlorpyrifos from contaminated water. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2010, 8, 103904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Guo, X.; Liu, A.; Lu, J.; Niu, X.; Jiang, M.; Ma, Y.; Li, M. Adsorption mechanism of hexavalent chromium on biochar: Kinetic, thermodynamic, and characterization studies. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 27323–27331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Kumar, A.; Jena, H.M. Adsorption of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution by prepared high surface area activated carbon from Fox nutshell by chemical activation with H3PO4. J.Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2032–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ramirez, A.; Ocampo, R.; Giraldo, S.; Padilla, E.; Flórez, E.; Acelas, N. Removal of Hexavalent chromium from an aqueous solution using an activated carbon obtained from teakwood sawdust: Kinetics, equilibrium, and density functional theory calculations. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zhao, J.; Yu, L.; Ma, H.; Zhou, F.; Yang, K.; Wu, G. Corn stalk-based activated carbon synthesized by a novel activation method for high-performance adsorption of hexavalent chromium in aqueous solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020, 578, 650–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chen, S.; Tang, S.; Sun, Y.; Wang, G.; Chen, H.; Yu, X.; Su, Y.; Chen, G. Preparation of a highly porous carbon material based on quinoa husk and its application for removal of dyes by adsorption. Materials 2018, 11, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Cao, Y.; Wang, K.; Wang, X.; Gu, Z.; Fan, Q.; Gibbons, W.; Hoefelmeyer, J.D.; Kharel, P.R.; Shrestha, M. Hierarchical porous activated carbon for supercapacitor derived from corn stalk core by potassium hydroxide activation. Electrochim. Acta 2016, 212, 839–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Gupta, V.K.; Shrivastava, A.K.; Jain, N. Biosorption of chromium (VI) from aqueous solutions by green algae Spirogyra species. Water Res. 2001, 35, 4079–4085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ucun, H.; Bayhan, Y.K.; Kaya, Y.; Cakici, A.; Algur, O.F. Biosorption of chromium (VI) from aqueous solution by cone biomass of Pinus sylvestris. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 85, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Zou, C.; Xu, Z.; Nie, F.; Guan, K.; Li, J. Application of hydroxyapatite-modified carbonized rice husk for the adsorption of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution. J. Mol. Liq. 2023, 371, 121137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kandasamy, S.; Meenachi, S.; Kr, S.K.; Thamaraikannan, V. Removal of chromium from tannery wastewater by rice husk ash nanosilica. Appl. Res. 2023, 2, e202200093. [Google Scholar]
  169. Huang, Z.; Campbell, R.; Mangwandi, C. Kinetics and Thermodynamics Study on Removal of Hexavalent chromium from Aqueous Solutions Using Acid-Modified Banana Peel (ABP) Adsorbents. Molecules 2024, 29, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Li, H.; Cao, W.; Qian, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Fu, M. Removal of Hexavalent chromium from Water by Using Schwertmannite-Loaded Lignocellulose Beads from Sugarcane Bagasse. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2024, 41, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Tan, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhan, L.; Yang, H.; Gong, Y. Removal of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution using ball mill modified biochar: Multivariate modeling, optimization and experimental study. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 4853. [Google Scholar]
  172. El-Gawad, H.A.; Kadry, G.; Zahran, H.A.; Hussein, M.H. Chromium disarmament from veritable tanneries sewer water utilizing carbonic rice straw as a sorbent: Optimization and carbonic rice straw characteristics. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ameha, B.; Nadew, T.T.; Tedla, T.S.; Getye, B.; Mengie, D.A.; Ayalneh, S. The use of banana peel as a low-cost adsorption material for removing hexavalent chromium from tannery wastewater: Optimization, kinetic and isotherm study, and regeneration aspects. RSC Adv. 2024, 14, 3675–3690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Areti, H.A.; Jabesa, A.; Daba, B.J.; Jibril, D. Response surface method based parametric optimization of hexavalent chromium removal from tannery wastewater using a mixed banana peel and corn cob activated carbon: Kinetic and isotherm modeling studies. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 59, 104977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Acharya, C.; Mohapatra, R.K.; Sasmal, A.; Panda, C.R.; Thatoi, H. Effective remediation of Hexavalent chromium using coconut coir-derived porous biochar: Application of kinetics and isotherm approaches. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 21, 7249–7268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Garg, R.; Garg, R.; Sillanpää, M.; Alimuddin; Khan, M.A.; Mubarak, N.M.; Tan, Y.H. Rapid adsorptive removal of chromium from wastewater using walnut-derived biosorbents. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 6859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Homagai, P.L.; Bardewa, M.; Subedee, A.; Oli, H.B.; Shrestha, R.L.; Bhattarai, D.P. Biosorption of hexavalent chromium (Hexavalent chromium) from contaminated water using charred tea waste. Bibechana 2023, 20, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Bista, D.; Joshi, P.; Chand, P. Adsorptive removal of Hexavalent chromium onto Xanthated tea waste from aqueous solution. Sci. Rep. Life Sci. 2023, 4, 44–68. [Google Scholar]
  179. Senthil Rajan, M.; Ramesh Kumar, G.; Vivek, S.; Gokulan, R.; Balaji, G. Biosorption of chromium (VI+) using tamarind fruit shells in continuously mixed batch reactor. Global NEST J. 2023, 25, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Ghorbani, F.; Kamari, S.; Zamani, S.; Akbari, S.; Salehi, M. Optimization and modeling of aqueous hexavalent chromium adsorption onto activated carbon prepared from sugar beet bagasse agricultural waste by application of response surface methodology. Surf. Interfaces 2020, 18, 100444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Gamboa, V.S.; Benvenutti, E.V.; Kinast, É.J.; Pires, M.; Gasparin, F.P.; Ries, L.A.D.S. Efficient removal of chromium (VI) from dilute aqueous solutions using agro-industrial residue based on parboiled-rice husk ash. Chem. Eng. Commu. 2022, 209, 1096–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Thangagiri, B.; Sakthivel, A.; Jeyasubramanian, K.; Seenivasan, S.; Raja, J.D.; Yun, K. Removal of hexavalent chromium by biochar derived from Azadirachta indica leaves: Batch and column studies. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Sahmoune, M.N.; Louhab, K.; Boukhiar, A. Advanced biosorbents materials for removal of chromium from water and wastewaters. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2011, 30, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Aoyama, M. Removal of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution by London plane leaves. J. Chem. Technol. Biotech Int. Res. Process Environ. Clean Technol. 2003, 78, 601–604. [Google Scholar]
  185. Khan, I.; Ali, A.; Naz, A.; Baig, Z.T.; Shah, W.; Rahman, Z.U.; Shah, T.A.; Attia, K.A.; Mohammed, A.A.; Hafez, Y.M. Removal of Cr (VI) from wastewater using acrylonitrile grafted cellulose extracted from sugarcane bagasse. Molecules 2024, 29, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Sallau, A.B.; Aliyu, S.; Ukuwa, S. Biosorption of chromium (VI) from aqueous solution by corn cob powder. Int. J. Environ. Bioenergy 2012, 4, 131–140. [Google Scholar]
  187. Fontecha-Cámara, M.A.; López-Ramón, M.V.; Álvarez-Merino, M.A.; Moreno-Castilla, C. About the endothermic nature of the adsorption of the herbicide diuron from aqueous solutions on activated carbon fiber. Carbon 2006, 44, 2335–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Niam, A.C.; Fenelon, E.; Ningsih, E.; Mirzayanti, Y.W.; Kristanti, E. High-efficiency adsorption of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solution by Samanea saman activated carbon. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2022, 2022, 8960379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Srividya, K.; Mohanty, K. Biosorption of Hexavalent chromium from aqueous solutions by Catla catla scales: Equilibrium and kinetics studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 155, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Pant, B.D.; Neupane, D.; Paudel, D.R.; Lohani, P.C.; Gautam, S.K.; Pokhrel, M.R.; Poudel, B.R. Efficient biosorption of hexavalent chromium from water by modified arecanut leaf sheath. Heliyon 2002, 8, e09283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Kabir, M.M.; Akter, M.M.; Khandaker, S.; Gilroyed, B.H.; Didar-ul-Alam, M.; Hakim, M.; Awual, M.R. Highly effective agro-waste based functional green adsorbents for toxic chromium (vi) ion removal from wastewater. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 347, 118327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Irshad, M.A.; Sattar, S.; Nawaz, R.; Al-Hussain, S.A.; Rizwan, M.; Bukhari, A.; Waseem, M.; Irfan, A.; Inam, A.; Zaki, M.E.A. Enhancing chromium removal and recovery from industrial wastewater using sustainable and efficient nanomaterial: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 263, 115231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Venkatraman, Y.; Arunkumar, P.; Kumar, N.S.; Osman, A.I.; Muthiah, M.; Al-Fatesh, A.S.; Koduru, J.R. Exploring modified rice straw biochar as a sustainable solution for simultaneous Cr(VI) and Pb(II) removal from wastewater: Characterization, mechanism insights, and application feasibility. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 38130–38147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Toxics 12 00657 g001
Figure 1. Toxicity of Cr(VI) in humans.
Figure 1. Toxicity of Cr(VI) in humans.
Toxics 12 00657 g001
Toxics 12 00657 g002
Figure 2. Sources and types of waste materials biomass.
Figure 2. Sources and types of waste materials biomass.
Toxics 12 00657 g002
Toxics 12 00657 g003
Figure 3. Remediation Cr(VI) using unmodified waste biomass.
Figure 3. Remediation Cr(VI) using unmodified waste biomass.
Toxics 12 00657 g003
Toxics 12 00657 g004
Figure 4. Adsorption of Cr(VI) using modified waste material biomass.
Figure 4. Adsorption of Cr(VI) using modified waste material biomass.
Toxics 12 00657 g004
Table 1. Strategy for the remediation of Cr(VI) by waste material biomass.
Table 1. Strategy for the remediation of Cr(VI) by waste material biomass.
S. No.Waste
Material Biomass		Additional Treatment Experimental ConditionsAdsorption Capacity (mg/g)Removal Efficiency (%)References
1.Maize cobMaize cob powderedBatch experiment
Adsorbent dose = 5.0 mg/L		-99.1%[141]
2.Mango kernelMango kernel powderedTemperature = 298 K
Contact time = 30 min		94.8-[142]
3.Raspberry canes-Initial concentration of Cr(VI) = 50 mg/L
pH = 2		-~95%[143]
4.Sambucus nigra leaves (Agroforestry and industrial residue)Ground and sievedAdsorbent dosage = 3 g/L
pH = 2 		-98.2%[144]
5.Rice husk Dried, crushed and sievedpH = 5.2
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 120 mg/L
Time = 2 h		379.678.6%[41]
6.Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.(Jackfruit) leavesDried, crushed and sievedpH = 8, Adsorbent dose = 0.5 g/L, Time = 120 min.0.1995%[145]
7.Moringa stenopetala seed (MSSP) and banana peel (BPP)Dried, ground and sievedContact time = 120 min
Adsorbent dose = 20 g/L
pH = 2 (by MSSP)
pH = 4 (by BPP)		-90.9% by MSSP,
89.6% by BPP		[146]
8.Date palm empty fruit bunchDried, ground and sievedBatch adsorption studies
pH = 2
Adsorbent dose = 0.3 g
Agitation speed = 100 rpm
Contact time = 120 min
Temperature = 30 °C		70.458.0%[147]
9.Magnolia leaf Dried, ground, re-washed, re- dried and sievedpH = 2
Adsorbent dose = 0.5 g
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 40 mg/L
Contact time = 45 min		3.9698.8%[148]
10.Musa acuminata Bract (MAB) Dried, crushed and sievedpH = 2
Adsorbent dose = 0.2 g/L		36.887.6%[149]
11.Gliricidia sepium leafDried, powdered and sievedpH = 2
Contact time = 120 min
Biosorbent dose = 0.3 g
Agitation speed = 100 rpm
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 50 mg/L		-99.9%[150]
12.Heinsia crinite seed coat (HCSC)Dried and powderedpH = 2
Adsorbent dose = 0.25 g
Contact time = 30 min		231.7-[151]
13.Raw spent coffee waste Washed, dried, sievedpH = 4
Contact time = 90 min
Adsorbent dose = 2.5 g/L
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 100 mg/L		42.9-[152]
14.Pomegranate PeelPowderedpH = 1
Adsorbent dosage = 25.74 mg/g
Temperature = 50 °C
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 100 mg/L		25.7100%[153]
15.Banana PeelWashed, dried, ground, sieved_90~100%[154]
Table 2. Effective remediation of Cr(VI) using modified waste biomass.
Table 2. Effective remediation of Cr(VI) using modified waste biomass.
S. No.Waste Material BiomassAdditional Treatment Experimental ConditionsAdsorption Capacity (mg/g)Removal Efficiency (%)References
1.Sugarcane bagasseSchwertmannite
Loaded beads of lignocellulose formed by sugarcane bagasse (~2 mm)		Batch experiment24.6-[170]
2.Garcinia kola hull particles (GK-HP)GK-HP hydrolysed by NaOH and modified pH = 2
Temperature = 40 °C
Adsorbent dosage = 8 g/L
Contact time = 60 min		-96.2%[42]
3.Cauliflower stemPhosphoric acid activated biochar
(PBC-350) of cauliflower stem		Ph = 2
Shaking time = 2 h
Cr(VI) concentration = 200 mg/L		64.1
by PBC-450		92%
by
PBC-350		[19]
4.Wheat straw Ball mill modified
biochar of wheat straw		pH = 2
Temperature = 45 °C		52.2100%[171]
5.Rice strawActivated Carbon Formed from rice strawpH = 3 1.4898.9 %[172]
6.Banana peelBanana peel activated (in furnace)Adsorption time = 92 min
Adsorbent dose = 1.5 g/L
pH = 3
Initial Cr(VI) concentration =
38 mg/L		-94%[173]
7.Banana peel + Corn cobZnCl2 impregnated biochar mixture obtained from banana peel and corn cob pH = 2.05
Time = 34.40 min
Biochar dose = 0.354 g
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 23.02 mg/L		35.898.9%[174]
8.Coconut coirPorous biochar prepared from coconut coirWithin 24 h40.3~90%[175]
9.Walnut shellsNative Walnut shell powder (NWP), Chemically modified with alkali (AWP), Citric acid walnut shell powder (CWP) used Batch adsorption studies
pH = 2		CWP = 75.2 mg/g
AWP = 69.5 mg/g
NWP = 64.8 mg/g		-[176]
10.Tea wasteCharred tea waste (By treatment of concentrated sulphuric acid) into tea wastepH = 2
Time = 120 min		-81.4%[177]
11.Tea wasteTea waste treated with concentrated sulphuric acid give charred tea waste then NaOH, CS2 gave Xanthated tea waste Batch adsorption studies performed
pH = 2
Adsorbent dose = 100 mg/L
Time = 120 min		-95.6%[178]
12.Tamarind fruit shells (TFS)TFS pre-treated with phosphoric acid Experiment in continuously mixed batch reactor (CMBR)
Temperature = 25 °C
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 50 mg/L
Adsorbent dosage = 12 g/L
pH = 2–3		->95%[179]
13.Sugar beet bagasse (SBB)Activated carbon formed from sugar beet bagassepH = 4.05
Adsorbent dosage = 1.49 g/L
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 10.13 mg/L 		-50.5%[180]
14.Rice husk Parboiled Rice husk ash (RHA),
Parboiled rice husk ash chemically treated (RHAH+)		pH = 1
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 5 mg/L
Time = 30 min		-90.9% by RHA,
97.7% by RHAH+		[181]
15.Rice husk By low temperature pyrolysis of rice husk, Amide- modified biochar synthesizedpH = 2
Contact time = 60 min
Adsorbent dosage = 2 g/L
Initial Cr(VI) concentration = 100 mg/L 		-97%[2]
16.Azadirachta indica leavesNeem leaves modified to biochar pH = 258.5 mg/g-[182]
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

Tripathi, M.; Pathak, S.; Singh, R.; Singh, P.; Singh, P.K.; Shukla, A.K.; Maurya, S.; Kaur, S.; Thakur, B. A Comprehensive Review of Lab-Scale Studies on Removing Hexavalent Chromium from Aqueous Solutions by Using Unmodified and Modified Waste Biomass as Adsorbents. Toxics 2024, 12, 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090657

AMA Style

Tripathi M, Pathak S, Singh R, Singh P, Singh PK, Shukla AK, Maurya S, Kaur S, Thakur B. A Comprehensive Review of Lab-Scale Studies on Removing Hexavalent Chromium from Aqueous Solutions by Using Unmodified and Modified Waste Biomass as Adsorbents. Toxics. 2024; 12(9):657. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090657

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tripathi, Manikant, Sukriti Pathak, Ranjan Singh, Pankaj Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, Sadanand Maurya, Sukhminderjit Kaur, and Babita Thakur. 2024. "A Comprehensive Review of Lab-Scale Studies on Removing Hexavalent Chromium from Aqueous Solutions by Using Unmodified and Modified Waste Biomass as Adsorbents" Toxics 12, no. 9: 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090657

APA Style

Tripathi, M., Pathak, S., Singh, R., Singh, P., Singh, P. K., Shukla, A. K., Maurya, S., Kaur, S., & Thakur, B. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of Lab-Scale Studies on Removing Hexavalent Chromium from Aqueous Solutions by Using Unmodified and Modified Waste Biomass as Adsorbents. Toxics, 12(9), 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090657

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