| Literature DB >> 35207032 |
Roziana Kamaludin1, Lubna Abdul Majid2, Mohd Hafiz Dzarfan Othman1,2, Sumarni Mansur1, Siti Hamimah Sheikh Abdul Kadir3, Keng Yinn Wong4, Watsa Khongnakorn5, Mohd Hafiz Puteh1,6.
Abstract
The addition of antibacterial material to hollow fiber membranes improves the membrane anti-biofouling characteristics. Antibacterial membranes were fabricated in this study to improve membrane function while also extending membrane lifetime. Neat polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) and PVDF hollow fiber membrane with the incorporation of antibacterial agent zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles with various loading (2.5-7.5 wt.%) were fabricated by using dry/wet spinning method. The membrane structure, particle distribution, functional group, hydrophilicity, and pore size of each membrane were all assessed. The result shows that all ZnO/PVDF hollow fiber membranes have the asymmetric structure with even dispersion of ZnO nanoparticles throughout the membranes. The results showed that increased ZnO loadings considerably improved membrane hydrophilicity, and average pore size, in addition to good performance of pure water flux. Antibacterial testing shows that ZnO incorporated in the membrane matrix and membrane surfaces prevents bacteria that cause biofouling from adhering to the membrane. ZnO/PVDF membrane recorded excellent bovine serum albumin (BSA) rejection at 93.4% ± 0.4 with flux recovery rate at 70.9% ± 2.1. These results suggest that antibacterial ZnO/PVDF hollow fiber membranes are promising in relation to reducing biofouling for various water and wastewater treatment.Entities:
Keywords: anti-fouling membrane; antibacterial; biofouling; polyvinylidene difluoride; zinc oxide nanoparticles
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207032 PMCID: PMC8878803 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12020110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Compositions of the polymer dope solutions.
| Composition (wt.%) | ZnO/PVDF AHFM | PVDF Hollow Fiber Membrane | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2.5 | M5.0 | M7.5 | MNeat | |
| ZnO | 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 | - |
| PVDF | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
| DMAc | 76.5 | 74 | 71.5 | 79 |
Figure 1Cross-sectional images of (a1,a2) neat PVDF(MNeat) (b1,b2) 2.5 wt.% ZnO/PVDF (M2.5) (c1,c2) 5.0 wt.% ZnO/PVDF (M5.0) and (d1,d2) 7.5 wt.% ZnO/PVDF (M7.5) AHFM at different magnification.
Figure 2Surface morphologies of (a1–a3) MNeat (b1–b3) M2.5 (c1–c3) M5.0 and (d1–d3) M7.5 hollow fiber membranes at different magnification.
OD, ID and thickness of the neat PVDF and different concentrations of ZnO/PVDF membranes.
| Membranes | Outer Diameter (μm) | Inner Diameter (μm) | Thickness (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MNeat | 1750 | 1490 | 260 |
| M2.5 | 1700 | 1410 | 290 |
| M5.0 | 1810 | 1470 | 340 |
| M7.5 | 1780 | 1400 | 380 |
Figure 3EDX mapping of (a1–a3) M2.5 (b1–b3) M5.0 and (c1–c3) M7.5 AHFM.
CA (o) value, average pore size and porosity of MNeat and all AHFM.
| Membranes | CA (°) | Porosity (%) | Average Pore Size (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MNeat | 79.27° | 52.60 | 72.66 |
| M2.5 | 78.06° | 51.38 | 75.22 |
| M5.0 | 74.61° | 48.90 | 132.72 |
| M7.5 | 70.93° | 44.06 | 161.54 |
Figure 4AFM images of (a) MNeat (b) M2.5 (c) M5.0 and (d) M7.5 membranes.
Figure 5FTIR spectra of MNeat, M.25, M5.0, and M7.5 hollow fiber membranes.
Figure 6Bacterial growth inhibition of (a) ZnO powder (b) neat MNeat (c) M2.5 (d) M5.0 and (e) M7.5 AHFM.
Figure 7Pure water flux of M2.5, M5.0, and M7.5 AHFM in comparison with MNeat membrane (n = 3).
Figure 8BSA rejection of M2.5, M5.0, and M7.5 AHFM in comparison with MNeat membrane (n = 3).
Figure 9Flux recovery rate of M2.5 AHFM in comparison with MNeat membrane.