“…As shown in Figure c, the O 1s XPS spectrum of BiOBr could be deconvoluted into three peaks at 529.4, 530.8, and 532.3 eV, which were attributed to Bi–O, the surface −OH, and absorbed H 2 O (O w ), respectively. , Significantly, the proportion of surface −OH was enhanced in comparison with pristine BiOBr, while the percentage of Bi–O decreased, which was in agreement with EDS results and further determined the existence of Bi-MOF on the surface of BiOBr. , Noteworthily, compared to the original BiOBr, the binding energies of Bi 4f, Br 3d, and O 1s in BiOBr@Bi-MOF show significant positive shifts, suggesting that photogenerated electrons on the surface of BiOBr tended to migrate to Bi-MOF, thereby improving the separation efficiency of electron–hole pairs . Additionally, the C 1s spectra showed three peaks at 284.3, 285.8, and 287.9 eV, which could belong to CC, C–C, and C–O of Bi-MOF, respectively (Figure d). , This demonstrated that Bi-MOF and BiOBr coexisted, which was consistent with the XRD results (Figure a).…”