TABLE 4.
Recap of the main results of heavy metals removal by different nanosponge formulations.
| Nanosponge | Pore size/(nm) | Surface area/(m2 g−1) | Heavy metal/q m (mg g−1)/RE% | qm/(mg g−1) | Removal efficiency (RE%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| βCD:CA (1:8) a | n.a | n.a | n.a./20–70 (high conc.); 80 (Cu(II), Zn(II) at low conc.); 80, 60 (Cu(II), Zn(II) in artificial sea water) | n.a | 20–70 (high conc.); 80 (Cu(II), Zn(II) at low conc.); 80, 60 (Cu(II), Zn(II) in artificial sea water) | Rubin Pedrazzo et al. (2019) |
| βCD:EPI (1:6) | n.a | n.a | Cu(II)/23/≥ 90 in water; Cd(II)/43/≥ 90 in water | Zhao et al. (2015) | ||
| βCD:EDTA (1:17) | n.a | n.a | Cu(II)/79/95 in a model textile effluent | |||
| Cd(II)/124/95 in a model textile effluent | ||||||
| βCD:PMA (1:8) | n.a | n.a | n.a./20–70 (high conc.); 80 (Cu(II), Zn(II) at low conc.); 80, 60 (Cu(II), Zn(II) in artificial sea water) | n.a | 20–70 (high conc.); 80 (Cu(II), Zn(II) at low conc.); 80, 60 (Cu(II), Zn(II) in artificial sea water) | Rubin Pedrazzo et al. (2019) |
| β-MCD:VI (1:100) | 0.02 | 27.5 | Pb(II)/18/n.a | Qin et al. (2019) | ||
| Cu(II)/55/n.a | ||||||
| Cd(II)/65/n.a | ||||||
| Zn(II)/50/n.a | ||||||
| Ni(II)/25/n.a | ||||||
| Co(II)/20/n.a | ||||||
| βCD:TFP (1:3) | 3 | 271 | Pb(II)/196/70 | He et al. (2017) | ||
| Cu(II)/164/77 | ||||||
| Cd(II)/136/83 | ||||||
| βCD:TDI (1:10) | 1.6 | 2.4 | As(V)/n.a./≈10 | Raoov et al. (2014) | ||
| βBZMCD:TDI (1:10) | 77.6 | 1.3 | As(V)/n.a./≈95 | |||
| βCD:TPC:TA (1:4) | <10 | 2.3 | Pb(II)/136/≈90 | Yang et al. (2022) |
a
Molar ratio values in mol/mol.