The Use of Local Materials To Remove Heavy Metals

Environmental Technology & Innovation 29 (2023) 103005
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti
The use of local materials to remove heavy metals for

household-scale drinking water treatment: A review
∗
Lydia D. Senanu a , , Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic b , Samuel J. Cobbina a
a
Department of Environment and Sustainability Sciences, University for Development Studies, P.O. Box TL 1882 Nyankpala
Campus, Tamale, Ghana
b
Department of Agricultural Mechanization and Irrigation Technology, University for Development Studies, P.O. Box TL 1882
Nyankpala Campus, Tamale, Ghana
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: Providing access to safe and clean drinking water requires that materials and technolo-
Received 30 August 2022 gies for treating polluted water are affordable, operated without much difficulty and
Received in revised form 27 December 2022 produced locally. To this effect, agricultural wastes, natural soils and materials as well as
Accepted 2 January 2023
treatment technologies that are easily put together were investigated. Experimental re-
Available online 5 January 2023
sults indicate that the use of these locally available materials and technologies are viable
Keywords: in removing heavy metals such as lead, zinc, arsenic, copper, cadmium and chromium.
Local technologies The use of banana peels, cassava peels, coconut shells and husks and rice husks were
Agricultural wastes found to have high removal efficiencies in relation to the heavy metals being removed.
Ceramic water filters Natural soils such clay and zeolites were found to be potent in removing heavy metals
Removal efficiency such as chromium, arsenic and cadmium with significant removal efficiencies. Treatment
Household drinking water technologies such as modified ceramic water filters with cerium oxide and iron oxide
Heavy metals
observed significant heavy metal removal. This literature review of experimental results
shows that environmental factors such as pH, metal ion concentration, and adsorbent
concentration influenced removal of heavy metals from solutions and this could be a
challenge in achieving efficient removal of heavy metals. It is therefore important to
improve upon technologies and materials for the efficient removal of heavy metals.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Heavy metal pollution................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Conventional treatment technologies........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3. Household drinking water treatment technologies (HWT) .................................................................................................... 3
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Locally available materials and low-cost treatment technologies used in treating heavy metal pollutants ................................ 4
3.1. Agricultural waste........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1. Peanut shells, Ziziphus mauritiana sawdust and Cassia fistula leaves.................................................................. 5
3.1.2. Cocoa pod husks........................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.3. Sesame stems and leaves ............................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.4. Banana peels ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.5. Cassava peels ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lydiase2081@uds.edu.gh (L.D. Senanu), novagordanak@gmail.com (G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic), scobbina@uds.edu.gh
(S.J. Cobbina).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103005
2352-1864/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L.D. Senanu, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic and S.J. Cobbina Environmental Technology & Innovation 29 (2023) 103005
3.1.6. Coconut husks and shells ............................................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.7. Rice husks ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2. Natural clays and mineral deposits ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3. Point-of –use technology ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
4. Mitigation techniques .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
5. Advantages and disadvantages ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
6. Practical application and future perspectives ....................................................................................................................................... 12
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
CRediT authorship contribution statement ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Declaration of competing interest.......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Data availability ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A. Supplementary data........................................................................................................................................................... 13
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
1. Introduction
1.1. Heavy metal pollution
Heavy metal pollution has garnered great concern globally due to its impact on aquatic systems and human health
(Islam et al., 2015; Mitchell et al., 2011). Growing human population and global industrial expansion have led to the
increase of heavy metal pollution in the world’s waters (Islam et al., 2014; Su et al., 2013). Another factor that can be
attributed to this challenge is the laxity in enforcing environmental regulations especially in developing countries (Frisbie
and Mitchell, 2022; Vareda et al., 2019). Causes of heavy metal pollution can either be natural or anthropogenic. Natural
causes include weathering of rocks, volcanic disasters and flooding (Briffa et al., 2020). Human activities such as discharge
from domestic, industrial, mining and agricultural farms contribute to the increase of heavy metal pollution (Kumar et al.,
2019). Heavy metal pollution in the environment affects wholesome living of humans.
Almost a third of the world’s population still lack clean and safe drinking water and one major cause of this is heavy
metal pollution (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017). In developing countries, many people rely on surface waters
as a drinking water source and pollution of these sources makes clean and safe drinking water unavailable (Briffa et al.,
2020). Impacts of heavy metal pollution include the destruction of the quality of surface water environments (RoyChowd-
hury et al., 2018). Apart from aquatic systems, sediments surrounding polluted aquatic environments are contaminated
with heavy metals, and this occurrence affects the soil quality and does not sustain plant growth (RoyChowdhury et al.,
2018).
In addition to surface waters being sources of drinking water, millions of people depend on deep wells and groundwater
as sources of drinking water across the globe (Mitchell et al., 2011; Murcott, 2012). These sources just like surface waters
are not exempt from heavy metal contamination (Frisbie and Mitchell, 2022). Reports from several countries including
Nepal, India, Bangladesh, China, Ghana, Burkina Faso, USA and Canada among others indicate the health challenges
encountered by populations who are exposed to heavy metals due to groundwater contamination (Mitchell et al., 2011;
Murcott, 2012; Qiao et al., 2020). Arsenic, iron and lead are the leading heavy metals contaminating groundwater
sources across the globe (Mitchell et al., 2011). Though groundwater contamination with heavy metals is due to natural
occurrences, humans have also contributed to groundwater contamination by the use of industrial chemicals (Mitchell
et al., 2011).
The impact of heavy metal contamination on human life cannot be overemphasized. Human exposure to heavy metals
is observed in the destruction of skin, respiratory and cardiovascular organs (Briffa et al., 2020). Elevated levels of
manganese in humans could lead to Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders (Bowman et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011).
In addition, hallucinations, cognitive decline (Ghazali et al., 2013; Shohag et al., 2012) and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
(ALS) (Roos et al., 2012) could be observed in individuals whose blood, hair, and nails were exposed to manganese. The
presence of uranium in drinking water creates a cause for concern when the WHO raised the guideline for uranium
from 15ug/l to 30ug/l (Frisbie et al., 2013). This action was necessitated when experimental results in a human study
population indicated renal failure, systolic blood pressure and glucose excretion in urine (Frisbie et al., 2013). Exposure to
mercury could lead to neurological effects in children (Fernandes Azevedo et al., 2012), whiles in adults, auditory (Hoshino
et al., 2012), cardiovascular (Fernandes Azevedo et al., 2012), renal (Park and Zheng, 2012) and reproductive challenges
(Henriques et al., 2019) were observed. According Frisbie et al. (2015), decreased concentration and memory, muscle and
joint pain can be attributed to mercury contamination. Skin and bladder cancers are linked to arsenic exposure (Chung
et al., 2014; Hong et al., 2014; Palma-Lara et al., 2020) whiles hexavalent chromium was found to lead to cell impairment
in humans (Alvarez et al., 2021). Exposure of the human body to these heavy metals leads to deterioration in health, less
productivity and finally poverty (Briffa et al., 2020).
2
Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of heavy metal treatment technologies (Ahmad et al., 2017b; Mondal et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2015; Zamora-Ledezma
et al., 2021).
Technology Description Advantages Disadvantages
Adsorption This occurs between a liquid phase • Adaptable to various treatments • Performance depends on type
(solvent) and solid surface • High quality of treated effluent of adsorbent
(adsorbent). There are natural • Elimination of wide range of • Regeneration is expensive
adsorbents and artificial adsorbents. pollutants • Rapid saturation of adsorbent
Adsorption is by either physisorption
(weak van derWaals forces) or
chemisorption.
Coagulation The use of cation coagulants to • Simple process • Production of large volumes
disrupt negative charges on the • Low costs of sludge
chemical pollutant and forms • Good sludge settling and • Use of non-reusable chemicals
colloids, which are removed by a dewatering qualities • The effluent discharged requires
secondary treatment like filtration. monitoring
Ion exchange This involves the use of resin bed, • Easy control and maintenance • Fast clogging of reactors
which acts as a semi-permeable • High quality treated effluent • High initial costs
membrane allowing the exchange of • Easy to use with other • Large volumes of influent
charged ions embedded in it during technologies requires large columns
its operation.
Chemical precipitation The use of counter-ions to remove • Not metal selective • The use of chemicals
ionic elements from polluted water. • Simple technology • Not efficient at low concentrations
This process reduces the solubility of • Economical • High sludge production
the pollutant ions.
Membrane filtration Involves the use of pressure and a • Requires small space • High energy required
permeable partition, which separates • No chemicals required • High maintenance costs
the filtrate from concentrate. • Efficient at high pollutant • Flow rates are low
Examples of this technology are concentration
reverse osmosis, micro-, ultra- and
nano -filtration.
Electrochemical This technology operates by the use • Efficient for recovery and • Requires addition of chemicals
technology of cathodes and anodes in generating reuse of valuable metals • High cost of maintenance
electric current to remove heavy • Biodegradability increases • Sludge formation
metal ions from polluted water. • Adaptable to different pollutant
Metal ions are reduced to their concentrations and flow rates
elemental forms for easy removal.
Failure to address these challenges puts the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, SDG 31 SDG 6,2 SDG 143
and SDG 15,4 at risk especially in developing countries.
1.2. Conventional treatment technologies
The removal of heavy metals from polluted water sources involves a selection of techniques, which includes adsorp-
tion, coagulation, ion exchange, chemical precipitation, membrane filtration and electrochemical technologies (Zamora-
Ledezma et al., 2021). These technologies are chosen based on efficiency, practicality, costs, impact on the environment
and operational challenges among others (Zamora-Ledezma et al., 2021). Table 1, summarizes the different treatment
technologies used in heavy metal removal as well as their advantages and disadvantages (Ahmad et al., 2017b; Mondal
et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2015; Zamora-Ledezma et al., 2021).
Though these technologies are efficient in removing heavy metals, it is noteworthy that they often cannot be operated
at household levels where the impact of polluted water sources is frequently felt. Thus, technologies, which do not require
highly skilled operators to function, and can be locally used are needed to achieve SDG 6 by 2030. Recent advances in the
use of locally available and affordable treatment technologies, with the potential of addressing heavy metal pollution in
drinking water sources are discussed in this paper.
1.3. Household drinking water treatment technologies (HWT)
Household drinking water treatment technologies serves as low-cost alternatives in addressing contaminated water
in homes (Clasen, 2015; Deng, 2021). Examples of HWTs include boiling (Agrawal and Bhalwar, 2009), filtration with
1 (‘‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’’).
2 (‘‘ ensure access to clean water and sanitation for all’’).
3 (‘‘ conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine sources for sustainable development’’).
4 (‘‘protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse
land degradation and halt biodiversity loss’’).
3
Fig. 1. Methodology and mechanism for analyzing information for review paper.
ceramic filter (Farrow et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 2017), sand filters and UV disinfection (Naddeo et al., 2013), solar
disinfection and chlorination (Hunter, 2009) among others. These treatment technologies are used to remove pathogen
contamination and turbidity from drinking water sources and are limited in their effectiveness in heavy metal removal
(Deng, 2021). Modifications to these HWTs will enhance their use for heavy metal contamination in drinking water in
homes.
The specific objectives of this paper are to (i) introduce the available local materials and treatment technologies for
heavy metal removal, (ii) identify the factors that may affect their effectiveness in removing heavy metals, (iii) suggest
the environmentally friendly mitigation techniques that are available for the safe disposal of byproducts of the treatment
processes and (iv) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the use of local materials and treatment technologies for
heavy metal removal.
2. Methodology
This literature review was carried out by considering published articles, student theses and reports relating to the
impacts of heavy metals in drinking water sources and the different approaches used in their removal. In addition, the
literature review highlights the challenges faced in the removal of heavy and the possible solutions in addressing these
challenges.
Data was collected by conducting standard web-based searches from scientific search engines such as Google Scholar,
ScienceDirect, PubMed, SCOPUS and PLOS One. This research was limited to articles, reports and student theses from 2009
to 2023. The keywords for the search were, ‘heavy metals removal’ OR ‘novel treatment of heavy metals’ OR ‘low-cost
treatment of heavy metals’ OR ‘treatment of household drinking water’ OR ‘factors affecting heavy metals removal’ OR
‘mitigation of byproducts heavy metal removal’. A total of 284 articles were retrieved and reviewed by reading their
titles, abstracts and entire papers to determine their suitability for the literature review. After going through their titles
and abstracts, 99 articles were excluded leaving 185 articles. Preliminary reading of the remaining articles led to the
exclusion of additional 52 articles. Full paper readings led to the exclusion of 17 additional articles leaving 116 articles
used in this literature review. The information from the retained articles was analyzed qualitatively. Content analysis was
used to determine the validity and quality of the information given (see Fig. 1).
3. Locally available materials and low-cost treatment technologies used in treating heavy metal pollutants
As 2030 approaches for meeting the SDG targets, especially SDG 6, it necessary to identify available resources that
are effective and affordable for accessing clean water for all. In this vein, several potential materials and treatment
technologies with potential capabilities in removing heavy metals from drinking water sources are discussed.
4
3.1. Agricultural waste
Agricultural wastes, also called biosorbents, are abundant and usually underutilized. Many researches performed on
different types of agricultural waste for heavy metal removal showed very promising results. Agricultural wastes, whether
in their natural states or modified states, were found to be potent for heavy metal removal. However, it is necessary to note
that these experiments need replication in the field, which means, there should be treatment designs with agricultural
wastes embedded in them for household-scale water treatment.
3.1.1. Peanut shells, Ziziphus mauritiana sawdust and Cassia fistula leaves
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) shells, sawdust from Ziziphus mauritiana and Cassia fistula leaves, were investigated for their
potential in the removal of Cr (VI) ions (Ahmad et al., 2017a). The observed results showed that pH had influence in the
adsorption of Cr (VI) ions from solution. At pH 2, maximum adsorption of Cr (VI) ions occurred for all the agricultural
wastes, as the pH increased, less Cr (VI) ion removal occurred. It is noteworthy that at low pH the surfaces of the
biosorbents become positively charged, coulombic attraction occurs, thereby resulting in the sorption of Cr (IV) ions
(Ahmad et al., 2017a). From the results, adsorption efficiency of biosorbents were as follows; Arachis hypogaea shells
>sawdust from Ziziphus mauritiana > Cassia fistula leaves.
3.1.2. Cocoa pod husks

Experiments conducted on cocoa (Theobroma cacao) pod husks ability to remove Zn (II) ions from solution showed
that, increased initial concentration of Zn (II) ions, increased their uptake by the cocoa pod husks, however, when further
increases of Zn (II) ion concentration were made above 80 mg/L, removal of Zn (II) ions slowed (Njoku, 2014). This
observation was as a result of saturation of the surface active sites, therefore, slowing removal of Zn (II) ions (Burakov
et al., 2018). Furthermore, pH influenced the removal of Zn (II) ions, in that, increases in the pH from 1 to 6 saw a sharp
increase in Zn (II) ion adsorption whiles, when nearing neutral pH, removal plateaued. The observation concluded that,
at near neutral pH, the formation of Zn (OH)2 hinders the presence of free Zn (II) ions (Zamora-Ledezma et al., 2021). In
addition, competing ions like Cu (II) and Pb (II), which are often found together with Zn (II) ions in industrial wastewaters,
have the potential of inhibiting its adsorption.
3.1.3. Sesame stems and leaves

Cd (II) ion adsorption was observed with sesame (Sesamum indicum) stem and leaf at pH 5.5 with an initial
concentration of 20 mg/L (Cheraghi et al., 2015). The outcome saw approximately 97% removal of Cd (II) ions from solution.
In this particular experiment, the particle size of the sesame stem and leaf were investigated to determine their influence
on the adsorption of Cd (II). When the particle size was increased from 0.15 mm to 2 mm, the removal efficiency increased
from 55% to almost 100%. The larger the particle size, the larger the mass surface area available for metal ion uptake
(Cheraghi et al., 2015). The influence of pH on Cd (II) removal had a similar fate as Zn (II) ion removal with cocoa pod
husks.
3.1.4. Banana peels

Removal of Mn (II) ions and Fe (II) ions with banana (Musa paradisiaca) peels was examined. The experiment involved
banana peels biochar (BPB) and phosphoric acid treated banana peel biochar (PBPB) (Kim et al., 2020). The experiment
intended to observe the difference in adsorption of Mn (II) ions and Fe (II) ions with charred banana peels and phosphoric
acid-modified banana peels. The results obtained showed removal of Mn (II) ions and Fe (II) ions by both BPB and PBPB.
The removal efficiency for Mn (II) ions and Fe (II) ions with PBPB was higher compared to the BPB(PBPB removal of Mn
(II) ions - 46% and Fe (II) ions -95%; BPB removal of Mn (II) ions -32% and Fe (II) ions -85%). The higher removal of Fe (II)
could be due to its higher charge and smaller radius (Chukwu et al., 2017). The phosphoric acid treatment stimulated the
formation of functional groups on the PBPB. In another experiment involving banana (Musa paradisiaca) peels, four forms
of the banana peels were experimented upon to determine their potency in removing Cr (VI) ions and Mn (II) ions. The four
forms were untreated banana peels (UBP), acid-hydrolyzed banana peels (AIBP), alkali-hydrolyzed banana peels (ALBP)
and bleached banana peels (BBP). The outcome of the experiment showed pH had influence on the removal efficiency of
Cr (VI) and Mn (II) with all the forms of banana peels (Ali and Saeed, 2015). The optimal pH for maximum removal of Cr
(VI) ions and Mn (II) ions for all the forms of banana peels was 6. Mn (II) ions had a removal efficiency of 86% with UBP,
which was the highest removal efficiency at pH 6. Unlike the previous experiment conducted by Mn (II) ions by using
phosphoric acid treated banana biochar, removal efficiency of Mn (II) ions by acid-hydrolyzed banana peel was 78%. This
shows that not all agricultural waste modifications produce improved removal of heavy metals. Chemical properties of
both the adsorbate and adsorbent determine the efficiency of the removal process. The experiment observed the highest
removal efficiency with acid-hydrolyzed banana peels on Mn (II) was 94%, whiles the lowest removal was with bleached
banana peels on Cr(VI) was 11%.
5
3.1.5. Cassava peels

Acid-activated cassava (Manihot esculenta) peels char was investigated for the removal of Co (II) ions and Cr (VI) ions
from aqueous solution (Belcaid et al., 2021). The pH range at which the experiment was conducted was between 3 and
6. Co (II) ions removal was significant as the pH increased whiles Cr (VI) ions removal increased with decreasing pH. The
pHpzc (the pH at which the charge on the adsorbent surface is zero) for activated cassava peel char was determined at
4.59. Therefore, it is at this pH that Co (II) ions and Cr (VI) ions could be adsorbed at the same time with acid-activated
cassava peel char. In addition, the adsorption capacity of acid-activated cassava peel char was higher for Co (II) ions,
40 mg/L compared to Cr (IV) ions, 25 mg/L.
3.1.6. Coconut husks and shells

Coconut (Cocos nucifera) shells and husks are very common in developing countries (Chandana et al., 2020). Research
has found them effective in the removal of heavy metals (Acheampong et al., 2013). A fixed bed column experiment with
coconut shells was conducted to observe the removal of Cu (II) ions (Acheampong et al., 2013). The observations made
indicated that at a lower inlet concentration of Cu (II) ions, the breakthrough time was longer and larger volumes of
copper solution could be treated. At 10 mg/L of copper solution with a bed depth of 20 cm the breakthrough time was
approximately 50 h, whereas, when the concentration of Cu (II) ions was increased to 50 mg/L, the breakthrough time
was about 5 h. In addition, the influence of bed depth was investigated on the removal of Cu (II) ions and it was noted
that, as the bed depth increased from 5 cm to 20 cm, the breakthrough and exhaustion time also increased, i.e., 5 h, 25 h;
45 h, 110 h respectively. For this experiment, Cu (II) ions uptake was best at 10 mg/L concentration, with a flow rate of
10mL/min and a bed depth of 20 cm. Considering these results, it is observed that the bed volume of the adsorbent, which
is coconut shells, and the concentration of the Cu (II) ions were critical in the adsorption process. The effect of the pH
was not observed, as the pH at which all the experiments were conducted was neutral. The pH experiments could have
been observed to note the influence on the removal of Cu (II) ions with the coconut shells. Batch experiments conducted
by Malik and Dahiya (2017), investigated the uptake of Pb (II), Zn (II), Cu (II) and Ni (II) ions with coconut husks. It was
observed that, at an initial concentration of 500 mg/L, coconut husk dose of 1.2 g removed approximately 90% of Cu (II)
ions, whiles the least removed at similar operational parameters was Zn (II) ions. In addition, when the dose of coconut
husks increased, the removal of all the experimental ions increased exponentially. An observation was made in regards
to the influence of pH, in that, in this experiment Cu (II) ions and Pb (II) ions were maximally adsorbed (90%) at pH 5,
whiles as the pH increased the removal efficiency reduced. The reduction in removal of the heavy metal ions occurred in
the neutral and alkaline pH with exception of Zn (II), which had its highest removal at pH 7. The reduction in the removal
of the heavy metal ions could be due to the formation of metal hydroxides. Coconut (Cocos nucifera) shells were modified
in the following experiments to determine their potency in heavy metal removal. Cr (VI) ions removal was studied with
activated coconut shells (Chandana et al., 2020). In this experiment, activation was done by combination of carbon dioxide
and steam. Experimental results showed that at pH 2, Cr (VI) ions removal was highest at 94%, whiles at pH 10 removal
was at 42%. At low pH, the adsorbent surfaces become positively charge due to the increase of hydrogen ion (H+ ) and
these electrostatically attract the Cr (VI) anions. The presence of available actives sites on adsorbent surfaces influences
the amount of metal concentration that can be adsorbed. In this experiment, increased concentrations of Cr (VI) reduced
its uptake by the activated coconut shells. At 10 mg/L adsorption, efficiency was at 94%, and the efficiency reduced to 86%
when the concentration of Cr (VI) increased to 30 mg/L. At higher concentrations, repulsion occurs between adsorbed
surface sites and the free Cr (VI) ions leading to increased Cr (VI) ion concentration. Another modification experiment
involved the following; unactivated coconut shells (AC-0), nitric acid activated coconut shells (AC-1), sodium hydroxide
activated coconut shells (AC-2), permanganate activated coconut shells (AC-3) and ferric sulfate activated coconut shells
(AC-4). The tested heavy metals were Cu (II), Cd (II), Pb (II) and Zn (II) ions (Deng et al., 2021). Results for pH influence
showed the increased removal of all the heavy metals with increasing pH reaching a maximum of pH 5 on AC-1, AC-2
and AC-3, however, heavy metal removal increased with increasing pH up till pH 9 for AC-0 and AC-4, which had a heavy
metal maximum removal at pH 7 before showing decreasing trends. Overall adsorption experiment showed Pb (II) ions
being adsorbed most by AC-0 at 87% and AC-4 at 92%, whiles Zn (II) ions was adsorbed most by AC-1 and AC-3 with 95%
and 96.5% respectively. Cd (II) ions were best adsorbed by AC-2 at 98%, which is overall the highest adsorption efficiency.
Observations indicate modifying coconut shell surfaces could improve the uptake of heavy metals.
3.1.7. Rice husks

Adsorption experimental results of Cu (II) ions and Cr (III) ions with rice (Oryza sativa) husks showed increasing removal
with increasing pH as shown with previous adsorbents (Sobhanardakani et al., 2013). Though removal efficiency increased
with increasing pH, when the pH reached 6, removal decreased and the maximum removal obtained for Cu (II) ions and
Cr (III) ions were 65% and 55% respectively. The influence of initial concentrations of the metal ions was investigated
in 100 mg/l of rice husk solution. An upward removal was realized for both Cu (II) ions and Cr (III) ions until initial
concentrations reached 100 mg/l, when a downward trend began. This observation indicates saturation of adsorption sites
on the rice husks surface, therefore no available sites for attachment by free ions. Surface modification of rice husks with
sodium hydroxide was done to investigate the extent of removal of Cu (II) ions in comparison to thermally treated rice
husks (Priyantha et al., 2018). Sodium hydroxide treated rice husks removed about 90% of copper ions whiles thermally
treated rice removed 50% of Cu (II) ions in solution. Compared to previous results by Sobhanardakani et al. (2013), it could
6
be said that alkaline modification of rice husks improved the surface of rice husks by removing lignin, which can interfere
with the retaining of Cu (II) ions (Krika et al., 2021). Alkaline treatment of biosorbent surfaces could develop pores and
larger pore volume of the biosorbent (Yan et al., 2015). Differences in removal efficiencies of Pb (II) ions with three types
of thermally treated rice husks samples were investigated (Shi et al., 2019). At treatment temperatures 300 ◦ C, 500 ◦ C and
700 ◦ C, removal efficiencies recorded for Pb (II) ions were 70%, 69.6% and 84.5%. The reduced removal of Pb (II) ions at
500 ◦ C could be explained as the development of pore structure of rice husks at that temperature which slowed reactions
(Shi et al., 2019). In addition, the influence of pH on all the different thermally treated rice husks, yielded similar results
for lead removal as other biosorbents reported in this article. As the pH, increased removal of Pb (II) also increased and
remained constant at pH 6. A summary of the agricultural wastes and the pH at which metal ions were removed is seen
in Table 2.
3.2. Natural clays and mineral deposits
Research on heavy metal removal with natural clays and other mineral deposits has been ongoing for some time now
(Joseph et al., 2019; Uddin, 2017). Clays have a structure containing silica and alumina ions and other metal oxides (Torres-
Luna and Carriazo, 2019). Clays come in various forms depending on their chemicals composition; bentonite and kaolinite,
among others (Burakov et al., 2018). Their varying chemical composition and structure makes them very effective in heavy
metal removal (Uddin, 2017). Clays can be classified according to their structure, which is, the arrangement of tetrahedral
and octahedral sheets (Kumari and Mohan, 2021; Pohl, 2011). Clays classified as 1:1 (non-swelling clays), where each layer
is designed from one tetrahedral sheet (SiO4 ) and one octahedral sheet (AlO6 ) in their structure and held by hydrogen
bonds (Kumari and Mohan, 2021). Examples are kaolinite, serpentine and halloysite clays (Kumari and Mohan, 2021).
Due to their hydrogen bonding, they have small surface areas and low cation exchange capacity, therefore they have low
metal ion adsorption capacity (Kumari and Mohan, 2021). Swelling clays or 2:1 clays have a layer formed by an octahedral
sheet packed in between two tetrahedral sheets (Kumari and Mohan, 2021). They are expandable when wet, therefore
have large surface areas, and are bonded by cations such K+ , Na+ and Ca2+ (Kumari and Mohan, 2021). Examples of these
type of clays are bentonite and montmorillonite (Kumari and Mohan, 2021).
Esmaeili et al. (2019), investigated the removal of Zn (II), Cu (II) and Ni (II) ions with bentonite, red earth and volcanic
ash and noted that the removal of Ni (II) and Cu (II) ions with bentonite was approximately 100% whiles Zn (II) ion
removal was 90%. In their experiment, the concentration of heavy metal solution used was 60g/L. The removal of heavy
metals from solution showed a decreasing pattern with bentonite>red earth> volcanic ash. The adsorption of heavy metals
onto natural soils has a lot to do with the mineral composition of the soil (Uddin, 2017). In addition, the pH of the
soil was vital to the removal process. At low pH, there is competition among the H+ ions from the natural soils and
metal ions thereby adsorption becomes less while at relatively high pH, less H+ ions are available for competition and
thereby adsorption of metal ions is increased. Though clay soils have shown effectiveness in heavy metal removal, they
can be modified to improve their efficiency. One way clays are modified is by the addition of organic matter (Otunola and
Ololade, 2020). When organic materials combine with clay soil, they form organoclays (He et al., 2014). These organoclays
have specific functional groups, which bind strongly to heavy metals due to their chelating abilities (He et al., 2014).
Laboratory experiments conducted by Jin et al. (2014), with montmorillonite-organoclay, observed a 98.5% removal of Cu
(II) ions from aqueous solution of 50 mg/L. However, when the same experiment was repeated in natural water, Cu (II)
ion removal was observed at 43.8%, and this observation could be because of other competing metal ions in the natural
water. Comparative experiments undertaken by Kostenko et al. (2019), suggested that adsorption of Cd (II), Pb (II) and
Cu (II) ions were significantly higher with amino bentonite than natural bentonite. In addition, it was observed that with
natural bentonite, adsorption occurred in the acidic medium with a maximum percentage removal of 75% whiles, with
amino bentonite, maximum adsorption occurred at pH > 6 and had a 100% percentage removal.
In another experiment by El Adraa et al. (2017), cysteine was complexed with montmorillonite (a type of clay) for the
removal of Hg (II), Cd (II), Co (II), Pb (II), and Zn (II) ions. The presence of cysteine increased affinity of the metal cations for
the organoclay whiles the reverse was observed for the natural montmorillonite. The above observations show clearly that
modifying natural clay soils improves the ability of heavy metal removal. However, the realization of these modifications
in real studies to be used in developing countries is a question left to be answered.
Nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) is a new technology, which has gained notoriety in remediating polluted ground
water (Fu et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2018). It is a technology, used in combination with some clay soils to remove heavy
metals (Fu et al., 2015). Sepiolite, a type of clay soil, combined with nano zero-valent iron removed Cr (VI) and Pb (II) ions
up to 99.2% and 99.9% respectively. This reaction is pH dependent and removal reduces as pH increases (Fu et al., 2015).
In a similar experiment, nZVI synthesized with attapulgite, a type of clay soil, for the removal of Cr (VI) ions. Experiments
involving natural attapulgite, nZVI and AT-nZVI (combined attapulgite and nZVI), observed the removal of Cr (VI) as 5%,
62.9% and 90.6% respectively (Zhang et al., 2019). Attapulgite had no effect on Cr (VI) ion removal as the results indicated
but the synergistic effect of both attapulgite and nZVI provided a good environment for maximum Cr (VI) ion removal.
In a contrasting experiment, modified bentonite with nZVI observed Se (IV) ions removal by 62.1%, whiles additional
modification by modifying bentonite by cation exchange with Al3+ cations realized a 95.7% removal of Se (IV) ions (Li et al.,
2015). Observations from the two experiments indicate that, though one form of modification may work for a set of heavy
metal ions, it may not be sufficient for another set of heavy metal ions. It is important to identify the specific modifications
7
Table 2
Summary of agricultural wastes and effective pH for metal ion removal.
Agricultural waste Metal ion pH References
Arachis hypogaea shells, Ziziphus Cr (VI) 2 Ahmad et al. (2017a)
mauritiana sawdust, Cassia fistula
leaves
Theobroma cacao pod husks Zn (II) 6 Njoku (2014)
Untreated Musa paradisiaca peels Cr(VI), 6 Ali and Saeed (2015)
Mn(II)
Acid-hydrolyzed Musa paradisiaca Cr(VI), 6
peels Mn(II)
Alkali-hydrolyzed Musa paradisiaca Cr(VI), 6
peels Mn(II)
Bleached Musa paradisiaca peels Cr(VI), 6
Mn(II)
Acid-activated Manihot esculenta Cr (VI) 3 Belcaid et al. (2021)
peels char
Co (II) 6
Cocos nucifera husks Pb(II), Cu 5 Malik and Dahiya (2017)
(II)
NI (II) 6
Zn (II) 7
Activated Cocos nucifera shells Cr (VI) 2 Chandana et al. (2020)
Unmodified Cocos nucifera shells Cu (II), 9 Deng et al. (2021)
Cd(II),
Pb(II) ,Zn
(II)
Nitric acid activated Cocos nucifera Cu (II), 5
shells Cd(II),
Pb(II) ,Zn
(II)
Sodium hydroxide activated Cocos Cu (II), 5
nucifera shells Cd(II),
Pb(II) ,Zn
(II)
Permanganate activated Cocos Cu (II), 5
nucifera shells Cd(II),
Pb(II) ,Zn
(II)
Ferric sulfate activated Cocos nucifera Cu (II), 7
shells Cd(II),
Pb(II) ,Zn
(II)
Oryza sativa husks Cu (II), Cr 6 Sobhanardakani et al. (2013)
(III)
Sodium hydroxide modified Oryza Cu (II) 4 Priyantha et al. (2018)
sativa husks
Oryza sativa husks biochar Pb(II) 6 Shi et al. (2019)
Sesbania bispinosa biochar As (V) 4 Imran et al. (2021)
Bael fruit shell Pb(II) 7 Barkade et al. (2022)
Cu(II)
Bicarbonate Treated Mangosteen shell Ni (II) 5 Anitha et al. (2021)
carbon
Corncob Ni (II) 8 Chaudhari and Patkar (2022)
Non-Calcined Eggshell Cr (VI) 5 Katha et al. (2021)
Calcined Eggshell
Tea waste biochar
Phoenix dactylifera seed As (III) 5 Pal et al. (2021)
Delonix regia seed
Sugarcane bagasse Pb (II) 6 Ezeonuegbu et al. (2021)
Ni (II)
Sugarcane bagasse Fe (III) 6 Ghannam (2022)
Mn (II)
Pb (II)
Grape seed Cr (VI) 5.5 Sánchez-Ponce et al. (2021)
8
of natural soils that can significantly improve the removal of specific heavy metals. Thermal modification of clay, that is
calcination, creates extra surface sites for ion exchange (España et al., 2019). Appropriate temperatures for heating up
these clays must be determined to achieve maximum result (Otunola and Ololade, 2020). One observation according
to Otunola and Ololade (2020), indicated that calcination at the right temperature, though vital, may not necessarily
affect the adsorption capacity of the clay. A hydrated magnesium silicate soil, called serpentine, was experimented for
the removal of Cd (II) ions (Cao et al., 2017). Results obtained from this experiment showed that the adsorption capacity
of natural serpentine compared to the thermally activated serpentine was decreased. This confirms that calcination could
improve adsorption of heavy metals. One research by Akpomie and Dawodu (2016), realized significant removal of Zn
(II), Cu (II), Mn (II), Cd (II), Pb (II) and Ni (II) ions from waste effluent when montmorillonite was acid modified to remove
these heavy metals compared to natural montmorillonite. Acid modification primarily eradicates competing ions and other
impurities from the clay surface, providing a larger surface area and increased adsorption capacity for heavy metal removal
(Akpomie and Dawodu, 2016). The modification of some other soil minerals like zeolite can enhance the removal of heavy
metals. Zeolite in its natural form is potent for heavy metal removal, however, research have found that modification of
zeolite can improve heavy metal removal significantly (Jiménez-Castañeda and Medina, 2017). Zeolite modified with iron
oxyhydroxides, manganese oxides and cation exchange of Na+ for Ca2+ improved the removal significantly (Krauklis et al.,
2017). Iron oxyhydroxides modification of zeolite removed As (V), 24.8 times more than unmodified zeolite. A Ca2+ cation
exchange in the zeolite structure followed by iron oxyhydroxide modification saw the removal of As (V) of 99.3 times
more than unmodified zeolite. The impact of pH on As (V) removal was observed less when zeolite was modified with iron
oxyhdroxides and Ca2+ cation exchange whiles acidic pH significantly impacted As (V) removal with manganese oxide
modified zeolite (Krauklis et al., 2017). The summary of natural soils and mineral deposits and metal ions removed is
seen in Table 3.
3.3. Point-of –use technology
Point-of-use technologies (POU), are household water treatment facilities available to individuals for treating their
drinking water (Wu et al., 2021). These technologies include solar disinfection, chlorination and ceramic water filters
among others (Xiao et al., 2020). These technologies mostly treat turbidity and microbial load in water but not removal of
heavy metals (Farrow et al., 2018). Solar and chlorine disinfection have no research so far determining their effectiveness
in the removal of heavy metals but ceramic water filters to an extent have been found to remove some heavy metals like
arsenic (Robbins et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2021). Ceramic water filters are manufactured using clay soil and agricultural
waste. The individual components of the clay filters are potentially effective in heavy metal removal (Farrow et al., 2018).
The combination of these components therefore is expected to have a synergistic effect on the removal of heavy metals
from polluted water. Researchers have, however found out that ceramic water filters standalone may not have the kind
of effect that is expected in heavy metal removal (Pérez-Vidal et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). A research was conducted
by manufacturing ceramic water filter with the addition of rice husks and coated with nano-cerium oxide (Yang et al.,
2021). The researchers aim was to investigate the potential of the nano-cerium oxide coated ceramic water filter in
removing arsenate. The outcome of this research showed that coating of ceramic water filter with nano-cerium oxide with
concentration from 0.1 mg/l to 1 mg/l increased the removal of As (V) ions from 64.04% to 84.58%. It was observed from the
results that, uncoated ceramic water filter had an As (V) ions removal of 61.93%. Therefore, the conclusion was that nano-
cerium oxide improved the removal capacity of the ceramic water filter. Regarding other measured parameters like flow
rates of the ceramic water filter, the application of nano-cerium oxide decreased the flowrates and the likely reason could
be the occupation of the nano-cerium oxide on the pores that allows the flow of water through the ceramic water filter.
The removal of As (V) ions using the nano-cerium oxide coated ceramic water filter favored acidic to neutral pH conditions.
At low pH concentrations, As (V) ions exist as negatively charged ions and the nano-cerium oxide surface is positively
charged so electrostatic attraction occurs leading to the removal of arsenate. However, at alkaline concentrations, As (V)
ions become positively charged causing repulsion and leading to reduced removal of As (V) ions. The removal of turbidity is
one significant characteristic of ceramic water filters. Though the removal of turbidity significantly increased from 96.36%
to 99.33% by the coating of nano-cerium oxide, it furthered the removal of As (V) ions to an extent but at a reading of
180 Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), As (V) ion removal decreased. This could be attributed to the suspended solids
occupying the surface sites for As (V) ions attachment, thereby reducing their removal.
An experimental set up of manufactured ceramic water filters with an additional attachment of a zeolite-activated
carbon column was investigated. The researchers tested for the removal of a number of heavy metals, i.e. Hg (II) ions, As (V)
ions and Pb (II) ions. At near neutral pH, the experimental set up without the additional zeolite-activated carbon column
gave the following removal efficiency results; Pb (II) ions (92.1%), As (V) ions (50.2%) and Hg (II) ions (91.5%) (Pérez-Vidal
et al., 2021). However, removal efficiency results of the experimental set up with and an additional zeolite-activated
carbon were Pb (II) ions (98.1%), As (V) ions (52.3%) and Hg (II) ions (92.5%) (Pérez-Vidal et al., 2021). At a glance, As (V)
ion removal was the least removed among the heavy metals and this could be because of the pH at which the experiment
was conducted. At neutral pH, the negatively charged ions become positive charged ions and this causes repulsion between
the adsorbents and arsenic ionic species. An observation regarding the difference in removal efficiencies suggests that the
additional zeolite-activated carbon column had no significant influence on the removal of As (V) ions and Hg (II) ions. Iron
oxide coated filters were experimented for both As (III) ion and As (V) ion removal and the outcome indicated that at pH
9
Table 3
Natural clays and mineral deposits and the factors affecting removal.
Natural soils and mineral Metal ions Factors affecting removal References
deposits removed
Natural bentonite Zn (II), Cu (II), pH (effective removal at Esmaeili et al. (2019)
Red clay Ni (II) acid pH)
Volcanic ash
montmorillonite Cu(II) Difference in aqueous media Jin et al. (2014)
(competing ions in natural
water hinder removal)
Amino bentonite Cd(II), Pb (II), pH (acidic medium favored Kostenko et al. (2019)
Natural bentonite Cu (II) natural bentonite removal,
whiles alkaline medium
favored amino bentonite
removal)
Cysteine-montmorillonite Hg (II), Cd(II), Functional group El Adraa et al. (2017)
Natural montmorillonite Pb(II), Zn (II) modification
Sepiolite + nZVI Cr (VI), Pb (II) pH (acidic medium favored Fu et al.
removal)
Attapulgite + nZVI Cr (VI) Chemical modification with Zhang et al. (2019)
nZVI nZVI
Natural attapulgite
Bentonite + nZVI Se (IV) Cation exchange Li et al. (2015)
Bentonite + Al3+ ions modification
Serpentine Cd (II) Modification by calcination Cao et al. (2017)
Natural montmorillonite Zn (II), Cu (II), Acid modification Akpomie and Dawodu (2016)
Acid-modified Mn (II), Cd (II),
montmorillonite Pb (II), Ni (II)
Iron oxyhydroxide-zeolite As (V) Chemical modification and Krauklis et al. (2017)
Manganese oxide-zeolite pH ( acidic medium favored
Ca2+ -zeolite manganese oxide
modification)
Acid-activated laterite As (III) As (V) Acidic medium Karki et al. (2022)
Iranian bentonite Cu (II) Modification negatively Khodabakhshloo et al. (2021)
Iranian bentonite Arquad affect adsorption (Iranian
Iranian bentonite Arquad- bentonite adsorbed more Cu
palmitic acid (II))
Organically modified Pb (II) Cu (II) Organic modification and Sun et al. (2021)
attapulgite Ni (II) pH (Acidic medium favored
removal of heavy metals)
Organically modified Pb (II) Organic modification and Wang et al. (2021a)
montmorillonite pH ( acidic pH favored
removal)
Iron-modified zeolite Pb (II) Cd (II) Chemical modification Wang et al. (2022a)
Cr (VI) As (III)
Metakaolin and red mud Pb (II) Chemical modification and Carvalheiras et al. (2023)
derivative pH
Kaolinite/illinite Cr (III) Functional groups on clay Petrović et al. (2023)
Sepiolite minerals and pH
Organically modified Cr (VI) Functional groups on clay Wang et al. (2022b)
bentonite Mo (VI) material and pH (acidic
medium favors removal of
both Cr (VI) and Mo (VI))
Modified beidellite clay Cr (VI) Organic modification Škorňa et al. (2022)
Modified Sepiolite Pb (II) Organic modification and Wu et al. (2022)
pH ( acidic medium favors
removal of Pb (II) ions)
between 6 and 9, As (III) ion removal was not uniform, in that the removal of As (III) ion was higher at pH of 7.5 whereas
at pH 6 and 9, the removal was minimal (Robbins et al., 2014). Unlike As (III) ion, As (V) ion had reduced removal as pH
increased from 6 to 9. This indicates that As (V) ion removal favors acidic pH than neutral and alkaline pH. It was indicated
that at pH 6 to 9, As (III) ion is mainly in its neutral form and that should be the reason for its high removal at 7.5 whiles
reduced removal at either pH 6 and 9. Apart from As (III) ions and As (V) ions, which showed significant removal with the
iron oxide filter, other metal ions like Cd (II) ions, Se (IV) ions and Cr (VI) ions showed significant removal. One observation
10
Table 4
Point of use technologies and factors affecting metal ion removal.
Point of use technology Metal ions Factors affecting metal References
removed ion removal
Nano-cerium oxide As (V) pH (acidic medium Yang et al. (2021)
coated ceramic water favorable for removal)
filter
Zeolite-activated carbon Hg (II), As (V), pH (acidic medium Pérez-Vidal et al. (2021)
modified ceramic water Pb(II) favorable for removal)
filter
Iron oxide coated As (V), As (III), pH (alkaline medium Robbins et al. (2014)
ceramic water filter Cd(II), Se (IV), favorable for removal),
Cr (IV) NOM, DOC affect
removal
ISSF-1 Pb (II), As (V), Presence of oxygen Siwila and Brink (2018)
Fe (II), Mn (II),
Cd (II)
ISSF-2 As (V), Mn (II), Siwila and Brink (2018)
Fe (II)
Zeolite cotton Cu (II), Cd (II), Differences in aqueous Chen et al. (2020)
Pb (II) media and tube diameter
Plant integrated NO− −
3 NO2 Functional groups on Rathnayaka et al. (2022)
treatment system PO34− plants
Multi-stage low cost As (III) Cr (VI) Functional groups and Singh et al. (2022)
treatment system chemical modification of
local materials
Multi-plant POU system Cd (II) Cr (VI) Negatively charged Ibrahim et al. (2022)
Cu (II) Pb (II) functional groups on
plant xylem
Ni (II) Co (II)
worth noting was that, when natural water was tested for As (III) ion and As (V) ion removal, dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) and natural organic matter (NOM) provided some resistance to their removal. This resistance was a result of the
DOC and NOM competition for surface active sites on the iron oxide. In another experiment, two types of intermittently
operated slow sand filters (ISSF) were operated to determine the removal of heavy metals; Pb (II) ions, As (V) ions, Fe
(II) ions, Mn (II) ions and Cd (II) ions (Siwila and Brink, 2018). The first type, ISSF-1, comprises of a non-woven geotextile
fabric to remove debris as a pretreatment, fine sand, coarse sand, gravel and granular activated carbon. The second type,
ISSF-2, comprises of a non-woven geotextile fabric to remove debris as a pretreatment, fine sand, coarse sand, gravel and
another layer of non-woven geotextile fabric. It was noted that ISSF-1 design removed heavy metals from the polluted
water, with Mn (II) ions having at the highest removal of 94.04%. The ISSF-2 design was able to remove As (V) ions, Mn (II)
ions and Fe (II) ions but the concentration of Cd (II) ions and Pb (II) ions increased in the effluent. Though Fe (II) ion and
Mn (II) ion removal from the ISSF-2 was better than ISSF-1, the addition of granular activated carbon could be a deciding
factor as to why ISSF-1 had removal for all the metals. The high removal of Fe (II) ions and Mn (II) ions in ISSF-2 could be
the presence of oxygen because of algae production which could lead to the oxidation, thereby precipitating the Fe (II)
and Mn (II) out of the water. The better design is the ISSF-1, since it contains the granular activated carbon. Cotton fabric
embedded with zeolite packed in a tube as a filter was experimented for the removal of heavy metals (Chen et al., 2020).
This technology design is called the zeolite cotton. Results indicated that wastewater containing Cu (II), Cd (II) and Pb
(II) at concentrations 4.29 mg/L, 3.12 mg/L and 14.19 mg/L realized effluent concentrations 0.0001 mg/L, 0.003 mg/L and
0.001 mg/L respectively for the aforementioned heavy metals. The mechanisms for removal observed in this technology
are ion exchange and adsorption. The summary of point-of-use technologies and the metal ions removed is seen in Table 4.
4. Mitigation techniques
The use of local materials and treatment technologies in removing heavy metals from drinking water sources has
been found to be low-cost and effective. Though these local technologies are easy to access and use, the byproducts
obtained after treatment are harmful to the users. The byproducts contain a mixture heavy metal ions and the local
material used and exposure to them may lead to health risks. Phytoremediation is one major technique that has been
found to detoxify the toxic byproducts of the local materials and treatment methods (Muthusaravanan et al., 2018; Shen
et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021a). This technique involves the use of plants through the following processes namely;
phytoextraction, phytostabilization, phytovolatilization, phytofiltration and phytotransformation/phytodegradation to
remove heavy metals from polluted materials (da Conceição Gomes et al., 2016; Muthusaravanan et al., 2018). Plants such
as Jatropha, could be cultivated on sites where contaminated agricultural wastes and natural clays and mineral deposits
11
are dumped (Ali et al., 2013). Plants like this, uptake heavy metals from the contaminated materials and make them less
toxic for the environment. Bioremediation refers to the use of microorganisms to detoxify of the environment (Shen et al.,
2021; Wang et al., 2021b). Microorganisms bind with heavy metals and make them unavailable through co-precipitation,
complexation, reduction and oxidation (Wang et al., 2021a). An example is the use of Pseudomonas and Enterobacter which
reduces the more toxic Cr (VI) ions to the less toxic Cr (III) ions (Tan et al., 2020). Pyrolysis is a disposal method, where
heat is applied to plant biomass which has taken up heavy metals from the environment. The contaminated plant biomass
is heated in the absence of oxygen to reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals into the environment (Shen et al., 2021).
5. Advantages and disadvantages
Locally available materials and treatment technologies are very important when addressing heavy metal pollution in
drinking water sources. The advantages and opportunities of using local materials and technologies for household water
treatment include the easy accessibility and low-cost of these materials in the specific locations. In addition, the treatment
technologies requires less technical skills to manufacture or produce, hence the potential of training local communities
to make their own household water treatment systems. The ease of technology transfer provides the means to financially
empower local communities, as small factories could be set up in locations with available local materials to produce
household water treatment systems for sale. The low-cost, ease of access and ease of technology transfer of local materials
and treatment technologies sets the tone in meeting the SDG targets associated with clean drinking water, health and well-
being and poverty reduction. Despite the benefits of using these locally available materials and treatment technologies,
there are certain challenges associated with their acquisition and use.
The adsorption capacity of biosorbents in general is not adequate for very high heavy metal concentrations. There
are limited active sites on the surfaces of these biosorbents hence they reach saturation very quickly and at quite low
concentrations. Improving the adsorption capacity of locally available materials and technologies involves some treatment
modifications. These modifications creates additional surface active sites and increase the pore volume for increased
adsorption (Ramrakhiani et al., 2016). However, these improvements require the use of chemicals like acids and bases.
The cost of these chemicals is quite expensive and not affordable to acquire by people living in developing countries.
Natural and modified zeolites were observed to be effective in heavy metal removal (Jiménez-Castañeda and Medina,
2017; Krauklis et al., 2017), however, natural zeolites may not be available in all countries plagued with heavy metal
pollution though it is low-cost (Irannajad and Kamran Haghighi, 2021). This makes use of natural zeolites, accessible
and affordable only in countries with volcanic deposits (Margeta et al., 2013). However, zeolites could be synthesized
in locations where natural zeolite may not exist (Irannajad and Kamran Haghighi, 2021) but the use of chemicals in the
synthesis is expensive for situations in developing or low-income households. Modification of locally available materials
and some treatment technologies require technical knowledge and skills to develop and operate. The production of the
zeolite cloth, for example, requires knowledge in laboratory skills and use of chemicals (Chen et al., 2020). Therefore,
its operation may be simple but the production of the technology is complex. Many people affected by heavy metal
pollution in surface waters do not have such technical knowhow, let alone the facilities to produce these technologies.
Treatment technologies of this nature may not be suitable for developing countries. Observations made from research
above (Belcaid et al., 2021; Chukwu et al., 2017; Kostenko et al., 2019; Robbins et al., 2014; Uddin, 2017) conclude that
environmental conditions like pH, dissolved organic matter, ionic strength, and temperature among others affect the
effective use of locally available materials and treatment technologies (Gautam et al., 2013). These environmental variables
hinder the adsorption at active sites thereby preventing the ultimate removal of heavy metals from solutions. Surface and
groundwater sources usually contain multiple metal ions and these can hinder the effectiveness of the adsorption process
(Chen et al., 2011; Park et al., 2016). Some metal ions are better adsorbed due to the electrochemical properties; therefore,
these maybe adsorbed quickly leaving behind the other heavy metals that maybe poorly adsorbed.
6. Practical application and future perspectives
Suitability and affordability should be considered when improving upon the design of treatment technologies to
remove heavy metals for households. This is because most people plagued with heavy metal polluted water are from
low-income countries and may not have the ability to afford high-end products. Research should be conducted on the
cost effective and environmentally friendly ways of disposing the polluted local materials, especially heavy metal polluted
agricultural waste after treatment. Though suggestions have been made on the available mitigation techniques, there are
still challenges in regard to the prevention of recontamination of the environment. Further research is recommended to
find solutions to such challenges. Also, research should be considered in the area of regeneration of the local materials and
treatment technologies for reuse. Some households depend on surface water as a drinking water source and environmental
parameters of the water sources are ever changing, therefore, future studies should be focused on designing local
technologies which can adjust to changing environmental conditions of the source water especially pH and concentrations
of the heavy metal. Further research should be done on local technology designs which could remove multi-metal ions
at a time.
12
7. Conclusions
Locally available materials and treatment technologies provide households the opportunity to access safe and clean
drinking water. Coconut shells and husks, cassava peels, rice husks, different types of clay soil, zeolites and ceramic
water filters provide the opportunity to treat heavy metal contamination in drinking water. These local materials
and technologies for heavy metal removal are challenged by environmental factors such as pH speciation, adsorbent
concentration and metal ion concentration. Advantages of using local materials and treatment technologies include ease of
accessing the materials, low-cost and the ease of technology transfer. Some available mitigation techniques for disposing
the byproducts of the treatment processes include the use of plants (phytoremediation) and use of microorganisms
(bioremediation). Some disadvantages include the inadequate surface active sites in relation to high concentration of
heavy metals, the use of chemicals to improve adsorption capacity and the limitation of some mitigation techniques.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lydia D. Senanu: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing, Funding acquisition. Gordana Kranjac-Berisavljevic: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Samuel
J. Cobbina: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Professor Seth Frisbie of Norwich University, Vermont, USA for reviewing and
contributing to the article.
Funding source
Lydia Dziedzorm Senanu is sponsored by the West Africa Centre for Water, Irrigation and Sustainable Agriculture
(WACWISA).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103005.
References
Acheampong, M.A., Pakshirajan, K., Annachhatre, A.P., Lens, P.N., 2013. Removal of Cu (II) by biosorption onto coconut shell in fixed-bed column
systems. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 19 (3), 841–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.10.029.
Agrawal, V.K., Bhalwar, R., 2009. Household water purification: Low-cost interventions. Med. J. Armed Forces India 65 (3), 260–263. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0377-1237(09)80019-1.
Ahmad, A., Ghazi, Z.A., Saeed, M., Ilyas, M., Ahmad, R., Khattak, A.M., Iqbal, A., 2017a. A comparative study of the removal of Cr (VI) from synthetic
solution using natural biosorbents. New J. Chem. 41 (19), 10799–10807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7NJ02026K.
Ahmad, A., Richards, L.A., Bhattacharya, P., 2017b. Arsenic remediation of drinking water: An overview. In: Bhattacharya, P., Polya, D., Jovanovic, D.
(Eds.), Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water. IWA publishing, London, pp. 79–98.
Akpomie, K.G., Dawodu, F.A., 2016. Acid-modified montmorillonite for sorption of heavy metals from automobile effluent. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic
Appl. Sci. 5 (1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjbas.2016.01.003.
Ali, H., Khan, E., Sajad, M.A., 2013. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere 91 (7), 869–881. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075.
Ali, A., Saeed, K., 2015. Decontamination of Cr (VI) and Mn (II) from aqueous media by untreated and chemically treated banana peel: A comparative
study. Desalin. Water Treat. 53 (13), 3586–3591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.876669.
Alvarez, C.C., Gómez, M.E.B., Zavala, A.H., 2021. Hexavalent chromium: Regulation and health effects. J. Trace Elements Med. Biol. 65, 126729.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2021.126729.
Anitha, D., Ramadevi, A., Seetharaman, R., 2021. Biosorptive removal of Nickel (II) from aqueous solution by Mangosteen shell activated carbon.
Mater. Today: Proc. 45, 718–722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.748.
Barkade, S., Sable, S., Ashtekar, V., Pandit, V., 2022. Removal of lead and copper from wastewater using Bael fruit shell as an adsorbent. Mater. Today:
Proc. 53, 65–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.300.
Belcaid, A., Beakou, B.H., El Hassani, K., Bouhsina, S., Anouar, A., 2021. Efficient removal of Cr (VI) and Co (II) from aqueous solution by activated
carbon from Manihot esculenta Crantz agricultural bio-waste. Water Sci. Technol. 83 (3), 556–566. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.585.
13
Bowman, A.B., Kwakye, G.F., Hernández, E.H., Aschner, M., 2011. Role of manganese in neurodegenerative diseases. J. Trace Elements Med. Biol. 25
(4), 191–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2011.08.144.
Briffa, J., Sinagra, E., Blundell, R., 2020. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 6 (9), e04691.
Burakov, A.E., Galunin, E.V., Burakova, I.V., Kucherova, A.E., Agarwal, S., Tkachev, A.G., Gupta, V.K., 2018. Adsorption of heavy metals on conventional
and nanostructured materials for wastewater treatment purposes: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 148, 702–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoenv.2017.11.034.
Cao, C.Y., Liang, C.H., Yin, Y., Du, L.Y., 2017. Thermal activation of serpentine for adsorption of cadmium. J. Hard Mater. 329, 222–229. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.01.042.
Carvalheiras, J., Novais, R.M., Labrincha, J.A., 2023. Metakaolin/red mud-derived geopolymer monoliths: Novel bulk-type sorbents for lead removal
from wastewaters. Appl. Clay Sci. 232, 106770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106770.
Chandana, L., Krushnamurty, K., Suryakala, D., Subrahmanyam, C., 2020. Low-cost adsorbent derived from the coconut shell for the removal of
hexavalent chromium from aqueous medium. Mater. Today: Proc. 26, 44–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.04.205.
Chaudhari, V., Patkar, M., 2022. Removal of nickel from aqueous solution by using corncob as adsorbent. Mater. Today: Proc. 61, 307–314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.458.
Chen, X., Chen, G., Chen, L., Chen, Y., Lehmann, J., McBride, M.B., Hay, A.G., 2011. Adsorption of copper and zinc by biochars produced from pyrolysis
of hardwood and corn straw in aqueous solution. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (19), 8877–8884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.06.078.
Chen, X., Yu, L., Zou, S., Xiao, L., Fan, J., 2020. Zeolite cotton in tube: A simple robust household water treatment filter for heavy metal removal. Sci.
Rep. 10 (1), 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61776-8.
Cheraghi, E., Ameri, E., Moheb, A., 2015. Adsorption of cadmium ions from aqueous solutions using sesame as a low-cost biosorbent: Kinetics and
equilibrium studies. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12 (8), 2579–2592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-015-0812-3.
Chukwu, U.J., John, E.P., Kalagbor, A.I., 2017. Adsorption of Cu2+ and Fe2+ from single metal ion solution using unmodified and formaldehyde modified
kola-nut (Cola nitida) testa. OSR J. Appl. Chem. (IOSR-JAC) 10 (12), 12–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/5736-1012011218.
Chung, J.Y., Yu, S.D., Hong, Y.S., 2014. Environmental source of arsenic exposure. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 47 (5), 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.3961/
jpmph.14.036.
Clasen, T., 2015. Household water treatment and safe storage to prevent diarrheal disease in developing countries. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2 (1),
69–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0033-9.
da Conceição Gomes, M.A., Hauser-Davis, R.A., de Souza, A.N., Vitória, A.P., 2016. Metal phytoremediation: General strategies, genetically modified
plants and applications in metal nanoparticle contamination. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 134, 133–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.08.024.
Deng, Y., 2021. Making waves: principles for the design of sustainable household water treatment. Water Res. 198, 117151. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2021.117151.
Deng, Z., Sun, S., Li, H., Pan, D., Patil, R.R., Guo, Z., Seok, I., 2021. Modification of coconut shell-based activated carbon and purification of wastewater.
Adv. Compos. Hybrid Mater. 4 (1), 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42114-021-00205-4.
El Adraa, K., Georgelin, T., Lambert, J.-F., Jaber, F., Tielens, F., Jaber, M., 2017. Cysteine-montmorillonite composites for heavy metal cation complexation:
A combined experimental and theoretical study. Chem. Eng. J. 314, 406–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.160.
Esmaeili, A., Mobini, M., Eslami, H., 2019. Removal of heavy metals from acid mine drainage by native natural clay minerals, batch and continuous
studies. Appl. Water Sci. 9 (4), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0977-x.
España, V.A.A., Sarkar, B., Biswas, B., Rusmin, R., Naidu, R., 2019. Environmental applications of thermally modified and acid activated clay minerals:
Current status of the art. Environ. Technol. Innov. 13, 383–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2016.11.005.
Ezeonuegbu, B.A., Machido, D.A., Whong, C.M., Japhet, W.S., Alexiou, A., Elazab, S.T., Batiha, G.E.S., 2021. Agricultural waste of sugarcane bagasse as
efficient adsorbent for lead and nickel removal from untreated wastewater: Biosorption, equilibrium isotherms, kinetics and desorption studies.
Biotechnol. Rep. 30, e00614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00614.
Farrow, C., McBean, E., Huang, G., Yang, A., Wu, Y., Liu, Z., Dai, Z., Fu, H., Cawte, T., Li, Y., 2018. Ceramic water filters: A point-of-use water
treatment technology to remove bacteria from drinking water in Longhai City, Fujian Province, China. J. Environ. Informat. 32 (2), 63–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3808/jei.201800388.
Fernandes Azevedo, B., Barros Furieri, L., Peçanha, F.M., Wiggers, G.A., Frizera Vassallo, P., Ronacher Simões, M., Fiorim, J., Rossi de Batista, P.,
Fioresi, M., Rossoni, L., 2012. Toxic effects of mercury on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2012,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/949048.
Frisbie, S.H., Mitchell, E.J., 2022. Arsenic in drinking water: An analysis of global drinking water regulations and recommendations for updates to
protect public health. PLoS One 17 (4), e0263505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263505.
Frisbie, S.H., Mitchell, E.J., Sarkar, B., 2013. World health organization increases its drinking-water guideline for uranium. Environ. Sci.: Processes
Impacts 15 (10), 1817–1823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C3EM00381G.
Frisbie, S.H., Mitchell, E.J., Sarkar, B., 2015. Urgent need to re-evaluate the latest World Health Organization guidelines for toxic inorganic substances
in drinking water. Environ. Health 14 (1), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-015-0050-7.
Fu, R., Yang, Y., Xu, Z., Zhang, X., Guo, X., Bi, D., 2015. The removal of chromium (VI) and lead (II) from groundwater using sepiolite-supported
nanoscale zero-valent iron (S-NZVI). Chemosphere 138, 726–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.07.051.
Gautam, R.K., Chattopadhyaya, M.C., Sharma, S.K., 2013. Biosorption of heavy metals: recent trends and challenges. In: Sharma, S.K., Sanghi, R. (Eds.),
Wastewater Reuse and Management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 305–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4942-9_10.
Ghannam, H.E., 2022. Removal of heavy metals using eco-friendly adsorbents prepared from modified agricultural wastes. Egypt. J. Chem. 65 (4),
1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2021.86542.4183.
Ghazali, A.R., Kamarulzaman, F., Normah, C.D., Ahmad, M., Ghazali, S.E., Ibrahim, N., Said, Z., Shahar, S., Angkat, N., Razali, R., 2013. Levels of metallic
elements and their potential relationships to cognitive function among elderly from Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) settlement in
Selangor Malaysia. Biol. Trace Element Res. 153 (1), 16–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12011-013-9642-7.
He, H., Ma, L., Zhu, J., Frost, R.L., Theng, B.K., Bergaya, F., 2014. Synthesis of organoclays: A critical review and some unresolved issues. Appl. Clay
Sci. 100, 22–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.02.008.
Henriques, M.C., Loureiro, S., Fardilha, M., Herdeiro, M.T., 2019. Exposure to mercury and human reproductive health: A systematic review. Reprod.
Toxicol. 85, 93–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2019.02.012.
Hong, Y.S., Song, K.H., Chung, J.Y., 2014. Health effects of chronic arsenic exposure. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 47 (5), 245. http://dx.doi.org/10.3961/
jpmph.14.035.
Hoshino, A.C.H., Ferreira, H.P., Malm, O., Carvallo, R.M., Câmara, V.M., 2012. A systematic review of mercury ototoxicity. Cadernos de Saúde Pública
28, 1239–1248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0102-311x2012000700003.
Hunter, P.R., 2009. Household water treatment in developing countries: Comparing different intervention types using meta-regression. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43 (23), 8991–8997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9028217.
Ibrahim, N., Edri, L., Bellizzi, A., Kozlovsky, C., Wiley, M., Jacobitz, F.G., Lester, Y., 2022. Plant-based point-of-use water filtration: A simple solution
for potable water in developing countries. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 18, 100802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100802.
14
Imran, M., Iqbal, M.M., Iqbal, J., Shah, N.S., Khan, Z.U.H., Murtaza, B., Rizwan, M., 2021. Synthesis, characterization and application of novel MnO
and CuO impregnated biochar composites to sequester arsenic (As) from water: modeling, thermodynamics and reusability. J. Hard Mater. 401,
123338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123338.
Irannajad, M., Kamran Haghighi, H., 2021. Removal of heavy metals from polluted solutions by zeolitic adsorbents: a review. Environm. Process. 8
(1), 7–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40710-020-00476-x.
Islam, M.S., Ahmed, M.K., Raknuzzaman, M., Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M., Islam, M.K., 2015. Heavy metal pollution in surface water and sediment: A
preliminary assessment of an urban river in a developing country. Ecol. Indic. 48, 282–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.016.
Islam, M.S., Han, S., Ahmed, M.K., Masunaga, S., 2014. Assessment of trace metal contamination in water and sediment of some rivers in Bangladesh.
J. Water Environ. Technol. 12 (2), 109–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2965/jwet.2014.109.
Jiang, D., Zeng, G., Huang, D., Chen, M., Zhang, C., Huang, C., Wan, J., 2018. Remediation of contaminated soils by enhanced nanoscale zero valent
iron. Environ. Res. 163, 217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.030.
Jiménez-Castañeda, M.E., Medina, D.I., 2017. Use of surfactant-modified zeolites and clays for the removal of heavy metals from water. Water 9 (4),
235. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w9040235.
Jin, X., Zha, S., Li, S., Chen, Z., 2014. Simultaneous removal of mixed contaminants by organoclays—Amoxicillin and Cu (II) from aqueous solution.
Appl. Clay Sci. 102, 196–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.040.
Joseph, L., Jun, B.-M., Flora, J.R., Park, C.M., Yoon, Y., 2019. Removal of heavy metals from water sources in the developing world using low-cost
materials: A review. Chemosphere 229, 142–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.198.
Karki, S., Timalsina, H., Budhathoki, S., Budhathoki, S., 2022. Arsenic removal from groundwater using acid-activated laterite. Groundw. Sustain. Dev.
18, 100769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2022.100769.
Katha, P.S., Ahmed, Z., Alam, R., Saha, B., Acharjee, A., Rahman, M.S., 2021. Efficiency analysis of eggshell and tea waste as Low cost adsorbents for
Cr removal from wastewater sample. South Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 37, 186–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2021.06.001.
Khodabakhshloo, N., Biswas, B., Moore, F., Du, J., Naidu, R., 2021. Organically functionalized bentonite for the removal of perfluorooctane sulfonate,
phenanthrene and copper mixtures from wastewater. Appl. Clay Sci. 200, 105883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105883.
Kim, Y., Bowler, R.M., Abdelouahab, N., Harris, M., Gocheva, V., Roels, H.A., 2011. Motor function in adults of an ohio community with environmental
manganese exposure. Neurotoxicology 32 (5), 606–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2011.07.011.
Kim, H., Ko, R.-A., Lee, S., Chon, K., 2020. Removal efficiencies of manganese and iron using pristine and phosphoric acid pre-treated biochars made
from banana peels. Water 12 (4), 1173. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12041173.
Kostenko, L.S., Tomashchuk, I.I., Kovalchuk, T.V., Zaporozhets, O.A., 2019. Bentonites with grafted amino groups: Synthesis, protolytic properties and
assessing Cu (II), Cd (II) and Pb (II) adsorption capacity. Appl. Clay Sci. 172, 49–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2019.02.009.
Krauklis, A., Ozola, R., Burlakovs, J., Rugele, K., Kirillov, K., Trubaca-Boginska, A., Rubenis, K., Stepanova, V., Klavins, M., 2017. FeOOH and Mn8 O10 Cl3
modified zeolites for As (V) removal in aqueous medium. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 92 (8), 1948–1960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5283.
Krika, F., Krika, A., Azizi, A., 2021. Impact of NaOH-surface treatment on emerging pollutant biosorption performance using marine algua, Posidonia
Oceanica. Global Nest J. 23 (1), 127–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.30955/gnj.003579.
Kumar, V., Parihar, R.D., Sharma, A., Bakshi, P., Sidhu, G.P.S., Bali, A.S., Karaouzas, I., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.K., Gyasi-Agyei, Y., 2019. Global evaluation
of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: A meta-analysis using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses.
Chemosphere 236, 124364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124364.
Kumari, N., Mohan, C., 2021. Basics of clay minerals and their characteristic properties. In: Nascimento, G.M.D. (Ed.), Clay and Clay Minerals.
IntechOpen, London, pp. 15–29.
Li, Y., Cheng, W., Sheng, G., Li, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Zhu, L., 2015. Synergetic effect of a pillared bentonite support on SE (VI) removal by nanoscale
zero valent iron. Appl. Catal. B 174, 329–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.03.025.
Malik, R., Dahiya, S., 2017. An experimental and quantum chemical study of removal of utmostly quantified heavy metals in wastewater using
coconut husk: A novel approach to mechanism. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 98, 139–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.100.
Margeta, K., Logar, N.Z., Šiljeg, M., Farkaš, A., 2013. Natural zeolites in water treatment–how effective is their use. In: Elshorbagy, W., Chowdhury, R.K.
(Eds.), Water Treatment. InTech, Rijeka, pp. 81–112.
Mitchell, E., Frisbie, S., Sarkar, B., 2011. Exposure to multiple metals from groundwater—a global crisis: Geology, climate change, health effects,
testing, and mitigation. Metallomics 3 (9), 874–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1mt00052g.
Mondal, P., Bhowmick, S., Chatterjee, D., Figoli, A., Van der Bruggen, B., 2013. Remediation of inorganic arsenic in groundwater for safe water supply:
A critical assessment of technological solutions. Chemosphere 92 (2), 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.097.
Murcott, S., 2012. Arsenic Contamination in the World, first ed. IWA publishing, London.
Muthusaravanan, S., Sivarajasekar, N., Vivek, J.S., Paramasivan, T., Naushad, M., Prakashmaran, J., Al-Duaij, O.K., 2018. Phytoremediation of heavy
metals: mechanisms, methods and enhancements. Environ. Chem. Lett. 16 (4), 1339–1359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0762-3.
Naddeo, V., Scannapieco, D., Belgiorno, V., 2013. Enhanced drinking water supply through harvested rainwater treatment. J. Hydrol. 498, 287–291.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.012.
Njoku, V.O., 2014. Biosorption potential of cocoa pod husk for the removal of Zn (II) from aqueous phase. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2 (2), 881–887.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2014.03.003.
Otunola, B.O., Ololade, O.O., 2020. A review on the application of clay minerals as heavy metal adsorbents for remediation purposes. Environ. Technol.
Innov. 18, 100692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100692.
Pal, D.B., Singh, A., Jha, J.M., Srivastava, N., Hashem, A., Alakeel, M.A., Gupta, V.K., 2021. Low-cost biochar adsorbents prepared from date and delonix
regia seeds for heavy metal sorption. Bioresour. Technol. 339, 125606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125606.
Palma-Lara, I., Martínez-Castillo, M., Quintana-Pérez, J.C., Arellano-Mendoza, M.G., Tamay-Cach, F., Valenzuela-Limón, O.L., García-Montalvo, E.A.,
Hernández-Zavala, A., 2020. Arsenic exposure: A public health problem leading to several cancers. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 110, 104539.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104539.
Park, J.H., Ok, Y.S., Kim, S.H., Cho, J.S., Heo, J.S., Delaune, R.D., Seo, D.C., 2016. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto sesame straw biochar in
aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 142, 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.093.
Park, J.D., Zheng, W., 2012. Human exposure and health effects of inorganic and elemental mercury. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 45 (6), 344.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.2012.45.6.344.
Pérez-Vidal, A., Silva-Leal, J.A., Diaz-Gómez, J., Meneses-Torres, C.J., Arias-Vallejo, J.E., Giraldo-Tenorio, G.A., Bacca-Jordán, M.C., 2021. Performance
evaluation of ceramic pot filters combined with adsorption processes for the removal of heavy metals and phenolic compounds. J. Water Health
19 (5), 750–761. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wh.2021.052.
Petrović, R., Lazarević, S., Janković-Častvan, I., Matić, T., Milivojević, M., Milošević, D., Veljović, Ð., 2023. Removal of trivalent chromium from
aqueous solutions by natural clays: Valorization of saturated adsorbents as raw materials in ceramic manufacturing. Appl. Clay Sci. 231, 106747.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106747.
Pohl, W.L., 2011. Economic Geology: Principles and Practice, first ed. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.
Priyantha, N., Sandamali, H.K.W., Kulasooriya, T.P.K., 2018. Sodium hydroxide modified rice husk for enhanced removal of copper ions. Water Sci.
Technol. 78 (7), 1615–1623. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.395.
15
Qiao, J., Zhu, Y., Jia, X., Niu, X., Liu, J., 2020. Distributions of arsenic and other heavy metals, and health risk assessments for groundwater in the
Guanzhong Plain region of China. Environ. Res. 181, 108957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108957.
Ramrakhiani, L., Ghosh, S., Majumdar, S., 2016. Surface modification of naturally available biomass for enhancement of heavy metal removal
efficiency, upscaling prospects, and management aspects of spent biosorbents: A review. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 180 (1), 41–78. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12010-016-2083-y.
Rathnayaka, R.M.C.Y., Amarathunga, A.A.D., Bellanthudawa, B.K.A., Rathnasri, P.A.S.A., Novak, A.T., Amarasiri, C., 2022. The effectiveness of a plant
integrated low cost treatment system to treat well water in coastal regions. Water Pract. Technol. 17 (11), 2242–2258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/
wpt.2022.11.
Robbins, E.C., Guo, J., Adams, C.D., 2014. Removal of As (III) and As (V) in surface modified ceramic filters. J. Water Sanit. Hygiene Dev. 4 (2), 214–222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2014.114.
Roos, P.M., Lierhagen, S., Flaten, T.P., Syversen, T., Vesterberg, O., Nordberg, M., 2012. Manganese in cerebrospinal fluid and blood plasma of patients
with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Exp. Biol. Med. 237 (7), 803–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/ebm.2012.011396.
RoyChowdhury, A., Datta, R., Sarkar, D., 2018. Heavy metal pollution and remediation. Green Chem. 359–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
809270-5.00015-7.
Sánchez-Ponce, L., Granado-Castro, M.D., Casanueva-Marenco, M.J., Galindo-Riaño, M.D., Díaz-de-Alba, M., 2021. Sherry wine industry by-product as
potential biosorbent for the removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous medium. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-
02053-0.
Shen, X., Dai, M., Yang, J., Sun, L., Tan, X., Peng, C., Naz, I., 2021. A critical review on the phytoremediation of heavy metals from environment:
Performance and challenges. Chemosphere 132979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132979.
Shi, J., Fan, X., Tsang, D.C., Wang, F., Shen, Z., Hou, D., Alessi, D.S., 2019. Removal of lead by rice husk biochars produced at different temperatures
and implications for their environmental utilizations. Chemosphere 235, 825–831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.237.
Shohag, H., Ullah, A., Qusar, S., Rahman, M., Hasnat, A., 2012. Alterations of serum zinc, copper, manganese, iron, calcium, and magnesium
concentrations and the complexity of interelement relations in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Biol. Trace Element Res. 148 (3),
275–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12011-012-9371-3.
Singh, P., Andrabi, S.M., Raina, D.B., Kumar, A., 2022. Three staged integrated community-based water filter system for potable water by effective
removal of contaminants from ground water. J. Water Process Eng. 49, 103044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.103044.
Singh, R., Singh, S., Parihar, P., Singh, V.P., Prasad, S.M., 2015. Arsenic contamination, consequences and remediation techniques: A review. Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 112, 247–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.10.009.
Siwila, S., Brink, I.C., 2018. A small-scale low-cost water treatment system for removal of selected heavy metals, bacteria and particles. Water Pract.
Technol. 13 (2), 446–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2018.055.
Škorňa, P., Jankovič, L., Scholtzová, E., Tunega, D., 2022. Hexavalent chromium adsorption by tetrahexylphosphonium modified beidellite clay. Appl.
Clay Sci. 228, 106623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106623.
Sobhanardakani, S., Parvizimosaed, H., Olyaie, E., 2013. Heavy metals removal from wastewaters using organic solid waste—rice husk. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 20 (8), 5265–5271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1516-1.
Su, S., Xiao, R., Mi, X., Xu, X., Zhang, Z., Wu, J., 2013. Spatial determinants of hazardous chemicals in surface water of Qiantang River, China. Ecol.
Indic. 24, 375–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.015.
Sullivan, R.K., Erickson, M., Oyanedel-Craver, V.A., 2017. Understanding the microbiological, organic and inorganic contaminant removal capacity of
ceramic water filters doped with different silver nanoparticles. Environ. Sci.: Nano 4 (12), 2348–2355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7EN00443E.
Sun, P., Zhang, W., Zou, B., Wang, X., Zhou, L., Ye, Z., Zhao, Q., 2021. Efficient adsorption of Cu (II), Pb (II) and Ni (II) from waste water by PANI@
APTS-magnetic attapulgite composites. Appl. Clay Sci. 209, 106151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2021.106151.
Tan, H., Wang, C., Zeng, G., Luo, Y., Li, H., Xu, H., 2020. Bioreduction and biosorption of Cr (VI) by a novel Bacillus sp. CRB-B1 strain. J. Hard Mater.
386, 121628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121628.
Torres-Luna, J.A., Carriazo, J.G., 2019. Porous aluminosilicic solids obtained by thermal-acid modification of a commercial kaolinite-type natural clay.
Solid State Sci. 88, 29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2018.12.006.
Uddin, M.K., 2017. A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade. Chem. Eng. J. 308, 438–462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.029.
Vareda, J.P., Valente, A.J., Durães, L., 2019. Assessment of heavy metal pollution from anthropogenic activities and remediation strategies: A review.
J. Environ. Manag. 246, 101–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.126.
Wang, P., Kong, X., Ma, L., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Song, L., Han, Z., 2022a. Metal(loid)s removal by zeolite-supported iron particles from mine
contaminated groundwater: Performance and mechanistic insights. Environ. Pollut. 313, 120155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120155.
Wang, L., Muhammad, H., Laipan, M., Fan, X., Guo, J., Li, Y., 2022b. Enhanced removal of Cr (VI) and Mo (VI) from polluted water using L-cysteine
doped polypyrrole/bentonite composite. Appl. Clay Sci. 217, 106387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2021.106387.
Wang, L., Rinklebe, J., Tack, F.M., Hou, D., 2021a. A review of green remediation strategies for heavy metal contaminated soil. Soil Use Manag. 37
(4), 936–963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12717.
Wang, J., Wang, W., Ai, Z., Li, M., Li, H., Peng, W., Song, S., 2021b. Adsorption toward Pb (II) occurring on three-dimensional reticular-structured
montmorillonite hydrogel surface. Appl. Clay Sci. 210, 106153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2021.106153.
World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2017. Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines. https://
policycommons.net/artifacts/421754/Progress-on-drinking-water-sanitation-and-hygiene/1392737/. (Accessed 23 June 2022).
Wu, J., Cao, M., Tong, D., Finkelstein, Z., Hoek, E., 2021. A critical review of point-of-use drinking water treatment in the United States. NPJ Clean
Water 4 (1), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41545-022-00159-0.
Wu, X., Song, Y., Yin, P., Xu, Q., Yang, Z., Xu, Y., Cai, H., 2022. Fabrication of the composite sepiolite@ polyethyleneimine/sodium alginate and its
excellent adsorption performance for heavy metal ions. Appl. Clay Sci. 228, 106647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106647.
Xiao, R., Duan, Y., Chu, W., 2020. The effectiveness of household water treatment and safe storage in improving drinking water quality: A disinfection
by-product (DBP) perspective. J. Water Supply: Res. Technol.-Aqua 69 (8), 785–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2020.052.
Yan, Z., Li, J., Chang, S., Cui, T., Jiang, Y., Yu, M., Zhang, L., Zhao, G., Qi, P., Li, S., 2015. Lignin relocation contributed to the alkaline pretreatment
efficiency of sweet sorghum bagasse. Fuel 158, 152–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.05.029.
Yang, X., Huang, G., An, C., Chen, X., Shen, J., Yin, J., Song, P., Xu, Z., Li, Y., 2021. Removal of arsenic from water through ceramic filter modified by
nano-CeO2 : A cost-effective approach for remote areas. Sci. Total Environ. 750, 141510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141510.
Zamora-Ledezma, C., Negrete-Bolagay, D., Figueroa, F., Zamora-Ledezma, E., Ni, M., Alexis, F., Guerrero, V.H., 2021. Heavy metal water pollution: A fresh
look about hazards, novel and conventional remediation methods. Environ. Technol. Innov. 22, 101504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101504.
Zhang, W., Qian, L., Ouyang, D., Chen, Y., Han, L., Chen, M., 2019. Effective removal of Cr (VI) by attapulgite-supported nanoscale zero-valent iron from
aqueous solution: Enhanced adsorption and crystallization. Chemosphere 221, 683–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.070.
16

The Use of Local Materials To Remove Heavy Metals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Local Materials To Remove Heavy Metals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Technology & Innovation 29 (2023) 103005

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

The use of local materials to remove heavy metals for

3.1.6. Coconut husks and shells ............................................................................................................................................ 6

1.1. Heavy metal pollution

1.2. Conventional treatment technologies

1.3. Household drinking water treatment technologies (HWT)

3.1. Agricultural waste

3.1.2. Cocoa pod husks

3.1.3. Sesame stems and leaves

3.1.4. Banana peels

3.1.5. Cassava peels

3.1.6. Coconut husks and shells

3.1.7. Rice husks

3.2. Natural clays and mineral deposits

3.3. Point-of –use technology

5. Advantages and disadvantages

6. Practical application and future perspectives

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103005.

You might also like