Table 1.
Comparison of photocatalytic activities of CdS–ZnO–RGO based nanocomposites for degradation of pollutants, including methylene blue (MB), rhodamine B (Rh B) and MO.
| photocatalyst | synthesis route | irradiation source | pollutant concentration | tcompletion (min) | ref. |
| CdS–ZnO core-shell coupled with RGO | soft chemical route | simulated solar radiations | 3.0 × 10−5 M (MB) | 80 | [75] |
| ZnO–RGO–CdS | hydrothermal | 11 W UV lamp | 1.0 × 10−5 M (MB) | ca. 240 | [76] |
| ZnO–graphene | solvothermal | halogen lamp | 6.0 × 10−6 M (MO) | 90 | [32] |
| 3D grapene–ZnO NR | CVD and hydrothermal | UV light 300 W | 5.0 × 10−3 M (MO) | ca. 60 | [77] |
| graphene–ZnO NR film | hydrothermal | 250 W Hg lamp (UV) | 3.0 M (MB) | ca. 450 | [78] |
| CdS–RGO composite | wet chemical method | UV | unknown (MO) | 120 | [79] |
| RGO–ZnO NR composite | hydrothermal | 500 W Hg Lamp (UV) | 1.0 × 10−5 M (Rh B) | 90 | [37] |
| CdS–graphene composite | hydrothermal | 500 W Xe lamp | 3.0 × 10−5 (MO) | 360 | [80] |
| CdS–ZnO–RGO | hydrothermal | visible light | 1.0 × 10−5 M (MO) | 90 | this work |
| sunlight | 1.0 × 10−5 M (MO) | 60 | |||