| Literature DB >> 34204750 |
Shiguo Gu1, Lei Li1, Fei Liu2,3, Jian Li1.
Abstract
Mixed matrix membranes have received ever-growing attention due to their high separation performance, taking the advantages of both porous fillers and polymer backbones. However, limitations still exist due to the instability ofEntities:
Keywords: Kevlar nanofiber; biochar; dye/salt separation; mixed matrix membrane; nanofiltration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204750 PMCID: PMC8231588 DOI: 10.3390/membranes11060443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Characterization of nano-BC. (a,b) TEM images, (c) Aggregation profiles of nano-BC in DI water, (d) High-resolution XPS C 1s spectra, (e) Specific surface area (SSA) according to N2 and CO2 gas adsorption, and (f) ζ potential as a function of pH.
Elemental composition, atomic ratio, and polar index of nano-BC by elemental analysis (EA) and XPS.
| Method | Ash (%) | C (wt%) | N (wt%) | H (wt%) | O (wt%) | S (wt%) | Si (wt%) | Ca (wt%) | O/C | H/C | (O + N)/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EA | 7.01 | 69.61 | 2.70 | 3.04 | 16.65 | 0.99 | ND | ND | 0.18 | 0.52 | 0.21 |
| XPS | - | 67.78 | 2.36 | - | 26.95 | - | 2.16 | 0.76 | 0.30 | ND | 0.33 |
Figure 2FTIR spectra of nano-BC, Kevlar fiber and the nano-BC/Kevlar MMMs.
Figure 3SEM observations of membrane surface (a1–e1) and cross-sectional morphology (a2–e2): (a1,a2) Kevlar, (b1,b2) 2.5% nano-BC/Kevlar, (c1,c2) 5% nano-BC/Kevlar, (d1,d2) 7.5% nano-BC/Kevlar, and (e1,e2) 10% nano-BC/Kevlar.
Figure 4AFM images of the primary and the modified membranes. (a) Kevlar, (b) 2.5% nano-BC/Kevlar, (c) 5% nano-BC/Kevlar, (d) 7.5% nano-BC/Kevlar, and (e) 10% nano-BC/Kevlar.
AFM parameters of the pristine and modified membranes.
| Membrane | Ra (nm) | Rrms (nm) | Rm (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kevlar | 5.58 | 7.41 | 58.30 |
| 2.5% nano-BC/Kevlar | 6.58 | 8.43 | 66.30 |
| 5% nano-BC/Kevlar | 6.97 | 8.62 | 83.70 |
| 7.5% nano-BC/Kevlar | 9.52 | 11.80 | 37.80 |
| 10% nano-BC/Kevlar | 14.60 | 17.80 | 98.30 |
Figure 5(a) The water contact angles of different membrane samples; (b) The MWCO of Kevlar and 7.5% nano-BC/Kevlar membranes.
Figure 6(a) Water flux and (b) the dye rejection of the Kevlar membrane with different thicknesses and heating times.
Figure 7Effects of the nano-BC content on the flux and rejection ((a) dyes and (b) salts) of the nano-BC/Kevlar NF membranes.
Figure 8The long-time stability of 7.5% nano-BC/Kevlar membrane.
Performance of different membranes reported by the literature.
| Membrane | Dye | Dye Rejection (%) | Flux | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (PEI- GO)/PAA/PVA/GA | Methyl blue | 99.3 | 0.8 | [ |
| (PAA/PEI)5 | Methyl blue | >99.0 | 1.7 | [ |
| (PDDA/PAA)/PAN | Methyl blue | 99.3 | 3.4 | [ |
| PES-TA | Methyl green | 98.0 | 2.0 | [ |
| (CMCNa/PEI)/PP | Congo red | 99.4 | 5.7 | [ |
| ZIF-8/PES | Congo red | 92.5 | 5.0 | [ |
| BHAC/PIP | Methyl blue | 98.9 | 8.5 | [ |
| (TA/Fe3+)/P84 | Methyl blue | 95.0 | 9.8 | [ |
| (TA/TMC)/PES | Congo red | 99.8 | 16.8 | [ |
| M−7 | Congo red | 99.6 | 40.6 | [ |
| Reactive black 5 | 99.5 | |||
| Reactive orange 16 | 96.2 | |||
| Nano-BC/Kevlar | Congo red | 93.9 | 23.2 | This work |
| Reactive blue 19 | 98.2 | |||
| Methyl blue | 94.7 |