| Literature DB >> 31091763 |
She-Ji Shi1, Ye-Han Pan2, Shao-Fei Wang3, Zheng-Wei Dai4, Lin Gu5, Qing-Yun Wu6.
Abstract
NanocompoEntities:
Keywords: forward osmosis; imogolite nanotubes; polyamide; selectivity; water permeability
Year: 2019 PMID: 31091763 PMCID: PMC6572521 DOI: 10.3390/polym11050879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Characterization of synthesized aluminosilicate nanotubes (ANTs): (a) TEM image, (b) FTIR spectrum, (c) BET curve, (d) XRD pattern, (e) FESEM image, and (f) schematic illustration of ANTs. Insert in (b) is the atom structure of ANTs viewed along the axial direction.
Figure 2ATR-FTIR spectra of PSf substrate, thin film composite (TFC) membrane and thin film nanocomposite (TFN) 0.2 membrane.
XPS results for thin film composite (TFC) and thin film nanocomposite (TFN) membranes.
| Membrane | C (%) | O (%) | N (%) | Al (%) | Si (%) | C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC | 73.19 | 12.51 | 11.49 | 0 | 2.82 | 6.37 |
| TFN 0.08 | 71.23 | 17.13 | 9.27 | 0.52 | 1.85 | 7.68 |
| TFN 0.2 | 71.89 | 14.43 | 10.28 | 0.99 | 2.4 | 6.99 |
| TFN 0.5 | 72.6 | 14.31 | 9.79 | 1.11 | 2.19 | 7.28 |
Figure 3FESEM micrographs showing the surfaces (Left) and cross-sections (Right) of (a,b) TFC, (c,d) TFN 0.08, (e,f) TFN 0.2 and (g,h) TFN 0.5. (Scale bars are 2 μm).
Figure 4AFM images of polyamide (PA) rejection layers with different ANTs loading of (a) TFC, (b) TFN 0.08, (c) TFN 0.2 and (d) TFN 0.5 membranes.
The intrinsic transport properties of TFC and TFN membranes.
| FO membranes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 0.58 ± 0.05 | 67.17 ± 8.28 | 2.22 | 5.09 |
| TFN 0.08 | 0.59 ± 0.20 | 0.79 ± 0.12 | 75.51 ± 2.34 | 1.34 | 2.37 |
| TFN 0.2 | 0.66 ± 0.17 | 0.44 ± 0.08 | 86.67 ± 6.13 | 0.67 | 1.61 |
| TFN 0.5 | 2.15 ± 0.53 | 9.60 ± 0.37 | 48.43 ± 11.66 | 4.47 | 1.36 |
a Water permeability was measured in RO testing mode at 5 bar and DI water as feed solution. b Salt permeability was measured in RO testing mode at 5 bar and 20 mM NaCl aqueous solution as feed solution.
Figure 5Forward osmosis (FO) performance tests: (a) water fluxes, and (b) reverse salt fluxes across the FO membranes. Experimental conditions: 25 °C, 1 M NaCl as the draw solution, DI water as the feed solution, and cross-flow velocities of 40 L/h on both sides of the membranes. Data were obtained from at least three tests on independent samples.
Figure 6J values of FO membranes in AL-FS and AL-DS orientations.
Figure 7(A) The initial state of molecules transport into ANTs. (B) The state of water molecules in ANTs at 20 ns. (C) The state of sodium cations and chloride anions in ANTs at 20 ns. (D) Calculated flux of water molecules, sodium cations, and chloride anions. (E) The external force for water molecules, sodium cations, and chloride anions varied with the position in nanotubes.
Figure 8Schematic illustration for TFN membranes with ANTs embedded PA rejection layer and water transport through the inner pores of ANTs.