Biosorptive Removal of Mercury from Farmland Soil Vicinity of Industrial Area

IJEP 42(4): 490-497 : Vol. 42 Issue. 4 (April 2022)

Preeti Verma1, Deepak Sinha1*, Som Kumar Chatterjee2 and Sanjay Ghosh1

1. Govt. Nagarjuna Post Graduate College of Science, Department of Chemistry, Raipur- 492 010, Chhattis-garh, India
2. Govt. M.V.P.G. College, Department of Chemistry, Mahasamund- 493 554, Chhattisgarh, India


Effective removal of Hg (II) from contaminated soil was carried out using biosorption plant as a derived material. Consequently, a native shrub, Cicer arietinum was observed as the most acceptable biosorbent. The plant biosorbent was observed by different parameters, such as concentration, pH, dosage, temperature, equilibrium time and the appropriate adsorption models. The most favourable pH observed was 4.0 with a contact time of 50 min at room temperature (26±2°C). Data obtained from experiment was well fitted to the graph of adsorption isotherms and the uptake capacity of Hg (II) was noted as 18.91 mg/g in column mode. Concentration of Hg ion was identified using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. It shows that concentration is high near power plant industry (50 m) as 1.901 mg/kg and low away from industry (4500 m) as 0.011 mg/kg. The removal of mercury in bioadsorbent was confirmed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Involvement of hydroxyl (-OH), fluoro (C-F) and alkenes (=CH) group was indicated by the FTIR analysis which shows chelate – metal binding. The bioadsorbent was taken for the removal of Hg (II) in real soil samples collected around power plant industry. It is also remarkable that at the high concentration of 100 mg/L, the bioadsorbent shows about 92% removal. Result found the efficiency of C. arietinum as very good biomass for the removal of Hg (II) from contaminated soil.


Mercury (II), Biomass, Adsorption, Column mode, Atomic absorption spectrophotometer, FTIR


  1. Sirisha, P. and S. Sultana. 2020. Study of adsorption parameters for the removal of lead (II) using Syzygium jambos. Indian. J. Env. Prot., 40(9): 991-996.
  2. Tiwari, I., et al. 2020. Phytoavailability of trace metals irrigated by downstream of Yamuna: To assess transgression of metals from soil and water. Indian J. Env. Prot., 40(10): 1087-1091.
  3. Proshad, R., et al. 2019. Potential health risk of heavy metals via consumption of rice and vegetables grown in the industrial areas of Bangladesh. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J., 26(4):921-943.
  4. Nejres, A.M. and S.K. Mohamed. 2020. Assessment of environmental pollution with heavy metals in the soil of Mosul city. Indian. J. Env. Prot., 40(3): 312-320.
  5. Rui, L., et al. 2017. Mercury pollution in vegetables, grains and soils from areas surrounding coal- fired power plants. Sci. Reports. 7:46545.
  6. Takeuchi, T., et al.1962. Pathological study of minamata disease in Japan. Acta Neuropathol., 2: 40-57.
  7. Tamashiro, H., et al. 1985. Mortality and survival for Minamata disease. Int. J. Epidemiol., 14: 582-588.
  8. Adiloglu, Sevinc. 2018. Heavy metal removal with phytoremediation (Chapter 7). In Advances in bioremediation and phytoremediation. Ed Naofumi Shiomi. Intech Publication.
  9. Tangahu, B.V., et al. 2011. A review on heavy metals (As, Pb and Hg) uptake by plants through phytoremediation. Int. J. Chem. Eng., 939161.
  10. Raskin, L., P.B.A.N. Kumar and V. Drshenkov. 1994. Bio-concentration of heavy metals by plants. Cun. Opin. Biotech., 5: 289-290.
  11. Salt, D.E., et al. 1995. Phyoremediation: A novelstrategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Biotech., 13: 468-474.
  12. Cunninghar, S.D., W.R. Berti and J.W. Huang. 1995. Phltoremediation of contaminated soils. Trends Biotech., 1(9):393-397.
  13. Cunninghar, S.D. and D.W. Owe. 1996. Promises and prospects of phytoremedia. Plant Physiol., 110: 715-719.
  14. Raskin, L., R.D. Smith and D.E. Salt. 1997. Phytoremediation of metals: Using plants to remove pollutants from the environment. Curr. Opin. Biotech., 8: 221-226.
  15. Singh, K. and K. Gahlot. 2018. Pharmacognostic evaluation of stem and leaf of Cicer arietinum Linn. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., 7(6): 165-174.
  16. Rahman, A.H.M.M. and M.P.I. Ara. 2014. Study of medicinal uses on Fabaceae family at Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Plant Sci. J., 1: 6-8.
  17. Kumar, S., et al. 2014. Antifungal and antipro-liferative protein from Cicer arietinum: A bioactive compound against emerging pathogens. BioMed. Res. Int., 387203.
  18. Singh, D., et al. 2014. Impact of front line demonstration on the yield and economics of cheakpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh. J. AgriSearch. 1(1): 22-25.
  19. Freundlich, H.M.F. 1906. The constitution and fundamental properties of solids and liquids. Z. Phys. Chem., 57: 385-470.
  20. Langmuir, I. 1916. The constitution and fundamental properties of solids and liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 38: 2221-2295.