| Literature DB >> 24957057 |
Shaik Anwar Ahamed Nabeela Nasreen1, Subramanian Sundarrajan2, Syed Abdulrahim Syed Nizar3, Ramalingam Balamurugan3, Seeram Ramakrishna3.
Abstract
Water, among the most valuable natural resources available on earth, is under serious threat as a result of undesirable human activities: for example, marine dumping, atmospheric deposition, domestic, industrial and agricultural practices. Optimizing current methodologies and developing new and effective techniques to remove contaminants from water is the current focus of interest, in order to renew the available water resources. Materials like nanoparticles, polymers, and simple organic compounds, inorganic clay materials in the form of thin film, membrane or powder have been employed for water treatment. Among these materials, membrane technology plays a vital role in removal of contaminants due to its easy handling and high efficiency. Though many materials are under investigation, nanofibers driven membrane are more valuable and reliable. Synthetic methodologies applied over the modification of membrane and its applications in water treatment have been reviewed in this article.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24957057 PMCID: PMC4021948 DOI: 10.3390/membranes3040266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Electrospinning set up.
Figure 2Effect of contact time on adsorption: (A) Pb and (B) Cd (I: cellulose and II: cellulose-g-oxolane-2,5-dione nanofibers). (Reprinted with permission from [35]. Copyright 2011 Elsevier).
Scheme 1Fabrication procedure of zonal mercaptopropyl silica nanofibers obtained by dissolution of the PAN nanofiber templates with DMF. (Reprinted with permission from [38]. Copyright 2011 Elsevier).
Scheme 2Schematic diagram of the surface modification process of the electrospun PSU fiber. Followed by the absorption of TBO. (Reprinted with permission from [40]. Copyright 2006 Elsevier).
Figure 3Thickness of (a) electrospun nanofibrous membranes (ENM)-control; (b) ENM-1; (c) ENM-2 and (d) ENM-3. (Reprinted with permission from [44]. Copyright 2011 Elsevier).
Nanofiber-surface modification.
| S. No | Material | Modification | Active group | Target metal | Removal | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | chitosan | neutralization with K2CO3 | –NH2–, amine | Cu(II) | 485.44 mg/g | [ |
| Pb(II) | 263.15 mg/g | |||||
| 2 | silica | zonal dissolution of PAN | –SH–, Thiol | Hg(II) | 57.49 mg/g | [ |
| 3 | cellulose acetate | fluorinated polybenzoxazine | oil water | maximum | [ | |
| 4 | poly sulfone | graft copolymerization | carboxyl group | toluidine blue O,BSA | 380 nmol of TBO/mg of TBO | [ |
| 5 | poly ether sulfone | 1. solvent induced fusion | carbonyl | waste water | 1. flux: 2626 L/m2h psi | [ |
| 2. oxidation | 2. flux: 2913 L/m2h psi | |||||
| 6 | PETE, PCTE, PTFC, PA | AgNO3 reduction | Ag | pathogen, waste water | turbidity removal: 99.25% | [ |
| COD: 94.73% | ||||||
| NH4+: 93.98% | ||||||
| 7 | poly lactic acid | annealing | –COOH– | TiO2 removal | 85% rejection | [ |
| 8 | polyacrylo nitrile | hot press interfacial polymerization | –CN– | salt rejection MgSO4 | 86.5% | [ |
| 9 | polyacrylo nitrile | coupling | –NH2– | antibacterial | 53.7%–99.9% | [ |
Nanofibers for removal of bacteria.
| Polymer | Membrane diameter (nm) | Properties | Antibacterial activity | Ref. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poly acrylonitrile (PAN) | 100 | Mean Pore Size: 0.22 ± 0.01 µm | Flux: 1.5 L/m2h |
| [ | |||
| Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) | 50 | Mean Pore Size: 0.4 µm | – |
| [ | |||
|
| ||||||||
| Nylon-6 | 650 | OD culture at 600 nm |
| [ | ||||
|
| Pristine-3.4 | |||||||
| Mat 1-1.57 | ||||||||
| Mat 2-1.75 | ||||||||
|
| Pristine-2.55 | |||||||
| Mat 1-1.68 | ||||||||
| Mat 2-1.88 | ||||||||
| Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) | 200 | Zone inhibition (mm) |
| [ | ||||
| Microorganism | NaBH4 reduction | Heated @160 °C | Heated @80°C | |||||
|
| 7.5 | 6 | 10 | |||||
|
| 9 | 10 | 10 | |||||
|
| – | 6 | 9 | |||||
Electrospun nanofibers in the desalination application.
| Middle layer (electrospun nanofiber) | Third layer | Solute | Method | Flux (L/m2/h) | Rejection (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PVA/MWNT or Pebax/MWNT over PET substrate | none | oil/water | TFNC by coating | 330 or 160 | n.a. | [ |
| PVA or Pebax over PET substrate | none | oil/water | TFNC by coating | 130 or 58 | PVA coated >99.5 | [ |
| 10 and 4 wt % of PAN over PET substrate, rotating collector | none | oil/water | TFNC by coating | TFNC an order of magnitude > com. | 99.5%, better than com. NF | [ |
| PAN | polyamides | MgSO4 | TFNC by Interfacial | TFNC 38% > com. NF 270 | TFNC and com. are comparable | [ |
| PVDF | polyamides | MgSO4 | TFNC by Interfacial | 0.66 | 75.7 | [ |
| NaCl | 0.66 | 70.2 | ||||
| PAN | polyamides | MgSO4 | Interfacial | [ | ||
| TFNC1 | – | 88 | ||||
| TFNC2 | 81 | 84.2 | ||||
| first layer 8 or 10 wt % PAN | polyamides | MgSO4 | Interfacial | 220 | 89 | [ |
| second layer 4 or 6 or 8 wt % PAN | NaCl | 200 | 89 | |||
| PVDF | n.a. | 6 wt % NaCl | AGMD | 11–12 kg/(m2 h) | n.a. | [ |
| PVDF | n.a. | NaCl | DCMD | n.a. | 98.27 | [ |
| PVDF-clay nanocomposites | 99.95 | |||||
| PET/PS | polyamide | NaCl | Interfacial | 1.13 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | – | [ |
Notes: n.a.: not available; com.: Commercial membranes; AGMD: air gap membrane distillation; DCMD: direct contact membrane distillation.