Skip to Main Content

The efficiency of IOISB and other adsorbents reported in literature are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Comparison of efficiency of various adsorbents

Sr. no.AdsorbentOperating conditions
Efficiency %Authors
Ads. dose (g/L)Initial conc. (mg/L)Time (h)
IOISB 10 0.395 1.5 99.24 Current study 
Iron treated A.C. 0.05 24 60.00 Payne & Abdel-Fattah (2005)  
Iron treated Chabazite 0.05 24 30.00 Payne & Abdel-Fattah (2005)  
Iron oxide-coated sand – 0.1 12 73.2 Ramakrishna et al. (2006)  
Natural laterite 40 1.0 2.5 98.00 Maiti et al. (2007)  
Industrial waste – iron chips 10 0.5 1.0 92.00 Zhang et al. (2008)  
Iron impregnated coconut shell A.C. 0.2 – 89.00 Khare & Kumar (2011)  
Iron impregnated potato peels 20 1.0 22 99.27 Godboley & Dhoble (2011)  
Iron-oxide-coated natural rock 13 0.6 98.50 Maji et al. (2012)  
Sr. no.AdsorbentOperating conditions
Efficiency %Authors
Ads. dose (g/L)Initial conc. (mg/L)Time (h)
IOISB 10 0.395 1.5 99.24 Current study 
Iron treated A.C. 0.05 24 60.00 Payne & Abdel-Fattah (2005)  
Iron treated Chabazite 0.05 24 30.00 Payne & Abdel-Fattah (2005)  
Iron oxide-coated sand – 0.1 12 73.2 Ramakrishna et al. (2006)  
Natural laterite 40 1.0 2.5 98.00 Maiti et al. (2007)  
Industrial waste – iron chips 10 0.5 1.0 92.00 Zhang et al. (2008)  
Iron impregnated coconut shell A.C. 0.2 – 89.00 Khare & Kumar (2011)  
Iron impregnated potato peels 20 1.0 22 99.27 Godboley & Dhoble (2011)  
Iron-oxide-coated natural rock 13 0.6 98.50 Maji et al. (2012)  

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal