Received: 22 October 2021
|
Revised: 27 December 2021
|
Accepted: 23 January 2022
DOI: 10.1002/jobm.202100554
REVIEW
A comprehensive review on emerging trends in industrial
wastewater research
Sumira Malik1
| Shristi Kishore1
| Shilpa Prasad1 | Maulin P. Shah2
1
Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity
University Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Jharkhand, India
2
Environmental Technology Lab,
Bharuch, Gujarat, India
Correspondence
Sumira Malik, Amity Institute of
Biotechnology, Amity University
Jharkhand, Ranchi 834001, Jharkhand,
India.
Email: smalik@rnc.amity.edu
Abstract
Rapid industrialization is one of the intricate factors that is linked to the
depletion of water resources and increased generation of wastewater. Due
to various obstructions and impediments, such as ineffective treatment
solutions, exorbitant prices, lack of basic amenities, insufficient financial
assistance, and technical expertise, sustainable treatment of industrial
effluents has become an onerous process in most parts of the world. The
majority of current treatment solutions are conventional and outdated,
and thus fall short to remove all the contaminants efficiently from the
industrial wastewater. Moreover, poorly treated or untreated industrial
effluents are indiscriminately dumped into water bodies such as lakes,
ponds, and rivers, causing substantial health hazards to humans and
animals and serious threats to the aquatic ecosystem. Thus, there is a need
for highly efficient, cost‐effective, and sustainable technologies for the
treatment of industrial wastewater. Employment of microbial technologies such as microbial fuel cells and microalgal technologies, treatment of
wastewater can be coupled with the production of bioelectricity and valuable biomass, respectively. Moreover, with nanofiltration and biochar
technologies, the efficiency of the overall treatment procedure can be
increased to a greater extent. The present review aims to highlight opportunities and challenges associated with some of the emerging trends in
industrial wastewater research.
KEYWORDS
biochar technology, microalgal wastewater treatment, microbial fuel cells, nanofiltration,
wastewater treatment
Abbreviations: BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; DO, dissolved oxygen; IEM, ion exchange membrane; MBR,
membrane bioreactor; MF, microfiltration; MFC, microbial fuel cell; NF, nanofiltration; PBR, photobioreactors; RO, reverse osmosis; TDS, total
dissolved solid; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; TS, total solid; UF, ultrafiltration.
Sumira Malik and Shristi Kishore contributed equally to this study.
296
|
© 2022 Wiley‐VCH GmbH
www.jbm-journal.com
J Basic Microbiol. 2022;62:296–309.
1 |
|
ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
The tremendous growth of the human population has
resulted in rapid industrialization, which is one of the
critical components of the economic prosperity of a nation. However, with exponentially rising population, fast
urbanization, and rapid industrialization, the rate of
water consumption and wastewater generation is
also increasing significantly. Globally, approximately
350 billion cubic meters of wastewater is released per
year, out of which 48% is discharged untreated into the
environment [1]. At present, water usage by the industrial sector accounts for less than 20% of overall water
consumption, but this figure is anticipated to quadruple
by the year 2050 [2]. Every year, a significant amount of
untreated or inadequately treated industrial effluent is
indiscriminately dumped into the environment, posing
substantial health hazards to humans and animals and
serious threats to the ecosystem [3]. As a consequence of
increased water use and wastewater generation from the
industries, there is a need for developing plausible strategies and carrying out extensive research efforts for the
effective management of industrial wastewater.
The inhibitory properties of persistent contaminants,
frequently fluctuating composition of the matrix, and high
contents of organic pollutants make the treatment of industrial wastewater a highly complex process [4]. For the
conventional treatment of industrial wastewater, two processes are usually employed: primary treatment and secondary treatment. Coarse pollutants are eliminated during
the primary treatment, whereas organic wastes are bioremediated using microbes during secondary treatment.
However, these conventional treatment technologies such as
flocculation, coagulation, ion exchange, sedimentation, biosorption, and so forth, are excessively expensive, nonreliable,
and require a large land area and a considerable amount of
energy to operate [5]. Moreover, because of their resistance
to conventional wastewater treatment technologies, toxic
chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, heavy metals,
and many more noxious pollutants are frequently discharged
into the aquatic bodies. These pollutants are highly persistent
and exhibit substantial toxicity to the environment. Therefore, the release of industrial wastewater is governed by strict
and specified criteria all over the world. With the growing
demand for stricter discharge regulations, a greater focus is
being given to more reliable, cost‐effective, and sustainable
treatment technologies. The use of microorganisms such as
microalgae in wastewater treatment plants provides opportunities to remove pollutants along with the simultaneous
production of valuable products such as biofuels, pigments,
and therapeutic proteins by integrating the biorefinery concept [6]. Technologies such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs)
offer contingency to treat wastewater coupled with the
297
generation of bioelectricity [7]. Moreover, by employing
biochar derived from materials such as sewage sludge,
manure, rice husks, and so forth, pollutants such as heavy
metals, pesticides, antibiotics, and many more can be removed efficiently and sustainably [8]. Additionally, with
nanofiltration (NF) membranes, solutes having very low
molecular weight can also be proficiently removed from the
wastewater [9]. The present review highlights opportunities
and challenges associated with some of the recent and promising technologies for the treatment of industrial
wastewater.
2 | C H A RA CT E RI ZA T I O N O F
IN DUS TR IAL W AS TEW ATER A ND
THEIR TR E ATMENT
Industrial effluents have been a major contributor to
wastewater generated in the last few decades across the
globe. Industrial wastewaters that are originated from
various industries act as a reason for increasing water
pollution. Generally, effluents discharged from different
industries have high biological oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total solids (TS), total
dissolved solids (TDS), metals such as sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, total hardness, total
phosphates, sulfates, and nitrogen [10]. Moreover, the
amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) is generally present
below the recommended range. Heavy metals also act as
major contaminants in industrial wastewater. Heavy
metals such as lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, chromium,
cadmium, mercury, and nickel are the most common
heavy metals present in wastewater that possess significant health hazards to humans and substantial toxicity to the ecosystem [11]. International organizations
such as United states Environmental Protection Agency,
WHO, and the European Union Commission, have set a
limit for the concentration of different heavy metals
present in water [12,13]. Table 1 summarizes the typical
characteristics of different types of industrial wastewaters
along with respective recommended treatment approaches according to different references.
3 | R EC EN T T EC HN OL OG I ES F OR
THE TR E ATMENT OF INDU STRIAL
WASTEWATER
3.1 | NF
In the past few years, membrane technology has become
increasingly popular in the wastewater treatment sector
for generating fresh water for both household and
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
1289–12,248
‐
6.1–7.7
0.38–1.42
9033
‐
‐
145.5–293.4
124–186
40.40–83.39
10.01–19.11
2.10–6.50
0.0375–0.7000
21.0–83.0
5.0–16.0
6–10
‐
80–6000
150–12,000
‐
2900–3100
‐
<10
600–1000
‐
‐
<10
‐
<5
7000
‐
DO (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
TS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Total hardness
CaCO3 (mg/L)
Total phosphates
(mg/L)
Sulfates (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Magnesium
(mg/L)
Ammonical
nitrogen
(mg/L)
Nitrite nitrogen
(mg/L)
Nitrate nitrogen
(mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)
Potassium (mg/L)
‐
1320
‐
‐
‐
12,006
‐
‐
1.14–11.55
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
17.1
‐
21,300
‐
12,840
4464
2.72
8.3
29
Tannery
wastewater [22,23]
‐
0‐0.24
0.48–13.05
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
67.7
‐
‐
‐
23,727
10,800
7.51–74.10
‐
1096.41–8926.08
1609–3980
0
3.8
36.8
Sugarcane industry
wastewater [20,21]
220
4008
‐
‐
‐
60
250
96
170
‐
‐
‐
9590
5668
‐
7.0
‐
Fish canning
industry
wastewater
[24,25]
|
MALIK
ET AL.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10.24–15.52
18–26.42
9033
4.6–7.3
24–30.5
pH
26.2–35.4
35–45
Temperature (°C)
Brewery industry
wastewater [18,19]
Textile industry
Dairy industry
wastewater [14,15] wastewater [16,17]
Physico‐chemical characterization of different industrial wastewater with recommended treatment approaches
Parameters
TABLE 1
298
|
Abbreviations: BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; DO, dissolved oxygen; MFCs, microbial fuel cells; TS, total solid; TDS, total dissolved solid.
Air flotation, neutralization, Coagulation/
coagulation, adsorption,
flocculation,
micro‐electrolysis,
bio‐oxidation
photocatalysis,
electrocatalysis,
oxidation ditch
technology, activated
sludge, microalgal
treatment, and
membrane process
Anaerobic and aerobic
treatment, coagulation/
flocculation, adsorption,
and electrochemical
methods and electro‐
oxidation methods
Membrane bioreactor,
membrane filtration,
fluidized bed reactor,
electrochemical
methods, and MFCs
Employment of
Activated sludge, tricking filters,
microbes such as
aerated lagoons, upflow
fungi, algae,
anaerobic sludge blanket,
bacteria, MFCs
anaerobic filters,
Fenton's process,
electrochemical process, and
photocatalytic
electrocoagulation
oxidation, ozone
process,
ion‐exchange,
adsorption,
filtration,
coagulation
Recommended
treatment
Textile industry
Dairy industry
wastewater [14,15] wastewater [16,17]
Parameters
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Brewery industry
wastewater [18,19]
Sugarcane industry
wastewater [20,21]
Tannery
wastewater [22,23]
Fish canning
industry
wastewater
[24,25]
ET AL.
299
industrial objectives. Membrane techniques can be divided into microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), NF,
and reverse osmosis (RO) based on their pressure gradient across the membrane [26]. NF and RO are the two
techniques that are kept under the main canopy of
membrane filtration where high pressure and shear force
is applied to the wastewater against the semipermeable
membrane [26]. Although UF and RO techniques have
been extensively applied in different sectors, they still
have some limitations such as membrane fouling and
nonretention of small chemicals that confine their uses
[27]. The applications of NF are broadening and they are
taking over other membrane filtration techniques such as
RO due to the requirement of comparatively low working
pressure and a high permeation flux. Moreover, NF
consumes lower energy than RO and has higher exclusion as compared to UF [9]. These features have brought
NF massive attention from scientists to be explored in the
treatment of wastewater. Figure 1 shows the filtration
efficiencies of MF, UF, and NF membranes.
In the process of NF, low‐molecular‐weight solutes
are separated with the help of a semipermeable NF
membrane, typically with a pore size of 1–5 nm under
5–35 bar operating pressure [26,28]. The separation of
contaminants by NF membranes is dependent on the
variations in particle size and the types of charges present
(in the case of ionic contaminants) [29].
NF membranes have effectively been used in the treatment of different industrial wastewater on a bench scale. In a
study, sheet NF membrane 4040‐TS80‐TSF was used to treat
batik industry wastewater on a bench scale. The sheet NF
membrane showed a steady flux and a removal efficiency of
more than 80% for all the dyes present in the wastewater
[30]. Similar results were observed when AFC‐40 NF
membrane was employed in the treatment of zinc‐
containing industrial wastewater. A rejection of >98% was
reported in the study [31]. NF can also be employed combinedly with other technologies for the more efficient treatment of wastewater. In a study, membrane bioreactor (MBR)
technology was used in the treatment of dairy industry
wastewater. However, high contents of dissolved solids in
the permeate precluded it from being reused. Thus, NF was
used to treat the MBR permeate to remove these solids. The
combined MBR‐NF system showed 99.9% removal efficiency
for COD and 93.1% for solid wastes [32].
Although little information is available on the performance of NF in pilot scale, some recent studies have investigated its potential in large‐scale treatment of industrial
wastewater. In a study, long‐term performance of NF
membranes was studied on pilot scale for the treatment of
industrial wastewater containing pharmaceuticals, personal
care products, and environmental estrogens. It was observed
that the rejection rates of almost all the pollutants present in
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
|
MALIK
ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Filtration efficiencies of
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and
nanofiltration membranes
TABLE 2
Applications of NF membranes in the treatment of some industrial wastewaters
Type of NF
membrane
Application in industrial
wastewater treatment
Treatment
type
Sheet NF membrane
4040‐TS80‐TSF
Batik industry wastewater
treatment
AFC‐40 NF membrane
Performance of NF membrane
References
Bench scale
>80% dyes removal efficiency with a
stable flux
[30]
Zinc‐containing industrial
wastewater treatment
Bench scale
>98% value of rejection
[31]
Amino acid ionic
liquid‐TFC NF
membrane
Real pigment wastewater
treatment
Bench scale
Increased pure water permeability but lower
rejection rates than other membranes
[34]
PUF‐6040 NF system
Yeast industry wastewater
treatment
Pilot scale
6% increase in COD retention and decrease
in permeate flux from 2300 L/day to
1250 L/day
[35]
Positilvely charged
PA6DT‐C NF
membrane
Textile industry wastewater
treatment
Bench scale
3‐ to 4‐fold increased membrane flux than
other membranes, achieved 98%
rejection of synthetic dyes
[36]
NF90 membrane in
tertiary and MBR in
secondary treatment
Dairy industry wastewater
treatment
Bench scale
Combined system showed 99.9% efficiency
for COD and 93.1% for solid wastes
[32]
NF270 membrane
Textile industry wastewater
Pilot scale
98.4 ± 2.2% COD removal rate during batch
operation and 94.7 ± 3.4% COD removal
rate during continuous operation
[37]
Abbreviations: COD, chemical oxygen demand; NF, nanofiltration.
the wastewater were >80%, however, due to the presence of
bacterial genera including Stenotrophomonas, Pseudoxanthomonas, Cloacibacterium, Methyloversatilis, and Sphingopyxis, the phenomenon of membrane fouling was evident
[33]. Applications of various NF membranes in the treatment of some industrial wastewaters are summarized in
Table 2.
3.2 | Microalgal wastewater treatment
Wastewater treatment using microalgae can be a sustainable and eco‐friendly alternative to conventional treatment technologies [38]. The sunlight falling on the
wastewater's surface can be used by microalgae to grow
and remove the contaminants simultaneously. Microalgae
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
300
|
ET AL.
can also thrive in desiccated environments and hypersaline wastewater. Furthermore, approximately 2 kg of carbon dioxide can produce one kilogram of algal biomass
[39]. This provides an opportunity to treat wastewater
coupled with the sequestration of carbon dioxide. The
contaminants in wastewater are taken up by the microalgae as nutrients that are assimilated for their growth.
Thus, microalgae can be employed as potential agents for
lowering the BOD and COD and removing pollutants
from wastewater [38]. For this purpose, wastewater from
industries, agro‐industries, households, livestock, and
food‐processing industries that are rich in organic matter and trace nutrients required for the growth of microalgae can be used [40].
The treatment of wastewater with the help of microalgae is called phycoremediation. Phycoremediation
enables industries to treat wastewater with very low use
of chemicals and reduces the energy costs that are associated with conventional technologies. Microalgae can
be employed to remove nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, dyes, and many more contaminants from the
wastewater. Moreover, they can also reduce the BOD by
producing oxygen via photosynthesis [41]. Figure 2
shows a schematic representation of microalgae wastewater treatment.
Generally, raceway ponds and photobioreactors
(PBR) are used to cultivate microalgae. Raceway ponds,
also known as high‐rate algal ponds, are open shallow
systems having crescent ends with affixed paddle wheels
for the maintenance of consistent commixing of the
contents [42]. PBRs can be constructed either in horizontal or vertical rows. In most cases, the diameters of
PBRs are kept narrow for allowing the penetrance of
FIGURE 2
301
light throughout the columns. In PBRs, sparging of air
fulfills the requirement of carbon dioxide for algae and
aids in the proper mixing of the contents [43]. Table 3
lists various applications of microalgae in the treatment
of different types of industrial wastewater.
3.3 | MFCs
MFCs are biocatalyzed electrochemical systems that
perform the conversion of chemical energy stored in
the bonds of organic substrates into electrical energy
with the aid of electrogenic microorganisms
via a series of redox reactions, generally in the absence of oxygen [52,53]. Equations 1–13 show
oxidation–reduction reactions occurring inside an
MFC were glucose, glycerol, malate, and sulfur act as
substrates [54]. In MFCs, organic molecules act as
substrates for microorganisms, particularly bacteria,
to grow by catalyzing the oxidation of reduced molecules. The electrons produced during this process
travel through various respiratory enzymes and lead
to the generation of a chemical energy gradient that is
further utilized for the generation of electrical energy.
For the completion of oxidation, molecules such as
oxygen act as terminal electron acceptors [55]. A
schematic representation of chemical reactions occurring inside an MFC is shown in Figure 3.
At anode (oxidation reactions)
Schematic representation of microalgae wastewater treatment
Glucose: C6 H12 O6 + 12H2 O → 6HCO3− + 30H+
+ 24e‐E° = −0.429V versus SHE,
(1)
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
|
MALIK
TABLE 3
ET AL.
Application of microalgae in the treatment of different types of industrial wastewater
Types of industrial
wastewater
Microalgal species
Application
References
Brewery industry wastewater
Scenedesmus dimorphus
>99% removal of nitrogen and phosphorus
[44]
Chlorella sp.
Complete removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic
carbon
[45]
Chlamydomonas
polypyrenoideum
Removal of nitrate, nitrite, chloride, phosphate, ammonia,
and fluoride
[46]
Acutodesmus dimorphus
Reduction of COD, removal of nitrogen, and generation of
valuable biomass
[47]
Tannery wastewater
Scenedesmus sp.
Removal of heavy metals such as chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, and nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate
[48]
Pickle industry wastewater
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Nutrient removal and lipid production
[49]
Cane sugar industry
wastewater
Tribonema minus
Nutrient removal and production of valuable biomass
[50]
Pharmaceutical industry
wastewater
Nannochloropsis sp.
Removal of pharmaceuticals like paracetamol, ibuprofen,
and olanzapine
[51]
Dairy industry wastewater
F I G U R E 3 A schematic representation
of chemical reactions occurring inside a
microbial fuel cell. IEM, ion exchange
membrane
Glycerol: C3 H8 O3 + 6H2 O → 3HCO3− + 17H+
+ 14e‐E° = −0.289V versus SHE,
Malate: C4 H5 O5− + 7H2 O → 4H2 CO3 + 11H+
+ 12e‐E° = −0.289V versus SHE,
Sulfur: HS‐ → S0 +H+ + 2e‐E°
= −0.230V versus SHE.
NO3− + 2e– + 2H+ → NO2− +H2 OE°
(2)
= +0.433V versus SHE,
NO2− + e– + 2H+ → NO + H2 OE°
(3)
= +0.350V vesrsus SHE,
NO+ e– + H+ → 1/2N2 O + 1/2H2 OE°
(4)
At cathode (reduction reactions)
= +1.175V versus SHE,
1/2N2 O + e– + H+ → 1/2N2 +1/2H2 OE°
= +1.355V versus SHE,
O2 + 4H+ + 4e– → 2H2 OE° = +1.230V versus SHE, (5)
O2 + 2H+ + 2e– → H2 O2 E° = +0.269V versus SHE, (6)
2NO3− + 12H+ + 10e– → N2 + 6H2 OE°
= +0.734V versus SHE,
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
302
|
ET AL.
Fe3+ + e– + H+ → Fe2+ +1/2H2 OE°
= +0.773V versus SHE,
MnO2 + 4H+ + 3e– → Mn2+ + 2H2 OE°
= +0.602V versus SHE.
(12)
(13)
Apart from the generation of electrical energy, MFCs
can also be employed in solving another global challenge,
that is, wastewater treatment. Inside an MFC, bacteria are
recruited to catalyze the degradation of substrates and
generate/maintain the current flow. Thus, using contaminants such as organic matter from effluents of different synthetic industries as substrates for bacterial
degradation, electricity generation can be coupled with the
treatment of wastewater [56]. Moreover, MFC technology
has improved drastically in terms of wastewater treatment
efficiency and power generation over the last few years.
MFCs have demonstrated remarkable pollutant removal
performance, with a COD removal efficiency of >90% [57].
Many pieces of literature have reported the treatment of
different industrial wastewater with the help of MFCs. In
a study, catalyst and mediator‐less, two‐chambered MFC
was developed for treating dairy industry wastewater. The
MFCs showed a remarkably high COD removal rate with
an efficiency of 90.46%. Along with wastewater treatment,
dairy effluents used in the anode chamber acted as a
substrate for simultaneous generation of bioelectricity
with 621.13 mW/m2 maximum power density [58]. In
another study, microbial consortium of Clostridium
TABLE 4
303
butyricum and Shewanella oneidensis were inoculated in a
scaled‐up air cathode MFC to remove pollutants from
dairy wastewater. The scaled‐up MFC showed an extraordinarily high performance with COD, BOD, nitrate,
organic nitrogen, sulfate, and organic phosphorus removal
efficiency of 93% 95%, 100%, 57%, 90%, and 90%, respectively. Furthermore, a maximum power density of
0.48 W/m3 was obtained [57]. Thus, wastewater rich in
organic matter can efficiently be employed in MFCs for
the generation of bioelectricity with simultaneous removal
of contaminants. Various literatures that report the use of
MFC in wastewater treatment coupled with electricity
generation are summarized in Table 4.
3.4 | Biochar technology
Biochar is a porous carbonized material produced by
pyrolysis or thermochemical decomposition of biomass
in the absence or scarcity of oxygen [64]. Due to the
presence of a broad surface area, a large number of pores,
oxygenated exterior functional groups, and economic
viability, biochar can effectively be used in the removal of
various organic and inorganic pollutants [65]. Moreover,
biochar can be prepared with the use of organic wastes
such as manure, sewage sludge, and lignocellulosic biomass as substrates, thus reducing the use of chemicals in
its preparation [66]. Biochar derived from sewage sludge
is mineral‐rich, has high porosity, contains required
MFCs using industrial wastewater as substrates and their performance in electricity generation and wastewater treatment
Type of MFCs
Industrial wastewater
Performance of MFC
References
Dual‐chamber MFC
Vegetable oil, glass, metal, and
marble industrial wastewater
85%–90% COD treatment efficiency with maximum
voltage of 890 mV
[59]
Single‐chamber MFC
Wood hydrothermal industry
wastewater
~87% COD removal efficiency with 71 mW/m2
maximum power density
[60]
MFC with MnO2/
TiO2/g‐C3N4
electrode
Organic acids industrial
wastewater
17.77 kg COD/m3 day COD removal capacity with
1176.47 mW/m3 maximum power density
[61]
Single chamber
mediator‐less MFC
Petroleum refinery wastewater
~84.4% substrate degradation efficiency with
maximum power density of ~225 mW/m2
[62]
Scaled‐up air
cathode MFC
Dairy industry wastewater
93% COD, 95% BOD, 100% nitrate, 57% organic
nitrogen, 90% sulfate, 90% organic phosphorus
removal efficiency with 4800 mW/m3 maximum
power density
[57]
Single chamber MFC
Food industry wastewater with
vegetable oils
~80% COD removal rate with 2.24 W/m2 maximum
power density
[63]
Catalyst and mediator‐
less MFC
Dairy industry wastewater
~90% COD removal rate with 621.13 mW/m2
maximum power density
[58]
Abbreviation: MFCs, microbial fuel cells.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
|
FIGURE 4
MALIK
ET AL.
Mechanisms of adsorption of pollutants by biochar
Biochar
Pollutant removed
Efficiency
References
Rice husk‐derived biochar
Lead
96.41%
[70]
Cadmium
94.73%
Lead
95.38%
Cadmium
93.68%
Sewage sludge‐derived biochar
Tetracycline
26%–60%
[71]
Chicken manure‐derived biochar
Microcystin‐LR
100%
[72]
Water hyacinth‐derived magnetic
biochar
Zinc
Above 80%
[73]
MnFe2O4‐biochar composite
Thallium
99%
[74]
Wheat straw‐derived biochar
T A B L E 5 Application of biochar in
the removal of different pollutants from
industrial wastewater
Copper
functional groups, and possesses a large number of sites
capable of adsorbing contaminants [67]. These properties
of sewage sludge‐derived biochar make them suitable
candidates to be used in the effective treatment of industrial wastewater.
Biochar removes contaminants through various mechanisms such as physical adsorption, surface precipitation, electrostatic interaction, pores filling, surface
complexation, and ion exchange [65,68]. Variations in
the physicochemical characteristics of the adsorbent and
pollutant to be removed attribute to the different mechanisms of adsorption [69]. Figure 4 illustrates different
mechanisms for the adsorption of pollutants by biochar.
The application of biochar in the removal of different
pollutants from industrial wastewater is listed in Table 5.
4 | ADVANTAGES AND
LIMITATIONS O F R ECENT
IN DUS TR IAL W AS TEW ATER
TREATMENT T ECHNOLOGIES
4.1 | NF
NF has many benefits over other conventional filtration
technologies. With the help of NF, metal ions such as
calcium and magnesium can be removed efficiently from
hard wastewater without adding sodium ions to the filtration unit. Thus, in the softening of wastewater, NF
does not require the addition of extra chemicals that
were earlier necessary in the case of other treatment
technologies for the past 50 years [75].
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
304
Unlike distillation, warming and chilling of feed are
not required in the case of NF, thus reducing the separation expenditures efficiently. Moreover, there is no
need for magnetic stirring for separating molecules in NF
units. Above all, NF can deal with a large feed volume
with a continuous and stable discharge rate of filtrate
[26]. In a pilot‐scale study, NF was used to treat olive mill
industry wastewater. A large feed volume of 0.125–1 m3
with constant pressure of 10 bar and feed flow rate of
370 L/h was used. It was observed that NF maintained a
steady flux with COD, total suspended solids, total organic carbon, and oil and grease removal rate of
53%–77%, 83%–99%, 64%–99%, and 67%–82%, respectively
[76]. Thus, NF can be used to treat considerably high
feed volume with steady flux and high removal
efficiency.
However, due to the presence of nano‐sized pores, the
applications of NF are limited in industries. Furthermore, some challenges such as fouling of NF membrane,
insufficient separation of uncharged solutes, treatment of
retentate, short membrane lifetime, and low resistance to
chemicals are associated with NF [77].
4.2
|
ET AL.
| Microalgal wastewater treatment
Microalgal wastewater treatment has numerous benefits as compared to other technologies. Microalgae
not only helps in the treatment of wastewater but also
generates biomass that can be used as fertilizer, animal feed, substrate for biofuel generation, and has
many more industrial applications [78,79]. Moreover,
phycoremediation of wastewater is a low‐cost and
environment‐friendly method for the removal of toxic
pollutants and recovery of valuable metals [80].
However, some challenges are also associated with
microalgal wastewater treatment. These challenges
include the requirement of a large land area, the impact of environmental and working conditions on
treatment efficiency, isolation of microalgal biomass
from treated wastewater, and so forth, limit their
applications in large scale [18,81]. Additionally, the
characteristics of wastewater also influence algal
growth. For example, several microalgal species are
poisonous to ammonia, which may be found in large
concentrations in industrial effluents. Moreover, unless the pH of the wastewater is calibrated to an appropriate range, microalgae cannot grow efficiently
on the wastewater [82]. Sometimes, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus might be insufficient to support the growth of microalgae, thus reducing the total
biomass and delineating the treatment process unfeasible in a long run [6].
305
4.3 | MFCs
MFCs serve as a promising technology for treating wastewater coupled with the simultaneous generation of
electrical energy. But the main shortcoming of this
technology is its expensiveness. The use of costly electrodes as cathode and anode reduces its feasibility to be
used in the treatment of industrial wastewater. However,
the power generation by MFC can reduce its operational
expenses. Moreover, sludge to be discharged into the
environment after treatment is generated in a very
minimal amount [7]. Other challenges such as low power
densities, activation, concentration, ohmic losses, and so
forth limit their applications in a large‐scale [83].
4.4 | Biochar technology
Despite having significant potentials to be used as adsorbents for the removal of various pollutants from
wastewater, the mechanisms controlling the adsorption
process of biochar are not completely clear [84]. Some
concerns associated with the large‐scale commercialization of biochar in wastewater treatment include increased production costs, reduced stability, leaching out
of embedded materials, complex modification methods,
and so forth [8,85].
5 | SIGNIFICANCE AND
FU TU RISTIC P E RSP EC TIVE O F
RECENT TECHNOLOGIES IN
IN DUS TR IAL W AS TEW ATER
RESEARCH
Currently, environmental and economic issues have
been developed during industrial wastewater treatment processes through harmful toxic discharge of
nanomaterials and adsorbents imposing threat to
human health, surroundings, and environment. This
aims at the requirement for public surveys and initiative for intensive research‐based studies to reduce
the toxicity in the environment to attain a sustainable
environmental pollutants removal system [86]. Furthermore, there is the utmost requirement of the
market to develop referenced nanomaterials through
environment‐friendly procedures through green
technology inviting future research in this area [87].
As of now, on market bases only a limited study for
economic aspects is available and it further requires
improvement in the treatment of industrial wastewater specifically focusing on technological and
monetary perspectives.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
|
6 |
MALIK
CONCLUSION
The treatment of industrial wastewater utilizing new
technologies is one of the current and prominent approaches in the field of wastewater treatment research.
The development and implementation of new technologies will solve the critical issues of drinking freshwater
scarcity and safety because of pollutants released in industrial wastewater, environmental threats, increase in
population due to community enlargement, urbanization, and sanitation. As a challenge, worldwide researchers, academicians, and industrial research and
development sectors are focusing on several novel technologies to overcome these constraints.
Utilization of novel approaches and methodologies
through NF, microalgal wastewater treatment, MFCs,
biochar technology may contribute as an extremely promising, productive, less time and energy‐consuming, eco‐
friendly and inexpensive technique for the purpose of
purification of industrial wastewater. However, with respect to the use of nanomaterials in the NF technique,
the requirement of computerized digital monitoring
methods that can suggest, predict and measure nanoparticles available in limited quantities in water. Furthermore, implementation of novel technologies such as
NF, microalgal wastewater treatment, MFCs, biochar
technology for the treatment of industrial wastewater
pollutants is becoming a trend, and it is significantly
refining and solving the relevant industrial wastewater
issues in this advanced time.
However, there is a gradual requirement of new
technologies in the field of industrial wastewater treatment research for qualitative improvement of industrial
wastewater through the elimination of toxins and related
micro‐ and macrocontaminations. This also invites future
research in the development of novel approaches for
industrial wastewater treatment comprising being cost‐
effective, eco‐friendly, production at large industrial
scale, and easily commercial.
AC K N O W L E D G M E N T
We want to acknowledge our organization for continuous motivation and support.
CONFLI CT OF I NTER ESTS
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
DATA A VAILABILITY S TATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are
available on request from the corresponding author.
ORCID
Shristi Kishore
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8851-5951
ET AL.
REFER ENCES
[1] Jones E, van Vliet M, Qadir M, Bierkens M. Country‐level
and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection,
treatment and reuse. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2021;13:237–54.
[2] Asgharnejad H, Khorshidi NE, Madani LM, Hajinajaf N,
Rashidi H. Comprehensive review of water management and
wastewater treatment in food processing industries in the
framework of water‐food‐environment nexus. Compr Rev
Food Sci Food Saf. 2021;20:4779–815.
[3] Malik S, Ghosh P, Vaidya A, Mudliar S. Hybrid ozonation
process for industrial wastewater treatment: principles and
applications: a review. J Water Process Eng. 2020;35:101193.
[4] Cai Q, Lee B, Ong S, Hu J. Fluidized‐bed Fenton technologies
for recalcitrant industrial wastewater treatment–recent advances, challenges and perspective. Water Res. 2021;190:
116692.
[5] Rajasulochana P, Preethy V. Comparison on efficiency of
various techniques in treatment of waste and sewage water–a
comprehensive review. Resource‐Efficient Technol. 2016;2:
175–84.
[6] Al‐Jabri H, Das P, Khan S, Thaher M, Abdul Quadir M.
Treatment of wastewaters by microalgae and the potential
applications of the produced biomass–a review. Water. 2021;
13:27.
[7] Munoz‐Cupa C, Hu Y, Xu C, Bassi A. An overview of microbial fuel cell usage in wastewater treatment, resource recovery and energy production. Sci Total Environ. 2021;754:
142429.
[8] Wang J, Wang S. Preparation, modification and environmental application of biochar: a review. J Clean Prod. 2019;
227:1002–22.
[9] Mulyanti R, Susanto H. Wastewater treatment by nanofiltration membranes. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2018;
142:012017.
[10] Garg S. Industrial wastewater: Characteristics, treatment
techniques and reclamation of water. In: Roy S, Garg A,
Garg S, Tran TA, editors. Advanced Industrial Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation of Water. Environmental Science and Engineering. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 1–23.
[11] Qasem N, Mohammed R, Lawal D. Removal of heavy metal
ions from wastewater: a comprehensive and critical review.
NPJ Clean Water. 2021;4:36.
[12] Mohod CV, Dhote J. Review of heavy metals in drinking
water and their effect on human health. Int J Innov Res Sci
Eng Technol. 2013;2:2992–6.
[13] Fernandez‐Luqueno F, Lopez‐Valdez F, Gamero‐Melo P,
Luna‐Suárez S, Aguilera‐González EN, Martínez AL, et al.
Heavy metal pollution in drinking water: a global risk for
human health: a review. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2013;7:
567–84.
[14] Ghaly A, Ananthashankar R, Alhattab M, Ramakrishnan V.
Production, characterization and treatment of textile effluents: a critical review. J Chem Eng Proc Technol. 2014;5:
1–18.
[15] Adane T, Adugna A, Alemayehu E. Textile industry effluent
treatment techniques. J Chem. 2021;2021:1–14.
[16] Tikariha A, Sahu O. Study of characteristics and treatments
of dairy industry waste water. J Appl Environ Microbiol.
2014;2:16–22.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
306
ET AL.
[17] Yonar T, Sivrioğlu Ö, Özengin N. Physico‐chemical treatment
of dairy industry wastewaters: a review. In: Koca N, editor.
Technological approaches for novel applications in dairy
processing. IntechOpen; 2018. p. 1.
[18] Enitan A, Adeyemo J, Kumari S, Swalaha F, Bux F. Characterization of brewery wastewater composition. Int
J Environ Ecol Eng. 2015;9:1073–6.
[19] Werkneh A, Beyene H, Osunkunle A. Recent advances in
brewery wastewater treatment; Approaches for water reuse
and energy recovery: a review. Environ Sustain. 2019;2:
199–209.
[20] Gunkel G, Kosmol J, Sobral M, Rohn H, Montenegro S,
Aureliano J. Sugar cane industry as a source of water
pollution–case study on the situation in Ipojuca river, Pernambuco, Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007;180:261–9.
[21] Kushwaha J. A review on sugar industry wastewater: sources,
treatment technologies, and reuse. Desalin Water Treat.
2013;53:309–18.
[22] Jahan M, Akhtar N, Khan N, Roy C, Islam R, Nurunnabi M.
Characterization of tannery wastewater and its treatment by
aquatic macrophytes and algae. Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res.
2015;49:233–42.
[23] Zhao C, Chen W. A review for tannery wastewater treatment:
some thoughts under stricter discharge requirements.
Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26:26102–11.
[24] Cristóvão RO, Pinto VM, Gonçalves AP, Martins RJ,
Loureiro JM, Boaventura RA. Fish canning industry wastewater variability assessment using multivariate statistical
methods. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2016;102:263–76.
[25] Cristóvão R, Botelho C, Martins R, Boaventura R. Chemical
and biological treatment of fish canning wastewaters. Int
J Biosci Biochem Bioinforma. 2012;4:237–42.
[26] Abdel‐Fatah M. Nanofiltration systems and applications in
wastewater treatment: review article. Ain Shams Eng J. 2018;
9:3077–92.
[27] Goosen MFA, Sablani SS, Al‐Hinai H, Al‐Obeidani S, Al‐
Belushi R, Jackson D. Fouling of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes: a critical review. Sep Sci Technol.
2005;39:2261–97.
[28] Shon H, Phuntsho S, Chaudhary D, Vigneswaran S, Cho J.
Nanofiltration for water and wastewater treatment–a mini
review. Drink Water Eng Sci. 2013;6:47–53.
[29] Mohammad A, Teow Y, Ang W, Chung Y, Oatley‐Radcliffe
D, Hilal N. Nanofiltration membranes review: recent advances and future prospects. Desalination. 2015;356:226–54.
[30] Rashidi H, Sulaiman N, Hashim N. Batik industry synthetic
wastewater treatment using nanofiltration membrane.
Procedia Eng. 2012;44:2010–2.
[31] Kočanová V, Cuhorka J, Dušek L, Mikulášek P. Application
of nanofiltration for removal of zinc from industrial wastewater. Desalin Water Treat. 2017;75:342–7.
[32] Andrade L, Mendes F, Espindola J, Amaral M. Nanofiltration as tertiary treatment for the reuse of dairy wastewater treated by membrane bioreactor. Sep Purif
Technol. 2014;126:21–9.
[33] Xu R, Qin W, Zhang B, Wang X, Li T, Zhang Y, et al. Nanofiltration in pilot scale for wastewater reclamation: long‐
term performance and membrane biofouling characteristics.
Chem Eng J. 2020;395:125087.
|
307
[34] Xiao HF, Chu CH, Xu WT, Chen BZ, Ju XH, Xing W, et al.
Amphibian‐inspired amino acid ionic liquid functionalized
nanofiltration membranes with high water permeability and
ion selectivity for pigment wastewater treatment. J Membr
Sci. 2019;586:44–52.
[35] Rahimpour A, Jahanshahi M, Peyravi M. Development of
pilot scale nanofiltration system for yeast industry wastewater treatment. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2014;12:55.
[36] Cheng S, Oatley D, Williams P, Wright C. Characterisation
and application of a novel positively charged nanofiltration
membrane for the treatment of textile industry wastewaters.
Water Res. 2012;46:33–42.
[37] Kurt E, Koseoglu‐Imer D, Dizge N, Chellam S, Koyuncu I.
Pilot‐scale evaluation of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
for process reuse of segregated textile dyewash wastewater.
Desalination. 2012;302:24–32.
[38] Mohsenpour S, Hennige S, Willoughby N, Adeloye A,
Gutierrez T. Integrating micro‐algae into wastewater treatment: a review. Sci Total Environ. 2021;752:142168.
[39] Shahid A, Malik S, Zhu H, Xu J, Nawaz MZ, Nawaz S, et al.
Cultivating microalgae in wastewater for biomass production, pollutant removal, and atmospheric carbon mitigation;
a review. Sci Total Environ. 2020;704:135303.
[40] Molazadeh M, Ahmadzadeh H, Pourianfar HR, Lyon S,
Rampelotto PH. The use of microalgae for coupling wastewater treatment with CO2 biofixation. Front Bioeng
Biotechnol. 2019;7:42.
[41] Prajapati SK, Kaushik P, Malik A, Vijay VK. Phycoremediation coupled production of algal biomass, harvesting and
anaerobic digestion: possibilities and challenges. Biotechnol
Adv. 2013;31:1408–25.
[42] Rogers JN, Rosenberg JN, Guzman BJ, Oh VH, Mimbela LE,
Ghassemi A, et al. A critical analysis of paddlewheel‐driven
raceway ponds for algal biofuel production at commercial
scales. Algal Res. 2014;4:76–88.
[43] Posten C. Design principles of photo‐bioreactors for cultivation of microalgae. Eng Life Sci. 2009;9:165–77.
[44] Lutzu GA, Zhang W, Liu T. Feasibility of using brewery
wastewater for biodiesel production and nutrient removal by
Scenedesmus dimorphus. Environ Technol. 2016;37:1568–81.
[45] Subramaniyam V, Subashchandrabose SR, Ganeshkumar V,
Thavamani P, Chen Z, Naidu R, et al. Cultivation of Chlorella
on brewery wastewater and nano‐particle biosynthesis by its
biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2016;211:698–703.
[46] Kothari R, Prasad R, Kumar V, Singh DP. Production of
biodiesel from microalgae Chlamydomonas polypyrenoideum
grown on dairy industry wastewater. Bioresour Technol.
2013;144:499–503.
[47] Chokshi K, Pancha I, Ghosh A, Mishra S. Microalgal biomass
generation by phycoremediation of dairy industry wastewater: an integrated approach towards sustainable biofuel
production. Bioresour Technol. 2016;221:455–60.
[48] Ajayan KV, Selvaraju M, Unnikannan P, Sruthi P. Phycoremediation of tannery wastewater using microalgae Scenedesmus species. Int J Phytoremediation. 2015;17:907–16.
[49] Wan L, Wu Y, Zhang X, Zhang W. Nutrient removal from
pickle industry wastewater by cultivation of Chlorella pyrenoidosa for lipid production. Water Sci Technol. 2019;79:
2166–74.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK
|
[50] Wang F, Chen J, Zhang C, Gao B. Resourceful treatment of
cane sugar industry wastewater by Tribonema minus towards
the production of valuable biomass. Bioresour Technol. 2020;
316:123902.
[51] Encarnação T, Palito C, Pais AACC, Valente AJM,
Burrows HD. Removal of pharmaceuticals from water by free
and imobilised microalgae. Molecules. 2020;25:3639.
[52] Ledezma P, Kuntke P, Buisman CJ, Keller J, Freguia S.
Source‐separated urine opens golden opportunities for microbial electrochemical technologies. Trends Biotechnol.
2015;33:214–20.
[53] Capodaglio AG, Molognoni D, Dallago E, Liberale A, Cella R,
Longoni P, et al. Microbial fuel cells for direct electrical energy recovery from urban wastewaters. Sci World J. 2013;
2013:1–8.
[54] Gude VG. Microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment and
energy generation. In: Scott K, Yu E Editors. Microbial
electrochemical and fuel cells. 1st ed. Woodhead Publishing;
2015. p. 247–85.
[55] Sahu O. Sustainable and clean treatment of industrial wastewater with microbial fuel cell. Results Eng. 2019;4:100053.
[56] ElMekawy A, Hegab H, Vanbroekhoven K, Pant D. Techno‐
productive potential of photosynthetic microbial fuel cells
through different configurations. Renew Sust Energ Rev.
2014;39:617–27.
[57] Marassi RJ, Queiroz LG, Silva DCVR, dos Santos FS,
Silva GC, de Paiva TCB. Long‐term performance and acute
toxicity assessment of scaled‐up air‐cathode microbial fuel
cell fed by dairy wastewater. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2020;43:
1561–71.
[58] Mansoorian HJ, Mahvi AH, Jafari AJ, Khanjani N. Evaluation of dairy industry wastewater treatment and simultaneous bioelectricity generation in a catalyst‐less and
mediator‐less membrane microbial fuel cell. J Saudi Chem
Soc. 2016;20:88–100.
[59] Abbasi U, Jin W, Pervez A, Bhatti ZA, Tariq M, Shaheen S,
et al. Anaerobic microbial fuel cell treating combined industrial wastewater: correlation of electricity generation with
pollutants. Bioresour Technol. 2016;200:1–7.
[60] Toczyłowska‐Mamińska R, Szymona K, Kloch M. Bioelectricity production from wood hydrothermal‐treatment wastewater: enhanced power generation in MFC‐fed mixed
wastewaters. Sci Total Environ. 2018;634:586–94.
[61] Zhang Q, Liu L. A microbial fuel cell system with manganese
dioxide/titanium dioxide/graphitic carbon nitride coated
granular activated carbon cathode successfully treated organic acids industrial wastewater with residual nitric acid.
Bioresour Technol. 2020;304:122992.
[62] Srikanth S, Kumar M, Singh D, Singh MP, Das BP. Electro‐
biocatalytic treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater
using microbial fuel cell (MFC) in continuous mode operation. Bioresour Technol. 2016;221:70–7.
[63] Hamamoto K, Miyahara M, Kouzuma A, Matsumoto A,
Yoda M, Ishiguro T, et al. Evaluation of microbial fuel cells
for electricity generation from oil‐contaminated wastewater.
J Biosci Bioeng. 2016;122:589–93.
[64] Xiang W, Zhang X, Chen J, Zou W, He F, Hu X, et al. Biochar
technology in wastewater treatment: a critical review.
Chemosphere. 2020;252:126539.
MALIK
ET AL.
[65] Kumi A, Ibrahim M, Nasr M, Fujii M. Biochar Synthesis for
Industrial Wastewater Treatment: a Critical Review. Mater
Sci Forum. 2020;1008:202–12.
[66] Yaashikaa P, Senthil Kumar P, Varjani S, Saravanan A. Advances in production and application of biochar from lignocellulosic feedstocks for remediation of environmental
pollutants. Bioresour Technol. 2019;292:122030.
[67] Inyang M, Dickenson E. The potential role of biochar in the
removal of organic and microbial contaminants from potable
and reuse water: a review. Chemosphere. 2015;134:232–40.
[68] Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Zhang M, Bolan N,
Mohan D, et al. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere. 2014;99:
19–33.
[69] Rosales E, Meijide J, Pazos M, Sanromán M. Challenges and
recent advances in biochar as low‐cost biosorbent: from batch
assays to continuous‐flow systems. Bioresour Technol. 2017;
246:176–92.
[70] Amen R, Yaseen M, Mukhtar A, Klemeš JJ, Saqib S, Ullah S,
et al. Lead and cadmium removal from wastewater using eco‐
friendly biochar adsorbent derived from rice husk, wheat
straw, and corncob. Clean Eng Technol. 2020;1:100006.
[71] Tang L, Yu J, Pang Y, Zeng G, Deng Y, Wang J, et al. Sustainable efficient adsorbent: alkali‐acid modified magnetic
biochar derived from sewage sludge for aqueous organic
contaminant removal. Chem Eng J. 2018;336:160–9.
[72] Li J, Cao L, Yuan Y, Wang R, Wen Y, Man J. Comparative
study for microcystin‐LR sorption onto biochars produced
from various plant‐ and animal‐wastes at different pyrolysis
temperatures: influencing mechanisms of biochar properties.
Bioresour Technol. 2018;247:794–803.
[73] Nyamunda B, Chivhanga T, Guyo U, Chigondo F. Removal of
Zn (II) and Cu (II) ions from industrial wastewaters using
magnetic biochar derived from water hyacinth. J Eng. 2019;
2019:1–11.
[74] Liu J, Ren S, Cao J, Tsang D, Beiyuan J, Peng Y, et al.
Highly efficient removal of thallium in wastewater by
MnFe 2O 4‐biochar composite. J Hazard Mater. 2021;401:
123311.
[75] Labban O, Liu C, Chong T, Lienhard VJ. Fundamentals of
low‐pressure nanofiltration: membrane characterization,
modeling, and understanding the multi‐ionic interactions in
water softening. J Membr Sci. 2017;521:18–32.
[76] Sanches S, Fraga MC, Silva NA, Nunes P, Crespo JG,
Pereira VJ. Pilot scale nanofiltration treatment of olive mill
wastewater: a technical and economical evaluation. Environ
Sci Pollut Res. 2017;24:3506–18.
[77] van der Bruggen B, Mänttäri M, Nyström M. Drawbacks of
applying nanofiltration and how to avoid them: a review. Sep
Purif Technol. 2008;63:251–63.
[78] Batista AP, Ambrosano L, Graça S, Sousa C, Marques P,
Ribeiro B, et al. Combining urban wastewater treatment with
biohydrogen production—an integrated microalgae‐based
approach. Bioresour Technol. 2015;184:230–5.
[79] Cai T, Park S, Li Y. Nutrient recovery from wastewater
streams by microalgae: status and prospects. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev. 2013;19:360–9.
[80] Abdel‐Raouf N, Al‐Homaidan A, Ibraheem I. Microalgae and
wastewater treatment. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2012;19:257–75.
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
308
ET AL.
[81] Lavrinovičs A, Juhna T. Review on challenges and limitations for algae‐based wastewater treatment. Constr Sci. 2017;
20:17–25.
[82] Das P, AbdulQuadir M, Thaher M, Khan S, Chaudhary AK,
Alghasal G, et al. Microalgal bioremediation of petroleum‐
derived low salinity and low pH produced water. J Appl
Phycol. 2018;31:435–44.
[83] Quach‐Cu J, Herrera‐Lynch B, Marciniak C, Adams S,
Simmerman A, Reinke R. The effect of primary, secondary,
and tertiary wastewater treatment processes on antibiotic
resistance gene (arg) concentrations in solid and dissolved
wastewater fractions. Water (Basel). 2018;10:37.
[84] Varjani S, Joshi R, Srivastava VK, Ngo HH, Guo W. Treatment of wastewater from petroleum industry: current practices and perspectives. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020;27:
27172–80.
[85] Huang M, Li Z, Luo N, Yang R, Wen J, Huang B, et al.
Application potential of biochar in environment: Insight
from degradation of biochar‐derived DOM and
|
309
complexation of DOM with heavy metals. Sci Total
Environ. 2019;646:220–8.
[86] Ray PC, Yu H, Fu PP. Toxicity and environmental risks of
nanomaterials: challenges and future needs. J Environ Sci
Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2009;27:1–35.
[87] Tarabara VV. Multifunctional nanomaterial‐enabled membranes for water treatment. In: Street A, Sustich R, Duncan J,
Savage N, editors. Nanotechnology Applications for Clean
Water. New York: William Andrew Publishing; 2009. p.
59–75.
How to cite this article: Malik S, Kishore S,
Prasad S, Shah MP. A comprehensive review on
emerging trends in industrial wastewater research.
J Basic Microbiol. 2022;62:296–309.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.202100554
15214028, 2022, 3-4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jobm.202100554 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MALIK