Next Article in Journal
Effect of Heat Treatment on Structural, Magnetic and Electrical Properties of La2FeMnO6
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Eco-Efficient Concretes Produced with Fly Ash and Uncarbonated Recycled Aggregates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/ma14247500
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Heavy Metal Adsorption Using Magnetic Nanoparticles for Water Purification: A Critical Review

by
Christos Liosis
1,
Athina Papadopoulou
2,
Evangelos Karvelas
3,4,
Theodoros E. Karakasidis
4,* and
Ioannis E. Sarris
3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, 38334 Volos, Greece
2
Inorganic Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15771 Athens, Greece
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece
4
Condensed Matter Physics Lab, Department of Physics, University of Thessaly, 35100 Lamia, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2021, 14(24), 7500; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247500
Submission received: 17 September 2021 / Revised: 22 November 2021 / Accepted: 1 December 2021 / Published: 7 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Magnetic Nanofibers in Analytical Chemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research on contamination of groundwater and drinking water is of major importance. Due to the rapid and significant progress in the last decade in nanotechnology and its potential applications to water purification, such as adsorption of heavy metal ion from contaminated water, a wide number of articles have been published. An evaluating frame of the main findings of recent research on heavy metal removal using magnetic nanoparticles, with emphasis on water quality and method applicability, is presented. A large number of articles have been studied with a focus on the synthesis and characterization procedures for bare and modified magnetic nanoparticles as well as on their adsorption capacity and the corresponding desorption process of the methods are presented. The present review analysis shows that the experimental procedures demonstrate high adsorption capacity for pollutants from aquatic solutions. Moreover, reuse of the employed nanoparticles up to five times leads to an efficiency up to 90%. We must mention also that in some rare occasions, nanoparticles have been reused up to 22 times.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, water issues, such as exhaustion of resources and quality of drinking water, have attracted the interest not only of researchers but also of national and international organizations and governments [1]. Terms such as water stress and water scarcity are now subjects of research on a daily basis. The first term refers to situations where the quantity of available water is not sufficient for agricultural, industrial, or domestic uses. It takes into account several physical aspects related to water resources, such as water quality, environmental flows, and water accessibility [2,3,4]. On the other hand, the second term refers to the volumetric abundance of water supply [5,6,7], which is the ratio of human water consumption to available water supply for a specific area [8,9]. The main factors that cause water crisis in the long run are population growth, expansion of industrial activities, urbanization, climate change, depletion of aquifers, and water contamination [10,11,12]. It is obvious that the coverage of global demands for safe drinking water in the near future is utopian, if we consider that water quantity is nearly constant due to the hydrologic cycle in various forms, such as seawater, groundwater, surface water, and rainwater [13,14]. However, climate change will affect the quality and quantity of potentially available drinking water due to increased flooding, more severe droughts, and enhanced toxicity of chemical contaminants in the environment [15,16]. Of more immediate concern is the efficiency of existing water treatment methods due to increasing pollution resulting from the anthropogenic activities [17]. Thus, purification of water from polluted sources is essential to enable the utilization of sustainable global water [18,19].
Water pollutants are categorized into point source, where the pollution originates from a single and identifiable source, and nonpoint source, where pollutants originate from a variety of sources [20]. Based on their main physicochemical characteristics, they can also be classified into radioactive, thermal, microorganism, nutrient, suspended solid and sediment, and organic and inorganic pollutants [21]. Inorganic pollutants consist of heavy metals, fertilizers, sulphides, ammonia, oxides of nitrogen, acids, and bases [22,23,24]. Since water quality is improving with increasing advances in technologies [17] and water purification is highly required to prevent toxic effects and disruption of ecological balance, this particular research review focuses on water contamination by heavy metals and ways of heavy metal removal.
Pollutants can contaminate water through both natural processes and anthropogenic activities [25,26]. Their concentrations in water depend on the local geological, hydrogeological, and geochemical characteristics of the aquifer. A significant burden on water quality and, consequently, public health is the increasing concentrations of heavy metals due to their toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative nature [25,27]. Unlike organic contaminants, heavy metals, which are toxic and mostly carcinogenetic, are not biodegradable and tend to accumulate in organisms [28]. Hence, exposure to toxic heavy metal through drinking water has long been a critical public health concern across the world [29]. Elements whose density exceeds 5 g/cm3 fall into the category of heavy metals [30] and are listed in Table 1 based on their toxicity, which is related to the maximum contaminant level (MCL) [31]. Specific differences in metal ion toxicities arise from differences in solubility, absorbability, transport, chemical reactivity, and the complexes that are formed within the body [32].
Heavy metals are classified into essential (Zn, Cu, Fe, and Co) and nonessential (Cd, Hg, As, and Cr) based on their toxicity. At low concentrations, essential heavy metals are harmless, unlike nonessential metals, which are highly toxic [34,35]. It is worth noting that for nonessential heavy metals, toxicity is very high, even at low concentrations [36,37]. Water contamination by heavy metals occurs in anthropogenic activities or in natural processes. Sources of contamination include metal corrosion, atmospheric deposition, soil erosion of metal ions, leaching of heavy metals, sediment resuspension, and metal evaporation from water resources to soil and groundwater. Phenomena such as weathering and volcanic eruptions fall into the category natural contamination [38]. In contrast, the major sources resulting from anthropogenic activities are mining wastes, landfill leaches, municipal wastewater, urban runoff, industrial wastewater, electroplating, and electronic and metal finishing industries [39,40]. Moreover, due to an increasing production of metals from technological activities, the problem of waste disposal has become of paramount importance; hence many aquatic environments face metal concentrations that do not meet water quality criteria designed to protect the environment, animals, and humans [41]. Metals such as Cu, Cd, Cr, Hg, and Ni have the ability to produce reactive radicals, resulting in DNA damage, lipid peroxidation, depletion of protein sulfhydryls, and other effects [42]. In this context, the availability and release of pollutants from anthropogenic sources needs to be considered [43]. The source of pollution and the effect of each heavy metal on human health are presented in Table 2.
However, the removal of heavy metal ions from water has been a vital and challenging issue for several decades [47,48], without reaching the heart of the problem. On the other hand, in recent years nanotechnology has been integrated with several novel techniques for the removal of heavy metals from water systems to improve removal efficiency [49,50,51].
Several water purification methods for heavy metals exist, such as chemical precipitation and coagulation, flocculation, electrochemical methods, photocatalytic degradation, membrane filtration, ion exchange, bioremediation, and adsorption, just to mention few [16,52,53]. The present work focuses on the adsorption methods developed during the last decade, where nanotechnology contributed quite a lot to great progress. In this context, adsorption capacity and reuse efficiency of magnetic nanoparticles for capturing heavy metals in water environments are investigated. In addition, the findings are analysed based on certain characteristics, such as viability method, time of purification, water quality after purification (adsorption capacity), and nanoparticle reusability.
The main interest in the adsorption method is the interaction between nanoparticles and adsorbents, which depends on their physicochemical properties [54]. The term physicochemical covers the particle size, surface area, surface charge, agglomeration, morphology, surface coating, and so forth. Particles with sizes below 100 nm are defined as nanoparticles [55], and their applications vary according to their size [54,56,57]. Magnetic, mechanical, optical, and electrical properties affect the formation and aggregation of nanoparticles [44]. Aggregation of nanoparticles is affected by surface charge, particle size, and composition. Nanoparticles without magnetic properties have limited applicability in water purification due to the difficulty of separation from the aqueous solution [58]. Magnetic nanoparticles present advantages due to their large surface area, size, and shape-dependent catalytic properties and can be separated from the aqueous solution with the use of a magnet field [48,59]; thus many methods have been investigated for their potential application in both environmental and biological fields [60,61,62].
Our focus was on studies that have been published during the last decade. The selection of relevant research articles was performed in several stages. In the first stage, the search was based on article title, abstract, and keywords. The terms for the search were (a) water purification, (b) magnetic nanoparticles, (c) heavy metals, and (d) reusability. In the second stage, we selected articles according to purification method (adsorption process). The final stage included the expansion of the bibliography using the remaining articles’ reference lists.
The sections below exhaustively describe the procedure for the adsorption method, which includes synthesis and characterization of the nanoparticles, the evaluation strategies, and the main findings, such as adsorption capacity and reusability.

2. Adsorption Method

The adsorption process occurs between a porous solid medium and a multicomponent fluid or gas by the formation of physical or chemical bonds and offers flexibility in design and operation, which is combined with very satisfying results (adsorption efficiency) [63]. Moreover, due to the reversibility of the adsorption mechanism, adsorbents can be regenerated through suitable desorption processes [28].
The term adsorption refers to a mass transfer process where the pollutants in a solution are transferred to a solid adsorbent [64], which is frequently used for water and wastewater purification under the principles of pore filling, H bonding, hydrophobic interaction, and ion exchange [65,66]. The process under physical or chemical techniques contains many different adsorption forces that can effectively adsorb specific pollutants [67]. Physical adsorption is due to weak Van der Waals forces of attraction, and chemical adsorption is due to the strong covalent bond between the adsorbent and the adsorbate [34]. In aqueous solutions, iron oxide hydroxyl is functionalized because of the Fe atoms that coordinate with water. Iron oxide surface atoms act as Lewis acids and coordinate with molecules that donate lone-pair electrons. These hydroxyl groups are amphoteric and may react with acids or bases [68,69]. Based on the physicochemical properties of magnetic nanoparticles and due to chemisorption and/or physisorption, we can achieve the adsorption of heavy metals from contaminated water. Terms such as adsorption capacity and removal efficiency are employed for the quantification of the adsorption process. The adsorption capacity is enhanced due to the increased surface atoms, which appear more active and unstable and offer more unsaturated bonds [67]. Unfortunately, the efficiency of conventional adsorbents is often limited by the surface area or active sites and the adsorption kinetics [66]. A schematic representation of the water purification cycle is presented in Figure 1.
Based on the selected articles, Figure 2 and Figure 3 were implemented. Despite the fact that the adsorption method of using bare or modified iron oxide nanoparticles in polluted aqua systems has already been used for several years, the scientific interest remains constant, as we can see in Figure 2. In Figure 3, we can see the research interest per year in each type of heavy metal ion. Furthermore, from Figure 3 we can see the total interest in each heavy metal during the last decade. It is evident that As (III) and Cr (III) constitute the minority of the heavy metals that have been studied by using the adsorption method. On the other hand, Pb (II), Cu (II), and Cr (VI) constitute the majority of the research interest, with Pb (II) appearing to have attracted the majority of the interest of the scientific community since it is discussed in almost 1/3 of the selected articles.

2.1. Synthesis and Characterization of Magnetic Nanoparticles

The adsorption method stages are synthesis, characterization of magnetic nanoparticles, and finally, evaluation of adsorption by specific methods, which are described below. Synthesis and characterization are correlated since the results of the initial stage, which is synthesis, are visualized and analysed through characterization.
Over the years, nanoparticle synthesis has been performed by top–down or bottom–up approaches with the use of chemical techniques, such as coprecipitation [70], microemulsions [71], sol–gel synthesis [72,73], sonochemical reactions [74], hydrothermal reactions [75], hydrolysis [76,77], thermolysis of precursors [78], flow injection [79,80], electrospray syntheses [81], solvothermal method [82], and laser ablation [83]
Moreover, several factors are affecting the size and the stability of nanoparticles, such as pH and temperature. Different sizes and shapes of nanoparticles could be synthesized by using the above synthesis methods. The average nanoparticle size of iron oxides increases with the increase in reaction temperature [84], and their size is estimated from either the Scherrer or Debye equation [85,86]. It is important to note that the Scherrer equation can only be applied for sizes between 100 and 200 nm [87,88].
The stabilization of iron oxide particles is crucial to obtain magnetic colloidal ferrofluids that are stable against aggregation in both a biological medium and a magnetic field [69]. In order to achieve stabilization, several coating methods [89,90] are used, such as monomeric stabilizers (carboxylates, phosphates) [91,92], inorganic materials (silica, gold, dextran), and polymeric stabilizers (chitosan, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, alginate) [93,94]. The functionalization of nanoparticles’ surface is of major importance for tuning the overall properties of particles to fit targeted applications [95].
A crucial factor is the surface charge of metal oxides due to the presence of hydroxyl groups depending on the pH of the solution (i.e., the surface of the magnetite will be positive or negative), the point of zero charge (pHpzc) caused by the amphoteric behaviour of hydroxylated surface groups, and the interaction between surface sites and the electrolyte species [96]. Therefore, the surface charge as well as the surface potential is essential in predicting surface reactions, surface complex formation, ion transfer, and so forth. Zeta potential, which reflects the potential difference between moving particles and the bulk phase, is a basic and major parameter to indicate the surface surroundings of a particle [97]. Hence, at the isoelectric point (PZC) particles flocculate because of the density of the surface charge, which is very small [98].
In addition, the efficiency of water purification techniques is strongly dependent on the efficiency of the adsorption and/or coprecipitation processes, which in turn are strongly influenced by the zeta potential of the colloidal substrate [99,100].
The ability and efficiency of the adsorption technologies in water treatment also depend on the characteristics and functions of adsorbents [101]. Another issue for magnetic nanoparticles at high temperatures is that the magnetic moments will rapidly fluctuate [102]. Generally, the saturation magnetization (MS) values found in nanostructured materials are usually smaller than the corresponding bulk phase, provided that no change in ionic configurations occurs [103]. The optimum saturated magnetization value could lead to a fast separation process, and the adsorbents could be easily separated from aqueous solution [104,105].
To obtain pure synthesized materials, they are isolated with the use of a magnetic field and, in almost all cases, washed with ultrapure water several times [106] and finally dried in a vacuum oven in order to remove redundant diamines [107].
The majority of existing research background focuses on the magnetic nanoparticles of iron oxide due to their superparamagnetic behaviour, high corrosion resistance [108], and low toxicity [109]. Moreover, composites of carbon and Fe3O4 exhibit excellent microwave absorption but also possess good conductivity and strength [110].
Hematite, magnetite, and maghemite excel significantly among iron oxides due to their unique magnetic, catalytic, and other properties [111,112]. Zerovalent metals are effectively reductant when reacting with oxidized pollutants in water [113]. Pollutant removal by γ-Fe2O3 nanoparticles has been recognized to be resulting from electrostatic interactions. Oxygen atoms on the surface of the iron oxides Fe3O4 and γ-Fe2O3 can be polarized under various pH values. More specifically, when the pH value is below the point of zero charge, the surface of the iron oxides possesses positive charges, attracting negatively charged pollutants [114,115]. The physical and magnetic properties of iron oxides are presented in Table 3.
Hematite is the most stable form of iron oxide polymorphs [117], and nanostructures can be obtained in various morphologies [118]; hence hematite is well fitted to the needs of each application. Hematite’s magnetic properties are related to its particle size: above the Neel temperature (TN) it is ferromagnetic, between TN and TM it is characterized by a reorientational magnetic phase transition, and below the Morin temperature (TM) it becomes antiferromagnetic [119].
Ferromagnetic iron oxides, such as magnetite with Ms 92–100 (emu/g) and magnemite with Ms 60–80 (emu/g), have a critical diameter value (Dcr); below Dcr, more energy is required to create a domain wall than to support the external magnetostatic energy of a single domain state [120]. The magnemite and magnetite nanoparticles become supermagnetic when the sizes of the nanoparticles are under 20 [121] and 25 nm, respectively. The above similar physical properties arise from the alike crystal structure. In general, as the size of the Fe3O4 nanoparticles decreases, the saturation magnetization also decreases [122]. In addition, magnetite iron oxide can be easily oxidized to Fe2O3 or dissolved in an acidic medium; therefore, anaerobic conditions during synthesis should be obtained in order to avoid oxidation [70]. In this context, it is obvious that plenty of factors are affecting the synthesis of magnetic nanoparticles, consequently raising the difficulty of the method. The sizes of the bare particles of hematite, magnetite, and maghemite under various synthesis methods and environments are presented in Table 4.
However, the use of magnetic nanoparticles, which provide larger removal capacity, higher reactivity, high surface-area-to-volume ratio, high degree of dispersion, excellent adsorption affinity, and catalytic activity [129], also presents a challenge in terms of recovery, stability, and toxicity. In chemical terms, iron oxide nanoparticles can be oxidized in air, resulting in the loss of dispersibility and magnetism [70].
Additionally, economic factors and the difficulty of separating them from the water phase make the use of pure iron oxide nanoparticles as an adsorbent dysfunctional [130]. Hence, surface modification could be the solution to these problems, offering protection of the magnetic core from dissolution in acid but also control over the agglomeration of magnetic nanoparticles. On the other hand, modification may have a negative impact on the activity of the particles, so modification approaches that can provide synergy between the physiochemical properties and the effectiveness of contaminant removal need further research [61,131,132]. In addition, low-cost absorbents with high metal-binding capacity are increasingly being utilized for the removal of heavy metals.
The characterization of nanoparticles is a major part of the method [133], for having the optimum adsorption capacity, the nanoparticles must be well defined in frames that depend on several parameters. These parameters determine and affect the nanoparticles’ applicability, such as size, shape, size distribution, degree of aggregation, surface charge, and surface area [134,135,136,137]. The most common characterization method for nanoparticles of <100 nm size is transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which is used for the characterization mostly of the size, shape, and dispersion of magnetic nanoparticles but also for shape heterogeneity and accumulation [133,134,138]. The size distribution of the nanoparticles can be measured by a dynamic laser scattering analyser (DLS) [136,138,139,140]. The identification of the functional groups in the synthesized magnetic nanoparticles can be obtained by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) technique. The absorption spectra of the nanoparticles were determined using ultraviolet–visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy [141,142]. Zeta potential measurement is used for the determination of the surface charge of nanoparticles. In general, nanoparticles with zeta potential values greater than the absolute value of 30 mv present good stability [143]. X-ray diffraction (XRD) is used for structural characterization, such as structural determination, shape, and size [110,144]. Magnetic force microscopy (MFM) is used for the investigation of the magnetic behaviour with high spatial resolution for static magnetic fields [143,145,146].

2.2. Adsorption Evaluation Strategies

Characterization methods are necessary for the evaluation of the adsorption. Among the most widely employed methods are Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) technique, ultraviolet–visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy, ICP analysis, and magnetic property measurement by a VSM (vibrating sample magnetometer).
Apart from the adsorption capacity, further analysis of the adsorption process performance is obtained from the thermodynamic and kinetic aspects [147]. The adsorption method could be separated in reaction and diffusion models; for the examination of these two models, several methods have been developed.
The pollutant removal efficiency R and adsorption capacity q are calculated using Equations (1) and (2):
R = ( C 0 − Ce ) × 100 / C 0
q = ( C 0 − C ) × V / M
where C0 (mg/L) and C (mg/L) are the initial and final pollutant concentrations in the solution, respectively. V(L) is the volume of the solution, and M(g) is the mass of the magnetic nanoparticles [148].
When an adsorbate-containing phase is contacted with the adsorbent for sufficient time, then the adsorption equilibrium is established [149].
The equilibrium correlations and performance are described by the interactions between adsorbents and pollutants, which are known as adsorption isotherms [63]. These isotherms provide plenty of information that, if utilized properly, permits the optimization of the adsorption mechanism pathways, the expression of the surface properties and capacities of adsorbents, and the effective design of the adsorption systems [150]. Sometimes it is difficult to estimate whether the equilibrium has been reached due to the kinetic hysteresis that occurs when a fast kinetic adsorption reaction is followed by slower adsorptions. The two parameters of the Langmuir adsorption isotherm are used for the analysis of the adsorption process according to Equation (3) [151,152,153]:
q e = q m × K L C e / ( 1 + K L C e )
where qe (mg/g) is the equilibrium adsorption capacity of the heavy metal ions, qm (mg/g) is the maximum adsorption capacity of the heavy metal ions, Ce (mg/L) is the equilibrium concentration of the ions, and KL is the Langmuir adsorption constant. The two-parameter isotherm Freundlich model is employed also according to Equation (4) [65,151,152]:
q e = K F × ( C e 1 n )
where qe (mg/g) is the equilibrium adsorption capacity of the heavy metal ions, qm (mg/g) is the maximum adsorption capacity of the heavy metal ions, Ce (mg/L) is the equilibrium concentration of the ions, KF is the Freundlich constant indicating the adsorption capacity, and n is the heterogeneity factor representing the adsorption intensity.
The limitations of the Freundlich isotherm model arise from the fact that it is an empirical model, its behaviour is linear only for certain concentrations, and finally, the constant KF varies with the change of temperature [154].
Another isotherm model arises from the combination of Langmuir and Freundlich expressions for the prediction of the heterogeneous adsorption systems [155], the so-called Sips model, which is described by Equation (5) [65,151,156]:
q e = q s × K s C e m / ( 1 + K s C e m )
where qs (mL/mg) is the specific adsorption capacity at saturation, Ks (mL/mg) is the Sips isotherm constant, and m is the heterogeneity factor. The majority of the studied research works have employed the isotherm models described above.
The adsorption mechanism and the metal ion uptake rate, to establish the time dependence of the residual adsorbate in solution, are provided by the kinetic analysis of the adsorption process [157]. Several models have been employed to describe the kinetics, but the pseudo first order and the pseudo second order have dominated [158] in the existing research field for the adsorption reaction model. The linearized pseudo first order was introduced by Lagergren (1898) and is described by Equation (6) [159,160]:
ln ( q e − q ( t ) ) = ln q e − K 1 × t
where qt and qe are the amounts of adsorption at time t and equilibrium per unit mass of adsorbent mg/g, respectively, and k1 is the pseudo first-order rate constant 1/h. The transformed linear pseudo second order is given by Equation (7) [159,160,161]:
t q ( t ) = 1 K 2 q e 2 − t q e
where q(t) and qe are the amount of adsorption at time t and equilibrium per unit mass of adsorbent mg/g, respectively, and k2 is the pseudo second-order rate constant g/mg/h. The pseudo first order and the pseudo second order are empirical models, and because of that, the physical meanings cannot investigate the mass transfer mechanisms [162].
Thermodynamic analysis determines the feasibility, spontaneity, and heat change of the adsorption process [160]. The thermodynamic equations given by Van’t Hoff are described by Equations (8) and (9) [159,160,163]:
Δ G 0 = − RT ln K L
Δ G 0 = Δ H 0 − T Δ S 0
where the parameters are the free energy (Gibbs) change ΔG0, the enthalpy change ΔH0, and the entropy change ΔS0 and are estimated from the change in the thermodynamic equilibrium. Additionally, R (8.314 J/mol × K) is the gas constant, T (°K) is the absolute temperature, and KL (L/mol) is the Langmuir constant. The exothermic reaction of the adsorption is confirmed by the negative values of the enthalpy, which also indicate decreased randomness at the solid/solution interface with some structural changes in the adsorbate and adsorbent [164].
From the above mathematical analysis of the adsorption process, it can be understood that in order to extract safe results from the experiments, the evaluation strategies should be meticulously followed. In summary, the adsorption isotherms are employed for the evaluation of the adsorption capacity and the investigation of the characteristics of adsorption, while the pseudo first- and second-order equations are used to illustrate the adsorption kinetics of the adsorbent surfaces [165].

3. Main Findings during the Last Decade

Restrictions on the use of bare hematite, magnetite, and maghemite nanoparticles force the majority of researchers to synthesize modified nanoparticles from iron oxide. A large number of parameters apart from those of the magnetic nanoparticle synthesis, which have been analysed above, affect the adsorption efficiency of heavy metals, among them being pH, contact time, temperature, adsorbent dose, and initial ion concentration [58,166]. pH is a factor that is involved not only at this stage of the method but also during the synthesis of nanoparticles; almost in all cases, the pH values are different between these two stages. pH is directly related to the competition ability of hydrogen and metal ions to the adsorbent surface active sites, for by increasing the pH value due to the formation of soluble hydroxylated metal complexes, the metal uptake capacity decreases [161], the maximum adsorption capacity that is observed varies from pH 2 to 9, and most researchers achieve optimum adsorption capacity at pH 5–7. The adsorbent dosage is directly related to the adsorbent capacity since it determines the contact areas between the adsorbent and the adsorbate [167]. Moreover, when the adsorbent dose is increasing, the number of available binding sites is also increasing; but as the equilibrium point of adsorption is reached, the efficiency does not reflect the available sites and remains steady [161]. A critical point also exists for the contact time parameter, since initially, removal rates increase rapidly with time; then they gradually decrease due to the availability of the binding sites until the equilibrium is reached [161]. Experiments show that even for the same adsorbent but for different pollutants, the ideal contact time may vary significantly, as in some cases it is between 30 min to 12 h [157]. The factor that has been investigated less is the effect of coexisting cations/anions, as in previous parameters, the initial ion concentration does not differ; thus removal rates increase with increasing initial concentrations until a point where the rates remain unaffected [161]. Research shows that these cations/anions that are contained in water have no significant influence on adsorption capacity [168,169], since the adsorbent surfaces suggest multisurface adsorption active sites. Moreover, differences in the radius of heavy metal ions have significant influence on adsorption efficiency [170], ions with a smaller radius have higher mobility in aqueous solutions, and therefore, they have a lower tendency to adsorb on magnetic nanoparticles. Additionally, the temperature that is used during the adsorption process varies between 15 and 45 °C, although in some rare occasions, it reaches 70 °C.
Every research method must be evaluated according to the criteria that have been set from the beginning. At this phase of the literature review, the results of heavy metal adsorption in aquatic solutions using bare or modified magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles are summarized. In order to be able to evaluate the methods through the experimental results since 2010, many factors must be taken into consideration. Initially, many researchers used different nanoparticle compounds for various pollutants, but also observed a large selectivity of the initial parameters (i.e., adsorbent dosage, contact time, pH, temperature), which creates difficulties in the categorization of the experimental results. Despite that, the main purpose of every work is the removal of heavy metals; thus adsorption capacity is the main factor that has been focused on in each research. Hence, Table 5 provides useful information, such as the time of equilibrium/contact time, pH, adsorption capacity or removal efficiency, and temperature during the adsorption process, which could lead to safe extractions for the applicability of the method, which is based on the findings during the last decade. Additionally, the findings are listed in chronological order. Due to several nanoparticle compounds, the equilibrium time is not constant but has large dispersion.
A crucial stage in the evaluation of the applicability of the experimental methods is the possibility of reducing the production cost and time. This reduction could be achieved by reusing the existing nanoparticles; thus the stages of synthesis and characterization could be avoided. Desorption processes may occur either by thermal treatment or through suitable desorbing agents and are necessary for recycling [171], so the nanoparticles could be used again. Among the selected articles, all have employed desorbing agents during the desorption process. The performance of the desorption process for magnetic nanoparticles is directly related to the size, coating, magnetic behaviour [159] and pH of the solution [357], while other critical factors are the kind of regenerative solutions (i.e., NaOH, HCl) but also their concentration. For example, 2 M of HNO3 has a desorption efficiency of Cr (VI) equal to 73%, but the efficiency drops to 20% when 0.1 M of HNO3 is employed [231]. Additional benefits of the desorption process are the limited cost of desorbing agents and the time of the process, which could be achieved in less than 1 h. The usage of the desorption process is enhanced by the ease of collection, which comes from the selectivity of the paramagnetic nanoparticles assisting the technique, because they could be readily separated from the solution when a magnetic field is applied; thus iron oxide nanoparticles are more preferable to other nanoparticles with no magnetic cores. Additionally, computational fluid dynamics could be employed at this stage, reducing the cost of the materials. The major advantage of computational water treatment methods compared with an experimental method is that the steps of synthesis and characterization of magnetic nanoparticles are not time-consuming since they do not exist. The aims of microfluidic mixing and driving simulations for water purification from heavy metal ions are to achieve rapid mixing and desired guidance of nanoparticles [48,51,59,358].
Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the adsorption–desorption process is evaluated by the efficiency of heavy metal adsorption after each recycling. An ideal adsorbent is considered to be one that simultaneously possesses high adsorption capability and high desorption efficiency [359]. Of critical importance is the effectiveness of the process in several studies, in which up to five cycles of adsorption without a significant decrease in efficiency have been achieved [360]. In addition, high adsorption and desorption efficiencies equal to 98.4% after seven cycles [306] and 98% (constant) for over 15 cycles have been reported [171]. The deterioration of active binding sites on the surface absorbent during recycling results in a decrease in efficiency. It should be noted, however, that in some cases after the desorption process, the adsorption efficiency did not decrease, but instead, it increased in the next cycle [361]; this phenomenon is based on the increase in the positively charged surface of nanoparticles, which leads to increased electrostatic attraction forces between the iron oxide nanoparticles and the pollutant. Recycling of the adsorbent is important to obtain the process that enhances the viability of the adsorption method.
The recycling efficiency and adsorption capacity for each cycle are presented in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. We must mention here that there are very few articles that have investigated the adsorption capacity. This fact has a negative impact on the applicability of the method. During the literature review were recorded cases where the recycling effectiveness was measured with adsorption capacity instead of efficiency. Additionally, both adsorption and desorption efficiency decreased through the regeneration cycles and due to the difficulty in reversing adsorption [362].

4. Conclusions

During the last decade, nanotechnology has led to great progress in several fields, including water purification and heavy metal removal, with a large number of published articles. Therefore, a need arises for a frame of water purification from heavy metals using the adsorption method, which includes not only the main findings during the last decade but also all the phases of the technique. The success of the method is based not only on adsorption efficiency or capacity but also on applicability.
We must consider that a specific bare or modified nanoparticle that can act as a panacea for water purification from all heavy metals does not exist. This is proved by the experimental results, which show that adsorption capacity differs between pollutants, while all the other parameters remain constant. However, according to the literature review, researchers seem to have investigated more capping agents, such as SiO2, amino groups, and graphene oxide. Additionally, the removal efficiency is different for various water sources (lake, river, groundwater, tap water, and sea) under the same heavy metal ion and adsorbent [187]. Moreover, from the context that is delimited above, it is clear that for each parameter exists a critical point where the adsorption efficiency is reaching a maximum, resulting in difficulty in scaling up. It is clear from the equilibrium time that the scale-up could be more realistic in reservoirs rather than in the case of continuous flow inside pipes. The ideal range of pH for the maximum adsorption without dependence on the pollutant is between 5 and 7. However, the main findings that are presented in this review almost reach the optimum efficiency. An encouraging fact is that the majority of experiments take place at room temperature with high adsorption capacity. The ability to reuse nanoparticles after desorption constitutes a significant parameter of applicability. Therefore, the preparation of each adsorbent must be targeted for the removal of a specific pollutant by the adsorption method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L. and E.K.; methodology, A.P.; formal analysis, C.L.; investigation, C.L., A.P. and E.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.L.; writing—review and editing, T.E.K. and I.E.S.; supervision, I.E.S.; funding acquisition, T.E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) through the Operational Programme «Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning 2014–2020» in the context of the project “Magnetic driving of nanoparticles in human artery networks" (MIS: 5048923).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and references therein.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Olvera, R.C.; Silva, S.L.; Robles-Belmont, E.; Lau, E.Z. Review of Nanotechnology Value Chain for Water Treatment Applications in Mexico. Resour. Technol. 2017, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jiang, L.; Jiapaer, G.; Bao, A.; Yuan, Y.; Zheng, G.; Guo, H.; Yu, T.; De Maeyer, P. The Effects of Water Stress on Croplands in the Aral Sea Basin. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lee, U.; Xu, H.; Daystar, J.; Elgowainy, A.; Wang, M. AWARE-US: Quantifying Water Stress Impacts of Energy Systems in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 1313–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ward, F.A.; Mayer, A.S.; Garnica, L.A.; Townsend, N.T.; Gutzler, D.S. The Economics of Aquifer Protection Plans under Climate Water Stress: New Insights from Hydroeconomic Modeling. J. Hydrol. 2019, 576, 667–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dinar, A.; Tieu, A.; Huynh, H. Water Scarcity Impacts on Global Food Production. Glob. Food Sec. 2019, 23, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Zhao, H.; Qu, S.; Guo, S.; Zhao, H.; Liang, S.; Xu, M. Virtual Water Scarcity Risk to Global Trade under Climate Change. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 1013–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jia, X.; Klemeš, J.J.; Alwi, S.R.W.; Varbanov, P.S. Regional Water Resources Assessment Using Water Scarcity Pinch Analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157, 104749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moursi, H.; Kim, D.; Kaluarachchi, J.J. A Probabilistic Assessment of Agricultural Water Scarcity in a Semi-Arid and Snowmelt-Dominated River Basin under Climate Change. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 193, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Defining Water Scarcity, Water Stress, and Water Risk. Available online: https://pacinst.org/water-definitions/ (accessed on 14 January 2019).
  10. McNabb, D. The Population Growth Barrier. In Global Pathways to Water Sustainability, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McNabb, D. Alternative Sources of Water Supply. In Global Pathways to Water Sustainability, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Omer, A.; Elagib, N.A.; Zhuguo, M.; Saleem, F.; Mohammed, A. Water Scarcity in the Yellow River Basin under Future Climate Change and Human Activities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 141446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sharma, S.; Sanghi, R.; Mudhoo, A. Green Practices to Save Our Precious “Water Resource.” In Advances in Water Treatment and Pollution Prevention; Sharma, S., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, J.; Liu, Q.; Yang, H. Assessing Water Scarcity by Simultaneously Considering Environmental Flow Requirements, Water Quantity, and Water Quality. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Boholm, Å.; Prutzer, M. Experts’ Understandings of Drinking Water Risk Management in a Climate Change Scenario. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Joseph, L.; Jun, B.-M.; Flora, J.R.V.; Park, C.M.; Yoon, Y. Removal of Heavy Metals from Water Sources in the Developing World Using Low-Cost Materials: A Review. Chemosphere 2019, 229, 142–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hao, X.; Chen, G.; Yuan, Z. Water in China. Water Res. 2020, 169, 115256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mo, W.; Zhang, Q. Energy-Nutrients-Water Nexus: Integrated Resource Recovery in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xia, J.; Duan, Q.-Y.; Luo, Y.; Xie, Z.-H.; Liu, Z.-Y.; Mo, X.-G. Climate Change and Water Resources: Case Study of Eastern Monsoon Region of China. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2017, 8, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peirce, J.J.; Weiner, R.F.; Vesilind, P.A.; Peirce, J.J.; Weiner, R.F.; Vesilind, P.A. Water Pollution. Environ. Pollut. Control. 1998, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wasewar, K.L.; Singh, S.; Kansal, S.K. Process intensification of treatment of inorganic water pollutants. In Inorganic Pollutants in Water; Devi, P., Singh, P., Kansal, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 245–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Orubu, C.O.; Omotor, D.G. Environmental Quality and Economic Growth: Searching for Environmental Kuznets Curves for Air and Water Pollutants in Africa. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4178–4188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, H.; Feng, S.; Du, X.; Zhang, N.; Liu, Y. Comparison of Three Sorbents for Organic Pollutant Removal in Drinking Water. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 985–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ahmed, M.J.; Hameed, B.H.; Hummadi, E.H. Review on Recent Progress in Chitosan/Chitin-Carbonaceous Material Composites for the Adsorption of Water Pollutants. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 247, 116690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, K.H.; Keller, A.A.; Yang, J.K. Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution Using a Novel Composite of Recycled Materials. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013, 425, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hu, G.; Bakhtavar, E.; Hewage, K.; Mohseni, M.; Sadiq, R. Heavy Metals Risk Assessment in Drinking Water: An Integrated Probabilistic-Fuzzy Approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, M.U.; Muhammad, S.; Malik, R.N.; Khan, S.A.; Tariq, M. Heavy Metals Potential Health Risk Assessment through Consumption of Wastewater Irrigated Wild Plants: A Case Study. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2016, 22, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fu, F.; Wang, Q. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewaters: A Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarkar, A.; Paul, B. The Global Menace of Arsenic and Its Conventional Remediation-A Critical Review. Chemosphere 2016, 158, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Barakat, M.A. New Trends in Removing Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2011, 4, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Babel, S.; Kurniawan, T.A. Low-Cost Adsorbents for Heavy Metals Uptake from Contaminated Water: A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003, 97, 219–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stohs, S.J.; Bagchi, D. Oxidative Mechanisms in the Toxicity of Metal Ions. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 1995, 18, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Parmar, M.; Thakur, L.S. Heavy Metal Cu, Ni and Zn: Toxicity, Health Hazards and Their Removal. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 3, 143–157. [Google Scholar]
  34. Vardhan, K.H.; Kumar, P.S.; Panda, R.C. A Review on Heavy Metal Pollution, Toxicity and Remedial Measures: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. J. Mol. Liq. 2019, 290, 111197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, J.-J.; Kim, Y.-S.; Kumar, V. Heavy Metal Toxicity: An Update of Chelating Therapeutic Strategies. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2019, 54, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rahimi, M.; Jafari, O.; Mohammdifar, A. Intensification of Liquid-Liquid Mass Transfer in Micromixer Assisted by Ultrasound Irradiation and Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2017, 111, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Z.; Chen, K.; Zhao, Q.; Huang, M.; Ouyang, X. Comparative Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions in Wastewater on Monolayer Molybdenum Disulfide. Green Energy Env. 2020, 6, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjou, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicicology Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology. Mol. Clin. Environ. Toxicol. 2012, 101, 133–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qiao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Gu, J.; Zhao, J. Distribution and Geochemical Speciation of Heavy Metals in Sediments from Coastal Area Suffered Rapid Urbanization, a Case Study of Shantou Bay, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 68, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, R.; Singh, S.; Parihar, P.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M. Arsenic Contamination, Consequences and Remediation Techniques: A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 112, 247–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gautam, R.K.; Sharma, S.K.; Mahiya, S.; Chattopadhyaya, M.C. Contamination of Heavy Metals in Aquatic Media: Transport, Toxicity and Technologies for Remediation. In Heavy Metals In Water: Presence, Removal and Safety Heavy; Sharma, S.K., Ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Valko, M.; Morris, H.; Cronin, T.D.M. Metals, Toxicity and Oxidative Stress Metals. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 1161–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Schroeder, H.; Duester, L.; Fabricius, A.L.; Ecker, D.; Breitung, V.; Ternes, T. ASediment Water (Interface) Mobility of Metal(Loid)s and Nutrients under Undisturbed Conditions and during Resuspension. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 394, 122543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bhateria, R.; Singh, R. A Review on Nanotechnological Application of Magnetic Iron Oxides for Heavy Metal Removal. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 31, 100845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sonone, S.S.; Jadhav, S.V.; Sankhla, M.S.; Kumar, R. Water Contamination by Heavy Metals and Their Toxic Effect on Aquaculture and Human Health through Food Chain. Lett. Appl. NanoBioScience. 2020, 10, 2148–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bradl, H.B. Sources and Origins of Heavy Metals. In Interface Science and Technology; Bradl, H.B., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kyzas, G.Z.; Bomis, G.; Kosheleva, R.I.; Efthimiadou, E.K.; Favvas, E.P.; Kostoglou, M.; Mitropoulos, A.C. Nanobubbles Effect on Heavy Metal Ions Adsorption by Activated Carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 356, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liosis, C.; Karvelas, E.G.; Karakasidis, T.; Sarris, I.E. Numerical Study of Magnetic Particles Mixing in Waste Water under an External Magnetic Field. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. 2020, 69, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Parvin, F.; Rikta, S.Y.; Tareq, S.M. Application of Nanomaterials for the Removal of Heavy Metal From Wastewater. In Nanotechnology in Water and Wastewater Treatment Theory and Applications Micro and Nano Technologies; Ahsan, A., Ismail, A.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Karvelas, E.; Liosis, C.; Karakasidis, T.; Sarris, I. Mixing of Particles in Micromixers under Different Angles and Velocities of the Incoming Water. Proceedings 2018, 2, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Karvelas, E.; Liosis, C.; Benos, L.; Karakasidis, T.; Sarris, I. Micromixing Efficiency of Particles in Heavy Metal Removal Processes under Various Inlet Conditions. Water 2019, 11, 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Wu, Y.; Pang, H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, S.; Fu, D.; Chen, J.; Wang, X. Environmental Remediation of Heavy Metal Ions by Novel-Nanomaterials: A Review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 246, 608–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zhu, L.; Li, C.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Shen, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, C.; Xie, A. A Simple Method to Synthesize Modified Fe3O4 for the Removal of Organic Pollutants on Water Surface. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 6326–6330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Turan, N.B.; Erkan, H.S.; Engin, G.O.; Bilgili, M.S. Nanoparticles in the Aquatic Environment: Usage, Properties, Transformation and Toxicity—A Review. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 130, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nowack, B.; Bucheli, T.D. Occurrence, Behavior and Effects of Nanoparticles in the Environment. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gatoo, M.A.; Naseem, S.; Arfat, M.Y.; Mahmood, D.A.; Qasim, K.; Zubair, S. Physicochemical Properties of Nanomaterials: Implication in Associated Toxic Manifestations. Biomed Res. Int. 2014, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, J.; Wu, L.; Chan, H.K.; Watanabe, W. Formation, Characterization, and Fate of Inhaled Drug Nanoparticles. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2011, 63, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Wadhawan, S.; Jain, A.; Nayyar, J.; Mehta, S.K. Role of Nanomaterials as Adsorbents in Heavy Metal Ion Removal from Waste Water: A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 33, 101038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Karvelas, E.; Liosis, C.; Karakasidis, T.; Sarris, I. Micromixing Nanoparticles and Contaminated Water Under Different Velocities for Optimum Heavy Metal Ions Adsorption. Env. Sci. Proc. 2020, 2, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Du, X.; He, J.; Zhu, J.; Sun, L.; An, S. Ag-Deposited Silica-Coated Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles Catalyzed Reduction of p-Nitrophenol. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 2717–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mohammed, L.; Gomaa, H.G.; Ragab, D.; Zhu, J. Magnetic Nanoparticles for Environmental and Biomedical Applications: A Review. Particuology. 2017, 30, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Faraji, M.; Yamini, Y.; Saleh, A.; Rezaee, M.; Ghambarian, M.; Hassani, R. A Nanoparticle-Based Solid-Phase Extraction Procedure Followed by Flow Injection Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry to Determine Some Heavy Metal Ions in Water Samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 659, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Da’ana, D.A. Guidelines for the Use and Interpretation of Adsorption Isotherm Models: A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 393, 122383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kurniawan, T.A.; Chan, G.Y.S.; Lo, W.H.; Babel, S. Physico-Chemical Treatment Techniques for Wastewater Laden with Heavy Metals. Chem. Eng. J. 2006, 118, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, J.; Zhuang, S. Removal of Various Pollutants from Water and Wastewater by Modified Chitosan Adsorbents. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 47, 2331–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Qu, X.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Li, Q. Applications of Nanotechnology in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Water Res. 2013, 47, 3931–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hu, H.; Xu, K. Physicochemical Technologies for HRPs and Risk Control. In High-Risk Pollutants in Wastewater; Hongqiang, R., Zhang, X., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 169–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, K.; Yong, F.; McCarthy, D.T.; Deletic, A. Predicting Long Term Removal of Heavy Metals from Porous Pavements for Stormwater Treatment. Water Res. 2018, 142, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Laurent, S.; Forge, D.; Port, M.; Roch, A.; Robic, C.; Vander Elst, L.; Muller, R.N. Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Stabilization, Vectorization, Physicochemical Characterizations and Biological Applications. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 2064–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zia, M.; Phull, A.R.; Ali, J.S. Challenges of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Powder Technol. 2016, 7, 49–67. [Google Scholar]
  71. Drmota, A.; Drofenik, M.; Koselj, J.; Žnidarši, A. Microemulsion Method for Synthesis of Magnetic Oxide Nanoparticles. In Microemulsions-An Introduction to Properties and Applications; Najjar, R., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 192–214. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ling, X.; Wei, L.; Hong, G.; Qiong, M. Synthesis and Characterization of Magnetic and Luminescent Fe3O4/CdTe Nanocomposites Using Aspartic Acid as Linker. Chinese Chem. Lett. 2011, 22, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Takai, Z.; Mustafa, M.K.; Asman, S. Preparation and Characterization of Magnetite (Fe3O4) Nanoparticles By Sol- Gel Method Preparation and Characterization of Magnetite (Fe3O4) Nanoparticles By Sol-Gel Method. Asian J. Chem. 2018, 30, 2625–2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, Y.; Nkurikiyimfura, I.; Pan, Z. Sonochemical Synthesis of Magnetic Nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2014, 202, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ge, S.; Shi, X.; Sun, K.; Li, C.; Uher, C.; Baker, J.R.; Holl, M.M.B.; Orr, B.G. Facile Hydrothermal Synthesis of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles with Tunable Magnetic Properties. J. Phys. Chem. 2009, 113, 13593–13599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Oćwieja, M.; Węgrzynowicz, A.; Maciejewska-Prończuk, J.; Michorczyk, P.; Adamczyk, Z.; Roman, M.; Bielańska, E. Preparation of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Doped by Chromium for Application in Water–Gas Shift Reaction. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 523, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Compeán-Jasso, M.E.; Ruiz, F.; Martínez, J.R.; Herrera-Gómez, A. Magnetic Properties of Magnetite Nanoparticles Synthesized by Forced Hydrolysis. Mater. Lett. 2008, 62, 4248–4250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stefanescu, M.; Stefanescu, O.; Stoia, M.; Lazau, C. Thermal Decomposition of Some Metal-Organic Precursors. J. Anal Calorim. 2007, 88, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salazar-Alvarez, G.; Muhammed, M.; Zagorodni, A.A. Novel Flow Injection Synthesis of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles with Narrow Size Distribution. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 4625–4633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. El-amin, M.F.; Saad, A.M.; Salama, A.; Sun, S. Modeling and Analysis of Magnetic Nanoparticles Injection in Water-Oil Two-Phase Flow in Porous Media under Magnetic Field Effect. Geofluids 2017, 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Agostini, P.; Meffre, A.; Damien, L.L.; Benjamin, R. Electrospray Deposition of Isolated Chemically Synthesized Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Nanopart Res. 2016, 18, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Atabaev, T.S.; Kim, H.K.; Hwang, Y.H. Fabrication of Bifunctional Core-Shell Fe3O4 Particles Coated with Ultrathin Phosphor Layer. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Rivera-Chaverra, M.J.; Restrepo-Parra, E.; Acosta-Medina, C.D.; Mello, A.; Ospina, R. Synthesis of Oxide Iron Nanoparticles Using Laser Ablation for Possible Hyperthermia Applications. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Park, J.Y.; Lee, Y.J.; Khanna, P.K.; Jun, K.W.; Bae, J.W.; Kim, Y.H. Alumina-Supported Iron Oxide Nanoparticles as Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts: Effect of Particle Size of Iron Oxide. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 2010, 323, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bokuniaeva, A.O.; Vorokh, A.S. Estimation of Particle Size Using the Debye Equation and the Scherrer Formula for Polyphasic TiO2 Powder. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1410, 12057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mahdavi, M.; Ahmad, M.B.; Haron, M.J.; Namvar, F.; Nadi, B.; Ab Rahman, M.Z.; Amin, J. Synthesis, Surface Modification and Characterisation of Biocompatible Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications. Molecules 2013, 18, 7533–7548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Alexander, L.; Klug, H.P. Determination of Crystallite Size with the X-Ray Spectrometer. J. Appl. Phys. 1950, 21, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Holzwarth, U.; Gibson, N. The Scherrer Equation versus the “Debye-Scherrer Equation”. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2011, 6, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhu, N.; Ji, H.; Yu, P.; Niu, J.; Farooq, M.U.; Akram, M.W.; Udego, I.O.; Li, H.; Niu, X. Surface Modification of Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Abu-dief, A.M.; Abdel-fatah, S.M. Development and Functionalization of Magnetic Nanoparticles as Powerful and Green Catalysts for Organic Synthesis. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jadhav, S.A.; Brunella, V.; Scalarone, D. Polymerizable Ligands as Stabilizers for Nanoparticles. Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 2014, 32, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cîrcu, M.; Nan, A.; Borodi, G.; Liebscher, J.; Turcu, R. Refinement of Magnetite Nanoparticles by Coating with Organic Stabilizers. Nanomaterials 2016, 6, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Sanchez, L.M.; Martin, D.A.; Alvarez, V.A.; Gonzalez, J.S. Polyacrylic Acid-Coated Iron Oxide Magnetic Nanoparticles: The Polymer Molecular Weight in Fl Uence. Colloids Surf. A 2018, 543, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Gholami, A.; Moghadassi, A.R.; Hosseini, S.M.; Shabani, S.; Gholami, F. Preparation and Characterization of Polyvinyl Chloride Based Nanocomposite Nanofiltration-Membrane Modified by Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Lead Removal from Water. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2014, 20, 1517–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. de Dios, A.S.; Díaz-García, M.E. Multifunctional Nanoparticles: Analytical Prospects. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2010, 666, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Karatapanis, A.E.; Petrakis, D.E.; Stalikas, C.D. A Layered Magnetic Iron/Iron Oxide Nanoscavenger for the Analytical Enrichment of ng-L−1 Concentration Levels of Heavy Metals from Water. Anal. Chim. Acta 2012, 726, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ji, Y. Ions Removal by Iron Nanoparticles: A Study on Solid-Water Interface with Zeta Potential. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2014, 444, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kosmulski, M. PH-Dependent Surface Charging and Points of Zero Charge. IV. Update and New Approach. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 337, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Chavda, V.P. Nanobased Nano Drug Delivery: A Comprehensive Review. In Micro and Nano Technologies, Applications of Targeted Nano Drugs and Delivery Systems; Mohapatra, S., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N., Mishra, R.K., Thomas, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Crawford, R.J.; Harding, I.H.; Mainwaring, D.E. The Zeta Potential of Iron and Chromium Hydrous Oxides during Adsorption and Coprecipitation of Aqueous Heavy Metals. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1996, 181, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jiuhui, Q. Research progress of novel adsorption processes in water purification: A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Petracic, O. Superparamagnetic Nanoparticle Ensembles. Superlattices Microstruct. 2010, 47, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Wu, W.; He, Q.; Jiang, C. Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Surface Functionalization Strategies. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 397–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Zhang, F.; Lan, J.; Zhao, Z.; Yang, Y.; Tan, R.; Song, W. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution Using Fe3O4–SiO2-Poly(1,2-Diaminobenzene) Core–Shell Sub-Micron Particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 387, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fan, C.; Li, K.; Li, J.; Ying, D.; Wang, Y.; Jia, J. Comparative and Competitive Adsorption of Pb (II) and Cu (II) Using Tetraethylenepentamine Modified Chitosan/CoFe2O4 Particles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 326, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Amin, M.M.; Khodabakhshi, A. Removal of Cr (VI) From Simulated Electroplating. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2010, 9, 921–927. [Google Scholar]
  107. Zhao, Y.G.; Shen, H.Y.; Pan, S.D.; Hu, M.Q. Synthesis, Characterization and Properties of Ethylenediamine-Functionalized Fe3O4 Magnetic Polymers for Removal of Cr (VI) in Wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 182, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Kargin, D.B.; Konyukhov, Y.V.; Biseken, A.B.; Lileev, A.S.; Karpenkov, D.Y. Structure, Morphology and Magnetic Properties of Hematite and Maghemite Nanopowders Produced from Rolling Mill Scale. Steel Transl. 2020, 50, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Liu, Y.; Jia, S.; Wu, Q.; Ran, J.; Zhang, W.; Wu, S. Studies of Fe3O4-Chitosan Nanoparticles Prepared by Co-Precipitation under the Magnetic Field for Lipase Immobilization. Catal. Commun. 2011, 12, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Qiang, C.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Tian, L.; Xiao, S.; Liu, Y.; Xu, P. Magnetic Properties and Microwave Absorption Properties of Carbon Fibers Coated by Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. J. Alloy. Compd. 2010, 506, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Aredes, S.; Klein, B.; Pawlik, M. The Removal of Arsenic from Water Using Natural Iron Oxide Minerals. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Rahim, P.S.; Abdul, R.A.A.; Wan, D.W.M.A. Review on the Application of Modified Iron Oxides as Heterogeneous Catalysts in Fenton Reactions. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Xue, X.Y.; Cheng, R.; Shi, L.; Ma, Z.; Zheng, X. Nanomaterials for Water Pollution Monitoring and Remediation. Env. Chem. Lett. 2017, 15, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Tang, S.C.N.; Lo, I.M.C. Magnetic Nanoparticles: Essential Factors for Sustainable Environmental Applications. Water Res. 2013, 47, 2613–2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Chowdhury, S.R.; Yanful, E.K. Arsenic and Chromium Removal by Mixed Magnetite-Maghemite Nanoparticles and the Effect of Phosphate on Removal. J. Env. Manag. 2010, 91, 2238–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Teja, A.S.; Koh, P.-Y. Synthesis, Properties, and Applications of Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Prog. Cryst. Growth Charact. Mater. 2009, 55, 22–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tadic, M.; Trpkov, D.; Kopanja, L.; Vojnovic, S.; Panjan, M. Hydrothermal Synthesis of Hematite (α-Fe2O3) Nanoparticle Forms: Synthesis Conditions, Structure, Particle Shape Analysis, Cytotoxicity and Magnetic Properties. J. Alloy. Compd. 2019, 792, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gurmen, S.; Ebin, B. Production and Characterization of the Nanostructured Hollow Iron Oxide Spheres and Nanoparticles by Aerosol Route. J. Alloy. Compd. 2010, 492, 585–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Tadic, M.; Kusigerski, V.; Markovic, D.; Milosevic, I.; Spasojevic, V. High Concentration of Hematite Nanoparticles in a Silica Matrix: Structural and Magnetic Properties. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2009, 321, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Estelrich, J.; Escribano, E.; Queralt, J.; Busquets, M.A. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Magnetically-Guided and Magnetically-Responsive Drug Delivery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 8070–8101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Ling, D.; Lee, N.; Hyeon, T. Chemical Synthesis and Assembly of Uniformly Sized Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Medical Applications. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015, 48, 1276–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Gholizadeh, A. A Comparative Study of Physical Properties in Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Prepared by Coprecipitation and Citrate Methods. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2017, 100, 3577–3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Roto, R.; Yusran, Y.; Kuncaka, A. Magnetic Adsorbent of Fe3O4@SiO2 Core-Shell Nanoparticles Modified with Thiol Group for Chloroauric Ion Adsorption. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 377, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wu, S.; Sun, A.; Zhai, F.; Wang, J.; Xu, W.; Zhang, Q.; Volinsky, A.A. Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles Synthesis from Tailings by Ultrasonic Chemical Co-Precipitation. Mater. Lett. 2011, 65, 1882–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Can, M.M.; Coşkun, M.; Firat, T. A Comparative Study of Nanosized Iron Oxide Particles; Magnetite (Fe3O4), Maghemite (γ-Fe2O3) and Hematite (α-Fe2O3), Using Ferromagnetic Resonance. J. Alloys Compd. 2012, 542, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Liang, X.; Xi, B.; Xiong, S.; Zhu, Y.; Xue, F.; Qian, Y. Porous Soft Magnetic Material: The Maghemite Microsphere with Hierarchical Nanoarchitecture and Its Application in Water Purification. Mater. Res. Bull. 2009, 44, 2233–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Mursalat, M.; Hastings, D.L.; Schoenitz, M.; Dreizin, E.L. Microspheres with Diverse Material Compositions Can Be Prepared by Mechanical Milling. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2020, 22, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Arbain, R.; Othman, M.; Palaniandy, S. Preparation of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles by Mechanical Milling. Miner. Eng. 2011, 24, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Nassar, N.N.; Hassan, A.; Carbognani, L.; Lopez-Linares, F.; Pereira-Almao, P. Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Rapid Adsorption and Enhanced Catalytic Oxidation of Thermally Cracked Asphaltenes. Fuel 2012, 95, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mohseni-Bandpi, A.; Al-Musawi, T.J.; Ghahramani, E.; Zarrabi, M.; Mohebi, S.; Vahed, S.A. Improvement of Zeolite Adsorption Capacity for Cephalexin by Coating with Magnetic Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. J. Mol. Liq. 2016, 218, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wu, Y.W.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J.F.; Chen, L.; Deng, Z.L.; Han, M.X.; Wei, X.S.; Yu, A.M.; Zhang, H.L. Fe3O4 @ZrO2 Nanoparticles Magnetic Solid Phase Extraction Coupled with Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry for Chromium (III) Speciation in Environmental and Biological Samples. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2012, 258, 6772–6776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Mandel, K.; Hutter, F. The Magnetic Nanoparticle Separation Problem. Nano Today 2012, 7, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. MacCuspie, R.I. Characterization of Nanomaterials for NanoEHS Studies. In Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety Risks, Regulation, and Management Micro and Nano Technologies, 3rd ed.; Hull, M.S., Bowman, D.M., Eds.; William Andrew Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Mourdikoudis, S.; Pallares, R.M.; Thanh, N.T.K. Characterization Techniques for Nanoparticles: Comparison and Complementarity upon Studying Nanoparticle Properties. Nanoscale 2018, 10, 12871–12934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Ivanova, E.P.; Bazaka, K.; Crawford, R.J. Metallic Biomaterials: Types and Advanced Applications. In New Functional Biomaterials for Medicine and Healthcare; Ivanova, E.P., Bazaka, K., Crawford, R.J., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2014; pp. 121–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Fathy, M.M.; Fahmy, H.M.; Saad, O.A.; Elshemey, W.M. Silica-Coated Iron Oxide Nanoparticles as a Novel Nano-Radiosensitizer for Electron Therapy. Life Sci. 2019, 234, 116756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Koutsikou, T.S.; Krokidis, M.G.; Boukos, N.; Mitrikas, G.; Efthimiadou, E. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology Synthesis, Characterization and Evaluation of Multi Sensitive Nanocarriers by Using the Layer by Layer Method. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 101142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Mitra, R.; Bhattacharya, S. Inhibition in Binding between Fullerene and a Bisporphyrin in Presence of Silver Nanoparticles in Solution: UV-Vis, DLS, SEM and TEM Studies. Spectrochim. Acta-Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2013, 114, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. de la Calle, I.; Menta, M.; Klein, M.; Séby, F. Screening of TiO2 and Au Nanoparticles in Cosmetics and Determination of Elemental Impurities by Multiple Techniques (DLS, SP-ICP-MS, ICP-MS and ICP-OES). Talanta 2017, 171, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Yang, S.C.; Paik, S.Y.R.; Ryu, J.; Choi, K.O.; Kang, T.S.; Lee, J.K.; Song, C.W.; Ko, S. Dynamic Light Scattering-Based Method to Determine Primary Particle Size of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles in Simulated Gastrointestinal Fluid. Food Chem 2014, 161, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Zatsepin, A.F.; Kuznetsova, Y.A.; Sokolov, V.I. UV Absorption and Effects of Local Atomic Disordering in the Nickel Oxide Nanoparticles. J. Lumin. 2017, 183, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tan, M.I.S.M.H.; Omar, A.F.; Rashid, M.; Hashim, U. VIS-NIR Spectral and Particles Distribution of Au, Ag, Cu, Al and Ni Nanoparticles Synthesized in Distilled Water Using Laser Ablation. Results Phys. 2019, 14, 102497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Kumar, A.; Dixit, C.K. Methods for Characterization of Nanoparticles. In Advances in Nanomedicine for the Delivery of Therapeutic Nucleic Acids; Nimesh, S., Chandra, R., Gupta, N., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Rouchota, M.; Loudos, G.; Efthimiadou, E.; Kordas, G.C.; Kagadis, G.C. Assessment of Low Energy X-Ray Imaging for Magnetic and Gold Nanoparticles. Phys. Medica 2016, 32, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Singh, A.K. Experimental Methodologies for the Characterization of Nanoparticles. In Engineered Nanoparticles; Hill-Parks, E., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 125–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Li, X.; Li, Z.; Pan, D.; Xiang, Z.; Yoshimura, S.; Saito, H. Magnetization Behaviors of Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Studied by Frequency-Modulated Magnetic Force Microscopy. Mater. Lett. 2014, 125, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Qiu, H.; Lv, L.; Pan, B.C.; Zhang, Q.J.; Zhang, W.M.; Zhang, Q.X. Critical Review in Adsorption Kinetic Models. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2009, 10, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Ashrafi, A.; Rahbar-Kelishami, A.; Shayesteh, H. Highly Efficient Simultaneous Ultrasonic Assisted Adsorption of Pb (II) by Fe3O4@MnO2 Core-Shell Magnetic Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Characterization, Kinetic, Equilibrium, and Thermodynamic Studies. J. Mol. Struct. 2017, 1147, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Limousin, G.; Gaudet, J.P.; Charlet, L.; Szenknect, S.; Barthès, V.; Krimissa, M. Sorption Isotherms: A Review on Physical Bases, Modeling and Measurement. Appl. Geochem. 2007, 22, 249–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Foo, K.Y.; Hameed, B.H. Insights into the Modeling of Adsorption Isotherm Systems. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 156, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Xu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Jin, L.; Wang, Y.; Qin, M. Adsorption of Cu (II), Pb (II) and Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solutions Using Black Wattle Tannin-Immobilized Nanocellulose. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 339, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Sheet, I.; Kabbani, A.; Holail, H. Removal of Heavy Metals Using Nanostructured Graphite Oxide, Silica Nanoparticles and Silica/Graphite Oxide Composite. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Wang, X.; Cai, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Jiang, L.; Wang, C. Heavy Metal Sorption Properties of Magnesium Titanate Mesoporous Nanorods. J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 11796–11800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Singh, A.K. Nanoparticle Ecotoxicology. In Engineered Nanoparticles; Hill-Parks, E., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 343–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Altin, O.; Özbelge, H.Ö.; Doǧu, T. Use of General Purpose Adsorption Isotherms for Heavy Metal-Clay Mineral Interactions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1998, 198, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zhang, Y.; Ni, S.; Wang, X.; Zhang, W.; Lagerquist, L.; Qin, M.; Willför, S.; Xu, C.; Fatehi, P. Ultrafast Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions onto Functionalized Lignin-Based Hybrid Magnetic Nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 372, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Song, J.; Kong, H.; Jang, J. Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution by Polyrhodanine-Encapsulated Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 359, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Guo, X.; Wang, J. A General Kinetic Model for Adsorption: Theoretical Analysis and Modeling. J. Mol. Liq. 2019, 288, 111100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Dehghan, M.A.; Ghazanfari, M.H.; Jamialahmadi, M.; Helalizadeh, A. Adsorption of Silica Nanoparticles onto Calcite: Equilibrium, Kinetic, Thermodynamic and DLVO Analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 281, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Singh, D.; Verma, S.; Gautam, R.K.; Krishna, V. Copper Adsorption onto Synthesized Nitrilotriacetic Acid Functionalized Fe3O4 Nanoparticles: Kinetic, Equilibrium and Thermodynamic Studies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 3, 2161–2171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Shaker, M.A. Adsorption of Co (II), Ni (II) and Cu (II) Ions onto Chitosan-Modified Poly (Methacrylate) Nanoparticles: Dynamics, Equilibrium and Thermodynamics Studies. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2015, 57, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, J.; Guo, X. Adsorption Kinetic Models: Physical Meanings, Applications, and Solving Methods. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 390, 122156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Tanhaei, B.; Ayati, A.; Lahtinen, M.; Sillanpää, M. Preparation and Characterization of a Novel Chitosan/Al2O3/Magnetite Nanoparticles Composite Adsorbent for Kinetic, Thermodynamic and Isotherm Studies of Methyl Orange Adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 259, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Atar, N.; Olgun, A. Removal of Basic and Acid Dyes from Aqueous Solutions by a Waste Containing Boron Impurity. Desalination 2009, 249, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Mostafa, M.G.; Chen, Y.H.; Jean, J.S.; Liu, C.C.; Lee, Y.C. Kinetics and Mechanism of Arsenate Removal by Nanosized Iron Oxide-Coated Perlite. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 187, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Shaikh, M.N.; Helal, A.; Kalanthoden, A.N.; Najjar, B.; Abdul Aziz, M.; Mohamed, H.D. Sub-Nanometric Rh Decorated Magnetic Nanoparticles as Reusable Catalysts for Nitroarene Reduction in Water. Catal. Commun. 2019, 119, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ain, Q.-U.; Farooq, M.U.; Jalees, M.I. Application of Magnetic Graphene Oxide for Water Purification: Heavy Metals Removal and Disinfection. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 33, 101044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Nassar, N.N. Rapid Removal and Recovery of Pb (II) from Wastewater by Magnetic Nanoadsorbents. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 184, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Zhang, S.; Niu, H.; Cai, Y.; Zhao, X.; Shi, Y. Arsenite and Arsenate Adsorption on Coprecipitated Bimetal Oxide Magnetic Nanomaterials: MnFe2O4 and CoFe2O4. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 158, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Kalantari, K.; Ahmad, M.B.; Fard Masoumi, H.R.; Shameli, K.; Basri, M.; Khandanlou, R. Rapid and High Capacity Adsorption of Heavy Metals by Fe3O4/Montmorillonite Nanocomposite Using Response Surface Methodology: Preparation, Characterization, Optimization, Equilibrium Isotherms, and Adsorption Kinetics Study. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2015, 49, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Hao, Y.M.; Man, C.; Hu, Z.B. Effective Removal of Cu (II) Ions from Aqueous Solution by Amino-Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 184, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Wang, J.; Zheng, S.; Shao, Y.; Liu, J.; Xu, Z.; Zhu, D. Amino-Functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2 Core–Shell Magnetic Nanomaterial as a Novel Adsorbent for Aqueous Heavy Metals Removal. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 349, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ozmen, M.; Can, K.; Arslan, G.; Tor, A.; Cengeloglu, Y.; Ersoz, M. Adsorption of Cu (II) from Aqueous Solution by Using Modified Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles. Desalination 2010, 254, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Tran, H.V.; Tran, L.D.; Nguyen, T.N. Preparation of Chitosan/Magnetite Composite Beads and Their Application for Removal of Pb(II) and Ni(II) from Aqueous Solution. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2010, 30, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Hu, H.; Wang, Z.; Pan, L. Synthesis of Monodisperse Fe3O4@silica Core–Shell Microspheres and Their Application for Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Water. J. Alloys Compd. 2010, 492, 656–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Sharma, Y.C.; Srivastava, V. Separation of Ni (II) Ions from Aqueous Solutions by Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2010, 55, 1441–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Zhao, Y.G.; Shen, H.Y.; Pan, S.D.; Hu, M.Q.; Xia, Q.H. Preparation and Characterization of Amino-Functionalized Nano-Fe3O4 Magnetic Polymer Adsorbents for Removal of Chromium (VI) Ions. J. Mater. Sci. 2010, 45, 5291–5301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Chowdhury, S.R.; Yanful, E.K.; Pratt, A.R. Arsenic Removal from Aqueous Solutions by Mixed Magnetite-Maghemite Nanoparticles. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 64, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Nguyen Thanh, D.; Singh, M.; Ulbrich, P.; Strnadova, N.; Štěpánek, F. Perlite Incorporating γ-Fe2O3 and α-MnO2 Nanomaterials: Preparation and Evaluation of a New Adsorbent for As (V) Removal. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 82, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Hou, X.; Feng, J.; Liu, X.; Ren, Y.; Fan, Z.; Wei, T.; Meng, J.; Zhang, M. Synthesis of 3D Porous Ferromagnetic NiFe2O4 and Using as Novel Adsorbent to Treat Wastewater. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 362, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Xu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, M.; Pan, G. Study on the Adsorption of Ca2+, Cd2+ and Pb2+ by Magnetic Fe3O4 Yeast Treated with EDTA Dianhydride. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 168, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Luo, X.; Luo, S.; Zhan, Y.; Shu, H.; Huang, Y.; Tu, X. Novel Cu (II) Magnetic Ion Imprinted Materials Prepared by Surface Imprinted Technique Combined with a Sol–Gel Process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 949–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Panneerselvam, P.; Morad, N.; Tan, K.A. Magnetic Nanoparticle (Fe3O4) Impregnated onto Tea Waste for the Removal of Nickel (II) from Aqueous Solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Pang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Tang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lei, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Z.; Xiong, Y. Preparation and Application of Stability Enhanced Magnetic Nanoparticles for Rapid Removal of Cr (VI). Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 175, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Bhaumik, M.; Maity, A.; Srinivasu, V.V.; Onyango, M.S. Enhanced Removal of Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solution Using Polypyrrole/Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanocomposite. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 190, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Phuengprasop, T.; Sittiwong, J.; Unob, F. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions by Iron Oxide Coated Sewage Sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Li, G.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, J.; Jiang, G. Effective Heavy Metal Removal from Aqueous Systems by Thiol Functionalized Magnetic Mesoporous Silica. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 192, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sun, L.; Li, Y.; Sun, M.; Wang, H.; Xu, S.; Zhang, C.; Yang, Q. Porphyrin-Functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2 Core/Shell Magnetic Colorimetric Material for Detection, Adsorption and Removal of Hg2+ in Aqueous Solution. New J. Chem. 2011, 35, 2697–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Hu, J.; Yang, S.; Wang, X. Adsorption of Cu (II) on β-Cyclodextrin Modified Multiwall Carbon Nanotube/Iron Oxides in the Absence/Presence of Fulvic Acid. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2012, 87, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Paulino, A.T.; Belfiore, L.A.; Kubota, L.T.; Muniz, E.C.; Almeida, V.C.; Tambourgi, E.B. Effect of Magnetite on the Adsorption Behavior of Pb (II), Cd (II), and Cu (II) in Chitosan-Based Hydrogels. Desalination 2011, 275, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Gupta, V.K.; Agarwal, S.; Saleh, T.A. Chromium Removal by Combining the Magnetic Properties of Iron Oxide with Adsorption Properties of Carbon Nanotubes. Water Res. 2011, 45, 2207–2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Wang, X.S.; Zhu, L.; Lu, H.J. Surface Chemical Properties and Adsorption of Cu (II) on Nanoscale Magnetite in Aqueous Solutions. Desalination 2011, 276, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Pang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Tang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lei, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Xie, G. PEI-Grafted Magnetic Porous Powder for Highly Effective Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions. Desalination 2011, 281, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Chen, R.; Zhi, C.; Yang, H.; Bando, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Sugiur, N.; Golberg, D. Arsenic (V) Adsorption on Fe3O4 Nanoparticle-Coated Boron Nitride Nanotubes. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011, 359, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Gong, J.; Wang, X.; Shao, X.; Yuan, S.; Yang, C.; Hu, X. Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions by Hierarchically Structured Magnetite-Carbonaceous Spheres. Talanta 2012, 101, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Gong, J.L.; Wang, X.Y.; Zeng, G.M.; Chen, L.; Deng, J.H.; Zhang, X.R.; Niu, Q.Y. Copper (II) Removal by Pectin-Iron Oxide Magnetic Nanocomposite Adsorbent. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 185–186, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Xu, P.; Zeng, G.M.; Huang, D.L.; Lai, C.; Zhao, M.H.; Wei, Z.; Li, N.J.; Huang, C.; Xie, G.X. Adsorption of Pb (II) by Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Immobilized Phanerochaete Chrysosporium: Equilibrium, Kinetic, Thermodynamic and Mechanisms Analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 203, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Xin, X.; Wei, Q.; Yang, J.; Yan, L.; Feng, R.; Chen, G.; Du, B.; Li, H. Highly Efficient Removal of Heavy Metal Ions by Amine-Functionalized Mesoporous Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 184, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Ge, F.; Li, M.M.; Ye, H.; Zhao, B.X. Effective Removal of Heavy Metal Ions Cd2+, Zn2+, Pb2+, Cu2+ from Aqueous Solution by Polymer-Modified Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 211–212, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Feng, L.; Cao, M.; Ma, X.; Zhu, Y.; Hu, C. Superparamagnetic High-Surface-Area Fe3O4 Nanoparticles as Adsorbents for Arsenic Removal. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 217–218, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Ngomsik, A.F.; Bee, A.; Talbot, D.; Cote, G. Magnetic Solid–Liquid Extraction of Eu (III), La (III), Ni (II) and Co (II) with Maghemite Nanoparticles. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 86, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Jin, Y.; Liu, F.; Tong, M.; Hou, Y. Removal of Arsenate by Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide Modified Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 227–228, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Larraza, I.; López-Gónzalez, M.; Corrales, T.; Marcelo, G. Hybrid Materials: Magnetite–Polyethylenimine–Montmorillonite, as Magnetic Adsorbents for Cr (VI) Water Treatment. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 385, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Zhang, C.; Sui, J.; Li, J.; Tang, Y.; Cai, W. Efficient Removal of Heavy Metal Ions by Thiol-Functionalized Superparamagnetic Carbon Nanotubes. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 210, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Bhunia, P.; Kim, G.; Baik, C.; Lee, H. A Strategically Designed Porous Iron–Iron Oxide Matrix on Graphene for Heavy Metal Adsorption. Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 9888–9890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Cho, D.W.; Jeon, B.H.; Chon, C.M.; Kim, Y.; Schwartz, F.W.; Lee, E.S.; Song, H. A Novel Chitosan/Clay/Magnetite Composite for Adsorption of Cu (II) and As (V). Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 200–202, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Wang, L.; Li, J.; Jiang, Q.; Zhao, L. Water-Soluble Fe3O4 Nanoparticles with High Solubility for Removal of Heavy-Metal Ions from Waste Water. Dalt. Trans. 2012, 41, 4544–4551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Hakami, O.; Zhang, Y.; Banks, C.J. Thiol-Functionalised Mesoporous Silica-Coated Magnetite Nanoparticles for High Efficiency Removal and Recovery of Hg from Water. Water Res. 2012, 46, 3913–3922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Parham, H.; Zargar, B.; Shiralipour, R. Fast and Efficient Removal of Mercury from Water Samples Using Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Modified with 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 205–206, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Luo, X.; Wang, C.; Luo, S.; Dong, R.; Tu, X.; Zeng, G. Adsorption of As(III) and As (V) from Water Using Magnetite Fe3O4-Reduced Graphite Oxide–MnO2 Nanocomposites. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 187, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Ji, L.; Zhou, L.; Bai, X.; Shao, Y.; Zhao, G.; Qu, Y.; Wang, C.; Li, Y. Facile Synthesis of Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes/Iron Oxides for Removal of Tetrabromobisphenol A and Pb (II). J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 15853–15862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Roy, A.; Bhattacharya, J. Removal of Cu (II), Zn (II) and Pb (II) from Water Using Microwave-Assisted Synthesized Maghemite Nanotubes. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 211–212, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Zhang, S.; Zhou, Y.F.; Nie, W.Y.; Song, L.Y. Preparation of Fe3O4/Chitosan/Poly(Acrylic Acid) Composite Particles and Its Application in Adsorbing Copper Ion (II). Cellulose 2012, 19, 2081–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Mahdavi, M.; Ahmad, M.B.; Haron, M.J.; Gharayebi, Y.; Shameli, K.; Nadi, B. Fabrication and Characterization of SiO2/(3-Aminopropyl)Triethoxysilane-Coated Magnetite Nanoparticles for Lead(II) Removal from Aqueous Solution. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2013, 23, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Mahapatra, A.; Mishra, B.G.; Hota, G. Electrospun Fe2O3-Al2O3 Nanocomposite Fibers as Efficient Adsorbent for Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 258–259, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Ahmed, M.A.; Ali, S.M.; El-Dek, S.I.; Galal, A. Magnetite–Hematite Nanoparticles Prepared by Green Methods for Heavy Metal Ions Removal from Water. Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2013, 178, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Xiao, Y.; Liang, H.; Chen, W.; Wang, Z. Synthesis and Adsorption Behavior of Chitosan-Coated MnFe2O4 Nanoparticles for Trace Heavy Metal Ions Removal. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2013, 285, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Chang, J.; Zhong, Z.; Xu, H.; Yao, Z.; Chen, R. Fabrication of Poly (γ-Glutamic Acid)-Coated Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles and Their Application in Heavy Metal Removal. Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 2013, 21, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Badruddoza, A.Z.M.; Shawon, Z.B.Z.; Tay, W.J.D.; Hidajat, K.; Uddin, M.S. Fe3O4/Cyclodextrin Polymer Nanocomposites for Selective Heavy Metals Removal from Industrial Wastewater. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013, 91, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Liang, H.; Xu, B.; Wang, Z. Self-Assembled 3D Flower-like α-Fe2O3 Microstructures and Their Superior Capability for Heavy Metal Ion Removal. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2013, 141, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Karami, H. Heavy Metal Removal from Water by Magnetite Nanorods. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 219, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Ren, Y.; Abbood, H.A.; He, F.; Peng, H.; Huang, K. Magnetic EDTA-Modified Chitosan/SiO2/Fe3O4 Adsorbent: Preparation, Characterization, and Application in Heavy Metal Adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 226, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Tang, Y.; Liang, S.; Wang, J.; Yu, S.; Wang, Y. Amino-Functionalized Core-Shell Magnetic Mesoporous Composite Microspheres for Pb (II) and Cd (II) Removal. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Liu, M.; Wen, T.; Wu, X.; Chen, C.; Hu, J.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Synthesis of Porous Fe3O4 Hollow Microspheres/ Graphene Oxide Composite for Cr(vi) Removal. Dalt. Trans. 2013, 42, 14710–14717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Wei, Z.; Xing, R.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S.; Yu, H.; Li, P. Facile Template-Free Fabrication of Hollow Nestlike α-Fe2O3 Nanostructures for Water Treatment. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Ren, T.; He, P.; Niu, W.; Wu, Y.; Ai, L.; Gou, X. Synthesis of α-Fe2O3 Nanofibers for Applications in Removal and Recovery of Cr (VI) from Wastewater. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Zhang, J.; Zhai, S.; Li, S.; Xiao, Z.; Song, Y.; An, Q.; Tian, G. Pb (II) Removal of Fe3O4@SiO2–NH2 Core–Shell Nanomaterials Prepared via a Controllable Sol–Gel Process. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 215–216, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Burks, T.; Uheida, A.; Saleemi, M.; Eita, M.; Toprak, M.S.; Muhammed, M. Removal of Chromium (VI) Using Surface Modified Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Zhao, L.; Chang, X.L.; Liao, R.; Zhang, X.; Xie, J.; Yu, B.; Wu, R.; Wang, R.; Yang, S.T. Facile Hydrothermal Preparation of S-Doped Fe3O4@C Nanoparticles for Cu2+ Removal. Mater. Lett. 2014, 135, 154–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Xu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Li, R. Simultaneous Fluorescence Response and Adsorption of Functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2 Nanoparticles to Cd2+, Zn2+ and Cu2+. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2014, 459, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Feitoza, N.C.; Gonçalves, T.D.; Mesquita, J.J.; Menegucci, J.S.; Santos, M.K.M.S.; Chaker, J.A.; Cunha, R.B.; Medeiros, A.M.M.; Rubim, J.C.; Sousa, M.H. Fabrication of Glycine-Functionalized Maghemite Nanoparticles for Magnetic Removal of Copper from Wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 264, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Ahmadi, A.; Heidarzadeh, S.; Mokhtari, A.R.; Darezereshki, E.; Harouni, H.A. Optimization of Heavy Metal Removal from Aqueous Solutions by Maghemite (γ-Fe2O3) Nanoparticles Using Response Surface Methodology. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 147, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Hao, T.; Yang, C.; Rao, X.; Wang, J.; Niu, C.; Su, X. Facile Additive-Free Synthesis of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Efficient Adsorptive Removal of Congo Red and Cr (VI). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 292, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Burks, T.; Avila, M.; Akhtar, F.; Göthelid, M.; Lansåker, P.C.; Toprak, M.S.; Muhammed, M.; Uheida, A. Studies on the Adsorption of Chromium (VI) onto 3-Mercaptopropionic Acid Coated Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 425, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Fang, X.B.; Fang, Z.Q.; Tsang, P.K.E.; Cheng, W.; Yan, X.M.; Zheng, L.C. Selective Adsorption of Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solution by EDA-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Prepared from Steel Pickling Waste Liquor. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 314, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Türk, T.; Alp, I. Arsenic Removal from Aqueous Solutions with Fe-Hydrotalcite Supported Magnetite Nanoparticle. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2014, 20, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Guo, X.; Du, B.; Wei, Q.; Yang, J.; Hu, L.; Yan, L.; Xu, W. Synthesis of Amino Functionalized Magnetic Graphenes Composite Material and Its Application to Remove Cr (VI), Pb (II), Hg (II), Cd (II) and Ni (II) from Contaminated Water. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 278, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Lan, S.; Leng, Z.; Guo, N.; Wu, X.; Gan, S. Sesbania Gum-Based Magnetic Carbonaceous Nanocomposites: Facile Fabrication and Adsorption Behavior. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2014, 446, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Zhou, L.; Ji, L.; Ma, P.C.; Shao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Gao, W.; Li, Y. Development of Carbon Nanotubes/CoFe2O4 Magnetic Hybrid Material for Removal of Tetrabromobisphenol A and Pb (II). J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 265, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Kalantari, K.; Ahmad, M.B.; Masoumi, H.R.F.; Shameli, K.; Basri, M.; Khandanlou, R. Rapid Adsorption of Heavy Metals by Fe3O4/Talc Nanocomposite and Optimization Study Using Response Surface Methodology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 12913–12927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  241. Lasheen, M.R.; El-Sherif, I.Y.; Sabry, D.Y.; El-Wakeel, S.T.; El-Shahat, M.F. Removal and Recovery of Cr (VI) by Magnetite Nanoparticles. Desalin. Water Treat. 2014, 52, 6464–6473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Zhang, Y.; Yan, L.; Xu, W.; Guo, X.; Cui, L.; Gao, L.; Wei, Q.; Du, B. Adsorption of Pb (II) and Hg (II) from Aqueous Solution Using Magnetic CoFe2O4-Reduced Graphene Oxide. J. Mol. Liq. 2014, 191, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Kumar, S.; Nair, R.R.; Pillai, P.B.; Gupta, S.N.; Iyengar, M.A.R.; Sood, A.K. Graphene Oxide-MnFe2O4 Magnetic Nanohybrids for Efficient Removal of Lead and Arsenic from Water. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 17426–17436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Qi, X.; Li, N.; Xu, Q.; Chen, D.; Li, H.; Lu, J. Water-Soluble Fe3O4 Superparamagnetic Nanocomposites for the Removal of Low Concentration Mercury (II) Ions from Water. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 47643–47648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Chen, Z.; Geng, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, L.; Tao, T.; Yang, R.; Guo, Z. Synthesis of Magnetic Fe3O4@C Nanoparticles Modified with -SO3H and -COOH Groups for Fast Removal of Pb2+, Hg2+, and Cd2+ Ions. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2015, 2014, 3172–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Peng, X.; Xu, F.; Zhang, W.; Wang, J.; Zeng, C.; Niu, M.; Chmielewská, E. Magnetic Fe3O4 @ Silica–Xanthan Gum Composites for Aqueous Removal and Recovery of Pb2+. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2014, 443, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Luo, X.; Zeng, J.; Liu, S.; Zhang, L. An Effective and Recyclable Adsorbent for the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous System: Magnetic Chitosan/Cellulose Microspheres. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 194, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  248. Culita, D.C.; Simonescu, C.M.; Dragne, M.; Stanica, N.; Munteanu, C.; Preda, S.; Oprea, O. Effect of Surfactant Concentration on Textural, Morphological and Magnetic Properties of CoFe2O4 Nanoparticles and Evaluation of Their Adsorptive Capacity for Pb (II) Ions. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 13553–13560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Madrakian, T.; Afkhami, A.; Zadpour, B.; Ahmadi, M. New Synthetic Mercaptoethylamino Homopolymer-Modified Maghemite Nanoparticles for Effective Removal of Some Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 21, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Tadjarodi, A.; Abbaszadeh, A.; Taghizadeh, M.; Shekari, N.; Asgharinezhad, A.A. Solid Phase Extraction of Cd (II) and Pb (II) Ions Based on a Novel Functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2 Core-Shell Nanoparticles with the Aid of Multivariate Optimization Methodology. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2015, 49, 416–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. Gautam, R.K.; Gautam, P.K.; Banerjee, S.; Soni, S.; Singh, S.K.; Chattopadhyaya, M.C. Removal of Ni (II) by Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Mol. Liq. 2015, 204, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Souda, P.; Sreejith, L. Magnetic Hydrogel for Better Adsorption of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solutions. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 1882–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Kumari, M.; Pittman, C.U.; Mohan, D. Heavy Metals [Chromium (VI) and Lead (II)] Removal from Water Using Mesoporous Magnetite (Fe3O4) Nanospheres. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2015, 442, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Morillo, D.; Uheida, A.; Pérez, G.; Muhammed, M.; Valiente, M. Arsenate Removal with 3-Mercaptopropanoic Acid-Coated Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2015, 438, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  255. Shan, C.; Ma, Z.; Tong, M. Efficient Removal of Free and Nitrilotriacetic Acid Complexed Cd (II) from Water by Poly(1-Vinylimidazole)-Grafted Fe3O4@SiO2 Magnetic Nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 299, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Chávez-Guajardo, A.E.; Medina-Llamas, J.C.; Maqueira, L.; Andrade, C.A.S.; Alves, K.G.B.; de Melo, C.P. Efficient Removal of Cr (VI) and Cu (II) Ions from Aqueous Media by Use of Polypyrrole/Maghemite and Polyaniline/Maghemite Magnetic Nanocomposites. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 281, 826–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Cui, L.; Wang, Y.; Gao, L.; Hu, L.; Yan, L.; Wei, Q.; Du, B. EDTA Functionalized Magnetic Graphene Oxide for Removal of Pb (II), Hg (II) and Cu (II) in Water Treatment: Adsorption Mechanism and Separation Property. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 281, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Moradinasab, S.; Behzad, M. Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution Using Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Coated with Schiff Base Ligand. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 4028–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Mittal, A.; Ahmad, R.; Hasan, I. Poly (Methyl Methacrylate)-Grafted Alginate/Fe3O4 Nanocomposite: Synthesis and Its Application for the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 19820–19833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Zhang, X.; Wu, T.; Zhang, Y.; Ng, D.H.L.; Zhao, H.; Wang, G. Adsorption of Hg2+ by Thiol Functionalized Hollow Mesoporous Silica Microspheres with Magnetic Cores. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 51446–51453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Wang, H.; Yuan, X.; Wu, Y.; Chen, X.; Leng, L.; Wang, H.; Li, H.; Zeng, G. Facile Synthesis of Polypyrrole Decorated Reduced Graphene Oxide–Fe3O4 Magnetic Composites and Its Application for the Cr (VI) Removal. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 262, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Duan, S.; Tang, R.; Xue, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, J.; Wang, B.; Zeng, S.; Sun, D. Effective Removal of Pb (II) Using Magnetic Co0.6Fe2.4O4 Micro-Particles as the Adsorbent: Synthesis and Study on the Kinetic and Thermodynamic Behaviors for Its Adsorption. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2015, 469, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Shan, R.R.; Yan, L.G.; Yang, K.; Hao, Y.F.; Du, B. Adsorption of Cd (II) by Mg–Al–CO3- and Magnetic Fe3O4/Mg–Al–CO3-Layered Double Hydroxides: Kinetic, Isothermal, Thermodynamic and Mechanistic Studies. J. Hazard. Mater 2015, 299, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Lasheen, M.R.; El-Sherif, I.Y.; Tawfik, M.E.; El-Wakeel, S.T.; El-Shahat, M.F. Preparation and Adsorption Properties of Nano Magnetite Chitosan Films for Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution. Mater. Res. Bull. 2016, 80, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Bao, S.; Tang, L.; Li, K.; Ning, P.; Peng, J.; Guo, H.; Zhu, T.; Liu, Y. Highly Selective Removal of Zn (II) Ion from Hot-Dip Galvanizing Pickling Waste with Amino-Functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2 Magnetic Nano-Adsorbent. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 462, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Tamez, C.; Hernandez, R.; Parsons, J.G. Removal of Cu (II) and Pb (II) from Aqueous Solution Using Engineered Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Microchem. J. 2016, 125, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  267. Babu, C.M.; Vinodh, R.; Sundaravel, B.; Abidov, A.; Peng, M.M.; Cha, W.S.; Jang, H.T. Characterization of Reduced Graphene Oxide Supported Mesoporous Fe2O3/TiO2 Nanoparticles and Adsorption of As (III) and As (V) from Potable Water. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016, 62, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Wang, Z.; Xu, J.; Hu, Y.; Zhao, H.; Zhou, J.; Liu, Y.; Lou, Z.; Xu, X. Functional Nanomaterials: Study on Aqueous Hg (II) Adsorption by Magnetic Fe3O4@SiO2-SH Nanoparticles. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016, 60, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Singh, D.; Singh, S.K.; Atar, N.; Krishna, V. Amino Acid Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles for Removal of Ni (II) from Aqueous Solution. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016, 67, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Davarnejad, R.; Panahi, P. Cu (II) Removal from Aqueous Wastewaters by Adsorption on the Modified Henna with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Using Response Surface Methodology. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 158, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Yan, L.; Li, S.; Yu, H.; Shan, R.; Du, B.; Liu, T. Facile Solvothermal Synthesis of Fe3O4/Bentonite for Efficient Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution. Powder Technol. 2016, 301, 632–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Bagbi, Y.; Sarswat, A.; Mohan, D.; Pandey, A.; Solanki, P.R. Lead (Pb2+) Adsorption by Monodispersed Magnetite Nanoparticles: Surface Analysis and Effects of Solution Chemistry. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 4237–4247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Rajput, S.; Pittman, C.U.; Mohan, D. Magnetic Magnetite (Fe3O4) Nanoparticle Synthesis and Applications for Lead (Pb2+) and Chromium (Cr6+) Removal from Water. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 468, 334–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  274. Zhu, X.; Song, T.; Lv, Z.; Ji, G. High-Efficiency and Low-Cost α-Fe2O3 Nanoparticles-Coated Volcanic Rock for Cd (II) Removal from Wastewater. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 104, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Danesh, N.; Hosseini, M.; Ghorbani, M.; Marjani, A. Fabrication, Characterization and Physical Properties of a Novel Magnetite Graphene Oxide/Lauric Acid Nanoparticles Modified by Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid and Its Applications as an Adsorbent for the Removal of Pb (II) Ions. Synth. Met. 2016, 220, 508–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Gao, J.; He, Y.; Zhao, X.; Ran, X.; Wu, Y.; Su, Y.; Dai, J. Single Step Synthesis of Amine-Functionalized Mesoporous Magnetite Nanoparticles and Their Application for Copper Ions Removal from Aqueous Solution. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 481, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Habila, M.A.; Alothman, Z.A.; El-Toni, A.M.; Labis, J.P.; Soylak, M. Synthesis and Application of Fe3O4@SiO2@TiO2 for Photocatalytic Decomposition of Organic Matrix Simultaneously with Magnetic Solid Phase Extraction of Heavy Metals Prior to ICP-MS Analysis. Talanta 2016, 154, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Khandanlou, R.; Fard Masoumi, H.R.; Ahmad, M.B.; Shameli, K.; Basri, M.; Kalantari, K. Enhancement of Heavy Metals Sorption via Nanocomposites of Rice Straw and Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Using Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Ecol. Eng. 2016, 91, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Fan, H.L.; Li, L.; Zhou, S.F.; Liu, Y.Z. Continuous Preparation of Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Combined with Surface Modification by L-Cysteine and Their Application in Heavy Metal Adsorption. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 4228–4237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Mahmoud, M.E.; Amira, M.F.; Zaghloul, A.A.; Ibrahim, G.A.A. High Performance Microwave-Enforced Solid Phase Extraction of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solutions Using Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles-Protected-Nanosilica. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 163, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Mukherjee, D.; Ghosh, S.; Majumdar, S.; Annapurna, K. Green Synthesis of α-Fe2O3 Nanoparticles for Arsenic (V) Remediation with a Novel Aspect for Sludge Management. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Zhao, J.; Liu, J.; Li, N.; Wang, W.; Nan, J.; Zhao, Z.; Cui, F. Highly Efficient Removal of Bivalent Heavy Metals from Aqueous Systems by Magnetic Porous Fe3O4-MnO2: Adsorption Behavior and Process Study. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 304, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Liu, Y.; Fu, R.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, X.; Baig, S.A.; Xu, X. Multifunctional Nanocomposites Fe3O4@SiO2-EDTA for Pb (II) and Cu (II) Removal from Aqueous Solutions. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 369, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Shen, W.; Mu, Y.; Xiao, T.; Ai, Z. Magnetic Fe3O4–FeB Nanocomposites with Promoted Cr (VI) Removal Performance. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 285, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  285. Beduk, F. Superparamagnetic Nanomaterial Fe3O4-TiO2 for the Removal of As (V) and As (III) from Aqueous Solutions. Env. Technol. 2016, 37, 1790–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Beheshti, H.; Irani, M.; Hosseini, L.; Rahimi, A.; Aliabadi, M. Removal of Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solutions Using Chitosan/MWCNT/Fe3O4 Composite Nanofibers-Batch and Column Studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 284, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Zhao, D.; Gao, X.; Wu, C.; Xie, R.; Feng, S.; Chen, C. Facile Preparation of Amino Functionalized Graphene Oxide Decorated with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles for the Adsorption of Cr (VI). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 384, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Chen, K.; He, J.; Li, Y.; Cai, X.; Zhang, K.; Liu, T.; Hu, Y.; Lin, D.; Kong, L.; Liu, J. Removal of Cadmium and Lead Ions from Water by Sulfonated Magnetic Nanoparticle Adsorbents. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 494, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  289. Hasanzadeh, R.; Moghadam, P.N.; Bahri-Laleh, N.; Sillanpää, M. Effective Removal of Toxic Metal Ions from Aqueous Solutions: 2-Bifunctional Magnetic Nanocomposite Base on Novel Reactive PGMA-MAn Copolymer@Fe3O4 Nanoparticles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 490, 727–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Elfeky, S.A.; Mahmoud, S.E.; Youssef, A.F. Applications of CTAB Modified Magnetic Nanoparticles for Removal of Chromium (VI) from Contaminated Water. J. Adv. Res. 2017, 8, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  291. Ke, F.; Jiang, J.; Li, Y.; Liang, J.; Wan, X.; Ko, S. Highly Selective Removal of Hg2+ and Pb2+ by Thiol-Functionalized Fe3O4@metal-Organic Framework Core-Shell Magnetic Microspheres. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 413, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Guo, S.; Jiao, P.; Dan, Z.; Duan, N.; Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Gao, W. Synthesis of Magnetic Bioadsorbent for Adsorption of Zn (II), Cd (II) and Pb (II) Ions from Aqueous Solution. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017, 126, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Jin, S.; Park, B.C.; Ham, W.S.; Pan, L.; Kim, Y.K. Effect of the Magnetic Core Size of Amino-Functionalized Fe3O4-Mesoporous SiO2 Core-Shell Nanoparticles on the Removal of Heavy Metal Ions. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 531, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Ahmadi, M.; Hazrati Niari, M.; Kakavandi, B. Development of Maghemite Nanoparticles Supported on Cross-Linked Chitosan (γ-Fe2O3@CS) as a Recoverable Mesoporous Magnetic Composite for Effective Heavy Metals Removal. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 248, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Bagbi, Y.; Sarswat, A.; Mohan, D.; Pandey, A.; Solanki, P.R. Lead and Chromium Adsorption from Water Using L-Cysteine Functionalized Magnetite (Fe3O4) Nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Jiryaei Sharahi, F.; Shahbazi, A. Melamine-Based Dendrimer Amine-Modified Magnetic Nanoparticles as an Efficient Pb (II) Adsorbent for Wastewater Treatment: Adsorption Optimization by Response Surface Methodology. Chemosphere 2017, 189, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Sun, T.; Zhao, Z.; Liang, Z.; Liu, J.; Shi, W.; Cui, F. Efficient Removal of Arsenite through Photocatalytic Oxidation and Adsorption by ZrO2-Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 416, 656–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Wang, F.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Rohani, S.; Lu, J. Fe3O4@SiO2@CS-TETA Functionalized Graphene Oxide for the Adsorption of Methylene Blue (MB) and Cu (II). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 420, 970–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Zhu, H.; Shen, Y.; Wang, Q.; Chen, K.; Wang, X.; Zhang, G.; Yang, J.; Guo, Y.; Bai, R. Highly Promoted Removal of Hg (II) with Magnetic CoFe2O4@SiO2 Core-Shell Nanoparticles Modified by Thiol Groups. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 39204–39215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  300. Zou, Z.; Shi, Z.; Deng, L. Highly Efficient Removal of Cu (II) from Aqueous Solution Using a Novel Magnetic EDTA Functionalized CoFe2O4. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 5195–5205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  301. Lalhmunsiama; Pawar, R.R.; Hong, S.M.; Jin, K.J.; Lee, S.M. Iron-Oxide Modified Sericite Alginate Beads: A Sustainable Adsorbent for the Removal of As (V) and Pb (II) from Aqueous Solutions. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 240, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Ren, C.; Ding, X.; Fu, H.; Li, W.; Wu, H.; Yang, H. Core-Shell Superparamagnetic Monodisperse Nanospheres Based on Amino-Functionalized CoFe2O4@SiO2 for Removal of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solutions. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 6911–6921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  303. Nithya, K.; Sathish, A.; Senthil Kumar, P.; Ramachandran, T. Fast Kinetics and High Adsorption Capacity of Green Extract Capped Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for the Adsorption of Ni (II) Ions. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 59, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Silva-Yumi, J.; Escudey, M.; Gacitua, M.; Pizarro, C. Kinetics, Adsorption and Desorption of Cd (II) and Cu (II) on Natural Allophane: Effect of Iron Oxide Coating. Geoderma 2018, 319, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Guo, T.; Bulin, C.; Li, B.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, H.; Sun, H.; Ge, X.; Xing, R.; Zhang, B. Efficient Removal of Aqueous Pb (II) Using Partially Reduced Graphene Oxide-Fe3O4. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2018, 36, 1031–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  306. Mirzaeinejad, M.; Mansoori, Y.; Amiri, M. Amino Functionalized ATRP-Prepared Polyacrylamide-g-Magnetite Nanoparticles for the Effective Removal of Cu (II) Ions: Kinetics Investigations. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2018, 205, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Sun, J.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H.; Yan, L.; Du, B.; Pei, Z. Removal of Cu2+, Cd2+ and Pb2+ from Aqueous Solutions by Magnetic Alginate Microsphere Based on Fe3O4/MgAl-Layered Double Hydroxide. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 532, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Xu, W.; Song, Y.; Dai, K.; Sun, S.; Liu, G.; Yao, J. Novel Ternary Nanohybrids of Tetraethylenepentamine and Graphene Oxide Decorated with MnFe2O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles for the Adsorption of Pb (II). J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 358, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  309. Wang, Y.Y.; Ji, H.Y.; Lu, H.H.; Liu, Y.X.; Yang, R.Q.; He, L.L.; Yang, S.M. Simultaneous Removal of Sb (III) and Cd (II) in Water by Adsorption onto a MnFe2O4-Biochar Nanocomposite. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 3264–3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  310. Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Xia, K.; Guo, Y.; Qu, Z.; Bai, R. A Mild and Facile Synthesis of Amino Functionalized CoFe2O4@SiO2 for Hg (II) Removal. Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  311. Song, T.; Yu, C.; He, X.; Lin, J.; Liu, Z.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Tang, C. Synthesis of Magnetically Separable Porous BN Microrods@Fe3O4 Nanocomposites for Pb (II) Adsorption. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2018, 537, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Koushkbaghi, S.; Zakialamdari, A.; Pishnamazi, M.; Ramandi, H.F.; Aliabadi, M.; Irani, M. Aminated-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Filled Chitosan/PVA/PES Dual Layers Nanofibrous Membrane for the Removal of Cr (VI) and Pb (II) Ions from Aqueous Solutions in Adsorption and Membrane Processes. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Fu, W.; Huang, Z. One-Pot Synthesis of a Two-Dimensional Porous Fe3O4/Poly(C3N3S3) Network Nanocomposite for the Selective Removal of Pb (II) and Hg (II) from Synthetic Wastewater. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 14785–14794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Fu, W.; Huang, Z. Magnetic Dithiocarbamate Functionalized Reduced Graphene Oxide for the Removal of Cu (II), Cd (II), Pb (II), and Hg (II) Ions from Aqueous Solution: Synthesis, Adsorption, and Regeneration. Chemosphere 2018, 209, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Song, Y.; Lu, M.; Huang, B.; Wang, D.; Wang, G.; Zhou, L. Decoration of Defective MoS2 Nanosheets with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles as Superior Magnetic Adsorbent for Highly Selective and Efficient Mercury Ions (Hg2+) Removal. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 737, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Facchi, D.P.; Cazetta, A.L.; Canesin, E.A.; Almeida, V.C.; Bonafé, E.G.; Kipper, M.J.; Martins, A.F. New Magnetic Chitosan/Alginate/Fe3O4@SiO2 Hydrogel Composites Applied for Removal of Pb (II) Ions from Aqueous Systems. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Huang, X.; Zhan, X.; Wen, C.; Xu, F.; Luo, L. Amino-Functionalized Magnetic Bacterial Cellulose/Activated Carbon Composite for Pb2+ and Methyl Orange Sorption from Aqueous Solution. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2018, 34, 855–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Zhang, X.; Sun, C.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.; Cao, B.; Liu, L.; Gong, W. Adsorption Studies of Cadmium onto Magnetic Fe3O4@FePO4 and Its Preconcentration with Detection by Electrothermal Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. Talanta 2018, 181, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  319. Banerjee, S.; Kumar, N.P.; Srinivas, A.; Roy, S. Core-Shell Fe3O4@Au Nanocomposite as Dual-Functional Optical Probe and Potential Removal System for Arsenic (III) from Water. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 375, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Fu, W.; Wang, X.; Huang, Z. Remarkable Reusability of Magnetic Fe3O4-Encapsulated C3N3S3 Polymer/Reduced Graphene Oxide Composite: A Highly Effective Adsorbent for Pb and Hg Ions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  321. Rowley, J.; Abu-Zahra, N.H. Synthesis and Characterization of Polyethersulfone Membranes Impregnated with (3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane) APTES-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles for As (V) Removal from Water. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Ramutshatsha-Makhwedzha, D.; Ngila, J.C.; Ndungu, P.G.; Nomngongo, P.N. Ultrasound Assisted Adsorptive Removal of Cr, Cu, Al, Ba, Zn, Ni, Mn, Co and Ti from Seawater Using Fe2O3-SiO2-PAN Nanocomposite: Equilibrium Kinetics. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  323. Zhang, L.; Guo, J.; Huang, X.; Wang, W.; Sun, P.; Li, Y.; Han, J. Functionalized Biochar-Supported Magnetic MnFe2O4 Nanocomposite for the Removal of Pb (II) and Cd (II). RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  324. Xia, K.; Guo, Y.; Shao, Q.; Zan, Q.; Bai, R. Removal of Mercury (II) by EDTA-Functionalized Magnetic CoFe2O4@SiO2 Nanomaterial with Core-Shell Structure. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  325. Feng, G.; Ma, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Xiao, Y.; Ma, Q.; Wang, S. Magnetic Natural Composite Fe3O4-Chitosan@bentonite for Removal of Heavy Metals from Acid Mine Drainage. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 538, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Wu, Z.; Deng, W.; Zhou, W.; Luo, J. Novel Magnetic Polysaccharide/Graphene Oxide @Fe3O4 Gel Beads for Adsorbing Heavy Metal Ions. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 216, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Zendehdel, M.; Ramezani, M.; Shoshtari-yeganeh, B.; Salmani, A. Simultaneous Removal of Pb (II), Cd (II) and Bacteria from Aqueous Solution Using Amino-Functionalized Fe3O 4 / NaP Zeolite Nanocomposite. Environ. Technol. 2019, 40, 3689–3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  328. Anush, S.M.; Vishalakshi, B. Modified Chitosan Gel Incorporated with Magnetic Nanoparticle for Removal of Cu (II) and Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solution. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 133, 1051–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  329. Xu, H.; Yuan, H.; Yu, J.; Lin, S. Study on the Competitive Adsorption and Correlational Mechanism for Heavy Metal Ions Using the Carboxylated Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles (MNPs-COOH) as Efficient Adsorbents. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 473, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Fan, H.; Ma, X.; Zhou, S.; Huang, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Highly Efficient Removal of Heavy Metal Ions by Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Immobilized Fe3O4 Nanoparticles Prepared via High-Gravity Technology. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 213, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  331. Zhang, H.; Tan, X.; Qiu, T.; Zhou, L.; Li, R.; Deng, Z. A Novel and Biocompatible Fe3O4 Loaded Chitosan Polyelectrolyte Nanoparticles for the Removal of Cd2+ Ion. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 141, 1165–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Al Yaqoob, K.; Bououdina, M.; Akhter, M.S.; Al Najar, B.; Vijaya, J.J. Selectivity and Efficient Pb and Cd Ions Removal by Magnetic MFe2O4 (M=Co, Ni, Cu and Zn) Nanoparticles. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 232, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Tahir, M.U.; Su, X.; Zhao, M.; Liao, Y.; Wu, R.; Chen, D. Preparation of Hydroxypropyl-Cyclodextrin-Graphene/Fe3O4 and Its Adsorption Properties for Heavy Metals. Surf. Interfaces 2019, 16, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Zhou, G.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, R.; Wang, C.; Jin, Y.; Qiu, J.; Hua, C.; Cao, Y. Synthesis of Amino-Functionalized Bentonite/CoFe2O4@MnO2 Magnetic Recoverable Nanoparticles for Aqueous Cd2+ Removal. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 682, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Masjedi, A.; Askarizadeh, E.; Baniyaghoob, S. Magnetic Nanoparticles Surface-Modified with Tridentate Ligands for Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Water. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 249, 122917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Shi, Y.; Xing, Y.; Deng, S.; Zhao, B.; Fu, Y.; Liu, Z. Synthesis of Proanthocyanidins-Functionalized Fe3O4 Magnetic Nanoparticles with High Solubility for Removal of Heavy-Metal Ions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2020, 753, 137600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Kulal, P.; Badalamoole, V. Efficient Removal of Dyes and Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewater Using Gum Ghatti–Graft–Poly(4-Acryloylmorpholine) Hydrogel Incorporated with Magnetite Nanoparticles. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Yoo, J.; Kim, H.S.; Park, S.Y.; Kwon, S.; Lee, J.; Koo, J.; Seo, Y.S. Instantaneous Integration of Magnetite Nanoparticles on Graphene Oxide Assisted by Ultrasound for Efficient Heavy Metal Ion Retrieval. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 64, 104962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  339. El-Dib, F.I.; Mohamed, D.E.; El-Shamy, O.A.A.; Mishrif, M.R. Study the Adsorption Properties of Magnetite Nanoparticles in the Presence of Different Synthesized Surfactants for Heavy Metal Ions Removal. Egypt. J. Pet. 2020, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  340. Zhang, X.; Huang, Y.; He, X.; Lin, J.; Yang, X.; Li, D.; Yu, M.; Yu, C.; Tang, C. Synergistic Adsorption of Pb (II) Ions by Fe3O4 Nanoparticles-Decorated Porous BN Nanofibers. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2020, 589, 124400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Kamari, S.; Shahbazi, A. Biocompatible Fe3O4@SiO2-NH2 Nanocomposite as a Green Nanofiller Embedded in PES–Nanofiltration Membrane Matrix for Salts, Heavy Metal Ion and Dye Removal: Long–Term Operation and Reusability Tests. Chemosphere 2020, 243, 125282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  342. Pillai, P.; Kakadiya, N.; Timaniya, Z.; Dharaskar, S.; Sillanpaa, M. Removal of Arsenic Using Iron Oxide Amended with Rice Husk Nanoparticles from Aqueous Solution. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 28, 830–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Asadi, R.; Abdollahi, H.; Gharabaghi, M.; Boroumand, Z. Effective Removal of Zn (II) Ions from Aqueous Solution by the Magnetic MnFe2O4 and CoFe2O4 Spinel Ferrite Nanoparticles with Focuses on Synthesis, Characterization, Adsorption, and Desorption. Adv. Powder Technol. 2020, 31, 1480–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Abu Taleb, M.; Kumar, R.; Al-Rashdi, A.A.; Seliem, M.K.; Barakat, M.A. Fabrication of SiO2/CuFe2O4/Polyaniline Composite: A Highly Efficient Adsorbent for Heavy Metals Removal from Aquatic Environment. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 7533–7543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. You, J.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, L.; Bao, W.; He, Y. Atomic Layer Deposition of γ-Fe2O3 Nanoparticles on Modified MWCNT for Efficient Adsorption of Cr (VI) Ions from Aqueous Solution. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2020, 142, 109441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Zhou, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, M.; Jiao, J.; Zhang, H.; Du, J.; Zhang, B.; Ren, Z. Preparation of Highly Efficient Ion-Imprinted Polymers with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles as Carrier for Removal of Cr (VI) from Aqueous Solution. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 699, 134334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  347. Jafari, Z.; Avargani, V.M.; Rahimi, M.R.; Mosleh, S. Magnetic Nanoparticles-Embedded Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Nanotube/Porous Carbon Hybrid Derived from a Metal-Organic Framework as a Highly Efficient Adsorbent for Selective Removal of Pb (II) Ions from Aqueous Solution. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 318, 113987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. Xiao, J.; Hu, R.; Chen, G.; Xing, B. Facile Synthesis of Multifunctional Bone Biochar Composites Decorated with Fe/Mn Oxide Micro-Nanoparticles: Physicochemical Properties, Heavy Metals Sorption Behavior and Mechanism. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 399, 123067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  349. Subana, P.S.; Manjunatha, C.; Manmadha, R.B.; Venkateswarlu, B.; Nagaraju, G.; Suresh, R. Surface Functionalized Magnetic α-Fe2O3 Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization and Hg2+ Ion Removal in Water. Surf. Interfaces 2020, 21, 100680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  350. Devatha, C.P.; Shivani, S. Novel Application of Maghemite Nanoparticles Coated Bacteria for the Removal of Cadmium from Aqueous Solution. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 258, 110038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  351. Wang, H.; Wang, Z.; Yue, R.; Gao, F.; Ren, R.; Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Kong, Z. Functional Group-Rich Hyperbranched Magnetic Material for Simultaneous Efficient Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Aqueous Solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 384, 121288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  352. Mahanty, S.; Chatterjee, S.; Ghosh, S.; Tudu, P.; Gaine, T.; Bakshi, M.; Das, S.; Das, P.; Bhattacharyya, S.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; et al. Synergistic Approach towards the Sustainable Management of Heavy Metals in Wastewater Using Mycosynthesized Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: Biofabrication, Adsorptive Dynamics and Chemometric Modeling Study. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 37, 101426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  353. Kulal, P.; Badalamoole, V. Magnetite Nanoparticle Embedded Pectin-Graft-Poly(N-Hydroxyethylacrylamide) Hydrogel: Evaluation as Adsorbent for Dyes and Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewater. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 156, 1408–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  354. Shi, S.; Xu, C.; Wang, X.; Xie, Y.; Wang, Y.; Dong, Q.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, G.; Xu, D. Electrospinning Fabrication of Flexible Fe3O4 Fibers by Sol-Gel Method with High Saturation Magnetization for Heavy Metal Adsorption. Mater. Des. 2020, 186, 108298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  355. Almomani, F.; Bhosale, R.; Khraisheh, M.; Kumar, A.; Almomani, T. Heavy Metal Ions Removal from Industrial Wastewater Using Magnetic Nanoparticles (MNP). Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 506, 144924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  356. Hosain, A.N.A.; El Nemr, A.; El Sikaily, A.; Mahmoud, M.E.; Amira, M.F. Surface Modifications of Nanochitosan Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles and Their Applications in Pb (II), Cu (II) and Cd (II) Removal. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  357. Hou, L.; Liang, Q.; Wang, F. Mechanisms That Control the Adsorption-Desorption Behavior of Phosphate on Magnetite Nanoparticles: The Role of Particle Size and Surface Chemistry Characteristics. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 2378–2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  358. Karvelas, E.G.; Lampropoulos, N.K.; Karakasidis, T.E.; Sarris, I.E. A computational tool for the estimation of the optimum gradient magnetic field for the magnetic driving of the spherical particles in the process of cleaning water. Desalination Water Treat. 2017, 99, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  359. Peng, W.; Li, H.; Liu, Y.; Song, S. A Review on Heavy Metal Ions Adsorption from Water by Graphene Oxide and Its Composites. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 496–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  360. Gautam, P.K.; Shivalkar, S.; Banerjee, S. Synthesis of M. Oleifera Leaf Extract Capped Magnetic Nanoparticles for Effective Lead [Pb(II)] Removal from Solution: Kinetics, Isotherm and Reusability Study. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 305, 112811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  361. Jadidi, M.; Etesami, N.; Nasr, E.M. Adsorption and Desorption Process of Chromium Ions Using Magnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles and Its Relevant Mechanism. Iran. J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 14, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  362. Lata, S.; Singh, P.K.; Samadder, S.R. Regeneration of Adsorbents and Recovery of Heavy Metals: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 1461–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Materials 14 07500 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the water purification cycle.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the water purification cycle.
Materials 14 07500 g001
Materials 14 07500 g002 550
Figure 2. Selection of research articles per year.
Figure 2. Selection of research articles per year.
Materials 14 07500 g002
Materials 14 07500 g003 550
Figure 3. Research interest in each heavy metal per year since 2010.
Figure 3. Research interest in each heavy metal per year since 2010.
Materials 14 07500 g003
Table
Table 1. Metal toxicity [31,33].
Table 1. Metal toxicity [31,33].
Heavy MetalsMCL (mg/L) × 102
Zinc (Zn)80
Nickel (Ni)20
Copper (Cu)25
Chromium (Cr)5
Arsenic (As)5
Cadmium (Cd)1
Lead (Pb)0.06
Mercury (Hg)0.003
Table
Table 2. Heavy metal characteristics [16,33,44,45,46].
Table 2. Heavy metal characteristics [16,33,44,45,46].
Heavy MetalHuman Health ImpactsCommon Sources
ArsenicSkin damage, circulatory system issues, protein coagulation, nerve inflammation, muscle weakness, carcinogenicityNaturally occurring, electronic production, agricultural applications, nonferrous smelters, metallurgy, coal-fired and geothermal electrical generation, tanning, pigments, antifouling paints, light filters, fireworks, veterinary medicine
CadmiumKidney damage, carcinogenicity, DNA damage, gastrointestinal irritation,
hyperactivity, renal failure		Naturally occurring, various chemical industries, agricultural applications (phosphatic fertilizers), pigments, anticorrosive metal coatings, plastic stabilizers, alloys, coal combustion
ChromiumAllergic dermatitis, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, headache, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damageNaturally occurring, steel manufacturing metallurgy, refractory, chemical industries, plating, pigments, textile and leather tanning, passivation of corrosion of cooling circuits, wood treatment
CopperGastrointestinal issues, liver and kidney damage, anorexia, Wilson’s diseaseHousehold plumbing systems, naturally occurring, chemical and pharmaceutical equipment, pigments, alloys
LeadKidney damage, reduced neural
development, carcinogenicity,
high blood pressure		Lead-based products (batteries), household plumbing systems, antiknock agents, pigments, glassware, ceramics, plastic, alloys, sheets, cable sheathings, solder
MercuryKidney damage, nervous system damage, carcinogenicity, gingivitis, stomatitis, gastrointestinal issues, abortionsFossil fuel combustion, electronic industries, fluorescent light bulbs, electrical and measuring apparatus, catalysts, pharmaceuticals, dental fillings, scientific instruments, rectifiers, oscillators, solders
NickelAllergic dermatitis, nausea, chronic asthma, coughing, carcinogenicity, hair lossPaper products, fertilizer plating, electroplating, batteries, arc welding, rods, pigments for paints and ceramics, surgical and dental prostheses, moulds for ceramic and glass containers, computer components, catalysts
ZincDepression, lethargy, neurological signs, increased thirst, hyperactivity, physical dysfunctionMining, coal, waste combustion, steel processing, agricultural applications (phosphatic fertilizers), anticorrosion coating, batteries, cans, PVC stabilizers, medicines and chemicals, rubber industry, paints, soldering and welding fluxes
Table
Table 3. Physical and magnetic properties of iron oxide [116,117].
Table 3. Physical and magnetic properties of iron oxide [116,117].
Molecular Formulaα-Fe2O3Fe3O4γ-Fe2O3
Density (g/cm3)5.265.184.87
Melting point (°C)
Hardness		13501583–1597-
6.55.55
Type of magnetismWeakly ferromagnetic, antiferromagneticFerromagneticFerromagnetic
Curie temperature (K)-850948
Point of zero charge (pHpzc)--7.5
Morin temperature (K)263--
Neel temperature (K)948 < TN < 963--
a-
Rhombohedral		0.8394
Cubic		0.8346
Cubic
Table
Table 4. Synthesis methods for bare iron oxide nanoparticles’ sizes under various conditions.
Table 4. Synthesis methods for bare iron oxide nanoparticles’ sizes under various conditions.
MethodIron OxideNanoparticle Size (nm)pHTemperature (°C)Reference
CoprecipitationFe3O48.31145[86]
Sonochemical
coprecipitation (ultrasound assistance)		Fe3O413 [74]
Sonochemical
coprecipitation		Fe3O417 [74]
CoprecipitationFe3O410–20980[123]
Ultrasonic-assisted
chemical coprecipitation		Fe3O415760[124]
CoprecipitationFe3O413.21185[86]
Sol–gelFe3O42.02 200[73]
Sol–gelFe3O45.58 400[73]
Sol–gelFe3O48.35 600[73]
Fe3O423 [125]
γ-Fe2O32 130[84]
γ-Fe2O34.5 180[84]
γ-Fe2O36.1 200[84]
γ-Fe2O39 230[84]
γ-Fe2O312 250[84]
γ-Fe2O325.5 250[125]
Solvothermalγ-Fe2O33000 400[126]
Mechanochemical millingFe2O310,000 [127]
Mechanochemical millingα-Fe2O317.1 [128]
Ultrasonic spray pyrolysisα-Fe2O318 400[118]
Ultrasonic spray pyrolysisα-Fe2O333 600[118]
α-Fe2O353.7 500[125]
Table
Table 5. Adsorption capacity, removal efficiency, and system conditions.
Table 5. Adsorption capacity, removal efficiency, and system conditions.
Year of PublishMagnetic
Nanoparticle		Heavy
Metal Ion		Adsorption
Capacity (mg/g) 1		Removal Efficiency (%)Time (min)pHTempe-rature (°C)Number of
Cycles		Ref.
2010Amino-functionalized Fe3O4Cu(II)25.77 562515[171]
Fe3O4As(V)44.1 325 [169]
Fe3O4As(III)49.8 725 [169]
MnFe2O4As(V)90.4 325 [169]
MnFe2O4As(III)93.8 725 [169]
CoFe2O4As(V)73.8 325 [169]
CoFe2O4As(III)100.3 725 [169]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cu(II)0.69 mmol/g 454[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cu(II)0.60 mmol/g 354[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cu(II)0.47 mmol/g 254[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Pb(II)0.54 mmol/g 454[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Pb(II)0.45 mmol/g 354[172]
2010Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Pb(II)0.37 mmol/g 254[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cd(II)0.33 mmol/g 454[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cd(II)0.27 mmol/g 354[172]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Cd(II)0.20 mmol/g 254[172]
GA–APTES-NPsCu(II)61.0775.3154–5.320 ± 0.13[173]
Fe3O4Pb(II)36 305.5 5[168]
EDA-MPs-10Cr(VI)61.35 602.535 [107]
EDA-MPs-8Cr(VI)60.98 602.535 [107]
EDA-MPs-6Cr(VI)49.5 602.535 [107]
EDA-MPs-4Cr(VI)36.63 602.535 [107]
EDA-MPs-2Cr(VI)32.15 602.535 [107]
Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3As(III)3.6996 2 [115]
Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3As(V)3.7196 2 [115]
Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)2.499 2 [115]
Fe3O4Pb(II)63.33 6 [174]
Fe3O4Ni(II)52.55 6 [174]
Fe3O4@SiO2Pb(II) 97.34 6 5[175]
NanoironNi(II)11.53 525 [176]
EDA-NMPsCr(VI)136.98 302.535 [177]
DEDA-NMPsCr(VI)149.25 302.535 [177]
TETA-NMPsCr(VI)204.08 302.535 [177]
TEPA-NMPsCr(VI)370.37 30235 [177]
Magnetite NPsCr(VI) 82202 [106]
Fe3O4-γFe2O3As(ΙΙΙ)4.75911806.5 [178]
Fe3O4-γFe2O3As(V)4.85921806.5 [178]
2011γ-Fe2O3Hg(ΙΙ)140 8 [157]
Iron oxide-coated perlite (IOCP)As(V)0.39 56.5–7 [165]
γ-Fe2O3 onto ball-milled expanded perlite carrierAs(V)4.64 7 [179]
NiFe2O4Cu(II)55.83 [180]
NiFe2O4Cr(VI)36.95 [180]
NiFe2O4Ni(II)37.02 [180]
EDTAD-treated Fe3O4Pb(II)99.26 5.530 [181]
EDTAD-treated Fe3O4Cd(II)48.70 630 [181]
Fe3O4@SiO2-MIIPCu(II)24.2 5[182]
Fe3O4@SiO2-NIPCu(II)5.2 [182]
Fe3O4–TWNi(II)38.3 5[183]
γ-Fe2O3@Fe3O4Cr(VI)74.07 30 35 [184]
γ-Fe2O3@Fe3O4Cr(VI)78.13 30 25 [184]
γ-Fe2O3@Fe3O4Cr(VI)83.33 30 15 [184]
Polyrhodanine-coated
γ-Fe2O3		Hg(II)179 5[157]
Polypyrrole/F3O4Cr(VI)169.49 30–1802253[185]
Polypyrrole/F3O4Cr(VI)204.08 30–180235 [185]
2011Polypyrrole/F3O4Cr(VI)238.09 30–180245 [185]
Iron oxide-modified sewage sludgePb(II)42.4 625 ± 0.1 [186]
Iron oxide-modified sewage sludgeCu(II)17.3 625 ± 0.1 [186]
Iron oxide-modified sewage sludgeCd(II)14.7 725 ± 0.1 [186]
Iron oxide-modified sewage sludgeNi(II)7.8 725 ± 0.1 [186]
SH-mSi@Fe3O4Hg(II)260 6.5256[187]
SH-mSi@Fe3O4Pb(II)91.5 6.5256[187]
Fe3O4@SiO2Hg(II) 98 [188]
MWCNT/IO/CDCu(II) 59 5.525.15 [189]
CS-co-MMB-co-PAA
hydrogel		Pb(II)163.90 5.525 [190]
CS-co-MMB-co-PAA
hydrogel		Cd(II)135.51 5.525 [190]
CS-co-MMB-co-PAA
hydrogel		Cu(II)152.42 5.525 [190]
MWCNT/nano-iron oxideCr(III) 82 5 [191]
MWCNT/nano-iron oxideCr(III) 88 6 [191]
Nano-Fe3O4Cu(II)8.90 525 [192]
PEI-grafted magnetic porousCu(II)157.8 106–7.5 4[193]
PEI-grafted magnetic porousZn(II)138.8 106–7.5 4[193]
PEI-grafted magnetic porousCd(II)105.2 106–7.5 4[193]
Fe3O4-coated boron nitride nanotubesAs(V)0.96 7209254[194]
2012Fe3O4-CPb(II)126 6 [195]
Pectin-coated iron
oxide		Cu(II)48.9 [196]
Fe3O4@ZrO2Cr(III)24.5 8–9 [131]
MNPs–Ca-alginate
immobilized
P. chrysosporium		Pb(II)176.33 355[197]
AF-Fe3O4Cu(II)523.6 1207 [198]
AF-Fe3O4Cd(II)446.4 1207 [198]
AF-Fe3O4Pb(II)369.0 1207 [198]
Fe3O4@APS@AA-co-CACd(II)29.6 455.5254[199]
Fe3O4@APS@AA-co-CAZn(II)43.4 455.5254[199]
Fe3O4@APS@AA-co-CAPb(II)166.1 455.5254[199]
Fe3O4@APS@AA-co-CACu(II)126.9 455.5254[199]
Fe3O4–SiO2-polyAs(III)84±5 120630 [104]
Fe3O4–SiO2-polyCu(II)65±3 120630 [104]
Fe3O4–SiO2-polyCr(III)77±3 1205.330 [104]
Acid-coated Fe3O4As(V)16.56 [200]
Acid-coated Fe3O4As(III)46.06 [200]
γ-Fe2O3 functionalized with citrate ionsNi(II)0.57 mmol/g 156 ± 0.5 [201]
Fe3O4@CTABAs(V)23.07 26 5[202]
Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3 Cr(VI)6 410 [202]
2012Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)6.9 422 [202]
Fe3O4-γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)7 450 [202]
Fe3O4–PEI800–MMTCr(VI)8.77 [203]
Fe3O4–PEI25000–MMTCr(VI)7.69 [203]
MPTS-CNTs/Fe3O4Hg(II)65.52 6.525 ± 0.2 [204]
MPTS-CNTs/Fe3O4Pb(II)65.40 6.525 ± 0.2 [204]
rGO–Fe(0)–Fe3O4As(III)44 60725 [205]
rGO–Fe3O4As(III)21 60725 [205]
Nanomagnetite (NMT)Cu(II)14.3 70 45 [206]
Nanomagnetite (NMT)As(V)6.5 120 45 [206]
Water-soluble Fe3O4
nanoparticles		Pb(II)96.8 60718 [207]
Water-soluble Fe3O4
nanoparticles		Cr(VI)41.5 90718 [207]
TF-SCMNPsHg(II)20793.7615622.5 [208]
M-MIONPsHg(II) 98.64925 [209]
Fe3O4-RGO–MnO2As(III)14.04 725 [210]
Fe3O4-RGO–MnO2As(V)12.22 725 [210]
MWCNTs/Fe3O4Pb(II)41.77 5.3 5[211]
MWCNTs/Fe3O4-NH2Pb(II)75.02 5.3 5[211]
γ-Fe2O3Cu(II)71.42 6 ± 0.125 ± 1 [212]
γ-Fe2O3Zn(II)111.11 6 ± 0.125 ± 1 [212]
γ-Fe2O3Pb(II)84.95 6 ± 0.125 ± 1 [212]
Fe3O4/CS/PAACu(II)193 [213]
2013Fe3O4/SiO2Pb(II)14.65 427 [214]
Fe3O4/SiO2Pb(II)16.83 450 [214]
Fe3O4/SiO2Pb(II)17.65 470 [214]
Fe2O3–Al2O3Cu(II)4.98 606 4[215]
Fe2O3–Al2O3Pb(II)23.75 606 4[215]
Fe2O3–Al2O3Ni(II)32.36 606 4[215]
Fe2O3–Al2O3Hg(II)63.69 606 4[215]
Mixed magnetite–
hematite		Pb(II)617.3 60725 [216]
Mixed magnetite–
hematite		Cr(III)277.0 120725 [216]
Mixed magnetite–
hematite		Cd(II)223.7 1440725 [216]
Chitosan-coated MnFe2O4 (CCMNPs)Cu(II)22.6 6 5[217]
Chitosan-coated MnFe2O4 (CCMNPs)Cr(VI)15.4 6 5[217]
γ-PGA/Fe3O4 MNPsCr(III)162.699.66120630 [218]
CDpoly-MNPsPb(II)64.5 455.5–6254[219]
CDpoly-MNPsCd(II)27.7 455.5–625 [219]
CDpoly-MNPsNi(II)13.2 455.5–625 [219]
3D flowerlike a-Fe2O3As(V)41.46 120 [220]
3D flowerlike a-Fe2O3Cr(VI)33.82 120 [220]
Magnetite nanorodsPb(II)112.86 605–625 [221]
Magnetite nanorodsZn(II)107.27 605–625 [221]
2013Magnetite nanorodsNi(II)95.42 605–625 [221]
Magnetite nanorodsCd(II)88.39 605–625 [221]
Magnetite nanorodsCu(II)76.10 605–625 [221]
Maghemite nanotubesPb(II)71.42 [221]
Maghemite nanotubesZn(II)86.95 [221]
Maghemite nanotubesCu(II)111.11 [221]
EDTA-modified chitosan/SiO2/Fe3O4 Cu(II)0.495 mmol/g 72052512[222]
EDTA-modified chitosan/SiO2/Fe3O4Pb(II)0.045 mmol/g 72052512[222]
EDTA-modified chitosan/SiO2/Fe3O4Cd(II)0.040 mmol/g 72052512[222]
Fe3O4@mesoporous SiO2 core-shellPb(II)128.21 6[223]
Fe3O4@mesoporous SiO2 core-shellCu(II)51.81 6[223]
Fe3O4/GOCr(VI)32.33 4.520 [224]
Hollow nestlike
α-Fe2O3 spheres		As(V)75.388120 [225]
Hollow nestlike
α-Fe2O3 spheres		Cr(VI)58.667120 [225]
α-Fe2O3 nanofibersCr(VI)16.17 254[226]
Fe3O4@SiO2–NH2Pb(II)243.9 1805.2255[227]
Cyanex-301-coated SPIONCr(VI)30.8 223 [228]
2014S-doped Fe3O4@CCu(II)54.7 5354[229]
Fe3O4@SiO2-QTPACd(II) 95.29720 25 [230]
Fe3O4@SiO2-QTPAZn(II) 92.37720 25 [230]
Fe3O4@SiO2-QTPACu(II) 91.06720 25 [230]
Glycine-functionalized
maghemite nanoparticles		Cu(II)625 6.525 [231]
Maghemite (γ-Fe2O3)Pb(II)10.55 7.545 [232]
Maghemite (γ-Fe2O3)Zn(II)4.79 7.545 [232]
Maghemite (γ-Fe2O3)Cd(II)1.75 7.545 [232]
α-Fe2O3Cr(VI)17 300 [233]
3-MPA-coated SPIONCr(VI)45 125 [234]
EDA-Fe3O4 NPsCr(VI) 981202 6[235]
M-FeHTAs(V)1.2813 15925 [236]
M-FeHTAs(III)0.1213 15925 [236]
Fe3O4-GSCr(VI)17.29 2401–3.5 5[237]
Fe3O4-GSPb(II)27.95 1206–7 5[237]
Fe3O4-GSHg(II)23.03 1206–7 [237]
Fe3O4-GSCd(II)27.83 1206–7 [237]
Fe3O4-GSNi(II)22.07 1206–7 [237]
Fe3O4@CPSCu(II)53.6 5253[238]
Fe3O4@CPSCd(II)87.1 6253[238]
Fe3O4@CPSPb(II)25.2 6253[238]
MWCNT
CoFe2O4–NH2		Pb(II)140.1 6 5[239]
Fe3O4/talcCu(II) 72.15 [240]
Fe3O4/talcNi(II) 50.23 [240]
2014Fe3O4/talcPb(II) 91.35 [240]
Magnetite nanoparticlesCr(VI)121.9 605.5 [241]
CoFe2O4-rGOPb(II)299.4 805.325 [242]
CoFe2O4-rGOPb(II)274.7 35 [242]
CoFe2O4-rGOPb(II)253.2 45 [242]
CoFe2O4-rGOHg(II)157.9 604.625 [242]
CoFe2O4-rGOHg(II)105.1 35 [242]
CoFe2O4-rGOHg(II)90.49 45 [242]
Graphene Oxide−MnFe2O4Pb(II)673 5 [243]
MnFe2O4Pb(II)488 560 [243]
Graphene Oxide−MnFe2O4As(III)146 6.560 [243]
MnFe2O4As(III)97 6.560 [243]
Graphene Oxide−MnFe2O4As(V)207 460 [243]
MnFe2O4As(V)136 460 [243]
Water-soluble Fe3O4Hg(II) >99107253[244]
Fe3O4@CPb(II)90.796.310 [245]
Fe3O4@CHg(II)83.198.110 [245]
Fe3O4@CCd(II)39.793.810 [245]
Fe3O4@silica xanthan gumPb(II)21.32 62022[246]
2015Fe3O4-NTA Cu(II)40.24 355 [160]
Magnetic chitosan/cellulose hybrid microspheres by
embedding γ-Fe2O3 		Cu(II)88.21 30 [247]
Magnetic chitosan/cellulose hybrid microspheres by
embedding γ-Fe2O3 		Cd(II)61.1 30 [247]
Magnetic chitosan/cellulose hybrid microspheres by
embedding γ-Fe2O3 		Pb(II)45.86 30 [247]
Mesoporous CoFe2O4Pb(II)32.11 4805 [248]
MAMNPsCd(II)91.5 1006 3[249]
MAMNPsHg(II)237.6 1006 3[249]
MAMNPsPb(II)118.5 1006 3[249]
Fe3O4/MMT NCPb(II)263.15 2 [170]
Fe3O4/MMT NCCu(II)70.92 2 [170]
Fe3O4/MMT NCNi(II)65.78 2 [170]
Fe3O4@SiO2 core-shell
nanoparticles		Cd(II)179 [250]
Fe3O4@SiO2 core-shell
nanoparticles		Pb(II)156 [250]
Fe3O4Ni(II)362.318 8 5[251]
Magnetic PAAAM/ PAMPSZn(II)289.12 25 [252]
Magnetic PAAAM/ PAMPSCd(II)385.2 25 [252]
Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Cr(VI)6.64 425 [253]
Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Cr(VI)7.31 435 [253]
Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Cr(VI)8.90 445 [253]
Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Pb(II)13.40 525 [253]
2015Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Pb(II)14.11 535 [253]
Hollow magnetite
nanospheres		Pb(II)18.47 545 [253]
SPIONAs(V)0.91 mmol/g 603.8 [254]
SPION surface-coated with 3-mercaptopropionic acid (3-MPA)As(V)1.92 mmol/g 603.6 [254]
Fe3O4@SiO2Cd(II)24.8 1807255[255]
PPY/γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)209 152 4[256]
PANI/γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)196 352 4[256]
PPY/γ-Fe2O3Cu(II)171 155.5 4[256]
PANI/γ-Fe2O3Cu(II)107 355.5 4[256]
EDTA-Fe3O4Pb(II)508.4 404.245 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Hg(II)268.4 504.145 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Cu(II)301.2 905.145 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Pb(II)548.1 35 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Hg(II)242.2 35 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Cu(II)289.4 35 [257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Pb(II)481.2 255[257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Hg(II)203.1 255[257]
EDTA-Fe3O4Cu(II)246.1 255[257]
Fe3O4@SiO2/SchiffCu(II)97.2 605 [258]
Fe3O4@SiO2/SchiffZn(II)81.6 605 [258]
PMMA-gft-Alg/Fe3O4Pb(II)62.5 550 [259]
PMMA-gft-Alg/Fe3O4Cu(II)35.71 550 [259]
SH-HMSMCSHg(II) 95 6.2 5[260]
Ppy–Fe3O4/rGOCr(VI)293.3 345 [261]
Ppy–Fe3O4/rGOCr(VI)226.8 330 [261]
Ppy–Fe3O4/rGOCr(VI)180.8 320 [261]
Co0.6Fe2.4O4Pb(II)80.32 30 45.18 [262]
Co0.6Fe2.4O4Pb(II)70.22 35.15 [262]
Co0.6Fe2.4O4Pb(II)44.58 25.15 [262]
Fe3O4/Mg–Al–CO3Cd(II)54.7 50 [263]
Fe3O4/Mg–Al–CO3Cd(II)50.5 40 [263]
Fe3O4/Mg–Al–CO3Cd(II)45.6 30 [263]
2016NMag–CSCu(II)123.4 1205.5 [264]
NMag–CSPb(II)114.9 1205.5 [264]
NMag–CSCr(VI)116.2 1205.5 [264]
NMag–CSCd(II)112.3 1205.5 [264]
NMag–CSNi(II)109.8 1205.5 [264]
Amino-functionalized Fe3O4@SiO2Zn(II)169.5 1205 ± 0.125 [265]
Fe3O4Cu(II)37.04 4–6 [266]
Fe3O4Pb(II)166.67 4–6 [266]
Fe2O3Cu(II)19.61 5–6 4[266]
Fe2O3Pb(II)47.62 3–4 4[266]
Fe2O3@SiO2As(III)77.7 180730 [267]
2016Fe2O3@TiO2As(V)99.5 180630 [267]
Fe3O4@SiO2-SHHg(II)132 6255[268]
Fe3O4-AspaNi(II)87.183 70640 [269]
Fe3O4-AspaNi(II)58.582 70635 [269]
Fe3O4-AspaNi(II)34.602 706306[269]
Henna-Fe3O4Cu(II)28.90 205.2 [270]
Fe3O4/Bent-2.0Pb(II)81.5 30 [271]
Fe3O4/Bent-2.0Cd(II)21.7 30 [271]
Fe3O4/Bent-2.0Cu(II)19.6 30 [271]
Fe3O4Pb(II) 10030525 [272]
Fe3O4Cr(VI)34.9 245 [273]
Fe3O4Pb(II)53.1 545 [273]
Fe3O4Cr(VI)26.8 235 [273]
Fe3O4Pb(II)52.8 535 [273]
Fe3O4Cr(VI)20.2 2252[273]
Fe3O4Pb(II)52.9 5252[273]
a-Fe2O3Cd(II)127.23 620 [274]
a-Fe2O3Cd(II)146.41 630 [274]
a-Fe2O3Cd(II)158.48 640 [274]
GO/Fe3O4Pb(II)65.96 180320 [275]
GO/Fe3O4/LAPb(II)53.06 180320 [275]
GO/Fe3O4/LA/EDTAPb(II)161.80 180320 [275]
Amine-functionalized Fe3O4Cu(II) 85307 [276]
Fe3O4@SiO2@TiO2Cu(II)125 30 [277]
Fe3O4@SiO2@TiO2Zn(II)137 30 [277]
Fe3O4@SiO2@TiO2Cd(II)148 30 [277]
Fe3O4@SiO2@TiO2Pb(II)160 30 [277]
Rice straw/Fe3O4 NCsPb(II) 91.18 [278]
Rice straw/Fe3O4 NCsCu(II) 75.54 [278]
Cys-Fe3O4Pb(II)183.5 1206 5[279]
Cys-Fe3O4Cd(II)64.35 1206 5[279]
Nano-Fe3O4@Nano-SiO2Pb(II)1100 μmol/g [280]
Nano-Fe3O4@Nano-SiO2Cu(II)300 μmol/g [280]
Nano-Fe3O4@Nano-SiO2Cd(II)150 μmol/g [280]
Nano-Fe3O4@Nano-SiO2Hg(II)100 μmol/g [280]
a-Fe2O3As(V)38.48 20 [281]
Fe3O4-MnO2Pb(II)208.17 25 [282]
Fe3O4-MnO2Cu(II)111.90 25 [282]
Fe3O4-MnO2Cd(II)169.90 25 [282]
Fe3O4-MnO2Zn(II)100.24 25 [282]
Fe3O4-MnO2Ni(II)55.63 25 [282]
Fe3O4@SiO2-EDTACu(II)37.59 105.330 [283]
Fe3O4@SiO2-EDTAPb(II)114.94 105.330 [283]
Fe3O4@SiO2-EDTANi(II)32.15 105.330 [283]
Fe3O4@SiO2-EDTACd(II)50.25 105.330 [283]
Fe3O4–FeBCr(VI)38.9 6.3 [284]
Fe3O4–TiO2As(V)11.434 μg/g 406.325 [285]
Fe3O4–TiO2As(III) 93 1125 [285]
Chitosan MWCNT/Fe3O4Cr(VI)360.1 30245 [286]
2016Chitosan MWCNT/Fe3O4Cr(VI)348.2 35 [286]
Chitosan MWCNT/Fe3O4Cr(VI)335.6 25 [286]
AMGOCr(VI)123.4 2 5[287]
2017Fe3O4@MnO2 Pb(II)666.67 120 25 [148]
Fe3O4-SO3HPb(II)108.93 725 [288]
Fe3O4-SO3HCd(II)80.9 725 [288]
PGMA-MAn
Copolymer@Fe3O4		Pb(II)53.33 20525 [289]
PGMA-MAn
Copolymer@Fe3O4		Cu(II)48.53 5 [289]
Fe3O4/CTABCr(VI) 95.77720425 ± 0.1 [290]
Fe3O4@Cu3(btc)2Pb(II)215.05 4[291]
Fe3O4@Cu3(btc)2Hg(II)348.43 4[291]
Fe3O4-CS-LZn(II)256.41 456255[292]
Fe3O4-CS-LCd(II)156.99 456255[292]
Fe3O4-CS-LPb(II)128.63 456255[292]
Fe3O4-mSiO2Cu(II)84.4 [293]
Fe3O4-mSiO2Cd(II)80.5 [293]
Fe3O4-mSiO2Zn (II)72.6 [293]
γ-Fe2O3@CSCd(II)15.2 60520 ± 0.15[294]
L-Cyst-Fe3O4Pb(II)18.8 2455[295]
L-Cyst-Fe3O4Cr(VI)34.5 6455[295]
MDA-Fe3O4Pb(II)333.3 530 [296]
ZrO2-Fe3O4As(III)113.48 7 5[297]
Fe3O4@SiO2@CS-TETA-GOCu(II)324.7 166306[298]
CoFe2O4@SiO2–SHHg(II)641.0 8255[299]
CoFe2O4@SiO2–SHHg(II)628.9 835 [299]
CoFe2O4@SiO2–SHHg(II)591.7 845 [299]
EDTA-functionalized CoFe2O4 (EDTA-MNP)Cu(II)73.26 650 [300]
IMSAPb(II)133.73 [301]
IMSAAs(V)21.61 [301]
CoFe2O4@SiO2Cd(II)199.9 7 5[302]
CoFe2O4@SiO2Cu(II)177.8 7 5[302]
CoFe2O4@SiO2Pb(II)181.6 307 5[302]
TEPA chitosan/CoFe2O4Cu(II)168.067 50530 [105]
TEPA chitosan/CoFe2O4Pb(II)228.311 50530 [105]
2018Lantana camara capped iron
nanoparticles		Ni(II)227.2 660 [303]
NA-FeOxCd(II)11.3 60 [304]
NA-FeOxCu(II)12.3 60 [304]
Graphene oxide-Fe3O4 Pb(II)373.14 106 [305]
PAE-AAm-g-MNPsCu(II)30.34 6 7[306]
Fe3O4/LDH-AMCu(II)64.66 240 5[307]
Fe3O4/LDH-AMCd(II)74.06 240 5[307]
Fe3O4/LDH-AMPb(II)266.6 180 5[307]
TEPA-GO/MnFe2O4Pb(II)263.2 5.5304[308]
GO/MnFe2O4Pb(II)133.3 [308]
MnFe2O4–BCCd(II)181.49 7255[309]
2018CoFe2O4@SiO2Hg(II)149.3 7255[310]
CoFe2O4@SiO2Hg(II)144.9 735 [310]
CoFe2O4@SiO2Hg(II)131.6 745 [310]
p-BNMR@Fe3O4Pb(II)249.5 5.525 [311]
Aminated-Fe3O4Cr(VI)19.5 3.5 3[312]
Aminated-Fe3O4Pb(II)21.2 3.5 3[312]
Fe3O4/poly(C3N3S3)Pb(II)232.6 6257[313]
Fe3O4/poly(C3N3S3)Hg(II)344.8 6257[313]
rGO-PDTC/Fe3O4Cu(II)113.64 5255[314]
rGO-PDTC/Fe3O4Cd(II)116.28 6255[314]
rGO-PDTC/Fe3O4Pb(II)147.06 6255[314]
rGO-PDTC/Fe3O4Hg(II)181.82 6255[314]
d-MoS2/Fe3O4Hg(II)425.5 20 5[315]
CHT/ALG/Fe3O4@SiO2
(8 beads)		Pb(II)243.77 4.220 [316]
CHT/ALG/Fe3O4@SiO2
(1 bead)		Pb(II)228.73 4.220 [316]
2019Fe3O4/BC/ACPb(II)169.78 5255[317]
Fe3O4@FePO4Cd(II)13.51 157 [318]
Fe3O4@SiO2-NH-MFLPb(II)150.33 0.55 [156]
Fe3O4@SiO2-NH-MFLCu(II)70.7 0.55 [156]
DTT-Fe3O4@AuAs(III) 68.8 5 [319]
rGO-poly(C3N3S3)/Fe3O4Pb(II)270.3 6062515[320]
rGO-poly(C3N3S3)/Fe3O4Hg(II)400 6062515[320]
APTES-Fe3O4 (3 wt%)As(V)14.6 210225 [321]
Fe2O3-SiO2-PANCr(III)4.36 [322]
Fe2O3-SiO2-PANCu(II)7.20 [322]
Fe2O3-SiO2-PANZn(II)5.06 [322]
Fe2O3-SiO2-PANNi(II)2.60 [322]
biochar-MnFe2O4Pb(II)154.94 525 [323]
biochar-MnFe2O4Cd(II)127.83 525 [323]
CoFe2O4@SiO2-EDTAHg(II)103.3 3607255[324]
Fe3O4-CS@BTCr(VI)62.1 2255[325]
Fe3O4-CS@BTCr(VI)48.3 425 [325]
Fe3O4-CS@BTCr(VI)36.4 625 [325]
CMC/SA/graphene
oxide@Fe3O4		Cu(II)55.96 530 [326]
CMC/SA/graphene
oxide@Fe3O4		Cd(II)86.28 630 [326]
CMC/SA/graphene
oxide@Fe3O4		Pb(II)189.04 530 [326]
Fe3O4/NaP/NH2Pb(II)181.81 4805–66010[327]
Fe3O4/NaP/NH2Cd(II)50.25 2405–67010[327]
Fe3O4 ECSBNCCu(II)90.90 [328]
Fe3O4 ECSBNCCr(VI)83.33 [328]
MNPs-COOHPb(II)0.855 mmol/g 625 [329]
MNPs-COOHCu(II)0.660 mmol/g 625 [329]
2019MNPs-COOHCd(II)0.518 mmol/g 625 [329]
MNPs-COOHNi(II)0.441 mmol/g 625 [329]
CMC-Fe3O4Pb(II)152.0 6[330]
Fe3O4-loaded CS NPsCd(II)97.76 5 5[331]
CuFe2O4Cd(II)157.7 2 [332]
CoFe2O4Pb(II)63.1 12 [332]
HP-β-CD-GO/Fe3O4Cu(II)17.91 6 5[333]
HP-β-CD-GO/Fe3O4Pb(II)50.39 5 5[333]
Bentonite/CoFe2O4@MnO2-NH2Cd(II)115.7998.88 [334]
2020Fe3O4@SiO2@GLYMO(S)Cd(II)80.64 557 5[335]
Fe3O4@SiO2@GLYMO(S)Pb(II)93.5 557 5[335]
MGOPb(II)200 305 [167]
MGOCr(III)24.33 306 [167]
MGOCu(II)62.89 306 [167]
MGOZn(II)63.69 307 [167]
MGONi(II)51.02 308 [167]
Proanthocyanidin-
functionalized Fe3O4		Cu(II)18.8 308 5[336]
Proanthocyanidin-
functionalized Fe3O4		Cd(II)20.9 308 [336]
Proanthocyanidin-functionalized Fe3O4Pb(II)21.5 308 [336]
Ggh-g-PAcM/Fe3O4Cu(II)224.8 30 [337]
Ggh-g-PAcM/Fe3O4Hg(II)213.8 30 [337]
Fe3O4-GO hybrid (9:1)Pb(II)107.56 6 [338]
Fe3O4-GO hybrid (5:1)Pb(II)151.22 6 [338]
M-45 OAPb(II)42.553 6 [338]
M-45 OAZn(II)42.919 6 [339]
M-45 OACd(II)42.373 7 [339]
M-55 OAPb(II)41.841 6 [339]
M-55 OAZn(II)42.735 6 [339]
M-55 OACd(II)42.017 7 [339]
M-55+Pb(II)40.816 6 [339]
M-55+Zn(II)40.816 6 [339]
M-55+Cd(II)39.216 7 [339]
BNNF@Fe3O4Pb(II)203.75 50 25 [340]
Fe3O4@SiO2-NH2Cd(II) 93 5[341]
RH + iron oxide NPsAs(V)82 60 5[342]
MnFe2O4Zn(II)454.4 1206253[343]
CoFe2O4Zn(II)384.6 1206253[343]
SiO2/CuFe2O4/PANICu(II)285.71 3005.3304[344]
MWCNT/γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)208.1 1504 [345]
MWCNT-PEI/γ-Fe2O3Cr(VI)352.3 1504 [345]
Fe3O4Cr(VI)201.55 50 6[346]
Fe3O4@Z-NCNT/PCPb(II)789.87 205.5 10[347]
FO-BC-450Cd(II)151.3 225 [348]
2020FO-BC-450Cu(II)219.8 225 [348]
FO-BC-450Pb(II)271.9 225 [348]
Fe2O3@SiO2@SHHg(II) 98 [349]
γ-Fe2O3 coated Bacillus subtilisCd(II)32.6 430 [350]
Fe3O4-HBPA-ASACu(II)136.66 8255[351]
Fe3O4-HBPA-ASACd(II)88.36 8255[351]
Fe3O4-HBPA-ASAPb(II)165.46 8255[351]
Crystalline iron oxide nanoparticles (IO-NPs)Pb(II)9.206 640 [352]
Crystalline iron oxide nanoparticles (IO-NPs)Ni(II)9.666 640 [352]
Crystalline iron oxide nanoparticles (IO-NPs)Cu(II)8.355 640 [352]
Crystalline iron oxide nanoparticles (IO-NPs)Zn(II)9.106 640 [352]
Pec-g-PHEAA/Fe3O4Cu(II)248.6 [353]
Pec-g-PHEAA/Fe3O4Hg(II)240.2 [353]
Fe3O4 fibrePb(II)16.78 6[354]
Fe3O4 powderPb(II)15.80 6[354]
Iron oxide (MNPs) grafted (HPG)Cu(II)0.700 mg/mg 120920 [355]
Iron oxide (MNPs) grafted (HPG)Ni(II)0.451 mg/mg 120920 [355]
Nano-CIPb(II)1900 μmol/g 306 [356]
Nano-CICu(II)2250 μmol/g 307 [356]
Nano-CICd(II)850 μmol/g 307 [356]
Nano-CICPb(II)2700 μmol/g 304 [356]
Nano-CICCu(II)4250 μmol/g 306 [356]
Nano-CICCd(II)1800 μmol/g 306 [356]
Nano-CISPb(II)2600 μmol/g 104 [356]
Nano-CISCu(II)4700 μmol/g 106 [356]
Nano-CISCd(II)1900 μmol/g 106 [356]
1 Cases with unit of adsorption capacity that is different from mg/g are listed next to the respective value.
Table
Table 6. Recycling efficiency (%).
Table 6. Recycling efficiency (%).
Pollutant1st Cycle2nd Cycle3rd Cycle4th Cycle5th CycleRef.
Pb(II)90.1288.0585.6581.35 [360]
Cu(II)93.70 58.66[196]
Pb(II) 90[197]
Cr(VI)5588 90 [361]
Pb(II)97.34 90[175]
Hg(II) ≥96[157]
Pb(II) 90[201]
Pb(II)93.5 89.3[335]
Cu(II)80.64 73.3[335]
As(V)95 56[342]
Cd(II) 76.4 [348]
Cu(II) 80.4 [348]
Pb(II) 70.2 [348]
Hg(II)>90 ~75.5[324]
Cd(II)98.895.191.784.678.3[294]
Cd(II)99.96 97.25 [302]
Cu(II)88.05 84.15 [302]
Pb(II)90.79 87.12 [302]
Pb(II)96.2 86.4[257]
Hg(II)95.1 85.9[257]
Cu(II)96.5 87.6[257]
Table
Table 7. Recycling adsorption capacity (mg/g).
Table 7. Recycling adsorption capacity (mg/g).
Pollutant1st Cycle2nd Cycle3rd Cycle4th Cycle5th Cycle6th CycleRef.
Cr(VI)132.56130.62127.52125.97124.42121.71[346]
Cu(II)197.5196.5195194.4 [344]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liosis, C.; Papadopoulou, A.; Karvelas, E.; Karakasidis, T.E.; Sarris, I.E. Heavy Metal Adsorption Using Magnetic Nanoparticles for Water Purification: A Critical Review. Materials 2021, 14, 7500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247500

AMA Style

Liosis C, Papadopoulou A, Karvelas E, Karakasidis TE, Sarris IE. Heavy Metal Adsorption Using Magnetic Nanoparticles for Water Purification: A Critical Review. Materials. 2021; 14(24):7500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247500

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liosis, Christos, Athina Papadopoulou, Evangelos Karvelas, Theodoros E. Karakasidis, and Ioannis E. Sarris. 2021. "Heavy Metal Adsorption Using Magnetic Nanoparticles for Water Purification: A Critical Review" Materials 14, no. 24: 7500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247500

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop