Table 6.
Comparison of sorption performance of U(VI) for different carbon sorbents
| Co, mg L−1 | Temp, °C | pH | Time, h | Qe, mg g−1 | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10–400 | 30 | 4.0 | 2 | 28.2 | Active carbon/polyacrylonitrile composite | (Aslani and Amik 2021) |
| 50–200 | 30 | 5.0 | 3 | 28.4 | Chemical activated carbon | (Kütahyali and Eral 2004) |
| 2–60 | 45 | 4.0 | 24 | 52.6 | Rice husk magnetic biochar composites | (Li et al. 2019) |
| 20–300 | 25 | 5.5 | 1 | 27.2 | Eucalyptus wood biochar | (Mishra et al. 2017) |
| 5–100 | 20 | 4.0 | 6 | 19.4 | Fungus Pleurotus ostreatus | (Zhao et al. 2016) |
| 10–80 | 25 | 10.0 | 7 | 53.2 | Modified rice husk biochar | (Wang et al. 2018) |
| 10–110 | 25 | 6.0 | 1 | 62.7 | Pine needles biochar by HTC | (Zhang et al. 2013) |
| 20–240 | 30 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 16.3 | Hazelnut shell activated carbon | (Zhu et al. 2016) |
| 25–125 | 30 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 8.6 | Pistacia vera L. shell activated carbon | (Donat and Erden 2017) |
| 20–300 | 25 | 4.0 | 4 | 36.6 | Carbon A | Present work |
| 20–300 | 25 | 4.0 | 4 | 39.3 | Carbon B | Present work |