## 1 Introduction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Photocatalyst** & **Effluent** & **Degradation** & **Exposure time** & **Lamp** & **Ref.** \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & MB dye & 72.1 & 120 & Light irradiation & [6] \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & Tetracycline & 68 & 160 & Light irradiation & [7] \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & Tetracycline & 67.5 & 105 & Xe arc lamp & [8] \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & & & 96.5 & & \\ (nanosheet) \({}^{*}\) & & & & & \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & & 72.7 & 120 & Xe lamp & [9] \\ (hexagonal sheet) \({}^{*}\) & & & & & \\ \hline FeWO\({}_{4}\) & & 74.4 & & & \\ (nanorod) \({}^{*}\) & & & & & \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\)–MO\({}_{3}\) & Tetracycline & 75 & 300 & LED lamp & [10] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) & Tylosin & -99 & 20 & LED lamp & [11] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) & Tetracycline & 20 & 120 & Xe lamp & [12] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) & Doxycycline & 45.2 & 120 & Xe lamp & [13] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) & MB dye & 96 & 70 & Solar radiation & [14] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) & Crystal violet & 62 & 120 & LED lamp & [15] \\ \hline Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}^{*}\) & & Methyl orange & 80.93 & 30 & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Brilliant blue & 72.58 & 30 & UVC light source & [16] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Reported degradation rate (%) from the literature of FeWO\({}_{4}\) and Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) photocatalysts against standard reference pollutants and laboratory-prepared solutions. The corresponding exposure times are reported in minutes. The efficiency of the process generally decreases when using tetracycline as the contaminant due to its low interaction with light compared to dyes and the structural complexity of tetracycline--a polycyclic antibiotic containing four fused rings, multiple functional groups (e.g., hydroxyl, amide, ketone), and chiral centers [17]. However, these materials have typically been evaluated under ideal and controlled laboratory conditions. In real-world systems, parameters such as temperature, pH, pressure, ionic composition, light penetration, and humidity are highly variable. This variability makes the performance of these catalysts more difficult to predict and reproduce, especially considering that dyes are frequently reported in industrial effluents, while antibiotics are commonly found in wastewater treatment plant effluents [18; 19]. For example, when comparing the activity of Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) and FeWO\({}_{4}\) for tetracycline degradation [7; 12], it becomes evident that the choice of catalyst plays a crucial role in process efficiency, as the target contaminant was the same. Using Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\), a removal efficiency of 20% was achieved after 120 min under Xe lamp irradiation, while FeWO\({}_{4}\) reached 68% removal after 160 min using visible light (Table 1). These results highlight the importance of directly comparing the photocatalytic efficiencies of the materials to better understand their intrinsic activity--which was the main objective of this study. These results were obtained under ideal laboratory conditions, which do not fully replicate the complexity of real-world systems, such as actual industrial effluent. In practical environments, the presence of multiple pollutants, fluctuating pH and temperature, and competing ions can significantly affect photocatalytic efficiency. Therefore, while these studies demonstrate the high potential of iron-based oxides under controlled conditions, it remains essential to evaluate their performance in real scenarios to determine their true applicability and robustness. In this study, Fe\({}_{2}\)(MoO\({}_{4}\))\({}_{3}\) and FeWO\({}_{4}\) samples were synthesized via a simple co-precipitation method in an aqueous medium, followed by microwave-assisted hydrothermal treatment.