Table 1 Comparison of photocatalytic dye degradation efficiency of different MOF/GCN composite reported in the literature and present study.
Photocatalyst | Organic dye | Light source | Conc. of photocatalyst (mg/mL) | Dye Conc. (ppm) | Degradation (%)/Time (min) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ce-MOF/g-C3N4 | MB | Visible light (Xe) | 10/100 | 10 | 96.5/120 | |
α-Fe2O3/g-C3N4 | RhB/CV | Sunlight | 10/50 | 10 | 93/95/150 | |
Fe-MOF/g-C3N4 | MB | UV–Visible light | 20/100 | 20 | 71.2/120 | |
Ni-MOF@ BiOBr composite | MB | Visible light | 10/100 | 20 | 92.8/120 | |
Ni-MOF | CV | Sunlight | 20/100 | 20 | 93/30 | |
Ni-MOF/g-C3N4 | CV | Visible light (Xe) | 20/100 | 20 | 90/120 | |
NH2/MIL-88B(Fe) | CR | Visible light (Xe) | 10/50 | 20 | 67/120 | |
Fe-MOF/g-C3N4 | CR | Visible light (Xe) | 40/100 | 25 | 87.1/120 | |
g-C3N4/M-Fe-BTC | Reactive red 195 | Sunlight | 20/100 | 20 | 65/60 | |
CdS/g-C3N4/Ti-MOF | RhB | Visible light (Xe) | 10/50 | 10 | 90.2/90 | |
Ni-MOF/g-C3N4 composite | RhB/CR | Sunlight | 20/100 | 10 | 93/64/120 | This work |
