| Literature DB >> 34940469 |
Reza Sallakhniknezhad1, Manijeh Khorsi2, Ali Sallakh Niknejad3, Saeed Bazgir3,4, Ali Kargari5, Mohsen Sazegar6, Mohsen Rasouli7, Soryong Chae8.
Abstract
Insufficient mechanical strength and wide pore size distribution of nanofibrous membranes are the key hindrances for their concrete applications in membrane distillation. In this work, various post-treatment methods such as dilute solvent welding, vapor welding, and cold-/hot-pressing processes were used to enhance the physical properties of styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) nanofiber membranes fabricated by the modified electrospinning process. The effects of injection rate of welding solution and a working distance during the welding process with air-assisted spraying on characteristics of SAN nanofiber membranes were investigated. The welding process was made less time-consuming by optimizing system parameters of the electroblowing process to simultaneously exploit residual solvents of fibers and hot solvent vapor to reduce exposure time. As a result, the welded SAN membranes showed considerable enhancement in mechanical robustness and membrane integrity with a negligible reduction in surface hydrophobicity. The hot-pressed SAN membranes obtained the highest mechanical strength and smallest mean pore size. The modified SAN membranes were used for the desalination of synthetic seawater in a direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD). As a result, it was found that the modified SAN membranes performed well (>99.9% removal of salts) for desalination of synthetic seawater (35 g/L NaCl) during 30 h operation without membrane wetting. The cold-/hot-pressing processes were able to improve mechanical strength and boost liquid entry pressure (LEP) of water. In contrast, the welding processes were preferred to increase membrane flexibility and permeation.Entities:
Keywords: mechanical strength; membrane distillation; pore size distribution; post-treatment methods; styrene–acrylonitrile nanofiber membranes
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940469 PMCID: PMC8705235 DOI: 10.3390/membranes11120969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Voltage, polymer injection rate, working distance, air flow rate, rotating speed, and spinning time for the fabrication of neat SAN membranes.
| Membrane | Voltage | Injection Rate | Working Distance | Airflow Rate | Rotating Speed | Spinning Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat SAN | 18 | 90 | 30 | 4 | 250 | 60 |
Figure 1Surface morphology of SAN nanofiber membranes modified using the dilute solvent welding process. It is worth noting that the heating time was 2 min in all images.
Figure 2Surface morphology of SAN nanofiber membranes modified by the vapor welding process for 2–14 min at 45 °C. The inset images scale bar was 500 nm.
Figure 3Surface morphology of the SAN nanofiber membranes fabricated with DMSO and mixed DMSO/acetone solvents.
Figure 4Surface morphology of SAN nanofiber membranes modified by the cold-/hot-pressing processes. Pressing pressure was maintained at 2000 Psi in all cases.
Thickness (δ), porosity (ε), and pore size of the post-treated SAN nanofiber membranes.
| Post-Treatment | Sample Name | δ | ε | rmean | rmax |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dilute solvent welding | Neat | 845 ± 40 | 96.2 ± 2 | 1.63 ± 0.02 | 3.68 ± 0.05 |
| DS-40-2 | 710 ± 20 | 92.2 ± 2 | 0.81 ± 0.02 | 2.11 ± 0.04 | |
| DS-40-6 | 570 ± 25 | 89.2 ± 2 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | 1.67 ± 0.04 | |
| DS-40-10 | 320 ± 10 | 73.2 ± 2 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 1.24 ± 0.03 | |
| DS-40-14 | 210 ± 5 | 62.1 ± 2 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 1.04 ± 0.02 | |
| DS-40-2-10 | 430 ± 4 | 82.5 ± 2 | 0.72 ± 0.02 | 1.52 ± 0.04 | |
| DS-40-6-10 | 205 ± 4 | 62.6 ± 2 | 0.63 ± 0.01 | 1.45 ± 0.03 | |
| DS-60-2 | 420 ± 10 | 82.4 ± 2 | 0.73 ± 0.02 | 1.62 ± 0.04 | |
| DS-60-6 | 180 ± 3 | 57.6 ± 2 | 0.58 ± 0.03 | 1.23 ± 0.03 | |
| Vapor welding | VW-2 | 820 ± 30 | 95.1 ± 2 | 0.82 ± 0.03 | 3.42 ± 0.05 |
| VW-6 | 510 ± 15 | 86.3 ± 2 | 0.74 ± 0.02 | 1.53 ± 0.04 | |
| VW-10 | 250 ± 3 | 79.1 ± 2 | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 1.78 ± 0.04 | |
| Cold/hot pressing | CP-10 s | 192 ± 4 | 74.2 ± 1 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 1.11 ± 0.02 |
| CP-20 s | 171 ± 4 | 72.2 ± 1 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | |
| CP-30 s | 152 ± 2 | 69.1 ± 1 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.87 ± 0.02 | |
| HP-75 °C-10 s | 178 ± 3 | 72.1 ± 1 | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | |
| HP-75 °C-20 s | 157 ± 2 | 70.4 ± 1 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 0.88 ± 0.01 | |
| HP-75 °C-30 s | 132 ± 2 | 65.1 ± 2 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.77 ± 0.02 | |
| HP-85 °C-30 s | 106 ± 2 | 46.3 ± 2 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.64 ± 0.01 | |
| HP-95 °C-30 s | 85 ± 1 | 32.5 ± 1 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.01 | |
| HP-105 °C-30 s | 61 ± 1 | 18.6 ± 1 | - | - |
Figure 5Pore size distribution of the neat SAN nanofiber membrane and membranes modified by the dilute solvent welding (A), vapor welding, and cold/hot pressing (B).
WCA, LEP value, and mechanical properties of the SAN nanofiber membranes modified by various post-treatment methods.
| Post-Treatment | Sample Name | WCA | LEP | Tensile Strength | Strain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dilute solvent welding | Neat | 145.7 ± 1 | 40.8 ± 2 | 1.32 ± 0.2 | 25.21 ± 0.7 |
| DS-40-2 | 143.7 ± 1 | 61.3 ± 2 | 1.98 ± 0.3 | 27.98 ± 0.4 | |
| DS-40-6 | 140.1 ± 1 | 73.2 ± 2 | 2.85 ± 0.2 | 29.45 ± 0.4 | |
| DS-40-10 | 134.2 ± 1 | 83.3 ±2 | 3.94 ± 0.4 | 33.28 ± 0.3 | |
| DS-40-14 | 124.3 ± 1 | 99.7 ± 2 | 4.68 ± 0.3 | 20.32 ± 0.8 | |
| DS-40-2-10 | 137.9 ± 1 | 77.5 ± 2 | 3.25 ± 0.2 | 28.96 ± 0.7 | |
| DS-40-6-10 | 125.2 ± 1 | 73.6 ± 2 | 5.23 ± 0.4 | 19.12 ± 0.3 | |
| DS-60-2 | 135.3 ± 1 | 76.4 ± 2 | 3.12 ± 0.4 | 30.23 ± 0.6 | |
| DS-60-6 | 123.6 ± 1 | 91.8 ± 2 | 5.87 ± 0.5 | 16.78 ± 0.3 | |
| Vapor welding | VW-2 | 144.7 ± 1 | 54.2 ± 2 | 1.43 ± 0.3 | 26.32 ± 0.5 |
| VW-6 | 142.1 ± 1 | 80.4 ± 2 | 2.87 ± 0.3 | 27.96 ± 0.4 | |
| VW-10 | 139.2 ± 1 | 87.6 ± 2 | 3.96 ± 0.2 | 31.24 ± 1 | |
| Cold/hot pressing | CP-10s | 141.3 ± 1 | 103.9 ± 1 | 6.14 ± 0.4 | 23.14 ± 0.6 |
| CP-20s | 139.8 ± 1 | 112.8 ± 1 | 6.97 ± 0.5 | 21.12 ± 0.7 | |
| CP-30s | 137.2 ± 1 | 123.4 ± 1 | 7.86 ± 0.2 | 18.42 ± 0.9 | |
| HP-75 °C-10 s | 142.1 ± 1 | 116.7 ± 1 | 6.57 ± 0.6 | 21.74 ± 0.9 | |
| HP-75 °C-20 s | 138.4 ± 1 | 127.5 ± 1 | 7.63 ± 0.3 | 19.23 ± 1 | |
| HP-75 °C-30 s | 134.2 ± 1 | 138.1 ± 2 | 9.23 ± 0.3 | 16.75 ± 1 | |
| HP-85 °C-30 s | 120.2 ± 1 | 147.1 ± 2 | 10.24 ± 0.4 | 11.23 ± 1 | |
| HP-95 °C-30 s | 112.4 ± 1 | 159.2 ± 1 | 12.24 ± 0.2 | 6.45 ± 1 | |
| HP-105 °C-30 s | 93.1 ± 1 | - | 14.68 ± 0.1 | 3.16 ± 0.5 |
Figure 6Water vapor flux and permeate EC of the neat (A), DS-40-10 and DS-40-14 (B), VW-10 (C), and CP-30 s, HP-75 °C-30 s and HP-85 °C-30 s (D) membranes in the DCMD process (feed concentration = 35 g/L NaCl; temperature difference = 40 °C; feed flow rate = 0.48 L/min; permeate flow rate = 0.48 L/min). Red hollow symbols illustrate EC of membrane distillate.
Permeate flux, final EC of the permeate, and salt rejection factor for the employed SAN membranes in the bench-scale DCMD process. Initial permeate conductivity was 4.2 µS/cm.
| Membrane | Permeate Flux | Final EC | Salt Rejection Factor | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat | 10.34 | 132.74 | >98 | 14 |
| DS-40-10 | 24.46 | 5.24 | >99.9 | 30 |
| DS-40-14 | 15.86 | 4.64 | >99.9 | 30 |
| VW-10 | 28.60 | 5.13 | >99.9 | 30 |
| CP-30s | 26.68 | 4.42 | >99.9 | 30 |
| HP-75 °C-30 s | 25.81 | 4.37 | >99.9 | 30 |
| HP-85 °C-30 s | 15.24 | 4.27 | >99.9 | 30 |