Table 3.

Comparison of adsorption performance of the PVDF–2GO@GO nanofibrous membranes with other adsorbents for Cr(VI).

Adsorbent	Adsorbent Quality (g)	pH	Equilibrium Time (h)	Maximum Adsorption Capacity (mg/g)	Ref.
GO–EDTA composite	0.05	1.8	12	37	[55]
Natural clay/Fe3O4/GO composite	1 g/L	3	1	71	[56]
GO-Fe3O4	0.1	2	1.4	3	[57]
NH2-GO decorated with Fe3O4 nanoparticles	0.2 g/L	2	12	123	[58]
PAN-GO-Fe3O4 composite nanofibers	0.06	3	1.1	124	[36]
PAN-NH2 nanofibers	0.025	2	1.5	137	[59]
Polyaniline-coated PVDF-HFP nanofibrous membranes	0.01	1.5	24	41	[44]
PAN/PPy core–shell structure nanofibers	0.1	2	12	75	[16]
PA 6/CS@FexOy composite nanofibers	0.005	3	24	89	[60]
aminated-EVOH nanofiber membranes	0.05	2	8 d	235	[61]
Amidine PAN nanofibers	0.01	3	4	225	[62]
Chitosan/g-C3N4/TiO2 nanofibers	0.01	2	4	239	[63]
Porous PAN/GO nanofibers	0.05	3	1	382	[35]
PVDF–2GO@GO nanofibrous membranes	0.035	2	2	271	This study