ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2025
Valorization of natural adsorbents for removing chromium (VI) from industrial wastewater: a review.
Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Removal of chromium from textile wastewater using corncob-derived activated carbon in an industrial case study at MAA garment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Sustainable strategies for remediation of Cr(VI) contaminated soil and water bodies: exploring the potential of invasive bamboo and its derivatives.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chromium (Cr(VI)) is often released from various industries in excess in developing countries, which constitutes non-compliance with environmental regulations. This metal is hazardous for the aquatic ecosystem and is responsible for toxicity, carcinogenicity, and mutagenicity in humans. Adsorption is an effective and relatively inexpensive approach for treating the excess Cr(VI) compared to conventional methods. Commercially available adsorbents cannot be considered economical yet for industrial applications, which has alternatively resulted in the use of natural adsorbents. The current study focuses on Cr(VI) removal using low-cost natural adsorbents and discusses the different conditions used for such treatments. Previous studies have shown the following order of average Cr(VI) removal using different adsorbents: leaves > bark > agriculture > dry shell > tea = fungi > yeast > algae > sawdust > bacteria. Moreover, acid modification has been reported to offer the best results. The adsorption data are best fitted to both the Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms. Hence, the abovementioned low-cost natural biomasses hold promising potential for Cr(VI) removal from wastewater, whose removal efficiency can be improved by adopting economical and effective pretreatment techniques. Literature also shows that leaves are more efficient and economical for Cr(VI) removal without pretreatment from among the various available bulk biomasses. The present review is expected to provide guidance for low-cost treatment of Cr(VI) at the industrial scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.