Table 2.

Summary of photocatalytic H₂ evolution performance of 2D modified TMO&Cs

Material	Dimension/thickness	Light source	Loading	Reaction solution	H2 PR (% mmol (gh)−1)	Comparison	Ref.
Elemental doping
N-TiO2 NS	80 nm/20 nm	UV–Vis light	NA	Ethanol	0.865	0.211 (N-TiO2 MC)	[118]
Heterojunction with semiconductors
TiO2 NS/MoS2 NS	100 nm/12 nm	Xe lamp	0.5 wt% MoS2	Methanol	2.145	0.061 (TiO2)	[193]
MoS2 NS/CdS NP	–	Xe lamp	0.2 wt% MoS2	Lactic acid	5.3	–	[194]
1T-MoS2 NS/TiO2 NC	–	UV light	–	Methanol	2	0.6 (2H-MoS2)	[188]
MoS2 NS/ZnO NP	30–50 nm/–	Xe lamp	1 wt% MoS2	Na2S/Na2SO3	0.765	0.052 (ZnO)	[147]
MoS2 NS/CuInS2 NP	4 µm/80 nm	Xe lamp	3 wt% MoS2	Na2S/Na2SO3	0.316	0.011 (CuInS2)	[141]
MoS2 NS/TiO2 NF	–	Xe lamp	60 wt% MoS2	Na2S/Na2SO3	1.6	–	[142]
MoS2/TiO2 NW	–	Visible light	–	TEOA-H2O	16.7	–	[70]
1T-WS2/TiO2 NP	100 nm/–	Xe lamp	–	Distilled water and Methanol	2.57	0.225 (2H-WS2/0D TiO2)	[55]
ZnS/CuS NP	20 nm/–	Visible light	–	Na2S/Na2SO3	4.147	–	[164]
TiO2 NS/CdS QD	–/0.7 nm	Visible light	–	Na2S/Na2SO3	0.1	–	[153]
MoS2/N-rGO NS	80 nm/–	Visible light	–	Ethanol	0.025	–	[162]
Heterojunction with conductive materials
TiO2 NS/Au–Pd NP	200 nm/–	UV–Vis light	0.3 wt% TIO2	Methanol	0.526	–	[177]
ZnO NS/Au/CdS NP	5 µm/100 nm	W lamp	–	Na2S/Na2SO3	0.608	–	[165]
MoS2 NS/Ag NP	–	Xe lamp	20 wt% MoS2	Na2S/Na2SO3	36	24 (MoS2)	[175]
MoS2-Graphene NS/TiO2 NC	7–10 nm/–	UV light	–	Ethanol/water	2.06	0.0625 (TiO2 NC)	[69]
MoS2-graphene NS/ZnS NP	–	Xe lamp	2 at % MoS2	Na2S/Na2SO3	2.26	0.12 (ZnS)	[146]
MoS2 NS/g-C3N4 NS	–	Xe lamp	0.5 wt% MoS2	Methanol	17.8	–	[136]
WS2 NS/g-CN NS	–	Xe lamp	0.3 at % WS2	Lactic acid	0.12	–	[150]
ZnS NS/Ag2S NP	–/20 nm	Xe lamp	–	Na2S/Na2SO3	0.105	–	[192]
Surface functionalization
MoS2 NS/ZnTCPP/ZnO NS	–	Visible light	0.5 wt% MoS2	Triethanolamine	0.750	–	[133]
MoS2 NS/ZnTCPP/TiO2 NP	–	Xe lamp	1 wt% MoS2	TEOA	0.102	–	[131]

PR production rate, NS nanosheet, NP nanoparticle, NF nanofiber, NW nanowire, QD quantum dot, MC microcrystal, NC nanocrystal