Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Interaction of carbonaceous nanomaterials with wastewater biomass

  • 274 Accesses

  • 11 Citations


Increasing production and use of carbonaceous nanomaterials (NMs) will increase their release to the sewer system and to municipal wastewater treatment plants. There is little quantitative knowledge on the removal of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs), graphene oxide (GO), or few-layer graphene (FLG) from wastewater into the wastewater biomass. As such, we investigated the quantification of GO and MWCNTs by UV-Vis spectrophotometry, and FLG using programmable thermal analysis (PTA), respectively. We further explored the removal of pristine and oxidized MWCNTs (OMWCNTs), GO, and FLG in a biomass suspension. At least 96% of pristine and O-MWCNTs were removed from the water phase through aggregation and 30-min settling in presence or absence of biomass with an initial MWCNT concentration of 25 mg∙L–1. Only 65% of GO was removed with biomass concentration at or above 1,000 mg∙L–1 as total suspended solids (TSS) with the initial GO concentration of 25 mg∙L–1. As UV-Vis spectrophotometry does not work well on quantification of FLG, we studied the removal of FLG at a lower biomass concentration (50 mg TSS∙L–1) using PTA, which showed a 16% removal of FLG with an initial concentration of 1 mg∙L–1. The removal data for GO and FLG were fitted using the Freundlich equation (R 2 = 0.55, 0.94, respectively). The data presented in this study for carbonaceous NM removal from wastewater provides quantitative information for environmental exposure modeling and life cycle assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    U.S.EPA. Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Applied to Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Flame-Retardant Coatings in Upholstery Textiles: A Case Study Presenting Priority Research Gaps for Future Risk Assessments (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D C: 2013

  2. 2.

    Baur J, Silverman E. Challenges and opportunities in multifunctional nanocomposite structures for aerospace applications. MRS Bulletin, 2007, 32(04): 328–334

  3. 3.

    Petersen E J, Zhang L, Mattison N T, O’Carroll D M, Whelton A J, Uddin N, Nguyen T, Huang Q, Henry T B, Holbrook R D, Chen K L. Potential release pathways, environmental fate, and ecological risks of carbon nanotubes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(23): 9837–9856

  4. 4.

    Piccinno F, Gottschalk F, Seeger S, Nowack B. Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2012, 14(9): 1–11

  5. 5.

    Hendren C O, Mesnard X, Dröge J, Wiesner M R. Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(7): 2562–2569

  6. 6.

    Clark S, Mallick G G. Global graphene market (product type, application, geography)—size, share, global trends, company profiles, demand, insights, analysis, research, report, opportunities, segmentation and forecast, 2013–2020. Allied Market Research, 2014

  7. 7.

    Nowack B, David R M, Fissan H, Morris H, Shatkin J A, Stintz M, Zepp R, Brouwer D. Potential release scenarios for carbon nanotubes used in composites. Environment International, 2013, 59: 1–11

  8. 8.

    Mueller N C, Nowack B. Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008, 42(12): 4447–4453

  9. 9.

    Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz R W, Nowack B. Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, Fullerenes) for different regions. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43(24): 9216–9222

  10. 10.

    U.S.EPA. Interim Technical Guidance for Assessing Screening Level Environmental Fate and Transport of, and General Population, Consumer, and Environmental Exposure to Nanomaterials 2010. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D C: 2011

  11. 11.

    Herrero-Latorre C, Álvarez-Méndez J, Barciela-García J, García-Martín S, Peña-Crecente R M. Characterization of carbon nanotubes and analytical methods for their determination in environmental and biological samples: a review. Analytica chimica acta, 2015, 853: 77–94

  12. 12.

    Plata D L, Reddy C M, Gschwend P M. Thermogravimetry-mass spectrometry for carbon nanotube detection in complex mixtures. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(22): 12254–12261

  13. 13.

    Doudrick K, Herckes P, Westerhoff P. Detection of carbon nanotubes in environmental matrices using programmed thermal analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(22): 12246–12253

  14. 14.

    Doudrick K, Corson N, Oberdörster G, Eder A C, Herckes P, Halden R U, Westerhoff P. Extraction and quantification of carbon nanotubes in biological matrices with application to rat lung tissue. ACS Nano, 2013, 7(10): 8849–8856

  15. 15.

    Doudrick K, Nosaka T, Herckes P, Westerhoff P. Quantification of graphene and graphene oxide in complex organic matrices. Environmental Science: Nano, 2015, 2: 60–67

  16. 16.

    Smith B, Wepasnick K, Schrote K E, Cho H H, Ball W P, Fairbrother D H. Influence of surface oxides on the colloidal stability of multi-walled carbon nanotubes: a structure-property relationship. Langmuir, 2009, 25(17): 9767–9776

  17. 17.

    Yi P, Chen K L. Influence of surface oxidation on the aggregation and deposition kinetics of multiwalled carbon nanotubes in monovalent and divalent electrolytes. Langmuir, 2011, 27(7): 3588–3599

  18. 18.

    Cho H H, Smith B A, Wnuk J D, Fairbrother D H, Ball W P. Influence of surface oxides on the adsorption of naphthalene onto multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008, 42(8): 2899–2905

  19. 19.

    Kiser M A, Ryu H, Jang H, Hristovski K, Westerhoff P. Biosorption of nanoparticles to heterotrophic wastewater biomass. Water Research, 2010, 44(14): 4105–4114

  20. 20.

    APHA. AWWA, WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater. 21st ed. American Public Health Association (APHA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF), 2005

  21. 21.

    Grady J L C P, Daigger G T, Lim H C. Biological Wastewater Treatment. 2nd ed. Revised and Expanded ed. Florida: CRC Press, 1999

  22. 22.

    Shin H J, Kim K K, Benayad A, Yoon S M, Park H K, Jung I S, Jin MH, Jeong H K, Kim J M, Choi J Y, Lee Y H. Efficient reduction of graphite oxide by sodium borohydride and its effect on electrical conductance. Advanced Functional Materials, 2009, 19(12): 1987–1992

  23. 23.

    Zhang J, Yang H, Shen G, Cheng P, Zhang J, Guo S. Reduction of graphene oxide via L-ascorbic acid. Chemical Communications, 2010, 46(7): 1112–1114

  24. 24.

    Saleh N B, Pfefferle L D, Elimelech M. Aggregation kinetics of multiwalled carbon nanotubes in aquatic systems: measurements and environmental implications. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008, 42(21): 7963–7969

  25. 25.

    Suzuki K, Tanaka Y, Osada T, Waki M. Removal of phosphate, magnesium and calcium from swine wastewater through crystallization enhanced by aeration. Water Research, 2002, 36(12): 2991–2998

  26. 26.

    Wiesner M R, Bottero J Y. A risk forecasting process for nanostructured materials, and nanomanufacturing. Comptes Rendus Physique, 2011, 12(7): 659–668 (in German)

  27. 27.

    Westerhoff P, Nowack B. Searching for global descriptors of engineered nanomaterial fate and transport in the environment. Accounts of Chemical Research, 2013, 46(3): 844–853

  28. 28.

    Yang Y, Chen Q, Wall J D, Hu Z. Potential nanosilver impact on anaerobic digestion at moderate silver concentrations. Water Research, 2012, 46(4): 1176–1184

  29. 29.

    Neidhardt F C. Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology. Washington, D C: ASM Press, 1996

  30. 30.

    Yang S T, Chang Y, Wang H, Liu G, Chen S, Wang Y, Liu Y, Cao A. Folding/aggregation of graphene oxide and its application in Cu2+ removal. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2010, 351 (1): 122–127

  31. 31.

    He H, Klinowski J, Forster M, Lerf A. A new structural model for graphite oxide. Chemical Physics Letters, 1998, 287(1–2): 53–56

  32. 32.

    Wang Y, Westerhoff P, Hristovski K D. Fate and biological effects of silver, titanium dioxide, and C60 (fullerene) nanomaterials during simulated wastewater treatment processes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 201–202(0): 16–22

  33. 33.

    Keller A A, Lazareva A. Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2014, 1(1): 65–70

  34. 34.

    Chen K L, Elimelech M. Relating colloidal stability of fullerene (C60) nanoparticles to nanoparticle charge and electrokinetic properties. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43(19): 7270–7276

  35. 35.

    Becker W C, Foundation A R. Using Oxidants to Enhance Filter Performance. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, 2004

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Yu Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Y., Yu, Z., Nosaka, T. et al. Interaction of carbonaceous nanomaterials with wastewater biomass. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 9, 823–831 (2015).

Download citation


  • multi-walled carbon nanotubes
  • graphene oxide
  • graphene
  • removal
  • wastewater biomass