1

A Review Paper on

HEAVY METAL ADSORPTION POTENTIAL OF LIVE BIOSORBENTS AND KERATIN

BIOPOLYMER

Ananya Julka 1, Manav Rachna University, Faridabad,

ananyajulka@gmail.com, +91-9651128183

Dr. Priti Gupta 2, Assistant Professor, Manav Rachna University, Faridabad

me.pritigupta@gmail.com, +91-8800533688;

Corresponding Author: Dr. Priti Gupta, Department of Chemistry, Manav Rachna University, Surajkund Road,
Sector 43, Faridabad – 121001, Haryana (India)

This article requires joint first authorship between the two authors. Both the authors have made significant
contribution to this article.
2

Abstract

Heavy metal pollution has become a pressing environmental concern of today’s day and age due to its biotoxic

effects and non-biodegradable nature. Sustainable water treatment methods for heavy metal remediation have been

documented by researchers over the years. Among the available methods, biosorption is a simple yet effective

approach that aims to adsorb heavy metals using living or dead biomass. In the recent years, efficiency of heavy

metal removal via biosorption was significantly enhanced by employing a wide variety of techniques ranging from

genetic modification (for living biomass) to functional and composite fabrication (for dead biomass). This review

elucidates heavy metal pollution in considerable detail. The solution offered is biosorption, covering the latest

developments in the field, focusing on the rise in the use of keratin adsorbents and the promising potential of

genetically modified biosorbents.

Keywords: biosorption; biopolymers; keratin; genetically modified biosorbents; heavy metals

3

1. Introduction

1.1 Heavy metal pollution and its effects

Water is an irreplaceable natural resource essential for the existence of life on the planet. Despite its importance, we

have not taken enough measures to combat the increasing water stress caused by intensive utilization of water

resources globally. In India, nearly 6.2 million cubic meters of untreated industrial wastewater is generated every

day, and only about ~60% of industrial wastewaters are believed to be treated in India (Bhardwaj, 2005; Kaur et al.,

2012). Figure 1 gives a relative breakdown of industrial wastewater contribution from various sectors, taking the

Ganga basin as a sample representative. In past because of this vast gap between the treated and untreated

wastewater, India ranked 13th out of 17 extremely water-stressed countries as of 2019 according to a report

published by the World Resources Institute (https://www.wri.org/resources/maps/india-water-tool). Faced with this

humanitarian crisis, it is of utmost importance to devise a cheap and efficient method to treat industrial effluents.

The treatment technology used depends upon the contaminant to be removed.

Many elements categorized in this group induce multiple organ damage and cancer. Besides being carcinogenic and

genotoxic, long-term exposure to these elements induces prevalent diseases like Parkinson’s disease, hypertension,

Alzheimer’s disease, Asthma, Arthritis, Epilepsy, Schizophrenia, and Infertility (Patel et al.2020).

Table 1 presents some harmful effects of heavy metal exposure in humans. Table 2 gives a breakdown of the

industrial sources of each heavy metal. Effluents from these industries are then released into rivers and lakes,

contaminating them with these hazardous pollutants. In 2019, the Central Water Commission (CWC) reported that

samples from two-thirds of the water quality stations spanning India’s major rivers were contaminated by one or

more heavy metals, exceeding safe limits set by the Bureau of Indian Standards (Central Water Commission, 2019).

Maintaining these strict standards has been increasingly arduous for many regions of the world, especially

developing nations.

1.2 Considering Bioremediation (especially biosorption) as a viable solution:

The emerging science of bioremediation is a promising alternative to fix the issue at hand. Bioremediation can be

defined as any process that uses biomass to return the natural environment altered by contaminants to its original
4

condition (Fulekar, 2010). The nature of contaminants under focus can vary from organic, like pesticides, dyes, and

pharmaceutically active products to inorganic, like fluorides, phosphates, and heavy metal ions. Bioremediation

encompasses various techniques under its umbrella that can make use of either living or dead biomass. One

technique that can be called a variant under both sorption and bioremediation is bio-sorption. This technique can

involve both active and passive mechanisms depending upon the type of biomass used (Yu et al. 2020). It is a

technique that can involve both the mechanisms of adsorption and absorption (Fomina and Gadd, 2014).

With dead biomass, pollutants bind passively through ionic, chemical, or physical mechanisms. While if we use

living biomass, passive mechanisms can be accompanied by metabolic activity that allows for bioaccumulation,

biotransformation, and bioprecipitation (Torres, 2020). Comparing their relative efficacy, on the whole, gives rather

inconclusive results, as it depends on the biomass used and other external conditions (Li et al.2018). For instance,

Xin Hu et al. (20) investigated the lead adsorption capacities of live and dead Rhodococcus sp. (HX-2) and reported

dead biomass to have higher equilibrium biosorption capacity as compared to live biomass. Conversely, Kahraman

et al. (2005) found live biomass of P. chrysosporium (ME±446) and F. trogii (ATCC 200800) to have more affinity

for Cu2+ ions as compared to dead biomass. Cheng et al. (2017) compared the relative efficiency of live and dead

Chlorella vulgaris for biosorption of Hg2+and found no significant difference between their efficiencies.

Considering other parameters, Table 3 provides the scope for each approach.

A wide variety of biomaterials have been discovered, modified, and synthesized that can be put under the broad

category of live or dead biosorbents. These can be further classified based on parameters like chemical forms,

materials used and, surface geometry (Crini et al., 2018).

For this review, biosorbents have been classified into larger categories of live and dead biosorbents. We have tried

to touch upon developments in live biosorbents and genetic modification in them. We have further chosen keratin as

an example of biopolymeric (dead) biosorbent.

2. Active biosorption using live biomass and scope for genetic modification:

As mentioned earlier, if live biomass is used, there is an added possibility of other processes like bioaccumulation,

biotransformation, or bioprecipitation, accompanying adsorption on the cell wall/cell membrane. These mechanisms
5

may occur concurrently, making biosorption a complex phenomenon (Fomina and Gadd, 2014). But this review

does not imply that the terms biosorption and bioaccumulation can be used interchangeably. This review tries to

look at bioaccumulation as a part of biosorption, the latter can be seen as a larger process involving all these

metabolic processes. Though live biosorbents have significant disadvantages over dead biosorbents, their potential

for genetic modification is mostly overlooked and underutilized. Genetic modification is a growing study that has

made giant leaps of progress since its inception. It has the potential to redesign organisms for a wide variety of

applications. They can have several advantages over other conventional biosorbents if the recombinant gene is

expressed appropriately in a metabolically active system. Since dead biosorbents usually lack specificity in metal

binding, it may cause difficulties in recovery and recycling of desired metal(s). Genetic modification can enhance

the biosorption capabilities of organisms by enhancing selectivity, accumulating properties, and resistance of the

cells to stress (Parzirandeh, 1995) (Vijaraghavan, 2008).

Approaches for genetic modification to enhance biosorption aim to target specific genes including:

1. Genes for metal homeostasis

2. Metal chelators and transport genes

3. Metal uptake regulator genes

4. Genes for survival under stress

5. Genes for biodegradative enzymes

6. Risk mitigating genes (Kumar and Hu, 2018)

An example of this can be the regulation of metabolic pathways through the overexpression of genes encoding

naturally produced, peptide chelators rich in cysteine such as glutathione, metallothioneins, and phytochelatins that

can bind with the metal ions, rendering them less toxic (Vijaraghavan, 2008). This can result in improved uptake,

transport, and accumulation of various heavy metals by the organism intracellularly. (Gupta and Singh,2017). To

improve uptake into the cytoplasm, researchers have also modulated import-storage systems such as channels and

transporters through recombination (Diep et al.,2018). A well-documented application of using channels to improve

bioaccumulation of Hg2+ions is the use of Mer family proteins. These can be inner membrane-spanning proteins

(MerC, MerF, MerE, MerT) or periplasmic scavenging proteins (MerP) that form low energy channels transporting
6

Hg2+ into the cytoplasm along the potential gradient. For instance, genes encoding merF protein present in a plasmid

of Psuedomonas fluorescens were cloned in E. coli to improve bioaccumulation (Sone et al. 2013). Along similar

lines of using the mer operon pathway, Dash and Das (2015) constructed a transgenic bacterium Bacillus cereus

BW-03(pPW-05) by incorporating the mer operon of marine bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis PW-05 via a plasmid.

The resultant bacterium had not only improved its biosorption capacity but after incorporation of the plasmid had

become more resistant to changes in pH and salinity. The transgenic species could survive along with normal biota

with a removal rate of 96.4%. Figure 2 describes the mechanism of Mer system in the cell.

Besides uptake, strategies can also focus on engineering microbial surfaces to prevent the overaccumulation of metal

ions in the intracellular space (Li and Tao, 2015). Livia et al. (2015) used the same approach to improve metal intake

through manipulating the EC20 gene that encodes a synthetic phytochelatin in a strain of S. cerevisiae. This

improved the biosorption of lead and cadmium by the organism through enhanced surface level binding. Table 4

illustrates some examples of surface-level chelators and their target metal ion. Another approach in development is

the artificial modification and de novo design of organisms for improving their heavy metal-removing capacity (J.

Liu et al.,2021). Examples of this can be wide ranging from fimbriae construction to the synthesis of operons for

regulating a particular metabolic pathway. Saffar et al. (2007) constructed a Hexa-His pili in an E. coli strain using a

novel CS3 pili-based cell surface display system. The recombinant bacteria accumulated high concentrations of Cd 2+

and Ni2+. J. Liu et al. (2021) constructed a synthetic operon SSMO, based on the protein sequences of two natural

operons found in Cupriavidus taiwanensis (which are iscSAU and moaEDAB) that were up-regulated by heavy

metal treatment. Use of the synthetic operon on the bacteria significantly improved the uptake of heavy metals.

Figure 3:

Table 5

Genetic engineering for bioremediation can also be extended to viruses. Genetic modifications of coat protein enable

the insertion of multiple functional groups that can enhance metal binding in viruses (Anderson,1963). Lim et al.

(2009) used a genetically modified TMV with the addition of one surface-exposed cysteine per coat protein

(TMV1Cys). This group enhanced metal binding which was used for Au (III) and Pd (II) biosorption. Higher
7

organisms have also been used for similar purposes through the creation of transgenic plants that act as

hyperaccumulators, thus exhibiting the phenomena of bioaccumulation. Plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana,

Brassica juncea, Populus angustifolia, Nicotiana tabacum, or Silene cucubalus have been successfully genetically

engineered with different bacterial genes, resulting in enhanced heavy metal accumulation and transformation as

compared with corresponding wild plants (Gupta and Singh,2017). Example: Over-expressing GSH1 and AsPCS1

increased the accumulation of cadmium and arsenic in Arabidopsis thaliana, as it increased the glutathione and

phytochelatin in the cells (Guo J et al. 2008). The study of genetic engineering is one with rapid and continuous

development. Its applications in biosorption are largely unexplored and are still in their nascent stages. Live

biosorbents can become more relevant for biosorption, with more scientific breakthroughs that are not far ahead in

time.

3. Dead biomass as biosorbent: A broader comparison of live and dead biomass reveals that dead biomass has

an edge in terms of usability and technology available. Also, the adsorption process using dead biosorbents can

be modelled mathematically with more ease as compared to their live counterparts. When biopolymers are

used, they can be modified structurally and chemically (U. Upadhyay et al. 2021).

Figure 4

Protein-based biosorbents- Using Keratin

Keratin is a global class of biological material, which represents a group of cysteine-rich filament-forming proteins.

It is among the most abundant biopolymers in nature (Sharma and Gupta, 2019). These structural proteins are

increasingly being put to use for biosorption as they are inexpensive materials, rich in carboxyl, hydroxyl, amino,

and sulfur-containing functional groups (Zhang et al., 2019). The functional groups mentioned have the potential to

make dative bonds with heavy metal ions through chelation (Khosa and Ullah, 2014). Moreover, the keratin fibers’

properties, like high tensile strength and water insolubility, make it more attractive for biosorption (Kar and Misra,

2004). So far, the materials mentioned in Table 6 have been tested as biosorbents for heavy metals in their native or

modified form. Besides heavy metals, they are also being used for the adsorption of other chemicals like dyes,

PACs, radionuclides, and other benzene derivatives. Their distribution worldwide is depicted in Figure 5.

Structurally, keratin comprises peptide bonds of different amino acids containing α-helix and β-sheet configurations
8

(Ullah et al., 2011; Swati et al., 2018). These structures arise due to the continuous folding of the backbone of the

polypeptide chain due to hydrogen bonding between carboxyl and amino groups of the peptide chain (A. Shah et al.,

2019). The elastic nature of keratin fiber is due to the interplay between these α-helices and β-sheets of the protein

(Sharma et al., 2019).

Figure 6:

Human hair is being investigated as a biosorbent for a wide variety of materials, from fixing oil spills to fixing

heavy metals in aqueous systems. It is a biodegradable and biocompatible material, making it ideal for biosorption

(Sharma et al., 2019). It shows better performance when chemically modified because of the activation of additional

groups. Tan et al. (1985) compared the adsorption capacities of untreated hair, acid-treated hair, and alkaline treated

hair. Hair with an alkaline treatment was more effective for the adsorption of Cu 2+ than other samples because of an

increase in the keratin’s porosity. Zhang et al. (2020) compared the efficiency of untreated human hair and bleached

human hair. He found that though the bleached hair sample was more sensitive to pH changes (for Pb 2+, Cr3+, and

Cu2+) than the former, it had superior biosorption capacity for multiple metals in a single system (Cr 3+, Mn2+, Ni2+,

Co2+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, and Pb2+) at pH 5.0 and 6.0. It was hypothesized that because of the creation of new

sulphonate groups and increased surface area with the treatment, the bleached hair sample showed higher efficacy. It

was also because of these groups it had shown increased pH sensitivity. Research on biosorption by human hair is

not limited to commonly found heavy metals. It has been found useful for the biosorption of noble heavy metals as

well and radionuclides. Mendonça et al. (2018) subjected samples of untreated human hair to aqueous solutions of

Pd2+. Pd2+ adsorption reached nearly 100% at pH 5.5. After being subjected to further thermal treatment, the material

found its application in heterogeneous catalysis, in reducing nitrobenzene. Saini and Melo (2015) used alkali-treated

human hair for the removal of uranium from an aqueous system. Alkali treatment was four times more effective than

untreated hair. Sheep wool is also considered to be a highly efficient biosorbent. Zhang et al. (2018) compared the

efficiency of various keratin biofibers and found sheep wool to be the most efficient biosorbent amongst human hair,

dog hair, chicken feathers, and wool. They reasoned that wool keratin had a different amino acid composition,

higher molecular weight, and more sites for S–S cross-linking that resulted in better performance (Schmidt and

Jayasundera, 2004). The SEM images obtained by Zhang for various keratin sources are given in Figure 7.
9

Sheep wool is being modified through varied approaches. Recently, Porubská et al. (2020) modified the surface of

sheep wool by irradiating dried samples in a linear electron accelerator. Experimental data was then recorded for its

adsorption of Cu2+. In the modified wool, the number of acidic groups increases. This is because the electron beam

splits the disulfide bridges (RS–SR), forming free radicals that oxidize in the air to give cysteic acid (R–SO 3H). Cu2+

then forms cysteinates along with carboxylates on chelation. The structure of these chelated groups and their

distortion causes atypical fluctuation between the applied concentrations. Different isotherm models were only a

partial fit in the study and pH wasn’t considered as a parameter. When Hanzlíková et al. did a similar study using

Pb2+, Cr3+, and Cd2+ solutions, they found that the sorption capacity remained the same for non-irradiated and

irradiated wool till a sorbate concentration of 0.4 mmol.dm-3. Above this concentration, there was a significant

increase in the relative efficiency of the irradiated sample. For example, the relative sorption compared to non-

irradiated wool for the same bath concentration of 0.8 mmol. dm-3 was 1.33x (Cr) >1.25x (Cd) > 1.20x (Pb). But this

trend varied depending on the ions being analyzed and was atypical in form, thus a typical adsorption isotherm was

not determined as depicted in Figure 8.

Biosorption for the extraction of noble metals has also been documented using sheep wool. Enkhzaya et al. (2019)

chemically treated sheep wool by subjecting different samples to Na 2S, NaBH4, NaOH, and NaHSO3 solutions.

Furthermore, sheep wool was modified by Na2S at different concentrations (0.002–0.1 M). After the chemical

treatment, weight loss and image characteristics were noted followed by an observation of their adsorption behavior

for Au3+ (and Cu2+) ions. In all the above alkaline solutions, the characteristics of the wool changed because of its

degradation, which also caused a color change from white to yellow (no color change with NaBH 4). Both the order

of increase in wool degradation and an increase in adsorption efficiency followed the same pattern: Na 2S treated

wool > NaBH4 treated wool > NaOH treated wool > NaHSO3 treated wool. They found that Na2S treated sheep wool

had twice the efficiency of untreated sheep wool for Au3+ adsorption. The reason being that Au3+ interact with thiol

and amino groups present in sheep wool. As Na2S broke down the disulfide bridges present in the keratin, it created

more thiol groups for the Au3+ to interact with, increasing adsorption efficiency. Langmuir adsorption isotherm and

pseudo-second-order kinetic model was found a fit for Au3+ and Cu2+ adsorption on alkali-treated sheep wool.

Another trend is the use of various milling operations to prepare wool powders from the chopped wool fiber. The

wool powders showed significantly higher (two- to nine-fold) sorption capacities towards heavy metal ions in

comparison with commercial cation exchange resins (Naik et al., 2010). Sekimoto et al. developed a keratin colloid
10

solution rather than powder to remove Pb2+ because of its higher surface area. They extracted keratin at 50 °C from

wool using tris–hydrochloride, thiourea, urea, and mercapto-ethanol and the size of the particles obtained was

around 80 nm. They then mixed the keratin colloid solution with the metal ion solution to investigate its adsorption

properties. To avoid adsorption of Pb on the glass vessel during the adsorption tests, the pH of the Pb solutions was

adjusted to 5. Pb–keratin aggregate formed as a result depended on the presence of other ions in the solution and was

decomposed using nitric acid that enabled its recovery. At low concentrations, they encapsulated the keratin

colloidal solution in a dialysis cellulose tube that enabled a removal rate of 95%. The adsorption isotherm followed

the Langmuir model.

Chicken feathers can also be a highly efficient biosorbent. It is available in excess at poultry farms, and its disposal

is increasingly becoming a problem worldwide. Khosa et al. (2013) investigated removal of As 3+ with modified

chicken feathers. They subjected chicken feathers to three kinds of modifications. They treated the first batch with

NaOH along with C6H11NO at pH= 7.5, the second with Na2S along with C6H11NO at pH=9.0, and the third with just

CH3OH at neutral pH. The three samples were then tested for their adsorption efficiency. They found that the sample

treated with methyl alcohol had the maximum uptake of As3+. It was because modification with methyl alcohol

caused the esterification of carboxyl groups that enabled an overall anionic charge depression on the surface of the

modified feathers, increasing the uptake of negatively charged arsenate ions. While modification with NaOH and

Na2S and NIPAM were relatively ineffective because of an incomplete reduction of disulfide groups. Additionally, a

decrease in the pH caused an increase in protonation that facilitated an increased uptake of negatively charged

arsenate ions.

Some underutilized biosorbents include horns, fur, bristles, and eggshells. Ngueagni et al. (2019) devised a method

to use bovine horn core for the biosorption of Cu2+ ions (Figure 9: SEM images).

The process involved calcination of the bony core at different temperatures from 400 oC to 1100 °C. Three different

samples were obtained after grounding and heating depending upon the temperature they were subjected to. The

calcined samples turned progressively from yellow to blackish (400℃), gray (500℃), and finally white (> 600 ℃)

with an increase in the temperature. With the progressive loss of water and organic material, good crystallinity was

obtained at 1100 °C. The amount of adsorbed Cu2+ ions decreased with increasing temperature within a pH of
11

4<x<5. This result was obtained because an increase in temperature caused calcium loss that hindered the ion

exchange between Ca2+ and Cu2+. But the performance of the sorbent treated at 400℃ was approximately 7.5 times

better than that of the untreated sorbent, which demonstrated the importance of heat treatment in preparation of an

efficient biosorbent. Bristles form a major chunk of the keratin biomass produced worldwide. But enough research is

lacking on the material and its application as a biosorbent. Ramírez-Paredes et al., 2013 investigated the material for

biosorption of heavy metals present in acid-mine drainage. They subjected acid hydrolyzed pig bristles to effluents

from two acid mines with low- level and intermediate- level pollution in the study. They found that the sorbent was

highly effective in removing metal ions from the effluents with low metal concentrations. These included Ni 2+

(100% removal), Cu2+ (98% removal), Zn2+ (97% removal) and Mn2+ (63% removal) (pH=4). But when the pig

bristles were subjected to effluents from an acid mine with significantly higher concentrations of metals, they found

that elimination and adsorption rate decreased significantly. Under experimentation conditions (pH=3.2), only Cu 2+

(97% removal) and Zn2+ (38% removal) accounted for significant biosorption. These were the final removal rates

reported after one week in the former case and after one hour in the latter.

3.6.2 Keratin based composite biosorbents: Cross-reactions between alginate and keratin were performed by

Fadillah et al. (2018) to prepare a composite biosorbent. Cross linking these two materials led to the formation of

amide bonds from the reaction between carboxylate and amines. This led to improved strength and resistance, along

with improved adsorption efficiency. They prepared calcium alginate coated keratin beads for the removal of Fe3+

ions. CaCl2 was used as a cross linking agent for carrying out the encapsulation. A ratio of 1:2 between alginate and

keratin at a pH of 7.0 demonstrated maximum adsorption efficiency of 658.4 mg/g for Fe3+ ions. The experimental

data recorded followed the Freundlich isotherm model. Gore et al. (2017) used a blend of keratin (obtained from

goat’s hair) and nylon-6 to prepare microbeads for the adsorption of Th4+ ions. Keratin and nylon-6, having

sufficient miscibility were successfully blended using an aqueous solution of CaCl2. It was found that the adsorbent

prepared had a maximum removal rate of 94.64% at pH 7. Successful remediation of metal ions was attributed to the

presence of chelating groups like amino, and to the porous structure of the microbeads. Besides, chicken feathers

could also be modified using ethylenediamine through the cross -link reaction with the epichlorohydrin to yield a

good particle biosorbent. Researchers have also prepared nano-membranes and applied it to biosorption. Jin et al.
12

(2020) used PET and wool keratin to synthesize a nanofiber membrane which was then used as an adsorbent for

Cr6+ ions. A ratio of 1:1 for the two components at an acidic pH of 3 was shown to have the maximum efficiency.

Conclusion

Decades of research on metal biosorption has revealed a wide variety of biomolecules and biopolymers with high

sorption efficiency. While attempts to improve the sorption capacity of the material may be successful, they may

result in higher costs and may raise environmental concerns. Alongside balancing costs and efficiency, more

research can be put into designing methods for operating the process on a commercial scale. Recyclability and life of

the biosorbent has to be taken into account for its introduction as a commercial technique. In this regard, keratin

based biosorbents showed a lot of promise. Biopolymeric hybrids can act as efficient and eco-friendly materials for

use at an industrial scale. Biosorption can hold further applications when the metals adsorbed are recovered and

reused for other purposes. For recovery and reuse, live as well as dead biosorbents can be worked upon.

References:

1. Removal of Emerging Contaminants Through Microbial Processes. (2021). In Removal of Emerging

Contaminants Through Microbial Processes. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5901-3
2. Atari, L., Esmaeili, S., Zahedi, A., Mohammadi, M. J., Zahedi, A., & Babaei, A. A. (2019). Removal of heavy
metals by conventional water treatment plants using poly aluminum chloride. Toxin Reviews, 38(2), 127–134.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2018.1431676
3. Ayawei, N., Ebelegi, A. N., & Wankasi, D. (2017). Modelling and Interpretation of Adsorption Isotherms.
Journal of Chemistry, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3039817
4. Azari, A., Gharibi, H., Kakavandi, B., Ghanizadeh, G., Javid, A., Mahvi, A. H., Sharafi, K., & Khosravia, T.
(2017). Magnetic adsorption separation process: an alternative method of mercury extracting from aqueous
solution using modified chitosan coated Fe3O4 nanocomposites. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology, 92(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4990
5. Banat, F., Al-Asheh, S., & Al-Rousan, D. (2002). Comparison between different keratin-composed biosorbents
for the removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions. Adsorption Science and Technology, 20(4), 393–
416. https://doi.org/10.1260/02636170260295579
13

6. Bhandari, V. M., & Ranade, V. V. (2014). Advanced Physico-chemical Methods of Treatment for Industrial
Wastewaters. In Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and Reuse. Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099968-5.00002-7
7. Bhardwaj, R. (2005). Status of wastewater generation and treatment in India. … Working Group on
Environment Statistics (IWG–Env) …, June, 1–9. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Status+of+Wastewater+Generation+and+Treatment+in+India#0
8. Boyd, E. S., & Barkay, T. (2012). The mercury resistance operon: From an origin in a geothermal environment
to an efficient detoxification machine. Frontiers in Microbiology, 3(OCT), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00349
9. Bradl, H. B. (2005). Chapter 1 Sources and origins of heavy metals. Interface Science and Technology, 6(C), 1–
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4285(05)80020-1
10. Chemistry, A. (1988). Cadmium adsorption Effect of cadmium and Cattail concentrations. 68, 267–273.
11. Cheng, J., Yin, W., Chang, Z., Lundholm, N., & Jiang, Z. (2017). Biosorption capacity and kinetics of
cadmium(II) on live and dead Chlorella vulgaris. Journal of Applied Phycology, 29(1), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0916-2
12. Cheng, S. Y., Show, P. L., Lau, B. F., Chang, J. S., & Ling, T. C. (2019). New Prospects for Modified Algae in
Heavy Metal Adsorption. Trends in Biotechnology, 37(11), 1255–1268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.04.007
13. Commission, C. W. (2019). STATUS OF TRACE & TOXIC METALS IN Ministry of Jal Shakti. 123.
14. Contreras-Cortés, A. G., Almendariz-Tapia, F. J., Cortez-Rocha, M. O., Burgos-Hernández, A., Rosas-Burgos,
E. C., Rodríguez-Félix, F., Gómez-Álvarez, A., Quevedo-López, M. Á., & Plascencia-Jatomea, M. (2020).
Biosorption of copper by immobilized biomass of Aspergillus australensis. Effect of metal on the viability,
cellular components, polyhydroxyalkanoates production, and oxidative stress. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 27(23), 28545–28560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07747-y
15. Crini, G., Lichtfouse, E., Wilson, L. D., & Morin-Crini, N. (2019). Conventional and non-conventional
adsorbents for wastewater treatment. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 17(1), 195–213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0786-8
16. Dash, H. R., & Das, S. (2015). Bioremediation of inorganic mercury through volatilization andbiosorption by
transgenic Bacillus cereus BW-03( p PW-05). International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 103, 179–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.04.022
17. de CF, L., HB, M., & C, B. (2015). Potential Application of Modified Saccharomyces Cerevisiae for Removing
Lead and Cadmium. Journal of Bioremediation & Biodegradation, 06(06). https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-
6199.1000313
18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2011.572922
19. Diep, P., Mahadevan, R., & Yakunin, A. F. (2018). Heavy metal removal by bioaccumulation using genetically
engineered microorganisms. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 6(OCT).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00157
20. Dong, X. B., Huang, W., Bian, Y. B., Feng, X., Ibrahim, S. A., Shi, D. F., Qiao, X., & Liu, Y. (2019).
Remediation and Mechanisms of Cadmium Biosorption by a Cadmium-Binding Protein from Lentinula edodes
[Research-article]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 67(41), 11373–11379.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b04741
21. Enkhzaya, S., Shiomori, K., & Oyuntsetseg, B. (2020). Effective adsorption of Au(III) and Cu(II) by chemically
treated sheep wool and the binding mechanism. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(5), 104021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104021
22. Escudero, L. B., Quintas, P. Y., Wuilloud, R. G., & Dotto, G. L. (2019). Recent advances on elemental
biosorption. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 17(1), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0816-6
23. Fadillah, G., Putri, E. N. K., Febrianastuti, S., Maylinda, E. V., & Purnawan, C. (2018). Adsorption of Fe Ions
from Aqueous Solution Using α-Keratin-Coated Alginate Biosorbent. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Development, 9(3), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijesd.2018.9.3.1077
24. Fomina, M., & Gadd, G. M. (2014). Biosorption: Current perspectives on concept, definition and application.
Bioresource Technology, 160, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.102
25. Fulekar, M., et al. (2010). Bioremediation Technology: Recent Advances. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-
90-481-3678-0
26. Gao, X., Zhang, H., Chen, K., Zhou, J., & Liu, Q. (2018). Removal of heavy metal and sulfate ions by cellulose
derivative-based biosorbents. Cellulose, 25(4), 2531–2545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1690-x
14

27. Gautam, R. K., Sharma, S. K., Mahiya, S., & Chattopadhyaya, M. C. (2014). CHAPTER 1. Contamination of
Heavy Metals in Aquatic Media: Transport, Toxicity and Technologies for Remediation. Heavy Metals In
Water, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781782620174-00001
28. Ge, Y., & Li, Z. (2018). Application of Lignin and Its Derivatives in Adsorption of Heavy Metal Ions in Water:
A Review. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 6(5), 7181–7192.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01345
29. Gore, P. M., Khurana, L., Dixit, R., & Balasubramanian, K. (2017). Keratin-Nylon 6 engineered microbeads for
adsorption of Th (IV) ions from liquid effluents. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 5(6), 5655–
5667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.10.048
30. Guo, J., Dai, X., Xu, W., & Ma, M. (2008). Overexpressing GSH1 and AsPCS1 simultaneously increases the
tolerance and accumulation of cadmium and arsenic in Arabidopsis thaliana. Chemosphere, 72(7), 1020–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.018
31. Gurbuz, F. (2009). Removal of toxic hexavalent chromium ions from aqueous solution by a natural biomaterial:
Batch and column adsorption. Adsorption Science and Technology, 27(8), 745–759.
https://doi.org/10.1260/0263-6174.27.8.745
32. Hanzlíková, Z., Braniša, J., Jomová, K., Fülöp, M., Hybler, P., & Porubská, M. (2018). Electron beam irradiated
sheep wool – Prospective sorbent for heavy metals in wastewater. Separation and Purification Technology, 193,
345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.10.045
33. Hu, X., Cao, J., Yang, H., Li, D., Qiao, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, Z., & Huang, L. (2020). Pb2+ biosorption from
aqueous solutions by live and dead biosorbents of the hydrocarbon-degrading strain Rhodococcus sp. HX-2.
PLoS ONE, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226557
34. Hui, C. Y., Guo, Y., Yang, X. Q., Zhang, W., & Huang, X. Q. (2018). Surface display of metal binding domain
derived from PbrR on Escherichia coli specifically increases lead(II) adsorption. Biotechnology Letters, 40(5),
837–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-018-2533-4
35. Jaishankar, M., Tseten, T., Anbalagan, N., Mathew, B. B., & Beeregowda, K. N. (2014). Toxicity, mechanism
and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 7(2), 60–72.
https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2014-0009
36. Jin, X., Wang, H., Jin, X., Wang, H., Chen, L., Wang, W., Lin, T., & Zhu, Z. (2020). Preparation of keratin/PET
nanofiber membrane and its high adsorption performance of Cr(VI). Science of the Total Environment, 710(Vi),
135546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135546
37. Kahraman, S., Asma Hamamci, D., Erdemoglu, S., & Yesilada, O. (2005). Biosorption of copper(II) by live and
dried biomass of the white rot fungi Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Funalia trogii. Engineering in Life
Sciences, 5(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.200420057 metals from water. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology, 79(11), 1313–1319. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1132
38. Khosa, M. A., & Ullah, A. (2014). In-situ modification, regeneration, and application of keratin biopolymer for
arsenic removal. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 278, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.06.023
39. Khosa, M. A., Wu, J., & Ullah, A. (2013). Chemical modification, characterization, and application of chicken
feathers as novel biosorbents. RSC Advances, 3(43), 20800–20810. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ra43787f
40. Kotrba, P., Mackova, M., & Macek, T. (2011). Microbial biosorption of metals. Microbial Biosorption of
Metals, 1–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0443-5
41. Kotrba, P., & Rumi, T. (2000). Bioremediation of heavy metal pollution exploiting constituents, metabolites
and metabolic pathways of livings. A review. Collection of Czechoslovak Chemical Communications, 65(8),
1205–1247. https://doi.org/10.1135/cccc20001205
42. Kumar, R., Sharma, R. K., & Singh, A. P. (2017). Cellulose based grafted biosorbents - Journey from
lignocellulose biomass to toxic metal ions sorption applications - A review. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 232,
62–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.02.050
43. Li, P. S., & Tao, H. C. (2015). Cell surface engineering of microorganisms towards adsorption of heavy metals.
Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 41(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2013.813898
44. Li, X., Li, D., Yan, Z., & Ao, Y. (2018). Adsorption of cadmium by live and dead biomass of plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria. RSC Advances, 8(58), 33523–33533. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RA06758A
45. Lichtfouse, E. (2021). Green Adsorbents to Remove Metals, Dyes and Boron from Polluted Water (Vol. 49).
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-47400-3
46. Lim, J. S., Kim, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Stach, E. A., Culver, J. N., & Harris, M. T. (2010). Quantitative study of
Au(III) and Pd(II) ion biosorption on genetically engineered Tobacco mosaic virus. Journal of Colloid and
Interface Science, 342(2), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2009.10.028
15

47. Liu, J., Zhu, N., Zhang, Y., Ren, T., Shao, C., Shi, R., Li, X., Ju, M., Ma, T., & Yu, Q. (2021). Transcription
profiling-guided remodeling of sulfur metabolism in synthetic bacteria for efficiently capturing heavy metals.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 403(July 2020), 123638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123638
48. Malik, D. S., Jain, C. K., & Yadav, A. K. (2017). Removal of heavy metals from emerging cellulosic low-cost
adsorbents: a review. Applied Water Science, 7(5), 2113–2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0401-8
49. Marseaut, S., Debourg, A., Dostálek, P., Votruba, J., Kuncová, G., & M. Tobin, J. (2004). A silica matrix
biosorbent of cadmium. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 54(2–3), 209–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2004.03.014
50. Maruthamuthu, M. kannan, Ganesh, I., Ravikumar, S., & Hong, S. H. (2015). Evaluation of zraP gene
expression characteristics and construction of a lead (Pb) sensing and removal system in a recombinant
Escherichia coli. Biotechnology Letters, 37(3), 659–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-014-1732-x
51. Medfu Tarekegn, M., Zewdu Salilih, F., & Ishetu, A. I. (2020). Microbes used as a tool for bioremediation of
heavy metal from the environment. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 6(1), 1783174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1783174
52. Mejáre, M., & Bülow, L. (2001). Metal-binding proteins and peptides in bioremediation and phytoremediation
of heavy metals. Trends in Biotechnology, 19(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(00)01534-1
53. Mendonça, F. G., Silva, T. G., do Nascimento, G. M., Stumpf, H. O., Mambrini, R. V., & do Pim, W. D.
(2019). Human hair as adsorbent of palladium(II) in solution: A precursor of well-dispersed size-controlled Pd
nanoparticles. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society, 30(4), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.21577/0103-
5053.20180194
54. Mo, J., Yang, Q., Zhang, N., Zhang, W., Zheng, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2018). A review on agro-industrial waste
(AIW) derived adsorbents for water and wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Management,
227(April), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.069
55. Mohd, I., Ahamed, I., & Lichtfouse, E. (2021). Water Pollution and Remediation: Photocatalysis (Vol. 57).
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-54723-3
56. Mondal, N. K., & Basu, S. (2019). Potentiality of waste human hair towards removal of chromium(VI) from
solution: kinetic and equilibrium studies. Applied Water Science, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-
0929-5
57. Ngueagni, P. T., Woumfo, E. D., Kumar, P. S., Siéwé, M., Vieillard, J., Brun, N., & Nkuigue, P. F. (2020).
Adsorption of Cu(II) ions by modified horn core: Effect of temperature on adsorbent preparation and extended
application in river water. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 298(September 2020), 112023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2019.112023
58. Nikiforova, T., Kozlov, V., & Islyaikin, M. (2019). Sorption of d-metal cations by keratin from aqueous
solutions. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 7(5), 103417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103417
59. Nordberg, G. F., Fowler, B. a., & Nordberg, M. (2009). Handbook of The Toxicology of Metal. 1024.
60. Norsuzila Ya’acob1, Mardina Abdullah1, 2 and Mahamod Ismail1, 2, Medina, M., Talarico, T. L., Casas, I. A.,
Chung, T. C., Dobrogosz, W. J., Axelsson, L., Lindgren, S. E., Dobrogosz, W. J., Kerkeni, L., Ruano, P.,
Delgado, L. L., Picco, S., Villegas, L., Tonelli, F., Merlo, M., Rigau, J., Diaz, D., & Masuelli, M. (1989). We
are IntechOpen , the world ’ s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists , for scientists TOP 1
%. Intech, 32, 137–144. http://www.intechopen.com/books/trends-in-telecommunications-technologies/gps-
total-electron-content-tec- prediction-at-ionosphere-layer-over-the-equatorial-region%0AInTec
61. Pazirandeh, M., Chrisey, L. A., Mauro, J. M., Campbell, J. R., & Gaber, B. P. (1995). Expression of the
Neurospora crassa metallothionein gene in Escherichia coli and its effect on heavy-metal uptake. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 43(6), 1112–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166934
62. Porubská, M., Jomová, K., Lapčík, L., & Braniša, J. (2020). Radiation-modified wool for adsorption of redox
metals and potentially for nanoparticles. Nanotechnology Reviews, 9(1), 1017–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2020-0080
63. Prabhu, P. P., & Prabhu, B. (2018). A Review on Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Waste Water using
Natural/ Modified Bentonite. MATEC Web of Conferences, 144, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201714402021
64. Pratush, A., Kumar, A., & Hu, Z. (2018). Adverse effect of heavy metals (As, Pb, Hg, and Cr) on health and
their bioremediation strategies: a review. International Microbiology, 21(3), 97–106.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10123-018-0012-3
16

65. Roig. (2013). Biosorption of Heavy Metals from Acid Mine Drainages onto Pig Bristles, Poultry Feathers and
Crustacean Shells Industrial Biowastes. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, October 2013.
https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-5129.2013.09.66
66. Saffar, B., Yakhchali, B., & Arbabi, M. (2007). Development of a bacterial surface display of hexahistidine
peptide using CS3 pili for bioaccumulation of heavy metals. Current Microbiology, 55(4), 273–277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-005-0511-2
67. Saha, S., Arshad, M., Zubair, M., & Ullah, A. (2019). Keratin as a Biopolymer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-02901-2_6
68. Saha, S., Zubair, M., Khosa, M. A., Song, S., & Ullah, A. (2019). Keratin and Chitosan Biosorbents for
Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 27(7), 1389–1403.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-019-01439-6
69. Saini, A. S., & Melo, J. S. (2015). Biosorption of uranium by human black hair. Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity, 142(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2015.01.006
70. Schmidt, W. F., & Jayasundera, S. (2004). Microcrystalline Avian Keratin Protein Fibers. Natural Fibers,
Plastics and Composites, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9050-1_4
71. Sekimoto, Y., Okiharu, T., Nakajima, H., Fujii, T., Shirai, K., & Moriwaki, H. (2013). Removal of Pb(II) from
water using keratin colloidal solution obtained from wool. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
20(9), 6531–6538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1727-5
72. Sharma, S., Gupta, A., Kumar, A., Kee, C. G., Kamyab, H., & Saufi, S. M. (2018). An efficient conversion of
waste feather keratin into ecofriendly bioplastic film. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 20(10),
2157–2167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1498-2
73. Sharma, S., & Kumar, A. (2019). Springer Series on Polymer and Composite Materials Keratin as a Protein
Biopolymer Extraction from Waste Biomass and Applications. http://www.springer.com/series/13173
74. Simonič, M., & Zemljič, L. F. (2020). Functionalized wool as an efficient and sustainable adsorbent for removal
of Zn(II) from an aqueous solution. Materials, 13(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13143208
75. Singh, R. L., & Singh, R. P. (2019). Advances in Biological Treatment of Industrial Waste Water and their
Recycling for a Sustainable FutureAdvances in Biological Treatment of Industrial Waste Water and their
Recycling for a Sustainable Future. Applied Environmental Science and Engineering f.
76. Soares, M. A. R., Marto, S., Quina, M. J., Gando-Ferreira, L., & Quinta-Ferreira, R. (2016). Evaluation of
Eggshell-Rich Compost as Biosorbent for Removal of Pb(II) from Aqueous Solutions. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, 227(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-2843-x
77. Sone, Y., Nakamura, R., Pan-Hou, H., Itoh, T., & Kiyono, M. (2013). Role of MerC, MerE, MerF, MerT,
and/or MerP in resistance to mercurials and the transport of mercurials in escherichia coli. Biological and
Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 36(11), 1835–1841. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b13-00554
78. Sparks, D. L. (2003). Sorption Phenomena on Soils. Environmental Soil Chemistry, 133–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012656446-4/50005-0
79. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 39(3), 228–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440802233259
80. Tan, T. C., Chia, C. K., & Teo, C. K. (1985). Uptake of metal ions by chemically treated human hair. Water
Research, 19(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(85)90193-9
81. Tang, S. C. N., & Lo, I. M. C. (2013). Magnetic nanoparticles: Essential factors for sustainable environmental
applications. Water Research, 47(8), 2613–2632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.02.039
82. Tchounwou, P. B., Yedjou, C. G., Patlolla, A. K., & Sutton, D. J. (2012). Molecular, clinical and environmental
toxicicology Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology. In Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology (Vol.
101). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4
83. Tijani, J. O., Bankole, M. T., Muriana, M., & Falana, I. O. (2014). Development of low cost adsorbent from
cow horn for the biosorption of Mn (II), Ni (II) and Cd (II) ion from aqueous solution. Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.7.213
84. Torres, E. (2020). Biosorption: A Review of the Latest Advances. Processes, 8(12), 1584.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8121584
85. Ullah, A., Vasanthan, T., Bressler, D., Elias, A. L., & Wu, J. (2011). Bioplastics from feather quill.
Biomacromolecules, 12(10), 3826–3832. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm201112n
86. Upadhyay, U., Sreedhar, I., Singh, S. A., Patel, C. M., & Anitha, K. L. (2021). Recent advances in heavy metal
removal by chitosan based adsorbents. Carbohydrate Polymers, 251(August 2020), 117000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117000
87. Varghese, A. G., Paul, S. A., & Latha, M. S. (2018). Cellulose Based Green Adsorbents for Pollutant Removal
from Wastewater. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92162-4_4
17

88. Vijayaraghavan, K., & Yun, Y. S. (2008). Bacterial biosorbents and biosorption. Biotechnology Advances,
26(3), 266–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2008.02.002
89. Volesky, B. (2007). Biosorption and me. Water Research, 41(18), 4017–4029.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.062
90. Yu, R., Chai, H., Yu, Z., Wu, X., Liu, Y., Shen, L., Li, J., Ye, J., Liu, D., Ma, T., Gao, F., & Zeng, W. (2020).
Behavior and mechanism of cesium biosorption from aqueous solution by living synechococcus PCC7002.
Microorganisms, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040491
91. Zahara, I., Arshad, M., Naeth, M. A., Siddique, T., & Ullah, A. (2020). Feather keratin derived sorbents for the
treatment of wastewater produced during energy generation processes. Chemosphere, 128545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128545
92. Zhang, H., Carrillo, F., López-Mesas, M., & Palet, C. (2019). Valorization of keratin biofibers for removing
heavy metals from aqueous solutions. Textile Research Journal, 89(7), 1153–1165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517518764008
93. Zhang, H., Carrillo-Navarrete, F., & Palet-Ballús, C. (2020). Human Hair Biogenic Fiber as a Biosorbent of
Multiple Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solutions. Journal of Natural Fibers, 00(00), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2020.1798841
94. Zhang, S., Guo, Z., Xu, J., Niu, H., Chen, Z., & Xu, J. (2011). Effect of environmental conditions on the
sorption of radiocobalt from aqueous solution to treated eggshell as biosorbent. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, 288(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-010-0895-8
95. Zhu, N., Zhang, B., & Yu, Q. (2020). Genetic Engineering-Facilitated Coassembly of Synthetic Bacterial Cells
and Magnetic Nanoparticles for Efficient Heavy Metal Removal. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 12(20),
22948–22957. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c04512

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Figure title

no.
1 Distribution of industrial wastewater in Ganga, Constructed from source: UP Pollution Control
Board(2018)
2 Mer system for uptake of Hg2+; (Boyd and Barkay, 2012)

3 De novo synthesis of SSMO fragments to remodel sulfur metabolism and thus improve heavy metal
intake; J. Liu et al.,2021
4 Types of modifications in biosorbents to enhance efficiency
5 Worldwide distribution of keratin biomass
6 Alpha and Beta secondary structures of keratin; a: alpha helix structure; b: Beta pleated structure; L.E.
Murr
7 SEM micrographs of biosorbents: a1 and a2 -human hair and metal-loaded human hair, b1 and b2 -
dog hair and metal-loaded dog hair; c1 and c2- chicken feathers and metal-loaded chicken feathers;
and d1 and d2 correspond to the degreased wool and metal-loaded degreased wool; (Zhang et al. 2018)
8 Atypical Cu2+ adsorption isotherm plotted by Porubská et al. (2020)
9 SEM images of calcined horn core samples showing an increase in crystallinity with increasing
temperature; Ngueagni et al. (2019)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Table Title

no.
18

1 Harmful effects of heavy metal exposure in humans

2 Industrial sources of heavy metals
3 Exploring the practicality and various aspects of using live and dead biosorbents; (Torres 2020), (Hu
X et al. 2020), (Contreras et al.2020), (Dhankar and Hooda, 2011)
4 Some examples of metal chelator peptides found on cellular surface and the metal ion they target.
5 Genetically engineered bacteria with their target heavy metals
6 A table representing the keratin biosorbents till now and the metals they were employed to adsorb