The observed uptake of both MB and SO dyes in our adsorption systems were low. The low adsorption can be best explained by the low surface area (SA) of the samples used (~3 m 2 /g) and hence, the limited binding sites which were available on our material. Other aquatic derived adsorbent materials described in literature also showed low SA and resulted in low adsorption values (Table ). Excluding a material prepared from golden mussel shell whose SA was not reported, our material ranked 2 nd in terms of both SA and dye uptake, and 3 rd overall for uptake inclusive of all listed material in Table . Data summarized there shows the typically expected correlation between SA and maximum adsorption (i.e. lowest uptake correlated to lowest SA and highest uptake correlated to the highest SA). However, the correlation with SA and adsorption is not always as clear cut. For example, Islam et al. reported a material made from an unseeded pine cone treated with sulfuric acid (SA 4.55 m 2 /g) with an extraordinarily high adsorption of 1670 mg/g. 25 However, their material was remarkably different and highly functionalized with sulfate groups, unlike SC and the other materials listed in Table , which contained primarily carbonate species.