| Literature DB >> 31979382 |
Yuanyuan Tang1, Shan Li1, Jia Xu1, Congjie Gao1.
Abstract
This study reported a series of thin film composite (Entities:
Keywords: forward osmosis membrane; interfacial polymerization; interlayer; single-walled nanotubes
Year: 2020 PMID: 31979382 PMCID: PMC7077303 DOI: 10.3390/polym12020260
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Schematic diagram of preparation process for TFC membrane. (a) TFC membranes with pristine MCE substrates; (b) TFC membranes with MCE/CNTs support layers.
Figure 2(a) Pure water permeance and (b) contact angle and thickness of MCE/CNTs support layer with volume of SWCNTs dispersion solution.
Figure 3Surface morphology of MCE/CNTs support layer. (a) surface SEM images with insets of digital photos, (b) surface AFM morphology of MCE/CNTs10 support layer and (c) magnified surface SEM images.
Figure 4Morphology characterization of TFC membranes with SWCNTs interlayer. (a) surface SEM images with insets of images magnification × 10.0 K and (b) cross-sectional TEM images of TFC0 and TFC1 membranes.
Figure 5(a) Surface zeta potential and (b) mechanical properties including tensile strength, Young’s modulus and elongation at break.
Figure 6High-resolution XPS spectra of TFC membranes.
Figure 7Separation performance of prepared TFC membrane with various SWCNTs interlayer. (a) Intrinsic separation properties including water permeability coefficient (A), salt permeability coefficient (B) and salt rejection (R), (b) FO performance including water flux (J), reverse salt flux (J) and the ratio of reverse salt flux to water flux (J), (c) membrane structural parameter (S) and (d) time-dependent normalized water flux.
Summarizes the FO performance and intrinsic separation properties of FO membranes with interlayers reported in the recent literature.
| Membrane | Ref. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC membrane with SWCNTs interlayer on MCE MF membrane | 62.8 | 19.4 | 0.29 | 3.3 c | 0.19 c | 17.3 | 88 c | This work |
| TFC membrane with PDA coated CNTs interlayer on PES MF support layer | 31.0 | 0.6 | 0.02 | 2.0 d | 0.05 d | 39.0 | 197 d | [ |
| RGO layer on CNTs hollow fiber support layer | 22.6 a | 1.6 a | 0.07 | 2.1 e | 0.05 e | 41.4 | 202 e | [ |
| TFC membrane with interlayer decorated metal−organic framework UiO-66 on PSf support layer | 11.0 | 2.9 | 0.27 | 4.5 f | 0.81 f | 5.5 | 741 f | [ |
| TFC membrane with CNTs interlayer with carboxyl groups on PVDF support layer | 24.0 b | 5.9 b | 0.25 | 1.3 g | 0.54 g | 2.3 | 392 g | [ |
| TFC membrane with GO/MWCNTs interlayer on PES MF support layer | 17.2 | 3.7 | 0.22 | [ | ||||
| TFC membrane with PDA/GO interlayer on PSf support layer | 24.3 | 3.8 | 0.16 | [ | ||||
| TFC membrane with PDA/ halloysite nanotubes (HNT) interlayer on PSf support layer | 26.9 | 4.0 | 0.15 | [ | ||||
| TFC membrane with GO interlayer on PVDF support layer | 17.5 | 1.0 | 0.06 | [ |
a Data estimated with 0.5 M NaCl as draw solution. b Data estimated with 2.0 M NaCl as draw solution. c Data estimated with 500 mg L−1 NaCl solution as feed solution at a pressure of 2.0 bar. d Calculated by the Excel-based error minimization algorithm developed by Tiraferri et al. [56]. e Data estimated with 500 mg L−1 NaCl solution as feed solution at a pressure of 1.0 bar. f Data estimated with 1000 mg L−1 NaCl solution as feed solution at a pressure of 2.0 bar. g Data estimated with 10 mM NaCl solution as feed solution at a pressure of 1.0 bar.