Biosorption for Wastewater Contaminants. Группа авторов

Читать онлайн.
Название Biosorption for Wastewater Contaminants
Автор произведения Группа авторов
Жанр Биология
Серия
Издательство Биология
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9781119737612



Скачать книгу

dental care, paints, and fertilizers, but landfill leachate must also be considered mercury‐containing waste (Hargreaves et al., 2016).

      There are other toxic metal compounds of great concern, such as hexavalent chromium and copper. However, these chemicals were not included in the WHO list due to fewer cases compared to the ones previously mentioned. Many of them are also genotoxic gastrointestinal disruptors and are found in fertilizers and biocide compositions. Consequently, industrial wastewater containing toxic metals must be properly treated in order to not expose humans and other animals to harmful health impacts.

      Toxic heavy metals have been part of human life for quite some time; hence there have been several attempts to find the best method to effectively remove them from industrial wastewater. Conventional methods including chemical, physical, and biological mechanisms have been adopted. For inorganic wastewater, chemical precipitation and ion exchange have been most widely used, but more recent advances have shown promising results using adsorption, electrodialysis, membrane filtration, and photocatalysis (Barakat, 2011). It is noteworthy that biosorption has also shown high efficiency for removing and recovering metals from wastewater, in addition to being a much cleaner and more cost‐effective alternative (Kurniawan et al., 2006; Calderón et al., 2020).

      Taking note of the facts and trends regarding toxic heavy metals, proper management of industrial wastewater must be taken into consideration. Each type of industry brings its own complexity and selected metals due to its manufacturing processes, as well as other constituents that must be treated before effluent discharge.

      Since such substances are used to color solid structures, when disposed in water bodies, they block the penetration of solar rays and reduce photosynthesis activity, which leads to lower dissolved oxygen levels and compromises aquatic life and self‐purification processes. As a result, dye‐containing industrial wastewater requires efficient methods to eliminate this chain of negative impacts throughout ecosystems.

      Dyes can be manufactured from artificial and organic materials. Synthetic dyes are usually derived from petroleum and contain various toxic chemicals. Despite natural dyes being much more biodegradable and environmentally friendly, they must be mixed with a mordant, a kind of binding agent that helps attach dyes to fabrics. According to Katheresan et al. (2018), such binding agents may be more dangerous than synthetic dyes alone.

Schematic illustration of the main industries dealing with dyes.

      Source: Modified from Katheresan et al., 2018.

      In the food industry, dyes are divided into two groups: those that require certification and those that do not. Based on the previous explanation, synthetic dyes such as azo, xanthene, triphenylmethane, and indigoid dyes are subject to a certification process (Barrows et al., 2014) due to their greater risk of toxicity. On the other hand, natural‐based dyes commonly made from plants, insects, or minerals may be exempt from licensing, but their usage still needs concentration limits and attendance to levels of purity. It is worth noting that such licensing practices vary from country to country; hence, deeper understanding is necessary for any individual case. Besides the usual adverse effects listed so far, in rare cases, consuming colored foods may trigger anaphylactic shock that can cause death in minutes if proper treatment is not received, due to hypersensitivity to a dye. Any harmful effect of dye‐containing food may occur due to an individual’s intolerance or overdose of such chemicals when the food was not carefully manufactured.

      There is a lack of complete understanding about the most effective technique for removing dyes from wastewater, and some approaches can generate by‐products of secondary pollution. One of the first methods was an activated sludge process. However, although this biological process is relatively cheap and widely implemented worldwide, it is insufficient to remove such hazardous compounds (Katheresan et al., 2018). Another biological method that has achieved better removal is adsorption in biomass simultaneously with biodegradation by enzymes. Further research must take place since enzyme degradation seems to be a cheaper and safer method for dye wastewater treatment (Katheresan et al., 2018).

      More expensive methods are available to treat dye wastewater using chemical and physical processes. Among the chemical methods are AOP, electrochemical destruction, ozone oxidation, ozone plus ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, etc. Unfortunately, such methods remain unattractive due to their higher investment and operational costs. On the flip side, physical methods are straightforward approaches relying on mass‐transfer phenomena. These methods encompass adsorption, precipitation, cementation, coagulation, filtration, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis. Such technologies also have advantages and disadvantages and must be carefully analyzed before implementation.