Skip to Main Content
Table 4

Comparison of adsorption capacity and optimum parameters for gentian violet adsorption on to different adsorbents

Sr no.AdsorbentpHConcentration (mg/L)Adsorbent capacity (mg/g)Reference
1. Coal 50 6.25 Schoonen & Schoonen (2014)  
2. Coffee husk 15 12.03 Cheruiyot et al. (2019)  
3. Activated carbon 100 32.8 Kazeem et al. (2018)  
4. Atrocarpous 6.4 50 11.8 Linda et al. (2015)  
5. Raw cassava peel 10 100 26.6 Nnaemeka et al. (2019)  
6. Wheat bran 100 25.6 Sujata et al. (2019)  
7. Acid modified clay 10 500 50 Adeyemo et al. (2017)  
8. Water hyacinth 7.8 300 32.2 Kulkarni et al. (2017)  
9. ZMLC 700 58.8 This work 
Sr no.AdsorbentpHConcentration (mg/L)Adsorbent capacity (mg/g)Reference
1. Coal 50 6.25 Schoonen & Schoonen (2014)  
2. Coffee husk 15 12.03 Cheruiyot et al. (2019)  
3. Activated carbon 100 32.8 Kazeem et al. (2018)  
4. Atrocarpous 6.4 50 11.8 Linda et al. (2015)  
5. Raw cassava peel 10 100 26.6 Nnaemeka et al. (2019)  
6. Wheat bran 100 25.6 Sujata et al. (2019)  
7. Acid modified clay 10 500 50 Adeyemo et al. (2017)  
8. Water hyacinth 7.8 300 32.2 Kulkarni et al. (2017)  
9. ZMLC 700 58.8 This work 
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal