## 4 Conclusions  
We have compared the adsorption and the photodegradation methods in wastewater treatment, particularly the removal of pharmaceutical products (AT and PR). In this regard, biomasses based on date stem were activated and calcinated to prepare an activated carbon (AC). The AC materials were modified by a hydroxylation strategy to increase the hydroxyl \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Pharmaceutical** & **Adsorbent** &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Maximum Adsorption** \\ **Capacity (mg/g)** \\ \end{tabular} & **References** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Atenolol} & Waste-biomass-derived activated carbon & 183.7 & [37] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Graphene oxide & 93.0 & [35] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Granular activated carbon & 1.2 & [14] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Activated palm kernel shell & 0.2 & [37] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Multiwalled carbon nanotube & 5.1 & [38] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Corncob biochar-Mt & 90.0 & [39] \\ \cline{2-4}  & AC & 119.7 & This work \\ \cline{2-4}  & AC-OH & 288.0 & This work \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Propranolol} & Graphene oxide & 68.0 & [35] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Activated carbon fiber & 0.3 & [40] \\ \cline{2-4}  & Smectite clay mineral montmorillonite & 161 & [41] \\ \cline{2-4}  & AC & 202 & This work \\ \cline{2-4}  & AC-OH & 339.0 & This work \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of the adsorption capacity of AT and PR over various adsorbents. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Catalyst** & **Light Source** & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Concentration** \\ **(mg/L)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Time (h) to** \\ **Reach Maximal** \\ **Degradation** \\ \end{tabular} & **References** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Propranolol} & Aeroxide TiO\({}_{2}\) P25 & Low-pressure mercury lamp & 26 & 3 h (92\%) & [9] \\  & AC-TiO\({}_{2}\) & UV-lamp & 50 & 2 h (94\%) & This work \\  & Degussa P25 TiO\({}_{2}\) & Xe lamp & 15 & 1 h (100\%) & [42] \\  & Ag-TiO\({}_{2}\) & High-pressure mercury lamp & 20 & 0.5 h (92\%) & [43] \\  & TiO\({}_{2}\)/Salicylaldehyde- & Xe lamp & 10 & 1 h (82\%) & [44] \\  & NH\({}_{2}\)-MIL-101 & \multirow{2}{*}{High-pressure mercury lamp} & 0.002 & 6 h (50\%) & [45] \\  & Quartz fiber–TiO\({}_{2}\) & Low-pressure mercury lamp & 80 & 3 h (87\%) & [9] \\  & Aeroxide TiO\({}_{2}\) P25 & UV-lamp & 50 & 2 h (73\%) & This work \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between photocatalytic degradation of (AT and PR) in this study with other catalysts reported in the literature. groups over the AC surface, resulting in AC-OH. In addition, to ensure the photodegradation methods, AC was impregnated into TiO\({}_{2}\) solution to produce AC-TiO\({}_{2}\). The prepared materials were characterized and tested for the removal of AT and PR. The results show that the obtained adsorbent exhibited high adsorption capacity for both molecules. The core of the adsorption mechanism involved interactions such as an electrostatic attraction between adsorbate pharmaceutical molecules and AC-OH adsorbent in the aqueous medium. AC-OH regeneration was studied through four adsorption-desorption cycles and found to have a recovery rate of more than 50% after adsorption. A comparison between the treatment methods proved that adsorption is more suitable for removing pollutants from water, as it presents low energy consumption. The study facilitates the preparation of recyclable and stable adsorbent material for wastewater treatment.