Table 6. Comparison of Maximum Pb(II) and Al(III) Removal Efficiency (%) by FGO with Recently Reported GO-Based Composites.

name of GO-based composites	removal efficiency (%)	experimental conditions	ref
Pb(II)
Ag–CoFe2O4–GO nanocomposite	75	pH = 4–7, initial concentration = 20 ppm, adsorbent dose = 3.00 g L–1, residence time = 24 h	(74)
aluminum-based MOF-GO	72.0	pH = 6, initial concentration = 300 ppm, adsorbent dose = 50 mg L–1, residence time = 100 min	(75)
metal-resistant/adapted fungus penicillium janthinillum and GO and activated carbons	53–95	pH = 6 ± 0.2, initial concentration = 25 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, residence time = 12 h	(76)
porous Gd2O3-doped GO	96.4	pH = 5, initial concentration = 40 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, residence time = 24 h	(77)
Fe3O4@C–GO nanocomposite	78.0	pH = 7, initial concentration = 100 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, residence time = 77 min	(78)
FGO	99.7	pH = 6, at initial concentration = 50 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, ambient temperature, residence time = 4 h	our study
Al(III)
graphene oxide–ZnO nanocomposites	95.6	pH = 6, initial concentration = 80 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.8 g L–1, residence time = 8 h	(79)
natural clay adsorbent	98.95	pH = 5, initial concentration = 100 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, residence time = 16 h	(80)
coconut shell adsorbent	92.83	pH = 6, initial concentration = 150 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, residence time = 8 h	(81)
rice hull-activated carbon	96.63	pH = 6, initial concentration = 100 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.7 g L–1, residence time = 6 h	(82)
nut shell activated carbon	78.20	pH = 7, initial concentration = 40 ppm, adsorbent dose = 0.6 g L–1, residence time = 24 h	(83)
FGO	99.8	pH = 6, at initial concentration = 50 mg L–1, adsorbent dose = 0.5 g L–1, ambient temperature, residence time = 4 h	our study