. 2021 Mar 29;6(14):9577–9586. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00128

Table 3. Comparison of the Performance of Some Reported Methods for the Removal of E1, E2, and E3.

analyte	C₀ (mg L^–1)	kinetics (min^–1)	removal (%)	light source	catalyst	ref
E1, E2, E3	1.0	pseudo-first order, k = 0.02126, 0.02521, and 0.01059 min^–1	99.5, 99.5, and 98.5% in 180 min	sunlight 14.5 mW cm^–2	paper-based nylon-TiO₂, 0.0222 g	this work
E1, E2	0.05	k = 0.068 and 0.012 min^–1	97.0 and 49.2% in 50 min	UV lamp, λ = 253.7 nm, 350 μW cm^–2	UV/H₂O₂, 10 mg L^–1	(63)
E1	1.0	pseudo-first order, k = 0.01 min^–1	100% in 18 min to UVA and 93% in 60 min to white LED	UVA (λ = 365 nm) and cool white (λ > 420 nm)	4% Au-TiO₂ nanocomposite, 50 mg L^–1	(41)
E3	2.88	pseudo 1st order, k = 0.021 min^–1	100% in 180 min	two black light lamps, λ = 365 nm, 15 W, 1500 μW cm^–2	TiO₂ P25, 20 mg L^–1	(64)
E2	1.0	k = 0.043 min^–1	99% in 240 min	solar simulator, λ = 280–400 nm, 450 W	nanocrystalline TiO₂, 20 mg L^–1	(65)
E2	2.0 μM	pseudo-first order, k = 0.0025 min^–1	50.86% in 300 min	sunlight, 1910 μW cm^–2	nanotubular TiO₂	(4)
E2	3.0	pseudo-first order, k = 0.0983 min^–1	99.5% in 60 min	mercury lamp, 20 W	5% Fe/Bi₂SiO₅, 500 mg L^–1	(39)