Performances of plant leaf biosorbents for biosorption of phosphorous from synthetic water
Open accessAbstract
Phosphorus acts as a vital part in the improvement of environment, manufacturing and agriculture. However, it can also become a contaminant in water bodies, posing a danger to the human, animals and the ecosystems. To address this issue, different methods exist for removing phosphorus from water, with bio-sorption being a mainly effective and eco-friendly option. Plant leaf biosorbents offer different levels of effectiveness, depending on the taxonomic group and pre-treatment of the plant, among other factors. In this research, locally available plant leaf biosorbents, including neem, javapalm, guava, sapota, custard apple, and mango leaves, were measured for their capability to eliminate phosphorus from water. Results indicated that mango leaves were the most effective, followed by javapalm, sapota, custard apple, neem, and guava leaves. The optimal conditions for phosphorus removal were a normal pH of 4–8, 1.2 g quantity, 60 min of contact time, a temperature of 25 °C, and a rotation speed of 100 rpm. Regeneration and reapplication of the plant leaf biosorbents can further improve the efficiency of the process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The efficacy of biosorption is contingent upon various physicochemical parameters, including pH, starting metal level, and contact duration.
“Researchers have noted that the efficacy of biosorption is contingent upon various physicochemical parameters, including pH, starting metal level, and contact duration [91].”
From Harnessing bacterial consortia for effective bioremediation: targeted removal of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and persistent pollutants (2025) · cites this paper as [91]
Cites
A review with recent advancements on bioremediation-based abolition of heavy metals
Gaur, N., Flora, G., Yadav, M., & Tiwari, A. (2014) · Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts · doi:10.1039/c3em00491k · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qattan, S. Y. A. (2025) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-025-01103-y · Cited by 109 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dey, S., Veerendra, G. T. N., Phani Manoj, A. V., & Anjaneya Babu, P. S. S.
- Corresponding author
- Dey, Subhashish
- Venue
- Cleaner Materials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-06
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 100191
- ISSN
- 2772-3976 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4377097069
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cleaner Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Phosphorus and nutrient management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Coagulation and Flocculation Studies
- Keywords
- phosphorus removal, biosorption, water treatment, mango leaves, neem leaves, guava leaves, jackfruit leaves, biosorbent regeneration, synthetic water
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review