. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 16.

Published in final edited form as: J Mater Chem A Mater. 2018 May 16;6:9229–9236. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01547

Table 1.

Comparison of adsorption capacities of MG adsorbed by various adsorbents.

Adsorbents	Experimental conditions				q_m^c (mg/g)	References
Adsorbents	Dosage (g/L)^a	pH	Temp.(K)	C₀^b (mg/L)	q_m^c (mg/g)	References
CO₂-activated porous carbon	0.4	Undefined	313	40–100	284	[52]
PVP@CNTs-Cu₂O	2.0	Undefined	293	50–3000	1423	[53]
Fe-Cu bagasse composite	1.0	Undefined	298	1–150	61	[54]
chitosan–surfactant–core–shell (CSCS) beads	0.8	7.00	298	10–400	360	[55]
AC-H₃PO₄/Steam	1.0	Undefined	298	500–1200	769	[56]
granular composite hydrogel(AA–IA–APT5)	0.5	Undefined	303	200–1800	2433	[57]
NiO flowerlike nanoarchitectures	0.3	Undefined	Ambient	50	142	[58]
Gx-cl-P(AA-co-AAm)/Fe₃O₄ hydrogel nanocomposite	0.2	neutral pH	298	100–500	497	[59]
bivalve shell-Zea mays L. husk leaf	2.5	6.00	303	10–200	82	[60]
Fe-Cu based adsorbent	0.3	6.58	303	50–500	1399	This work
Fe-Cu based adsorbent	0.3	6.58	313	50–500	1476	This work

^a:

the mass of the adsorbent contained in each volume of MG aqueous solution

^b:

the initial concentration of MG in the aqueous solution

^c:

the maximum adsorption capacity of adsorbent (calculated from the Langmuir model)