| Literature DB >> 26333385 |
Shigeki Inukai1, Rodolfo Cruz-Silva1, Josue Ortiz-Medina1, Aaron Morelos-Gomez1, Kenji Takeuchi1,2, Takuya Hayashi1,2, Akihiko Tanioka2, Takumi Araki1,3, Syogo Tejima1,3, Toru Noguchi1,2, Mauricio Terrones2,4, Morinobu Endo1,2.
Abstract
Clean water obtained by desalinatingEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26333385 PMCID: PMC4558580 DOI: 10.1038/srep13562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Photographs of a plain PA and a MWCNT·PA nanocomposite RO membranes. SEM images of the surface of the (b) plain PA membrane and the (c) MWCNT·PA nanocomposite membrane. (d) Detail showing the reinforcing nanotubes through a fracture. Raman mapping of the nanocomposite MWCNT·PA membrane showing the intensity of the (e) D-band and (f) G-band characteristic of carbon nanotubes.
Figure 2TEM images of the MWCNT·PA nanocomposite RO membranes.
(a) shows a pristine MWCNT. (b) shows the border of a cleaved MWCNT·PA nanocomposite RO membrane. MWCNTs can be seen protruding from the surface. (c) Shows a magnification of one of these nanotubes that has been pulled out from the PA matrix. (d) Shows the carbon nanotube embedded within the PA matrix. In (e) several FFT patterns of the nanocomposite RO membranes are shown, top; corresponding to MWCNT, middle; PA zone, bottom; PA zone around MWCNT. (f) Model of the MWCNT·PA nanocomposite microstructure, showing the proposed ordered PA regions in yellow around MWCNT fillers.
Figure 3(a) Flow performance as a function of transmembrane pressure (ΔP, MPa) of pure PA and MWCNT·PA nanocomposite reverse osmosis membranes before and after exposure to chlorine water (200 ppm). (b) Salinity rejection rates before and after chlorine water exposure of the pure PA, the MWCNT·PA nanocomposite membrane, and the commercial PA RO membrane tested with 3.5 wt. % salt water. (c) Comparison of permeate flux/rejection performance of the PA, MWCNT·PA, and commercial RO membrane at different sodium chloride concentrations. (d) Fouling of the MWCNT·PA nanocomposite membrane and a commercial PA RO membrane in presence of 200 ppm BSA concentration in DI water. Data from Ref. 7 obtained with a considerable lower (3 ppm) BSA concentration is shown for comparison. (e) Comparison of the permeate flux/rejection performance of our membrane (solid fill symbols) with previous works.