Advertisement

Current Role of Nanomaterials in Environmental Remediation

  • D. Durgalakshmi
  • Saravanan Rajendran
  • Mu. Naushad
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable World book series (ECSW, volume 25)

Abstract

Natural causes of pollution are unavoidable; however, man-made pollution is increasing and causing alarming health issues, declining availability of clean water, and a lesser supply of good food. The limitations of conventional methods and materials used in water remediation to eliminate organic, inorganic, and microbial contaminants have prompted the research community to pursue nanotechnological aids for environmental needs. Nanomaterials have great advantages over bulk materials because of their greater surface area, higher reactivity, and hence better performance. The size effect of nanomaterialas is more of realistic perspective; thus, future technologies will be more focused on product development of nanotechnology for low cost but could extend to high-end users. In this chapter, we discuss nanostructured materials in the carbon family and the importance of metal oxides and magnetic materials in environmental remediation. We also outline the present need for nanomaterials in environmental applications and the nanomaterials currently being used for water remediation, antibacterial coatings, and biosensor applications.

Keywords

Nanomaterials Environment Water treatment Photocatalysis Sensors Antimicrobial 

Notes

Acknowledgements

D. Durgalakshmi gratefully acknowledges financial support from a Department of Science & Technology (Government of India)–Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (DST-INSPIRE) faculty fellowship (no. 04/2016/000845). R. Saravanan gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Chilean Solar Energy Research Center (SERC; CONICYT/FONDAP/15110019); the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT), Government of Chile (project no. 11170414); and Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tarapacá, Arica, Chile.

References

  1. Adeleye AS, Conway JR, Garner K, Huang Y, Su Y, Keller AA (2016) Engineered nanomaterials for water treatment and remediation: costs, benefits, and applicability. Chem Eng J 286:640–662Google Scholar
  2. Afkhami A, Saber-Tehrani M, Bagheri H (2010) Simultaneous removal of heavy-metal ions in wastewater samples using nano-alumina modified with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. J Hazard Mater 181(1–3):836–844Google Scholar
  3. Al-Othman ZA, Ali R, Naushad M (2012) Hexavalent chromium removal from aqueous medium by activated carbon prepared from peanut shell: adsorption kinetics, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies. Chem Eng J 184:238–247Google Scholar
  4. Ashbolt NJ (2015) Microbial contamination of drinking water and human health from community water systems. Curr Environ Health Rep 2(1):95–106Google Scholar
  5. Baptista FR, Belhout S, Giordani S, Quinn S (2015) Recent developments in carbon nanomaterial sensors. Chem Soc Rev 44(13):4433–4453Google Scholar
  6. Campoccia D, Montanaro L, Arciola CR (2013) A review of the biomaterials technologies for infection-resistant surfaces. Biomaterials 34(34):8533–8554Google Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59Google Scholar
  8. Chen D, Feng H, Li J (2012) Graphene oxide: preparation, functionalization, and electrochemical applications. Chem Rev 112(11):6027–6053Google Scholar
  9. Chen L, Xin H, Fang Y, Zhang C, Zhang F, Cao X, Zhang C, Li X (2014) Application of metal oxide heterostructures in arsenic removal from contaminated water. J Nanomater 2014:Article ID 793610.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/793610. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  10. Collins G, Schmidt M, O’Dwyer C, McGlacken G, Holmes JD (2014) Enhanced catalytic activity of high-index faceted palladium nanoparticles in Suzuki–Miyaura coupling due to efficient leaching mechanism. ACS Catal 4(9):3105–3111Google Scholar
  11. Dasgupta N, Ranjan S, Ramalingam C (2017) Applications of nanotechnology in agriculture and water quality management. Environ Chem Lett 15(4):591–605Google Scholar
  12. Dinesh R, Anandaraj M, Srinivasan V, Hamza S (2012) Engineered nanoparticles in the soil and their potential implications to microbial activity. Geoderma 173:19–27Google Scholar
  13. Eguchi M, Mitsui D, Wu H-L, Sato R, Teranishi T (2012) Simple reductant concentration-dependent shape control of polyhedral gold nanoparticles and their plasmonic properties. Langmuir 28(24):9021–9026Google Scholar
  14. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2016) Contaminant candidate list (CCL) and regulatory determination: definition of “contaminant”. https://www.epa.gov/ccl/definition-contaminant. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  15. Faust SD, Aly OM (2018) Chemistry of water treatment. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  16. Franci G, Falanga A, Galdiero S, Palomba L, Rai M, Morelli G, Galdiero M (2015) Silver nanoparticles as potential antibacterial agents. Molecules 20(5):8856–8874Google Scholar
  17. Fu F, Dionysiou DD, Liu H (2014) The use of zero-valent iron for groundwater remediation and wastewater treatment: a review. J Hazard Mater 267:194–205Google Scholar
  18. Gehrke I, Geiser A, Somborn-Schulz A (2015) Innovations in nanotechnology for water treatment. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 8:1Google Scholar
  19. Haines A, Alleyne G, Kickbusch I, Dora C (2012) From the Earth Summit to Rio+ 20: integration of health and sustainable development. Lancet 379(9832):2189–2197Google Scholar
  20. Hajipour MJ, Fromm KM, Ashkarran AA, de Aberasturi DJ, de Larramendi IR, Rojo T, Serpooshan V, Parak WJ, Mahmoudi M (2012) Antibacterial properties of nanoparticles. Trends Biotechnol 30(10):499–511Google Scholar
  21. Hebbar RS, Isloor AM, Asiri AM (2017) Carbon nanotube- and graphene-based advanced membrane materials for desalination. Environ Chem Lett 15(4):643–671Google Scholar
  22. Herman A, Herman AP (2014) Nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents: their toxicity and mechanisms of action. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 14(1):946–957Google Scholar
  23. Hernández-Alonso MD, Fresno F, Suárez S, Coronado JM (2009) Development of alternative photocatalysts to TiO2: challenges and opportunities. Energy Environ Sci 2(12):1231–1257Google Scholar
  24. Holzinger M, Le Goff A, Cosnier S (2014) Nanomaterials for biosensing applications: a review. Front Chem 2:63Google Scholar
  25. Jiang J, Li Y, Liu J, Huang X, Yuan C, Lou XW (2012) Recent advances in metal oxide–based electrode architecture design for electrochemical energy storage. Adv Mater 24(38):5166–5180Google Scholar
  26. Jiang Y, Biswas P, Fortner JD (2016) A review of recent developments in graphene-enabled membranes for water treatment. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2(6):915–922Google Scholar
  27. Jing H, Zhang Q, Large N, Yu C, Blom DA, Nordlander P, Wang H (2014) Tunable plasmonic nanoparticles with catalytically active high-index facets. Nano Lett 14(6):3674–3682Google Scholar
  28. Jobst KJ, Shen L, Reiner EJ, Taguchi VY, Helm PA, McCrindle R, Backus S (2013) The use of mass defect plots for the identification of (novel) halogenated contaminants in the environment. Anal Bioanal Chem 405(10):3289–3297Google Scholar
  29. Kharisov BI, Kharissova OV, Ortiz-Mendez U (2016) CRC concise encyclopedia of nanotechnology. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar SG, Rao KK (2015) Zinc oxide based photocatalysis: tailoring surface-bulk structure and related interfacial charge carrier dynamics for better environmental applications. RSC Adv 5(5):3306–3351Google Scholar
  31. Lamastra L, Balderacchi M, Trevisan M (2016) Inclusion of emerging organic contaminants in groundwater monitoring plans. MethodsX 3:459–476Google Scholar
  32. Lellouche J, Friedman A, Lellouche J-P, Gedanken A, Banin E (2012) Improved antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of magnesium fluoride nanoparticles obtained by water-based ultrasound chemistry. Nanomedicine 8(5):702–711Google Scholar
  33. Li Y, Zhu G, Ng WJ, Tan SK (2014) A review on removing pharmaceutical contaminants from wastewater by constructed wetlands: design, performance and mechanism. Sci Total Environ 468:908–932Google Scholar
  34. Manahan S (2017) Environmental chemistry. CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Martinez-Gutierrez F, Boegli L, Agostinho A, Sánchez EM, Bach H, Ruiz F, James G (2013) Anti-biofilm activity of silver nanoparticles against different microorganisms. Biofouling 29(6):651–660Google Scholar
  36. Mohapatra M, Rout K, Gupta S, Singh P, Anand S, Mishra B (2010) Facile synthesis of additive-assisted nano goethite powder and its application for fluoride remediation. J Nanopart Res 12(2):681–686Google Scholar
  37. Mohmood I, Lopes CB, Lopes I, Ahmad I, Duarte AC, Pereira E (2013) Nanoscale materials and their use in water contaminants removal—a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(3):1239–1260Google Scholar
  38. Mu Y, Jia F, Ai Z, Zhang L (2017) Iron oxide shell mediated environmental remediation properties of nano zero-valent iron. Environ Sci Nano 4(1):27–45Google Scholar
  39. Nagaveni K, Hegde M, Madras G (2004) Structure and photocatalytic activity of Ti1−xMxO2±δ (M = W, V, Ce, Zr, Fe, and Cu) synthesized by solution combustion method. J Phys Chem B 108(52):20204–20212Google Scholar
  40. Nakata K, Fujishima A (2012) TiO2 photocatalysis: design and applications. J Photochem Photobiol C: Photochem Rev 13(3):169–189Google Scholar
  41. Narayana RL, Matheswaran M, Aziz AA, Saravanan P (2011) Photocatalytic decolourization of basic green dye by pure and Fe, Co doped TiO2 under daylight illumination. Desalination 269(1–3):249–253Google Scholar
  42. NRC [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission] (2016) Backgrounder on tritium, radiation protection limits, and drinking water standards. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  43. Pan Y, Zhang X (2013) Four groups of new aromatic halogenated disinfection byproducts: effect of bromide concentration on their formation and speciation in chlorinated drinking water. Environ Sci Technol 47(3):1265–1273Google Scholar
  44. Peik-See T, Pandikumar A, Ngee LH, Ming HN, Hua CC (2014) Magnetically separable reduced graphene oxide/iron oxide nanocomposite materials for environmental remediation. Cat Sci Technol 4(12):4396–4405Google Scholar
  45. Perreault F, De Faria AF, Nejati S, Elimelech M (2015) Antimicrobial properties of graphene oxide nanosheets: why size matters. ACS Nano 9(7):7226–7236Google Scholar
  46. Poulton SW, Krom MD, Raiswell R (2004) A revised scheme for the reactivity of iron (oxyhydr) oxide minerals towards dissolved sulfide. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 68(18):3703–3715Google Scholar
  47. Rakkesh RA, Balakumar S (2013) Facile synthesis of ZnO/TiO2 core–shell nanostructures and their photocatalytic activities. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 13(1):370–376Google Scholar
  48. Rakkesh RA, Durgalakshmi D, Balakumar S (2014) Efficient sunlight-driven photocatalytic activity of chemically bonded GNS–TiO2 and GNS–ZnO heterostructures. J Mater Chem C 2(33):6827–6834Google Scholar
  49. Rakkesh RA, Durgalakshmi D, Balakumar S (2015) Nanostructuring of a GNS-V2O5–TiO2 core–shell photocatalyst for water remediation applications under sun-light irradiation. RSC Adv 5(24):18633–18641Google Scholar
  50. Roser M, Ortiz-Ospina E (2017) World population growth. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  51. Sadegh H, Shahryari Ghoshekandi R, Masjedi A, Mahmoodi Z, Kazemi M (2016) A review on carbon nanotubes adsorbents for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Int J Nano Dimens 7(2):109–120Google Scholar
  52. Saravanan R, Shankar H, Prakash T, Narayanan V, Stephen A (2011) ZnO/CdO composite nanorods for photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue under visible light. Mater Chem Phys 125(1–2):277–280Google Scholar
  53. Savage N, Diallo MS (2005) Nanomaterials and water purification: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 7(4–5):331–342Google Scholar
  54. Sirelkhatim A, Mahmud S, Seeni A, Kaus NHM, Ann LC, Bakhori SKM, Hasan H, Mohamad D (2015) Review on zinc oxide nanoparticles: antibacterial activity and toxicity mechanism. Nano Micro Lett 7(3):219–242Google Scholar
  55. Smith SC, Rodrigues DF (2015) Carbon-based nanomaterials for removal of chemical and biological contaminants from water: a review of mechanisms and applications. Carbon 91:122–143Google Scholar
  56. Stumm W (1977) Chemical interaction in particle separation. Environ Sci Technol 11(12):1066–1070Google Scholar
  57. Suárez-Iglesias O, Collado S, Oulego P, Díaz M (2017) Graphene-family nanomaterials in wastewater treatment plants. Chem Eng J 313:121–135Google Scholar
  58. Tollefson J, Gilbert N (2012) Rio report card: the world has failed to deliver on many of the promises it made 20 years ago at the Earth Summit in Brazil. Nature 486(7401):20–24Google Scholar
  59. Tosco T, Papini MP, Viggi CC, Sethi R (2014) Nanoscale zerovalent iron particles for groundwater remediation: a review. J Clean Prod 77:10–21Google Scholar
  60. Tran TT, Lu X (2011) Synergistic effect of Ag and Pd ions on shape-selective growth of polyhedral Au nanocrystals with high-index facets. J Phys Chem C 115 (9):3638–3645Google Scholar
  61. United Nations (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Vardharajula S, Ali SZ, Tiwari PM, Eroğlu E, Vig K, Dennis VA, Singh SR (2012) Functionalized carbon nanotubes: biomedical applications. Int J Nanomedicine 7:5361–5374.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S35832. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  63. World Health Organization (2004) Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Volume 1: recommendations. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  64. World Health Organization (2018) Drinking-water. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  65. Wood C (1993) Planning for a sustainable environment: a report by the Town and Country Planning Association. In: Blowers A (ed). Earthscan, London 38–39Google Scholar
  66. Wu Z, Yang S, Wu W (2016) Shape control of inorganic nanoparticles from solution. Nanoscale 8(3):1237–1259Google Scholar
  67. Yang W, Ratinac KR, Ringer SP, Thordarson P, Gooding JJ, Braet F (2010) Carbon nanomaterials in biosensors: should you use nanotubes or graphene? Angew Chem Int Ed 49(12):2114–2138Google Scholar
  68. Zhang J, Li CM (2012) Nanoporous metals: fabrication strategies and advanced electrochemical applications in catalysis, sensing and energy systems. Chem Soc Rev 41(21):7016–7031Google Scholar
  69. Zhang Q, Du Q, Hua M, Jiao T, Gao F, Pan B (2013) Sorption enhancement of lead ions from water by surface charged polystyrene-supported nano-zirconium oxide composites. Environ Sci Technol 47(12):6536–6544Google Scholar
  70. Zhang Y, Wu B, Xu H, Liu H, Wang M, He Y, Pan B (2016) Nanomaterials-enabled water and wastewater treatment. NanoImpact 3:22–39Google Scholar
  71. Zhu C, Yang G, Li H, Du D, Lin Y (2014) Electrochemical sensors and biosensors based on nanomaterials and nanostructures. Anal Chem 87(1):230–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Durgalakshmi
    • 1
  • Saravanan Rajendran
    • 2
  • Mu. Naushad
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical PhysicsAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of TarapacáAricaChile
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, College of ScienceKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations