The removal of heavy metals in urban runoff by sorption on mulch
Abstract
A series of adsorption experiments was conducted in order to assess the ability of three mulches to remove several of the heavy metal ions typically encountered in urban runoff. Three types of mulch, cypress bark (C), hardwood bark (H), and pine bark nugget (P), were selected as potential sorbents to capture heavy metals in urban runoff. The hardwood bark (H) mulch had the best physicochemical properties for adsorption of heavy metal ions. In addition, because of its fast removal rate and acceptably high capacity for all the heavy metal ions, it was concluded that the H mulch is the best of the three adsorbents for treatment of urban runoff containing trace amounts of heavy metals. In order to investigate the sorption isotherm, two equilibrium models, the Freundlich and Langmuir isotherms, were analyzed. The sorption of these metals on H mulch conformed to the linear form of the Langmuir adsorption equation. At pH 5 and 6, the Langmuir constants (S(m)) for each metal were found to be 0.324 and 0.359 mmol/g (Cu); 0.306 and 0.350 mmol/g (Pb); and 0.185 and 0.187 mmol/g (Zn) at 25 degrees C.
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?
Established treatment methods of urban runoff include liquid extraction, precipitation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange, which achieve acceptable discharge concentrations but are not always economical or technically feasible.
“Established treatment methods of urban runoff include liquid extraction, precipitation, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange, methods which achieve acceptable discharge concentrations; however, they are not always economical or technically feasible [5].”
From Application of Biochar in Stormwater Treatment: Experimental and Modeling Investigation (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 216
- Authors
- Jang, A., Seo, Y., & Bishop, P. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bishop, Paul L.
- Venue
- Environmental Pollution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-127
- ISSN
- 0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081619665
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 11.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environmental Pollution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
- Keywords
- heavy metal removal, urban runoff, mulch, sorption, adsorption isotherms, Langmuir isotherm, Freundlich isotherm, copper, lead, zinc, adsorbents
- MeSH terms
- Biodegradation, Environmental, Cities, Environmental Pollution, Rain, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Purification, Metals, Heavy, Plant Bark
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