Table 5.

Summary of pollutant degradation performances of 2D modified TMO&Cs

Material	Dimension/thickness	Light source	Loading	Reaction solution	DR (% μmol (gh)−1)	Comparison	Ref.
Elemental doping
Mo-WO3 NS	400–1600 nm/150 nm	Visible light	NA	RhB	12.5	–	[122]
B, F-codoped TiO2NS	10 nm/2.5 nm	Xe lamp	NA	MB	18	–	[119]
C-ZnO flower	9 µm/~ 10 nm	Xe lamp	NA	RhB	1.5	–	[120]
ZnO NS/P-MoS2 NS	–	Sunlight	NA	MB	222	–	[121]
Mn-CuO NS	–	Xe lamp	NA	MB	20.26	11.25 (CuO)	[123]
N-MoS2 flower	–	Visible light	NA	RhB	134.2	–	[117]
Heterojunction with semiconductors
WO3 NS/Ag3PO4 NP	–	Xe lamp	–	MB	85.5	–	[168]
Ti0.87O2 NS/CdS pillar	100–500 µm/–	Xe lamp	–	MB	58	0.078 (N-TiO2)	[151]
ZnO NS/WO3 NR	–	Xe lamp	–	MB	533	–	[154]
MoS2 NS/CdS NP	–	Xe lamp	2 mol % MoS2	MB/RhB	40	–	[144]
MoS2 flower/CdS NP	800 nm/–	Xe lamp	–	MB	97	–	[98]
MoS2NS/CuS NP	–	Visible light	–	MB	104.21	–	[148]
Fe3O4@MoS2 Core − Shell	–	Blue light	–	4-NP	285	–	[199]
MoS2 NS/Ag3PO4 NP	–	Xe lamp	1 wt% MoS2	RhB	93.9	–	[68]
MoS2 NS/Ag3PO4 NP	–	Xe lamp	0.65 wt% MoS2	RhB	18.78	–	[166]
MoS2-r-GO NS/Ag3PO4 NP	–	Xe lamp	0.02 wt% MoS2-r-GO	Phenol	1593.8	–	[167]
MoS2 NS/TiO2 NF	120–300 nm/–	UV light	–	MO	497.53	26.18 (MoS2);	[143]
MoS2 NS/TiO2 NR	–	Xe lamp	50 wt% MoS2	RhB	939.4	817.3 (MoS2); 328.8 (TiO2)	[56]
ZnS NS/ZnO NP	400–1000 nm/40 nm	W lamp	–	MB	6.4	4.6 (ZnS)	[155]
WS2/WO3 NP	–	Visible light	–	MB	378.9	–	[157]
Heterojunction with conductive materials
TiO2 NS/carbon QD	45–55 nm/6 nm	Visible light	–	RhB	19.83	8.3 (TiO2 NP)	[159]
TiO2 NS/g-C3N4 NS	38 nm/6 nm	UV–Vis light	–	MB	4.5	–	[149]
ZnO flower/Ag NP	–/10–19 nm	Hg lamp; Xe lamp	–	RhB	3.2	0.88 (ZnO NP)	[174]
ZnO NS/Ag NP	–	UV light	–	MO	389.5	–	[176]
Fe2O3 NS/r-GO NS	200 nm/–	Xe lamp	–	RhB	1.4	–	[98]
MoS2 NS/g-C3N4 NS	–	–	0.05 wt% MoS2	MO	40.7	–	[55]
MoSe2 NS perpendicular to r-GO NS	–	Xe lamp	–	MB	70.34	15.4 (MoSe2 NS/r-GO NS)	[181]
CoS NS/2D r-GO NS	~ 200–300 nm/~ 10–20 nm	Visible light	26.2 wt% CoS	MB	47.41	28.13 (CoS)	[182]

DR degradation rate, NS nanosheet, NP nanoparticle, NR nanorod, NF nanofiber, QD quantum dot