MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408092787 · doi:10.1016/j.nxsust.2025.100119

Utilizing nature-based adsorbents for removal of microplastics and nanoplastics in controlled polluted aqueous systems: A systematic review of sources, properties, adsorption characteristics, and performance

2025· review· en· W4408092787 on OpenAlexaff
Aniekan E. Essien, Sarah Dickson‐Anderson, Yiping Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueNext Sustainability · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroplasticsAdsorptionAqueous solutionEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEnvironmental scienceWaste managementOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pervasive distribution of microplastics and nanoplastics in water systems has raised significant concerns about their ecological and human health impacts. Traditional methods to mitigate plastic pollution are often inadequate, prompting the need for innovative and sustainable solutions. Agricultural waste or by-products (AWBP) are underutilized sources of adsorbents for environmental pollution control, particularly for microplastic and nanoplastic removal. Despite their low cost and high adsorption capacities, AWBP are frequently burned, dumped, or placed in landfills. Most importantly, there remains a notable gap in research, i.e., a systematic review of AWBP-based adsorbents for the removal of microplastics and nanoplastics, which is the novelty of this review. Therefore, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, this study reviewed the use of hydrochar, biochar, and activated carbon (collectively termed nature-based adsorbents) for the removal of microplastics and nanoplastics, focusing on their sources, properties, adsorption characteristics, and performance. The principal findings and major conclusions indicate that these adsorbents can achieve up to 100 % adsorption efficiency for the removal of microplastics and nanoplastics. Environmental factors such as pH, temperature, and co-existing species can influence adsorption performance. Functional groups like -COOH, -OH, and -C O enhanced adsorption efficiency. Multiple mechanisms, including physisorption and chemisorption, contributed to high adsorption capacities. The pseudo-second-order kinetic model best described the adsorption processes, with the Langmuir isotherm providing the best fitting. Additionally, these adsorbents offer long-term carbon sequestration and align with several Sustainable Development Goals. This review highlights current knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for future research to further improve this technology. • Nature-based adsorbents achieve up to 100 % removal efficiency for microplastics and nanoplastics. • Adsorption performance varies with pH, temperature, functional groups, and competing ions. • The Langmuir isotherm best fits the adsorption process for microplastic and nanoplastic removal. • Adsorbent properties influence the removal efficiency of microplastics and nanoplastics in polluted aqueous systems. • Using nature-based adsorbents aligns with multiple Sustainable Development Goals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNext SustainabilitySame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207