| Literature DB >> 34070156 |
Francisco J García-Picazo1, Sergio Pérez-Sicairos1,2, Gustavo A Fimbres-Weihs3, Shui W Lin2, Moisés I Salazar-Gastélum1, Balter Trujillo-Navarrete1.
Abstract
In the present work, chemically modifiedEntities:
Keywords: N- and Cl-functionalized graphene oxide; graphene oxide; interfacial polymerization; nanofiltration; thin-film nanocomposite membrane
Year: 2021 PMID: 34070156 PMCID: PMC8158488 DOI: 10.3390/polym13101637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Reagents concentrations in aqueous and organic phases for the prepared membranes (percentage is expressed as w/v).
| Reagent | NF1 | NF2 | NF3 | NF4 | NF5 | NF6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIP | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | |
| NaOH | 0.50% | 0.50% | 0.50% | 0.50% | 0.50% | 0.50% | |
| Aqueous phase | PVA | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% | 0.25% |
| GO | - | 0.004% | - | - | - | - | |
| N-GO | - | - | 0.004% | - | - | 0.002% | |
| TMC | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 1.00% | |
| Organic phase | GO | - | - | - | 0.004% | - | - |
| Cl-GO | - | - | - | - | 0.004% | 0.002% |
Figure 1Physicochemical characterization of synthesized GO: (a) FTIR spectra, (b) Raman spectra, (c) TGA curves, (d) full XPS spectra, (e) XRD diffractograms, and (f) FTIR spectra of the ex situ IP reaction.
Relative ratio (%) of atomic species obtained by deconvolution of XPS spectra.
| Sample | C1 | C2 | C3 | N1 | N2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GO | 69.7 | 5.2 | 25.1 | N/D | N/D |
| N-GO | 62.4 | 16.8 | 20.8 | 78.0 | 20.0 |
| Cl-GO | 68.7 | 9.8 | 21.5 | 24.5 | 75.5 |
Figure 2Morphological characterization of synthesized GO. SEM imaging of (a) GO, (b) N-GO, and (c) Cl-GO. TEM bright field imaging of (d) GO, (e) N-GO, and (f) Cl-GO. Inset: magnification of GO layers obtained by FFT processing.
Atomic composition of prepared GO obtained by EDS analysis.
| Sample | C | O | N | Cl |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GO | 54% | 43% | 4% | 0% |
| N-GO | 57% | 19% | 23% | 1% |
| Cl-GO | 70% | 6% | 8% | 16% |
Figure 3FTIR spectra of prepared membranes.
Figure 4SEM images of NF membranes: (a) NF1, (b) NF2, (c) NF3, (d) NF4, (e) NF5, and (f) NF6.
Figure 5Cross-sectional images obtained by SEM for prepared NF membranes: (a) NF1, (b) NF2, (c) NF3, (d) NF4, (e) NF5, and (f) NF6.
Figure 6Surface topography of NF membranes: (a) NF1, (b) NF2, (c) NF3, (d) NF4, (e) NF5, and (f) NF6.
Figure 7Permeance results in pure water tests for as-prepared membranes.
Figure 8Na2SO4 and NaCl rejection capacity of prepared NF membranes.
Figure 9Plot of log (a) vs for the prepared NF membranes.
Summary of results for the PA nanocomposite membranes.
| Membrane | Permeance | Rejection for Na2SO4 (%) | Rejection for NaCl (%) | MWCO | Surface Roughness (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NF1 | 1.12 ± 0.04 | 95.9 ± 2.3 | 46.2 ± 2.7 | 264 ± 5 | 30.6 ± 0.6 |
| NF2 | 1.93 ± 0.07 | 97.7 ± 1.6 | 60.3 ± 2.3 | 221 ± 8 | 195.5 ± 3.9 |
| NF3 | 1.63 ± 0.05 | 98.9 ± 1.1 | 61.6 ± 1.4 | 212 ± 7 | 159.3 ± 3.2 |
| NF4 | 1.25 ± 0.07 | 90.7 ± 2.6 | 42.3 ± 3.1 | 203 ± 6 | 134.4 ± 2.7 |
| NF5 | 1.42 ± 0.06 | 99.4 ± 1.8 | 67.8 ± 2.3 | 202 ± 8 | 181.3 ± 3.6 |
| NF6 | 1.83 ± 0.04 | 96.9 ± 1.5 | 60.7 ± 1.9 | 145 ± 7 | 30.2 ± 0.6 |
Figure 10Correlation of permeance and observed Na2SO4 rejection for similar NF membranes.