polymers

Article
Next-Generation Water Treatment: Exploring the Potential of
Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposites in Adsorption and
Membrane Filtration
Haradhan Kolya * and Chun-Won Kang *

Department of Housing Environmental Design, Research Institute of Human Ecology, College of Human Ecology,
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: hdk@jbnu.ac.kr (H.K.); kcwon@jbnu.ac.kr (C.-W.K.)

Abstract: This review article focuses on the potential of biopolymer-based nanocomposites incorpo-
rating nanoparticles, graphene oxide (GO), carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and nanoclays in adsorption
and membrane filtration processes for water treatment. The aim is to explore the effectiveness of these
innovative materials in addressing water scarcity and contamination issues. The review highlights
the exceptional adsorption capacities and improved membrane performance offered by chitosan, GO,
and CNTs, which make them effective in removing heavy metals, organic pollutants, and emerging
contaminants from water. It also emphasizes the high surface area and ion exchange capacity of
nanoclays, enabling the removal of heavy metals, organic contaminants, and dyes. Integrating mag-
netic (Fe2 O4 ) adsorbents and membrane filtration technologies is highlighted to enhance adsorption
and separation efficiency. The limitations and challenges associated are also discussed. The review
concludes by emphasizing the importance of collaboration with industry stakeholders in advancing
biopolymer-based nanocomposites for sustainable and comprehensive water treatment solutions.

Keywords: biopolymer-based nanocomposite; water treatment; adsorption; membrane filtration;

graphene oxide; carbon nanotubes; nanoclays

Citation: Kolya, H.; Kang, C.-W.

Next-Generation Water Treatment:
Exploring the Potential of
1. Introduction
Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposites Water treatment is a critical global challenge as the demand for clean and safe wa-
in Adsorption and Membrane ter rises [1]. With increasing pollution, contamination, and scarcity of freshwater re-
Filtration. Polymers 2023, 15, 3421. sources, innovative materials and technologies are crucial to addressing these pressing
https://doi.org/10.3390/ issues [2]. Industrial effluents contain a wide range of pollutants that adversely affect
polym15163421 human health when they enter the environment and come into contact with humans
Academic Editor: George Z. Kyzas
through various pathways (in detail in Table 1). Traditionally, water treatment has relied
on several methods to ensure the purification of water for various applications, such as
Received: 26 June 2023 coagulation/flocculation [3,4], sedimentation [5,6], filtration [7], disinfection [8], adsorp-
Revised: 3 August 2023 tion [9], membrane filtration [10,11]. Although these traditional water treatment methods
Accepted: 14 August 2023 have specific advantages, they also have certain disadvantages. Coagulation and floc-
Published: 16 August 2023
culation [12] effectively reduce turbidity and remove suspended particles, but they may
produce a significant amount of toxic sludge, which requires proper disposal. Sedimen-
tation can reduce water treatment costs and the need for additional chemicals but cannot
effectively settle smaller particles or remove microbes [13]. Filtration methods, such as
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
sand filtration, may not completely eliminate pathogens and require frequent cleaning and
This article is an open access article
maintenance of filters [14]. Additionally, chlorination is widely used to kill germs, but it is
distributed under the terms and a potent biocide and unsafe [15]. Advanced oxidation techniques offer fast reaction rates
conditions of the Creative Commons and reduced toxicity of organic pollutants, but they are expensive and require careful dose
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// calculations due to their complex chemistry [16]. Ion exchange is an eco-friendly method
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of neutralizing acidic or basic water, but it faces fouling, bacterial and chlorine contami-
4.0/). nation, and inadequate regeneration [16]. Anaerobic treatment offers a low-energy and

Polymers 2023, 15, 3421. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163421 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 2 of 38

environment-friendly approach but cannot remove inorganic components and generates

volatile acids [17]. Microbial treatment is another environment-friendly method used to
remove pollutants from water, but it has a short lifespan, is costly, and can result in fouling
and low production rates [18].
In contrast, adsorption and membrane filtration stand out for their effectiveness and
versatility [19,20]. Adsorption offers high removal efficiency [21], selectivity [22,23], and
the potential for regeneration, while membrane filtration provides a reliable method for
removing suspended solids, pathogens, and dissolved substances [24]. Therefore, ad-
sorption and membrane filtration technologies have played a crucial role in developing
modern water treatment processes, ensuring the delivery of clean and safe drinking water
to communities worldwide. Polymers play a crucial role in the enhancing performance
and reducing the treatment costs of water treatment methods, particularly in adsorption
and membrane filtration processes. Synthetic polymers have traditionally dominated
these technologies due to their effectiveness. However, concerns about the biodegradabil-
ity of synthetic polymers have prompted interest in bio-polymer-based adsorbents and
membranes. Bio-polymer-based adsorbents or membranes offer an attractive alternative
due to their environmentally friendly nature [25]. Moreover, researchers have recently
turned their attention to biopolymeric nanocomposite materials, which are promising for
various water treatment applications [26,27]. These materials combine the advantages of
biopolymers derived from renewable resources with the unique properties of nanofillers,
resulting in enhanced performance and efficiency [28]. Biopolymers, such as chitosan,
alginate, cellulose, and starch, offer several advantages in water treatment due to their
biocompatibility, biodegradability, and versatility [29,30]. They exhibit excellent adsorption
capacities [31], flocculation abilities [32], and antimicrobial properties [33], making them
suitable for various water treatment processes [34]. However, incorporating nanofillers
into biopolymers has opened up new opportunities for improving their performance and
expanding their applications [35]. Nanocomposite materials, composed of biopolymers
and nanofillers, possess enhanced mechanical strength, increased surface area, improved
stability, and tailored functionalities [36,37]. Nanofillers, such as nanoparticles (e.g., silver,
titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, etc.), nanoclays, graphene oxide, and
carbon nanotubes, contribute unique properties such as high surface area, catalytic activity,
photocatalytic properties, and antimicrobial effects [38–40]. These synergistic combinations
enable biopolymeric nanocomposites to tackle specific water treatment challenges [41],
such as removing heavy metals [42], organic pollutants [43], and microorganisms [44]. The
synthesis and characterization of biopolymeric nanocomposites have witnessed significant
advancements in recent years [45]. Various methods, including solution casting, in situ
polymerization, and electrospinning, have been employed to fabricate nanocomposites
with controlled structures and properties [46]. Characterization techniques, such as X-ray
diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and thermogravimetric analysis
(TGA), provide valuable insights into their morphology, crystallinity, thermal stability, and
mechanical properties [47,48].
This review article offers a comprehensive exploration of the emerging field of biopoly-
meric nanocomposite materials for water treatment applications. It focuses on the synergis-
tic combination of biopolymers and nanofillers, providing insights into their fabrication,
characterization, and specific applications in adsorption and membrane filtration. The
article also addresses challenges, future perspectives, and the potential to revolutionize
water treatment technologies.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 3 of 38

Table 1. Details about pollutants, source of pollutants, and effects on human health.

Sr. No. Type Pollutants Chemical Compositions/ Sources Effects Ref.

Formula
Industrial effluents from Water with kaolin clay
• Porcelain causes
• Rubber • Lung cancer
1. Kaolin clay Al2 Si2 O5 (OH)4 • Pneumoconiosis [49,50]
• Paper
• Paint • Mesothelioma
• Many other products • Aquatic-life problems
Water with iron slimes
• Creates a brown color
Washing liquid from • Damages the
2. Fe2 O3 , Fe3 O4 , 2Fe2 O.
Iron ore slimes 3H2 O, FeCO3 and FeS2 • Sponge iron industries reproductive system of [51–53]
• Steel industries aquatic life
• Degrades the
supercoiled DNA

• Coal mining Coal water creates

• Coal plants • Cancer
3. Coal C, H, O, N, S • Thermal power plants • Lung diseases [54–56]
• Fly ash • Heart damage
• Coal bed methane • Birth defects
• Natural resources
Silica in drinking water
Wastage from industries of causes:
4. Silicon dioxide SiO2 • Electrical items • Alzheimer’s disease [57–60]
• Solar cell production • Cognitive impairment
• Dementia

Wastewater from Copper intoxication

industries of • Inhibits the growth of
• Electrical conductors phytoplankton
• Heat conductors • Produces hydroxyl
5. Copper Cu radicals [61–65]
• Building materials
• Jewelry
• Effects on proteins,
lipids, central nervous
• Steel
system, and DNA
• Alloy metals • Cognitive impairment
Nickel leads to effects
such as
• Disordered lung
Effluents from function
• Stainless steel • Non-remitting
• Nickel-processing bronchitis
6. Nickel Ni • Neurotoxic [66,67]
industries • Genotoxic
• Amalgam-processing • Regenerative
industries poisonous
• Nephrotoxic
• Embryo toxic
• Teratogenic
High concertation of zinc
Industrial effluents from causes
• Brass • Sickness
7. Zinc Zn • Corrosion-resistant • Vomiting [68,69]
zinc plating of iron • Epigastric irritation
• Amalgam steel • Laziness
• Zinc processing units • Toxicity to plants and
invertebrates
Lead causes mostly
• Anemia
Wastewater from • Hypertension
8. Lead Pb • Lead–acid batteries • Kidney and bone [70,71]
• Atomic power plants damage
• Electrodes making • Disruption of the
nervous system
• Sperm damage
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 4 of 38

Table 1. Cont.

Sr. No. Type Pollutants Chemical Compositions/ Sources Effects Ref.

Formula
Mercury has dangerous
Wastage from effects on

• Coal mining • The central nervous

9. Mercury Hg system [72]
• Industrial uses • Cardiovascular
• Fossil fuel combustion system
• Mining • Kidney and bone
• Skin

Effluents from Cr (VI) is dangerous and

creates
• Chromite mineral
• Skin irritation
10. Chromium Cr • Stainless steel • Stomatitis [73,74]
industries • Pneumonitis
• Chemical industries • Inhibits the growth of
• Leather industries oceanic life
Long ingestion of arsenic
Industrial wastewater from (III) (>10 ppb) can lead to

• Wood preservatives • Arsenicosis

• Pesticides • Hemolysis
11. Arsenic As • Cancer [75,76]
• Wood processes
• Neurological
• Agrochemicals
disorders and painful
• Natural resources patches on the
hand/feet
High concentration of MG
Industrial effluents from • Cuts off sunlight from
• Textile dye water
• Affects the
Malachite green • Wools
12. C23 H25 Cl2 photosynthesis of [77]
(MG) • Plastic materials
sea-going plants
• Calfskin packaging • Disorders the DNA
• Leather and rubber sequence
• Paint • Causes hepatitis
• Vomiting
Wastewater from High concentration of CR
creates
• Color manufacturer
13. Congo red (CR) C32 H22 N6 Na2 O6 S2 • Printing and dyeing • Presenile dementia [78,79]
machines • Degenerative disorder
• Paper and plastic diseases
productions • Mutagenesis

MB creates mostly
• Headache
Effluents from • Hypertension
• Textile manufacturers
• Nausea
Methylene blue • Leather and paper
• Forgetfulness
14. C16 H18 ClN3 S • Dyspepsia [80,81]
(MB) manufacturing • Red blood cell
• Color manufacturing
breakdown
industries • Allergic reactions
• Central nervous
system toxicity
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 5 of 38

Table 1. Cont.

Sr. No. Type Pollutants Chemical Compositions/ Sources Effects Ref.

Formula
Presence of RB5 in water
bodies causes
Wastewater from
• Aesthetic problems
15. Reactive Black 5 C26 H21 N5 Na4 O19 S6 • Textiles • Obstruction of sun
(RB5) [82,83]
• Dye houses light penetration
• Paper printing • Oxygen transfer into
water
• Effects on aquatic life
Presence of RB4 in water
Effluent from bodies causes
16. Reactive Blue 4 C23 H14 Cl2 N6 O8 S2 • Textile units • Pollution in water [84,85]
(RB4) • Plastic manufacturing bodies
• Printing houses • Effects on aquatic life
• Mutagenesis
Discharged wastewater RB29 affects
Reactive Blue 29 from
17. C29 H15 Cl2 N5 Na2 O9 S2 • Esthetic merit [86]
(RB29) • Textile industries • Light penetration
• Plastic industries • Carcinogenesis
Wastewater from
RY145 toxic towards
18. Reactive Yellow C28 H20 ClN9 Na4 O16 S5 • Paper printing [87,88]
145 (RY145) • Humans
• Textile industries
• Aquatic life
• Plastic industries
Pharmaceuticals
n: C8 H9 NO2
(Ibuprofen: C13 H18 O2
Metformin: C4 H11 N5 • Human excretion • Antibiotic resistance
Simvastatin: C25 H38 O5 • Improper disposal • Endocrine disruption
19. Omeprazole: C17 H19 N3 O3 S • Pharmaceutical • Allergic reactions [89,90]
Fluoxetine: C17 H18 F3 NO industries • Drinking water
Ciprofloxacin: C17 H18 FN3 O3 contamination
Amlodipine: C20 H25 ClN2 O5
Sertraline: C17 H17 Cl2N
Atorvastatin:) C33 H35 FN2 O5

Personal Care • Direct disposal into

(Products: sinks, showers, and
Parabens: toilets
C9 H10 O3 • Runoff from treated • Toxic to aquatic life
Triclosan: • Endocrine disruption
Benzophenone-3: C12 H7 Cl3 O2 areas (e.g., sunscreen
20. C14 H12 O3 washed off during • Interfere with [91]
Phthalates:
Octinoxate: C8 H4 O4 swimming) hormone function
Formaldehyde: C18 H26 O3 • Respiratory irritation
CH2 O • Improper disposal
Sodium Lauryl C12 H25 NaO4 S and inadequate
Sulfate:) wastewater treatment

• Wastewater discharge
from industries and
households.
• Urban runoff carrying • Ingestion
Microplastics plastic litter. • Neurotoxicity
(Polyethylene: (C2 H4 )n • Degradation of larger • Damage to the
21. (C3 H6 )n [92,93]
Polypropylene: plastic items in the digestive tracts of
Polystyrene:) (C8 H8 )n environment. marine animals
• Release of microfibers
from washing
synthetic clothing.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 6 of 38

2. Effects of Pollutants on Human Health

The effects of pollutants on human health are of significant concern in environmen-
tal health. Table 1 provides an overview of the different sources of pollutants found in
industrial effluents and highlights their specific effects on human health. These pollutants
include heavy metals, organic compounds, toxins, and other harmful substances. Each
pollutant reveals unique health effects depending on its chemical properties and the extent
and duration of exposure. The health effects of pollutants can vary extensively, ranging
from acute to chronic and long-term health implications. Acute effects may include imme-
diate symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, respiratory distress, or skin irritation. Chronic
exposure to pollutants over a prolonged period can lead to various health problems, includ-
ing respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, cardiovascular diseases, reproductive
disorders, and certain cancers. Understanding and monitoring the sources and levels of
pollutants in industrial effluents and using improved technologies to minimize human
exposure and mitigate potential health risks is crucial.

3. Biopolymers
Biopolymers have expanded significant attention in water treatment due to their
unique properties and multipurpose applications [94]. They are derived from renewable
sources, making them environmentally friendly alternatives to synthetic polymers. Biopoly-
mers are generally non-toxic, biocompatible, and biodegradable, minimizing the potential
for secondary pollution. Moreover, their flexibility allows for modifications and function-
alization to improve performance and target specific contaminants [95]. This section will
explore the different types of biopolymers commonly used in water treatment and their
effectiveness in various processes.
Chitosan: Chitosan [96], derived from chitin (as shown in Figure 1a) [97], is a broadly
studied biopolymer with excellent adsorption capabilities. Its high surface area and positive
charge effectively remove heavy metals, dyes, and organic pollutants from water through
electrostatic attraction and coagulation. Chitosan-based materials can be used as beads,
membranes, and hydrogels for applications like adsorption, filtration, and wastewater
treatment.
Alginate: Alginate [98], extracted from seaweed (Figure 1b) [99], is a biopolymer
known for its gel-forming properties and biocompatibility. It is commonly used in water
treatment for applications such as encapsulation, immobilization of enzymes or microor-
ganisms, and removal of metal ions [100–102]. Alginate beads and membranes have shown
promise in removing metals and dyes through ion exchange and adsorption mechanisms.
Cellulose: Cellulose, the most plentiful biopolymer on Earth (Figure 1c), has garnered
attention for its exceptional mechanical strength, hydrophilicity, and biodegradability.
Cellulosic materials have been used for water treatment processes such as adsorption, mem-
brane filtration, and separation techniques. Modified cellulose-based materials, including
cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose derivatives, offer higher surface area and adsorption
properties, effectively removing contaminants [103,104].
Starch: Starch, derived from crops (Figure 1d) [105], possesses unique properties such
as biodegradability, abundance, and low cost. Starch-based materials have been explored
for applications such as adsorption, flocculation, and membrane filtration. Modified
starches and starch-based hydrogels can potentially remove organic pollutants, dyes, and
microorganisms from water [106–108].
Poly(hydroxyalkanoates) (PHA): Poly(hydroxyalkanoates) are biodegradable and
biocompatible polyesters synthesized by various microorganisms (Figure 2a) [109,110].
PHA-based materials have shown promise in water treatment applications, particularly in
removing organic pollutants and heavy metals. PHA films, beads, and membranes have
demonstrated efficient adsorption capacities and can be used in adsorption, filtration, and
wastewater treatment [111].
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 7 of 38
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 41

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the source of (a) chitosan [97]. Copyright 2022; reproduced
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the source of (a) chitosan [97]. Copyright 2022; reproduced
with permission from Springer Nature, (b) alginate [99]. Copyright 2020; reproduced with permis-
with permission
sion from fromLimited,
Intechopen Springer Nature, (b)
(c) cellulose alginate
[103]. [99].
Copyright Copyright
2021; 2020;
reproduced reproduced
with permissionwith
from permission
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved, and (d) starch [105]. Copyright 2022; reproduced with permission
from Intechopen Limited, (c) cellulose [103]. Copyright 2021; reproduced with permission from
from the B.V.
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Elsevier authors,
All MDPI,
rights Basel.
reserved, and (d) starch [105]. Copyright 2022; reproduced with 8 of 41
permission
from the authors, MDPI, Basel.
Starch: Starch, derived from crops (Figure 1d) [105], possesses unique properties such
as biodegradability, abundance, and low cost. Starch-based materials have been explored
for applications such as adsorption, flocculation, and membrane filtration. Modified
starches and starch-based hydrogels can potentially remove organic pollutants, dyes, and
microorganisms from water [106–108].
Poly(hydroxyalkanoates) (PHA): Poly(hydroxyalkanoates) are biodegradable and bi-
ocompatible polyesters synthesized by various microorganisms (Figure 2a) [109,110].
PHA-based materials have shown promise in water treatment applications, particularly
in removing organic pollutants and heavy metals. PHA films, beads, and membranes have
demonstrated efficient adsorption capacities and can be used in adsorption, filtration, and
wastewater treatment [111].
Xanthan Gum: Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide produced by the bacterium Xan-
thomonas campestris [112], as shown in Figure 2d [113]. Its high viscosity and stabilizing
properties make it suitable for various water treatment applications [114]. Xanthan gum
has been utilized for the flocculation, sedimentation, and stabilization of particles in water
and wastewater treatment processes [115].

Figure 2. Schematically presentation of source and formula structures of (a) PHA [109]. Copyright
Figure 2. Schematically presentation of source and formula structures of (a) PHA [109]. Copyright
2022; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved, (b) Xanthan gum [113].
2022; reproduced
Copyright with permission
2017; reproduced from Elsevier
with permission B.V. AllVerlag
from Wiley-vch rightsGmbH
reserved,
& Co.(b) Xanthan
KGaA, Wein-gum [113].
Copyright
heim, and (c)2017; reproduced
lignin with 2022;
[116]. Copyright permission fromwith
reproduced Wiley-vch Verlag
permission fromGmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim,
the Author(s).
and (c) lignin [116]. Copyright 2022; reproduced with permission from the Author(s).
Lignin: Lignin is a complex and abundant biopolymer found in plant cell walls, as
shown in Figure 2e [116]. It is an attractive material for water treatment due to its aromatic
structure and adsorption properties [117]. Lignin-based materials, such as lignin deriva-
tives, nanoparticles, and membranes, can potentially remove organic pollutants, dyes, and
heavy metals from water [118].
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 8 of 38

Xanthan Gum: Xanthan gum is a polysaccharide produced by the bacterium Xan-

thomonas campestris [112], as shown in Figure 2d [113]. Its high viscosity and stabilizing
properties make it suitable for various water treatment applications [114]. Xanthan gum
has been utilized for the flocculation, sedimentation, and stabilization of particles in water
and wastewater treatment processes [115].
Lignin: Lignin is a complex and abundant biopolymer found in plant cell walls,
as shown in Figure 2e [116]. It is an attractive material for water treatment due to its
aromatic structure and adsorption properties [117]. Lignin-based materials, such as lignin
derivatives, nanoparticles, and membranes, can potentially remove organic pollutants,
dyes, and heavy metals from water [118].
However, it is crucial to note that the effectiveness of biopolymers in water treatment
can be influenced by factors such as pH, temperature, concentration, and the nature of con-
taminants. Optimization of operating conditions and the selection of suitable biopolymers
are crucial for achieving desired treatment outcomes.

4. Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposite
Nanocomposite materials, which combine biopolymers with nanofillers, have emerged
as promising candidates for water treatment applications [119]. Parallel to their compo-
nents, these materials offer enhanced performance, enhanced properties, and increased
functionality [120]. In this section, we will explore the concept of nanocomposites and the
various types of nanofillers combined with biopolymers for water treatment. Nanofillers
can be nanoparticles, nanoclays, nanotubes, or other nanoscale materials, and they con-
tribute specific functionalities such as increased surface area, enhanced mechanical strength,
catalytic activity, or antimicrobial properties.

4.1. Nano-Fillers for Water Treatment

A wide range of nanofillers can be incorporated into biopolymer matrices for water
treatment applications [121]. Here are some commonly used nanofillers:
Nanoparticles: Nanoparticles play a crucial role in water treatment applications, of-
fering various properties and functionalities. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and titanium
dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) are well known for their antimicrobial and photocat-
alytic properties. AgNPs exhibit strong antibacterial and antiviral effects, while TiO2 NPs
can induce photocatalytic reactions to degrade organic pollutants in water [122–124]. In
addition to these, other nanoparticles—such as zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) with
their photocatalytic and antimicrobial properties [125]; iron oxide nanoparticles (FeOxNPs)
for adsorption, catalytic degradation of dyes, and magnetic separation [126,127]; copper
nanoparticles (CuNPs) for antimicrobial applications [128]; carbon-based nanoparticles like
carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene oxide (GO) for adsorption of contaminants [129];
cerium oxide nanoparticles (CeO2 NPs) for catalytic degradation [130]; and hybrid nanopar-
ticles with tailored functionalities—are also being extensively studied [131]. Each type of
nanoparticle brings unique advantages to water treatment processes, and ongoing research
aims to harness their potential for efficient and sustainable water purification.
Nanoclays: Nanoclays, such as montmorillonite and halloysite nanotubes, have great
potential as biopolymer composites for water purification applications [132,133]. These
nanoparticles have distinct features that improve the composites’ ability to remove pollu-
tants from water. Incorporating montmorillonite nanoclay into biopolymer matrices such as
chitosan or alginate, for example, has been shown to increase the adsorption capacity and
selectivity of the composites towards heavy metals, organic contaminants, and colors [134].
Nanoclays’ high surface area and ion exchange capacities allow for effective pollutant
adsorption and removal via surface complexation, ion exchange, and intercalation. Further-
more, the layered structure of nanoclays creates a difficult path for pollutants to diffuse,
increasing purification efficiency.
On the other hand, halloysite nanotubes have a hollow tubular shape that can be used
for the controlled release of antimicrobial agents or active species, providing additional
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 9 of 38

capabilities for water treatment. Combining nanoclays with biopolymers improves adsorp-
tion and removal capacities and increases the composite materials’ mechanical strength
and stability, making them appropriate for filtering membranes and adsorbent media [135].
Developing nanoclay-based biopolymer composites for water purification has the potential
to alleviate water pollution issues while also encouraging sustainable and effective treat-
ment methods. Figure 3a depicts a schematic of integrating nano-filler into the polymer
matrix [136].
Carbon Nanotubes: Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) possess unique properties, including
exceptional mechanical strength, high electrical conductivity, and excellent thermal stabil-
ity, making them highly attractive for a variety of applications in water treatment. In the
context of nanocomposites for water purification, CNTs have revealed promising results,
particularly in membrane technology [137]. When incorporated into polymeric matrices,
CNT-based nanocomposites have shown improved performance in water treatment com-
pared to traditional nanomaterials and clay composites. For example, CNT-reinforced
polymeric membranes exhibit better permeability, allowing for increased water flux rates
while maintaining the practical separation of contaminants. This improved permeability
is attributed to the unique structure of CNTs, which provide a network of interconnected
nanochannels within the membrane, facilitating the flow of water molecules [138,139].
Moreover, CNTs can enhance the selectivity of membranes by acting as molecular
sieves, effectively blocking the passage of specific contaminants based on size or charge.
This selectivity is particularly advantageous in removing small organic molecules or heavy
metal ions from water sources. Additionally, the high aspect ratio and surface area of
CNTs contribute to their adsorption capacity, allowing for the effective removal of organic
pollutants and dyes from water [140,141].
It is worth noting that while nanoclays offer their own set of advantages in water
treatment, such as ion exchange capacity and high surface area, CNT-based nanocom-
posites provide distinct benefits. The exceptional mechanical and electrical properties of
CNTs contribute to the overall performance and durability of the composite membranes.
Moreover, the unique nanochannel structure and fouling resistance properties of CNTs set
them apart as promising nanomaterials for membrane technology in water treatment.
Graphene and Graphene Oxide: Graphene and graphene oxide (GO) are highly
promising carbon-based materials with excellent properties that make them attractive for
various applications in water treatment [40]. These two-dimensional carbon structures
possess a large surface area, high mechanical strength, and excellent adsorption capabilities
contributing to their effectiveness in water purification processes [142]. In nanocomposites
for water treatment, graphene- and GO-based materials have shown significant prospective
applications, particularly in removing heavy metal ions, organic pollutants, and emerg-
ing contaminants from water sources [143]. Their large surface areas provide ample
active sites for adsorption, allowing them to effectively capture and remove contaminants
through physical interactions [143]. This adsorption capacity is especially beneficial for
removing heavy metal ions, organic compounds, and micropollutants. Graphene-based
nanocomposites have established superior adsorption performance compared to traditional
nanomaterials, clay composites, and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [144]. The unique structure
of graphene and GO, consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal
lattice, offering a highly accessible and reactive surface for interaction with contaminants.
This results in enhanced adsorption efficiency and removal rates.
Moreover, graphene-based nanocomposites reveal exceptional mechanical strength,
improving the membranes’ durability and lifespan. Furthermore, the chemical adapt-
ability of graphene and GO allows for functionalization and modification, tailoring their
properties for specific water treatment applications. Surface modifications can develop
selectivity, improve stability, or introduce additional functionalities to the nanocomposites.
This flexibility in functionalization expands the potential applications of graphene-based
nanocomposites in water treatment. While nanoclays, CNTs, and other nanomaterials offer
their unique advantages in water treatment, graphene- and GO-based nanocomposites
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 10 of 38

stand out due to their exceptional properties, including large surface area, high mechanical
strength, excellent adsorption capabilities, and electrical conductivity [144]. These proper-
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 41
ties collectively contribute to their superior performance in water purification processes.
The structures of carbonaceous nanofillers are shown in Figure 3b [145].

Figure3.3.Schematic
Figure Schematicrepresentation
representationofof(a)
(a)incorporation
incorporationof
ofnanoclays
nanoclaysinto
intothe
thepolymer
polymermatrix
matrix[136].
[136].
Copyright 2022; reproduced with permission from the authors, and (b) structures of carbonaceous
Copyright 2022; reproduced with permission from the authors, and (b) structures of carbonaceous
nanofillers [145]. Copyright 2021; reproduced with permission from MDPI, Basel.
nanofillers [145]. Copyright 2021; reproduced with permission from MDPI, Basel.

4.2. Synthesis and Characterization

4.2. Synthesis and Characterization
The synthesis of biopolymeric nanocomposites embroils the incorporation of nano-
The synthesis of biopolymeric nanocomposites embroils the incorporation of nanofillers,
fillers, such as nanoparticles or nanofibers, into a biopolymer matrix. Various techniques
such as nanoparticles or nanofibers, into a biopolymer matrix. Various techniques can
can be employed to disperse the nanofillers within the biopolymer matrix, depending on
be employed to disperse the nanofillers within the biopolymer matrix, depending on the
the preferred structure and properties of the nanocomposite.
preferred structure and properties of the nanocomposite.
Solution casting: One commonly used method is solution casting, in which the biopoly-
Solution casting: One commonly used method is solution casting, in which the biopoly-
mer is dissolved in a suitable solvent and the nanofillers are dispersed in the polymer solution.
mer is dissolved in a suitable solvent and the nanofillers are dispersed in the polymer
The mixture is then cast into a mold or onto a substrate and allowed to dry, resulting in a solid
nanocomposite material (Figure 4a) [146]. Solution casting allows for specific control over the
nanofillers’ dispersion and the nanocomposite’s overall composition.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 11 of 38

solution. The mixture is then cast into a mold or onto a substrate and allowed to dry,
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
result-
12 of 41
ing in a solid nanocomposite material (Figure 4a) [146]. Solution casting allows for specific
control over the nanofillers’ dispersion and the nanocomposite’s overall composition.

Figure
Figure4.4.Schematic
Schematicpresentation of of
presentation polymer nanocomposites
polymer nanocompositessynthesis process
synthesis (a) solution
process casting
(a) solution cast-
[146]. Copyright 2017; reproduced with permission from the authors, MDPI, Basel. and (b) In
ing [146]. Copyright 2017; reproduced with permission from the authors, MDPI, Basel. and (b) In situ
polymerization method.
situ polymerization method.

In situ
In situ polymerization:
polymerization:InInsitu situpolymerization
polymerizationisisanother anotherapproach
approachtotosynthesizing
synthesizing
biopolymericnanocomposites.
biopolymeric nanocomposites.InInthis thismethod,
method,the thebiopolymer
biopolymer is is synthesized
synthesized oror partially
partially
polymerized in
polymerized inthe
thepresence
presenceof ofthe
thenanofillers
nanofillers(Figure
(Figure4b).4b).TheThe nanofillers
nanofillers actact
asas nucleation
nucleation
sites for
sites for the
thepolymerization
polymerizationprocess,process,forming
forminga nanocomposite
a nanocomposite structure [147]. [147].
structure This method
This
offers good interfacial bonding between the nanofillers and the
method offers good interfacial bonding between the nanofillers and the polymer matrix,polymer matrix, enhancing
mechanicalmechanical
enhancing propertiesproperties
and stability.
and stability.
Melt blending: Melt
Melt blending: Melt blendingblendingisisaatechnique
techniquecommonly
commonlyemployedemployed forfor thermoplastic
thermoplastic
biopolymers.ItItinvolves
biopolymers. involvesmelting
meltingthe thebiopolymer
biopolymerand and adding
adding nanofillers,
nanofillers, followed
followed byby mix-
mix-
ing and
ing andsolidification
solidificationtotoobtain
obtaina ahomogeneous
homogeneousnanocomposite
nanocomposite material
material (Figure
(Figure 5a)5a) [148].
[148].
Meltblending
Melt blendingisisrelatively
relativelysimple
simpleandandscalable,
scalable,making
making it it suitable
suitable forfor
thethe large-scale
large-scale pro-
pro-
ductionof
duction ofbiopolymeric
biopolymericnanocomposites.
nanocomposites.
Electrospinning: Electrospinning
Electrospinning: Electrospinning is aa particular
particular technique
techniqueused usedtotofabricate
fabricate nanofiber-
nano-
fiber-based nanocomposites. In this method, a polymer solution containing the nanofillers is
based nanocomposites. In this method, a polymer solution containing the nanofillers
electrostatically
is electrostaticallyspun spuninto
intoultrafine
ultrafinefibers.
fibers.The
Theresulting
resultingnanofibers
nanofibersform forma agreatly
greatlyporous
po-
structure
rous with with
structure a higher surface
a higher area, making
surface them suitable
area, making for applications
them suitable such assuch
for applications filtration
as
membranes.
filtration Electrospinning
membranes. allows for
Electrospinning precise
allows controlcontrol
for precise over the overnanofiber diameter
the nanofiber diam-and
distribution,
eter resultingresulting
and distribution, in tailoredin properties for waterfor
tailored properties treatment applications.
water treatment A schematic
applications. A
of the single
schematic electrospinning
of the process and
single electrospinning (b) the
process andcoaxial
(b) theelectrospinning
coaxial electrospinningprocessprocess
is shown
inshown
is Figurein 5b.Figure 5b.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 12 of 38
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of

Figure 5. Schematic of (a) melt mixing method [148]. Copyright 2020; reproduced with permiss
Figure 5. Schematic of (a) melt mixing method [148]. Copyright 2020; reproduced with permission
from Springer Nature Switzerland AG. and (b) single electrospinning and coaxial electrospinn
from Springer Nature Switzerland
process AG. and
[149]. Copyright (b)reproduced
2021; single electrospinning andfrom
with permission coaxial electrospinning
the authors.
process [149]. Copyright 2021; reproduced with permission from the authors.
Characterization techniques play a crucial role in understanding polymer nanoco
Characterization techniques play a crucial role in understanding polymer nanocom-
posites’ structure, morphology, thermal stability, and mechanical properties [150]. Amo
posites’ structure, morphology, thermal stability, and mechanical properties [150]. Among
the commonly used techniques, X-ray diffraction (XRD) provides valuable informat
the commonly used techniques, X-ray diffraction (XRD) provides valuable information
about polymer or polymer nanocomposite materials’ crystalline structure, phase comp
about polymer or polymer nanocomposite materials’ crystalline structure, phase composi-
sition, and degree of crystallinity. Furthermore, integrating spectroscopic techniques su
tion, and degree of crystallinity. Furthermore, integrating spectroscopic techniques such as
as Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy provides v
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy provides valuable
uable chemical information about the polymers’ and polymer nanocomposites’ functio
chemical information
groupsabout the polymers’
and molecular and polymer
interactions. nanocomposites’
Generally, functional
the Raman intensity groups
varies directly with
and molecular interactions. Generally, the Raman intensity varies directly with the
size of the crystalline region. The Raman spectrum was also used to evaluate size the chan
of the crystalline region. The Raman spectrum was also used to evaluate the change
in crystal structures of polymers [94]. Examples of FTIR, Raman, and XRD in spectra
crystal structures of polymers
shown [94].
in Figure 6. Examples of FTIR, Raman, and XRD spectra are shown
in Figure 6.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 13 of 38
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 41

Figure 6. Spectra with their background corrections and deconvolution for crystallinity study (a)
Figure
XRD, (b) Spectra with
6.ATR-FTIR, their
and (c) background
Raman corrections
[94]. Copyright 2022;and deconvolution
reproduced for crystallinity
with permission study
from Elsevier
(a) XRD, (b) ATR-FTIR,
B.V. All rights reserved. and (c) Raman [94]. Copyright 2022; reproduced with permission from
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Polymers 2023,15,
Polymers2023, 15,3421
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
15 of 38
41

Scanning
Scanningelectron
electronmicroscopy
microscopy (SEM)
(SEM) and transmission
and transmissionelectron microscopy
electron (TEM)
microscopy are
(TEM)
powerful imaging
are powerful techniques
imaging that allow
techniques that for thefor
allow visualization of the nanocomposite’s
the visualization surface
of the nanocomposite’s
and internal
surface and structure at different
internal structure atlength scales
different [129].
length SEM[129].
scales provides
SEMhigh-resolution images
provides high-resolu-
of the material’s surface, enabling the examination of particle distribution, agglomeration,
tion images of the material’s surface, enabling the examination of particle distribution,
and interfacial interactions
agglomeration, (as interactions
and interfacial shown in Figure 7). Conversely,
(as shown in Figure 7). TEM providesTEM
Conversely, an even
pro-
higher resolution, allowing for a detailed examination of individual nanoparticles
vides an even higher resolution, allowing for a detailed examination of individual nano- and their
dispersion within
particles and theirthe polymer within
dispersion matrix.the polymer matrix.

Figure7.
Figure 7. Micrographs
MicrographsofofAgNPs/rGO
AgNPs/rGO nanocomposite, (a,b)(a,b)
nanocomposite, FESEM, and (c,d)
FESEM, and TEM, and (e)and
(c,d) TEM, SAED
(e) pattern
SAED
image [129]. Copyright 2019; reproduced with permission from Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
pattern image [129]. Copyright 2019; reproduced with permission from Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Thermal analysis techniques, such as thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differ-
ential scanning
Thermal calorimetry
analysis (DSC),
techniques, provide
such insights into polymer
as thermogravimetric nanocomposites’
analysis ther-
(TGA) and differen-
malscanning
tial stability calorimetry
and behavior. TGAprovide
(DSC), measures the weight
insights loss of the
into polymer sample as a function
nanocomposites’ thermalof
stability and behavior.
temperature, providing TGA measures
information the its
about weight lossdegradation
thermal of the sampleandasdecomposition.
a function of
temperature,
DSC measures providing information
the heat flow about
associated withitsphase
thermal degradation
transitions, andpoints,
melting decomposition.
and glass
DSC measures
transition the heat flow
temperatures, associated
giving valuablewith
dataphase transitions,
on the melting points,
thermal properties and glass
and crystallinity
transition temperatures,(as
of the nanocomposite giving
shownvaluable data
in Figure 8).on the thermal properties and crystallinity of
the nanocomposite (as shown in Figure 8).
Advancements in characterization techniques have led to improved resolution, sensi-
tivity, and quantitative analysis capabilities. For example, advanced microscopy techniques
such as atomic force microscopy (AFM) and high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) have allowed
for more precise characterization of nanoscale structures and interfaces. X-ray photoelec-
tron spectroscopy (XPS), also known as electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA),
is another crucial characterization technique for analyzing polymer nanocomposites.
XPS analysis is particularly useful for studying the interaction between nanoparticles
and the polymer matrix in nanocomposites. It can provide insights into the chemical
bonding, charge transfer, and electronic structure at the nanoparticle–polymer interface.
This information is crucial for understanding the mechanisms of reinforcement, adhesion,
and dispersion of nanoparticles within the polymer matrix (Figure 9).
Polymers 2023, 15,
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of
16 of 38
41

Figure 8. (a) TGA curves for PMMA, (b) DTGA curves for nanocomposites in acetonitrile medium
Figure 8. (a) TGA curves for PMMA, (b) DTGA curves for nanocomposites in acetonitrile medium
and (c,d) in ethanol medium [151]. Copyright 2013; reproduced with permission from the authors.
and (c,d) in ethanol medium [151]. Copyright 2013; reproduced with permission from the authors.
Advancements
Combining XPS in characterization
analysis with other techniques have techniques,
characterization led to improved resolution,
such as sen-
SEM or TEM,
sitivity, and quantitative analysis capabilities. For example, advanced
allows for a comprehensive understanding of the nanocomposite’s structure, morphology, microscopy tech-
niques
and such as
surface atomic force
properties. The microscopy
information(AFM) and high-resolution
obtained from XPS analysis TEM (HRTEM) have al-
helps researchers
lowed for more precise characterization of nanoscale structures and interfaces.
optimize the synthesis parameters, modify the surface chemistry, and tailor the properties X-ray photoe-
lectron
of spectroscopy
polymer (XPS), also
nanocomposites forknown asapplications.
specific electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA),
is another crucial
However, characterization
it is technique
essential to exercise for analyzing
caution polymer
during polymer nanocomposites.synthesis
nanocomposites’
XPS analysis
and sample is particularly
preparation to ensure useful for studying
accurate the interaction
characterization. Factors between
such asnanoparticles
the choice of
and the polymer
solvents, processing matrix in nanocomposites.
conditions, It can provide
and sample handling insightsthe
can influence into the chemical
dispersion and
bonding, charge transfer, and electronic structure at the nanoparticle–polymer
aggregation of nanoparticles, affecting the final properties of the nanocomposite. Careful interface.
This information
control is crucial for
of these parameters understanding
is necessary the mechanisms
to obtain of reinforcement,
reliable and reproducible adhesion,
results during
and dispersion of nanoparticles within the polymer matrix (Figure 9).
characterization.
Combining XPS analysis with other characterization techniques, such as SEM or
TEM, allows for a comprehensive understanding of the nanocomposite’s structure, mor-
phology, and surface properties. The information obtained from XPS analysis helps re-
searchers optimize the synthesis parameters, modify the surface chemistry, and tailor the
properties of polymer nanocomposites for specific applications.
However, it is essential to exercise caution during polymer nanocomposites’ synthe-
sis and sample preparation to ensure accurate characterization. Factors such as the choice
of solvents, processing conditions, and sample handling can influence the dispersion and
aggregation of nanoparticles, affecting the final properties of the nanocomposite. Careful
control of these parameters is necessary to obtain reliable and reproducible results during
characterization.
Polymers 2023, 15,
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of
17 of 38
41

Figure 9. The XPS C1s spectra of GO, rGO, and rGO/PVAc-PDDA are shown in (a–c). The XPS O1s
Figure 9. The XPS C1s spectra of GO, rGO, and rGO/PVAc-PDDA are shown in (a–c). The XPS
spectra of GO, rGO, and rGO/PVAc-PDDA are shown in (d–f), while the XPS N1s spectra of GO,
O1s
rGO,spectra of GO, rGO, andare
and rGO/PVAc-PDDA rGO/PVAc-PDDA
presented in (g–i)are shown
[152]. in (d–f),2021;
Copyright while the XPS N1s
reproduced spectra
with of
permis-
GO, rGO, Elsevier
sion from and rGO/PVAc-PDDA are presented in (g–i) [152]. Copyright 2021; reproduced with
B.V. All rights reserved.
permission from Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
4.3. Applications in Water Treatment
4.3.
4.3.1.Applications
Adsorptionin Water Treatment
4.3.1.The
Adsorption
adsorption process is widely used in water treatment to remove contaminants
fromThewateradsorption process isthe
[153]. It involves widely used in water
attachment treatment
of pollutants to to
theremove
surfacecontaminants
of adsorbentfrom ma-
water
terial, [153].
leading It to
involves the attachment
their separation from theof pollutants
water. Theto the surface
adsorbent of adsorbent
material material,
can be granules,
leading
pellets, orto their
powder, separation fromathe
providing largewater. The area
surface adsorbent material
for effective can be granules,
adsorption. Severalpellets,
com-
or powder,
mercial providing
adsorbents areacommonly
large surfaceusedarea
in for
watereffective adsorption.
treatment applications Several commercial
[154]. Activated
adsorbents
carbon is one areofcommonly used inused
the most widely water treatmentdue
adsorbents applications
to its high[154]. Activated
adsorption carbon
capacity is
and
one of the most widely used adsorbents due to its high adsorption
versatility in removing many contaminants, including organic compounds, odors, and capacity and versatility
in removing many
taste-causing contaminants,
substances including
[155]. Other organicadsorbents
commercial compounds, odors,zeolites,
include and taste-causing
silica gel,
substances [155]. Other
and clay minerals, whichcommercial adsorbents
have specific include
adsorption zeolites,
properties forsilica gel, and
different clay minerals,
pollutants [154].
which
Despitehavetheirspecific adsorption
effectiveness, properties
commercial for different
adsorbents have somepollutants
drawbacks.[154].OneDespite their
of the main
effectiveness, commercial adsorbents have some drawbacks. One of the main
limitations is their high cost, specifically in large-scale applications. The regeneration of limitations is
their high cost, specifically in large-scale applications.
adsorbents can also be challenging and costly in some cases. The regeneration of adsorbents can
also be challenging and costly
Bionanocomposites in some cases.
as adsorbents have developed as a promising approach in recent
Bionanocomposites as adsorbents
years [119]. Bionanocomposites are hybrid have developed
materials thatas a promising
combine approach
biopolymers withinna-
re-
cent years [119]. Bionanocomposites are hybrid materials that combine
noparticles, offering enhanced adsorption properties [121]. These composites leverage the biopolymers with
nanoparticles, offering enhanced adsorption properties [121]. These composites leverage
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 17 of 38

the high surface area and functional properties of nanoparticles along with the biocompati-
bility and renewable nature of biopolymers. For example, chitosan–clay nanocomposites
have garnered significant attention due to their abundant availability, ease of production,
and effectiveness as adsorbents. This specific class of composites has demonstrated the
ability to quantitatively remove 99% of dyes, metals, and hazardous negatively charged
ions from water [156]. In addition, graphene oxide–potato starch composites have been
investigated for their ability to remove MB dye from industrial effluents using adsorption.
The composite exhibited a significant adsorption potential of approximately 90% [157].
Incorporating GO nanosheets with polysaccharide long chains in the composite created a
plywood-like structure with nanocages, enhancing the adsorption of organic dyes [158].
Two types of interactions contribute to the adsorption mechanism: (a) electrostatic interac-
tions between GO and cationic dyes, and (b) π–π stacking interactions between the aromatic
moiety of the dye and the delocalized π-electron system of GO.
Graphene oxide also interacts with heavy metal ions through surface complexation
for metal ion adsorption. Graphene oxide–chitosan composites have shown excellent sta-
bility and mechanical qualities for wastewater adsorption treatment. Chitosan, a cationic
biopolymer with combative amino (—NH2 ) and hydroxyl (—OH) groups, exhibits efficient
coagulative abilities for extracting pollutants from aqueous solutions. However, challenges
such as higher synthesis costs, pH maintenance, and inefficacy at low concentrations limit
the practical use of these materials. Most current research focuses on the adsorption prop-
erties of single heavy metal ions, and limited research is available on treating mixtures
of heavy metal ions in wastewater [159,160]. AP-g-3D GO composites have also demon-
strated efficient adsorption of various organic and inorganic pollutants from water [161].
Chitosan–poly(vinyl alcohol)–graphene oxide cross-linked sponge showed high adsorption
capacities for rhodamine B (RB) and Congo red (CR) dyes [162]. The 3D porous structures
of the biopolymer sponge and composite sponge enhanced the π–π interaction with the
aromatic rings of the dye molecules. The surface morphology of the biopolymer sponge
and 3D composite sponge is shown in Figure 10a–d, and the results of dye removal capacity
are shown in Figure 10e–h.
A recent study has revealed that combining a geopolymer with a biopolymer enhances
the adsorption efficiency of Ni(II) and Co(II) ions in wastewater. The synergistic effect of
lateritic geopolymer and Grewia biopolymer, derived from the Tiliaceae family, resulted in
the removal of approximately 80% of Ni(II) and Co(II) ions from the wastewater samples.
The laterite-clay-based geopolymer is rich in aluminum, iron, and silica oxides, while the
Grewia biopolymer consists of simple carbohydrates such as glucose, mannose, arabi-
nose, xylose, and glucuronic acid. The laterite-clay-based geopolymer exhibits a kaolinite
platelet structure, whereas the Grewia biopolymer possesses irregularly shaped open pores
(Figure 10i), likely contributing to its superior adsorption capabilities [163].
Graphene oxide/chitosan composites have been extensively studied for wastewater
adsorption treatment (Table 2). Chitosan, a cationic biopolymer with hydrophobic and
biodegradable properties, possesses efficient coagulative ability in extracting pollutants
from aqueous solutions. However, the practical use of these materials is limited due to
higher synthesis costs, pH maintenance requirements, and inefficiency at low concentra-
tions. The reported research studies provide valuable insights into the adsorption capacities
of different graphene oxide/chitosan composites for various pollutants.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 18 of 38
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 41

Figure 10. SEM images of biopolymer sponge (a,c) and composite sponge (b,d). UV–Vis spectra of
different dye solutions before and after adsorption: RB (e) and CR (f). Dye-adsorbed sponge adsorption
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 19 of 38

studies: adsorptive times (g) and dye concentrations (h) [162]. Copyright 2022; reproduced with
permission from the Chinese Materials Research Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. (i) SEM images of
laterite-clay-based geopolymer and Grewia biopolymer samples [163]. Copyright 2022; reproduced
with permission from the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All
rights reserved.

For instance, the GO-cl-potato starch bio-composite exhibited a remarkable adsorp-

tion capacity of 500 mg/g (90%) for MB dye [157]. Another composite, St-g-poly(AM-
co-GO)/hydroxyapatite, demonstrated 297 mg/g adsorption capacity for MG dye [164].
Furthermore, AP-g-3D GO composites showed adsorption capacities for various pollutants,
such as tert-butyl hydroquinone, o-nitrophenol, p-aminophenol, and others [161]. The 3D
GO-sodium alginate composite achieved an adsorption capacity of 833.3 mg/g for MB
dye [165]. In contrast, GO-calcium/alginate composite exhibited adsorption capacities
of 163.93 mg/g and 140.85 mg/g for MB dye at different temperatures [166]. Other com-
posites, such as dextrin-g-poly(m-phenylenediamine)-GO, St-g-3DGO, alginate-chitosan
hybrid adsorbent, PAA-chitosan and biochar composite, chitosan-GO-Hap composite, and
chitosan–GO composites, demonstrating their adsorption capacities for various pollu-
tants [167–172]. Additionally, the sodium alginate-CMC-GO-Gd3 O3 composite showed
adsorption capacities for Pb, Cr (III), and As (V) [173]. Notably, the chitosan-activated
carbon composite achieved a high removal efficiency of 98.7% for Cr (VI) ions [174].

Table 2. Summary of bio-based composite polymers as adsorbents for wastewater treatment.

Sl. No Adsorbent/Flocculent Pollutants Results (% or Qmax mg/g) Ref.

1. GO-cl-potato starch bio-composite MB 500 mg/g (90%) [157]
St-g-poly(AM-co-GO)/hydroxyapatite
2. MG 297 mg/g [164]
composite hydrogel
22.17 mg/g
tert-butyl hydroquinone
36.96 mg/g
o-nitrophenol
116.4 mg/g
p-aminophenol
16.10 mg/g
Hydroquinone
36.96 mg/g
p-nitrophenol
44.78 mg/g
Neutral red
Alizarin red S 39.92 mg/g
Pb (II) 84.76 mg/g
3. AP-g-3D GO composites Mn (II) 7.92 mg/g [161]
Cr2 O7 −2 13.6 mg/g
Cd (II) 17.64 mg/g
Cu (II) 30.56 mg/g
Nd (III) 25.25 mg/g
La (III) 12.48 mg/g
Y (III) 16.96 mg/g
Yb (III) 23.32 mg/g
Yr (III)
30.32 mg/g
4. 3D GO-sodium alginate MB 833.3 mg/g, at 303K [165]
163.93 mg/g, at 298 K
5. GO-calcium/alginate MB [166]
140.85 mg/g, at 328 K
Dextrin-g-poly(m-phenylenediamine)- Pb (II) 80 mg/g
6. [167]
GO MB 76.33 mg/g
Pb (II) 108.68 mg/g
Cu (II) 32.12 mg/g
7. St-g-3DGO Cd (II) 46.28 mg/g [168]
Yb (III) 41.76 mg/g
Nd (III) 38.168 mg/g
8. Alginate–chitosan hybrid adsorbent Pb (II) 96.8%, pH 5.0 [169]

9. PAA–chitosan and biochar-composite Cu (II), Zn (II), Ni (II), Pb (II), Cd 80%, pH 2–7 [170]
(II), Mn (II), Co (II), and Cr (VI)
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 20 of 38

Table 2. Cont.

Sl. No Adsorbent/Flocculent Pollutants Results (% or Qmax mg/g) Ref.

10. 43.06, 41.32, and 40.03 mg/g,

Chitosan–GO–Hap composite CR, acid red 1, and reactive red 2 pH 2 [171]

11. Chitosan–GO composites Reactive black 5 dye 277 mg/g at 25 ◦ C [172]

12. GO–Chitosan composite Cu (II), Pb (II), Cd (II) 60.7, 48.7, 32.3 mg/g, pH 1 [175]
13. Sodium alginate-CMC-GO-Gd3 O3 Pb (II), Cr (III) and As (V) 29.16, 158.73, and 36.77 mg/g [173]
14. Chitosan-activated carbon composite Cr (VI) 98.7% [174]
Chitosan–graphene-oxide-dip-coated MB 201 mg/g
15. [176]
electrospun nanofiber membrane CR 152 mg/g

4.3.2. Magnetic Adsorbents

Magnetic adsorbents are gaining popularity in water treatment due to their ability to
facilitate adsorption, minimize adsorbent loss, and simplify separation using an external
magnetic field. For instance, the magnetic nanocomposite/activated carbon preparation is
illustrated in Figure 11a,b. Compared to activated carbon alone, the resulting composite
materials exhibit improved adsorption capacity for dyes such as rhodamine B and methyl
orange. The maximum dye adsorption capacities were 182.48 mg/g for rhodamine B and
150.35 mg/g for methyl orange, as shown in Figure 11c–f. The adsorption mechanisms are
depicted in Figure 11g–h [177]. The synergistic interactions between the composite and
Fe3 O4 nanoparticles play a vital role in the dye adsorption strategies of the Fe3 O4 /activated
carbon composite. The utilization of biopolymer-based nanomagnetic adsorbents is on
the rise due to their exceptional adsorption capabilities and high surface area. Among the
magnetic materials, Fe3 O4 , Fe0 , γ-Fe2 O3 , and MFe2 O4 (M = Cu, Co, Ni and Zn) are well
known and commonly employed [178]. Fe3 O4 and γ-Fe2 O3 , in particular, are favored due to
their strong superparamagnetic properties, ease of production, and low toxicity. Figure 12A
illustrates a simple synthetic process for producing chitosan-based Fe3 O4 nanoparticle
composites [179].
The magnetism exhibited by these materials plays a crucial role in improving water
purification by influencing the physical properties of pollutants. Morphological changes
of chitosan-based magnetic nanoparticles are depicted in Figure 12B [179]. Combining
these magnetic materials with biopolymers can create composite materials that can be
separated magnetically, as shown in Figure 12C [180]. Regeneration tests have been con-
ducted for most magnetic adsorbents, as they can be easily recycled without significant
reduction in adsorption capabilities even after 5 to 10 cycles (Figure 12D) [180,181]. Conse-
quently, magnetic-polysaccharide-based adsorbents have garnered significant attention as
innovative agents for water purification, offering benefits such as biocompatibility, high
performance, low cost, easy separation, and renewability. Combining diverse functional-
ization and modification techniques enables more efficient removal of mixed pollutants.
Organic contaminants are primarily adsorbed through electrostatic interaction, hydrogen
bonding, π-π interaction, and ion exchange, while inorganic pollutants are eliminated via
electrostatic interaction, complexation, chelation, or ion exchange. The easy separation
and reusability of magnetic adsorbents, facilitated by magnetic control, make them highly
desirable. Iron oxide nanoparticles, particularly magnetite and maghemite, exhibit super-
paramagnetic strength and are extensively studied for water purification owing to their
large surface area and cost-effectiveness [182].
In contrast, the GO-Fe3 O4 -chitosan composites have demonstrated exceptional dye
removal capabilities, removing 98% (Qmax 249.25 mg/g) of dyes from water [183]. More-
over, the paramagnetic nature of the Fe3 O4 intercalated composite allows for effective
adsorption in the presence of a magnetic field [183,184]. Another composite, chitosan/poly
(methacrylic acid)/Fe3 O4 -GO, has great wastewater purification potential [185]. This com-
posite exhibited a high adsorption capacity with a Qmax of 2478 mg/g, efficiently removing
MB dye from water within 20 min.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 21 of 38
Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 41

Figure 11. (a) Synthesis of the composite magnetic–activated carbon composite, (b) removing of
RhB and MO from water, (c–f) showed UV-Vis spectra of RhB and MO adsorption using composite,
(g) adsorption mechanism of RhB and (h) adsorption mechanism of MO [177]. Copyright 2019;
reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421Polymers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 38 24 of

Figure 12. (A) Synthetic process of chitosan-based magnetic nanoparticles composite; (B) surfa
Figure 12. (A) Synthetic
morphologyprocess of chitosan-based
change: (a–d) the opticalmagnetic
microscopenanoparticles
images, (e–l)composite; (B) surface
SEM photographs, (a,e,i) chitos
morphology change: (a–d)(b,f,J)
particles, the optical
magneticmicroscope images, at
chitosan particles (e–l)
3.75SEM photographs,
kV, (c,g,k) magnetic(a,e,i) chitosan
chitosan particles at 6 k
particles, (b,f,J) magnetic chitosan
(d,h,l) iron particles
oxide-loaded at 3.75
chitosan kV, (c,g,k)
particles magnetic
at 9 kV. chitosan
Scale bar: particles
(a–d) 200 at 61 mm,
µm, (e–h) kV, and (i–l
µm. All particles
(d,h,l) iron oxide-loaded chitosanwere prepared
particles using
at 9 kV. 10 wt%
Scale bar: NaOH solution
(a–d) 200 [179]. 1
µm, (e–h) Copyright
mm, and2013;(i–l) reproduc
1 µm. All particleswith
werepermission
preparedfrom
usingthe10Royal
wt%Society
NaOHof Chemistry.
solution (C)Copyright
[179]. The magnetic separation
2013; reproduced process of MC
composites and ion solutions and (D) regeneration of ion-imprinted CS composites [180]. Copyrig
with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry. (C) The magnetic separation process of MCS
composites and ion solutions and (D) regeneration of ion-imprinted CS composites [180]. Copyright
2021; reproduced with permission from The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag
GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 23 of 38

Furthermore, nanocomposites based on guar gum and other biopolymers have emerged
as promising materials for removing metal ions and dyes from wastewater [186]. Chitosan
and composites have also proven highly effective in absorbing various metal ions and
organic dye molecules [180]. Additionally, a magnetic nanoparticle-starch-g-poly (vinyl
sulfate) nanocomposite exhibited remarkable adsorption capacities for cationic dyes, with
621 mg/g for MB and 567 mg/g for MG [187]. The sulfate groups on the surface of the
adsorbent served as active sites for the adsorption of cationic molecules.
Table 3 provides an overview of recently reported iron-oxide-biopolymer-based poly-
mer nanocomposites investigated for water purification applications. These nanocom-
posites represent a significant advancement in the field, highlighting their potential for
addressing water pollution challenges.

Table 3. Iron-oxide-biopolymer-based polymer nanocomposites are used for water purification.

Sl. No Adsorbent/Flocculent Pollutant Results (% or Qmax mg/g) Ref.

MB 621 mg/g
1. Fe3 O4 -Starch-g-PVA MG [187]
567 mg/g
2. Starch-coated Fe3 O4 Nanoparticles Textile dye Optilan Blue 74.05 mg/g [188]
MB 167.2 mg/g
3. GO–Fe3 O4 hybrid composite [189]
Natural red 171.3 mg/g
4. Chitosan/Fe–hydroxyapatite beads MB 1324 mg/g [190]
5. Fe3 O4 /β-cyclodextrin/GO MG 740.7 mg/g [191]
Cu 99.9%
6. Magnetic chitosan nano-adsorbent Cd 95.0% [192]
Zn 81.7%

7. Magnetic mesoporous silica–chitosan Hg (II) 437.8 mg/g [193]

composite

8. Carboxymethyl-chitosan-based Ciprofloxacin 527.9 mg/g [194]

magnetic
Anionic-polyacrylamide-modified
9. MB 1044.1 [195]
chitosan magnetic composite
Manganese ferrite nanoparticles
10. Pb (II) 34–64 mg/g [196]
covered with carboxymethyl starch
11. Sodium alginate/CMC/Fe3 O4 Mn (II), Pb (II), Ni (II) 71.83, 89.49, 105.93 mg/g [197]
12. β-cyclodextrin-Fe3 O4 /MWCNT Ni (II) 103 mg/g [198]
13. Fe3 O4 /wood biochar Acid orange and Cr (VI) 110.27, 80.96 mg/g [199]
14. GO/Fe3 O4 /glucose U (VI) 390.70 mg/g [200]
15. Cellulose/polyethyleneimine-Fe3 O4 Hg (II) 247.51 mg/g [201]

16. Chitosan activated carbon-Fe3 O4 Cr (VI) 99.8% [174]

composites
17. Magnetic chitosan−GO nanocomposites MB 95.31 mg/g, pH 5.3, 303K [202]
18. GO-Fe3 O4 -chitosan composites MB 98.0% [183]
Chitosan/poly (methacrylic
19. MB 2478 mg/g [185]
acid)/Fe3 O4 -GO composite
20. Lignin-grafted magnetic nanocomposite Fluoroquinolone 108.2 mg/g [203]
21. Lignin magnetic composites Malachite green 456.62 mg/g [204]

22. Cellulose nanofiber–GO magnetic Methylene blue 83.53% [205]

composite
23. Magnetic-cellulose-based ionic liquid Congo red and methyl blue 1299.3 and 1068.1 mg/g [206]
24. Fe3 O4 –chitosan composite Methyl orange 638.6 mg/g [207]
25. Dragon fruit biopolymer–CoFe2 O4 Ni (II) 88% [208]
26. Inulin–Fe3 O4 nanocomposite Co (II), Cu (II), Hg (II) 152.5, 167.7, 198.0 mg/g [209]
27. Fe3O4–chitosan–PAMm composite Food dye 359.71 mg/g [210]
 22. Cellulose nanofiber–GO magnetic composite Methylene blue 83.53% [205]
23. Magnetic-cellulose-based ionic liquid Congo red and methyl blue 1299.3 and 1068.1 mg/g [206]
24. Fe3O4–chitosan composite Methyl orange 638.6 mg/g [207]
Polymers 15, 3421 fruit biopolymer–CoFe2O4
25. 2023,Dragon Ni (II) 88% [208]24 of 38
26. Inulin–Fe3O4 nanocomposite Co (II), Cu (II), Hg (II) 152.5, 167.7, 198.0 mg/g [209]
27. Fe3O4–chitosan–PAMm composite Food dye 359.71 mg/g [210]
However, even with the successful adsorption of contaminants, there is a concern
However,
that some residual even with themay
pollutants successful
remain, adsorption
potentially of leading
contaminants, there ispollution.
to secondary a concernTo
that some residual pollutants may remain, potentially leading to secondary
address this issue, developing techniques for completely degrading organic contaminants pollution. To
address this issue, developing techniques for completely degrading organic
in water has gained significant attention (catalytic degradation). On the other hand, the contaminants
in water has
membrane gainedapproach
filtration significantoffers
attention (catalytic
promising degradation).
possibilities On the fine
to separate other hand, the
particles.
membrane filtration approach offers promising possibilities to separate fine particles.
5. Membrane Filtration
5. Membrane Filtration
Membrane filtration techniques are widely used in water treatment to remove con-
Membrane
taminants filtration
and particles techniques
[211]. Two main are types
widely ofused in waterare
membranes treatment
used into remove
water con-
treatment:
taminants and particles [211]. Two main types of membranes
symmetric (homogeneous) and asymmetric (heterogeneous) membranes. These mem- are used in water treatment:
symmetric
branes differ (homogeneous)
in terms of poreand asymmetric
homogeneity and(heterogeneous)
structure [212,213]. membranes.
Symmetric These mem-
membranes
branes differ in terms of pore homogeneity and structure [212,213].
comprise a single polymer material, resulting in uniform pore sizes throughout the Symmetric mem-
mem-
brane. On the other hand, asymmetric membranes consist of two distinct layers: athe
branes comprise a single polymer material, resulting in uniform pore sizes throughout thin
membrane. On the other hand, asymmetric membranes consist of two
outer layer that controls selectivity and a thicker, porous inner layer that provides sup- distinct layers: a
thin[214].
port outerThe
layer that controls
asymmetric selectivityoffer
membranes andhigher
a thicker,
waterporous innersymmetric
flux than layer thatmembranes
provides
support [214]. The asymmetric membranes offer higher water flux than symmetric mem-
due to their thinner structure, making them suitable for large-scale water purification appli-
branes due to their thinner structure, making them suitable for large-scale water purifica-
cations [215]. In addition to symmetric and asymmetric membranes, composite membranes
tion applications [215]. In addition to symmetric and asymmetric membranes, composite
have gained popularity recently. These membranes have a selective layer composed of
membranes have gained popularity recently. These membranes have a selective layer
various inorganic metal oxides. Composite membranes outperform symmetric membranes
composed of various inorganic metal oxides. Composite membranes outperform symmet-
and even asymmetric membranes in terms of performance. This is mainly attributed to
ric membranes and even asymmetric membranes in terms of performance. This is mainly
the thin selective layer in composite membranes, which enhances water flux and improves
attributed to the thin selective layer in composite membranes, which enhances water flux
overall membrane efficiency. For example, block copolymers (BCPs) offer great potential
and improves overall membrane efficiency. For example, block copolymers (BCPs) offer
for the fabrication of heterogeneous membranes [216]. By manipulating the self-assembled
great potential for the fabrication of heterogeneous membranes [216]. By manipulating
morphologies of BCP membranes, such as their cylindrical and lamellar structures, one-
the self-assembled morphologies of BCP membranes, such as their cylindrical and lamel-
and two-dimensional nanofluidic channels can be readily obtained [217]. The use of macro-
lar structures, one- and two-dimensional nanofluidic channels can be readily obtained
molecular building blocks in BCPs provides a versatile, engineered, and scalable material
[217]. The use of macromolecular building blocks in BCPs provides a versatile, engi-
system
neered,with
andwell-defined
scalable material pores. In comparison
system to small
with well-defined molecules,
pores. end-tethered
In comparison to small polymer
mol-
brushes offer superiorpolymer
ecules, end-tethered controlbrushes
over ionic
offertransport
superior by increasing
control the spatial
over ionic transport density
by in- of
functional groups
creasing the spatialondensity
the channel walls, extending
of functional groups ontheir distribution
the channel walls,from two dimensions
extending their dis-
totribution
three dimensions [217]. A schematic of asymmetric heteraogenious
from two dimensions to three dimensions [217]. A schematic of asymmetric membrane is shown
het-
ineraogenious
Figure 13. membrane is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Showcases an engineered asymmetric heterogeneous membrane design. The top layer
consists of a pH-responsive porous block copolymer (BCP) membrane (a), while the bottom layer
is a pH-responsive porous polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane with conical nanochannels.
SEM images of the base and tip of the conical nanochannels are displayed in (b,c), respectively,
demonstrating a pore density of 107 cm–2 . The AFM image in (d) depicts the BCP membrane atop the
PET membrane, with a corresponding histogram showcasing the pore size distribution (pore density:
1011 cm–2 ) and a Gaussian fit (e). The scale bars in all images represent 100 nm [215]. Copyright 2015;
reproduced with permission from the American Chemical Society.
 consists of a pH-responsive porous block copolymer (BCP) membrane (a), while the bottom layer is
a pH-responsive porous polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane with conical nanochannels.
SEM images of the base and tip of the conical nanochannels are displayed in (b,c), respectively,
demonstrating a pore density of 107 cm–2. The AFM image in (d) depicts the BCP membrane atop
the PET membrane, with a corresponding histogram showcasing the pore size distribution (pore
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 25 of
density: 1011 cm–2) and a Gaussian fit (e). The scale bars in all images represent 100 nm [215]. 38
Cop-
yright 2015; reproduced with permission from the American Chemical Society.

OnOnthetheother
otherhand,
hand,membrane
membranefiltration
filtrationtechniques,
techniques,such suchas asmicrofiltration,
microfiltration,nanofil-
nanofil-
tration, and ultrafiltration, are commonly employed in water treatment
tration, and ultrafiltration, are commonly employed in water treatment processes [218]. processes [218].
The critical distinction among these techniques lies in the pore size
The critical distinction among these techniques lies in the pore size of the membranes of the membranes used
[219]. Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis remove
used [219]. Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis remove macroparticles, macroparticles, micro-
particles, and and
microparticles, macromolecules,
macromolecules, including inorganic
including particles,
inorganic organic
particles, colloids,
organic andand
colloids, dis-
solved natural
dissolved naturalsubstances
substances [220]. Nanofiltration,
[220]. Nanofiltration, which
which falls between
falls between ultrafiltration
ultrafiltrationandandre-
verses osmosis, operates with a general membrane pore size ranging
reverses osmosis, operates with a general membrane pore size ranging from 0.5–0.2 nm and from 0.5–0.2 nm and
3–8nm
3–8 nm[221].
[221].Additionally,
Additionally,looseloosenanofiltration
nanofiltration(NF) (NF)shows
showsgreat
greatpromise
promisefor forselectively
selectively
separating dyes and salts, making it a potential candidate for the
separating dyes and salts, making it a potential candidate for the efficient recovery and efficient recovery and
cyclicutilization
cyclic utilizationofofhigh-value-added
high-value-addedcomponents
components[222,223].
[222,223].AAschematic
schematicofofmembrane
membrane
filtrationisisshown
filtration shownininFigure
Figure14. 14.Membranes
Membranesfor formicrofiltration
microfiltrationand andultrafiltration
ultrafiltrationcan canbebe
manufacturedfrom
manufactured fromboth
bothceramic
ceramic and
and polymer
polymer materials
materials [224,225].
[224,225]. Ceramic
Ceramic materials
materials of-
offer
fer excellent
excellent chemical
chemical stability,
stability, mechanical
mechanical strength,
strength, ease ofease of cleaning,
cleaning, and long-term
and long-term du-
durability.
rability. However, their brittleness makes large-scale production
However, their brittleness makes large-scale production expensive, which is three times expensive, which is three
times higher
higher than common
than common polymers polymers and challenging.
and challenging. In contrast,
In contrast, polymeric polymeric
membranesmembranes
have
have dominated
dominated the market
the market for water for purification
water purification for a considerable
for a considerable periodperiod
due todue toeasy
their their
easy processing
processing and low and low cost.
cost.

Figure 14. A schematic of membrane filtration process.

Figure 14. A schematic of membrane filtration process.
Oneviable
One viablesolution
solutionis is
thethe development
development of of ceramic–polymer
ceramic–polymer composite
composite membranes
membranes to
to bridge
bridge the significant
the significant gap gap
betweenbetween ceramic
ceramic andand polymeric
polymeric membranes.
membranes. TheseThese compo-
composite
site membranes
membranes are engineered
are engineered to combine
to combine the the advantages
advantages of of both
both ceramicand
ceramic andpolymeric
polymeric
materials, resulting in improved membrane performance, extended
materials, resulting in improved membrane performance, extended lifespan, and lifespan, andaddi-
addi-
tionalfunctionalities
tional functionalities [225]. Most
Mostmembranes
membranesused usedininwater
water treatment,
treatment, suchsuchas cellulose ace-
as cellulose
tate, polyethylene,
acetate, polyethylene,polytetrafluoroethylene,
polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene
polypropylene, fluoride,fluoride,
polyvinylidene polyeth-
ersulfone, polyacrylonitrile,
polyethersulfone, polysulfone,
polyacrylonitrile, or other polymers,
polysulfone, are made from
or other polymers, polymeric
are made frommateri-
poly-
als due
meric to their affordability,
materials due to theirgood mechanical
affordability, strength,
good and operational
mechanical strength,flexibility [226]. Pol-
and operational
flexibility
yethylene[226].
glycolPolyethylene
(PEG) and aluminaglycol (PEG)
(Al2O3)and alumina (Al
is commonly 2 O3 ) is commonly
employed to enhance employed to
the selectivity
enhance the selectivity and hydrophilicity of membranes as well as
and hydrophilicity of membranes as well as to act as a pore-forming agent [227]. to act as a pore-forming
agent [227].
However, a significant drawback of membrane filtration is fouling, which refers to
accumulating unwanted substances on the surface or within the membrane pores. This
leads to reduced filtration efficiency and increased energy consumption [228]. Fouling can
occur due to the deposition of particulate matter, scaling, biofilm formation, or adsorption
of organic compounds onto the membrane surface [229]. It poses a significant challenge in
maintaining the long-term performance and lifespan of the membranes. The membrane’s
floor morphology and chemistry influence the fouling of polymer membranes. Membrane
sheets of polymers with suitable porosity, chemical and mechanical stability, and high
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 26 of 38

hydrophobicity are typically employed. Natural foulants tend to adsorb onto the membrane
surface due to their lyophilic (water attraction) nature [218].
Biopolymer nanocomposites have shown promising results in mitigating fouling in
membrane filtration processes [221,229–231]. For example, incorporating nanocellulose,
chitosan nanoparticles, or graphene oxide nanosheets into biopolymer membranes has
improved antifouling properties by reducing the adhesion of foulants and enhancing water
permeability [232–234]. The recent reports on biopolymer-based graphene oxide nanocom-
posites aim to explore the synergistic features and diverse applications of these materials,
with a particular focus on identifying optimal combinations of biopolymers and carbon
nanomaterials for various industrial applications [235–237]. The review article thoroughly
explores the fabrication, application, and bonding mechanisms of biodegradable biopoly-
mers, such as poly(lactic acid), cellulose, starch, chitosan, alginates, polyamides, and other
biodegradable materials, with various forms of graphene, including graphene oxide, re-
duced graphene oxide, graphene nanoplatelets, etc. [238]. Furthermore, an overview of
recent studies is presented, focusing on carbon nanotubes modified with natural poly-
mers (biopolymers) like chitosan, cellulose, and cyclodextrin for water treatment appli-
cations. The discussion extends to the cost-effectiveness and economic value of using
polymeric hybrid materials based on carbon nanotubes as nano-sorbents for water purifi-
cation [239]. Notably, these nanocomposite membranes have demonstrated higher flux,
improved fouling resistance, and prolonged operational lifetime compared to traditional
membranes [240–242]. Surface modification techniques, such as grafting or chemical mod-
ification, can introduce functional groups that repel foulants or enhance the interaction
with specific contaminants, improving separation efficiency and reducing fouling propen-
sity [240]. For example, a PVA–silica nanofiber membrane modified with thiol exhibited
superior Cu(II) ion adsorption compared to a PVA nanofiber membrane. The removal
of toxic metal ions occurred through electrostatic or chelation mechanisms. PVA/PEI
membranes have been utilized for the rejection of Cu(II), Cd(II), Pb(II), and Hg(II) metal
ions from wastewater, demonstrating selectivity among different metal ions [243,244]. Sim-
ilarly, a membrane prepared from PVA and poly (vinyl imidazole) exhibited high rejection
ratios, particularly for Hg(II) ions at pH 2.5 [245]. A recent notable study demonstrated
a facile surface modification of ultrafiltration (UF) membranes using polydopamine with
immobilized nanosilver. The process involved initiating dopamine polymerization on the
UF membrane and in situ immobilization of silver and dopamine through a redox reaction,
resulting in the formation of a loose separating layer on the membrane’s surface. This
loose layer exhibited enhanced fractionation capability compared to a compact layer of
polydopamine formed without in situ immobilization of nanosilver and dopamine. The
modified membrane showed a remarkable rejection rate of 99.9% for Eriochrome Black T
(EBT) and an exceptionally high permeation flux of 39.2 LMH [221]. Table 4 summarizes
recent research on membrane filtering employing bio nanocomposites materials.
The development of membrane filtration employing the nanocomposite mentioned
above holds great promise for effective water treatment. CNTs/chitosan nanocomposites,
lignin–cellulose citrate, polylactic acid-polybutylene succinate-polypropylene carbonate-
polyhydroxybutyrate (PLA-PBS-PPC-PHB), poly(urethane)/keratin biofiber, PVA and poly
(vinyl imidazole), polyvinyl alcohol/SiO2 composites, nanoclay montmorillonite–chitosan.
The utilization of CNTs/chitosan nanocomposites demonstrates a high adsorption capacity
for metal ions such as Cu(II), Ni(II), Pb(II), Cd(II), and Co(II), hence contributing to the
efficient removal of heavy metal pollutants from water [246]. CNTs’ high surface area
provides numerous active sites for metal ion adsorption, while chitosan’s amino groups
(–NH2 ) provide binding sites for coordination and chelation. Combining carbon nanotubes
and chitosan has a synergistic effect, increasing adsorption efficiency. The nanocomposites’
pH dependency allows for adjustment of adsorption capacity, while their selectivity allows
for targeted removal of specific metal ions. Lignin–cellulose-citrate-based membranes
have high selectivity for anions and cations, making them suitable for ion separation
and purification operations [230]. The functional groups in lignin and cellulose citrate
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 27 of 38

are principally responsible for the membranes’ selectivity. Lignin has phenolic hydroxyl
(–OH) and carboxyl (–COOH) groups, whereas cellulose citrate has carboxylate (–COO− )
groups. Electrostatic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and complexation are all ways
these functional groups interact with ions. The carboxylate groups in cellulose citrate
can effectively connect with positively charged ions via ion exchange reactions in anions.
The phenolic hydroxyl groups in lignin can also contribute to anion binding through
hydrogen bonding and complexation. This combination of functional groups improves the
membrane’s selectivity for anions, allowing for efficient separation and removal.

Table 4. Recent reports of water purification using membrane filtration.

Optimum
Sl No Membrane Pollutants Rejection (%) Pressure (bar) pH Ref.

1. CNTs/chitosan biopolymer Cu(II), Ni(II), Pb (II), 71–92.2 22 3.0

nanocomposite Cd(II), and Co(II) ions. [246]

2. Anions 12–42 - >7.0

Lignin–cellulose citrate Cations 27–54 [230]

Polylactic acid-polybutylene
3. succinate-polypropylene Oil–grease 98.6 1 -
TDS 89.15 4 [150]
carbonate-
polyhydroxybutyrate.
Poly (urethane)/keratin 38.0
4. Cr (VI) 11.0 0.7 >8–<4 [247]
biofiber
PVA and poly
5. Hg (II) 99.4 3.0 2.5 [245]
(vinylimidazole)

6. Polyvinyl alcohol/SiO2 Cu (II) 93.1 - 5–6 [248]

composites
Nanoclay
7. COD 65.7 - - [249]
montmorillonite-Chitosan
Chitosan-linked activated Polyaromatic
8. 99.3 - 6.0 [250]
carbon–nano-bentonite hydrocarbons
TiO2 loaded fly ash chitosan Congo red 98.0
9. 55.7 - 1.8 [251]
composite Methylene blue
Polydopamine-
10. functionalized polysulfone Eriochrome 99.9 1–3 - [221]
Black T
membrane

The oil–grease and total dissolved solids (TDS) removal characteristics of the multi-
component polymer mix PLA-PBS-PPC-PHB make it appropriate for treating oily wastew-
ater [150]. Poly(urethane)/keratin biofiber membranes remove Cr(VI) ions well, indicating
their potential for treating chromium-contaminated water [247]. PVA and poly (vinyl
imidazole) membranes are effective for mercury removal from water sources due to their
high Hg(II) removal effectiveness [245]. The high performance of these membranes in
mercury removal can be attributed to the affinity of imidazole groups towards metal ions,
including Hg(II). Imidazole groups possess lone pair electrons on the nitrogen atom, which
can form coordination bonds with metal ions through complexation. These interactions
allow the membrane to capture and retain mercury ions effectively. Furthermore, the
hydroxyl groups in PVA can also contribute to removing mercury ions through hydrogen
bonding and complexation. The hydroxyl groups can form strong interactions with Hg(II),
promoting its adsorption and retention on the membrane surface. Polyvinyl alcohol/SiO2
composites exhibit good Cu(II) adsorption capacity, contributing to improved water purifi-
cation [248]. It is due to the synergistic effect between PVA and SiO2 , resulting from their
respective chemical properties. Combining the hydroxyl groups in PVA and the adsorption
sites provided by SiO2 nanoparticles creates a synergistic effect, enhancing the overall
adsorption capacity for Cu(II) ions. The hydroxyl groups of PVA and the silanol groups
of SiO2 work cooperatively to capture and bind Cu(II) ions, increasing the efficiency of
water purification processes. Integrating nanoclay montmorillonite-chitosan in membranes
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 28 of 38

results in excellent COD removal, demonstrating its potential for treating organic contami-
nants in wastewater [249]. Chitosan-linked activated carbon–nano-bentonite membranes
have a high polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) removal efficiency, making them appropriate
for removing organic pollutants. TiO2 -loaded fly ash chitosan composite membranes show
good dye removal efficacy for Congo red and Methylene blue, suggesting a potential
solution for dye-contaminated water [251]. The adsorption process of chitosan success-
fully catches and maintains the dye molecules on the membrane surface via electrostatic
interactions and hydrogen bonding. The synergistic action of TiO2 and chitosan results in
increased water filtration performance for dye-contaminated water.

6. Limitation, Challenges, and Opportunities

Biopolymer-based nanocomposites, incorporating adsorbents like graphene oxide,
carbon nanotubes, and nanoclays, offer significant potential for water treatment applica-
tions [232–234]. However, certain challenges need to be addressed to fully realize their
benefits. These include scalability and cost-effectiveness in large-scale production, im-
proved nanocomposite stability and reusability for long-term performance, and efficient
nanofiller dispersion within the biopolymer matrix [252]. Environmental sustainability
requires careful consideration of nanocomposite regeneration and used adsorbent disposal.
Despite these obstacles, opportunities exist for innovation through research and develop-
ment, leading to advanced nanocomposite materials and enhanced synthesis methods [238].
Combining magnetic adsorbents [253] and membrane filtration technology can en-
hance adsorption and separation efficiency, leading to more effective water treatment
solutions [254]. Furthermore, integrating multifunctional and responsive biopolymer-
based nanocomposites with current water treatment technologies opens up possibilities for
energy-efficient and on-demand water purification systems [252].
Collaboration among researchers and industry stakeholders is crucial for advancing
these solutions, ensuring long-term and affordable water treatment. Research on comple-
mentary methods and real industrial effluent testing will further enhance water purification
effectiveness.

7. Conclusions
Biopolymer-based nanocomposites with adsorbents such as graphene oxide, carbon
nanotubes, and nanoclays have much potential for water treatment applications. These
nanocomposites offer better adsorption capacities, improved membrane performance,
and efficient pollutant removal from water sources. Using nanomaterials and magnetic
adsorbents in conjunction with membrane filtration methods yields promising results
in improving efficiency and selectivity in water purification operations. However, there
are obstacles to solve, such as scalability, cost-effectiveness, stability, and regeneration
of nanocomposites and disposal of used adsorbents. Nonetheless, these issues can be
overcome with additional research and innovation, creating sustainable and effective water
treatment systems. Integrating biopolymer-based nanocomposites with sophisticated water
treatment technologies like responsive materials and hybrid systems offers new possibilities
for on-demand and energy-efficient water purification systems. Researchers can promote
the growth of biopolymer-based nanocomposites and contribute to the development of
complete and sustainable water treatment techniques by collaborating across disciplines
and involving industry partners.

Author Contributions: H.K.: conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

C.-W.K.: project administration, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The Basic Science Research Program supported this research through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2019R1I1A3A02059471) and
was supported under the framework of an international cooperation program managed by the NRF
of Korea (NRF-2020K2A9A2A08000181).
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 29 of 38

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or
personal relationship that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Werber, J.R.; Osuji, C.O.; Elimelech, M. Materials for next-generation desalination and water purification membranes. Nat. Rev.
Mater. 2016, 1, 16018. [CrossRef]
2. Coccia, M.; Bontempi, E. New trajectories of technologies for the removal of pollutants and emerging contaminants in the
environment. Environ. Res. 2023, 229, 115938. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Kolya, H.; Tripathy, T. Grafted polysaccharides based on acrylamide and N,N-dimethylacrylamide: Preparation and investigation
of their flocculation performances. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 127, 2786–2795. [CrossRef]
4. Pal, S.; Mal, D.; Singh, R.P. Cationic starch: An effective flocculating agent. Carbohydr. Polym. 2005, 59, 417–423. [CrossRef]
5. Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Jin, J.; Tian, Z.; Yang, W.; Graham, N.J.D.; Yang, Z. Enhanced removal of trace pesticides and alleviation
of membrane fouling using hydrophobic-modified inorganic-organic hybrid flocculants in the flocculation-sedimentation-
ultrafiltration process for surface water treatment. Water Res. 2023, 229, 119447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Raeesh, M.; Devi, T.T.; Hirom, K. Recent Developments on Application of Different Turbulence and Multiphase Models in
Sedimentation Tank Modeling—A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 234, 5. [CrossRef]
7. Schelling, M.; Patil, K.; Boving, T.B. Sustainable Water Treatment with Induced Bank Filtration. Water 2023, 15, 361. [CrossRef]
8. Qian, Y.; Shi, Y.; Guo, J.; Chen, Y.; Hanigan, D.; An, D. Molecular characterization of disinfection byproduct precursors in filter
backwash water from 10 drinking water treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159027. [CrossRef]
9. Ghorai, S.; Sarkar, A.; Raoufi, M.; Panda, A.B.; Schönherr, H.; Pal, S. Enhanced Removal of Methylene Blue and Methyl Violet
Dyes from Aqueous Solution Using a Nanocomposite of Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Grafted Xanthan Gum and Incorporated
Nanosilica. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 4766–4777. [CrossRef]
10. Maraddi, A.; Halakarni, M.; Manohara Halanur, M.; Nataraj, S.K. Fe-MOF induced biopolymer-based sustainable self-cleaning
membranes for effective selective separation and wastewater treatment. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2023, 35, e00537. [CrossRef]
11. Lee, Y.; Park, Y.-J.; Lee, J.; Bae, T.-H. Recent advances and emerging applications of membrane contactors. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 461, 141948.
[CrossRef]
12. Mirza, A.; King, A.; Troakes, C.; Exley, C. Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer’s disease. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2017,
40, 30–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Tiehm, A.; Herwig, V.; Neis, U. Particle size analysis for improved sedimentation and filtration in waste water treatment. Water
Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 99–106. [CrossRef]
14. Verma, S.; Daverey, A.; Sharma, A. Slow sand filtration for water and wastewater treatment—A review. Environ. Technol. Rev.
2017, 6, 47–58. [CrossRef]
15. Lin, H.; Ye, C.; Chen, S.; Zhang, S.; Yu, X. Viable but non-culturable E. coli induced by low level chlorination have higher
persistence to antibiotics than their culturable counterparts. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 242–249. [CrossRef]
16. Munter, R. Advanced oxidation processes–current status and prospects. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Chem. 2001, 50, 59–80. [CrossRef]
17. Nabi, M.; Liang, H.; Cheng, L.; Yang, W.; Gao, D. A comprehensive review on the use of conductive materials to improve
anaerobic digestion: Focusing on landfill leachate treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 309, 114540. [CrossRef]
18. Ping, Q.; Cohen, B.; Dosoretz, C.; He, Z. Long-term investigation of fouling of cation and anion exchange membranes in microbial
desalination cells. Desalination 2013, 325, 48–55. [CrossRef]
19. Chai, W.S.; Cheun, J.Y.; Kumar, P.S.; Mubashir, M.; Majeed, Z.; Banat, F.; Ho, S.-H.; Show, P.L. A review on conventional and novel
materials towards heavy metal adsorption in wastewater treatment application. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126589. [CrossRef]
20. Dharupaneedi, S.P.; Nataraj, S.K.; Nadagouda, M.; Reddy, K.R.; Shukla, S.S.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Membrane-based separation of
potential emerging pollutants. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 210, 850–866. [CrossRef]
21. Thurakkal, L.; Porel, M. Removal of cationic and anionic dyes from waste water in five seconds by a facile synthesis of a covalent
organic polymer. Eur. Polym. J. 2023, 194, 112169. [CrossRef]
22. Procopio, E.Q.; Fukushima, T.; Barea, E.; Navarro, J.A.R.; Horike, S.; Kitagawa, S. A Soft Copper(II) Porous Coordination Polymer
with Unprecedented Aqua Bridge and Selective Adsorption Properties. Chem. A Eur. J. 2012, 18, 13117–13125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Huo, M.-X.; Jin, Y.-L.; Sun, Z.-F.; Ren, F.; Pei, L.; Ren, P.-G. Facile synthesis of chitosan-based acid-resistant composite films for
efficient selective adsorption properties towards anionic dyes. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 254, 117473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Bhuyan, C.; Konwar, A.; Bora, P.; Rajguru, P.; Hazarika, S. Cellulose nanofiber-poly(ethylene terephthalate) nanocomposite
membrane from waste materials for treatment of petroleum industry wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 442, 129955. [CrossRef]
25. Kolya, H.; Kang, C.-W. Bio-Based Polymeric Flocculants and Adsorbents for Wastewater Treatment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9844.
[CrossRef]
26. Stephen, D.P.; Palanisamy, S.B. Advances in biopolymer composites and biomaterials for the removal of emerging contaminants.
Phys. Sci. Rev. 2021, 000010151520210056. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 30 of 38

27. Arif, Z.U.; Khalid, M.Y.; Sheikh, M.F.; Zolfagharian, A.; Bodaghi, M. Biopolymeric sustainable materials and their emerging
applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108159. [CrossRef]
28. Joshi, P.; Mehta, S.; Pandey, A.; Khatri, O.P. Inorganic Analogues of Graphene and Their Nanocomposites for Wastewater Treatment
BT—Two-Dimensional Materials for Environmental Applications; Kumar, N., Gusain, R., Sinha Ray, S., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 75–102. ISBN 978-3-031-28756-5.
29. Subash, A.; Naebe, M.; Wang, X.; Kandasubramanian, B. Biopolymer—A sustainable and efficacious material system for effluent
removal. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 443, 130168. [CrossRef]
30. Nawaz, S.; Tabassum, A.; Muslim, S.; Nasreen, T.; Baradoke, A.; Kim, T.H.; Boczkaj, G.; Jesionowski, T.; Bilal, M. Effective
assessment of biopolymer-based multifunctional sorbents for the remediation of environmentally hazardous contaminants from
aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 2023, 329, 138552. [CrossRef]
31. Saha, A.; Bardhan, S.; Roy, S.; Dutta, S.; Das, S. Biopolymeric Hydrogels: A New Era in Combating Heavy Metal Pollution in Industrial
Wastewater BT—Membranes for Water Treatment and Remediation; Nadda, A.K., Banerjee, P., Sharma, S., Nguyen-Tri, P., Eds.;
Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; pp. 209–226. ISBN 978-981-19-9176-9.
32. Haasler, S.; Christensen, M.L.; Reitzel, K. Synthetic and biopolymers for lake restoration—An evaluation of flocculation mechanism
and dewatering performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 331, 117199. [CrossRef]
33. Rocha-Pimienta, J.; Navajas-Preciado, B.; Barraso-Gil, C.; Martillanes, S.; Delgado-Adámez, J. Optimization of the Extraction
of Chitosan and Fish Gelatin from Fishery Waste and Their Antimicrobial Potential as Active Biopolymers. Gels 2023, 9, 254.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Romero-Montero, A.; Valencia-Bermúdez, J.L.; Rosas-Meléndez, S.A.; Núñez-Tapia, I.; Piña-Barba, M.C.; Leyva-Gómez, G.; Del
Prado-Audelo, M.L. Biopolymeric Fibrous Aerogels: The Sustainable Alternative for Water Remediation. Polymers 2023, 15, 262.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Paul, A.; Sharma, S.S. Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposites BT. In Handbook of Biopolymers; Thomas, S., Ajitha, A.R., Jose Chirayil,
C., Thomas, B., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-981-16-6603-2.
36. Meera, K.; Ramesan, M.T. Tailoring the performance of boehmite nanoparticles reinforced carboxymethyl chitosan/cashew gum
blend nanocomposites via green synthesis. Polymer 2023, 268, 125706. [CrossRef]
37. Jafarzadeh, S.; Nooshkam, M.; Zargar, M.; Garavand, F.; Ghosh, S.; Hadidi, M.; Forough, M. Green synthesis of nanomaterials for
smart biopolymer packaging: Challenges and outlooks. J. Nanostruct. Chem. 2023, 1–24. [CrossRef]
38. Khan, I.; Khan, I.; Saeed, K.; Ali, N.; Zada, N.; Khan, A.; Ali, F.; Bilal, M.; Akhter, M.S. 7—Polymer nanocomposites: An overview.
In Micro and Nano Technologies; Ali, N., Bilal, M., Khan, A., Nguyen, T.A., Gupta, R.K.B.T.-S.P.N., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2023; pp. 167–184. ISBN 978-0-323-91611-0.
39. Kolya, H.; Kuila, T.; Kim, N.H.; Lee, J.H. 10—Polymer Nanocomposites for Energy-Related Applications; Subramani, N.K., Siddarama-
iah, H., Lee, J.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 215–248. ISBN 978-0-12-818484-4.
40. Kolya, H.; Mondal, S.; Kang, C.-W.; Nah, C. The use of polymer-graphene composites in catalysis. In Polymer Nanocomposites
Containing Graphene; Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2022; pp. 537–556.
41. Baigorria, E.; Souza dos Santos, S.; de Moura, M.R.; Fraceto, L.F. Nanocomposite hydrogels 3D printed for application in water
remediation. Mater. Today Chem. 2023, 30, 101559. [CrossRef]
42. Rani Sethy, T.; Biswal, T.; Kumar Sahoo, P. An indigenous tool for the adsorption of rare earth metal ions from the spent magnet
e-waste: An eco-friendly chitosan biopolymer nanocomposite hydrogel. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2023, 309, 122935. [CrossRef]
43. Nandanwar, P.; Jugade, R.; Gomase, V.; Shekhawat, A.; Bambal, A.; Saravanan, D.; Pandey, S. Chitosan-Biopolymer-Entrapped
Activated Charcoal for Adsorption of Reactive Orange Dye from Aqueous Phase and CO2 from Gaseous Phase. J. Compos. Sci.
2023, 7, 103. [CrossRef]
44. Gupta, P.; Rana, N.; Dash, S.; Gupta, N.; Singh, M.; Kaushik, S. Bionanocomposite Membranes and Adsorbents for Water and
Wastewater Treatment. In Bionanotechnology Towards Sustainable Management of Environmental Pollution; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2023; pp. 141–166. ISBN 1003270956.
45. Das, A.; Ringu, T.; Ghosh, S.; Pramanik, N. A comprehensive review on recent advances in preparation, physicochemical
characterization, and bioengineering applications of biopolymers. Polym. Bull. 2023, 80, 7247–7312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Muhammed Shameem, M.; Sasikanth, S.M.; Annamalai, R.; Ganapathi Raman, R. A brief review on polymer nanocomposites and
its applications. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 2536–2539. [CrossRef]
47. Goyal, R.K. Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites: Synthesis, Properties, Characterization Techniques, and Applications; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 1498761674.
48. Mittal, V. Characterization Techniques for Polymer Nanocomposites; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 3527654526.
49. Hu, P.; Yang, H. Insight into the physicochemical aspects of kaolins with different morphologies. Appl. Clay Sci. 2013, 74, 58–65.
[CrossRef]
50. Elmore, A.R. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel: Final report on the safety assessment of aluminum silicate, calcium
silicate, magnesium aluminum silicate, magnesium silicate, magnesium trisilicate, sodium magnesium silicate, zirconium silicate,
attapulgite, bentonite, Fuller’s earth, hectorite, kaolin. Int. J. Toxicol. 2003, 22 (Suppl. 1), 37–102. [PubMed]
51. Muwanguzi, A.J.B.; Karasev, A.V.; Byaruhanga, J.K.; Jönsson, P.G. Characterization of Chemical Composition and Microstructure
of Natural Iron Ore from Muko Deposits. ISRN Mater. Sci. 2012, 2012, 174803. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 31 of 38

52. Das, S.K.; Kumar, S.; Ramachandrarao, P. Exploitation of iron ore tailing for the development of ceramic tiles. Waste Manag. 2000,
20, 725–729. [CrossRef]
53. Gilmour, P.S.; Brown, D.M.; Lindsay, T.G.; Beswick, P.H.; MacNee, W.; Donaldson, K. Adverse health effects of PM10 particles:
Involvement of iron in generation of hydroxyl radical. Occup. Environ. Med. 1996, 53, 817–822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Vassilev, S.V.; Menendez, R.; Diaz-Somoano, M.; Martinez-Tarazona, M.R. Phase-mineral and chemical composition of coal fly
ashes as a basis for their multicomponent utilization. 2. Characterization of ceramic cenosphere and salt concentrates. Fuel 2004,
83, 585–603. [CrossRef]
55. Haibin, L.; Zhenling, L. Recycling utilization patterns of coal mining waste in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 1331–1340.
[CrossRef]
56. DeGraeve, G.M.; Overcast, R.L.; Bergman, H.L. Toxicity of underground coal gasification condenser water and selected con-
stituents to aquatic biota. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1980, 9, 543–555. [CrossRef]
57. Chen, A.; Lo, R. Semiconductor Packaging; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-4398-6205-6.
58. Jäger-Waldau, A. Chapter IC-4—Progress in Chalcopyrite Compound Semiconductor Research for Photovoltaic Applications and Transfer of
Results into Actual Solar Cell Production; McEvoy, A., Markvart, T., Castañer, L., Eds.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp.
373–395. ISBN 978-0-12-385934-1.
59. Humborg, C.; Conley, D.J.; Rahm, L.; Wulff, F.; Cociasu, A.; Ittekkot, V. Silicon Retention in River Basins: Far-reaching Effects on
Biogeochemistry and Aquatic Food Webs in Coastal Marine Environments. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 2000, 29, 45–50. [CrossRef]
60. Rondeau, V.; Jacqmin-Gadda, H.; Commenges, D.; Helmer, C.; Dartigues, J.-F. Aluminum and Silica in Drinking Water and the
Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease or Cognitive Decline: Findings From 15-Year Follow-up of the PAQUID Cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol.
2008, 169, 489–496. [CrossRef]
61. Santore, R.C.; Di Toro, D.M.; Paquin, P.R.; Allen, H.E.; Meyer, J.S. Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 2. Application
to acute copper toxicity in freshwater fish and Daphnia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 2397–2402. [CrossRef]
62. Erickson, R.J.; Benoit, D.A.; Mattson, V.R.; Leonard, E.N.; Nelson, H.P., Jr. The effects of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper
to fathead minnows. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1996, 15, 181–193. [CrossRef]
63. Sunda, W. The Relationship between Cupric Ion Activity and the Toxicity of Copper to Phytoplankton. Ph.D. Thesis, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1976; pp. 511–529.
64. Brewer, G.J. Copper toxicity in Alzheimer’s disease: Cognitive loss from ingestion of inorganic copper. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol.
2012, 26, 89–92. [CrossRef]
65. Desai, V.; Kaler, S.G. Role of copper in human neurological disorders. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 88, 855S–858S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Das, K.K.; Das, S.N. Nickel, its adverse health effects & oxidative stress—ProQuest. Indian J. Med. Res. 2008, 128, 412–425.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Lin, C.-Y.C.T.-H. Nickel toxicity to human term placenta: In vitro study on lipid peroxidation. J. Toxicol. Environ. Heal. Part A
1998, 54, 37–47. [CrossRef]
68. Fosmire, G.J. Zinc toxicity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1990, 51, 225–227. [CrossRef]
69. Lock, K.; Janssen, C.R. Modeling zinc toxicity for terrestrial invertebrates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 1901–1908. [CrossRef]
70. Gidlow, D.A. Lead toxicity. Occup. Med. 2004, 54, 76–81. [CrossRef]
71. Senthil Kumar, P. Adsorption of lead(II) ions from simulated wastewater using natural waste: A kinetic, thermodynamic and
equilibrium study. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2014, 33, 55–64. [CrossRef]
72. Sigel, A.; Sigel, H. Metal Ions in Biological Systems: Volume 34: Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology; CRC Press: Boca
Raton, FL, USA, 1997; ISBN 0824798287.
73. Losi, M.E.; Amrhein, C.; Frankenberger, W.T. Environmental Biochemistry of Chromium BT—Reviews of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology; Ware, G.W., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 91–121. ISBN 978-1-4612-2656-7.
74. Costa, M.; Klein, C.B. Toxicity and Carcinogenicity of Chromium Compounds in Humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2006, 36, 155–163.
[CrossRef]
75. Lee, J.-J.; Kim, Y.-K.; Cho, S.-H.; Park, K.-S.; Chung, I.-J.; Cho, D.; Ryang, D.-W.; Kim, H.-J. Hemolytic Anemia as a Sequela of Arsenic
Intoxication Following Long-Term Ingestion of Traditional Chinese Medicine. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2004, 19, 127–129. [CrossRef]
76. Smith, R.; Knight, R.; Fendorf, S. Overpumping leads to California groundwater arsenic threat. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2089.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Cleinmensen, S.; Jensen, J.C.; Jensen, N.J.; Meyer, O.; Olsen, P.; Würtzen, G. Toxicological studies on malachite green:
A triphenylmethane dye. Arch. Toxicol. 1984, 56, 43–45. [CrossRef]
78. Lorenzo, A.; Yankner, B.A. Beta-amyloid neurotoxicity requires fibril formation and is inhibited by congo red. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 1994, 91, 12243–12247. [CrossRef]
79. Afkhami, A.; Moosavi, R. Adsorptive removal of Congo red, a carcinogenic textile dye, from aqueous solutions by maghemite
nanoparticles. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 174, 398–403. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Top, W.M.; Gillman, P.K.; de Langen, C.J.; Kooy, A. Fatal methylene blue associated serotonin toxicity. Neth. J. Med. 2014, 72,
179–181. [PubMed]
81. Littlefield, N.A.; Blackwell, B.-N.; Hewitt, C.C.; Gaylor, D.W. Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies of Gentian Violet in
Mice. Toxicol. Sci. 1985, 5, 902–912. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 32 of 38

82. Zhang, W.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Quan, X.; Jin, Y. Characterisation of acute toxicity, genotoxicity and oxidative
stress posed by textile effluent on zebrafish. J. Environ. Sci. 2012, 24, 2019–2027. [CrossRef]
83. Rehman, K.; Shahzad, T.; Sahar, A.; Hussain, S.; Mahmood, F.; Siddique, M.H.; Siddique, M.A.; Rashid, M.I. Effect of Reactive
Black 5 azo dye on soil processes related to C and N cycling. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4802. [CrossRef]
84. Epolito, W.J.; Lee, Y.H.; Bottomley, L.A.; Pavlostathis, S.G. Characterization of the textile anthraquinone dye Reactive Blue 4. Dye.
Pigment. 2005, 67, 35–46. [CrossRef]
85. Carneiro, P.A.; Osugi, M.E.; Fugivara, C.S.; Boralle, N.; Furlan, M.; Zanoni, M.V.B. Evaluation of different electrochemical methods
on the oxidation and degradation of Reactive Blue 4 in aqueous solution. Chemosphere 2005, 59, 431–439. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Dehghani, M.H.; Naghizadeh, A.; Rashidi, A.; Derakhshani, E. Adsorption of reactive blue 29 dye from aqueous solution by
multiwall carbon nanotubes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 51, 7655–7662. [CrossRef]
87. Shiva Shankar, Y.; Ankur, K.; Bhushan, P.; Mohan, D. Utilization of Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Sludge for Pretreatment of Dye
Wastewater Using Coagulation/Flocculation BT—Advances in Waste Management; Kalamdhad, A.S., Singh, J., Dhamodharan, K., Eds.;
Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 107–121.
88. Kazi, S.A.; Iqbal, H.H.; Shahid, N.; Shah, G.M.; Jameel, N. Removal of reactive dye yellow 145 by adsorption using white quartz.
Bull. Environ. Stud 2016, 1, 43.
89. Nassiri Koopaei, N.; Abdollahi, M. Health risks associated with the pharmaceuticals in wastewater. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 25, 9.
[CrossRef]
90. Wasi, S.; Tabrez, S.; Ahmad, M. Toxicological effects of major environmental pollutants: An overview. Environ. Monit. Assess.
2013, 185, 2585–2593. [CrossRef]
91. Zhao, Y.; Ye, L.; Zhang, X. Emerging pollutants–part I: Occurrence, fate and transport. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 1301–1322.
[CrossRef]
92. Rochman, C.M.; Browne, M.A.; Underwood, A.J.; van Franeker, J.A.; Thompson, R.C.; Amaral-Zettler, L.A. The ecological impacts
of marine debris: Unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology 2016, 97, 302–312. [CrossRef]
93. Prata, J.C.; da Costa, J.P.; Lopes, I.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on
possible human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134455. [CrossRef]
94. Kolya, H.; Kang, C.-W. Synthesis of starch-based smart hydrogel derived from rice-cooked wastewater for agricultural use. Int. J.
Biol. Macromol. 2023, 226, 1477–1489. [CrossRef]
95. Kolya, H.; Jana, D.; Sasmal, D.; Jana, S.; Tripathy, T. Sulfated katira gum-graft-poly(N-vinyl imidazole): A useful scavenger of
mercury(II) ions. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134. [CrossRef]
96. Kumari, S.; Kishor, R. Chapter 1—Chitin and Chitosan: Origin, Properties, and Applications; Gopi, S., Thomas, S., Pius, A., Eds.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–33. ISBN 978-0-12-817970-3.
97. Ait Hamdan, Y.; El Amerany, F.; Desbrières, J.; Aghrinane, A.; Oudadesse, H.; Rhazi, M. The evolution of the global COVID-19
epidemic in Morocco and understanding the different therapeutic approaches of chitosan in the control of the pandemic. Polym.
Bull. 2022, 1–27. [CrossRef]
98. Gacesa, P. Alginates. Carbohydr. Polym. 1988, 8, 161–182. [CrossRef]
99. Pereira, L.; Cotas, J. Introductory Chapter: Alginates—A General Overview; Pereira, L., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2020; p. Ch. 1.
ISBN 978-1-78985-642-2.
100. Alavinia, S.; Ghorbani-Vaghei, R.; Asadabadi, S.; Atrian, A. Sodium alginate/diethyleneamine-triazine-sulfonamide nanocomposite
for adsorptive removal of Pb(II) and methyl violet from aqueous solutions. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2023, 293, 126915. [CrossRef]
101. Kolya, H.; Pal, S.; Pandey, A.; Tripathy, T. Preparation of gold nanoparticles by a novel biodegradable graft copolymer sodium
alginate-g-poly (N,N-dimethylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) with anti micro bacterial application. Eur. Polym. J. 2015, 66, 139–148.
[CrossRef]
102. Sen, G.; Singh, R.P.; Pal, S. Microwave-initiated synthesis of polyacrylamide grafted sodium alginate: Synthesis and characteriza-
tion. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 115, 63–71. [CrossRef]
103. Dong, Y.-D.; Zhang, H.; Zhong, G.-J.; Yao, G.; Lai, B. Cellulose/carbon Composites and their Applications in Water Treatment—
A Review. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 405, 126980. [CrossRef]
104. Das, R.; Panda, A.B.; Pal, S. Synthesis and characterization of a novel polymeric hydrogel based on hydroxypropyl methyl
cellulose grafted with polyacrylamide. Cellulose 2012, 19, 933–945. [CrossRef]
105. Falua, K.J.; Pokharel, A.; Babaei-Ghazvini, A.; Ai, Y.; Acharya, B. Valorization of Starch to Biobased Materials: A Review. Polymers
2022, 14, 2215. [CrossRef]
106. Kolya, H.; Das, S.; Tripathy, T. Synthesis of Starch-g-Poly-(N-methylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) and its application for the removal
of mercury (II) from aqueous solution by adsorption. Eur. Polym. J. 2014, 58, 1–10. [CrossRef]
107. Kolya, H.; Roy, A.; Tripathy, T. Starch-g-Poly-(N, N-dimethyl acrylamide-co-acrylic acid): An efficient Cr (VI) ion binder. Int. J.
Biol. Macromol. 2015, 72, 560–568. [CrossRef]
108. Kolya, H.; Tripathy, T. Preparation, investigation of metal ion removal and flocculation performances of grafted hydroxyethyl
starch. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2013, 62, 557–564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Guleria, S.; Singh, H.; Sharma, V.; Bhardwaj, N.; Arya, S.K.; Puri, S.; Khatri, M. Polyhydroxyalkanoates production from domestic
waste feedstock: A sustainable approach towards bio-economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 340, 130661. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 33 of 38

110. Che, L.; Jin, W.; Zhou, X.; Han, W.; Chen, Y.; Chen, C.; Jiang, G. Current status and future perspectives on the biological production
of polyhydroxyalkanoates. Asia-Pacific J. Chem. Eng. 2023, 18, e2899. [CrossRef]
111. Liu, B.; Wen, Q.; Huang, L.; Chen, Z.; Lin, X.; Liu, S. Insights into integration of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) production into
wastewater treatment: Comparison of different electron acceptors on system function and PHA-producer enrichment. Chem. Eng.
J. 2023, 451, 138631. [CrossRef]
112. Palaniraj, A.; Jayaraman, V. Production, recovery and applications of xanthan gum by Xanthomonas campestris. J. Food Eng. 2011,
106, 1–12. [CrossRef]
113. Shekarforoush, E.; Faralli, A.; Ndoni, S.; Mendes, A.C.; Chronakis, I.S. Electrospinning of Xanthan Polysaccharide. Macromol.
Mater. Eng. 2017, 302, 1700067. [CrossRef]
114. Maji, B.; Maiti, S. Chemical modification of xanthan gum through graft copolymerization: Tailored properties and potential
applications in drug delivery and wastewater treatment. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 251, 117095. [CrossRef]
115. Kolya, H.; Tripathy, T.; De, B.R. Flocculation Performance of Grafted Xanthangum: A Comparative Study. J. Phys. Sci. 2012, 16,
221–234.
116. Brethauer, S.; Shahab, R.L.; Studer, M.H. Impacts of biofilms on the conversion of cellulose. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104,
5201–5212. [CrossRef]
117. Wang, T.; Jiang, M.; Yu, X.; Niu, N.; Chen, L. Application of lignin adsorbent in wastewater Treatment: A review. Sep. Purif.
Technol. 2022, 302, 122116. [CrossRef]
118. Beck, R.J.; Zhao, Y.; Fong, H.; Menkhaus, T.J. Electrospun lignin carbon nanofiber membranes with large pores for highly efficient
adsorptive water treatment applications. J. Water Process Eng. 2017, 16, 240–248. [CrossRef]
119. del Orta, M.M.; Martín, J.; Santos, J.L.; Aparicio, I.; Medina-Carrasco, S.; Alonso, E. Biopolymer-clay nanocomposites as novel and
ecofriendly adsorbents for environmental remediation. Appl. Clay Sci. 2020, 198, 105838. [CrossRef]
120. Biswas, S.; Pal, A. Application of biopolymers as a new age sustainable material for surfactant adsorption: A brief review.
Carbohydr. Polym. Technol. Appl. 2021, 2, 100145. [CrossRef]
121. Paul, A.; Sharma, S.S. Handbook of Biopolymers; Thomas, S., Ajitha, A.R., Jose Chirayil, C., Thomas, B., Eds.; Springer Nature:
Singapore, 2023; pp. 523–550. ISBN 978-981-19-0710-4.
122. Thakur, K.; Kandasubramanian, B. Graphene and graphene oxide-based composites for removal of organic pollutants: A review.
J. Chem. Eng. Data 2019, 64, 833–867. [CrossRef]
123. Compton, O.C.; Nguyen, S.T. Graphene Oxide, Highly Reduced Graphene Oxide, and Graphene: Versatile Building Blocks for
Carbon-Based Materials. Small 2010, 6, 711–723. [CrossRef]
124. Fahim, I.S. Graphene Reinforced Biopolymer Nanocomposites for Water Filtration Applications BT—Graphene Based Biopolymer Nanocom-
posites; Sharma, B., Jain, P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 221–232. ISBN 978-981-15-9180-8.
125. Dimapilis, E.A.S.; Hsu, C.-S.; Mendoza, R.M.O.; Lu, M.-C. Zinc oxide nanoparticles for water disinfection. Sustain. Environ. Res.
2018, 28, 47–56. [CrossRef]
126. Aragaw, T.A.; Bogale, F.M.; Aragaw, B.A. Iron-based nanoparticles in wastewater treatment: A review on synthesis methods,
applications, and removal mechanisms. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2021, 25, 101280. [CrossRef]
127. Kolya, H.; Kang, C.-W. Biogenic Synthesis of Silver-Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Using Kulekhara Leaves Extract for Removing
Crystal Violet and Malachite Green Dyes from Water. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15800. [CrossRef]
128. García, A.; Rodríguez, B.; Giraldo, H.; Quintero, Y.; Quezada, R.; Hassan, N.; Estay, H. Copper-Modified Polymeric Membranes
for Water Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. Membranes 2021, 11, 93. [CrossRef]
129. Kolya, H.; Kuila, T.; Kim, N.H.; Lee, J.H. Bioinspired silver nanoparticles/reduced graphene oxide nanocomposites for catalytic
reduction of 4-nitrophenol, organic dyes and act as energy storage electrode material. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 173, 106924. [CrossRef]
130. Safat, S.; Buazar, F.; Albukhaty, S.; Matroodi, S. Enhanced sunlight photocatalytic activity and biosafety of marine-driven
synthesized cerium oxide nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131. Fatima, H.; Azhar, M.R.; Zhong, Y.; Arafat, Y.; Khiadani, M.; Shao, Z. Rational design of ZnO-zeolite imidazole hybrid nanoparticles
with reduced charge recombination for enhanced photocatalysis. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2022, 614, 538–546. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Aydin, S.; Celik Karakaya, M.; Karakaya, N.; Aydin, M.E. Effective removal of selected pharmaceuticals from sewerage treatment
plant effluent using natural clay (Na-montmorillonite). Appl. Water Sci. 2023, 13, 129. [CrossRef]
133. Makaremi, M.; De Silva, R.T.; Pasbakhsh, P. Electrospun Nanofibrous Membranes of Polyacrylonitrile/Halloysite with Superior
Water Filtration Ability. J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 7949–7958. [CrossRef]
134. Zhu, J.; Tian, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, J. Fabrication of a novel “loose” nanofiltration membrane by facile blending with
Chitosan–Montmorillonite nanosheets for dyes purification. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 265, 184–193. [CrossRef]
135. Pasbakhsh, P.; Churchman, G.J.; Keeling, J.L. Characterisation of properties of various halloysites relevant to their use as
nanotubes and microfibre fillers. Appl. Clay Sci. 2013, 74, 47–57. [CrossRef]
136. Huang, J.; Zhou, J.; Liu, M. Interphase in Polymer Nanocomposites. JACS Au 2022, 2, 280–291. [CrossRef]
137. Das, R.; Ali, M.E.; Hamid, S.B.A.; Ramakrishna, S.; Chowdhury, Z.Z. Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification:
A bright future in water desalination. Desalination 2014, 336, 97–109. [CrossRef]
138. Aiswarya, R.; Kalaivani, T. Chemically Modified Carbon Nanotubes in Membrane Separation. In Chemically Modified Carbon
Nanotubes for Commercial Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Newark, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 169–195.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 34 of 38

139. Noamani, S.; Niroomand, S.; Rastgar, M.; Sadrzadeh, M. Carbon-based polymer nanocomposite membranes for oily wastewater
treatment. npj Clean Water 2019, 2, 20. [CrossRef]
140. Kayvani Fard, A.; Mckay, G.; Manawi, Y.; Malaibari, Z.; Hussien, M.A. Outstanding adsorption performance of high aspect ratio
and super-hydrophobic carbon nanotubes for oil removal. Chemosphere 2016, 164, 142–155. [CrossRef]
141. Mazrouaa, A.M.; Mousa, A.A.; Mohamed, M.G. Chemically Modified Carbon Nanotubes for Water Purification System. In
Chemically Modified Carbon Nanotubes for Commercial Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Newark, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 197–214.
142. Akpotu, S.O.; Diagboya, P.N.; Lawal, I.A.; Sanni, S.O.; Pholosi, A.; Peleyeju, M.G.; Mtunzi, F.M.; Ofomaja, A.E. Designer composite
of montmorillonite-reduced graphene oxide-PEG polymer for water treatment: Enrofloxacin sequestration and cost analysis.
Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 453, 139771. [CrossRef]
143. Liu, X.; Ma, R.; Wang, X.; Ma, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhuang, L.; Zhang, S.; Jehan, R.; Chen, J.; Wang, X. Graphene oxide-based materials for
efficient removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solution: A review. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 62–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Bhattacharya, M. Polymer Nanocomposites—A Comparison between Carbon Nanotubes, Graphene, and Clay as Nanofillers.
Materials 2016, 9, 262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
145. Ibrahim, A.; Klopocinska, A.; Horvat, K.; Abdel Hamid, Z. Graphene-Based Nanocomposites: Synthesis, Mechanical Properties,
and Characterizations. Polymers 2021, 13, 2869. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
146. Roy, S.; Singha, N.R. Polymeric Nanocomposite Membranes for Next Generation Pervaporation Process: Strategies, Challenges
and Future Prospects. Membranes 2017, 7, 53. [CrossRef]
147. Basavegowda, N.; Baek, K.-H. Advances in Functional Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposites for Active Food Packaging Applica-
tions. Polymers 2021, 13, 4198. [CrossRef]
148. Gangarapu, S.; Sunku, K.; Babu, P.S.; Sudarsanam, P. Fabrication of Polymer-Graphene Nanocomposites BT—Handbook of Polymer and
Ceramic Nanotechnology; Hussain, C.M., Thomas, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–15.
ISBN 978-3-030-10614-0.
149. Poshina, D.; Otsuka, I. Electrospun Polysaccharidic Textiles for Biomedical Applications. Textiles 2021, 1, 152–169. [CrossRef]
150. Ghorbani, M.; Hassan Vakili, M.; Ameri, E. Fabrication and evaluation of a biopolymer-based nanocomposite membrane for oily
wastewater treatment. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 28, 102560. [CrossRef]
151. Valandro, S.R.; Lombardo, P.C.; Poli, A.L.; Horn, M.A., Jr.; Neumann, M.G.; Cavalheiro, C.C.S. Thermal properties of poly (methyl
methacrylate)/organomodified montmorillonite nanocomposites obtained by in situ photopolymerization. Mater. Res. 2014, 17,
265–270. [CrossRef]
152. Kolya, H.; Kang, C.W. Polyvinyl acetate/reduced graphene oxide-poly (diallyl dimethylammonium chloride) composite coated
wood surface reveals improved hydrophobicity. Prog. Org. Coat. 2021, 156, 106253. [CrossRef]
153. Rathi, B.S.; Kumar, P.S. Application of adsorption process for effective removal of emerging contaminants from water and
wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 280, 116995. [CrossRef]
154. Yu, C.; Han, X. Adsorbent material used in water treatment-a review. In Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Workshop on
Materials Engineering and Computer Sciences, Jinan, China, 10–11 October 2015; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2015; pp. 286–289.
155. Saleem, J.; Bin Shahid, U.; Hijab, M.; Mackey, H.; McKay, G. Production and applications of activated carbons as adsorbents from
olive stones. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2019, 9, 775–802. [CrossRef]
156. Biswas, S.; Fatema, J.; Debnath, T.; Rashid, T.U. Chitosan–Clay Composites for Wastewater Treatment: A State-of-the-Art Review.
ACS EST Water 2021, 1, 1055–1085. [CrossRef]
157. Bhattacharyya, A.; Banerjee, B.; Ghorai, S.; Rana, D.; Roy, I.; Sarkar, G.; Saha, N.R.; De, S.; Ghosh, T.K.; Sadhukhan, S.; et al.
Development of an auto-phase separable and reusable graphene oxide-potato starch based cross-linked bio-composite adsorbent
for removal of methylene blue dye. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 116, 1037–1048. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
158. Qi, Y.; Yang, M.; Xu, W.; He, S.; Men, Y. Natural polysaccharides-modified graphene oxide for adsorption of organic dyes from
aqueous solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 486, 84–96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
159. Politaeva, N.; Yakovlev, A.; Yakovleva, E.; Chelysheva, V.; Tarantseva, K.; Efremova, S.; Ilyashenko, S. Graphene Oxide-Chitosan
Composites for Water Treatment from Copper. Water 2022, 14, 1430. [CrossRef]
160. Trang, T.T.C.; Takaomi, K. Chitosan and its biomass composites in application for water treatment. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain.
Chem. 2021, 29, 100429. [CrossRef]
161. Zhao, X.-R.; Xu, X.; Teng, J.; Zhou, N.; Zhou, Z.; Jiang, X.-Y.; Jiao, F.-P.; Yu, J.-G. Three-dimensional porous graphene oxide-
maize amylopectin composites with controllable pore-sizes and good adsorption-desorption properties: Facile fabrication and
reutilization, and the adsorption mechanism. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 176, 11–19. [CrossRef]
162. Vo, T.S.; Vo, T.T.B.C. Organic dye removal and recycling performances of graphene oxide-coated biopolymer sponge. Prog. Nat.
Sci. Mater. Int. 2022, 32, 634–642. [CrossRef]
163. Bernard, K.N.M.; Prakash, O.; Hippargi, G.; Sylvere, N.K.; Joseph, K.G.; Pal, S. Exploring the applicability of a geopolymer and a
biopolymer as an environmentally benign treatment option for heavy metals contaminated water. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2022,
135, 104392. [CrossRef]
164. Hosseinzadeh, H.; Ramin, S. Fabrication of starch-graft-poly(acrylamide)/graphene oxide/hydroxyapatite nanocomposite
hydrogel adsorbent for removal of malachite green dye from aqueous solution. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 106, 101–115.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 35 of 38

165. Ma, T.; Chang, P.R.; Zheng, P.; Zhao, F.; Ma, X. Fabrication of ultra-light graphene-based gels and their adsorption of methylene
blue. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 240, 595–600. [CrossRef]
166. Li, Y.; Du, Q.; Liu, T.; Peng, X.; Wang, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Wu, S.; Wang, Z.; Xia, Y.; et al. Comparative study of methylene blue
dye adsorption onto activated carbon, graphene oxide, and carbon nanotubes. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2013, 91, 361–368. [CrossRef]
167. Zare, E.N.; Lakouraj, M.M.; Kasirian, N. Development of effective nano-biosorbent based on poly m-phenylenediamine grafted
dextrin for removal of Pb (II) and methylene blue from water. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018, 201, 539–548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
168. Teng, J.; Zeng, X.; Xu, X.; Yu, J.-G. Assembly of a novel porous 3D graphene oxide-starch architecture by a facile hydrothermal
method and its adsorption properties toward metal ions. Mater. Lett. 2018, 214, 31–33. [CrossRef]
169. Kumari, N.; Mishra, S. Synthesis, characterization and flocculation efficiency of grafted Moringa gum based derivatives. Carbohydr.
Polym. 2022, 281, 119079. [CrossRef]
170. Zhang, L.; Tang, S.; He, F.; Liu, Y.; Mao, W.; Guan, Y. Highly efficient and selective capture of heavy metals by poly(acrylic acid)
grafted chitosan and biochar composite for wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 378, 122215. [CrossRef]
171. Sirajudheen, P.; Karthikeyan, P.; Ramkumar, K.; Meenakshi, S. Effective removal of organic pollutants by adsorption onto chitosan
supported graphene oxide-hydroxyapatite composite: A novel reusable adsorbent. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 318, 114200. [CrossRef]
172. Travlou, N.A.; Kyzas, G.Z.; Lazaridis, N.K.; Deliyanni, E.A. Graphite oxide/chitosan composite for reactive dye removal. Chem.
Eng. J. 2013, 217, 256–265. [CrossRef]
173. Lee, S.; Lingamdinne, L.P.; Yang, J.-K.; Koduru, J.R.; Chang, Y.-Y.; Naushad, M. Biopolymer mixture-entrapped modified graphene
oxide for sustainable treatment of heavy metal contaminated real surface water. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 46, 102631. [CrossRef]
174. Bahador, F.; Foroutan, R.; Esmaeili, H.; Ramavandi, B. Enhancement of the chromium removal behavior of Moringa oleifera
activated carbon by chitosan and iron oxide nanoparticles from water. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 251, 117085. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
175. Li, L.; Zhao, L.; Ma, J.; Tian, Y. Preparation of graphene oxide/chitosan complex and its adsorption properties for heavy metal
ions. Green Process. Synth. 2020, 9, 294–303. [CrossRef]
176. Pathirana, M.A.; Dissanayake, N.S.L.; Wanasekara, N.D.; Mahltig, B.; Nandasiri, G.K. Chitosan-Graphene Oxide Dip-Coated
Polyacrylonitrile-Ethylenediamine Electrospun Nanofiber Membrane for Removal of the Dye Stuffs Methylene Blue and Congo
Red. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
177. Liu, X.; Tian, J.; Li, Y.; Sun, N.; Mi, S.; Xie, Y.; Chen, Z. Enhanced dyes adsorption from wastewater via Fe3 O4 nanoparticles
functionalized activated carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 373, 397–407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
178. Wang, J.; Zhuang, S. Chitosan-based materials: Preparation, modification and application. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 355, 131825.
[CrossRef]
179. Wang, C.-Y.; Yang, C.-H.; Huang, K.-S.; Yeh, C.-S.; Wang, A.H.-J.; Chen, C.-H. Electrostatic droplets assisted in situ synthesis of
superparamagnetic chitosan microparticles for magnetic-responsive controlled drug release and copper ion removal. J. Mater.
Chem. B 2013, 1, 2205–2212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
180. Liu, X.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, T. Review on preparation and adsorption properties of chitosan and chitosan composites. Polym.
Bull. 2021, 79, 2633–2665. [CrossRef]
181. Mallik, A.K.; Kabir, S.M.F.; Bin Abdur Rahman, F.; Sakib, M.N.; Efty, S.S.; Rahman, M.M. Cu(II) removal from wastewater using
chitosan-based adsorbents: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108048. [CrossRef]
182. Wang, M.; You, X. Critical review of magnetic polysaccharide-based adsorbents for water treatment: Synthesis, application and
regeneration. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 323, 129118. [CrossRef]
183. Van Hoa, N.; Khong, T.T.; Thi Hoang Quyen, T.; Si Trung, T. One-step facile synthesis of mesoporous graphene/Fe3O4/chitosan
nanocomposite and its adsorption capacity for a textile dye. J. Water Process Eng. 2016, 9, 170–178. [CrossRef]
184. Jazzar, A.; Alamri, H.; Malajati, Y.; Mahfouz, R.; Bouhrara, M.; Fihri, A. Recent advances in the synthesis and applications of
magnetic polymer nanocomposites. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2021, 99, 1–18. [CrossRef]
185. Sarkar, A.K.; Bediako, J.K.; Choi, J.-W.; Yun, Y.-S. Functionalized magnetic biopolymeric graphene oxide with outstanding
performance in water purification. NPG Asia Mater. 2019, 11, 4. [CrossRef]
186. Saya, L.; Malik, V.; Singh, A.; Singh, S.; Gambhir, G.; Singh, W.R.; Chandra, R.; Hooda, S. Guar gum based nanocomposites: Role
in water purification through efficient removal of dyes and metal ions. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 261, 117851. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
187. Pourjavadi, A.; Abedin-Moghanaki, A.; Tavakoli, A. Efficient removal of cationic dyes using a new magnetic nanocomposite
based on starch-g-poly(vinylalcohol) and functionalized with sulfate groups. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 38042–38051. [CrossRef]
188. Stan, M.; Lung, I.; Soran, M.-L.; Opris, O.; Leostean, C.; Popa, A.; Copaciu, F.; Lazar, M.D.; Kacso, I.; Silipas, T.-D.; et al.
Starch-coated green synthesized magnetite nanoparticles for removal of textile dye Optilan Blue from aqueous media. J. Taiwan
Inst. Chem. Eng. 2019, 100, 65–75. [CrossRef]
189. Xie, G.; Xi, P.; Liu, H.; Chen, F.; Huang, L.; Shi, Y.; Hou, F.; Zeng, Z.; Shao, C.; Wang, J. A facile chemical method to produce
superparamagnetic graphene oxide–Fe3O4 hybrid composite and its application in the removal of dyes from aqueous solution.
J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 1033–1039. [CrossRef]
190. Saber-Samandari, S.; Saber-Samandari, S.; Nezafati, N.; Yahya, K. Efficient removal of lead (II) ions and methylene blue from
aqueous solution using chitosan/Fe-hydroxyapatite nanocomposite beads. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 481–490. [CrossRef]
191. Wang, D.; Liu, L.; Jiang, X.; Yu, J.; Chen, X. Adsorption and removal of malachite green from aqueous solution using magnetic
β-cyclodextrin-graphene oxide nanocomposites as adsorbents. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2015, 466, 166–173. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 36 of 38

192. Karimi, F.; Ayati, A.; Tanhaei, B.; Sanati, A.L.; Afshar, S.; Kardan, A.; Dabirifar, Z.; Karaman, C. Removal of metal ions using a
new magnetic chitosan nano-bio-adsorbent; A powerful approach in water treatment. Environ. Res. 2022, 203, 111753. [CrossRef]
193. He, H.; Meng, X.; Yue, Q.; Yin, W.; Gao, Y.; Fang, P.; Shen, L. Thiol-ene click chemistry synthesis of a novel magnetic mesoporous
silica/chitosan composite for selective Hg(II) capture and high catalytic activity of spent Hg(II) adsorbent. Chem. Eng. J. 2021,
405, 126743. [CrossRef]
194. Zheng, C.; Zheng, H.; Hu, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Ding, W.; Sun, Q. Structural design of magnetic biosorbents for the
removal of ciprofloxacin from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 296, 122288. [CrossRef]
195. Zheng, X.; Zheng, H.; Xiong, Z.; Zhao, R.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Zheng, C. Novel anionic polyacrylamide-modify-chitosan magnetic
composite nanoparticles with excellent adsorption capacity for cationic dyes and pH-independent adsorption capability for metal
ions. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 392, 123706. [CrossRef]
196. Perez, T.; Pasquini, D.; de Faria Lima, A.; Rosa, E.V.; Sousa, M.H.; Cerqueira, D.A.; de Morais, L.C. Efficient removal of lead ions
from water by magnetic nanosorbents based on manganese ferrite nanoparticles capped with thin layers of modified biopolymers.
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102892. [CrossRef]
197. Wu, S.; Guo, J.; Wang, Y.; Huang, C.; Hu, Y. Facile preparation of magnetic sodium alginate/carboxymethyl cellulose composite
hydrogel for removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solution. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 13096–13107. [CrossRef]
198. Lin, S.; Zou, C.; Liang, H.; Peng, H.; Liao, Y. The effective removal of nickel ions from aqueous solution onto magnetic multi-walled
carbon nanotubes modified by β-cyclodextrin. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2021, 619, 126544. [CrossRef]
199. Santhosh, C.; Daneshvar, E.; Tripathi, K.M.; Baltrėnas, P.; Kim, T.; Baltrėnaitė, E.; Bhatnagar, A. Synthesis and characterization of
magnetic biochar adsorbents for the removal of Cr(VI) and Acid orange 7 dye from aqueous solution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2020, 27, 32874–32887. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
200. Yang, A.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, Y. Facile preparation and highly efficient sorption of magnetic composite graphene oxide/Fe3O4/GC
for uranium removal. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8440. [CrossRef]
201. Sun, Y.; Wu, Y.; Fu, Y.; Yang, C.; Jiang, J.; Yan, G.; Hu, J. Rapid and high selective removal of Hg(II) ions using tannic acid cross-
linking cellulose/polyethyleneimine functionalized magnetic composite. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 182, 1120–1129. [CrossRef]
202. Fan, L.; Luo, C.; Li, X.; Lu, F.; Qiu, H.; Sun, M. Fabrication of novel magnetic chitosan grafted with graphene oxide to enhance
adsorption properties for methyl blue. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 215–216, 272–279. [CrossRef]
203. Hou, S.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, G.; Song, H.; Shu, C.; Zheng, Y.; Ji, S. Designing degradable lignin-grafted magnetic nano-composite
materials for cost-effectively sustainable removal of fluoroquinolone antibiotics from environmental water. J. Clean. Prod. 2022,
360, 132215. [CrossRef]
204. Jiang, M.; Chen, L.; Niu, N. Enhanced adsorption for malachite green by functionalized lignin magnetic composites: Optimization,
performance and adsorption mechanism. J. Mol. Struct. 2022, 1260, 132842. [CrossRef]
205. Chen, J.; Zhang, L.; Li, H.; Lu, M.; Xie, J.; Guan, S.; Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Lu, J. Preparation and adsorbability of magnetic composites
based on cellulose nanofiber/graphene oxide. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 639, 128373. [CrossRef]
206. Ling, C.; Yimin, D.; Qi, L.; Chengqian, F.; Zhiheng, W.; Yaqi, L.; Ling, C.; Bo, L.; Yue-Fei, Z.; Yan, L.; et al. Novel High-efficiency
adsorbent consisting of magnetic Cellulose-based ionic liquid for removal of anionic dyes. J. Mol. Liq. 2022, 353, 118723. [CrossRef]
207. Chen, B.; Long, F.; Chen, S.; Cao, Y.; Pan, X. Magnetic chitosan biopolymer as a versatile adsorbent for simultaneous and
synergistic removal of different sorts of dyestuffs from simulated wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 385, 123926. [CrossRef]
208. Bui, N.T.; Nguyen, V.H.; Le, D.T.; van Tran, T.T.; Bui, T.H. Superparamagnetic cobalt ferric nanoparticles incorporated biopolymers
extracted from dragon fruit (hylocereus undatus) peels for nickel(II) removal. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101773. [CrossRef]
209. Amini Herab, A.; Salari, D.; Ostadrahimi, A.; Olad, A. Preparation of magnetic inulin nanocomposite and its application in the
removal of methylene blue and heavy metals from aqueous solution. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 291, 126580. [CrossRef]
210. Jiang, R.; Shen, T.-T.; Zhu, H.-Y.; Fu, Y.-Q.; Jiang, S.-T.; Li, J.-B.; Wang, J.-L. Magnetic Fe3 O4 embedded chitosan–crosslinked-
polyacrylamide composites with enhanced removal of food dye: Characterization, adsorption and mechanism. Int. J. Biol.
Macromol. 2023, 227, 1234–1244. [CrossRef]
211. Cevallos-Mendoza, J.; Amorim, C.G.; Rodríguez-Díaz, J.M.; Montenegro, M.d.C.B.S.M. Removal of Contaminants from Water by
Membrane Filtration: A Review. Membranes 2022, 12, 570. [CrossRef]
212. Wu, J.; Wang, N.; Wang, L.; Dong, H.; Zhao, Y.; Jiang, L. Unidirectional water-penetration composite fibrous film via electrospin-
ning. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 5996–5999. [CrossRef]
213. Lee, M.; Wu, Z.; Li, K. 2—Advances in ceramic membranes for water treatment. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Basile, A.,
Cassano, A., Rastogi, N.K., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 43–82. ISBN 978-1-78242-121-4.
214. Matsuyama, H.; Teramoto, M.; Uesaka, T. Membrane formation and structure development by dry-cast process. J. Memb. Sci.
1997, 135, 271–288. [CrossRef]
215. Zhang, Z.; Kong, X.-Y.; Xiao, K.; Liu, Q.; Xie, G.; Li, P.; Ma, J.; Tian, Y.; Wen, L.; Jiang, L. Engineered Asymmetric Heterogeneous
Membrane: A Concentration-Gradient-Driven Energy Harvesting Device. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 14765–14772. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
216. Schacher, F.H.; Rupar, P.A.; Manners, I. Functional Block Copolymers: Nanostructured Materials with Emerging Applications.
Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 7898–7921. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
217. Shi, W.; Hamilton, A.L.; Delaney, K.T.; Fredrickson, G.H.; Kramer, E.J.; Ntaras, C.; Avgeropoulos, A.; Lynd, N.A. Creating
Extremely Asymmetric Lamellar Structures via Fluctuation-Assisted Unbinding of Miktoarm Star Block Copolymer Alloys. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 6160–6163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 37 of 38

218. Barman, S.R.; Roy, U.; Das, P.; Mukhopadhayay, A. Chapter 6—Membrane processes for removal of polyaromatic hydrocarbons
from wastewater. In Advances in Green and Sustainable Chemistry; Sharma, S., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021;
pp. 189–207. ISBN 978-0-12-817742-6.
219. Kamide, K.; Manabe, S. Mechanism of Permselectivity of Porous Polymeric Membranes in Ultrafiltration Process. Polym. J. 1981,
13, 459–479. [CrossRef]
220. Kolya, H.; Singh, V.K.; Kang, C.-W. Polymeric Membranes and Hybrid Techniques for Water Purification Applications BT—Polymer-Based
Advanced Functional Materials for Energy and Environmental Applications; Subramani, N.K., Nataraj, S.K., Patel, C., Shivanna, S.,
Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 75–91. ISBN 978-981-16-8755-6.
221. Baig, N.; Matin, A.; Faizan, M.; Anand, D.; Ahmad, I.; Khan, S.A. Antifouling low-pressure highly permeable single step produced
loose nanofiltration polysulfone membrane for efficient Erichrome Black T/divalent salts fractionation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
2022, 10, 108166. [CrossRef]
222. Guo, S.; Wan, Y.; Chen, X.; Luo, J. Loose nanofiltration membrane custom-tailored for resource recovery. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 409,
127376. [CrossRef]
223. Feng, X.; Peng, D.; Zhu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y. Recent advances of loose nanofiltration membranes for dye/salt separation. Sep.
Purif. Technol. 2022, 285, 120228. [CrossRef]
224. Hakami, M.W.; Alkhudhiri, A.; Al-Batty, S.; Zacharof, M.-P.; Maddy, J.; Hilal, N. Ceramic Microfiltration Membranes in Wastewater
Treatment: Filtration Behavior, Fouling and Prevention. Membranes 2020, 10, 248. [CrossRef]
225. Kotobuki, M.; Gu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J. Ceramic-Polymer Composite Membranes for Water and Wastewater Treatment:
Bridging the Big Gap between Ceramics and Polymers. Molecules 2021, 26, 3331. [CrossRef]
226. Barhoum, A.; Deshmukh, K.; García-Betancourt, M.-L.; Alibakhshi, S.; Mousavi, S.M.; Meftahi, A.; Sabery, M.S.K.; Samyn, P.
Nanocelluloses as sustainable membrane materials for separation and filtration technologies: Principles, opportunities, and
challenges. Carbohydr. Polym. 2023, 317, 121057. [CrossRef]
227. Garcia-Ivars, J.; Alcaina-Miranda, M.-I.; Iborra-Clar, M.-I.; Mendoza-Roca, J.-A.; Pastor-Alcañiz, L. Enhancement in hydrophilicity
of different polymer phase-inversion ultrafiltration membranes by introducing PEG/Al2 O3 nanoparticles. Sep. Purif. Technol.
2014, 128, 45–57. [CrossRef]
228. Cai, C.; Sun, W.; He, S.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X. Ceramic membrane fouling mechanisms and control for water treatment. Front.
Environ. Sci. Eng. 2023, 17, 126. [CrossRef]
229. Mpala, T.J.; Etale, A.; Richards, H.; Nthunya, L.N. Biofouling phenomena in membrane distillation: Mechanisms and mitigation
strategies. Environ. Sci. Adv. 2023, 2, 39–54. [CrossRef]
230. Manjarrez Nevárez, L.; Ballinas Casarrubias, L.; Canto, O.S.; Celzard, A.; Fierro, V.; Ibarra Gómez, R.; González Sánchez, G.
Biopolymers-based nanocomposites: Membranes from propionated lignin and cellulose for water purification. Carbohydr. Polym.
2011, 86, 732–741. [CrossRef]
231. Thakur, S. Gum Based Green Nanocomposites and Their Applications BT—Green-Based Nanocomposite Materials and Applications; Avalos
Belmontes, F., González, F.J., López-Manchado, M.Á., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp.
295–315. ISBN 978-3-031-18428-4.
232. Mukherjee, M.; De, S. Antibacterial polymeric membranes: A short review. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 1078–1104.
[CrossRef]
233. Cheng, M.; Huang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Tang, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Hedayati, M.; Kipper, M.J.; Wickramasinghe, S.R. Synthesis
of graphene oxide/polyacrylamide composite membranes for organic dyes/water separation in water purification. J. Mater. Sci.
2019, 54, 252–264. [CrossRef]
234. Zhang, M.; Cui, J.; Lu, T.; Tang, G.; Wu, S.; Ma, W.; Huang, C. Robust, functionalized reduced graphene-based nanofibrous
membrane for contaminated water purification. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 404, 126347. [CrossRef]
235. Azizi-Lalabadi, M.; Jafari, S.M. Bio-nanocomposites of graphene with biopolymers; fabrication, properties, and applications. Adv.
Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 292, 102416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
236. Zubair, M.; Ullah, A. Chapter 14—Biopolymers in Environmental Applications: Industrial Wastewater Treatment; Thomas, S., Gopi, S.,
Amalraj, A.B.T.-B., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 331–349. ISBN 978-0-12-819240-5.
237. Suyambulingam, I.; Gangadhar, L.; Sana, S.S.; Divakaran, D.; Siengchin, S.; Kurup, L.A.; Iyyadurai, J.; Albert Bernad Noble, K.E.
Chitosan Biopolymer and Its Nanocomposites: Emerging Material as Adsorbent in Wastewater Treatment. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2023, 2023, 9387016. [CrossRef]
238. Rouf, T.B.; Kokini, J.L. Biodegradable biopolymer–graphene nanocomposites. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 9915–9945. [CrossRef]
239. Leudjo Taka, A.; Klink, M.; Yangkou Mbianda, X.; Mtunzi, F.; Bobby Naidoo, E. Carbon Nanotubes Reinforced Polymeric Hybrid
Materials for Water Purification BT—Nanohybrid Materials for Water Purification; Swain, S.K., Ed.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022;
pp. 197–223. ISBN 978-981-19-2332-6.
240. Mostafavi, A.H.; Mishra, A.K.; Gallucci, F.; Kim, J.H.; Ulbricht, M.; Coclite, A.M.; Hosseini, S.S. Advances in surface modification
and functionalization for tailoring the characteristics of thin films and membranes via chemical vapor deposition techniques. J.
Appl. Polym. Sci. 2023, 140, e53720. [CrossRef]
241. Huang, Z.; Chen, J.; Li, R.; Shi, S.; Gong, Y.-K. Mussel adhesion and cell membrane antifouling mimetic strategies for durable
fouling-resistant coating. Prog. Org. Coat. 2023, 182, 107636. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3421 38 of 38

242. Dongre, R.S.; Sadasivuni, K.K.; Deshmukh, K.; Mehta, A.; Basu, S.; Meshram, J.S.; Al-Maadeed, M.A.A.; Karim, A. Natural
polymer based composite membranes for water purification: A review. Polym. Technol. Mater. 2019, 58, 1295–1310. [CrossRef]
243. Bessbousse, H.; Verchère, J.-F.; Lebrun, L. Characterisation of metal-complexing membranes prepared by the semi-interpenetrating
polymer networks technique. Application to the removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 187, 16–28.
[CrossRef]
244. Dutta, K.; De, S. Aromatic conjugated polymers for removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater: A short review. Environ. Sci.
Water Res. Technol. 2017, 3, 793–805. [CrossRef]
245. Bessbousse, H.; Rhlalou, T.; Verchère, J.-F.; Lebrun, L. Mercury removal from wastewater using a poly(vinylalcohol)/poly(vinylimidazole)
complexing membrane. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 164, 37–48. [CrossRef]
246. Refaat Alawady, A.; Ali Alshahrani, A.; Ali Aouak, T.; Mohamed Alandis, N. Polysulfone membranes with CNTs/Chitosan
biopolymer nanocomposite as selective layer for remarkable heavy metal ions rejection capacity. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 388, 124267.
[CrossRef]
247. Saucedo-Rivalcoba, V.; Martínez-Hernández, A.L.; Martínez-Barrera, G.; Velasco-Santos, C.; Rivera-Armenta, J.L.; Castaño, V.M.
Removal of Hexavalent Chromium from Water by Polyurethane–Keratin Hybrid Membranes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 218,
557–571. [CrossRef]
248. Wu, S.; Li, F.; Wang, H.; Fu, L.; Zhang, B.; Li, G. Effects of poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVA) content on preparation of novel thiol-
functionalized mesoporous PVA/SiO2 composite nanofiber membranes and their application for adsorption of heavy metal ions
from aqueous solution. Polymer 2010, 51, 6203–6211. [CrossRef]
249. Terbish, N.; Popuri, S.R.; Lee, C.-H. Improved performance of organic–inorganic nanocomposite membrane for bioelectricity
generation and wastewater treatment in microbial fuel cells. Fuel 2023, 332, 126167. [CrossRef]
250. Barman, S.R.; Banerjee, P.; Mukhopadhayay, A.; Das, P. Biopolymer linked activated carbon-nano-bentonite composite membrane
for efficient elimination of PAH mixture from aqueous solutions. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2022, 1–15. [CrossRef]
251. Gajera, R.; Patel, R.V.; Yadav, A.; Labhasetwar, P.K. Adsorption of cationic and anionic dyes on photocatalytic flyash/TiO2
modified chitosan biopolymer composite. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 49, 102993. [CrossRef]
252. Kour, G.; Majhi, P.K.; Bharti, A.; Kothari, R.; Jain, A.; Singh, A.; Tyagi, V.V.; Pathania, D. Biopolymer-Based Nanocomposites and
Water Treatment: A Global Outlook. In Biorenewable Nanocomposite Materials, Vol. 2: Desalination and Wastewater Remediation; ACS
Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Volume 1411, pp. 2–25. ISBN 9780841297807.
253. Osman, A.I.; El-Monaem, E.M.A.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Aniagor, C.O.; Hosny, M.; Farghali, M.; Rashad, E.; Ejimofor, M.I.; López-
Maldonado, E.A.; Ihara, I.; et al. Methods to prepare biosorbents and magnetic sorbents for water treatment: A review. Environ.
Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 2337–2398. [CrossRef]
254. Nure, J.F.; Nkambule, T.T.I. The recent advances in adsorption and membrane separation and their hybrid technologies for
micropollutants removal from wastewater. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2023, 126, 92–114. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.