Evaluation of Sonocatalytic and Photocatalytic Processes Efficiency for Degradation of Humic Compounds Using Synthesized Transition-Metal-Doped ZnO Nanoparticles in Aqueous Solution

Table 1

Comparison of different systems of photocatalytic degradation of HAs.

Photocatalyst	Dosage (g/l)	Energy source	Time (min)	Concentration (mg/l)	pH	Removal (%)	Reference
Fe–Zn codoped TiO2	0.1	7 W low-pressure mercury vapor lamp	120	50	2	65.7	[39]
TiO2 P25	1	Vapor xenon lamp	240	100	3	100	[40]
Fe-doped TiO2@Fe3O4	0.4	15 W bare UVC lamp	60	5	3	70	[41]
N-doped TiO2	0.1	Elma ultrasonic bath-130 kHz	90	20	-	68	[42]
MgO	1	130 kHz	120	20	7	78.5	[43]
Ag/ZnO	0.6	Philips lamp (400 W)	40	50	7	70	[44]
Metal-doped TiO2	0.5	Black light blue (BLB) lamp (20 W)	120	20	-	70–80	[45]
TiO2/ZnO nanocomposite	0.8	Hg lamp (15 W)	180	25		89	[46]
Cu-doped ZnO	2	15 W UV lamps	90	20	7	77	This study
Cu-doped ZnO	2	Sunlight	90	20	7	79	This study
Cu-doped ZnO	2	Elma ultrasonic bath-37 and 80 kHz	90	20	7	57/58	This study
Cu-doped ZnO	2	20-watt LED lamp	90	20	7	69	This study
Mn-doped ZnO	2	15 W UV lamps	90	20	7	58	This study
Mn-doped ZnO	2	Sunlight	90	20	7	74	This study
Mn-doped ZnO	2	Elma ultrasonic bath-37 and 80 kHz	90	20	7	56/59	This study
Mn-doped ZnO	2	20 Watt LED lamp	90	20	7	66	This study
Cu. Mn-doped ZnO	2	15 W UV lamps	90	20	7	57	This study
Cu. Mn-doped ZnO	2	Sunlight	90	20	7	74	This study
Cu. Mn-doped ZnO	2	Elma ultrasonic bath-37 and 80 kHz	90	20	7	60/62	This study
Cu. Mn-doped ZnO	2	20-watt LED lamp	90	20	7	70	This study