Table 4 Comparison with other adsorbents for the removal of RO16.
Adsorbent | Removal efficiency (%) | Adsorption capacity (mg g−1) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
MRL–Co/Al LDH | 97 | 53.04 | |
C3N4/MgO/Vis | 82 | – | |
Activated carbon prepared from rice husk ash | – | 13.32 | |
AC@nZVI/Ni | – | 10.53 | |
m-Cs-PVA/FA | 90.3 | 123.8 | |
Arachis hypogaea pod powder | – | 56.48 | |
MgO/g-C3N4/zeolite nanocomposite | 94.09 | – | |
ZIF-8@Fe3O4@BNT | 98.5 | 40.5 | |
Thiourea-Fe3O4-TiO2 modified chitosan | 82 | 133.69 | |
Activated carbon derived from the stems of Phyllanthus reticulatus plant | 85.1 | – | |
Lignocellulosic sawdust-Fe/Zn | 99 | 60.97 | This work |