“… 50–53 The adsorption capacities ( q max ) shown in Table 2 indicate that our CoFeNPs as adsorbents are comparable or better even under unoptimized conditions than many other adsorbents, including magnetiteCTAB NPs 37 and alumina–polystyrene 38 for AMR removal, G. persica biomass 42 and activated carbon 43 for NBB removal, beech wood sawdust 45 and pelic soil 46 for AO7 removal, rice husk activated carbon 10 and zeolite–magnetite composite 49 for RO16 removal, and CoFe 2 O 4 -reduced graphene oxide composites 51 for AO52 removal. Considering the % dye removal data in Table 2 , our CoFeNPs adsorbents can also provide a comparable or better adsorptive sequestration of the tested dyes from water than their degradative (photo/catalytic/oxidative) removal in many cases, for example, photooxidative removal by γ-ray/H 2 O 2 for RR-P2B, 41 photocatalytic removal by solar light/CeO 2 -carbon nanotubes for AO7, 48 and oxidative-catalytic removal by H 2 O 2 /CoFe 2 O 4 for NBB and RO16. 24 Although many other adsorbents such as amine–PIM-1, 40 CTAB–flax shives, 6 CuFe 2 O 4 /activated carbon 47 and CoFe 2 O 4 /MgAl-LDO, 50 and some UV active photocatalysts such as CoFe 2 O 4 /ZnO 52 and CoFe 2 O 4 –Fe 3 O 4 ( ref.…”