Advertisement

Journal of Polymers and the Environment

, Volume 27, Issue 11, pp 2624–2636 | Cite as

Metal Adsorbance in Abattoir Wastewater Using Cross-Linked Chitosan Derivatives

  • Ernestine AtanganaEmail author
  • Trevor T. Chiweshe
Original paper
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Isolation of different elements from effluent water obtained from the red meat and the poultry industry was done using a series of modified chitosan cross-linked with glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, epichlorohydrine, maleic anhydride, p-benzoquinone, poly-(ethylene) glycoldiglycidyl ether (PEG diglycidyl ether), 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone, 1,3-dichloroaceone, acrylic acid and s-methylbutylamine. Some parameters of the "22" chitosan derivatives crosslinked products each of red meat and poultry wastewater samples were analyzed like electrical conductance, pH, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and total dissolved solids. All these parameters values were within the permissible values of effluent discharge in the literature study. Different cross-linked chitosan products were tested for their ability to adsorb different elements from the red meat and poultry effluent wastewaters. ICP-OES analysis revealed the presence of up to "18" elements in both samples (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Al, As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Si, Sr and Zn). Both results also showed the presence of alkali and alkaline earth group metals (Ca, Mg, Na and K) as major elements (> 100 mg/L). The performance of each cross linked chitosan product was assessed based on the amount (concentration) and the quantity of elements adsorbed. Amongst the "22" of cross-linked chitosan products tested in this study, shrimp chitosan cross-linked with maleic anhydride (J1), shrimp chitosan cross-linked with acrylic acid (I2) chitosan products were shown to be better adsorbants for Cr and Ni due to the possible influence of the amino, carboxylic, hydroxyl, etc. functional groups in these chitosan products. Results also showed the presence of smaller concentrations (0.05–0.2 mg/L) of heavy metals (Cr, Ni, Cu and Pb) in the eluted solution which suggests the versatility of the adsorbent to different elements.

Keywords

Red meat and poultry wastewaters Chitosan cross-linked derivatives Chromatographic technique Qualitative and quantitative analysis ICP-OES technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the National Research Foundation in South Africa for the financial assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Confilct of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Horan NJ (1989) Biological wastewater treatment systems: theory and operation. Wiley, Hoboken, p 310Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kocharian A, Malutin A, Lapin I, Tchudinov E, Varvanina G (2008) Study of humic organic substances and heavy metals in the ivankovo reservoir waters. Toxicol Environ Chem 24:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hiraide M (1992) Heavy metals complexed with humic substances in fresh water. Anal Sci 8(4):453–459. (Metals. 2018;412:1–15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diabate PD, Dupont L, Boudesocque S, Mohamadou A (2018) Novel task specific ionic liquids to remove heavy metals from aqueous effluents. Met Metall J 8(6):412Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen X, Kuo D-H, Zhang J, Lu Q, Liao Y (2019) Tubular bimetal oxysulfide CuMg OS catalyst for rapid reduction of heavy metals and organic dyes. Appl Organomet Chem 33(4):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang S, Shi X (2001) Molecular mechanisms of metal toxicity and carcinogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem 222(1–2):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okegye JI, Gajere JN (2015) Assessment of heavy metal contamination in surface and ground water resources around Udege Mbeki Mining District North-Central Nigeria. J Geol Geophys 4(3):1–7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan A, Khan S, Khan MAA, Qamar Z, Waqas M (2015) 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 22(18):13772–13799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hiraide M (2018) Heavy metals complexed with humic substances in fresh water. Anal Sci 8(4):453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diabate PD, Dupont L, Boudesocque S, Mohamadou A (2018) Novel task specific ionic liquids to remove heavy metals from aqueous effluents. Metals 8(6):412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen X, Kuo D-H, Zhang J, Lu Q, Lin J (2019) Tubular bimetal oxysulfide CuMgOS catalyst for rapid reduction of heavy metals and organic dyes. Appl Organomet Chem 33(4):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobayashi N, Okamura H (2005) Effects of heavy metals on sea urchin embryo development. Part 2. Interactive toxic effects of heavy metals in synthetic mine effluents. Chemosphere 61(8):1198–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dundar A, Sarıçoban C, Yilmaz MT (2012) Response surface optimization of effects of some processing variables on carcinogenic/mutagenic heterocyclic aromatic amine (HAA) content in cooked patties. Meat Sci 91(3):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter P (2015) Essentially deadly: living with toxic elements: humans and plants have evolved various mechanisms to deal with and even adopt toxic heavy metals. EMBO Rep 16(12):1605–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rio S, Delebarre A (2003) Removal of mercury in aqueous solution by fluidized bed plant fly ash. Fuel 82(2):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    South Africa Meat Safety Act (2000) Act 40 of 2000. Pretoria, Government PrinterGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    South Africa. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2001) Guidelines for handling treatment and disposal of abattoir waste. Pretoria, Government PrinterGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adeyemo OK (2002) Unhygienic operation of a city abattoir in south western Nigeria: environment implication. AJEAM/RAGEE 4(1):23–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roussy J, Chastellan P, van Vooren M, Guibal E (2007) Treatment of ink-containing wastewater by coagulation/flocculation using biopolymers. Water S A 31(3):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shak KPY, Wu TY (2014) Coagulation–flocculation treatment of high-strength agro-industrial wastewater using natural Cassia obtusifolia seed gum: treatment efficiencies and flocs characterization. J Chem Eng 256:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hargreaves AJ, Vale P, Whelan J, Alibardi L, Constantino C, Dotro G, Cartmell E, Campo P (2018) Coagulation–flocculation process with metal salts, synthetic polymers and biopolymers for the removal of trace metals (Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn) from municipal wastewater. Clean Technol Environ Policy 20(2):393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    López-Maldonado EA, Oropeza-Guzman MT, Jurado-Baizaval JL, Ochoa-Terán A (2014) Coagulation–flocculation mechanisms in wastewater treatment plants through zeta potential measurements. J Hazard Mater 279:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Igberase E, Osifo PO (2019) Application of trimethylamine grafted on glyoxal cross-linked chitosan composite for the effective removal of metal ions in batch system. Int J Biol Macromol 134:1145–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Igberase E, Osifo PO (2019) Mathematical modelling and simulation of packed bed column for the efficient adsorption of Cu(II) ions using modified bio-polymeric material. J Environ Chem Eng 7(3):103129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Igberase E, Ofomaja A, Osifo PO (2019) Enhanced heavy metal ions adsorption by 4-aminobenzoic acid grafted on chitosan/epichlorohydrin composite: kinetics, isotherms, thermodynamics and desorption studies. Int J Biol Macromol 123:664–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Urbaniak M, Sakson G (1999) Preserving sludge from meat industry waste waters through lactic fermentation. Process Biochem 34(2):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Denkbas EB, Odabasi M, Kiliçay E, Özdemir N (2002) Human serum albumin (HSA) adsorption with chitosan microspheres. J Appl Polym Sci 86(12):3035–3039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vieira RS, Beppu MM (2005) Mercury ion recovery using natural and cross-linked chitosan membranes. Adsorption 11(1):731–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aktaş N, Gürses A (2005) Moisture adsorption properties and adsorption isosteric heat of dehydrated slices of Pastirma (Turkish dry meat product). Meat Sci 71(3):571–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ali-Abro K, Gómez-Aguilar JF (2019) Dual fractional analysis of blood alcohol model via non-integer order derivatives. In: Gómez JF, Torres L, Escobar RF (eds) Fractional derivatives with Mittag–Leffler kernel, studies in systems, decision and control. Springer, Cham, p 194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11662-0_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siyal A, Ali Abro K, Solangi A (2018) Thermodynamics of magnetohydrodynamic Brinkman fluid in porous medium: applications to thermal science. J Therm Anal Calorim.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-7897-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Molapo NA (2019) Waste handling practices in the South African high-throughput poultry abattoirs. MTech dissertation, Central University of Technology, Free State. pp 1–157Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sindhu R, Meera V (2012) International congress on informatics, environment, energy and applications-IEEA, IPCSI.T. IACSIT Press, vol 38, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brostow W, Lobland HEH, Sagar Pal Singh RP (2009) Polymeric flocculants for wastewater and industrial effluent treatment. J Mater Educ 31:157–166Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mittal GS (2006) Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application—a review. Bioresour Technol 97:1119–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Atangana E, Chiweshe TT, Roberts H (2019) Modification of novel chitosan–starch cross-linked derivatives polymers: synthesis and characterization. J Polym Environ 27(5):979–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    APAO (American Public Health Association and Others) (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. pp 1–40Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodríguez-Abalde JA, Romero-Merino E, Flotats X (2012) Determination of chemical oxygen demand in heterogeneous solid or semisolid samples using a novel method combining solid dilutions as a preparation step followed by optimized closed reflux and colorimetric measurement. Anal Chem 84:5548–5555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Caixeta CET, Cammarota MC, Xavier AM (2002) Slaughterhouse waste-water treatment evaluation of new three phase separation system in a UASB reactor. Bioresour Technol 81(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, USEPA, DC.EPA/630/P-03/001F, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brenner IB, Zander A, Cole M, Wiseman AJ (1997) Comparison of axially and radially viewed inductively coupled plasmas for multi-element analysis: effect of sodium and calcium. Anal At Spectrom 1299:897–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Alabaraoye E, Achilonu M, Roberts H (2017) Biopolymer (Chitin) from various marine seashell wastes. J Polym Environ 26(6):2207–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Atangana E (2019) Adsorption of Zn(II) and Pb(II) ions from aqueous solution using chitosan cross-linked formaldehyde adsorbent to protect the environment. J Polym Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01523-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    World Health Organization (2018) A global overview of national regulations and standards for drinking-water quality. ISBN 978-92-4-151376-0.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Centre of Environmental ManagementUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa
  2. 2.Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Institution for Groundwater StudiesUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations