A chemometric approach based on response surface methodology for optimization of antibiotic and organic dyes removal from water samples

Table 9 Comparison of the Fe₃O₄/rGO/Ag nanocomposite with other adsorbents

Adsorbent	Analyte	pH	Adsorbent amount	Time	Result	Refs.
SiO₂ nanoparticles	TC	6	0.25 g	40 min	99.56%	[45]
Zeolitic imidazolate framework	TC	5.9	0.63 g	26.8 min	446.9 mg g⁻¹	[46]
Cobalt-impregnated spent coffee ground biochar	TC	7	100 mg	25 min	370.37 mg g⁻¹	[47]
Ceramsite substrate	TC	7	20 g	24 h	2.56 mg g⁻¹	[48]
Rhizophora mucronat stem-barks	CV	7	0.25 g	60 min	99.8%	[49]
Zinc oxide nanoparticle loaded on activated carbon	CV	6	0.02 g	4 min	73.25 mg g⁻¹	[50]
Alginate@silver nanoparticles	CV	7	0.01 g	240 min	186.93 mg g⁻¹	[51]
Citric acid modified red-seaweed	CV	7	1.5 g	90 min	93.40%	[52]
Terminalia catappa shell	MB	5	0.1 g	45 min	90.56%	[53]
Magnetized Tectona grandis sawdust	MB	8	1 g	60 min	90.8%	[54]
Millet household carbon	MB	7	0.2 g	18 min	90%	[55]
Sheath palm	MB	6	30 mg	60 min	162.54 mg g⁻¹	[56]
Fe₃O₄/rGO/Ag nanocomposite	TC	6	0.014 g	8 min	91.33%	Our work
Fe₃O₄/rGO/Ag nanocomposite	CV	6	0.014 g	8 min	95.82%	Our work
Fe₃O₄/rGO/Ag nanocomposite	MB	6	0.014 g	8 min	98.19%	Our work

ISSN: 2661-801X