Table 2.
Comparison of the efficiency of the AC-TiO2 composite with other carbon modified catalysts.
| S. No. | Catalysts/(Dye or Pollutant) a | Light Source | Concentration | Catalyst Amount | %Degradation/ Time (min) |
Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RFCA/TiO2/(MO) | UV light | 8 × 10−5 mol/L | 1 mg/3 mL | 55/240 | [57] |
| 2 | TiO2@carbon/(MB) | 35-W Xe arc lamp/89 mWcm−2 | 1.5 × 10−5 M | Immersion of TiO2@carbon core-shell nanowires/2 mL | 65/180 | [58] |
| 3 | TiO2/MWCNT/(MB) | UV/Philips 96 W | 10 ppm | 0.01 g/20 mL | 61.6/30 | [59] |
| 4 | F-TiO2/C60@ NiFe2O4/(MG) | Halogen lamp (500 W) | 30 ppm | 10 mg/100 mL | 98.7/120 | [60] |
| 5 | F-TiO2/MWCNT@ NiFe2O4/(MG) | Halogen lamp (500 W) | 30 ppm | 10 mg/100 mL | 93.5/120 | [60] |
| 6 | CNT/CD/FA/TiO2/ (MB) | UV-C (32 W) | 10 ppm | 200 mg/25 mL | 99/187 | [61] |
| 7 | TiO2@carbon nanotube/(MB) | UV-C/254 nm, 2.5 mW cm−2 | 1.25µM | 0.4 mg/mL | 85/60 | [62] |
| 8 | CX/TiO2/(APP) | 125 W mercury lamp/80 Wcm−2 to 300 Wcm−2 | 25 ppm | 0.1 g/50 mL | 96/250 | [63] |
| 9 | TiO2/CNDs/MIP/(PM) | LED lamps/(λ > 390 nm) | 20 ppm | 10 mg/100 m L | 94.4/120 | [64] |
| 10 | rGO/TiO2/BiOI/(MO) | 300 W xenon lamp | 50 ppm | 50 mg/100 mL | 94/50 | [65] |
| 11 | AC-TiO2/(RR 120) | 365 nm UV-A light/32 W | 50 ppm | 50 mg/100 mL | 95/50 | Present work |
| 12 | AC-TiO2/(OFL) | 365 nm UV-A light/32 W | 10 ppm | 50 mg/100 mL | 82/50 | Present work |
a RFCA—carbon aerogel; MWCNT—multiwall carbon nanotube; CX—carbon xerogel; MO—methyl orange; MB—methylene blue; MG—malachite green; APP—acetaminophen: MIP—molecularly imprinted poly-o-phenylenediamine.