| Literature DB >> 31319501 |
Kyohei Ueno1,2, Saki Yamada3, Toshinari Watanabe4, Hideyuki Negishi5, Takuya Okuno6, Hiromasa Tawarayama6, Shinji Ishikawa6, Manabu Miyamoto2, Shigeyuki Uemiya2, Yasunori Oumi7.
Abstract
Hydrophobic pure-silica *BEA-type zeolite membranes with large pores were prepared on tubular silica supports by hydrothermal synthesis using a secondary growth method and were applied to the separation of alcohol/water mixtures by pervaporation (PV), an alternative energy-efficient process for production of biofuels. Amorphous pure-silica tubular silica supports, free of Al atoms, were used for preparing the membranes. In this study, the effects of the synthesis conditions, such as the H2O/SiO2 and NH4F/SiO2 ratios in the synthetic gel, on the membrane formation process and separation performance were systematically investigated. The successfully prepared dense and continuous membranes exhibited alcohol selectivity and high flux for the separation of ethanol/water and butanol/water mixtures. The pure-silica *BEA membranes obtained under optimal conditions (0.08SiO2:0.5TEAOH:0.7NH4F:8H2O) showed high PV performance with a separation factor of 229 and a flux of 0.62 kg·m-2·h-1 for a 1 wt % n-butanol/water mixture at 318 K. This result was attributed to the hydrophobicity and large pore size of the pure-silica *BEA membrane. This was the first successful synthesis of hydrophobic large-pore zeolite membranes on tubular supports with alcohol selectivity, and the obtained results could provide new insights into the research on hydrophobic membranes with high permeability.Entities:
Keywords: *BEA-type zeolite; alcohol selectivity; butanol; electrophoretic deposition; ethanol; hydrophobic zeolite membrane; hydrothermal synthesis; pervaporation separation; secondary growth; tubular silica support
Year: 2019 PMID: 31319501 PMCID: PMC6680943 DOI: 10.3390/membranes9070086
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1SEM images of seed crystals and particle size distributions derived from the SEM images (a,c) before and (b,d) after classification.
Figure 2SEM images of the top surface of silica support (a) before and (b) after seeding.
Effect of H2O/SiO2 ratio of synthesis gel on the PV performance for ethanol/water mixtures.
| Samples | Synthesis Gel Composition 1 | Separation Factor | Flux [kg·m−2·h−1] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| x | H2O/SiO2 Ratio | |||
| M1 | 1.00 | 8 | 8.7 | 8.56 |
| M2 | 0.20 | 40 | 8.7 | 7.51 |
| M3 | 0.08 | 100 | 8.5 | 7.97 |
| M4 | 0.05 | 160 | 1.5 | 20.6 |
1 SiO2:TEAOH:NH4F:H2O = x:0.5:0.45:8.0.
Figure 3X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of *BEA-type membranes prepared with different H2O/SiO2 ratios: (a) 8, (b) 40, (c) 100, and (d) 160.
Figure 4Top (left) and cross-sectional (right) SEM images of *BEA-type membranes prepared with different H2O/SiO2 ratios: (a,b) 8, (c,d) 40, (e,f) 100, and (g,h) 160.
Summary of PV performances of silicalite-1 membranes on tubular support for ethanol/water mixtures.
| Support Materials | Feed Concentration [wt %] | Feed Temperature [K] | Separation Factor | Flux [kg·m−2·h−1] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α-Al2O3 | 3 | 353 | 33 | 0.35 | [ |
| Silica | 3 | 333 | 68 | 0.87 | [ |
| α-Al2O3 | 5 | 333 | 85 | 1.36 | [ |
| Mullite | 5 | 333 | 66 | 1.91 | [ |
| α-Al2O3 | 5 | 323 | 76 | 1.05 | [ |
| α-Al2O3 | 10 | 323 | 88 | 0.47 | [ |
| α-Al2O3 | 5 | 333 | 39 | 1.51 | [ |
| Silica | 10 | 323 | 92 | 3.00 | [ |
Effect of NH4F/SiO2 ratio of synthesis gel on the PV performance for ethanol/water mixtures.
| Samples | Synthesis Gel Composition 2 | Separation Factor | Flux [kg·m−2·h−1] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| y | NH4F/SiO2 Ratio | |||
| M3 | 0.45 | 5.63 | 8.5 | 7.97 |
| M5 | 0.50 | 6.25 | 9.8 | 7.37 |
| M6 | 0.60 | 7.50 | 12.3 | 6.29 |
| M7 | 0.70 | 8.75 | 12.0 | 6.22 |
2 SiO2:TEAOH:NH4F:H2O = 0.08:0.5:y:8.0.
Figure 5XRD patterns of *BEA-type membranes prepared with different NH4F/SiO2 ratios: (a) 5.63, (b) 6.25, (c) 7.50, and (d) 8.75.
Figure 6Top (left) and cross-sectional (right) SEM images of *BEA-type membranes prepared with different NH4F/SiO2 ratios: (a,b) 6.25, (c,d) 7.50, and (e,f) 8.75.
Summary of PV performance of various types of membrane for butanol/water mixtures.
| Membrane Type | Feed Concentration [wt %] | Feed Temperature [K] | Separation Factor | Flux [kg·m−2·h−1] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PDMS | 1.5 | 328 | 43 | 0.67 | [ |
| PDMS | 1 | 333 | 51 | 1.08 | [ |
| ZIF-7/PDMS | 1 | 333 | 66 | 1.69 | [ |
| ZIF-8/PDMS | 1.5 | 353 | 82 | 4.85 | [ |
| ZIF-8/PMPS | 1 | 353 | 40 | 6.40 | [ |
| Silicalite-1/PDMS | 1 | 313 | 92 | 0.13 | [ |
| Ge-ZSM-5 | 5 | 303 | 19 | 0.02 | [ |
| Silicalite-1 | 1 | 343 | 150 | 0.10 | [ |
| Silicalite-1 | 1 | 318 | 465 | 0.04 | [ |
| Silicalite-1 | 1.5 | 353 | 207 | 0.22 | [ |
| *BEA | 1 | 318 | 229 | 0.62 | This work |
Figure 7Schematic of separation mechanism of hydrophobic *BEA membrane: (a) ethanol/water separation (ethanol molecule << *BEA pore) and (b) butanol/water separation (butanol molecule < *BEA pore).