Optimisation of Copper Removal from E-Waste Using Bioleaching Technique by Activated Mosambi Peels

  • J. Senophiyah-MaryEmail author
  • Teema Thomas
  • R. Loganath
  • T. Meenambal
Conference paper


E-waste is a threat of environment. In the present era as a result of fast upgrading of electronic equipment, huge amount of e-wastes were produced and dumped to some of developing countries like India. In e-waste, the most dangerous part is its integrated circuit, Printed Circuit Board (PCB), which contains numerous metals which are precious and harmful. Hazardous metal which results in immense harm to the environment in minute amounts itself. The extraction of these metals plays an important role because of the depleting natural resources and its toxicity. Among different methods, bioleaching of PCB plays an important role because of its environmentally friendly nature compared to other methods. Bioleaching results in a lixiviant pool of metals, and this is taken as the sample for study. Due to its tedious process of extraction of metals, it was found that e-waste leachate has been disposed without any treatment. Copper is a demanded metal which is about 30% of PCB. Considering its higher demand, extraction especially from a waste product is more worth. Adsorption is used as a key tool in the extraction process of copper from e-waste bioleachate. Peels of mosambi fruit were activated to make more effective Mosambi Activated Carbon (MAC). Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy was done to find out the adsorption of copper. The copper adsorption capacity for MAC was more than 90%. Optimisation was done using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) for copper removal from e-waste bioleachate. MAC showed better adsorption and could be used as an alternative for Commercial Activated Carbon.


E-Waste Bioleachate Mosambi-activated carbon Copper removal Bioleaching Response surface methodology 


  1. 1.
    Herat S, Agamuthu P (2012) E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Rev Issues Challenges Solutions Asian Countries Waste Manage Res 30:1113–1129Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sustainable Innovation (2009) Technology transfer industrial sector studies. Recycling–from e-waste to resourcesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwarzer S, De Bono A, Giuliani G, Kluser S, Peduzzi P (2005) E-waste, the hidden side of IT equipment’s manufacturing and useGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canning L (2006) Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the UK. J Bus Ind Mark 21:320–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grant K, Goldizen FC, Sly PD, Brune M-N, Neira M, van den Berg M, Norman RE (2013) Health consequences of exposure to e-waste: a systematic review. Lancet Glob Health 1:e350–e361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song Q, Li J (2014) A systematic review of the human body burden of e-waste exposure in China. Environ Int 68:82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song Q, Li J (2014) Environmental effects of heavy metals derived from the e-waste recycling activities in China: A systematic review. Waste Manag 34:2587–2594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Senophiyah-Mary J, Loganath R, Shameer PM (2018) Deterioration of cross linked polymers of thermoset plastics of e-waste as a side part of bioleaching process. J Environ Chem Eng 6:3185–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahluwalia SS, Goyal D (2007) Microbial and plant derived biomass for removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Biores Technol 98:2243–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kadirvelu K, Thamaraiselvi K, Namasivayam C (2001) Removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters by adsorption onto activated carbon prepared from an agricultural solid waste. Biores Technol 76:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim J, Kwak S-Y (2017) Efficient and selective removal of heavy metals using microporous layered silicate AMH-3 as sorbent. Chem Eng J 313:975–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobya M, Demirbas E, Senturk E, Ince M (2005) Adsorption of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions by activated carbon prepared from apricot stone. Biores Technol 96:1518–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mary JS, Meenambal T (2016) Inventorisation of e-waste and developing a policy-bulk consumer perspective. Procedia Environ Sci 35:643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mary JS, Meenambal T (2018) Removal of copper from bioleachate of electronic waste using banana-activated carbon (BAC) and comparison with commercial-activated carbon (CAC). In: Utilization and management of bioresources, Springer, Berlin, 2018, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mary JS, Meenambal T (2015) Solubilisation of metals from e-waste using Penicillium chrysogenum under optimum conditions. Inf Dev Environ Conserv Sustenance 285Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kadirvelu K, Namasivayam C (2003) Activated carbon from coconut coir pith as metal adsorbent: adsorption of Cd (II) from aqueous solution. Adv Environ Res 7:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seco A, Marzal P, Gabaldón C, Ferrer J (1997) Adsorption of heavy metals from aqueous solutions onto activated carbon in single Cu and Ni systems and in binary Cu–Ni, Cu–Cd and Cu–Zn systems. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 68:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dhiman N, Shukla S, Kisku G (2017) Statistical optimization of process parameters for removal of dyes from wastewater on chitosan cenospheres nanocomposite using response surface methodology. J Clean Prod 149:597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghafari S, Aziz HA, Isa MH, Zinatizadeh AA (2009) Application of response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize coagulation–flocculation treatment of leachate using poly-aluminum chloride (PAC) and alum. J Hazard Mater 163:650–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halim SFA, Kamaruddin AH, Fernando W (2009) Continuous biosynthesis of biodiesel from waste cooking palm oil in a packed bed reactor: optimization using response surface methodology (RSM) and mass transfer studies. Biores Technol 100:710–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Šereš Z, Maravić N, Takači A, Nikolić I, Šoronja-Simović D, Jokić A, Hodur C (2016) Treatment of vegetable oil refinery wastewater using alumina ceramic membrane: optimization using response surface methodology. J Clean Prod 112:3132–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Botha G, Oliveira J, Ahrné L (2012) Quality optimisation of combined osmotic dehydration and microwave assisted air drying of pineapple using constant power emission. Food Bioprod Process 90:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Ghafoori S, Mehrvar M (2016) Photochemical degradation of an actual slaughterhouse wastewater by continuous UV/H 2 O 2 photoreactor with recycle. J Environ Chem Eng 4:719–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bustillo-Lecompte CF, Mehrvar M (2017) Treatment of actual slaughterhouse wastewater by combined anaerobic–aerobic processes for biogas generation and removal of organics and nutrients: an optimization study towards a cleaner production in the meat processing industry. J Clean Prod 141:278–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Senophiyah-Mary
    • 1
    Email author
  • Teema Thomas
    • 2
  • R. Loganath
    • 3
  • T. Meenambal
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of TechnologyCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Thejus Engineering CollegeThrissurIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Engineering Science and TechnologyShibpur, HowrahIndia
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringMadanapalli Institute of TechnologyMadanapalli, ChitoorIndia

Personalised recommendations