| Literature DB >> 34207512 |
Mehwish Batool1,2, Amir Shafeeq1, Bilal Haider1, Nasir M Ahmad3.
Abstract
Mixed-matrix nanocomposite (PES/CA/PVP) membranes were fabricated for water desalination by incorporating varying amount of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs) ranging from 0 and 2 wt. %. Efficient dispersion of nanoparticles within polymeric membranes was achieved using the chemical precipitation method for uniform surface generation, and an asymmetric morphology was achieved via phase inversion method. Finally, membranes were characterized by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, Thermo Gravimetric Analysis (TGA), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), porosity and contact angle analysis. FTIR confirmed chemical composition of membranes in terms of polymers (PES/CA/PVP) and TiO2. TGA analysis confirmed an increase in thermal stability of membranes with the increase of TiO2 nanoparticles loading. The addition of TiO2 nanoparticles also resulted in an increase in porous structures due to an increase in mean pore size, as shown by SEM results. An increase in the hydrophilicity of the membranes was observed by increasing the concentration of TiO2 nanoparticles. The present study investigated pristine and mixed-matrix nanocomposite NF membrane performance while filtering a NaCl salt solution at varying concentration range (from 1 to 4 g/Lit 6 bar). The prepared membranes demonstrated significant improvement in water permeability and hydrophilicity. Further, to optimize the water flux and salt rejection, the concentration of Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) was optimized along with TiO2 nanoparticles. Both the water flux and salt rejection of the fabricated membranes were observed to increase with an increase inTiO2 nanoparticles to 2 wt. % loading with optimized PVP concentration, which demonstrated the improved desalination performance of resultant membranes.Entities:
Keywords: Polyethersulfone (PES); Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP); cellulose acetate (CA); desalination; mixed matrix nanocomposite membranes (MMNMs); titanium dioxide nanoparticles (TiO2 NPs)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34207512 PMCID: PMC8227052 DOI: 10.3390/membranes11060433
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Preparation method of the mixed-matrix nanocomposite membranes.
Composition of the prepared membranes.
| Membrane Type | Polymer | Pore Former | Particles | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA (wt. %) | PES (wt. %) | PVP (wt. %) | TiO2 (wt. %) | |
| M1 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| M2 | 78 | 19.5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| M3 | 76 | 19 | 5 | 0 |
| M4 | 74 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 0 |
| M5 | 72 | 18 | 10 | 0 |
| M4T1 | 74 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 0.5 |
| M4T2 | 74 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 1 |
| M4T3 | 74 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 1.5 |
| M4T4 | 74 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 2 |
Figure 2FTIR spectrum of the fabricated nanocomposite membranes.
Figure 3Cross-sectional SEM images of M4, M4T1, M4T2, M4T3, and M4T4.
Figure 4Thermograms of fabricated membranes.
TiO2/pore former effect on the performance of the pristine membrane and MMNMs.
| Membrane Code | Porosity | Contact Angle | Water Uptake | Water Flux | Salt Rejection | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (°) | (%) | L/m2h | (%) | ||||
| 1000 ppm | 2000 ppm | 3000 ppm | 4000 ppm | |||||
| M1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 70.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 68.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62.5 | 65.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M4 | 52 ± 1.3 | 57.7 ± 3.2 | 56.83 ±2 | 65 | 63.5 | 64 | 64 | 65 |
| M5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 69.5 | 59.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M4T1 | 70.1 ± 2.1 | 53.5 ± 1.2 | 62.83 ±1.5 | 75.5 | 70.5 | 69 | 68 | 68.7 |
| M4T2 | 73 ± 1.5 | 48.0 ± 2.0 | 66.94 ±1.2 | 82.3 | 72.8 | 70.5 | 73 | 72 |
| M4T3 | 74.2 ± 1.2 | 39.0 ± 1.5 | 75.43 ±1.5 | 88.7 | 75.6 | 74 | 73 | 73.5 |
| M4T4 | 75.5 ± 1 | 21 ± 2.2 | 75.34 ±2 | 89.6 | 76.8 | 75.5 | 76 | 75 |
Figure 5Pristine and nanocomposite membranes’ static water contact angle (average contact angles of samples are reported) and percent porosity.
Figure 6Static water contact angles: M4, M4T1, M4T2, M4T3, and M4T4.
Figure 7Effect of water uptake on MMNMs and the pristine membrane.
Figure 8Water flux measurements of the prepared membrane with or without TiO2/pore former.
Figure 9Salt rejection of the NaCl solution at various concentrations.
Comparison between previous studies and the current study.
| Polymer/Composite | NPs | Performance | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polyethersulfone, cellulose acetate, and Polyvinylpyrrolidone(PES/CA/PVP) | TiO2 | 89.6 L/m2h | 76.8 ± 1 | Present |
| Polyethersulfone and CNT composite | ZIF–8 | 53.51 L/m2h | 95% | [ |
| Cellulose acetate | TiO2 | 47.42 L/m2h | - | [ |
| Polyamide nanocomposite | TiO2 | 9.1 L/m2h | 95 % | [ |
| Polyvinyl alcohol/PES | TiO2 | 44 L/m2h | 41% | [ |