| Literature DB >> 35012026 |
Abdullah M Asiri1, Francesco Petrosino2, Valerio Pugliese2, Sher Bahadar Khan1, Khalid Ahmad Alamry1, Soliman Y Alfifi1, Hadi M Marwani1, Maha M Alotaibi1, Catia Algieri3, Sudip Chakraborty2.
Abstract
The casting and preparation of ultrafiltration ZnO modified cellulose acetate membrane (CA/ZnO) were investigated in this work. CA membranes were fabricated by phase inversion using dimethylformamide (DMF) as a solvent and ZnO as nanostructures materials. Ultrafiltration (UF) performance, mechanical stability, morphology, contact angle, and porosity were evaluated on both CA- and ZnO-modified CA samples. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to determine the morphology of the membranes, showing different pore sizes either on rough surfaces and cross-sections of the samples, an asymmetric structure and ultra-scale pores with an average pore radius 0.0261 to 0.045 µm. Contact angle measurements showed the highest hydrophobicity values for the samples with no ZnO addition, ranging between 48° and 82.7° on their airside. The permeability values decreased with the increasing CA concentration in the casting solution, as expected; however, ZnO-modified membranes produced lower flux than the pure CA ones. Nevertheless, ZnO modified CA membranes have higher surface pore size, pore density and porosity, and improved surface hydrophilicity compared with pure CA membranes. The results indicated that the incorporated nano-ZnO tends to limit the packing of the polymer chains onto the membrane structure while showing antifouling properties leading to better hydrophilicity and permeation with consistent UF applications.Entities:
Keywords: ZnO; cellulose acetate; environmental application; nano-composite membrane; photocatalyst; polymeric membrane
Year: 2021 PMID: 35012026 PMCID: PMC8747348 DOI: 10.3390/polym14010004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Summary of cellulose acetate composite membranes.
| Polymer Type | Additives | Composition Type | Unit Operation | Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose acetate/PAN | Ag nanoparticles | Thin film composites | Filtration/antimicrobial | Salt rejection/Anti-biofouling |
| Cellulose acetate/Cellulose triacetate | Boehmite | Mixed matrix | Filtration | Salt rejection |
| Cellulose acetate | SDS | Thin film composites | Filtration | Rejection of pesticides |
| L-dopa | Thin film composites | Filtration | Antifouling | |
| Alkyl derivative of resorcinarene | Polymer Inclusion | Adsorption/filtration | Removal of Pb (II), Cd (II), and Zn (II) | |
| Iron nanoparticles | Mixed matrix | Filtration | Rejection of phosphates and organic pollutants | |
| Cellulose acetate/PANI | Phytic acid | Mixed matrix | Adsorbent | Removal of Hg(II) and Cr(VI) |
| Cellulose acetate/PEG | SiO2 | Mixed matrix | Filtration | Salt rejection |
| Cellulose acetate/PEG-600 | Ag | Mixed matrix | Antimicrobial | Salt rejection/Anti-biofouling |
Membrane composition.
| Sample | Cellulose (%) | ZnO (%) | DMF (%) | Cellulose (g) | DMF (g) | ZnO (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA10 | 10 | 0 | 90 | 2 | 18 | 0 |
| CA10-Z1 | 10 | 1 | 89 | 2 | 17.8 | 0.2 |
| 10 | 2 | 88 | 2 | 17.6 | 0.4 | |
| CA10-Z3 | 10 | 3 | 87 | 2 | 17.4 | 0.6 |
| CA12 | 12 | 0 | 88 | 2.4 | 17.6 | 0 |
| CA12-Z1 | 12 | 1 | 87 | 2.4 | 17.4 | 0.2 |
| CA12-Z2 | 12 | 2 | 86 | 2.4 | 17.2 | 0.4 |
| CA12-Z3 | 12 | 3 | 85 | 2.4 | 17 | 0.6 |
| CA15 | 15 | 0 | 85 | 3 | 17 | 0 |
| CA15-Z1 | 15 | 1 | 84 | 3 | 16.8 | 0.2 |
| CA15-Z2 | 15 | 2 | 83 | 3 | 16.6 | 0.4 |
| CA15-Z3 | 15 | 3 | 82 | 3 | 16.4 | 0.6 |
| CA18 | 18 | 0 | 82 | 3.6 | 16.4 | 0 |
| CA18-Z1 | 18 | 1 | 81 | 3.6 | 16.2 | 0.2 |
Figure 1Scheme of the ultrafiltration lab-scale plant.
Figure 2Cross-section of the asymmetric CA membranes at different polymer concentration: (a) 10 wt% (b) 12 wt% and (c) 15 wt%.
Figure 3Cross-section of the asymmetric blended membranes: (a) CA10%–ZnO1%; (b) CA12%–ZnO1%; (c) CA15%–ZnO1% (this last image has been acquired in BSE). Top view of the membranes: (d) CA12% and (e) Ca12%–ZnO1%.
Figure 4FTIR spectra of CA and CA-ZnO blended membrane.
Figure 5Tensile strength and Young’s modulus of the CA membranes prepared at different polymer concentrations.
Figure 6Tensile strength and Young’s modulus of the blended membranes prepared with a CA concentration of 10 wt%.
Water contact angle measurement.
| Membrane Code | Contact Angle |
|---|---|
| CA (15 wt%) | 82.7 ± 2.1 |
| CA (15 wt%)–ZnO(1 wt%) | 76.0 ± 2.3 |
| CA (15 wt%)–ZnO(2 wt%) | 72.6 ± 0.92 |
| CA (15 wt%)–ZnO(3 wt%) | 72.0 ± 1.2 |
| CA (12 wt%) | 82.2 ± 0.7 |
| CA (12 wt%)–ZnO(1 wt%) | 77.1 ± 2.3 |
| CA (12 wt%)–ZnO(2 wt%) | 72.5 ± 2.2 |
| CA (12 wt%)–ZnO(3 wt%) | 71.4 ± 1.4 |
| CA (10 wt%) | 68 ± 2.6 |
| CA (10 wt%)–ZnO(1 wt%) | 62.1 ± 4.0 |
| CA (10 wt%)–ZnO(2 wt%) | 58.61 ± 1.6 |
Figure 7XRD patterns of (a) CA- ZnO membrane and (b) ZnO nanoparticles.
Figure 8TGA results for increasing decomposition temperature for (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 wt%) of ZnO on CA membranes.
Permeability values for the different prepared membranes.
| Permeability (LMH/bar) | ZnO 0% | ZnO 1% | ZnO 2% | ZnO 3% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA 10% | 250 | 660 | 488 | 1897 |
| CA 12% | 213 | 457 | 659 | 2268 |
| CA 15% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |