Table 2.
Comparison table on hydrogen generation performance of 0.5CT_PP and 3MT_HT with other transition metal sulfides/TiO2 based photocatalysts.
| Photocatalysts | Synthesis method | Sacrificial reagent | Light source | Activity μmol h−1 g−1 | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoS2/TiO2 | In-situ photo-deposition | Triethanolamine | 1000 W Xe arc lamp | ca. 1630 | 46 |
| MoS2 nanosheets/TiO2 nanosheets | Hydrothermal | 10 vol% methanol/H2O | 300 W Xe lamp | 2145 | 47 |
| CuS nanoflakes/TiO2 nanospindles | Chemical precipitation | 0.35 M Na2S and 0.25 M Na2SO3 | 300 W Xe lamp (λ > 420 nm) | 1262 | 29 |
| CuS nanoflowers/TiO2 NPs/Pt NPs | Hydrothermal | 0.1 m Na2S + 0.1 m Na2SO3 | 400 W Xe lamp (λ > 395 nm) | 746 | 48 |
| Ag-Ag2S NPs/TiO2 NPs | In situ sulfidation of Ag | 10 v% methanol/H2O | 4 LEDs (3 W, 365 nm, 80.0 mW cm−2) | 2382.2 | 49 |
| CoSx quantum dots/TiO2 | Deposition–precipitation | 20 vol% ethanol | 300WXe lamp | 838 | 50 |
| 0.5CT_PP | Precipitation | 20 vol% methanol | UV-LEDs | 2950 | This work |
| 3MT_HT | Hydrothermal | 20 vol% methanol | UV-LEDs | 1700 | This work |