Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 6;87:106058. doi: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106058

Table 1.

Comparing the catalytic activities of MoS2-based nanocomposites for degradation of various organic pollutants.

Catalyst AOP method Pollutant Parameters DE (%) Refs.
MoS2/g-C3N4 Photocatalysis MO [pollutant] = 20 mg/L, [catalyst] = 1 g/L,
light source = 500 W Xe lamp, time = 300 min
∼60 [39]
TiO2/MoS2 Photocatalysis Phenol [pollutant] = 10 mg/L, [catalyst] ∼ 0.16 g/L,
light source = 300 W Xe lamp, time = 120 min
∼65 [40]
MoS2/ZnO Photocatalysis MB

NRH
[pollutant] = 1 mg/L, [catalyst] = 0.75 g/L,
light source = 200 W UV–Vis, time = 80 min
64.29

57.12
[41]
MoS2/ BiPO4 Photocatalysis BG [pollutant] = 10 mg/L, [catalyst] = 0.15 g/L,
light source = solar light, time = 70 min
∼65 [42]
MoS2/BiOBr Photocatalysis RB5 [pollutant] = 10 mg/L, [catalyst] = 0.5 g/L,
light source = 15 W energy-saving light bulb, time = 120 min
∼60 [43]
MoS2/CNTs Sonocatalysis HCQ [pollutant] = 20 mg/L, [catalyst] = 0.1 g/L, ultrasonic power = 150 W, time = 120 min 70 Present
study

MO: Methyl orange; MB: Methylene blue; NRH: Novacron red Huntsman; BG: Brilliant green; RB5: Reactive Black 5.