| Literature DB >> 33167337 |
Hamouda M Mousa1, Husain Alfadhel2, Emad Abouel Nasr3,4.
Abstract
In the present study, a coaxial nanofiber membrane was developed using the electrospinning technique. The developed membranes were fabricated from hydrophilicEntities:
Keywords: cellulose acetate; coaxial nanofiber; composite membrane; oil/water separation; polysulfone; zinc oxide NPs
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167337 PMCID: PMC7694370 DOI: 10.3390/polym12112597
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Scheme illustrating the electrospinning technique setup for engineering a coaxial nanofiber membrane.
Fabrication parameters of the developed nanofibrous membranes at room temperature; the table shows the core and shell materials and electrospinning setup conditions.
| Membrane | Core | Shell | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| PSf | CA |
Collector distance 21 cm at 21.7 Kv, feed rate of inner and outer syringe set at 1 mL/h. * This means that ZnO NPs was loaded at 0.1 wt.%. |
|
| PSf/ZnO NPs * | CA | |
|
| PSf | CA/ZnO NPs * | |
|
| ¥ Modified M1 |
¥ This means that membranes were treated by immersion in a 2M NaOH solution for 1 min. | |
|
| ¥ Modified M2 | ||
|
| ¥ Modified M3 | ||
Figure 2Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) surface morphology of the developed membranes.
Figure 3Surface morphology of the modified membrane by NaOH treatment.
Figure 4Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images show the coaxial membranes morphology at different magnifications.
Figure 5EDS mapping of the developed M2 and M3 coaxial nanofiber membranes (scale bar = 100 nm).
Figure 6The water contact angle (WCA) of the different membranes shows a decrease in its values after NaOH treatment.
Figure 7The figure shows the main Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) peak analysis of the developed membranes.
Figure 8Membranes’ mechanical properties: (a) stress–strain curve, (b) tensile stress, (c) Young’s modulus, and (d) toughness of the different membranes.
Figure 9(a) Antibacterial properties of the M2 and M3 membranes against E. coli compared to the control agar plate; (b) water flux of the different membranes.
Figure 10Water flux of the different membranes (M1 to M6); results show water flux increase in treatment membranes.
Present membrane properties compared with reported membranes: membrane materials, water flux, technique, tensile stress, oil type, and membrane features.
| Materials | Water Flux (m3. m-2.hr−1) | Technique | WCA | Tensile Stress (MPa) | Young Modulus (MPa) | Toughness (MJ/m3) | Antibacterial Properties | Oil Type | Membrane Properties | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSf/NaOH | 0.33 | Electrospinning nanofiber | 12° | 1.10 |
|
|
| Soybean oil | High flux, super hydrophilic. | [ |
| (PSf/NaOH) PA layer | 0.33 | 3° |
|
|
|
| Soybean oil | Super hydrophilic, high flux. | [ | |
| PSf | 0.14 | 100° | 0.9 | 3.7 |
|
| Sunflower oil | Hydrophobic, degradation by oil, heat resistance. | [ | |
| PSf/Iron acetate/PA film | 0.38 | 37° | 0.25 | 7.0 |
|
| High flux, cheap materials, no particles agglomeration. | |||
|
| 0.25 | Coaxial electrospinning nanofiber | 90 ± 8° | 4.89 | 0.11 | 21.5 |
| Hydrophobic. | This study | |
|
| 0.28 | 70 ± 4° | 7.58 | 0.2 | 23.4 |
| Moderate hydrophilic. | |||
|
| 0.35 | 46 ± 4° | 3.2 | 0.1 | 8 |
| Hydrophilic. | |||
|
| 0.40 | 20 ± 5° | 1.08 | 0.04 | 2.8 |
| High flux, super hydrophilic. | |||
|
| 0.39 | 16 ± 5° | 1.44 | 0.1 | 3.6 |
| High flux, super hydrophilic. | |||
|
| 0.42 | 14 ± 2° | 0.25 | 0.01 | 0.4 |
|