Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of dyes adsorption by carbon-based adsorbent materials: Classification and analysis of last decade studies

Azari, Ali, Nabizadeh, Ramin, Nasseri, Simin, Mahvi, Amir Hossein, Mesdaghinia, Ali Reza·2020·Chemosphere

Abstract

Carbon-based materials and their modifications have received significant attention over the last decades given the outstanding adsorption behavior toward various dyes from aqueous solutions. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the adsorption capability of dyes on carbon-based adsorbent materials (CBAMs) has been compiled. Further, the effects of process variables i.e., pH, adsorbent dosage, contact time, and initial concentration), adsorption kinetics, and isotherms were investigated while considering the classification of different groups of dyes and adsorbents. The Metafor package provides functions for conducting meta-analyses in R software. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) from January 1, 2009 to May 1, 2018. The following parameters were evaluated according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After detailed screening and analysis, 835 articles were eligible for the review section. Among them, 87 studies met all quantitative criteria for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.99%). According to the evidence, basic dyes with n = 661 (∼50%) and powder activated carbon (PAC) sorbent with n = 752 (∼57%) have received the most attention among researchers. The results revealed that the mean of removal efficiency-based dyes classification was between 79.9 and 93.7% and the adsorption capacity was lied within the range of 76.8-303.6 mg/g. Meanwhile, the maximum adsorption capacity belongs to graphene families with Qm > 320 mg/g, while the minimum Qm was related to G and GAC with capacities of 108.5 and 110.7 mg/g, respectively. Pseudo-second-order kinetic model with 88.7% and Langmuir isotherm with 74% had the best fitting with the data studied. Baujat plot revealed that two studies (ID: 75 and 12) had the minimum influence on adsorption capacity with the highest dffits and cook's distance. According to the pooled data, the mean adsorption capacity varied between 140.90 and 208.25, with a mean of 174.57 mg/g across all studies. The results of Egger's test (t = 0.1332, p = 0.0844) and Begg's test (z = 0.8458, p = 0.3977) were not statistically significant, suggesting that no potential publication bias existed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126238

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 69 references

Metadata

Authors
Azari, A., Nabizadeh, R., Nasseri, S., Mahvi, A. H., & Mesdaghinia, A. R.
Venue
Chemosphere
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
250
Pages
126238
ISSN
0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3007275138
Cited by
294
References
69
FWCI
6.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of dyes adsorption by carbon-based adsorbent materials: Classification and analysis of last decade studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126238
The paper
Azari, A., Nabizadeh, R., Nasseri, S., Mahvi, A. H., & Mesdaghinia, A. R. (2020). Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of dyes adsorption by carbon-based adsorbent materials: Classification and analysis of last decade studies. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126238

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.