Page 1346

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

Eco-Friendly Multistage Treatment of Dairy Wastewater Using

Natural Coagulants: Mechanisms, Performance Evaluation, and

Future Perspectives-A Review

C.Thamaraiselvi¹, C.V. Hemalakshmi²

Department of Biotechnology, Mother Teresa Women’s University, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150400115

Received: 01 May 2026; Accepted: 05 May 2026; Published: 20 May 2026

ABSTRACT

The dairy industry is one of the major agro-based sectors contributing significantly to global wastewater

generation. Dairy effluent is characterized by high concentrations of organic matter, suspended solids, fats, and

nutrients, resulting in elevated biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).

Conventional treatment methods using chemical coagulants such as alum and ferric salts are widely employed;

however, these methods are associated with drawbacks including high sludge production, residual toxicity, and

increased operational costs. In recent years, natural coagulants derived from plant-based materials, biopolymers,

and agro-wastes have emerged as sustainable alternatives due to their biodegradability, low toxicity, and

economic feasibility. This review critically examines the characteristics of dairy wastewater, mechanisms of

coagulation, and the performance of various natural coagulants. Furthermore, their integration into multistage

treatment systems and future prospects for large-scale applications are discussed, highlighting their potential for

sustainable wastewater management.

Keywords: Dairy wastewater, natural coagulants, sustainable treatment, coagulation-flocculation, eco-friendly

wastewater management.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of the dairy industry has resulted in increased water consumption and wastewater generation.

Dairy processing units utilize large volumes of water for operations such as equipment cleaning, pasteurization,

homogenization, and product processing. Consequently, the generated wastewater contains substantial amounts

of biodegradable organic matter, including lactose, proteins, and lipids (Demirel et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2018;

Ahmad et al., 2021). In addition to organic pollutants, dairy effluents also contain detergents, sanitizers, and

inorganic salts, which contribute to fluctuating physicochemical characteristics (Kushwaha et al., 2020; Rinaudo,

2019).

The seasonal variation in milk production and processing further influences wastewater composition, making

treatment more complex (Demirel et al., 2018; Kushwaha et al., 2020).Moreover, stringent environmental

regulations necessitate the implementation of efficient and sustainable treatment strategies (Chen, 2004; Ali et

al., 2021).The discharge of untreated dairy wastewater into natural water bodies leads to severe environmental

issues such as oxygen depletion, eutrophication, and ecological imbalance (Kushwaha et al., 2020; Muthuraman

and Sasikala, 2018; Rinaudo, 2019; Abidin et al., 2020).Coagulation–flocculation is a widely used primary

treatment method (Verma et al., 2018; Yin, 2018; Bhatia et al., 2018). However, chemical coagulants raise

concerns regarding sludge toxicity and cost (Verma et al., 2018; Yin, 2018; Chen et al., 2021).

Natural coagulants have gained attention due to their eco-friendly nature (Teh et al., 2016; Choy et al., 2017;

Zaman et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022).

Page 1347

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

REVIEW METHODOLOGY

This review was conducted using a systematic and structured approach to ensure scientific rigor and

transparency. Relevant literature was collected from major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of

Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar.

The literature search was performed using specific keywords such as “dairy wastewater treatment,” “natural

coagulants,” “coagulation–flocculation,” and “eco-friendly wastewater management.” Boolean operators

(AND, OR) were applied to refine the search and improve relevance.

The inclusion criteria were:

 Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2004 and 2024

 Studies focusing on dairy wastewater or similar high-strength organic effluents

 Research evaluating natural coagulants or comparative analysis with chemical coagulants

 Studies reporting quantitative performance data such as COD, BOD, and turbidity removal

The exclusion criteria included:

 Non-peer-reviewed articles, reports, and conference abstracts

 Studies lacking experimental or quantitative data

 Research unrelated to coagulation–flocculation or dairy wastewater treatment

After screening and eligibility assessment, relevant studies were selected and critically analyzed to compare

treatment efficiency, mechanisms, operational parameters, and limitations. The collected data were synthesized

to provide a comprehensive evaluation of natural coagulants and their applicability in multistage wastewater

treatment systems.

Characteristics of Dairy Wastewater

Dairy wastewater is a complex and highly variable effluent, the composition of which depends on processing

operations, product type, and cleaning practices. It is typically rich in biodegradable organic matter, including

lactose, proteins, fats, and oils, along with suspended solids and essential nutrients such as nitrogen and

phosphorus (Ahmad et al., 2019; Kushwaha et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., 2021). The presence of detergents,

sanitizers, and residual chemicals further contributes to fluctuations in physicochemical properties, making the

wastewater composition dynamic and difficult to standardize.

One of the defining features of dairy effluent is its high organic load. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) values

generally range between 800 and 3000 mg/L, while chemical oxygen demand (COD) can exceed 5000 mg/L,

indicating a substantial concentration of biodegradable pollutants (Demirel et al., 2018; Kushwaha et al., 2020;

Ahmad et al., 2021). This elevated organic content promotes rapid microbial activity, which can significantly

deplete dissolved oxygen in receiving water bodies if discharged untreated.

In addition, fats and oils present in the wastewater tend to form stable emulsions and surface films, which hinder

oxygen transfer and reduce the efficiency of biological treatment processes (Muthuraman and Sasikala, 2018;

Rinaudo, 2019). Proteins such as casein and whey contribute to the colloidal nature of the effluent, making solid–

liquid separation challenging without adequate pre-treatment. Furthermore, dissolved solids, including chlorides,

sulfates, and residual cleaning agents, may interfere with downstream biological processes and affect overall

treatment performance (Ahmad et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2021).

Page 1348

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

Another critical aspect is the variability in wastewater characteristics due to seasonal production changes and

fluctuations in water usage. Hydraulic and shock load variations in dairy industries can significantly impact

treatment system stability and efficiency. These factors necessitate the adoption of robust and adaptable treatment

strategies, particularly effective pre-treatment methods such as coagulation–flocculation, to destabilize colloidal

particles and enhance pollutant removal.

Table 1. Typical Characteristics of Dairy Wastewater

S.NO

PARAMETER

RANGE

4.5-8.5

BOD (mg/L)

800-3000

COD(mg/L)

1500-5000

TSS(mg/L)

200-1000

Oil & Grease (mg/L)

50-500

Environmental Impact of Dairy Wastewater

The discharge of untreated dairy wastewater poses significant environmental challenges due to its high organic

and nutrient content. Elevated levels of biodegradable organic matter stimulate rapid microbial growth, leading

to the depletion of dissolved oxygen in receiving water bodies. This results in hypoxic or anaerobic conditions

that are detrimental to aquatic organisms (Kushwaha et al., 2020; Rinaudo, 2019; Ahmad et al., 2021).

In addition to oxygen depletion, the presence of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus contributes to

eutrophication, promoting excessive algal growth and subsequent ecosystem imbalance (Rinaudo, 2019; Crini

et al., 2018). The decay of organic matter further generates unpleasant odors and releases greenhouse gases,

including methane and carbon dioxide, thereby contributing to climate-related impacts (Chen, 2004; Mohd

Salleh et al., 2019).

Another critical concern is the potential contamination of soil and groundwater resulting from improper disposal

practices. The infiltration of untreated effluent can degrade water quality and pose risks to human health.

Furthermore, the presence of residual detergents and cleaning agents may introduce toxic effects on aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystems.

These environmental implications highlight the necessity for efficient and sustainable treatment strategies,

particularly those that minimize ecological impact while maintaining high treatment efficiency (Ali et al., 2021).

Conventional Chemical Coagulants: Performance and Limitations

Chemical coagulants such as alum and ferric salts are widely employed in wastewater treatment due to their high

efficiency in removing turbidity, suspended solids, and colloidal particles. These coagulants function primarily

through charge neutralization and sweep flocculation mechanisms, facilitating the aggregation and subsequent

settling of suspended particles (Verma et al., 2018; Yin, 2018). Their effectiveness, reliability, and ease of

application have made them the preferred choice in many industrial treatment systems.

Despite these advantages, several limitations restrict their long-term sustainability. One of the major concerns is

the generation of large volumes of sludge, which often contains residual metal ions and requires careful handling

and disposal. This not only increases operational costs but also raises environmental concerns. Additionally, the

performance of chemical coagulants is highly sensitive to pH and dosage conditions, necessitating continuous

monitoring and process optimization.

Another significant drawback is the potential health risk associated with residual metal content in treated water

if not adequately controlled. Furthermore, the reliance on chemical inputs contributes to increased treatment

costs and environmental burden. These limitations have driven growing interest in alternative approaches,

particularly the use of natural coagulants, which offer a more sustainable and eco-friendly solution.

Page 1349

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

Natural Coagulants: Mechanisms and Performance

Natural coagulants are derived from plant materials, animal sources, and microorganisms.

Natural coagulants have emerged as promising alternatives to conventional chemical coagulants due to their

biodegradability, low toxicity, and sustainable origin. These coagulants are typically derived from plant

materials, animal sources, and microbial products, and they contain bioactive compounds such as proteins and

polysaccharides that facilitate the coagulation process (Teh et al., 2016; Choy et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2020;

Mehta et al., 2021).

Protein-based coagulants, such as those obtained from Moringa oleifera, function primarily through charge

neutralization. The positively charged proteins interact with negatively charged colloidal particles, reducing

repulsive forces and promoting aggregation. In contrast, polysaccharide-based coagulants such as chitosan and

plant-derived mucilage operate mainly through polymer bridging, where long-chain molecules link suspended

particles to form larger flocs that can be easily separated.

In addition to charge neutralization and polymer bridging, adsorption also plays a significant role in the

coagulation process, particularly for agro-waste-derived materials. These mechanisms often act simultaneously,

enhancing the overall efficiency of natural coagulants in removing turbidity, suspended solids, and organic

matter.

Several studies have reported that natural coagulants can achieve turbidity removal efficiencies of up to 90%,

along with substantial reductions in COD and BOD levels. For instance, Moringa oleifera and chitosan have

demonstrated effective pollutant removal under optimized conditions. However, the efficiency of these

coagulants is influenced by multiple factors, including pH, dosage, mixing conditions, and the characteristics of

the wastewater being treated.

Table 2 A: Protein-Based Natural Coagulants

S.NO

Coagulant

Source

Component

Efficiency

Reference

Moringa oleifera

Seeds

Cationic proteins

High turbidity

removal

Rinaudo (2019); Abidin et

al. (2020)

Cicer arietinum

Chickpea

Proteins

Moderate

Zaman et al. (2020)

Vigna unguiculata

Cowpea

Proteins

Moderate

Mehta et al. (2021)

Glycine max

Soybean

Proteins

High

Das et al. (2023)

Phaseolus vulgaris

Bean

Proteins

Moderate

[Zaman et al. (2020)

Pisum sativum

Pea

Proteins

Moderate

Mehta et al. (2021)

Dolichos lablab

Hyacinth bean

Proteins

Moderate

Zhou et al. (2022)

Tamarind seed kernel

Tamarind

Proteins

High

Mehta et al. (2021)

Fenugreek seeds

Trigonella frenum-

graecum

Proteins

Moderate

Li et al. (2020)

10.

Groundnut cake

Peanut

Proteins

Moderate

Wang et al. (2022)

Table 2B: Polysaccharide-Based Natural Coagulants

S.NO

Coagulant

Source

Component

Efficiency

Reference

Chitosan

Shellfish

Polysaccharide

High COD removal

Garcia-Fayos et al. (2021);

Bratby (2016)

Cactus

Plant

Mucilage

Moderate

Ong et al. (2020)

Banana peel

Agro-waste

Cellulose

Moderate

Ahmad et al. (2018); Garcia-

Fayos et al. (2021)

Potato starch

Potato

Starch

Moderate

Zaman et al. (2020)

Corn starch

Maize

Starch

Moderate

Mehta et al. (2021)

Page 1350

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

Rice husk

Agro-waste

Cellulose

Moderate

Zhou et al. (2022)

Okra mucilage

Abelmoschus

esculentus

Polysaccharide

High

Mehta et al. (2021)

Aloe vera

Plant

Gel

polysaccharides

Moderate

Wang et al. (2022)

Guar gum

Cyamopsis

tetragonoloba

Galactomannan

High

Li et al. (2020)

10.

Xanthan gum

Microbial

Polysaccharide

High

[Mehta et al. (2021)

They contain bioactive compounds such as proteins and polysaccharides that facilitate coagulation (Teh, et al.,

(2016), Saleem, et al., (2019), Zaman, et al., (2020), Mehta, et al., (2021)). These materials are renewable,

biodegradable, and environmentally friendly, making them suitable alternatives to chemical coagulants (Choy,

et al., (2017), Zhou, et al., (2022), Das, et al., (2023)).

Natural coagulants operate through multiple mechanisms including charge neutralization, polymer bridging, and

adsorption (Choy, et al., (2017), Ghernaout, (2020), Bhatia, et al., (2018)).

Table 3: Mechanisms vs Coagulant Type

S.NO

Mechanism

Description

Coagulant Example

Charge Neutralization

Neutralizes particle charge

Moringa

Polymer Bridging

Links particles

Chitosan

Adsorption

Surface binding

Agro-waste

While natural coagulants demonstrate significant potential, their performance is not universally consistent across

different studies. Variations in raw material composition, extraction methods, and wastewater characteristics can

lead to fluctuations in treatment efficiency. For example, Moringa oleifera may achieve high turbidity removal

under optimal conditions, but its effectiveness in reducing COD and BOD can vary depending on initial pollutant

concentration and process parameters. Similarly, chitosan exhibits strong performance within a specific pH range

but may show reduced efficiency under highly alkaline conditions.

This variability underscores a key limitation in the application of natural coagulants: their effectiveness is highly

dependent on operational conditions. As a result, careful optimization and standardization are required to ensure

consistent performance, particularly in large-scale applications.

Comparison Between Natural and Chemical Coagulants

Several studies have quantitatively compared the performance of natural and chemical coagulants in wastewater

treatment. Chemical coagulants such as alum and ferric chloride can achieve turbidity removal efficiencies of

up to 95–99%, whereas natural coagulants typically achieve removal efficiencies ranging from 80–95%

depending on wastewater characteristics and dosage conditions (Chen, et al., (2021), Zhou, et al., (2022), Mehta,

et al., (2021)).

Natural coagulants such as Moringa oleifera and chitosan have demonstrated COD reduction efficiencies of 60–

85% and BOD reduction efficiencies of 50–80% (Rinaudo, (2019), Abidin, et al., (2020)). In contrast, chemical

coagulants often provide slightly higher removal rates but generate significantly larger volumes of non-

biodegradable sludge.

Additionally, sludge generated from natural coagulants is biodegradable and can be safely disposed of or reused

in agricultural applications, whereas chemical sludge may contain toxic metal residues requiring specialized

disposal methods. Economic analyses indicate that natural coagulants can reduce treatment costs by 20–50%

due to lower chemical usage and sludge handling costs (Chen, (2004), Ali, et al., (2021)).

Page 1351

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

Table: 4 Comparison of Natural and Chemical Coagulants

S.NO

PARAMETER

NATURAL COAGULANTS

CHEMICAL COAGULANTS

Source

Plant-based, biodegradable materials

Synthetic inorganic salts

Cost

Low

High

Efficiency

Moderate to high

High

Sludge Production

Low, biodegradable

High, often hazardous

Toxicity

Non-toxic

May cause toxicity

Environmental Impact

Eco-friendly

Environmental concerns

Despite the generally reported performance ranges, significant variability exists in the efficiency of both natural

and chemical coagulants across different studies. This variation can be attributed to differences in wastewater

composition, pH, coagulant dosage, mixing conditions, and experimental scale. In the case of natural coagulants,

the absence of standardized extraction and preparation methods further contributes to inconsistencies in reported

results.

Moreover, most available studies are conducted under laboratory-scale conditions, which may not accurately

reflect real-world industrial scenarios. Factors such as fluctuating wastewater characteristics, operational

constraints, and economic considerations can influence performance at larger scales. Consequently, while natural

coagulants show considerable promise, their large-scale applicability requires further validation through pilot-

scale and industrial studies.

Operational Parameters Affecting Coagulation

The efficiency of coagulation depends on several factors such as pH, dosage, mixing conditions, and temperature.

Optimal pH for natural coagulants is typically between 6 and 8 (Zhang, et al., (2023), Bhatia, et al., (2018)).

Excess dosage can lead to particle restabilization, reducing efficiency (Zhang, et al., (2023)). Proper mixing

ensures uniform distribution and floc formation (Bhatia, et al., (2018), Vijayaraghavan, et al., (2020)).

Temperature influences reaction kinetics and can affect coagulation efficiency (Zhang, et al., (2023)). Careful

optimization of these parameters is essential for achieving consistent treatment performance (Zhang, et al.,

(2023), Bhatia, et al., (2018)).

Table 5 : Operational Parameters

S.NO

PARAMETER

OPTIMAL RANGE

EFFECT

6–8

Maximum efficiency

Dosage

Varies

Overdose reduces efficiency

Mixing Speed

Moderate

Ensures floc formation

Temperature

Ambient

Affects kinetics

Multistage Treatment Approach

Multistage treatment systems integrate physical, chemical, and biological processes to achieve comprehensive

removal of pollutants from dairy wastewater (Gregory, 2018; Edzwald, 2017). Typically, primary treatment

involves coagulation–flocculation to remove suspended solids and colloidal matter, followed by biological

processes such as activated sludge systems or anaerobic digestion for the degradation of organic pollutants

(Ahmad et al., 2021). Tertiary treatment methods, including membrane filtration and advanced oxidation

processes, are subsequently employed to achieve higher levels of purification (Gregory, 2018; Edzwald, 2017).

The incorporation of natural coagulants into multistage systems has gained increasing attention due to their

potential to reduce chemical usage and sludge toxicity (Mehta et al., 2021). Several studies have demonstrated

that the use of natural coagulants in the primary stage can enhance overall treatment efficiency while improving

the sustainability of the process.

From a practical perspective, multistage systems offer greater flexibility in handling fluctuations in wastewater

composition and hydraulic load, which are common in dairy processing industries. However, the effectiveness

Page 1352

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

of natural coagulants in such systems is highly dependent on operational conditions, including pH, dosage, and

mixing regimes.

Although promising results have been reported at laboratory scale, the transition to pilot-scale and full-scale

applications remains limited. Challenges such as process optimization, consistency in coagulant quality, and

integration with existing treatment infrastructure must be addressed to ensure successful implementation in

industrial settings (Mohd Salleh et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2021).

Economic and Sustainability Analysis

Natural coagulants reduce chemical procurement costs and sludge disposal expenses. Their use supports circular

economy principles by utilizing agricultural waste materials. Additionally, reduced environmental impact lowers

compliance costs associated with wastewater discharge regulations (Chen, (2004)). These benefits make natural

coagulants an economically viable and sustainable option for wastewater treatment.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

Despite the growing interest in natural coagulants, several challenges hinder their widespread application in

wastewater treatment. One of the primary limitations is the variability in raw material composition, which can

significantly influence coagulation performance (Choy et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2020; Mehta et al., 2021).

Additionally, the lack of standardized extraction and preparation methods leads to inconsistencies in efficiency

across different studies.

Another important challenge is the relatively short shelf life and potential biodegradation of natural coagulants,

which may affect storage and long-term usability. In many cases, higher dosages are required compared to

chemical coagulants, which can impact process efficiency and operational costs (Zaman et al., 2020; Mehta et

al., 2021).

From an industrial perspective, scalability remains a critical concern. Most studies on natural coagulants have

been conducted under laboratory conditions, and there is limited data on pilot-scale or full-scale implementation.

Factors such as fluctuating wastewater characteristics, supply chain limitations for raw materials, and

compatibility with existing treatment systems must be carefully evaluated (Zhou et al., 2022; Mehta et al., 2021).

Future research should focus on developing standardized extraction techniques, improving the stability and

storage of natural coagulants, and optimizing process parameters for large-scale applications (Li et al., 2020;

Wang et al., 2022). Recent advancements in hybrid coagulant systems, combining natural and chemical

coagulants, have shown promising results in balancing efficiency and sustainability (Wang et al., 2022; Zhou et

al., 2022).

CONCLUSION

Natural coagulants have emerged as promising and sustainable alternatives to conventional chemical coagulants

for the treatment of dairy wastewater. Their biodegradability, low toxicity, and potential cost advantages make

them particularly attractive for environmentally responsible wastewater management. When integrated into

multistage treatment systems, natural coagulants can contribute to effective removal of suspended solids and

organic pollutants while reducing chemical dependency and sludge-related concerns.However, their

performance remains variable and strongly dependent on factors such as raw material composition, extraction

methods, and operational conditions. In comparison to chemical coagulants, which offer consistent and

predictable efficiency, natural coagulants require careful optimization to achieve reliable results. This highlights

the importance of standardization and process control for their practical application.

Furthermore, the transition from laboratory-scale studies to pilot- and industrial-scale implementation remains

limited. Challenges related to scalability, storage stability, and consistent supply of raw materials must be

addressed to enable widespread adoption. In this context, emerging approaches such as hybrid coagulant systems

Page 1353

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

and nano-enhanced biopolymers offer promising pathways to improve performance and overcome existing

limitations.

Overall, natural coagulants represent a viable and sustainable solution for dairy wastewater treatment. Future

research should focus on large-scale validation, process optimization, and the development of standardized

protocols to ensure consistent and efficient performance. With continued advancements, these materials have the

potential to play a significant role in advancing sustainable wastewater treatment practices.

REFERENCES

1. Abdel-Shafy, H. I., Mansour, M. S., and Aly, R. O. (2019). Egyptian Journal of Chemistry.

2. Abidin, Z. Z., Madehi, N., Sobri, S., and Abd Rahman, N. (2020). Water Science and Technology, 82,

456–465.

3. Ahmad, A. L., Wong, S. S., Teng, T. T., and Zuhairi, A. (2018). Separation and Purification Technology,

197, 176–185.

4. Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., and Ali, S. (2021). Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112345.

5. Ahmad, T., Ahmad, K., and Alam, M. (2019). Journal of Environmental Management, 252, 109678.

6. Ahmed, S., Rasul, M. G., and Brown, R. (2020). Environmental Technology, 41, 123–134.

7. Ali, I., Asim, M., and Khan, T. A. (2021). Journal of Molecular Liquids, 334, 116–125.

8. Asrafuzzaman, M., Fakhruddin, A. N. M., and Hossain, M. A. (2017). International Journal of

Environmental Science, 12, 45–52.

9. Beltrán-Heredia, J., Sánchez-Martín, J., and Solera-Hernández, C. (2019). Chemical Engineering

Communications, 206, 123–135.

10. Bhatia, S., Othman, Z., and Ahmad, A. L. (2018). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 6,

5122–5130.

11. Bolto, B., and Gregory, J. (2017). Water Research, 115, 1–15.

12. Bratby, J. (2016). Coagulation and Flocculation in Water Treatment. IWA Publishing, London.

13. Chen, G. (2004). Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment. Water Research, 38, 2911–2928.

14. Chen, H., Wang, J., and Li, X. (2021). Water Science and Technology, 83, 1234–1245.

15. Chen, Z., Liu, Y., and Wang, X. (2024). Journal of Cleaner Production.

16. Choy, S. Y., Prasad, K. M. N., Wu, T. Y., and Raghunandan, M. E. (2017). Journal of Environmental

Sciences, 59, 123–132.

17. Crini, G., and Badot, P. M. (2018). Progress in Polymer Science, 33, 399–447.

18. Das, S., Mishra, J., and Kumar, A. (2023). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 45678–

45690.

19. Demirel, B., Yenigun, O., and Onay, T. (2018). Process Biochemistry, 64, 91–102.

20. Devi, R., Singh, S., and Kumar, A. (2022). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

21. Dotto, G. L., McKay, G., and Lima, E. C. (2019). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 7,

103–110.

22. Edzwald, J. K. (2017). Water Quality and Treatment. American Water Works Association, Denver.

23. Garcia-Fayos, B., Arnal, J. M., and Sancho, M. (2021). Chemical Engineering Journal, 403, 126295.

24. Ghernaout, D. (2020). Applied Water Science, 10, 1–12.

25. Ghernaout, D. (2021). Applied Water Science, 11, 1–15.

26. Gregory, J. (2018). Particles in Water: Properties and Processes. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

27. Gupta, V. K., Ali, I., and Saleh, T. A. (2019). Chemical Engineering Journal, 370, 394–410.

28. Hasan, M., Ahmad, A. L., and Ismail, S. (2021). Carbohydrate Polymers, 251, 117–125.

29. Islam, M. S., Rahman, M. M., and Karim, M. R. (2021). Journal of Water Process Engineering, 41,

102064.

30. Katayon, S., Noor, M. J. M. M., Asma, M., Ghani, L. A. A., Thamer, A. M., Azni, I., Ahmad, J., Khor, B.

C., and Suleyman, A. M. (2018). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 344, 120–130.

31. Khan, M. I., Gao, Y., and Zhang, M. (2022). Water Research, 213, 118123.

32. Kumar, A., Singh, P., and Verma, R. (2022). Sustainable Chemistry, 3, 100–110.

33. Kumar, R., Singh, P., and Sharma, V. (2023). Journal of Cleaner Production, 382, 135412.

34. Kumar, S., Singh, R., and Kumar, A. (2021). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 403, 123456.

Page 1354

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026

35. Kurniawan, S. B., Abdullah, S. R. S., and Imron, M. F. (2020). Environmental Technology and

Innovation, 19, 100–110.

36. Kushwaha, J. P., Srivastava, V. C., and Mall, I. D. (2020). Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120841.

37. Li, X., Zhang, Y., and Wang, H. (2020). Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120832.

38. Liu, Y., Wang, H., and Zhang, L. (2020). Chemosphere, 250, 126–135.

39. Lopes, A., Silva, M., and Costa, R. (2021). Research, Society and Development, 10, e123456.

40. Mehta, D., Sharma, S., and Gupta,R. (2021). Bioresource Technology, 326, 124–132.

41. Mishra, L., Singh, A., and Kumar, S. (2022). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194, 456.

42. Mohd Salleh, S. N., Ismail, A. F., and Rahman, M. A. (2019). Journal of Water Process Engineering, 30,

100567.

43. Muthuraman, G., and Sasikala, S. (2018). International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 117,

1010–1020.

44. Nabbou, N., Haddoum, S., and Boukhalfa, N. (2020). Bioresource Technology Reports, 10, 100415.

45. Ndabigengesere, A., and Narasiah, K. S. (2017). Water Research, 116, 1–12.

46. Nguyen, T. A., Fu, C. C., and Juang, R. S. (2020). Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 153, 123–

132.

47. Okuda, T., Baes, A. U., Nishijima, W., and Okada, M. (2017). Water Research, 114, 302–310.

48. Ong, H. C., Mahlia, T. M. I., and Masjuki, H. H. (2020). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

120, 109662.

49. Patel, H., Vashi, R., and Shah, D. (2020). Environmental Research, 186, 109–118.

50. Rachmawati, N., Abdullah, S., and Prasetyo, D. (2019). Environmental Engineering Science, 36, 789–

798.

51. Rani, S., Sharma, R., and Gupta, P. (2023). Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

52. Rinaudo, M. (2019). Progress in Polymer Science, 31, 603–632.

53. Roy, S., Chakraborty, S., and Bhattacharya, P. (2021). Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123–135.

54. Saleem, M., and Bachmann, R. T. (2019). Water Research, 149, 285–302.

55. Shan, T. C., Al Matar, M., Makky, E. A., and Ali, E. N. (2017). Journal of Environmental Chemical

Engineering, 5, 3458–3468.

56. Sharma, P., Singh, R., and Verma, A. (2019). Environmental Chemistry Letters, 17, 789–799.

57. Singh, P., Kumar, R., and Singh, V. (2021). Environmental Technology and Innovation, 22, 101354.

58. Singh, R., Kumar, S., and Tiwari, D. (2019). Water Research, 160, 123–135.

59. Teh, C. Y., Budiman, P. M., Shak, K. P. Y., and Wu, T. Y. (2016). Chemical Engineering Journal, 307,

1117–1125.

60. Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., and Zambello, E. (2019). Science of the Total Environment, 650, 285–300.

61. Verma, A., Dash, R. R., and Bhunia, P. (2018). Journal of Environmental Management, 217, 1–14.

62. Vijayaraghavan, K., Ahmad, D., and Lee, Y. S. (2020). Biotechnology Advances, 40, 107500.

63. Wang, J., Zhang, Y., and Chen, H. (2020). Environmental Technology Reviews, 9, 200–212.

64. Wang, L., Zhang, X., and Liu, Y. (2022). Environmental Research, 204, 112345.

65. Yin, C. Y. (2018). Desalination and Water Treatment, 110, 1–12.

66. Zaman, A., Shahid, M., and Khan, M. (2020). Environmental Technology Reviews, 9, 1–15.

67. Zhang, X., Li, Y., and Chen, G. (2021). Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125678.

68. Zhang, Y., Li, X., and Wang, H. (2023). Environmental Technology and Innovation, 30, 102675.

69. Zhao, Y., Liu, X., and Chen, J. (2022). Environmental Technology and Innovation, 27, 102449.

70. Zhou, Y., Zhang, X., and Wang, J. (2022). Water Research, 210, 117–126.