Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science and Biotechnology logoLink to Food Science and Biotechnology
. 2023 Sep 20;33(2):287–295. doi: 10.1007/s10068-023-01431-w

Current technologies for heavy metal removal from food and environmental resources

Chan Seo 1,2, Joo Won Lee 3, Jin-Woo Jeong 2, Tae-Su Kim 2, Yoonmi Lee 4, Gyoungok Gang 1, Sang Gil Lee 1,3,✉
PMCID: PMC10786761  PMID: 38222907

Abstract

Exposure to heavy metals in water and food poses a significant threat to human well-being, necessitating the efficient removal of these contaminants. The process of urban development exacerbates heavy metal pollution, thereby increasing risks to both human health and ecosystems. Heavy metals have the capacity to enter the food chain, undergo bioaccumulation and magnify, ultimately resulting in adverse effects on human health. Therefore, implementing effective pollution control measures and adopting sustainable practices are crucial for mitigating exposure and associated health risks. Various innovative approaches, including adsorption, ion exchange, and electrochemical technology, are currently being actively investigated to cope with the issue of heavy metal contamination. These innovative methods offer benefits such as efficient recycling, cost-effectiveness and environmental friendliness. In this review, we summarize recent advances for removing heavy metals from water, soil and food, providing valuable guidance for environmental engineers and researchers seeking to address contamination challenges.

Keywords: Heavy metal removal, Water, Soil, Agro-fishery products

Introduction

Even at low concentrations, the presence of heavy metals in water and food represents a significant and concerning threat to human well-being (Khan et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2010), highlighting the urgent need for their efficient elimination. The thorough and efficient removal of heavy metals is of utmost importance in environmental engineering, as it not only safeguards public health but also ensures the safety of water and food supplies (Kirby et al., 2003).

However, achieving comprehensive and effective removal of heavy metals continues to present a challenge. The rise in heavy metal pollution can be attributed to industrial development. As urban areas expand, industrial operations, transportation, construction and inadequate waste management practices have significantly contributed to the release of substantial amounts of heavy metals into the environment (Bai and Sutanto, 2002; Misra and Pandey, 2005; Pattnaik and Reddy, 2010). These toxic substances accumulate in water and soil systems, posing risks to both human health and ecosystems (Alengebawy et al., 2021). A particularly concerning pathway of exposure is through the food chain, where heavy metals are absorbed by plants and subsequently consumed by animals within the affected environment (Qiu, 2015; Vega-Lopez et al., 2013).

Heavy metals can accumulate in organisms higher up in the food chain, including humans, through bioaccumulation and the food chain process (Ali et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019). Consequently, this accumulation can result in various adverse health effects, such as neurological disorders, organ damage, and an increased risk of cancer (Agnihotri and Kesari, 2019; Mahurpawar, 2015; Mao et al., 2019; Samaila et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2016).

Therefore, effective pollution control measures and the implementation of sustainable practices are necessary to minimize exposure and potential health risks associated with these hazardous substances, considering the rising heavy metal contamination resulting from urban development.

To address the challenges posed by heavy metal contamination, various studies are actively exploring different approaches, including adsorption, ion exchange, and electrochemical technologies (Truong et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019b). These innovative methods demonstrate the potential for efficient recycling, making them environmentally friendly and cost-effective for heavy metal removal (Truong et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2019). The objective of this paper is to review and discuss removing heavy metals from water, soil and agro-fishery products in recent studies published since 2018. The insights gained from this review will provide valuable guidance for environmental engineers and researchers in addressing the challenges associated with heavy metal contamination in water, soil, and food.

Heavy metal removal from water

In the pursuit of addressing heavy metal contamination in water, a diverse range of treatment techniques has been developed over the past few decades. These techniques include chemical precipitation, oxidation, ion exchange, electrochemical processes, adsorption, and filtration (Meunier et al., 2006; Qasem et al., 2021). While these methods offer potential solutions, they are not without limitations, such as high costs and the risk of secondary contamination (Cai et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018).

Among the proposed methods, adsorption has garnered significant attention due to its low cost, high efficiency in removing heavy metals and broad applicability. Numerous studies have reported excellent adsorbents with large surface areas and strong binding forces (Abbas et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2015; Ibrahim et al., 2016; Qiu et al., 2021).

Table 1 shows various applicable materials to remove heavy metals from water, primarily through their small particle size and adsorption mechanisms, including (1) chitosan microspheres, (2) magnetic graphene oxide, (3) biochar derived from Sargassum hemiphyllum and Plumbago zeylanica, (4) alginate-based porous nanocomposite hydrogel, (5) synthesized nano-iron supported with bentonite-graphene oxide, (6) 2-SiO2@Cu-MOF, (7) Posidonia oceanica, (8) nutshells, (9) green copper oxide nanoparticles, (10) Cladophora biomass, (11) ultrafine mesoporous magnetite nanoparticles, (12) Cucumis melo peel, (13) soya bean and (14) Albizia lebbeck pods.

Table 1.

Developed methods for heavy metal removal from water

Metalsa Materials Efficiency of removal Optimal reaction condition Reference
Cu(II) Chitosan microspheres  > 74% pH 5.5 (30 min) Wang et al. (2019a)
Cr(III), Cu(II), Zn(II), Ni(II) Magnetic Graphene oxide  > 78.12% pH 5–8 (20 min) Farooq and Jalees (2020)
Cd(II), Zn(II), Cu(II), Ni(II) Biochar (Sargassum hemiphyllum)  ≥ 80% pH 5 (60 min) Truong et al. (2023)
Cr(VI), Cu(II) Alginate-based porous nanocomposite hydrogel Cu(II): < 87.2 mg/g, Cr(VI): < 133.7 mg/g pH 3 Zhang et al. (2021)
Pb(II) Synthesized nano-iron supported with bentonite-graphene oxide Pb(II): 99% pH 7–9 (16 h) Yu et al. (2020)
Pb(II) NH2-SiO2@Cu-MOF Pb(II): 99.44% pH 6 Mohammadi et al. (2021)
Pb, Cd, Hg Almond, hazelnut, peanut, pistachio and walnut shells Cd: 93 to 98%, Pb: 86 to 97%, Hg: 77–90% pH 6.5 Dias et al. (2021)
Cd(II), Pb(II) NaOH-Fly ash Pb: 126.55 mg/g, Cd: 56.31 mg/g pH 6 (30–120 min) Huang et al. (2020)
Pb(II), Ni(II), Cd(II) Green copper oxide nanoparticles Pb: 84.0%, Ni: 52.5%, Cd: 18.0% pH 6 (60 min) Mahmoud et al. (2021)
Pb, Cd Cladophora biomass Pb: 80% and Cd: 50% pH 4 (60 min) Amro et al. (2019)
Cr, Cd Biochar (from Plumbago zeylanica) Cr: 80% and Cd: 61% pH 7 (360 min) Roy and Bharadvaja (2021)
Pb(II), Cd(II), Cu(II), Ni(II) Ultrafine Mesoporous Magnetite Nanoparticles Pb(II): > 86%, Cd(II): > 80%, Cu(II): 84%, Ni(II): > 54% pH 5.5 (120 min) Fato et al. (2019)
Cr(VI), Cd(II), Ni(II), Pb(II) Cucumis melo peel Cr(VI): 97.95%, Cd(II): 97.96%, Ni(II): 98.78%, Pb(II): 98.55% pH 6–8 (180 min) Manjuladevi et al. (2018)
Pb, As Soya bean Pb: 80%, As: 40% pH 2–4 (60 min) Gaur et al. (2018)
Pb(II), Cu(II), Ni(II), Cd(II), Zn(II) Posidonia oceanica Pb(II): 97%, Cu(II): 98%, Ni(II): 88%, Cd(II): 85%, Zn(II): 70% pH 6 (80 min) Boulaiche et al. (2019)
Pb(II), Cd(II), Zn(II), Cu(II) Albizia lebbeck pods Pb(II): 80%, Cd(II): 90%, Zn(II): 80%, Cu(II): 70% pH 6–8 (30 min) Mustapha et al. (2019)
Open in a new tab

aCu, Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, As, Zn, and Hg stand for copper, chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, arsenic, zinc, and mercury

Chitosan microspheres exhibit precise particle size control, high selectivity and effective regeneration (up to five recycling cycles) (Wang et al. 2019a). Adsorption analysis was performed to determine the best fit with pseudo-second-order kinetics and the Langmuir model. The multi-step adsorption process was quantitatively measured. Selective adsorption of chitosan microspheres for competitive metal ions was demonstrated through experimental and density functional theory (DFT) analysis. This study highlights the potential of chitosan microspheres as a promising method for the removal of heavy metals from water. Amro et al. (2019) attempted to remove Pb and Cd from water using Cladophora biomass. Characterization through Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDS) revealed the presence of diverse functional groups such as polysaccharides, amino acids, and fatty acids. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and surface area analysis (BET) confirmed a nonporous algal biomass with limited surface area. Factors such as contact time, pH, biomass dose, and mesh sizes could significantly impact the removal of metal ions. Isothermal studies employing Freundlich and Langmuir models provided insights into the adsorption process. Their research contributes valuable information to the development of efficient methods for the removal of heavy metals using Cladophora biomass.

Capacitive deionization (CDI) technology utilizes electroadsorption principles, employing an adsorption medium and an electric field to effectively separate ions and charge carriers (Han et al., 2019; Truong et al., 2023). In order to develop a cost-effective method for removing heavy metals from water, Truong et al. (2023) have explored natural materials such as biochar and seaweed as CDI electrodes, capitalizing on their potential for efficient heavy metal removal at a reduced cost (Son et al., 2018; Truong et al., 2023). Brown algae demonstrated remarkable electrosorption capacity for Cu(II) ions (75–120 mg/g) when used as a CDI electrode, indicating its potential for effective removal of this heavy metal. Furthermore, brown algae electrode exhibited impressive capability in electrosorbing other heavy metals such as Zn(II), Ni(II) and Cd(II) (Truong et al., 2023). In the context of wastewater treatment contaminated with heavy metals, adsorption has proven to be a valuable process for purifying these metals from wastewater, with activated carbon being widely employed as an adsorbent for this purpose (Hegazi, 2013). Roy and Bharadvaja (2021) have conducted a comparative study on the removal of chromium (Cr) and cadmium (Cd) using biochar derived from shoots and roots of Plumbago zeylanica. Their results indicated that the maximum removal efficiency was achieved at pH 7 and a biochar concentration of 2 mg/mL, with higher removal rates observed for Cr and Cd when shoots of the plant were used. These findings suggest that agricultural or plant by-products can serve as alternative materials for the production of adsorbents or nanoadsorbents. Mahmoud et al. (2021) have attempted to remove heavy metals with copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) synthesized using mint leaves and orange peel as reducing agents. These synthesized CuO NPs showed high removal efficiency for Pb(II, 88.80 mg/g), Ni(II, 54.90 mg/g), and Cd(II, 15.60 mg/g) under optimized conditions. The adsorption process reached equilibrium within 60 min. It followed the Freundlich isotherm and pseudo-second-order kinetic model. Their study demonstrated the potential of CuO NPs as effective and sustainable nanosorbents for heavy metal removal. Activated carbon is a highly effective adsorbent widely employed in industrial wastewater treatment plants (Karthikeyan et al., 2012; Saleh and Gupta 2011). Manjuladevi et al. (2018) have investigated the adsorption capacity of Cucumis melo peel activated carbon for Cr(VI), Ni(II), Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions. The optimal adsorption concentration was found to be 250 mg/L. Under these conditions, the maximum adsorption efficiencies for Cr(VI), Ni(II), Pb(II) and Cd(II) were found to be 97.95%, 98.78%, 98.55% and 97.96%, respectively. These findings demonstrate the potential of Cucumis melo peel activated carbon as a valuable material for heavy metal removal in wastewater treatment applications. Albizia lebbeck pods as a powdered adsorbent could effectively remove Pb (80%), Cd (90%), Zn (80%) and Cu (70%) ions from water (Mustapha et al., 2019). This study investigated parameters such as contact time, pH, concentration, and temperature using Langmuir isotherm and pseudo-second-order kinetics. Thermodynamic analysis confirmed the endothermic and non-spontaneous nature at low temperatures, while spontaneity occurred at higher temperatures. Their findings suggest that powdered Albizia lebbeck pods are a promising and cost-effective solution for metal ion removal from water.

Various techniques such as chemical precipitation, adsorption and electrochemical processes have been developed to combat heavy metal contamination in water. Adsorption is a widely studied method due to its cost-effectiveness and high removal efficiency. Effective adsorbents include chitosan microspheres, biochar, and copper oxide nanoparticles. Brown algae and agricultural by-products show potential for efficient heavy metal removal. Capacitive deionization and activated carbon are also effective methods. These findings highlight the potential of natural materials and nano-adsorbents for heavy metal removal in wastewater treatment.

Heavy metal removal from soil

Soil remediation is performed by mixing soil with an appropriate solution containing extractants and reagents for a specific period of time (Boulakradeche et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2020; Zhai et al., 2018). Various chelating agents have been suggested as effective materials for this purpose (Cameselle et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2016, 2020a; Xu et al., 2019). However, the use of chelating agents may cause ecological hazards if they are not accurately removed and regenerated during the heavy metal removal process (Vakili et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020c). This means that microbial diversity and physical and chemical properties of the soil might be altered by them (Wang et al., 2020c). Therefore, soil remediation requires minimum damage to the soil quality.

Various approaches have been experimented with to remove heavy metals from soil (Table 2), including the use of 1% HNO3 (Wang et al., 2020c), EDTA (Cameselle et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2019), citric acid (Boulakradeche et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020), N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-l-glutamic acid (GLDA) (Wang et al., 2016), FeCl3 (Zhai et al., 2018), seaweed (Sun et al., 2020) and humic acid (Piccolo et al., 2021) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Developed methods for heavy metal removal from soil

Metalsa Removal method Efficiency of removal Optimal reaction condition Reference
Cd, Pb, As, Cu, Zn 1% HNO3 Cd: 75.7%, Pb: 60.6% pH3, 3 h Wang et al. (2020c)
Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb 0.5 M Citric acid and 0.1 M EDTA Ni: 78.7%, Cu: 78.6%, Zn: 72.5%, Cd: 73.3%, Pb 9.8% pH 3.5 Cameselle et al. (2021)
Cu, Pb, Cd, Mg EDTA + Ami-PC electrode Cu, Pb, Cd: ≥ 90%, Xu et al. (2019)
Cu, Zn Citric acid Cu: 64.1%, Zn: 20.8% pH 8.3, 0.9 V, 168 h Yang et al. (2020)
Cu, Pb Citric acid Cu: 97.22%, Pb: 92.67%, pH 3.2–4.18, 29 days Boulakradeche et al. (2022)
Cd, Pb, Zn N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-l-glutamic acid (GLDA) Cd: 69.50%, Pb: 88.09%, Zn: 40.45% pH 3, 131 min Wang et al. (2016)
Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn FeCl3 Cd: 62.9%, Cu: 52.1%, Pb: 30.0%, Zn: 16.7% 60 min Zhai et al. (2018)
Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn Citric acid (CA) and ferric chloride (FeCl3) Cd: 94.8%, Cr: 79.5%, Pb: 92.7%, Zn: 97.2% pH 7, 10 h Shi et al. (2020)
Hg, Cu, As Humic acid Hg: 57%, Cu: 67%, As: 7% pH 9 Piccolo et al. (2021)
Open in a new tab

aCu, Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, As, Zn, and Hg stand for copper, chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, arsenic, zinc and mercury

Wang et al. (2020c) have used 1% HNO3 for removing heavy metals from soil. It was found that 1% HNO3 could efficiently remove over 60.6% of Cd and Pb during a 3 h period. However, soil washing resulted in a significant decrease in pH from 7.12 to 3.15. Such a drastic pH change can alter the microbial community of soil with a negative impact on soil quality. Furthermore, pH changes should be approached with caution as acidic soil conditions can enhance the uptake of heavy metals by plants (Jelusic et al., 2013). To restore the soil, the author attempted neutralization with Ca(OH)2 to facilitate both heavy metal removal and soil microbial recovery, demonstrating recovery of microbial diversity in the neutralized soil (Wang et al., 2020c).

Chelating agents are highly effective materials for removing heavy metals from soil. Various studies have been conducted using them, including EDTA and citric acid. However, EDTA has issues such as secondary contamination of the soil due to its low biodegradability after soil washing (Parsadoust et al., 2022). Citric acid as one of the chelating agents is an organic acid that can effectively remove heavy metals over a wide pH range (Zhu et al., 2019). It can act as a beneficial component for soil microorganisms. It has been extensively studied (Boulakradeche et al., 2022; Cameselle et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020). Cameselle et al. (2021) and colleagues have attempted soil washing using citric acid with electrokinetics. Citric acid removed 70–80% of Cd, Co and Cu, surpassing the performance of 0.1 M EDTA as a chelating agent. Electrochemical adsorption is often used in soil washing. Yang et al. have attempted soil washing using organic acid which can decompose with heavy metals at low voltage (0.9 V). Citric acid-electrochemical adsorption reduced Cu and Zn by 64.1% and 20.8%, respectively, at pH 8.3, confirming a decrease in soil ecotoxicity through a comparison of rape plant growth. Xu et al. (2019) have attempted soil remediation of heavy metals using EDTA and asymmetrical alternating current electrochemistry (AACE). EDTA was recycled in AACE for continuous removal of heavy metals. It achieved a removal efficiency of over 90% for Cd. Moreover, when comparing plant growth in soil treated with AACE and recycled EDTA with that in heavy metal-free soil, similar growth of kidney beans was observed, resolving the issue of soil quality decline associated with EDTA use. Electrokinetic soil washing using chelating agents may suffer from reduced efficiency due to coagulation of soil constituents, which can block the flow of the washing solution by clogging soil pores. To overcome this limitation, Boulakradeche et al. (2022) have increased the electroosmotic flow by pH adjustment and modified polarity reversal techniques, achieving a removal efficiency of 96% for Pb and Cu. Most of the soil remediation techniques utilizing electrochemical adsorption have been conducted at the lab scale. For future large-scale applications, polarity reversal electric shock, which maintains soil porosity, is considered a promising approach.

The use of chelating agents, including citric acid, for the removal of heavy metals poses potential risks of toxicity and secondary contamination at the commercialization stage (Rasmussen et al., 2015). [S, S]-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS) has been proposed as an alternative to EDTA. It has a short half-life, low toxicity and biodegradability. However, its high cost limits its practical application (Beiyuan et al., 2017; Tandy et al., 2006). Therefore, the use of natural surfactants such as humic acid for heavy metal removal might be suitable (Trellu et al., 2016). Piccolo et al. (2021) have attempted soil remediation using humic acid obtained from lignite. Humic acid demonstrated removal efficiency of more than 57% for highly toxic Hg and Cu. It also exhibited a good efficiency (75%) for the removal of polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), which are organic pollutants (Piccolo et al., 2021). To remove heavy metals from soil, various methods and agents are required because they might have issues such as pH changes, toxicity risks, and secondary contamination. Citric acid, EDDS, and humic acid show potential with their respective advantages and limitations. Further research and optimization are necessary to develop efficient and sustainable soil remediation strategies for heavy metal removal.

Heavy metal removal from agro-fishery products

Heavy metals can enter the human body via the ingestion of food, leading to their subsequent accumulation. This accumulation of heavy metals poses an elevated risk of carcinogenesis and kidney disease, thereby exerting deleterious effects on human health (Anyanwu et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2015; Martinez-Finley et al., 2012). In the case of chronic exposure to heavy metals, the risk increases even at low heavy metal concentrations (Jaishankar et al., 2014; Yuan et al., 2016).

Plants become contaminated by absorbing heavy metals through their roots (Soudek et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2018). This poses a significant risk to both humans and animals after consuming contaminated vegetables, thereby increasing the risk for humans via food-chain transmission (Zhang et al., 2019). Methods for heavy metal removal are being studied to ensure the safety of agricultural and marine products, including apple juice, milk, crab, and fish. Studies have been conducted using 10% citric acid (Amir et al., 2018), etched uio-66/cts (Yang et al., 2021), soybean husk with ACP (Habib et al., 2022), frying (Adjei-Mensah et al., 2021), boiling (Abd-Elghany et al., 2020), pre-cooking treatment (Afiah and Supartono, 2019), electrodialysis process (Wang et al., 2020b), probiotics (Kakade et al., 2022), pomegranate peel, garlic and coriander agent (Hasan et al., 2019) and alginic acid (Fernando et al., 2018) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Developed methods for heavy metal removal from agro-fishery products

Metalsa Food samples Removal method Efficiency of removal Optimal reaction condition Reference
Hg, Pb, Zn, As Spinacia oleracea L 10% Citric acid Hg: 7 ~ 23%, Pb: 7 ~ 28%, Zn: 15 ~ 54%, As: 6 ~ 22% 10 min Amir et al. (2018)
Pb(II), Cd(II) Apple juice Etched UiO-66/CTS Pb(II): 98.21%, Cd(II): 98.70% pH 4, 60 min Yang et al. (2021)
Cd, Pb Milk Soybean husk with ACP Pb: 27.37%, Cd: 14.89% pH 6.3 ~ 6.6, 24 h Habib et al. (2022)
Mn,Pb Cocoyam Fried Mn: 73%, Pb:80% 200 °C, 25 min Adjei-Mensah et al. (2021)
As, Hg, Cd, Pb Crab Boiling As: 10.8%, Hg: 17.1%, Cd: 33.3%, Pb: 21.5% 150 °C, 15 min Abd-Elghany et al. (2020)
Pb Gracilaria sp. Pre-cooking treatment Pb: 56% pH 7, 30 °C, 60 min Afiah and Supartono (2019)
Pb(II) Seaweed extract Electrodialysis process Pb(II): 76.52% 64.06 L/hr, 7.27 V Wang et al. (2020b)
Cr, Cd, Cu Cyprinus carpio Probiotics Cr: 62 ~ 88%. Cd: 89%-90%, Cu: 72%-88% 28 days Kakade et al. (2022)
Pb, Cd, Hg Fish Pomegranate peel, garlic and coriander agent Pb: 72 ~ 100%, Cd: 89 ~ 100%, Hg: 58 ~ 100% 10 ~ 30 min Hasan et al. (2019)
Pb, Cu, Ag, Cd, As Fish Alginic acid Pb: 45 ~ 70, Cu: 30 ~ 50%, Cd: 10 ~ 30%, As: 5 ~ 25%, Ag: 15 ~ 30% Fernando et al. (2018)
Hg(II) Seaweed extract Electrodialysis process Hg(II): 76% 72.54 L/hr, 7.17 V Sun et al. (2020)
Open in a new tab

aCu, Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, As, Zn, and Hg stand for copper, chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, arsenic, zinc and mercury

Amir et al. (2018) and colleagues have investigated methods for removing residual heavy metals from spinach. Their results showed that citric acid, lemon extract, sodium carbonate, reddish extract and hydrogen peroxide were effective solutions. Citric acid exhibited the highest reduction potential, followed by other solutions. Washing treatments resulted in a range of 7–54% reduction in mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn) and arsenic (As) residues. Another study has developed an adsorbent using etched UiO-66 incorporated into chitosan aerogel to capture Pb and Cd ions (Yang et al., 2021). The adsorbent demonstrated a porous structure with abundant functional groups, leading to high adsorption capacities of 654.9 mg/g for Pb(II) and 343.9 mg/g for Cd(II). Additionally, the adsorbent showed excellent removal efficiencies of 98.21% for Pb(II) and 98.70% for Cd(II) in apple juice without significant impact on its quality. Habib et al. (2022) have reported a novel approach for removing Pb and Cd from milk by combining atmospheric cold plasma treatment with soybean husk absorption. Their study employed different treatment parameters and observed that plasma treatment at a discharge voltage of 50 kV for 2 min, followed by 24 h of retention, resulted in the highest elimination rates of 27.37% for Pb and 14.89% for Cd. Adjei-Mensah et al. (2021) have evaluated whether home processing methods such as boiling, frying, and roasting could reduce heavy metal levels in food crops grown near mining areas. Frying and boiling showed the lowest levels of As and Pb, while roasting was less effective. These methods significantly decreased heavy metal contaminants in cassava, cocoyam, plantain, and yam, ensuring levels within safe limits. Kakade et al. (2022) have used the Box-Behnken designed response surface method (BBD-RSM) to optimize an electrodialysis process for lead (Pb) removal from seaweed extracts. Influential factors included operational voltage, initial lead concentration, and flow rate. The optimized parameters achieved a lead removal efficiency of 76.52%, consistent with the predicted model (75.45%). Analysis of variance verified the reproducibility and fit of the RSM model, indicating the potential of electrodialysis as a promising technology for lead removal from seaweed extracts. Various methods have been explored to address contamination of agro-fishery products by heavy metals, including the use of citric acid, adsorbents, plasma treatment, home processing methods, and optimized electrodialysis. These approaches have shown promising results in reducing heavy metal residues in different food items. It is crucial to implement efficient strategies for heavy metal removal to ensure food safety and protect human health.

In conclusion, the pervasive issue of heavy metal contamination in water, soil, and agro-fishery products necessitates the development and optimization of efficient removal strategies. In water treatment, adsorption techniques have been highlighted as cost-effective and efficient, with a variety of adsorbents such as chitosan microspheres, biochar, and copper oxide nanoparticles demonstrating significant potential. Capacitive deionization and activated carbon also show promise in this regard. For soil remediation, the use of chelating agents, including citric acid and EDDS, has been explored, although concerns about toxicity and secondary contamination persist. The application of natural surfactants like humic acid may offer a viable alternative. Electrochemical adsorption, particularly with polarity reversal electric shock, is also considered a promising approach for future large-scale applications. In the methods for agro-fishery products, various methods including the use of citric acid, adsorbents, plasma treatment, home processing methods, and optimized electrodialysis have been investigated to reduce heavy metal residues. These techniques play a crucial role in reducing heavy metal concentrations, thereby contributing to the safety of water and food resources.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through project to make multi-ministerial national biological research resources more advanced, funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (RS-2023-00230402), Future Fisheries Food Research Center of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of the Republic of Korea: 201803932 and the National Institute of Fisheries Science, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea (R2023054).

Declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Abbas A, Al-Amer AM, Laoui T, Al-Marri MJ, Nasser MS, Khraisheh M, Atieh MA. Heavy metal removal from aqueous solution by advanced carbon nanotubes: critical review of adsorption applications. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016;157:141–161. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abd-Elghany SM, Zaher HA, Elgazzar MM, Sallam KI. Effect of boiling and grilling on some heavy metal residues in crabs and shrimps from the Mediterranean Coast at Damietta region with their probabilistic health risk assessment. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020;93:103606. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adjei-Mensah R, Ofori H, Tortoe C, Johnson PNT, Aryee D, Frimpong SK. Effect of home processing methods on the levels of heavy metal contaminants in four food crops grown in and around two mining towns in Ghana. Toxicol. Rep. 2021;8:1830–1838. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Afiah R, Supartono W, Suwondo E. Optimizing pre-cooking treatment condition for reducing lead (Pb) content in Seaweed (Gracilaria sp) IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2019;355:2049. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alengebawy A, Abdelkhalek ST, Qureshi SR, Wang MQ. Heavy metals and pesticides toxicity in agricultural soil and plants: ecological risks and human health implications. Toxics. 2021;9:42. doi: 10.3390/toxics9030042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ali H, Khan E, Ilahi I. Environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of hazardous heavy metals: environmental persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. J. Chem. 2019 doi: 10.1155/2019/6730305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Amir RM, Randhawa MA, Sajid MW, Nadeem M, Ahmad A, Wattoo FM. Evaluation of various soaking agents as a novel tool for heavy metal residues mitigation from spinach. Food Sci. Technol. 2018;39:176–180. [Google Scholar]
  8. Amro AN, Abhary MK, Shaikh MM, Ali S. Removal of lead and cadmium ions from aqueous solution by adsorption on a low-cost phragmites biomass. Processes. 2019;7(7):406. [Google Scholar]
  9. Anyanwu BO, Ezejiofor AN, Igweze ZN, Orisakwe OE. Heavy metal mixture exposure and effects in developing nations: an update. Toxics. 2018;6:65. doi: 10.3390/toxics6040065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bai R, Sutanto M. The practice and challenges of solid waste management in Singapore. Waste Manag. 2002;22:557–567. doi: 10.1016/s0956-053x(02)00014-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Beiyuan J, Tsang DC, Valix M, Zhang W, Yang X, Ok YS, Li X-D. Selective dissolution followed by EDDS washing of an e-waste contaminated soil: extraction efficiency, fate of residual metals and impact on soil environment. Chemosphere. 2017;166:489–496. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Boulaiche W, Belhamdi B, Hamdi B, Trari M. Kinetic and equilibrium studies of biosorption of M (II)(M= Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn and Cd) onto seaweed Posidonia oceanica fibers. Appl. Water Sci. 2019;9:173. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boulakradeche OM, Merdoud O, Akretche DE. Enhancement of electrokinetic remediation of lead and copper contaminated soil by combination of multiple modified electrolyte conditioning techniques. Environ. Eng. Res. 2022;27:210167. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cai LM, Wang QS, Wen HH, Luo J, Wang S. Heavy metals in agricultural soils from a typical township in Guangdong Province, China: occurrences and spatial distribution. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 2019;168:184–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cameselle C, Gouveia S, Cabo A. Enhanced electrokinetic remediation for the removal of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Appl. Sci. 2021;11:1799. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dias M, Pinto J, Henriques B, Figueira P, Fabre E, Tavares D, Vale C, Pereira E. Nutshells as efficient biosorbents to remove cadmium, lead, and mercury from contaminated solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021;18:1580. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Farooq MU, Jalees MI. Application of magnetic graphene oxide for water purification: heavy metals removal and disinfection. J. Water Process Eng. 2020;33:101044. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fato FP, Li DW, Zhao LJ, Qiu K, Long YT. Simultaneous removal of multiple heavy metal ions from river water using ultrafine mesoporous magnetite nanoparticles. ACS Omega. 2019;4:7543–7549. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b00731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernando IS, Sanjeewa KA, Kim SY, Lee JS, Jeon YJ. Reduction of heavy metal (Pb2+) biosorption in zebrafish model using alginic acid purified from Ecklonia cava and two of its synthetic derivatives. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018;106:330–337. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gaur N, Kukreja A, Yadav M, Tiwari A. Adsorptive removal of lead and arsenic from aqueous solution using soya bean as a novel biosorbent: equilibrium isotherm and thermal stability studies. Appl. Water Sci. 2018;8:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  21. Guo X, Wei Z, Wu Q, Li C, Qian T, Zheng W. Effect of soil washing with only chelators or combining with ferric chloride on soil heavy metal removal and phytoavailability: field experiments. Chemosphere. 2016;147:412–419. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Habib MR, Mahanta S, Jolly YN, Moore JM. Alleviating heavy metal toxicity in milk and water through a synergistic approach of absorption technique and high voltage atmospheric cold plasma and probable rheological changes. Biomolecules. 2022;12:913. doi: 10.3390/biom12070913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Han J, Yan T, Shen J, Shi L, Zhang J, Zhang D. Capacitive deionization of saline water by using MoS2–graphene hybrid electrodes with high volumetric adsorption capacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019;53:12668–12676. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hasan F, Abdelhamid A, Diab M. Effect of aqueous solutions of pomegranate peel, garlic and Coriandrum sativum on some heavy metals from Grey Mullet (Mugilcephalus) Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2019;10:55–60. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hegazi HA. Removal of heavy metals from wastewater using agricultural and industrial wastes as adsorbents. HBRC J. 2013;9(3):276–282. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu Y, Zhang P, Li J, Chen D. Stabilization and separation of heavy metals in incineration fly ash during the hydrothermal treatment process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015;299:149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ibrahim WM, Hassan AF, Azab YA. Biosorption of toxic heavy metals from aqueous solution by Ulva lactuca activated carbon. Egypt. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2016;3:241–249. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jaishankar M, Tseten T, Anbalagan N, Mathew BB, Beeregowda KN. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2014;7:60. doi: 10.2478/intox-2014-0009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jelusic M, Grcman H, Vodnik D, Suhadolc M, Lestan D. Functioning of metal contaminated garden soil after remediation. Environ. Pollut. 2013;174:63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.10.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kakade A, Salama ES, Usman M, Arif M, Feng P, Li X. Dietary application of Lactococcus lactis alleviates toxicity and regulates gut microbiota in Cyprinus carpio on exposure to heavy metals mixture. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2022;120:190–201. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2021.11.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Karthikeyan S, Gupta V, Boopathy R, Titus A, Sekaran G. A new approach for the degradation of high concentration of aromatic amine by heterocatalytic Fenton oxidation: kinetic and spectroscopic studies. J. Mol. Liquids. 2012;173:153–163. [Google Scholar]
  32. Khan A, Khan S, Khan MA, Qamar Z, Waqas M. The uptake and bioaccumulation of heavy metals by food plants, their effects on plants nutrients, and associated health risk: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015;22:13772–13799. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4881-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Khan S, Cao Q, Zheng YM, Huang YZ, Zhu YG. Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2008;152:686–692. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kirby RM, Bartram J, Carr R. Water in food production and processing: quantity and quality concerns. Food Control. 2003;14:283–299. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kumar V, Parihar RD, Sharma A, Bakshi P, Singh Sidhu GP, Bali AS, Karaouzas I, Bhardwaj R, Thukral AK, Gyasi-Agyei Y, Rodrigo-Comino J. Global evaluation of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: a meta-analysis using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses. Chemosphere. 2019;236:124364. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mahmoud AED, Al-Qahtani KM, Alflaij SO, Al-Qahtani SF, Alsamhan FA. Green copper oxide nanoparticles for lead, nickel, and cadmium removal from contaminated water. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1):12547. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91093-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Manjuladevi M, Anitha R, Manonmani S. Kinetic study on adsorption of Cr (VI), Ni (II), Cd (II) and Pb (II) ions from aqueous solutions using activated carbon prepared from Cucumis melo peel. Appl Water Sci. 2018;8:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martinez-Finley EJ, Chakraborty S, Fretham SJ, Aschner M. Cellular transport and homeostasis of essential and nonessential metals. Metallomics. 2012;4(7):593–605. doi: 10.1039/c2mt00185c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meunier N, Drogui P, Montané C, Hausler R, Mercier G, Blais JF. Comparison between electrocoagulation and chemical precipitation for metals removal from acidic soil leachate. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;137(1):581–590. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Misra V, Pandey SD. Hazardous waste, impact on health and environment for development of better waste management strategies in future in India. Environ. Int. 2005;31:417–431. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2004.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohammadi N, Mousazadeh B, Hamoule T. Synthesis and characterization of NH2-SiO2@ Cu-MOF as a high-performance adsorbent for Pb ion removal from water environment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021;23:1688–1705. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mustapha S, Shuaib D, Ndamitso M, Etsuyankpa M, Sumaila A, Mohammed U, Nasirudeen M. Adsorption isotherm, kinetic and thermodynamic studies for the removal of Pb (II), Cd (II), Zn (II) and Cu (II) ions from aqueous solutions using Albizia lebbeck pods. Appl. Water Sci. 2019;9:1–11. [Google Scholar]
  43. Parsadoust F, Shirvani M, Shariatmadari H, Dinari M. Kinetics of lead remobilization from montmorillonite by glutamate diacetate (GLDA), methylglycine diacetate (MGDA), and ethylenediamine tetraacetate (ETDA) chelating agents. Environ. Process. 2022;9:41. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pattnaik S, Reddy MV. Assessment of municipal solid waste management in Puducherry (Pondicherry), India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010;54(8):512–520. [Google Scholar]
  45. Piccolo A, De Martino A, Scognamiglio F, Ricci R, Spaccini R. Efficient simultaneous removal of heavy metals and polychlorobiphenyls from a polluted industrial site by washing the soil with natural humic surfactants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021;28:25748–25757. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12484-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Qasem NA, Mohammed RH, Lawal DU. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater: a comprehensive and critical review. Npj Clean Water. 2021;4(1):36. [Google Scholar]
  47. Qiu B, Tao X, Wang H, Li W, Ding X, Chu H. Biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy metal removal: a review. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 2021;155:105081. [Google Scholar]
  48. Qiu YW. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals both in wild and mariculture food chains in Daya Bay, South China. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2015;163:7–14. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rasmussen SB, Jensen JK, Borggaard OK. A laboratory test of NOM-assisted remediation of arsenic and copper contaminated soils. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015;3:3020–3023. [Google Scholar]
  50. Roy A, Bharadvaja N. Efficient removal of heavy metals from artificial wastewater using biochar. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2021;16:100602. [Google Scholar]
  51. Saleh TA, Gupta VK. Functionalization of tungsten oxide into MWCNT and its application for sunlight-induced degradation of rhodamine B. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011;362:337–344. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.06.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Shi J, Pang J, Liu Q, Luo Y, Ye J, Xu Q, Long B, Ye B, Yuan X. Simultaneous removal of multiple heavy metals from soil by washing with citric acid and ferric chloride. RSC Adv. 2020;10:7432–7442. doi: 10.1039/c9ra09999a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Singh A, Sharma RK, Agrawal M, Marshall FM. Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of foodstuffs from the wastewater irrigated site of a dry tropical area of India. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010;48:611–619. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Son EB, Poo KM, Chang JS, Chae KJ. Heavy metal removal from aqueous solutions using engineered magnetic biochars derived from waste marine macro-algal biomass. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;615:161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Soudek P, Petrová Š, Vaňková R, Song J, Vaněk T. Accumulation of heavy metals using Sorghum sp. Chemosphere. 2014;104:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sun J, Su X, Liu Z, Liu J, Ma Z, Sun Y, Gao X, Gao J. Removal of mercury (Hg (II)) from seaweed extracts by electrodialysis and process optimization using response surface methodology. J. Ocean Univ. China. 2020;19:135–142. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tandy S, Ammann A, Schulin R, Nowack B. Biodegradation and speciation of residual SS-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS) in soil solution left after soil washing. Environ. Pollut. 2006;142:191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Trellu C, Mousset E, Pechaud Y, Huguenot D, van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G, Oturan MA. Removal of hydrophobic organic pollutants from soil washing/flushing solutions: a critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016;306:149–174. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Truong QM, Nguyen TB, Chen WH, Chen CW, Patel AK, Bui XT, Singhania RR, Dong CD. Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solutions by high performance capacitive deionization process using biochar derived from Sargassum hemiphyllum. Bioresour. Technol. 2023;370:128524. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Vakili M, Deng S, Cagnetta G, Wang W, Meng P, Liu D, Yu G. Regeneration of chitosan-based adsorbents used in heavy metal adsorption: a review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019;224:373–387. [Google Scholar]
  61. Vega-Lopez A, Ayala-Lopez G, Posadas-Espadas BP, Olivares-Rubio HF, Dzul-Caamal R. Relations of oxidative stress in freshwater phytoplankton with heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2013;165:498–507. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang B, Bai Z, Jiang H, Prinsen P, Luque R, Zhao S, Xuan J. Selective heavy metal removal and water purification by microfluidically-generated chitosan microspheres: characteristics, modeling and application. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019;364:192–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang G, Pan X, Zhang S, Zhong Q, Zhou W, Zhang X, Wu J, Vijver MG, Peijnenburg WJ. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil by biodegradable chelator–induced washing: efficiencies and mechanisms. Environ. Res. 2020;186:109554. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang G, Zhang S, Xu X, Zhong Q, Zhang C, Jia Y, Li T, Deng O, Li Y. Heavy metal removal by GLDA washing: optimization, redistribution, recycling, and changes in soil fertility. Sci. Total Environ. 2016;569:557–568. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang L, Wang Y, Ma F, Tankpa V, Bai S, Guo X, Wang X. Mechanisms and reutilization of modified biochar used for removal of heavy metals from wastewater: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;668:1298–1309. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang X, Feng J, Ma Z, Li J, Xu D, Wang X, Sun Y, Gao X, Gao J. Application of response surface methodology for modeling and optimization of lead (Pb (II)) removal from seaweed extracts via electrodialysis. Desalin. Water Treat. 2020;179:280–287. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang Z, Wang H, Wang H, Li Q, Li Y. Effect of soil washing on heavy metal removal and soil quality: a two-sided coin. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 2020;203:110981. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Xu J, Liu C, Hsu PC, Zhao J, Wu T, Tang J, Liu K, Cui Y. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil by asymmetrical alternating current electrochemistry. Nat. Commun. 2019;10(1):2440. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10472-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Yang Q, Li Z, Lu X, Duan Q, Huang L, Bi J. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from industrial and agricultural regions in China: pollution and risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;642:690–700. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yang W, Cheng M, Han Y, Luo X, Li C, Tang W, Yue T, Li Z. Heavy metal ions’ poisoning behavior-inspired etched UiO-66/CTS aerogel for Pb (II) and Cd (II) removal from aqueous and apple juice. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021;401:123318. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yang X, Liu L, Tan W, Liu C, Dang Z, Qiu G. Remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils by organic acid extraction and electrochemical adsorption. Environ. Pollut. 2020;264:114745. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Yu C, Shao J, Sun W, Yu X. Treatment of lead contaminated water using synthesized nano-iron supported with bentonite/graphene oxide. Arab. J. Chem. 2020;13(1):3474–3483. [Google Scholar]
  73. Yuan W, Yang N, Li X. Advances in understanding how heavy metal pollution triggers gastric cancer. BioMed Res. Int. 2016;2016:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2016/7825432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhai X, Li Z, Huang B, Luo N, Huang M, Zhang Q, Zeng G. Remediation of multiple heavy metal-contaminated soil through the combination of soil washing and in situ immobilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2018;635:92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang W, Ou J, Wang B, Wang H, He Q, Song J, Zhang H, Tang M, Zhou L, Gao Y, Sun S. Efficient heavy metal removal from water by alginate-based porous nanocomposite hydrogels: the enhanced removal mechanism and influencing factor insight. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021;418:126358. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang Y, Hou D, O’Connor D, Shen Z, Shi P, Ok YS, Tsang DC, Wen Y, Luo M. Lead contamination in Chinese surface soils: source identification, spatial-temporal distribution and associated health risks. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019;49:1386–1423. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhu Y, Fan W, Zhou T, Li X. Removal of chelated heavy metals from aqueous solution: a review of current methods and mechanisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;678:253–266. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science and Biotechnology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES