“…Besides, it is necessary to compare TMCs with the recent achievements of TiO 2 -based materials for photocatalytic H 2 production. Based on the reported works, such as SrSO 4 /TiO 2 /Pt (10.5 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Wang et al., 2019), Pt 0 and oxidized Pt 2+ -modified TiO 2 nanosheets (20.88 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Jin et al., 2017), Bi 2 O 3 @TiO 2 nanotubes (26.02 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Lakshmana Reddy et al., 2017), Cu(II) pre-grafted Pt/TiO 2 (27.2 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Dozzi et al., 2017), C/TiO 2 nanotube/carbon nanotubes (37.6 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Zhao et al., 2014), and Mg-reduced black TiO 2 (43 mmol·h −1 ·g −1 ) (Sinhamahapatra et al., 2015), whether or not the photocatalytic hydrogen production rate of TMC samples is the highest, considering the simplicity, environment friendliness, low-cost, and high yield of the synthesis method, TMC photocatalysts still have great advantages. Figure 3B shows repeated, photocatalytic water splitting experiments for the TMC2 photocatalyst under AM 1.5 G illumination, which exhibits a good durability without a significant drop in activity; even after the fifth cycle (25 h), the hydrogen production efficiency loss is less than 5%.…”