
==== Front
Nanoscale Adv
Nanoscale Adv
NA
NAADAI
Nanoscale Advances
2516-0230
RSC

39258117
d4na00517a
10.1039/d4na00517a
Chemistry
Metal oxide-based photocatalysts for the efficient degradation of organic pollutants for a sustainable environment: a review
Al Miad Abdullah a
Saikat Shassatha Paul a
Alam Md. Kawcher ab
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-8559
Sahadat Hossain Md. b
Bahadur Newaz Mohammed a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6626-3610
Ahmed Samina b
a Department of Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Noakhali Science and Technology University Noakhali Bangladesh
b Institute of Glass and Ceramic Research and Testing (IGCRT), Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) Dr Qudrat-i-Khuda Road, Dhanmondi Dhaka-1205 Bangladesh shanta_samina@yahoo.com

22 8 2024
24 9 2024
22 8 2024
6 19 47814803
23 6 2024
14 8 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
RSC
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.
Photocatalytic degradation is a highly efficient technique for eliminating organic pollutants such as antibiotics, organic dyes, toluene, nitrobenzene, cyclohexane, and refinery oil from the environment. The effects of operating conditions, concentrations of contaminants and catalysts, and their impact on the rate of deterioration are the key focuses of this review. This method utilizes light-activated semiconductor catalysts to generate reactive oxygen species that break down contaminants. Modified photocatalysts, such as metal oxides, doped metal oxides, and composite materials, enhance the effectiveness of photocatalytic degradation by improving light absorption and charge separation. Furthermore, operational conditions such as pH, temperature, and light intensity also play a crucial role in enhancing the degradation process. The results indicated that both high pollutant and catalyst concentrations improve the degradation rate up to a threshold, beyond which no significant benefits are observed. The optimal operational conditions were found to significantly enhance photocatalytic efficiency, with a marked increase in degradation rates under ideal settings. Antibiotics and organic dyes generally follow intricate degradation pathways, resulting in the breakdown of these substances into smaller, less detrimental compounds. On the other hand, hydrocarbons such as toluene and cyclohexane, along with nitrobenzene, may necessitate many stages to achieve complete mineralization. Several factors that affect the efficiency of degradation are the characteristics of the photocatalyst, pollutant concentration, light intensity, and the existence of co-catalysts. This approach offers a sustainable alternative for minimizing the amount of organic pollutants present in the environment, contributing to cleaner air and water. Photocatalytic degradation hence holds tremendous potential for remediation of the environment.

Metal oxide-based photocatalyst can eliminate organic pollutants such as antibiotics, organic dyes, toluene, nitrobenzene, cyclohexane, and refinery oil from the environment.

Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research 10.13039/501100005999 39.02.0000.011.14.134.2021/900 pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Urbanization and industrialization are cornerstones of modern civilization, underpinning significant advances in economic growth, technological innovation, and improved standards of living.1 These processes have facilitated the development of cities, expanded infrastructure, and increased industrial productivity, creating myriad opportunities for societal progress.2,3 However, the rapid pace of urbanization and industrialization has also ushered in substantial environmental challenges, particularly through the generation of wastewater that contains a diverse array of organic pollutants.4–6 These pollutants are frequently hazardous, presenting significant hazards to both the environment and public health, in contrast to conventional treatment procedures.7–9 Industrial operations are major contributors to wastewater pollution, as they produce effluents laden with complex organic chemicals.10–12 These chemicals are often by-products of various industrial processes and include a wide variety of substances such as antibiotics, organic dyes, nitrobenzene, cyclohexane, phenols, toluene, biphenyls, pesticides, fertilizers, hydrocarbons, plasticizing agents, detergents, oils, greases, proteins, and carbohydrates.13–15 The environmental impact of these pollutants is profound, as they can persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in wildlife, and enter human food chains, leading to chronic health issues and ecological damage.16,17 The complexity and resilience of these organic pollutants necessitate the development of advanced treatment technologies.18,19 Traditional biological treatment methods are often inadequate for fully degrading these pollutants due to their toxicity and chemical stability. In response to this challenge, Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) have been developed and are increasingly being employed for the effective degradation of hazardous organic contaminants present in wastewater.20–22 AOPs are distinguished by the production of extremely reactive species, such as hydroxyl radicals, that can indiscriminately oxidize a broad spectrum of organic pollutants. This process converts the pollutants into less dangerous chemicals or fully mineralizes them into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).23 Among the various AOPs, photocatalytic degradation stands out as a particularly effective method.20 Photocatalysis involves the use of semiconductor materials as catalysts to accelerate chemical reactions upon exposure to light. When semiconductor materials such as zinc oxide (ZnO), iron oxide (Fe2O3), titanium dioxide (TiO2), gallium phosphide (GaP), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and zinc sulfide (ZnS) are exposed to light, they generate electron–hole pairs that can generate reactive oxygen species.24–26 These reactive species possess the very capability of breaking down complex organic pollutants into less harmful, simpler molecules and fully mineralizing them.27,28 The advantages of photocatalysis are numerous and include low operational costs, the ability to accomplish full mineralization of contaminants without generating secondary pollution, and the capability to operate at ambient temperatures and pressures.29 Among the various photocatalysts, titanium dioxide (TiO2) is the most extensively studied and broadly applied because of its exceptional chemical and photochemical stability, cost-effectiveness, low toxicity, and high activity under ultraviolet (UV) light. TiO2, with its wide band gap of approximately 3.2 eV, can mineralize a broad spectrum of organic contaminants, including herbicides, dyes, pesticides, phenolic compounds, and pharmaceuticals like tetracycline and sulfamethazine.30,31 Nevertheless, the actual utilization of TiO2 is somewhat restricted due to its dependence on UV light, which comprises just a minor portion of the solar spectral region.32 To overcome this limitation, other semiconductor materials with broader light absorption properties are being explored. Tungsten trioxide (WO3) has emerged as a promising alternative due to its capability of absorbing visible light, making it more competent for photocatalytic oxidation of volatile organic pollutants under natural sunlight.33,34 Additionally, silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have gained significant attention as photocatalysts due to their high photostability, environmental friendliness, and catalytic properties that are dependent on their shape and size.35 The effectiveness of photocatalytic systems in degrading organic pollutants is dependent on numerous operational parameters. These factors encompass the substrate concentration, photocatalyst quantity, pH of the solution, reaction medium temperature, light irradiation duration and intensity, photocatalyst surface area, dissolved oxygen content in the reaction medium, and the characteristics of both the photocatalyst and substrate.29,36,37 Furthermore, the doping of photocatalysts with metal and non-metal ions can enhance their photocatalytic activity by modifying their electronic properties and extending their light absorption range.38 It is important to optimize these parameters to maximize the degradation kinetics and overall efficiency of photocatalytic processes.39 For instance, the proportion of the substrate to the photocatalyst must be carefully balanced to ensure that there are enough reactive sites for pollutant molecules to adsorb and react.37 The pH of the solution can affect the charge and surface properties of the photocatalyst, influencing its interaction with pollutants. Temperature and light intensity also play significant roles in determining the rate of photocatalytic reactions, with higher temperatures and light intensities generally leading to increased reaction rates.40–42 In this review, we focused on the degradation of six specific types of organic pollutants: antibiotics, organic dyes, nitrobenzene, toluene, oil, and cyclohexane. These pollutants represent a broad spectrum of chemical structures and environmental impacts, making them ideal candidates for studying the effectiveness of various photocatalysts under different operational conditions. We will delve into the various reaction parameters that are critical to achieving maximum degradation of these pollutants using different photocatalysts. This comprehensive analysis aims to provide insights into the optimal conditions and catalyst selections for effective wastewater treatment, contributing to the mitigation of environmental pollution and the protection of aquatic ecosystems.

Photocatalytic degradation of chemical pollutants (organic dyes and antibiotics)

Chemical pollutants refer to a large group of contaminants that arise from different sources, including pharmaceuticals,43 personal care items,44 pesticides,45 and other synthetic chemicals.46 Chemical pollutants, such as antibiotics and organic dyes, have significant adverse effects on the environment.47 Antibiotics, encompassing classes such as beta-lactams (e.g., penicillins, cephalosporins), macrolides (e.g., erythromycin), tetracyclines (e.g., doxycycline), aminoglycosides (e.g., gentamicin), quinolones (e.g., ciprofloxacin), sulfonamides (e.g., sulfamethoxazole), glycopeptides (e.g., vancomycin), and oxazolidinones (e.g., linezolid), are significant pharmaceutical pollutants.48 Organic dyes, including azo dyes (e.g., methyl orange), anthraquinone dyes (e.g., alizarin), phthalocyanine dyes (e.g., copper phthalocyanine), triphenylmethane dyes (e.g., malachite green), xanthene dyes (e.g., fluorescein), and indigoid dyes (e.g., indigo carmine), are prevalent industrial pollutants.49 Both types of pollutants are persistent in water bodies, posing substantial dangers to aquatic ecosystems and human health due to their toxicity, bioaccumulation potential, and the propagation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.50,51 The persistence and toxicity of these chemical pollutants necessitate effective remediation strategies, such as photocatalytic degradation, which utilizes light-activated catalysts to break down these harmful substances into harmless by-products, ensuring cleaner water and healthier ecosystems.52

Organic dyes

A significant group of synthetic organic molecules produced by a variety of industries, including the leather, plastic, food, paper, textile, and medicinal sectors, are known as dyes.35,53 Due to their frequent application in various manufacturing sectors, dyes are inevitably accidentally released into the environment, particularly into either surface water or groundwater, where they may pose serious dangers to environmental and biological systems.54–57 Over 700 000 tons of dyes are generated globally each year; 20% of these lost dyes reach the atmosphere and create pollution throughout processing or manufacturing, accounting for about 12% of the global total of dye generation. So the degradation of these organic dyes is necessary for maintaining the ecological balance.58 Organic dyes are very detrimental to aquatic ecosystems, even at low concentrations (less than 1 ppm). Thus, it is essential and required to remove organic dyes from effluents.59 The degradation mechanism of methylene blue dye is as follows.601 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

2 ecb− + O2 → ˙O2−

3 hvb+ + H2O → ˙OH + H+

4 hvb+ + OH− → ˙OH

5 Methylene blue + ˙OH → Degradation products

6 Methylene blue + ˙O2− → Degradation products

7 Degradation products + ˙OH/O2 → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

Several metal oxides, such as ZnO, MgO, AgO, TiO2, Fe2O3, Mn2O3, CuO, and V2O5, are frequently employed as photocatalysts in wastewater treatment processes to degrade dyes.61 Zinc oxide (ZnO) is an oxidizing substance found in nature as the unusual mineral zincite. There have been attempts to use ZnO alongside other semiconductors for the photocatalytic degradation of an extensive variety of biological pollutants.62 ZnO-based photocatalysts work according to various parameter conditions. These parameters are mainly Ph, the initial concentration of dye or catalyst, the wavelength of the light & so on. The photocatalytic reaction rate at the outermost layer of the catalyst can be influenced by the initial concentration of the substrate. To prevent the dispersion of light and the concentration impact of the exposed photocatalyst surface, the ideal photocatalyst concentration ought to be unique for heterogeneous photocatalysis processes.63 Velmurugan et al. stated that the rate of degradation k dropped from 0.173 to 0.012 min−1 when the dye concentration was increased from 1 × 10−4 to 4 × 10−4 M.64 This is because many layers of adsorbed dye molecules have formed on the outermost layer of the catalyst, which prevents the photoreaction from occurring because there was not enough direct light interaction to produce hydroxyl radicals.65 The first amount of dye has a significant influence on the degradation efficiency of MB.66 Sobana et al. used ZnO that was manually combined with activated carbon (AC–ZnO) and solar irradiation to study the impact of initial Direct Blue 53 (DB53) concentration over the concentration range from 1 × 10−4 to 9 × 10−4 M.67 Its numerous functions make it extremely difficult to determine how the pH of a solution affects the efficacy of the dye photocatalytic degradation activity.68 Velmurugan et al. stated the impact of pH in the range of 3–11 upon the photocatalytic breakdown of Reactive Red 120 (RR 120) over ZnO during solar light irradiation.64 Photocatalytic breakdown of Reactive Orange 4 (RO4) and Black 5 (RB5) dyes occurs at various solution pH levels between 3 and 11.69 The pH, which regulates the adsorption of organic compounds on the outermost layer of the photocatalyst, serves as one of the most crucial factors influencing photocatalysis effectiveness.70 Electromagnetic relationships between the outermost layer of the photocatalyst and the substrate of interest can be employed to clarify how pH affects photocatalysis outcomes.27 Singh et al. stated that after exposing ZnO nanorods to UV radiation for 120 minutes, photodegradation activity levels were 7.169% and 47.63% for pH values of 4.5 and 10.5, correspondingly.71

Scientists' interest has been drawn more and more to supported TiO2 catalyst utilization over the past few years due to its prospective uses in the photocatalytic breakdown of organic contaminants such as organic dyes in air and water. Additionally, reports have it that when adsorbents are used to support TiO2, an ideal condition is created for the elimination or degradation of the compounds of interest.72,73 To enhance TiO2-based photocatalysts on organic dye in wastewater, several conditions were adjusted. These crucial elements, which included light intensity, TiO2 form and structure, target type, pH level and doping type, all had an impact on the photocatalysis method's effectiveness.58 If we want to discuss the parameters it is found that it is rather tough to comprehend how pH impacts the photodegradation process's efficacy.29 TiO2 exhibits amphoteric properties, allowing for the development of either a positive or negative charge on its outermost layer.74 Due to this, the adsorption of dye molecules over TiO2 surfaces may be affected by changes in pH.75 Bubacz et al. found that when pH is increased, so did the rate at which methylene blue was broken down photo-catalytically.76 On the other hand, Neppolian et al. showed that acidic conditions do not affect the degradation rate of the Reactive Blue 4 significantly enough.77 It has been found that organic dyes like Reactive Black 5 and Reactive Orange 4 degradation were enhanced in an acidic solution containing TiO2.69 Tanaka et al. discovered that at less acidic values, the positively charged TiO2 layer absorbed more Acid Orange 7, and greater breakdown was accomplished.78 A study has been conducted on the effects of pH on the adsorption as well as decolorization of Procion Red MX-5B (MX-5B) and Cationic Blue X-GRL (CBX). It was discovered that when the pH increased, MX-5B's adsorption was reduced.62 Another key parameter for dye degradation using a TiO2 catalyst is the dye amount or dye concentration. It has been found that the increased initial concentration of the dyes increases the degradation rate.36,79 This is because when the dye's initial concentrations rise, the dye molecules become deposited on the outermost layer of the catalyst and consume a sizable proportion of UV light instead of the TiO2 nanoparticles.80,81 Neppolian et al. investigated how the original dye concentration affected the percentage of degradation. With the best possible catalyst loading, they changed the starting concentrations of Reactive Yellow 17 (from 8.9 × 10−4 to 1.29 × 10−3 M), Reactive Red 2 (from 4.169 × 10−4 to 1.259 × 10−3 M), and Reactive Blue 4 (from 1.9 × 10−4 to 5.9 × 10−4 M).77 The dye degradation in a water-based solution utilizing a catalyst powder of TiO2 within a photocatalytic reactor is influenced by two additional parameters: the wavelength and intensity of the UV light irradiation source.82 Lower radiation wavelengths are thought to encourage the creation of electron holes, which would increase the catalyst's effectiveness.83 Ollis et al. said that at minimal light levels (0–20 mW cm−2), the rate would rise in an orderly manner as the intensity of light increased. The rate would rely on the square root of the light intensity at moderate light intensities (about 25 mW cm−2) but at intense light levels, the rate is independent of the light intensity.29,84 The degradation of Orange G was shown to be affected by light intensity in a range of 215 to 586 W cm−2. With a rise in light magnitude, Orange G's photolysis reaction rates climbed.85 Rao et al. stated that Acid Orange 7 (AO7) photocatalytically breaks down at a pace that is roughly 1.5 times faster in direct sunlight compared to that under synthetic UV radiation.86 Another significant operational parameter for the organic dye degradation is temperature range.36 The range of 40–50 °C was determined to be the ideal operating temperature range. Since desorption of the produced products happens more slowly at low temperatures than interface degradation as well as reactant adsorption, it restricts the reaction. Conversely, the limiting step becomes the dye's adsorption on TiO2 at an elevated temperature.87 A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants (Table 1) and the process is illustrated in Fig. 1. The rate constant is lowered at elevated temperatures due to the organics' and hydrated oxygen's reduced adsorptive ability. Consequently, the ideal temperature often falls between 293 and 353 K.108,109

Data for the photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes using various catalystsa

Pollutants	Pollutant conc. (mg L−1)	Catalyst	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operational conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
MB	63.97	Mn-doped ZnO	—	Visible light; light intensity: 18.6 lux	Tungsten lamp, 500	50%, 10	88	
IC	10	CA–CNT/TiO2–NH2	—	UV light (315–400 nm), pH = 2, temp = 80 °C	40	100%, 180	89	
MB	30	CA–CNT/TiO2–NH2	—	UV light (315–40 nm), pH = 2, temp = 80 °C	40	80%, 300	89	
RhB	6	Nanostructured TiO2	0.0001–0.0005	UV light, pH = around 7	—	93.8%, 190	90	
AR57	30	TiO2	0.0005	UV light, pH = 7.18, temp = 400 °C	—	90.7%, 190	90	
CR	75	ZnO	0.00016	Solar light, pH = 6	—	97%, 120	91	
MB	50	Cu-doped ZnO (NPs)	—	Visible light	300	85%, 60	92	
RhB	10	WO3/Ag2CO3	—	Visible light	Metal halide lamp, 70	99.7%, 8	93	
MB	64	Undoped ZnO	—	Visible light; light intensity: 18.6 lux	Tungsten lamp, 500	50%, 30	67	
MO	10	2% Al–2% Ni–ZnO	500	Visible light	Halogen lamp, 100	99%, 30	94	
MB	—	Nano ZnO	—	UV light	Mercury vapor lamp, 8	97.64%, 120	95	
MO	25	ZnO/Cu2O	—	UV light	Tungsten lamp, 200	73%, 180	96	
AR27	—	Ce–ZnO	0.004	Solar light, degradation steadily increased up to pH = 12	—	90%, 60	79	
MO	15	ZnO NFs	—	UV light	—	99.46%, 50	97	
MO	—	Natural zeolite supported TiO2	0.0006–0.004	UV light, pH = 4	—	96.58%, 100	98	
AB25	100	MgAl2O4 nanoparticles	—	UV, pH = 3	—	99.86%, 35	99	
MB	50	ZnO NPs	—	UV/visible, —	—	100% under UV irradiation in 20 min, 91% under visible light in 60 min	100	
RhB	10	TiO2/g-C3N4	—	Solar light, temp: 350 °C	Compact xenon lamp, 300	95%, 120	101	
MO	10	[Zn(L)(H2O)]·H2O	—	UV light, —	High pressure Hg lamp, 300	83,8%, 120	102	
MB	5	ZnO nanowires	—	UV light, —	High pressure Hg lamp, 50	96%, 120	103	
IC	10	TiO2–NH2 NPs		UV light, pH = 2, temp: 80 °C	UV lamp, 40	100%, 180	89	
RhB	0.001	Floral-like LaFeO3	—	Visible light, —	High pressure Hg lamp, 150	—, 720	104	
RhB	23.4	ZnO	400	pH = 7	—	—, 180	105	
RO16	20–60	TiO2	90	UV light, pH = 7.0, temp: 25 °C	Xenon lamp, —	87% after 20 min, 70% after 20 min, nearly 100% after 120 min	106	
MO	—	PbBiO2Br	—	Visible light	Xe arc lamp, 300	95%, 60	107	
a MB = Methylene Blue, IC = Indigo Carmine, RhB = Rhodamine B, AR57 = Acid Red 57, CR = Congo Red, MO = Methyl Orange, AR27 = Acid Red 27, AB25 = Acid Blue 25, RO16 = Reactive Orange 16.

Fig. 1 Working procedure of the photocatalyst for dye degradation.

Antibiotics

Due to their extremely stable and non-biodegradable nature, antibiotics accumulate in the ecosystem as a result of overuse and uncontrolled environmental discharge.110,111 The release of diverse antimicrobial pollutants and their varied toxicity provide a significant challenge for researchers trying to find a solution.112,113 The excessive accumulation of antibiotics in natural environments has presented a significant peril to ecological systems.114,115 Unfortunately, traditional water treatment methods such as adsorption, filtration, and biodegradation are ineffective in effectively removing antibiotics due to their significant durability and limited biodegradability. Hence, the development of novel technologies is vital to ensure the efficient elimination of antibiotics.116–119 Due to its advantageous characteristics of cost-effectiveness, environmental sustainability, and high efficacy, heterogeneous photocatalysis has become a process of great promise for wastewater treatment, which relies on the direct utilization of sunlight to effectively degrade and subsequently mineralize organic pollutants, and has emerged as a promising approach to tackle diverse environmental challenges.120–122 Furthermore, it is crucial to provide an overview of frequently utilized photocatalytic nanomaterials and their specific use in breaking down popular antibiotics. This is necessary to validate their practical superiority and efficacy as catalysts for the process of photodegradation.123–125 The degradation mechanism of ciprofloxacin antibiotic in the presence of different photocatalysts is provided.1268 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

9 ecb− + O2 → ˙O2−

10 hvb+ + H2O → ˙OH + H+

11 hvb+ + OH− → ˙OH

12 Ciprofloxacin + ˙OH → Degradation products

13 Ciprofloxacin + ˙O2− → Degradation products

14 Degradation products + ˙OH/O2 → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

Yang et al. researched the degradation of ciprofloxacin using g-C3N4/TiO2 nanocomposites with the help of visible light irradiation utilizing a 300 W Xe visible lamp where the authors observed 88% of CIP degraded in 180 minutes.127 Verma explored the degradation of amoxicillin (AMX) by the utilization of TiO2 photocatalysis and sono-photocatalysis and achieved the highest degradation rate (80%) of AMX at a pH of 7.0 under UV irradiation at a power density of 672 W m−2.128 Zhang examined the mechanism and kinetics of photocatalytic degradation of tetracycline (TC) utilizing a supramolecular organic photocatalyst called three-dimensional network structure perylene diimide (3D-PDI).129 Fan et al. synthesized three different structures of bi-modified titanate nanomaterials (Bi-TNM) utilizing the hydrothermal technique and carefully adjusted variables to break down paracetamol (ACT). The study revealed that bi-titanate nanoribbons, when used at a concentration of 1 g L−1, had the most effective photocatalytic degradation capability, achieving a rate of 88%.130 The catalytic efficiency of NiS and NiS immobilized within the magnetite polypyrrole core/shell matrix (Fe3O4@PPY) was examined for the degradation of cephalexin. The study also examined the photocatalytic breakdown of cefalexin using the NiS-PPY-Fe3O4 photocatalyst, which was exposed to sunshine. The photocatalyst demonstrated a removal efficiency of over 80% over a 30 minute timeframe.131 Payan studied the creation of photocatalysts using Cu–TiO2@functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes and found that sulfamethazine can be fully destroyed under solar irradiation within 300 minutes.132 R. Kumar et al. synthesized BN/CdAl2O4 composites and evaluated their photocatalytic ability to degrade cefoxitin sodium (CFT) antibiotic in an aqueous solution. The findings demonstrated that a nearly complete degradation of CFT, reaching approximately 100%, occurred within 240 minutes at a concentration of 15 mg L−1 and a pH of 7.133 A bismuth oxybromide (BiOBr) photocatalyst capped with PVP was produced by a solvothermal technique. The PVP-capped BiOBr exhibits a removal efficiency of 94% and 99.8% for the antibiotics ofloxacin (OFL) and norfloxacin (NOR) respectively, when exposed to visible light.134 Y. Gong prepared Z-scheme CdTe/TiO2 heterostructure photocatalysts decomposing 78% tetracycline hydrochloride (TC-H) within 30 min of irradiation under visible light.135 W. Wang examined the photocatalytic efficiency of BiVO4/TiO2/RGO composites for four tetracycline antibiotics. The BiVO4/TiO2/RGO photocatalyst demonstrated significant photocatalytic activity and compatibility, providing efficient separation of photo-generated carriers with oxidation capabilities and high reduction.136 N. Askari synthesized a novel heterojunction Z-scheme MnWO4/Bi2S3 using a hydrothermal technique to study the photocatalytic behavior of catalysts in the decomposition of metronidazole (MTZ) and cephalexin (CFX) under LED light exposure where a maximum degradation efficiency of 78.8% was achieved for CFX and 83.3% for MTZ.137 A. Mohammad et al. studied manufactured nanostructured photocatalysts composed of tin oxide (SnO2) and cerium oxide (CeO2). These photocatalysts were employed to degrade the antibiotic tetracycline hydrochloride (TC) under visible light. The most optimal outcome seen among the examined photocatalysts had a TC removal effectiveness of approximately 97% within a 120 minute timeframe under visible-light exposure.138 An investigation was conducted on the photocatalytic degradation of pharmaceutical micropollutants of Penicillin G (PG) in a photoreactor. The proficiency of the photocatalytic process was increased by the inclusion of persulfate sodium (PPS). The inclusion of PPS greatly enhanced the efficiency of the photolysis process, resulting in a considerable improvement of 72.72% compared to the traditional photocatalysis system, which achieved 56.71% efficiency.139 Bouyarmane synthesized TiO2-hydroxyapatite nanocomposites precipitating a re-dissolved natural phosphate mineral in ammonia using the concurrent gelation of titanium alkoxide. These nanocomposites were then subjected to degradation for drug testing in a solution under ultraviolet light. When utilizing 40TiHAp as a photocatalyst, ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin were destroyed through photodegradation in 15 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively.140 A simple solvothermal technique was employed to synthesize a novel Cu3P–ZSO–CN p–n–n heterojunction photocatalyst for the degradation of the antibiotic tetracycline (TC) under exposure to visible light. The degradation efficiency for TC was found to be 98.45%.141 M. Abdullah et al. synthesized ACT-X nanocomposites using activated carbon and TiO2 to enhance the inherent characteristics of TiO2, resulting in improved light absorption in the visible area. The ACT-4 photocatalyst has demonstrated the maximum level of photocatalytic degradation (99.6%) for the ceftriaxone (CEF) antibiotic.142 The very first 3D hierarchical ZnO/Bi2MoO6 heterojunctions were synthesized using an in situ solvothermal technique. These heterojunctions exhibited a remarkable efficiency of 100% in the photodegradation of the ofloxacin (OFL) antibiotic. This exceptional performance can be ascribed to their reduced electron–hole recombination rate and large surface area.143 A novel heterojunction photocatalyst (MoO3/g-C3N4) was synthesized using a straightforward hydrothermal calcination technique. The catalytic efficiency of this photocatalyst was assessed by measuring its ability to degrade tetracycline. The findings demonstrated that the 0D-2D MoO3/g-C3N4 Z-scheme heterojunction outperformed the original g-C3N4 and achieved an impressive 85.9% removal efficiency within 100 minutes when exposed to visible light.144 E. Gómez et al. fabricated highly efficient photocatalysts by using electrochemical deposition and thermal treatment. These photocatalysts, called nanostructured homojunction Bi2MoO6@Bi2MoO6−x, were able to effectively degrade and mineralize solutions containing various antibiotics (such as tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin). After 180 minutes of radiation exposure, the photocatalysts achieved exceptionally high mineralization values (>95%) and near-complete degradation.145 P. Gholami et al. examined the photocatalytic efficacy of Zn–Co-layered double hydroxide (LDH) nanostructures containing charcoal (BC) in the breakdown of gemifloxacin (GMF), a representative pharmaceutical contaminant. The results indicate that 92.7% of GMF underwent degradation through photocatalysis in the presence of the Zn–Co-LDH catalyst. The effectiveness of BC-incorporated Zn–Co-LDH as a photocatalyst was greatly influenced by the concentration of the solute and the amount of photocatalyst used.146 Elegant Z-scheme composite hollow microspheres (CHMs) were made by sequentially controlling in situ hydrolysis and polymerization of WO3/g-C3N4. WO3/g-C3N4 CHMs are the most effective for photocatalytic degradation of CFS, with an 82% degradation efficiency after 2 hours of visible-light irradiation.147 Y. Sneha et al. conducted research on the properties of photocatalyst magnesium titanate (MgTiO3) in the presence of visible light, specifically focusing on its interaction with lomefloxacin. The study found that a concentration of 30 mg L−1 of catalyst was the most effective in breaking down 10 mg L−1 of lomefloxacin using 30 W LED irradiation for a duration of 150 minutes.148 The interaction between various surface facets of a semiconductor with suitable ratios can lead to improved performance in the degradation of photocatalytic processes. J. Wang et al. studied a material composed of bismuth called Bi4Ti3O12 and found that it showed improved degradation activity for tetracycline hydrochloride (TC-HCl) when exposed to irradiation.149 M. Shokri et al. investigated the degradation of cefazolin through exposure to immobilized and suspended TiO2 on a glass plate. A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics Table 2 and Fig. 2 shows the process. The findings indicate that the breakdown percentage of TiO2 suspension at favorable pH conditions (pH 5) is 96.47% after 60 minutes of irradiation.150

Data for the photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics using various catalysts

Antibioticsa	Antibiotics conc. (mg L−1)	Catalysts	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operational conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
CIP	10	g-C3N4/TiO2	375	Visible light	Xe, 300	88, 180	127	
AMX	30	TiO2	450	UV light, pH 7	672	80, 270	128	
TC	50	3D-PDI	25	Visible light, pH 5	—	80, 150	129	
APAP	0.7	BiTNMs	1000	Visible light, pH 7	500	88, 180	130	
CFX	50	NiS-PPY-Fe3O4	4000	UV light, pH 5.5	Hg, 75	80, 30	131	
SMZ	30	Cu–TiO2@functionalized SWCNT	900	UV-vis light, pH 7	—	100, 300	132	
CFT	15	BN/CdAl2O4	330	UV light, pH 7	108	100, 240	133	
OFL	5	PVP capped BiOBr	10	Visible light	15	94, 240	134	
NOR	5	PVP capped BiOBr	10	Visible light, pH 7.54	15	99.8, 240	134	
TC-H	20	CdTe/TiO2	600	Visible light	300	78, 30	135	
TC	0.01	BiVO4/TiO2/RGO	—	Visible light, pH 3	Xe, 1000	96.2, 120	136	
CTC	0.01	BiVO4/TiO2/RGO	—	Visible light, pH 3	Xe, 1000	97.5, 120	136	
OTC	0.01	BiVO4/TiO2/RGO	—	Visible light, pH 3	Xe, 1000	98.7, 120	136	
DXC	0.01	BiVO4/TiO2/RGO	—	Visible light, pH 3	Xe, 1000	99.6, 120	136	
CFX	20	MnWO4/Bi2S3	1200	Visible light	Xe, 1000	78.8, 180	137	
MTZ	20	MnWO4/Bi2S3	1200	Visible light	Xe, 150	83.3, 180	137	
TC	10	SnO2/CeO2	200	Visible light, pH 9–10	500	97, 120	138	
PG	5	ZnO	800	UV light, pH 6.8	24	72.72, 150	139	
CIP	20	40TiHAp	2000	UV light, pH 6.1	125	100, 15	140	
OFL	20	40TiHAp	2000	UV light, pH 6.1	125	100, 120	140	
TC	10	Cu3P/ZnSnO3/g-C3N4	500	Visible light	Xe, 500	98.45, 60	141	
CEF	100	ACT-4	844	Visible light	LED bulb, 50	99.6, 260	142	
OFL	10	ZnO/Bi2MoO6	250	Visible light, pH 7.54	Daylight lamp, 15	100, 240	143	
TC	10	MoO3/g-C3N4	500	Visible light	—	85, 9100	144	
TC, CPX, and/or LFC solution	60	Bi2MoO6@Bi2MoO6−x	300	Visible light, pH 7	LEDs, 6.2	>95, 180	145	
GMF	15–35	Zn–Co-LDH@BC	750	UV light, pH 5.5	10	92.7, 130	146	
CFS	500	WO3/g-C3N4	25	UV light	Xe, 300	82, 120	147	
Lomefloxacin	10	MgTiO3	30	UV light, pH 7	LED light, 30	83, 150	148	
TC–HCl	20	Bi4Ti3O12	10	UV light	Xe, 300	75.5, 150	149	
Cefazolin	20	TiO2	400	UV light, pH 5	15	96.47, 60	150	
SMX	—	TiO2	0.002	UV light	Xenon, 1500	88, 360	151	
SMX	10	TiO2	250	UV light, pH 4.1–5.4	UV, 9	Close to 100, 120	152	
OA	20	Titanium Degussa P-25	0.001	pH 7.5	Black light lamp	90, 30	153	
Norfloxacin	—	C–TiO2	0.0002	Visible light	—	78, 70	154	
TC	40	Metal ion@TiO2/HNTs		Visible light	Xenon, 500	76.54, —	155	
Chloramphenicol	50	TiO2	0.001	UV light	Osram Dulux, 9	90, 90	156	
SMX	100	TiO2	0.0005	UV light	Xenon lamp	80, 360	157	
a CIP = ciprofloxacin, AMX = amoxicillin, TC = tetracycline, APAP = acetaminophen, CFX = cephalexin, SMZ = sulfamethoxazole, CFT = cefoxitin sodium, OFL = ofloxacin, NOR = norfloxacin, CTC = chlorotetracycline, OTC = oxytetracycline, DXC = doxycycline, MTZ = metronidazole, PG = penicillin G, CEF = cefixime, GMF = gemifloxacin, CFS = ceftazidime, SMX = sulfamethoxazole, OA = oxolinic acid.

Fig. 2 Working procedure of the photocatalysts for antibiotic degradation.

Other industrial pollutants (toluene, nitrobenzene, cyclohexane, and refinery oil)

Industrial chemical pollutants are a subgroup of chemical pollutants specifically connected with industrial operations.158 They encompass a wide spectrum of chemicals used or produced in manufacturing, refining, and other industrial processes.159 Industrial chemical pollutants, including toluene, cyclohexane, nitrobenzene, and refinery oil, pose significant environmental threats due to their widespread use and high toxicity.160,161 Toluene, an industrial solvent, pollutes air, water, and soil, causing harm to aquatic organisms and long-term environmental damage.162 Cyclohexane, used in chemical production, contributes to air and water pollution, affecting aquatic life.163 Nitrobenzene, a dye and pharmaceutical precursor, contaminates soil and water, posing toxic and carcinogenic risks.164 Refinery oil, a byproduct of petroleum refining, causes extensive damage through spills and leaks, affecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems.165 Photocatalytic degradation is crucial for mitigating these pollutants, as it offers an efficient, eco-friendly method to break down these toxic substances, preventing their persistence in the environment and safeguarding both ecosystems and human health.166

Toluene

As one of the pollutants that pose a risk to human health and the ecosystem, toluene has been classified as a priority pollutant; for this reason, emission management is required.167,168 Owing to the serious issues that toluene causes, various methods for toluene abatement have been developed.169 The rapid growth in industrialization and urbanization has played a notable role in the emergence of severe environmental issues.170,171 Toluene, a volatile organic molecule, can induce skin inflammation, respiratory ailments, chronic and acute intoxication, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity.172–176 Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the efficacy of eliminating indoor toluene vapors. Methods to counteract atmospheric pollution can be classified as either chemical or physical approaches.177,178 Physical approaches include adsorption, the process of condensation, and separating membranes. Chemical approaches encompass combustion, low-temperature plasma, biological, and photocatalytic treatments.179,180 Photocatalysis is regarded as a very promising option for environmental cleaning among these techniques. Photocatalytic technologies provide the benefits of being non-toxic and cost-effective, requiring gentle reaction conditions, and producing no secondary pollutants.136,181 Almost all the hydrocarbon degrades via the following mechanism.182,18315 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

16 ecb− + O2 → ˙O2−

17 hvb+ + H2O → ˙OH + H+

18 hvb+ + OH− → ˙OH

19 Toluene + ˙OH → Hydroxylated intermediates

20 Hydroxylated intermediates + ˙OH → Degradation products

21 Degradation products + ˙OH/O2 → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

M. Zhang et al. utilized a hydrothermal technique to synthesize In2S3 in a nanoscale form. This nanomaterial was then employed to fabricate a composite photocatalyst consisting of In2S3 and g-C3N4. The process of toluene photocatalytic decomposition was investigated, and a feasible mechanism was proposed. The In2S3/g-C3N4 heterojunctions exhibited the highest photocatalytic degradation when a 40% loading of In2S3 was used.184 B. N. R. Winayu et al. enhanced the TiO2 catalyst by introducing sulfur and nitrogen (S, N) components and reduced graphene oxide (rGO) through doping. The most efficient photocatalytic degradation of toluene was achieved using a combination of 1 wt% reduced graphene oxide (rGO) and 0.05 wt% nitrogen-doped titanium dioxide (N0.1TiO2).185 V. T. T. Ho et al. stated that the nanostructured Ir-doped TiO2 is a highly effective photocatalyst that produces a superb material for reducing the risk of gaseous toluene. The material had a large surface area and had a consistently spherical shape of 10–15 nm diameter.186 The composite of PIL (polyionic liquid)@TiO2 was formed using two different concentrations of polymerized ionic liquid (low and high). The composite was then assessed for its ability to degrade toluene. The findings indicated that the PIL(low)@TiO2 composite exhibited higher activity compared to the PIL(high)@TiO2 composites.187 Z. Sun et al. synthesized a novel hierarchical heterostructured photocatalyst consisting of TiO2/Bi/Bi2MoO6 using a solvothermal technique. On the outermost layer of flower-like Bi2MoO6 nanospheres, the TiO2 nanoparticles were evenly dispersed. The results suggest that the combination of TiO2 can greatly improve the effectiveness of the photocatalytic oxidation of toluene using the hierarchical heterostructure TiO2/Bi/Bi2MoO6.188 Y. Bi et al. used zinc chloride (ZnCl2), zinc nitrate (Zn(NO3)2), and zinc acetate (Zn(CH3COO)2) to modify activated carbon fibers (ACFs). Subsequently, titanium dioxide (TiO2) was loaded onto the modified ACFs. The study found that the photocatalytic performance and adsorption of TiO2/ACF-Ac modified by Zn(CH3COO)2 were highest for the removal of toluene.189 The presence of a three-dimensional (3D) and directed structure enables efficient absorption of photons and rapid diffusion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), surpassing the capabilities of catalysts in powder form. The researchers successfully created uniform and free-standing nanowire (NW) arrays of p-type Cu2O by subjecting Cu(OH)2 NWs to heat treatment. The Cu2O NWs, as they are created, exhibit exceptional performance in degrading 30 ppm toluene, with a degradation rate of 99.9% achieved within 120 minutes.190 P. Mohammadi et al. used a hydrothermal technique to deposit synthesized SrTiO3 onto graphene oxide (GO). Photocatalysts that were artificially created were utilized for the process of breaking down gaseous toluene dynamically using photocatalysis while being exposed to UV radiation.191 Rostami synthesized a TiO2 and bentonite photocatalyst by a method called co-precipitation and evaluated its catalytic efficiency in degrading para-nitrotoluene (PNT).192 Oxygen vacancies (OVs) can regulate photocatalytic activity by altering their electrical and/or band structures. A wide bandgap p-block metal combination containing OVs, indium oxyhydroxide (InOOH), produced using a one-pot hydrothermal approach, was used to investigate the effect of OVs on photocatalytic decomposition and toluene ring breakage. Validated modified InOOH improves photocatalytic potency by decreasing the energy limitation of critical intermediates for reaction during toluene degradation.183 X. Zhao et al. enhanced the performance of the C–USTiO2 photocatalyst by applying it to carbon cloth and conducted a study on its ability to continuously degrade toluene under LED light exposure. The results demonstrated that the removal of the degraded toluene can exceed 80% when a large concentration of CO2 is produced, and it exhibits exceptional cycle stability lasting for over 180 minutes.193 M. Wu et al. researched the use of CeO2 nanorods for the degradation of toluene using vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) catalytic oxidation. CeO2 nanorods were utilized in a system that involved VUV-photolysis, UV-PCO, OZCO, and UVOZCO processes. Utilizing VUV light instead of ozone catalytic oxidation can significantly enhance the efficiencies, increasing them from 12.9% to 83.2% when combined with the suggested catalyst.194 An efficient electrochemical method consisting of two steps was devised to produce a nanotube array of atomically dispersed Au-loaded WO3/TiO2 for the oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The presence of vacancies (OVs) on the surface of WO3 greatly improved the separation and movement of photogenerated carriers, as well as the adsorption of toluene. This resulted in an 85.5% mineralization and 95.4% degradation rate for the removal of toluene.195 J. Lyu et al. fabricated a hollow heterophase junction by applying a layer of amorphous TiO2 onto anatase TiO2 hollow spheres. The findings demonstrated that the application of the amorphous TiO2 coating resulted in an augmentation of fine pores and intermediate pores in the photocatalyst, leading to an improved capacity for toluene adsorption.196 By adding nanodiamonds to ZnO, the photocorrosion problem can be solved for photocatalytic degradation of gaseous toluene. A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of toluene Table 3 and Fig. 3 shows the process. Nanodiamond decoration resulted in lowered photoluminescence intensity and electrochemical impedance, enhancing ZnO light absorption, charge transfer, and photocatalytic toluene oxidation efficiency.197

Data for the photocatalytic degradation of toluene using various catalysts

Toluene conc. (ppm)	Catalyst	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operational conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
60	In2S3/g-C3N4	50	Visible light, RH 50–60%	Xe	89.7, 180	184	
2	1 wt% rGO/S0.05N0.1TiO2	500	Visible light, RH 60%	Fluorescent, 10	72, 480	185	
1900	Ir doped–TiO2	100	UV light, RH 70%	UV, 25	97, 8.5	186	
50	PIL@TiO2/m-GO	1000	UV, RH 40%	UV, 8	97, 24	187	
—	TiO2/Bi/Bi2MoO6	2000	UV	Xe, 320	26.08, 120	188	
843	TiO2/ACF-Ac fabricated by Zn(CH3COO)2	151.2	UV, RH 40%	Xe, 300	70, 2400	189	
30	Cu2O NWs	172.26	Visible, RH 74%	Xe, 300	99.9, 120	190	
60	SrTiO3/rGO	400	UV light, RH 50%	UV, 8	98.65	191	
50	TiO2/Bentonite	200	UV light	UV lamp	64, 120	192	
50	InOOH	400	UV light	Xe, 300	75.8, 60	183	
30	C–USTiO2	100	Visible light, RH 50%	LED, 1	80, 180	193	
30	CeO2	1000	VUV light, RH 50%	VUV, 4	83.2, 144	194	
300	WO3/TiO2	—	LED light	—	95.4, 30	195	
23.6	THS@amorphous-TiO2	10	UV light	UV, 8	98.2, 240	196	
50	TiO2/ND	100	UV	Xe, 50	100, 120	197	
750	ZnAl2O4	—	UV	Black-light fluorescent lamp	90.25, 300	198	
—	TiO2	—	UV, RH 35%	Germicidal lamp, 15	61.9, 180	199	
160	TiO2	—	UV, RH 25–50%	Black lamp, 10	50–60, 5	200	
400	TiO2	—	UV	Iron halogenide lamp, 500	52, 360	201	
—	TiO2	—	UV	Mercury lamp, 300	90, 120	202	

Fig. 3 Working procedure of the photocatalysts for toluene degradation.

Nitrobenzene

Since aromatic nitro compounds are frequently employed in industrial processes (such as the production of explosives, dyes and insecticides), they are present as contaminants in a variety of liquid sources, particularly surface water, and wastewater from industries.203 Since nitrobenzene (NB) is identified as a significant contaminant, it is selected as a model pollutant. It is an extremely hazardous material and the highest permitted level of NB is 1 mg L−1 in wastewater.204,205 Numerous factors, including the presence of anions, pH, light wavelength, and others, have an impact on nitrobenzene photocatalytic degradation utilizing UV radiation.206 The degradation working mechanism of nitrobenzene in the presence of several photocatalysts is described.207,20822 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

23 ecb− + O2 → ˙O2−

24 Nitrobenzene → Catalyst surface

25 Nitrobenzene + ˙OH → Activated nitrobenzene

26 Activated nitrobenzene + ˙OH → Nitrophenol + Intermediate products

27 Nitrophenol + ˙OH → Degradation products

28 Degradation products + ˙OH → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

The study of the impacts of several factors, such as pH, anions, starting concentration, etc., has been done because the rate of breakdown of nitrobenzene utilizing controlled UV radiation is quite significant when compared to that utilizing solar radiation, and a small amount of TiO2 (0.05%, w/v) was used.209,210 Degussa P-25 TiO2 was utilized as the photocatalyst in the majority of the nitrobenzene photocatalytic tests. Aldrich-TiO2 (pure anatase with a BET surface area of roughly 250 m2 g−1) was used in a few tests.206 Matthews et al. used immobilized TiO2 in a spiral-shaped reactor for the photocatalytic degradation of NB and other chemicals and accomplished around 95–100% degradation at the initial concentration between 1.75 and 4.25 mg L−1.211 Degussa P-25 was applied as the catalyst in photocatalytic degradation tests, and UV lamps with lights radiating at λmax of 253 and 365 nm, respectively, were used. The two bulbs produced nearly identical deterioration.212 When it comes to 4-chlorophenol degradation, it has been discovered that utilizing pulsed photocatalysis makes little distinction in terms of TOC elimination at shorter and longer wavelengths. It should be mentioned that 387 nm is the λmin for anatase TiO2.213 The pH has an impact on the ionizable organic molecules' photocatalytic breakdown. The significance of pH on the photocatalytic destruction of NB was assessed within a pH value range of 4–10, in a solution containing 2.52 × 10−4 M of pollutants. The ideal photocatalyst concentration was determined to be 0.5 wt% Fe–TiO2 = 250 mg L−1, with an irradiation period of 60–240 minutes.214 A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of nitrobenzene Table 4 and Fig. 4 shows the process. It has been discovered that, given the specified conditions, pH 7 is ideal for NB photocatalytic breakdown.205

Data for the catalytic degradation of nitrobenzene using various catalysts

Nitrobenzene conc. (mg L−1)	Catalyst	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operational conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
50	SrFeO3−δ	0.001	UV	Mercury vapour, 125	99%, 360	215	
50	P-25	—	UV	125	95%, 480	216	
40	AuNPs/HPW/TiO2-NTs	—	Visible light	Low-pressure mercury vapor lamp, 15	90%, 30	217	
—	Ag/ZnO nanoflowers	—	UV	Tungsten lamp, 60	98%, 100	218	
61.5	TiO2	—	Visible light	125	58.46%, 210	219	
—	TiO2/g-C3N4/G	7.5	UV	Xenon lamp, 300	97%, 240	220	
25	H3PW12O40 supported on TiO2	10	Visible light	Tungsten light, 500	88%, 390	221	
50		—	UV	Mercury vapor lamp, 200	96%, 240	222	
50	TiO2-POMs	—	UV	—	86.4%, 180	223	
1900	TiO2-SA-Arg particles	—	UV	UV lamp	93.7%, 120	224	

Fig. 4 Working procedure of the photocatalysts for nitrobenzene degradation.

Cyclohexane

A common volatile organic compound (VOC) that presents significant dangers to both humans and the environment is cyclohexane.225 An extremely significant industrial procedure is the breakdown of cyclohexane to produce cyclohexanol and cyclohexanone which are utilized globally as chemical precursors for the synthesis of caprolactam and adipic acid.226,227 Photocatalytic techniques for the degradation of cyclohexane in both solid heterogeneous and homogeneous stages have received a lot of research attention in recent years.228 In heterogeneous environments, semiconductors along with oxides are being used as photocatalysts to oxidize cyclohexane. A number of semiconductors have been used, including CeO2, WO3, Sn/Sb, ZrO2, ZnO, V2O5, SnO2, Sb2O4 and mixed oxides.229 In the presence of various types of photocatalysts, cyclohexane degrades via the following mechanism.230,23129 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

30 hvb+ + H2O → ˙OH + H+

31 hvb+ + OH− → ˙OH

32 Cyclohexane + ˙OH → Intermediate products

33 Intermediate products + ˙OH → Further degraded products

34 Intermediate products + ˙OH/O2 → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

Xiao et al. discussed the photocatalytic characteristics of silver nanoparticles loaded on the nanocrystals of tungsten oxide when cyclohexane was being photo-catalytically degraded.232 In standard manufacturing processes, cyclohexane is degraded at 150 °C using a homogeneous cobalt-based catalyst.228 Variations in the emitted photon flux and the irradiation wavelength during continuous irradiation result in notable variations in substance outputs and selectivity values during the photocatalytic degradation of cyclohexane by the help of TiO2 in a pure liquid organic phase.233 The photodegradation of cyclohexane proceeded with hydrogen peroxide at ambient temperature, assisted by a copper(ii)-exchanged Y zeolite (CuY). A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of cyclohexane Table 5 and Fig. 5 shows the process. Following 6 hours of processing, cyclohexanol and cyclohexyl hydroperoxide with 37% and 54% selectivities, respectively, were obtained as the major products.247

Data for the catalytic degradation of cyclohexane using various catalysts

Cyclohexane conc. (mg L−1)	Catalyst	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operational conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
200	Pt/TiO2	—	UV, temp: 100 °C with 0.5% Pt loading	Osram Ultra-Vitalux lamp, 300	Close to 100%, —	234	
—	Ti3+ self-doped TiO2	—	Visible light, temp: 40 °C	Xenon lamp	95%, 420	235	
—	WO3/Co–Pt	100	UV	—	93%, 720	236	
—	Degussa P-25	0.001	Visible light	Metal halide lamp	Around 40%, 180	237	
—	WO3–TiO2 mixed catalysts	50	Visible light	Xenon lamp, 500	97%, 60	238	
—	Au/TiO2	0.001	Visible light, temp: 25 °C	Mercury lamp, 50	50%, —	239	
—	Degussa P25	0.001	UV, temp: 650 °C	Xenon lamp, 450	—, 60	240	
523	TiO2	—	UV, temp: 30 °C	Black light lamp, 20	63%, 5	241	
—	TiO2	0.001	UV, —	Mercury lamp, 50	—, 10	239	
—	Ag-substituted and impregnated nano-TiO2	0.001	UV, temp: below 35 °C	A high-pressure mercury vapor lamp, 80	Around 10%, 6	242	
—	TiO2	—	UV, temp: 140–180 °C	A high-pressure mercury lamp, 100	Over 90%, —	243	
—	TiO2	0.001	UV, temp: 60 °C	Medium pressure mercury-vapor lamp, 450	Over 95%, —	244	
—	Na4W10O32	0.05	UV, —	Medium pressure mercury-arc lamp, 125	—, 3	245	
—	Fe-modified C-doped Cr2O3	—	Visible light, temp: 25 °C	Xenon lamp, 300	—, 5	246	

Fig. 5 Working procedure of the photocatalysts for cyclohexane degradation.

Refinery oil

Several methods may be used for the treatment of oil refinery effluents which include adsorption, Fenton oxidation, electro-floatation–coagulation, photocatalytic degradation/oxidation, chemical flocculation–coagulation, and membrane filtration.248–253 These procedures either produce insignificant impurities or need prolonged durations to eradicate the impurities.254–256 Conventional methods like adsorption or membrane separation produce an inferior contaminant by moving the contamination from one phase to another, and the reusability of adsorbents is uncertain.257,258 Bacterial degradation requires a significant amount of time to break down pollutants and is not suitable for the majority of organic compounds found in oil refinery wastewater.259–261 Photocatalytic degradation techniques have attracted significant attention due to their ability to break down a wide range of organic compounds utilizing suitable photocatalysts.52,262,263 The degradation of pollutant chemicals is caused by the hydroxyl radical (OH), which can react with organic compounds and break them down and degrade them.264,265 The mechanism for refinery oil degradation in the presence of various photocatalysts is given.266,26735 Photocatalyst + hν (photon) → Photocatalyst (ecb− + hvb+)

36 ecb− + O2 → ˙O2−

37 hvb+ + H2O → ˙OH + H+

38 hvb+ + OH− → ˙OH

39 Oil → Catalyst surface

40 Oil + ˙OH → Degradation products

41 Oil + ˙O2− → Degradation products

42 Degradation products + ˙OH → CO2 + H2O + Inorganic ions

B. Ogoh-Orch et al. studied BiOI-sensitized TiO2 (BiOI/TiO2) nanocomposites with varying amounts of BiOI deposited via sequential ionic layer adsorption and reaction (SILAR) and found that they perform well in water under visible (>400 nm) irradiation for crude oil degradation. The BiOI/TiO2 heterojunction separates photogenerated charges, improving degradation efficiency.268 Actual wastewater from a refinery, containing a variety of aromatic and aliphatic organic compounds, was treated using nanoparticles (specifically TiO2 and ZnO). The degradation ability of the organic contaminants was reduced from 98.57% to 89.482% when the photocatalysts changed from TiO2 to ZnO.267 D. A. Aljuboury et al. investigated the application of ZnO/TiO2/H2O2 using visible light (1000 W m−2), to decrease the total organic carbon (TOC) content in the actual petroleum wastewater obtained from Sohar Refinery Company (SRC). The treatment efficiency for total organic carbon (TOC) at pH 5.5 increased significantly compared to that of the TiO2 procedure.269 Z. Ghasemi et al. examined the photocatalytic oxidation of organic contaminants in petroleum refinery wastewater (PRWW) utilizing synthesized nano-TiO2 incorporated into Fe-ZSM-5 zeolite and UV light. Results indicate optimal photodegradation efficiency at 3 g L−1 photocatalyst concentration, pH 4, 45 °C temperature, and 120 min UV irradiation.270 Shahrezaei investigated TiO2 photocatalysis for the primary degradation of phenol and phenolic compounds in refinery wastewater. Under optimal conditions, 90% phenol removal was achieved in 2 hours.271 The user created a composite membrane by combining polyvinylidene and titanium dioxide (PVDF/TiO2) and then treated it using the hot-pressing method. A table has been added showing the photocatalytic degradation of cyclohexane Table 6 and Fig. 6 shows the process. This treatment was done to increase the bonding between the TiO2 and the membrane surfaces, to employ the membrane to degrade oil in wastewater.

Data for the photocatalytic degradation of refinery oil using various catalysts

Target compound	Compound conc. (ppm)	Photocatalyst	Catalyst conc. (mg L−1)	Operation conditions	Lamp, power (W)	Degradation percentage (%), time (min)	Ref.	
Crude oil	200	BiOI/TiO2	—	Visible light	LED, 13	85.62, 180	268	
Refinery oil	99.64	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 6	UV, 11	98.57, 120	267	
Refinery oil	99.64	ZnO	100	UV light, pH 3	UV, 11	89.48, 120	267	
Oil in petroleum wastewater	15–22	TiO2/ZnO/H2O2	H2O2 = 850	Visible light, pH 5.5	LED, 1000	37, —	269	
ZnO = 590	
TiO2 = 700	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	500	TiO2/Fe-ZSM-5	3000	UV light, pH 4	UV, 8	66%, 120	270	
Phenol	220	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 4	UV, 400	90%, 120	271	
Phenol	70	Degussa P25	0.002–0.008	UV light, pH 5.5	Fluorescent T8 backlight blue bulb, 18	76%, 90	272	
Soap oil & grease	480	Degussa P25	0.002–0.008	UV light, pH 5.5	Fluorescent T8 backlight blue bulb, 18	88%, 90	272	
Refinery oil	—	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 3	UV, 400	93.92%, 60	273	
Refinery oil	—	TiO2	0.0012	UV light, pH 4	UV, 11	40.68%, 120	274	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	—	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 10	Mercury vapor, 6	TOC = 32% & TN = 67%, 90	275	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	—	TiO2/ZnO/Degussa P25	0.0005–0.005	UV light, pH 3.5–9	Mercury vapor, 250	Phenols = 93%	276	
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) = 63%	
Oil and grease (OG) = over 50%, 60	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	400–600	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 3, temp: 45 °C	Mercury, 400	90%, 4	277	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	Phenol = 0.002	TiO2	0.001	O3/UV, pH 7.16	Mercury, 100	Phenol = 99.9%	278	
COD = 1954	COD = 31.6%	
Oil & grease = 298.8	Oil & grease = 5.2%	
Sulfide = 13.3	Sulfide = 53%, 5	
Phenol	10	TiO2		UV, pH = 5		—, 6	279	
Refinery oil	—	TiO2	—	UV light, pH 7–9	UV, 60	83%, —	280	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	200–220	TiO2	100	UV light, pH 3, temp: 45 °C	Mercury, 400	78%, 120	281	
Crude oil	0.005	TiO2 in zeolite	—	UV light, temp: 400 °C	Mercury, 150	Linear alkanes = 98.66%	282	
Branched alkanes = 97.31%	
Cyclic alkanes = 96.04%	
Aromatic compounds = 99.54%	
Alkenes = 98.38%, 100	
Oil emulsion in distilled/sea water	25	Degussa P25	0.002	UV light, pH 4.5	Mercury, —	In distilled water 92% & in artificial seawater 43%, 3	283	
Petroleum refinery wastewater	COD = 1326	Green nanocatalyst from the sepals of waste tomato	0.00025	UV light, —	UV, —	99.9%, 90	284	
A synthetic oil–water emulsion	10 000	TiO2	0.002	UV light, —	T8 black light blue bulb, 18	68%, 30	285	
Refinery wastewater	100	4-Chlorophenol	178.5	UV light, pH 5	Mercury lamp, 100	—, 80	286	

Fig. 6 Working procedure of the photocatalysts for refinery oil degradation.

Effects of crystal size and surface area on photocatalytic degradation

Organic chemicals and the photocatalyst's surface coverage are directly correlated, and therefore surface morphology, such as crystal size and the surface area, must be taken into account during the photocatalytic degradation procedure.287,288 Since every chemical process occurs at the surface, the surface morphology of any photocatalyst is essential to its efficacy as a catalyst.289 The anatase phase with a range of 2.59 to 12.00 nm in TiO2 crystallite dimensions is visible in metal-doped TiO2 products. TiO2 has a specific surface area of between 100 and 500 m2 g−1.290,291 Sivalingam et al. used a solution combustion process where 8–10 nm pure anatase phase TiO2 with 156 m2 g−1 BET surface area was created. This TiO2 is commonly utilized for photocatalytic degradation of many dyes, including Orange G, Methylene Blue, Alizarin S, Methyl Red, and Congo Red. In this analysis, the crystal size of the photocatalyst was found to be 8 ± 2 nm.292 The photoactivity of the photocatalysts increased due to the higher surface area. It has been found that the photoactivity of the TiO2 while degrading the dye-like MB increased when the surface area of the catalyst increased from 63 m2 g−1 to 156 m2 g−1.293 For the maximum degradation of antibiotics like cefoxitin sodium, a novel BN/CdAl2O4 composite with a surface area of 14.34 m2 g−1 is used.133 Mushtaq et al. found a decrease in the degradation rate of the ofloxacin antibiotic due to the increase in the particle size and decrease in the surface area of the photocatalysts.294 The same scenario was also found during the advanced degradation of tetracycline antibiotics by graphene-ordered mesoporous silica.295 Zhou et al. used highly photoactive mesoporous anatase nanospheres that have a high specific surface area of 609 m2 g−1 for the degradation of toluene.296 The highest specific surface area (130.3 m2 g−1) of nano-sized TiO2 particles synthesized under ideal conditions is almost double that of Degussa P25 which is used for toluene degradation.297 R. J. Tayade et al. experimented with the degradation of nitrobenzene using nanocrystalline TiO2 of different surface areas, i.e. 259/199/166/124/91/2 m2 g−1.216 Photocatalytic oxidation of cyclohexane over TiO2 nanoparticles by molecular oxygen was carried out using different surface area photocatalysts ranging between 30 and 410 m2 g−1.298 TiO2 is made up of anatase and rutile with a mean particle size of 30 nm and a surface area of 50 m2 g−1 for the maximum degradation of refinery oil.285

Mechanism of photocatalytic degradation

Photocatalytic degradation is a process where light energy, typically from UV or visible light, activates a photocatalyst, such as titanium dioxide (TiO2). When the photocatalyst absorbs light, it generates electron–hole pairs. These electron–hole pairs can initiate redox reactions that produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) like hydroxyl radicals and superoxide anions. These ROS are highly reactive and can break down organic pollutants, converting them into less harmful substances like water, carbon dioxide, and inorganic ions. The overall mechanism involves light absorption, generation of electron–hole pairs, formation of ROS, and degradation of pollutants (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 Illustration of (a) formation of free radicals, (b) degradation of the organic pollutants by radicals, and (c) overall photocatalytic degradation mechanism.

Conclusion

Various photocatalysts are used depending on the variation in organic pollutants. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is the most broadly applied photocatalyst, known for its maximum ability, stability, and non-toxicity. It is primarily activated by UV light. Zinc oxide (ZnO) is another effective photocatalyst with properties similar to those of TiO2 but with some advantages under certain conditions. Recent research includes materials like cadmium sulfide (CdS), tungsten oxide (WO3), and various metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) as effective photocatalysts. Scientists are working on photocatalysts that are triggered by visible light in order to improve the process's applicability and reduce energy consumption in the real world. This review scrutinizes the variance in the degradation rate of organic pollutants under different conditions such as different pH levels, different concentration levels, various composites of the photocatalysts, different surface areas and sizes of the photocatalysts, and so on. This review will help to identify the optimum parameters for the maximum amount of organic pollutant degradation. The goal of this field's ongoing research and development is to broaden the use of catalytic technologies and overcome current obstacles to ensure cleaner soil and water thus leading to a more sustainable environment. Greater prospects for the use of photocatalysis in the destruction of dangerous organic pollutants may arise from a greater understanding of the process and its operating parameters.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Author contributions

Abdullah Al Miad and Shassatha Paul Saikat collected the data and wrote the draft and original manuscript. Md. Sahadat Hossain conceived and designed the review, analyzed the data, and assisted in writing the manuscript. Md. Kawcher Alam assisted in collecting data. Newaz Mohammed Bahadur and Samina Ahmed supervised the findings of this work. Samina Ahmed supervised the overall work and managed the required facilities.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

The authors are grateful to the Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) authority for financial support through the R&D project (ref. no. 39.02.0000.011.14.134.2021/900; date: 30.12.2021). Abdullah Al Miad wishes to thank the Department of Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Noakhali Science and Technology University, Noakhali.
==== Refs
References

Levec J. Pintar A. Catal. Today 2007 124 172 184 10.1016/j.cattod.2007.03.035
Umamaheswari J. Shanthakumar S. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016 15 265 284 10.1007/s11157-016-9397-7
Molinos-Senante M. Sala-Garrido R. Hernández-Sancho F. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016 112 3116 3123 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.114
Patel B. S. Solanki B. R. Mankad A. U. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2021 10 323 333 10.30574/wjarr.2021.10.1.0159
Angelidaki I. Mogensen A. S. Ahring B. K. Biodegradation 2000 11 377 383 10.1023/A:1011643014990 11587441
Kaszycki P. Głodniok M. Petryszak P. New Biotechnol. 2021 61 80 89 10.1016/j.nbt.2020.11.005 33202308
Bhat A. P. Gogate P. R. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021 403 123657 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123657 33264866
Rathi B. S. Kumar P. S. Vo D.-V. N. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 797 149134 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149134 34346357
Stroo H. F. J. Environ. Qual. 1992 21 167 175 10.2134/jeq1992.00472425002100020003x
Krishnan S. Rawindran H. Sinnathambi C. M. Lim J. W. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017 206 012089
Kurniawan T. A. Chan G. Y. Lo W.-H. Babel S. Chem. Eng. J. 2006 118 83 98 10.1016/j.cej.2006.01.015
Ahmaruzzaman M. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011 166 36 59 10.1016/j.cis.2011.04.005 21669401
Ali I. Asim M. Khan T. A. J. Environ. Manage. 2012 113 170 183 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.028 23023039
Chatterjee D. Dasgupta S. J. Photochem. Photobiol., C 2005 6 186 205 10.1016/j.jphotochemrev.2005.09.001
Vinayagam V. Palani K. N. Ganesh S. Rajesh S. Akula V. V. Avoodaiappan R. Kushwaha O. S. Pugazhendhi A. Environ. Res. 2023 117500 37914013
Ali M. M. , Hossain D. , Al-Imran A. , Khan M. S. , Begum M. and Osman M. H. , Heavy Metals – Their Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, 2021, pp. 771–783
Encarnação T. Pais A. A. Campos M. G. Burrows H. D. Sci. Prog. 2019 102 3 42 10.1177/0036850419826802 31829784
Gaur N. Narasimhulu K. PydiSetty Y. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018 198 1602 1631 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.076
Wang L. Luo D. Hamdaoui O. Vasseghian Y. Momotko M. Boczkaj G. Kyzas G. Z. Wang C. Sci. Total Environ. 2023 876 162551 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162551 36878295
Glaze W. H. Kang J. J. AWWA 1988 80 57 63 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1988.tb03038.x
Glaze W. H. Kang J.-W. Chapin D. H. Ozone: Sci. Eng. 1987 9 335 352 10.1080/01919518708552148
Liu H. Li X. Zhang X. Coulon F. Wang C. Chemosphere 2023 139404 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139404 37399998
Cesaro A. Naddeo V. Belgiorno V. J. Biorem. Biodegrad. 2013 4 1 8
Ayoub K. Van Hullebusch E. D. Cassir M. Bermond A. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010 178 10 28 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.042 20347218
Chong M. N. Jin B. Chow C. W. Saint C. Water Res. 2010 44 2997 3027 10.1016/j.watres.2010.02.039 20378145
Coleman H. M. Marquis C. P. Scott J. A. Chin S.-S. Amal R. Chem. Eng. J. 2005 113 55 63 10.1016/j.cej.2005.07.015
Comparelli R. Fanizza E. Curri M. L. Cozzoli P. D. Mascolo G. Agostiano A. Appl. Catal., B 2005 60 1 11 10.1016/j.apcatb.2005.02.013
Zhu D. Zhou Q. Environ. Nanotechnol., Monit. Manage. 2019 12 100255
Reza K. M. Kurny A. Gulshan F. Appl. Water Sci. 2017 7 1569 1578 10.1007/s13201-015-0367-y
Nakata K. Fujishima A. J. Photochem. Photobiol., C 2012 13 169 189 10.1016/j.jphotochemrev.2012.06.001
Nosaka A. Y. Kojima E. Fujiwara T. Yagi H. Akutsu H. Nosaka Y. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003 107 12042 12044 10.1021/jp035526v
Agrios A. G. Pichat P. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2005 35 655 663 10.1007/s10800-005-1627-6
Wicaksana Y. Liu S. Scott J. Amal R. Molecules 2014 19 17747 17762 10.3390/molecules191117747 25365299
Ramanavičius S. Petrulevičienė M. Juodkazytė J. Grigucevičienė A. Ramanavičius A. Materials 2020 13 523 10.3390/ma13030523 31978986
Vidhu V. K. Philip D. Micron 2014 56 54 62 10.1016/j.micron.2013.10.006 24210247
Kiriakidou F. Kondarides D. I. Verykios X. E. Catal. Today 1999 54 119 130 10.1016/S0920-5861(99)00174-1
Umar M. Aziz H. A. Org. Pollut.: Monit., Risk Treat. 2013 8 196 197
Bumajdad A. Madkour M. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014 16 7146 7158 10.1039/C3CP54411G 24554000
Sleiman M. Vildozo D. Ferronato C. Chovelon J.-M. Appl. Catal., B 2007 77 1 11 10.1016/j.apcatb.2007.06.015
Thakur R. S. Chaudhary R. Singh C. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2010 2 42701 10.1063/1.3467511
Khaki M. R. D. Shafeeyan M. S. Raman A. A. A. Daud W. M. A. W. J. Environ. Manage. 2017 198 78 94 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.099 28501610
Rosales E. Pazos M. Longo M. A. Sanromán M. A. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2009 44 1104 1110 10.1080/10934520903005111 19847700
Corra L. J. Health Pollut. 2018 8 180916 10.5696/2156-9614-8.19.180916 30524875
Montes-Grajales D. Fennix-Agudelo M. Miranda-Castro W. Sci. Total Environ. 2017 595 601 614 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.286 28399499
Vassilev K. and Kambourova V. , in Chemicals as Intentional and Accidental Global Environmental Threats, ed. L. Simeonov and E. Chirila, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 173–191
Naidu R. Biswas B. Willett I. R. Cribb J. Singh B. K. Nathanail C. P. Coulon F. Semple K. T. Jones K. C. Barclay A. Environ. Int. 2021 156 106616 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106616 33989840
Vinayagam V. Palani K. N. Ganesh S. Rajesh S. Akula V. V. Avoodaiappan R. Kushwaha O. S. Pugazhendhi A. Environ. Res. 2023 117500 37914013
Gothwal R. Shashidhar T. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 2015 43 479 489
Benkhaya S. , M'rabet S. , Lgaz H. , El Bachiri A. and El Harfi A. , in Dye Biodegradation, Mechanisms and Techniques, ed. S. S. Muthu and A. Khadir, Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2022, pp. 1–50
Abatan A. Obaigbena A. Ugwuanyi E. D. Jacks B. S. Umoga U. J. Daraojimba O. H. Lottu O. A. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2024 5 543 554 10.51594/estj.v5i2.831
Shetty S. S. Sonkusare S. Naik P. B. Madhyastha H. Heliyon 2023 9 E19496 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19496 37662771
Chen D. Cheng Y. Zhou N. Chen P. Wang Y. Li K. Huo S. Cheng P. Peng P. Zhang R. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020 268 121725 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121725
Ucar A. Findik M. Gubbuk I. H. Kocak N. Bingol H. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2017 196 21 28 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2017.04.047
Kurtan U. Baykal A. Sözeri H. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2015 25 921 929 10.1007/s10904-015-0190-9
Yu K. Yang S. Liu C. Chen H. Li H. Sun C. Boyd S. A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012 46 7318 7326 10.1021/es3001954 22616904
Roşu M.-C. Socaci C. Floare-Avram V. Borodi G. Pogăcean F. Coroş M. Măgeruşan L. Pruneanu S. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2016 179 232 241 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2016.05.035
Kumari H. Sonia S. Ranga R. Chahal S. Devi S. Sharma S. Kumar S. Kumar P. Kumar S. Kumar A. Parmar R. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2023 234 349 10.1007/s11270-023-06359-9 37275322
Pinton J. H. B. Oliveira A. F. Huanca D. R. Mohallem N. D. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2024 129213 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2024.129213
Lanjwani M. F. Tuzen M. Khuhawar M. Y. Saleh T. A. Inorg. Chem. Commun. 2024 159 111613 10.1016/j.inoche.2023.111613
Xia S. Zhang L. Pan G. Qian P. Ni Z. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015 17 5345 5351 10.1039/C4CP03877K 25611297
Alam M. K. Hossain M. S. Tabassum S. Bahadur N. M. Ahmed S. Open Ceram. 2024 19 100625 10.1016/j.oceram.2024.100625
Hu C. Jimmy C. Y. Hao Z. Wong P. K. Appl. Catal., B 2003 46 35 47 10.1016/S0926-3373(03)00139-5
Zhang J. , Tian B. , Wang L. , Xing M. and Lei J. , Photocatalysis: Fundamentals, Materials and Applications, Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2018, vol. 100 , pp. 1–49
Velmurugan R. Swaminathan M. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2011 95 942 950 10.1016/j.solmat.2010.11.029
Elsayed M. H. Elmorsi T. M. Abuelela A. M. Hassan A. E. Alhakemy A. Z. Bakr M. F. Chou H.-H. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2020 115 187 197 10.1016/j.jtice.2020.10.018
Yang L.-Y. Dong S.-Y. Sun J.-H. Feng J.-L. Wu Q.-H. Sun S.-P. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010 179 438 443 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.03.023 20403660
Sobana N. Swaminathan M. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2007 91 727 734 10.1016/j.solmat.2006.12.013
So C. M. Cheng M. Y. Yu J. C. Wong P. K. Chemosphere 2002 46 905 912 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00153-9 11922071
Kansal S. K. Kaur N. Singh S. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2009 4 709 10.1007/s11671-009-9300-3 20596421
Liang H. Li X. Yang Y. Sze K. Chemosphere 2008 73 805 812 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.06.007 18640697
Singh R. Dutta S. Nano-Struct. Nano-Objects 2019 18 100250 10.1016/j.nanoso.2019.01.009
Torimoto T. Ito S. Kuwabata S. Yoneyama H. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996 30 1275 1281 10.1021/es950483k
Takeda N. Torimoto T. Sampath S. Kuwabata S. Yoneyama H. J. Phys. Chem. 1995 99 9986 9991 10.1021/j100024a047
Poulios I. Avranas A. Rekliti E. Zouboulis A. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2000 75 205 212 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4660(200003)75:3<205::AID-JCTB201>3.0.CO;2-L
Wang W.-Y. Ku Y. Colloids Surf., A 2007 302 261 268 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2007.02.037
Bubacz K. Choina J. Dolat D. Morawski A. W. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010 19 685 691
Neppolian B. Choi H. C. Sakthivel S. Arabindoo B. Murugesan V. Chemosphere 2002 46 1173 1181 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00284-3 11951983
Tanaka K. Padermpole K. Hisanaga T. Water Res. 2000 34 327 333 10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00093-7
Daneshvar N. Salari D. Khataee A. R. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2003 157 111 116 10.1016/S1010-6030(03)00015-7
Augugliaro V. Baiocchi C. Prevot A. B. García-López E. Loddo V. Malato S. Marcí G. Palmisano L. Pazzi M. Pramauro E. Chemosphere 2002 49 1223 1230 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00489-7 12489718
Saquib M. Muneer M. Dyes Pigm. 2003 56 37 49 10.1016/S0143-7208(02)00101-8
Konstantinou I. K. Albanis T. A. Appl. Catal., B 2004 49 1 14 10.1016/j.apcatb.2003.11.010
Nguyen V.-H. Lin S. D. Wu J. C.-S. Bai H. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2014 5 566 576 10.3762/bjnano.5.67 24991493
Ollis D. F. Pelizzetti E. Serpone N. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1991 25 1522 1529 10.1021/es00021a001
Hung C.-H. Yuan C. J. Chin. Inst. Environ. Eng. 2000 10 209 216
Rao K. V. S. Subrahmanyam M. Boule P. Appl. Catal., B 2004 49 239 249 10.1016/j.apcatb.2003.12.017
Soares E. T. Lansarin M. A. Moro C. C. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2007 24 29 36 10.1590/S0104-66322007000100003
Ullah R. Dutta J. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008 156 194 200 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.12.033 18221834
Salama A. Mohamed A. Aboamera N. M. Osman T. A. Khattab A. Appl. Nanosci. 2018 8 155 161 10.1007/s13204-018-0660-9
Kiwaan H. A. Atwee T. M. Azab E. A. El-Bindary A. A. J. Mol. Struct. 2020 1200 127115 10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127115
Annadurai G. Sivakumar T. Rajesh Babu S. Bioprocess Eng. 2000 23 167 173 10.1007/PL00009120
Sriram S. Lalithambika K. C. Thayumanavan A. Optik 2017 139 299 308 10.1016/j.ijleo.2017.04.013
Zhou M. Tian X. Yu H. Wang Z. Ren C. Zhou L. Lin Y.-W. Dou L. ACS Omega 2021 6 26439 26453 10.1021/acsomega.1c03694 34661001
Reddy I. N. Reddy C. V. Shim J. Akkinepally B. Cho M. Yoo K. Kim D. Catal. Today 2020 340 277 285 10.1016/j.cattod.2018.07.030
Saravanan R. Shankar H. Rajasudha G. Stephen A. Narayanan V. Int. J. Nanosci. 2011 10 253 257 10.1142/S0219581X11007867
Xu C. Cao L. Su G. Liu W. Liu H. Yu Y. Qu X. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010 176 807 813 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.106 20007008
Mohammad A. Kapoor K. Mobin S. M. ChemistrySelect 2016 1 3483 3490 10.1002/slct.201600476
Li F. Sun S. Jiang Y. Xia M. Sun M. Xue B. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008 152 1037 1044 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.114 17869418
Al-Farraj E. S. Khairy M. Saad F. A. Shah R. K. Abdelrahman E. A. Water Conserv. Sci. Eng. 2024 9 3 10.1007/s41101-023-00235-7
Haspulat Taymaz B. Demir M. Kamış H. Orhan H. Aydoğan Z. Akıllı A. Int. J. Phytorem. 2023 25 1306 1317 10.1080/15226514.2022.2150142 36437748
Madima N. Kefeni K. K. Mishra S. B. Mishra A. K. Heliyon 2022 8 e10683 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10683 36177243
Dong J.-P. Shi Z.-Z. Li B. Wang L.-Y. Dalton Trans. 2019 48 17626 17632 10.1039/C9DT03727F 31755489
Xue X. Zang W. Deng P. Wang Q. Xing L. Zhang Y. Wang Z. L. Nano Energy 2015 13 414 422 10.1016/j.nanoen.2015.02.029
Thirumalairajan S. Girija K. Mastelaro V. R. Ponpandian N. New J. Chem. 2014 38 5480 5490 10.1039/C4NJ01029A
Byrappa K. Subramani A. K. Ananda S. Rai K. M. L. Dinesh R. Yoshimura M. Bull. Mater. Sci. 2006 29 433 438 10.1007/BF02914073
Chen C.-Y. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2009 202 335 342 10.1007/s11270-009-9980-4
Shan Z. Wang W. Lin X. Ding H. Huang F. J. Solid State Chem. 2008 181 1361 1366 10.1016/j.jssc.2008.03.001
Zhou S. Ray A. K. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003 42 6020 6033 10.1021/ie030366v
Mehrotra K. Yablonsky G. S. Ray A. K. Chemosphere 2005 60 1427 1436 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.01.074 16054912
Sharma M. Rajput D. Kumar V. Jatain I. Aminabhavi T. M. Mohanakrishna G. Kumar R. Dubey K. K. Environ. Res. 2023 231 116132 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116132 37207734
Nguyen T. D. Lee T. Van Tran T. Nguyen V. H. Nong L. X. Bach L. G. Vo D.-V. N. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023 21 935 980 10.1007/s10311-022-01533-7
Khurshid H. Mehmood Z. Naseer S. Aamir M. Khurshid F. Khan M. Pak. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2023 56 117 128
Zhang B. Xu R. Feng Y. Wang J. Ionics 2024 30 1291 1306 10.1007/s11581-023-05363-7
Hu W. Zhang Y. Huang B. Teng Y. Chemosphere 2017 170 183 195 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.047 27988454
Shen S. Huang Y. Yuan A. Lv F. Liu L. Wang S. CCS Chem. 2021 3 129 135 10.31635/ccschem.021.202000570
Lu Z.-Y. Ma Y.-L. Zhang J.-T. Fan N.-S. Huang B.-C. Jin R.-C. J. Water Process Eng. 2020 38 101681 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101681
De Ilurdoz M. S. Sadhwani J. J. Reboso J. V. J. Water Process Eng. 2022 45 102474 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102474
Phoon B. L. Ong C. C. Mohamed Saheed M. S. Show P.-L. Chang J.-S. Ling T. C. Lam S. S. Juan J. C. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020 400 122961 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122961 32947727
Derakhshan Z. Mokhtari M. Babaei F. Ahmadi R. M. Ehrampoush M. H. Faramarzian M. J. Environ. Health Sustainable Dev. 2016 1 43 62
Bai X. Chen W. Wang B. Sun T. Wu B. Wang Y. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 8130 10.3390/ijms23158130 35897716
Chen Y. Yang J. Zeng L. Zhu M. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022 52 1401 1448 10.1080/10643389.2020.1859289
Ebrahimi R. Maleki A. Zandsalimi Y. Ghanbari R. Shahmoradi B. Rezaee R. Safari M. Joo S. W. Daraei H. Harikaranahalli Puttaiah S. Giahi O. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2019 73 297 305 10.1016/j.jiec.2019.01.041
Do T. C. M. V. Nguyen D. Q. Nguyen K. T. Le P. H. Materials 2019 12 2434 10.3390/ma12152434 31370138
O'Dowd K. Nair K. M. Pillai S. C. Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable Chem. 2021 30 100471 10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100471
Rokesh K. Sakar M. Do T.-O. Nanomaterials 2021 11 572 10.3390/nano11030572 33668837
Hu X. Hu X. Peng Q. Zhou L. Tan X. Jiang L. Tang C. Wang H. Liu S. Wang Y. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 380 122366 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122366
Yang Z. Yan J. Lian J. Xu H. She X. Li H. ChemistrySelect 2016 1 5679 5685 10.1002/slct.201600861
Verma M. Haritash A. K. Environ. Technol. Innovation 2020 20 101072 10.1016/j.eti.2020.101072
Zhang Q. Jiang L. Wang J. Zhu Y. Pu Y. Dai W. Appl. Catal., B 2020 277 119122 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119122
Fan G. Peng H. Zhang J. Zheng X. Zhu G. Wang S. Hong L. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2018 8 5906 5919 10.1039/C8CY01614C
Torki F. Faghihian H. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2017 338 49 59 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2017.02.003
Payan A. Akbar Isari A. Gholizade N. Chem. Eng. J. 2019 361 1121 1141 10.1016/j.cej.2018.12.118
Kumar R. Barakat M. A. Al-Mur B. A. Alseroury F. A. Eniola J. O. J. Cleaner Prod. 2020 246 119076 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119076
Senasu T. Chankhanittha T. Hemavibool K. Nanan S. Catal. Today 2022 384–386 209 227 10.1016/j.cattod.2021.04.008
Gong Y. Wu Y. Xu Y. Li L. Li C. Liu X. Niu L. Chem. Eng. J. 2018 350 257 267 10.1016/j.cej.2018.05.186
Wang W. Han Q. Zhu Z. Zhang L. Zhong S. Liu B. Adv. Powder Technol. 2019 30 1882 1896 10.1016/j.apt.2019.06.006
Askari N. Beheshti M. Mowla D. Farhadian M. Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 2021 127 105723 10.1016/j.mssp.2021.105723
Mohammad A. Khan M. E. Cho M. H. Yoon T. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021 565 150337 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.150337
Berkani M. Smaali A. Kadmi Y. Almomani F. Vasseghian Y. Lakhdari N. Alyane M. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022 421 126719 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126719 34364215
Bouyarmane H. El Bekkali C. Labrag J. Es-saidi I. Bouhnik O. Abdelmoumen H. Laghzizil A. Nunzi J.-M. Robert D. Surf. Interfaces 2021 24 101155 10.1016/j.surfin.2021.101155
Guo F. Huang X. Chen Z. Cao L. Cheng X. Chen L. Shi W. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021 265 118477 10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118477
Abdullah M. Iqbal J. Ur Rehman M. S. Khalid U. Mateen F. Arshad S. N. Al-Sehemi A. G. Algarni H. Al-Hartomy O. A. Fazal T. Chemosphere 2023 317 137834 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137834 36640968
Chankhanittha T. Nanan S. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021 582 412 427 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.08.061 32866808
Liu L. Huang J. Yu H. Wan J. Liu L. Yi K. Zhang W. Zhang C. Chemosphere 2021 282 131049 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131049 34098307
Gómez E. Cestaro R. Philippe L. Serrà A. Appl. Catal., B 2022 317 121703 10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121703
Gholami P. Khataee A. Soltani R. D. C. Dinpazhoh L. Bhatnagar A. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020 382 121070 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121070 31470301
Xiao T. Tang Z. Yang Y. Tang L. Zhou Y. Zou Z. Appl. Catal., B 2018 220 417 428 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.08.070
Sneha Y. Yashas S. R. Thinley T. Prabagar Jijoe S. Puttaiah Shivaraju H. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 29 67969 67980 10.1007/s11356-022-20540-3 35524853
Wang J. Liu W. Zhong D. Ma Y. Ma Q. Wang Z. Pan J. J. Mater. Sci. 2019 54 13740 13752 10.1007/s10853-019-03882-1
Shokri M. Isapour G. Behnajady M. A. Dorosti S. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016 57 12874 12881 10.1080/19443994.2015.1053534
Abellán M. N. Giménez J. Esplugas S. Catal. Today 2009 144 131 136 10.1016/j.cattod.2009.01.051
Xekoukoulotakis N. P. Drosou C. Brebou C. Chatzisymeon E. Hapeshi E. Fatta-Kassinos D. Mantzavinos D. Catal. Today 2011 161 163 168 10.1016/j.cattod.2010.09.027
Giraldo A. L. Penuela G. A. Torres-Palma R. A. Pino N. J. Palominos R. A. Mansilla H. D. Water Res. 2010 44 5158 5167 10.1016/j.watres.2010.05.011 20633918
Chen M. Chu W. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012 219 183 189 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.03.074 22510542
Huo P. Gao X. Lu Z. Liu X. Luo Y. Xing W. Li J. Yan Y. Desalin. Water Treat. 2014 52 6985 6995 10.1080/19443994.2013.822327
Chatzitakis A. Berberidou C. Paspaltsis I. Kyriakou G. Sklaviadis T. Poulios I. Water Res. 2008 42 386 394 10.1016/j.watres.2007.07.030 17692887
Abellán M. N. Bayarri B. Giménez J. Costa J. Appl. Catal., B 2007 74 233 241 10.1016/j.apcatb.2007.02.017
Pascal M. Pascal L. Bidondo M.-L. Cochet A. Sarter H. Stempfelet M. Wagner V. J. Environ. Public Health 2013 2013 1 17
Shah S. N. Pak. J. Sci. 2016 29 701 706
Kuranchie F. A. Angnunavuri P. N. Attiogbe F. Nerquaye-Tetteh E. N. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2019 5 1603418 10.1080/23311843.2019.1603418
Liu Y. Shao M. Fu L. Lu S. Zeng L. Tang D. Atmos. Environ. 2008 42 6247 6260 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.070
Njoku V. O. N. Arinze C. Chizoruo I. F. Blessing E. N. Anal. Methods Environ. Chem. J. 2021 4 80 106 10.24200/amecj.v4.i03.147
Idomeh J. E. Shittu O. B. Oyedepo J. A. Bada B. S. Balogun S. A. Idomeh F. A. Ezenweani R. S. Geomicrobiol. J. 2021 38 879 894 10.1080/01490451.2021.1973614
Hsu C.-H. Stedeford T. Okochi-Takada E. Ushijima T. Noguchi H. Muro-Cacho C. Holder J. W. Banasik M. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part C: Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev. 2007 25 155 184 10.1080/10590500701399234 17558784
Kuppusamy S. , Maddela N. R. , Megharaj M. and Venkateswarlu K. , in Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp. 95–138
Gusain R. Gupta K. Joshi P. Khatri O. P. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019 272 102009 10.1016/j.cis.2019.102009 31445351
Murindababisha D. Yusuf A. Sun Y. Wang C. Ren Y. Lv J. Xiao H. Chen G. Z. He J. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 28 62030 62060 10.1007/s11356-021-16492-9 34570323
Ozogu A. N. Opeoluwa O. F. Olusegun A. A. Adegboyega S. O. Michael S. O. J. Innovative Res. 2023 1 4 11 10.54536/jir.v1i1.1532
Zou W. Gao B. Ok Y. S. Dong L. Chemosphere 2019 218 845 859 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.175 30508803
Yang X. Khan I. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 29 4116 4127 10.1007/s11356-021-16000-z 34402019
Rehman E. Rehman S. Energy Rep. 2022 8 5430 5442 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.179
Holmes M. D. and Murray B. P. . Toluene Toxicity, in StatPearls [Internet], StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2024, Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK599523/
Hartwig A. , Arand M. and M. A. K. Commission , MAK-Collection of Occupational Health and Safety, 2023, 8 , 1–38
Pelletti G. , in Handbook of Substance Misuse and Addictions, ed. V. B. Patel and V. R. Preedy, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 2591–2609
Soares M. V. Mesadri J. Gonçalves D. F. Cordeiro L. M. da Silva A. F. Baptista F. B. O. Wagner R. Dalla Corte C. L. Soares F. A. A. Ávila D. S. Environ. Pollut. 2022 298 118856 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118856 35033616
Mohammad M. F. Mousa L. Y. Idayyir D. H. Kadim Z. M. Teikyo Med. J. 2021 44 3345 3353
Izydorczyk G. Mikula K. Skrzypczak D. Moustakas K. Witek-Krowiak A. Chojnacka K. Environ. Res. 2021 197 111050 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111050 33753074
Barwise Y. Kumar P. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2020 3 12 10.1038/s41612-020-0115-3
Nemitz E. Vieno M. Carnell E. Fitch A. Steadman C. Cryle P. Holland M. Morton R. D. Hall J. Mills G. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 2020 378 20190320 10.1098/rsta.2019.0320 32981438
Roy A. Sharma A. Yadav S. Jule L. T. Krishnaraj R. Bioinorg. Chem. Appl. 2021 10 1764647
Yang J. Yang L. Fang M. Li L. Fu F. Xu H. Li M. Fan X. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2023 631 44 54 10.1016/j.jcis.2022.11.023 36395628
Zhang X. Chen J. Jiang S. Zhang X. Bi F. Yang Y. Wang Y. Wang Z. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021 588 122 137 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.12.042 33388578
Li J. Li K. Lei B. Ran M. Sun Y. Zhang Y. Kim K.-H. Dong F. Chem. Eng. J. 2021 413 127389 10.1016/j.cej.2020.127389
Zhang M. Liu X. Zeng X. Wang M. Shen J. Liu R. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2020 738 100049 10.1016/j.cpletx.2020.100049
Winayu B. N. R. Mao W.-H. Chu H. Sustainable Environ. Res. 2022 32 34 10.1186/s42834-022-00143-w
Ho V. T. T. Chau D. H. Bui K. Q. Nguyen N. T. T. Tran T. K. N. Bach L. G. Truong S. N. Inorganics 2022 10 29 10.3390/inorganics10030029
Shajari S. Kowsari E. Seifvand N. Boorboor Ajdari F. Chinnappan A. Ramakrishna S. Saianand G. Dashti Najafi M. Haddadi-Asl V. Abdpour S. Catalysts 2021 11 126 10.3390/catal11010126
Sun Z. Fan J. Feng R. Wang M. Zhou Y. Zhang L. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2021 96 1732 1741 10.1002/jctb.6698
Bi Y. Sun E. Zhang S. Du F. Wei H. Liu F. Zhao C. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 28 57398 57411 10.1007/s11356-021-14539-5 34091853
Yang L. Guo J. Yang T. Guo C. Zhang S. Luo S. Dai W. Li B. Luo X. Li Y. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021 402 123741 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123741 33254768
Mohammadi P. Ghorbani Shahna F. Bahrami A. Rafati A. A. Farhadian M. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022 102 222 242 10.1080/03067319.2020.1720009
Rostami M. Hassani Joshaghani A. Mazaheri H. Shokri A. Int. J. Eng. 2021 34 756 762
Zhao X. Zhang Y. Wu M. Szeto W. Wang Y. Pan W. Leung D. Y. C. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020 527 146780 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.146780
Wu M. Zhang Y. Huang H. Leung D. Y. C. Green Energy Environ. 2022 7 533 544 10.1016/j.gee.2020.11.002
Wang X. Pan H. Sun M. Zhang Y. J. Mater. Chem. A 2022 10 6078 6085 10.1039/D1TA08143H
Lyu J. Zhou L. Shao J. Zhou Z. Gao J. Dong Y. Wang Z. Li J. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 391 123602 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123602
Liu J. Wang P. Qu W. Li H. Shi L. Zhang D. Appl. Catal., B 2019 257 117880 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.117880
Li X. Zhu Z. Zhao Q. Wang L. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011 186 2089 2096 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.111 21242028
Liang W. J. Li J. Jin Y. Q. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2010 45 1384 1390 10.1080/10934529.2010.500925 20665322
Young C. Lim T. M. Chiang K. Amal R. Water Sci. Technol. 2004 50 251 256 10.2166/wst.2004.0276 15484768
Bianchi C. L. Gatto S. Pirola C. Naldoni A. Di Michele A. Cerrato G. Crocellà V. Capucci V. Appl. Catal., B 2014 146 123 130 10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.02.047
Feng Y. Li L. Ge M. Guo C. Wang J. Liu L. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2010 2 3134 3140 10.1021/am100620f 20968291
Shackelford W. M. Cline D. M. Faas L. Kurth G. Anal. Chim. Acta 1983 146 15 27 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)80588-7
Adkins R. L. , in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, ed. Kirk-Othmer, Wiley, 1st edn, 2000, 10.1002/0471238961.1409201801041109.a01.pub2
Bhatkhande D. S. Kamble S. P. Sawant S. B. Pangarkar V. G. Chem. Eng. J. 2004 102 283 290 10.1016/j.cej.2004.05.009
Bhatkhande D. S. Pangarkar V. G. Beenackers A. A. Water Res. 2003 37 1223 1230 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00490-6 12598186
Akhtar T. Nasir H. Sitara E. Bukhari S. A. B. Ullah S. Iqbal R. M. A. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 29 49925 49936 10.1007/s11356-022-19422-5 35220541
Li D. Yu S. Geng H. Zhou W. Mu D. Liu S. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2023 607 154996 10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.154996
Kamble S. P. Sawant S. B. Schouten J. C. Pangarkar V. G. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2003 78 865 872 10.1002/jctb.867
Kamble S. P. Sawant S. B. Pangarkar V. G. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003 42 6705 6713 10.1021/ie030493r
Matthews R. W. Abdullah M. Low G.-C. Anal. Chim. Acta 1990 233 171 179 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)83476-5
Hofstadler K. Bauer R. Novalic S. Heisler G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1994 28 670 674 10.1021/es00053a021 22196551
Mills A. Davies R. H. Worsley D. Chem. Soc. Rev. 1993 22 417 425 10.1039/CS9932200417
Nitoi I. Oancea P. Raileanu M. Crisan M. Constantin L. Cristea I. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015 21 677 682 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.03.036
Chilukoti S. Rohit S. Chikkadasappa S. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015 54 32 7800 7810 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b01474
Tayade R. J. Kulkarni R. G. Jasra R. V. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006 45 922 927 10.1021/ie051060m
Ayati A. Tanhaei B. Bamoharram F. F. Ahmadpour A. Maydannik P. Sillanpää M. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016 171 62 68 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.07.015
Swarnavalli G. C. J. Dinakaran S. Krishnaveni S. Bhalerao G. M. Mater. Sci. Eng., B 2019 247 114376 10.1016/j.mseb.2019.06.007
Boxi S. S. Paria S. RSC Adv. 2015 5 37657 37668 10.1039/C5RA03421C
Zhang L. He X. Xu X. Liu C. Duan Y. Hou L. Zhou Q. Ma C. Yang X. Liu R. Appl. Catal., B 2017 203 1 8 10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.10.003
Wang W. , Huang Y. and Yang S. , in 2010 International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering, IEEE, 2010, pp. 1303–1305
Jo W.-K. Won Y. Hwang I. Tayade R. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014 53 3455 3461 10.1021/ie500245d
Sun Z. Zhao M. Li F. Wang T. Xu L. Mater. Res. Bull. 2014 60 524 529 10.1016/j.materresbull.2014.09.025
Zhang S. Li L. Liu Y. Zhang Q. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2017 25 223 231 10.1016/j.cjche.2016.08.003
Liu Q. Wen M. Guo Y. Song S. Li G. An T. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022 14 55503 55516 10.1021/acsami.2c14515 36456474
Jevtic R. Ramachandran P. A. Dudukovic M. P. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009 48 7986 7993 10.1021/ie900093q
Guha S. K. Obora Y. Ishihara D. Matsubara H. Ryu I. Ishii Y. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2008 350 1323 1330 10.1002/adsc.200800057
Li H. She Y. Wang T. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2012 6 356 368 10.1007/s11705-012-0903-3
Maldotti A. Molinari A. Amadelli R. Chem. Rev. 2002 102 3811 3836 10.1021/cr010364p 12371903
Estahbanati M. K. Feilizadeh M. Babin A. Mei B. Mul G. Iliuta M. C. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 382 122732 10.1016/j.cej.2019.122732
Montjoy D. G. Wilson E. A. Hou H. Graves J. D. Kotov N. A. Nat. Commun. 2023 14 857 10.1038/s41467-023-36473-5 36792615
Xiao Y. Liu J. Mai J. Pan C. Cai X. Fang Y. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018 516 172 181 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.01.057 29408103
Brusa M. A. Grela M. A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005 109 1914 1918 10.1021/jp045602+ 16851174
Murcia J. J. Hidalgo M. C. Navío J. A. Vaiano V. Sannino D. Ciambelli P. Catal. Today 2013 209 164 169 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.11.018
Wen P. Zhang Y. Xu G. Ma D. Qiu P. Zhao X. J. Mater. 2019 5 696 701
Shiraishi Y. Sugano Y. Ichikawa S. Hirai T. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2012 2 400 405 10.1039/C1CY00331C
Henríquez A. Melin V. Moreno N. Mansilla H. D. Contreras D. Molecules 2019 24 2244 10.3390/molecules24122244 31208090
Ueyama K. Hatta T. Okemoto A. Taniya K. Ichihashi Y. Nishiyama S. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2018 44 629 638 10.1007/s11164-017-3124-z
Carneiro J. T. Savenije T. J. Moulijn J. A. Mul G. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2011 217 326 332 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2010.10.027
Almquist C. B. Biswas P. Appl. Catal., A 2001 214 259 271 10.1016/S0926-860X(01)00495-1
Einaga H. Futamura S. Ibusuki T. Appl. Catal., B 2002 38 215 225 10.1016/S0926-3373(02)00056-5
Vinu R. Madras G. Appl. Catal., A 2009 366 130 140 10.1016/j.apcata.2009.06.048
van Dijk V. H. Simmelink G. Mul G. Appl. Catal., A 2014 470 63 71 10.1016/j.apcata.2013.10.035
Du P. Moulijn J. A. Mul G. J. Catal. 2006 238 342 352 10.1016/j.jcat.2005.12.011
Fornal E. Giannotti C. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2007 188 279 286 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2006.12.023
Wang H. Yu C. Xu G. Zhang Y. Wu X. Cheng L. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020 253 123391 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2020.123391
Shimizu K. Murata Y. Satsuma A. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007 111 19043 19051 10.1021/jp0767821
Rasouli Y. Abbasi M. Hashemifard S. A. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019 16 5595 5610 10.1007/s13762-018-1906-5
Inan H. Dimoglo A. Şimşek H. Karpuzcu M. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2004 36 23 31 10.1016/S1383-5866(03)00148-5
Fadali O. A. Ebrahiem E. E. Farrag T. E. Mahmoud M. S. El-Gamil A. Minia J. Eng. Technol. 2013 32 88 101
Tony M. A. Purcell P. J. Zhao Y. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2012 47 435 440 10.1080/10934529.2012.646136 22320696
Ahmed G. H. Kutty S. R. M. Isa M. H. Int. J. Appl. 2011 1 179 189
Khouni I. Louhichi G. Ghrabi A. Moulin P. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020 135 323 341 10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.004
Jiang J.-Q. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015 8 36 44 10.1016/j.coche.2015.01.008
Asghari R. Safavi M. S. Khalil-Allafi J. Trans. IMF 2020 98 250 257 10.1080/00202967.2020.1802104
Loredana L. Ciobanu G. Cimpeanu S. M. Kotova O. Ciocinta R. Bucur D. Harja M. AgroLife Sci. J. 2019 8 139 145
Vieira W. T. de Farias M. B. Spaolonzi M. P. da Silva M. G. C. Vieira M. G. A. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020 18 1113 1143 10.1007/s10311-020-01000-1
Nure J. F. Nkambule T. T. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2023 126 92 114 10.1016/j.jiec.2023.06.034
Seo J.-S. Keum Y.-S. Li Q. X. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009 6 278 309 10.3390/ijerph6010278 19440284
Rauhut R. Klug G. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1999 23 353 370 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00404.x 10371038
Symons Z. C. Bruce N. C. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2006 23 845 850 10.1039/B502796A 17119634
Umar M. Aziz H. A. Org. Pollut.: Monit., Risk Treat. 2013 8 196 197
Ameta R. , Benjamin S. , Ameta A. and Ameta S. C. , in Materials Science Forum, Trans Tech Publ, 2013, vol. 734 , pp. 247–272
Turchi C. S. Ollis D. F. J. Catal. 1990 122 178 192 10.1016/0021-9517(90)90269-P
Xiang Q. Yu J. Wong P. K. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2011 357 163 167 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.01.093 21349533
Koe W. S. Lee J. W. Chong W. C. Pang Y. L. Sim L. C. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020 27 2522 2565 10.1007/s11356-019-07193-5 31865580
Mohammed R. M. Al-zobai K. M. M. Solid State Technol. 2020 63 5390 5404
Ogoh-Orch B. Keating P. Ivaturi A. ACS Omega 2023 8 43556 43572 10.1021/acsomega.3c04359 38027343
Aljuboury D. A. D. A. Shaik F. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2021 35 69 77
Ghasemi Z. Younesi H. Zinatizadeh A. A. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016 65 357 366 10.1016/j.jtice.2016.05.039
Shahrezaei F. Akhbari A. Rostami A. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2012 3 267 274
Tetteh E. K. Rathilal S. Naidoo D. B. Sci. Rep. 2020 10 8850 10.1038/s41598-020-65480-5 32483279
Ul Haq I. Ahmad W. Ahmad I. Yaseen M. Water Environ. Res. 2020 92 2086 2094 10.1002/wer.1370 32501584
Khan W. Z. Najeeb I. Tuiyebayeva M. Makhtayeva Z. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015 94 479 486 10.1016/j.psep.2014.10.007
de Oliveira C. P. M. Viana M. M. Amaral M. C. S. J. Water Process Eng. 2020 34 101093 10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.101093
Santos F. V. Azevedo E. B. Dezotti M. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2006 23 451 460 10.1590/S0104-66322006000400003
Saien J. Nejati H. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007 148 491 495 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.03.001 17400375
Corrêa A. X. R. Tiepo E. N. Somensi C. A. Sperb R. M. Radetski C. M. J. Environ. Eng. 2010 136 40 45 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000111
Malik S. A. , Master's thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia, 2005
Stepnowski P. Siedlecka E. M. Behrend P. Jastorff B. Water Res. 2002 36 2167 2172 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00450-X 12108708
Saien J. Shahrezaei F. Int. J. Photoenergy 2012 2012 1 5 10.1155/2012/703074
D'Auria M. Emanuele L. Racioppi R. Velluzzi V. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009 164 32 38 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.07.111 18768253
Emam E. A. Aboul-Gheit N. A. K. Energy Sources, Part A 2014 36 1123 1133 10.1080/15567036.2010.544154
Khader E. H. Mohammed T. J. Albayati T. M. Saady N. M. C. Zendehboudi S. J. Mol. Struct. 2024 1304 137688 10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.137688
Tetteh E. K. Naidoo B. D. Rathilal S. Environ. Eng. Res. 2019 24 711 717 10.4491/eer.2018.216
Alhakimi G. Gebril S. Studnicki L. H. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2003 157 103 109 10.1016/S1010-6030(03)00038-8
Kormann C. Bahnemann D. W. Hoffmann M. R. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1988 22 798 806 10.1021/es00172a009 22195664
Kumar A. Pandey G. Mater. Sci. Eng. Int. J. 2017 1 1 10
Ameen S. Seo H.-K. Akhtar M. S. Shin H. S. Chem. Eng. J. 2012 210 220 228 10.1016/j.cej.2012.08.035
Zhu J. Zheng W. He B. Zhang J. Anpo M. J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 2004 216 35 43 10.1016/j.molcata.2004.01.008
Adán C. Carbajo J. Bahamonde A. Martínez-Arias A. Catal. Today 2009 143 247 252 10.1016/j.cattod.2008.10.003
Sivalingam G. Nagaveni K. Hegde M. S. Madras G. Appl. Catal., B 2003 45 23 38 10.1016/S0926-3373(03)00124-3
Nagaveni K. Sivalingam G. Hegde M. S. Madras G. Appl. Catal., B 2004 48 83 93 10.1016/j.apcatb.2003.09.013
Mushtaq K. Saeed M. Gul W. Munir M. Firdous A. Yousaf T. Khan K. Sarwar H. M. R. Riaz M. A. Zahid S. Inorg. Nano-Met. Chem. 2020 50 580 586 10.1080/24701556.2020.1722695
Ali A. Shoeb M. Li Y. Li B. Khan M. A. J. Mol. Liq. 2021 324 114696 10.1016/j.molliq.2020.114696
Zhou M. Yu J. Liu S. Zhai P. Huang B. Appl. Catal., B 2009 89 160 166 10.1016/j.apcatb.2008.11.036
He F. Li J. Li T. Li G. Chem. Eng. J. 2014 237 312 321 10.1016/j.cej.2013.10.028
Li X. Chen G. Po-Lock Y. Kutal C. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2003 78 1246 1251 10.1002/jctb.872
