| Literature DB >> 35423415 |
Subrahmanya T M1, Ahmad Bin Arshad2, Po Ting Lin2, Januar Widakdo1, Makari H K3, Hannah Faye M Austria1, Chien-Chieh Hu1, Juin-Yih Lai1, Wei-Song Hung1.
Abstract
With rapid advancement in water filtration materials, several efforts have been made to fabricate electrospun nanofiber membranes (ENMs). ENMs play a crucial role in different areas of water treatment due to their several advantageous properties such as high specific surface area, high interconnected porosity, controllable thickness, mechanical robustness, and wettability. In the broad field of water purification, ENMs have shown tremendous potential in terms of permeability, rejection, energy efficiency, resistance to fouling, reusability and mechanical robustness as compared to the traditional phase inversion membranes. Upon various chemical and physical modifications of ENMs, they have exhibited great potential for emerging applications in environment, energy and health sectors. This review firstly presents an overview of the limiting factors influencing the morphology of electrospun nanofibers. Secondly, it presents recent advancements in electrospinning processes, which helps to not only overcome drawbacks associated with the conventional electrospinning but also to produce nanofibers of different morphology and orientation with an increased rate of production. Thirdly, it presents a brief discussion about the recent progress of the ENMs for removal of various pollutants from aqueous system through major areas of membrane separation. Finally, this review concludes with the challenges and future directions in this vast and fast growing area. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423415 PMCID: PMC8695389 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra00060h
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Schematic diagram showing the different components of a typical electrospinning.
Fig. 2Influence of solution factors on morphology of electrospun nanofibers; (A) influence of solution concentration on morphology of electrospun SAN nanofibers.[18] Reproduced from ref. 18 with permission from SAGE, copyright 2015. (B) Influence of solution viscosity on morphology of electrospun polyethylene oxide (PEO) nanofibers.[26] Reproduced from ref. 26 with permission from Wiley Periodicals, LLC., copyright 2015. (C) Influence of polymer molecular weight on morphology of electrospun PVA nanofibers.[27] Reproduced from ref. 27 with permission from Scientific. Net, copyright 2016.
Fig. 3Influence of processing factors on morphology of electrospun nanofibers; (A) influence of applied voltage on electrospun PVDF nanofibers.[31] Reproduced from ref. 31 with permission from Springer, copyright 2013. (B) Influence of solution flow rate on morphology of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) nanofibers.[25] Reproduced from ref. 25 with permission from Wiley Periodicals, LLC., copyright 2014. (C) Influence of tip to collector distance on morphology of electrospun PVA/nickle oxide (NiO)-gadolinium-doped ceria (GDC) nanofibers.[41] Reproduced from ref. 41 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2013.
Fig. 4Influence of increase of humidity level from 4% to 70% on morphology of electrospun nanofibers; (A) PVA nanofibers, (B) PVA/HA blend nanofibers, (C) PEO nanofibers. Reproduced from ref. 43 with permission from SAGE, copyright 2015.
Fig. 5Different types of spinnerets used in electrospinning; (A) spinnerets used in needle electrospinning. (B) Spinnerets used in needle-less electrospinning; (a) rotatory spinnerets and (b) stationary spinnerets used in needle-less electrospinning. Reproduced from ref. 47 with permission from American Chemical Society, copyright 2014.
Fig. 6Different types of collectors used in electrospinning; (A) rotatory collectors (a–h), (B) static collectors (i–m); (a) rotating drum, (b) rotating drum with wrapped wire, (c) rotating wire drum, (d) rotating drum with sharp pin inside, (e) rotating drum with knife edge electrodes, (f) rotating drum with multiple knife edge electrodes, (g) rotating disk, (h) fiber collection using water bath, (i) plate collector, (j) parallel ring collector, (k) blade electrodes in line, (l) parallel electrodes, (m) array of counter electrodes.
Examples of some of the previously reported polymeric ENMs that have been used in various water treatment applications
| Sl. no | Electrospinning solution used (polymer and solvent) | Experimental variables (concentration, TCD, needle diameter, applied voltage, flow rate) | Properties of ENMs (average fiber diameter (nm), surface area (m2 g−1), weight of fiber (g m−2)) | Application of ENMs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Cellulose triacetate (CTA), dichloromethane (DCM)/ethanol/pyridine & DCM/EtOH | 8/1/1(v/v/v)% & 8/2(v/v)%, 10 cm, 0.52 mm, 25–27 kV, 10 mm3 | 340 ± 110 nm, | Desalination[ |
| 2. | Polystyrene (PS), DMF + 0.1 mL of nitric acid | 20 wt%, 0.25 mm, 5 kV, 180 mL h−1, | 317 nm, 81.51 m2 g−1 | Oil/water separation[ |
| 3. | Polylactic acid (PLA) (4060D320kD), acetone | 11–13 wt%, 10 cm, 20 kV, 0.5 mL h−1 | 500–1200 nm | Microfiltration[ |
| 4. | PVA, DI water | 6–12 wt%, 10 cm, 1 mm, 24–32 kV, 10 mL min−1 | 100 ± 19 nm | Microfiltration[ |
| 10 wt%, 15 cm, 30 kV, 40 mL h−1, with TritonX-100 (0.6 v/wt%) | 120 ± 30 nm | Desalination[ | ||
| 8 wt%, 12 cm, 0.8 mm, 15 kV, 1 mL h−1 | 50–90 nm | Dye degradation[ | ||
| 10 wt%, 15 cm, 0.5 mm, 17.5 kV, 1 mL h−1, | 180–280 nm, 130.513 m2 g−1, 88.946 m2 g−1 | Heavy metal removal[ | ||
| 5. | PVP, absolute ethanol | 10 wt%, 14 kV, 1 mL h−1, with aluminium acetate | 200–600 nm | Heavy metal removal[ |
| 10 cm, 8–12 kV, 0.3 mL h−1, with TiO2 and Au NPs. | 30–210 nm | Photoactive nanofiber water treatment[ | ||
| 6. | Polysulfone (PSF), DMF | 15–20 wt% + NaOH (0–2.5 wt%), 15 cm, 20 kV, 20 wt%, 15 cm, 20 kV | 130–630 nm | Oil–water separation[ |
| 7. | PAN, poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (PEGDA), 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone (HCPK), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), DMF, DCM, hexane | PAN/PEG (8/0 to 12/2 wt/wt%), 15 cm, 20 kV, 1 mL h−1 | 63 nm, 128 nm, 157 nm, 228 nm | Oil–water separation |
| PAN, DMF, acetic acid | 8 wt/wt%, 15 cm, 0.7 mm, 30 kV, 40 mL m−1, with tetra ethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) | 120.6 ± 30.2 nm, 225 ± 38.5 nm | Pressure retarded osmosis | |
| Poly( | 2.80 wt%, 15 cm, 30 kV, 0.15 mL h−1 | 134 nm, 57.87 m2 g−1 | Oil–water separation | |
| PVDF, DMF | 8 wt%, 12–15 cm, 27–30 kV, 30 mL min−1 | 300–400 nm, | Forward osmosis[ | |
| 8. | Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) & PVA, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) & DI water | PET 13.5 wt% in TFA & PVA 7 wt% in DI water, 0.7 mm, 20 kV, 13.5 mL min−1 | — | Desalination[ |
| PAN, DMF | 8 wt%, 15 cm, 0.7 mm, 22 kV, 20 mL min−1, with MWCNTs | 300 nm, 250 nm | Ultrafiltration[ | |
| 6–12 wt%, 18 cm, 25 kV, 1 mL h−1, with Jute cellulose nanofibers | 173 nm, 18.83 m2 g−1, 17.02 m2 g−1 | Water purification[ | ||
| 10 wt%, 28 kV, 1 mL h−1 | 270 ± 55–281 ± 65 nm, 460 ± 240–450 ± 210 nm | Water purification[ | ||
| 4–18 wt%, 7–19 cm, 0.6 mm, 27 kV, 0.5–2.5 mL h−1 | 100–500 nm, 40 m2 g−1 | Microfiltration[ | ||
| 12 and 8 wt%, 10–18 cm, 15 kV, 10–20 mL h−1 | 150–300 nm | Oil–water separation[ | ||
| 10. | PAN/poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM), DMF | PAN = 10 wt%, PAMAM = 5–30 wt%, 16 cm, 16–23 kV, 1.2 mL h−1 | 240–355 nm, 30.4 m2 g−1, 26.2–12 m2 g−1 | Dyes removal[ |
| 11. | PAN/PSf, DMAc | PAN = 10 wt%, PSf10 wt%, PAN/PSf 15 wt% with different weight ratio, 15 cm, 25 kV, 1.5 mL h−1 | 879 ± 37 nm, 364 ± 52 nm, 7–27.5 m2 g−1 | Adsorptive removal of lanthanum( |
| 12. | Cellulose acetate (CA), DMF/acetone | CA = 6–14 wt%, 12 cm, 0.4 mL h−1 | 170 ± 40 nm | Optical, bactericidal and water repellency[ |
| 13 | CA, acetic acid/DI water | 8 g in 42 mL co-solvent mixture, 15 cm, 0.8 mm, 23 kV, 1 mL h−1 | 222 ± 130 nm, 213 ± 116 nm | Virus removal[ |
| 14. | Polyether sulfone (PES), NMP | 9–22 wt%, 10 cm, 0.8 mm, 18–30 kV, 20 mL min−1 | 1090 nm, 700 nm, 610 nm | Microfiltration[ |
| 15. | PU, PES, DMF, DMAc, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), NMP | PU-(14–18) wt% & PES (15–20) wt%, 10–12 cm, 25–35 kV, with Ag nanoparticles | 205 ± 67 nm, 174 ± 51 nm, 6.5–7.2 g m−2 | Biocidal membrane for ultrafiltration[ |
| 16. | PVDF, DMF | 18 wt%, 18 cm, 18 kV, 2 mL h−1 | 417 ± 120, 625 ± 13 nm | Water treatment[ |
| 17. | PVDF, DMAc/acetone | 15 cm, 1 mm, 13 kV, 0.055 mL min−1 | 0.57–0.61 μm | Ultrafiltration[ |
| 18. | PVDF, DMF/tetrahydrofuran (THF) | 13 wt%, 15 cm, 20 kV, 1.5 mL h−1 | 860 ± 350 nm, 930 ± 280 nm | TFC membrane[ |
| 19. | Poly(acrylonitrile- | 20 wt%, 25 cm, 15–20 kV, 1.1 mL h−1 | 100–126 nm | Protein and enzyme separation from water[ |
| 20. | Nylon-66, formic acid/DCM | 10 wt%, 8 cm, 28 kV, 0.8 mL h−1 | 270 ± 120 nm | Engineered osmosis[ |
| 21. | PU, THF/DMF | 10 wt%, 15 cm, 20 kV, 0.3 mL h−1, with Ag-TiO2 nanostructures | 550 nm, 80 g m−2 | Photo catalytic treatment of dairy effluent[ |
| 22. | PEI, DMF/NMP | 20 wt%, 10 cm, 25 kV, 1 mL h−1 SiO2, BaTiO3, Si3N4 | 636 nm to 3.47 μm, 0.71–5.64 g m−2 | Microfiltration[ |
| 23. | Chitosan (CS), acetic acid | 5 wt%, 6.8 cm, 23 kV, 0.1 mm min−1 | 75 nm, 0.18–2 g m−2 | Heavy metal removal[ |
| 24. | Chitosan (CS), acetic acid | 0.4 wt%, 7 cm, 0.2 mm, 8 kV, 0.8 mL h−1 | 42 nm, 110 m2 g−1 | Heavy metal removal[ |
| 25. | PVA, DI water | 18 wt%, 6 cm, 10 kV, 2.5 mL h−1 | 400 nm, 7.55–10.79 m2 g−1 | Heavy metal and dyes removal[ |
Fig. 7Schematic representation of removal of micro-pollutants from water by filtration through an ideal ENM.
Fig. 8PVA-co-PE based anti-fouling microfiltration ENMs for water treatment application; (A) mechanism of interception, anti-biofouling, and antibacterial behaviour of PVA-co-PE-PEI-Ag NPs ENMs, (B) SEM, contact angle (CA) and pore size distribution of; (a) PVA-co-PE, (b) PVA-co-PE-PEI, and (c) and (f) PVA-co-PE-PEI-Ag NPs ENMs, (d) HRTEM and its FFT image of immobilized Ag NPs, (e) TEM image of PVA-co-PE-PEI-Ag NPs ENMs, (C) chemical characterization; (a) FT-IR spectra of PVA-co-PE, PVA-co-PE-TC, PVA-co-PE-PEI, and PVA-co-PE-PEI-Ag NPs ENMs, and (b) XRD patterns of PVA-co-PE-PEI-Ag NPs ENM and Ag NPs.[111] Reproduced from ref. 111 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2020.
Fig. 9Different functionalized nanomaterials for the preparation of doped electrospun nanofiber membranes for MD application; (A) schematic representation of preparation of 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (PFTS) functionalized TiO2 nanoparticles through different methods like (a) direct doping, (b) co-axial electrospinning, (c) dual electrospinning, and electrospinning combined with electrospraying; and SEM images for TiO2-polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (PH) ENMs fabricated by (d) doping electrospinning, (e) coaxial electrospinning, and (f) dual electrospinning. (B) Superhydrophobic PVDF ENMs for DCMD application; (a) diagrammatic representation of octadecyltrichlorosilane (OTS) modified SiO2 nanoparticles incorporated superhydrophobic PVDF ENMs for DCMD application; (b) and (c) SEM images for SiO2-PVDF ENMs. (C) Metal organic framework (MOF-F300) incorporated PVDF ENMs (d) for DCMD performance; (a), (b) and (c) SEM images of MOF-F300-PVDF ENMs. (D) Schematic of covalent modification and fluorination by using FTES of multi-walled CNTs (MWCNTs) to construct 3D PH ENMs for DCMD application.[72] Reproduced from ref. 72 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2019.
Fig. 10An electrospun fabricated thin film nanocomposite membrane (TFNC); (A) SEM images showing different layers of a TFNC, (B) cross sectional SEM image of a TFNC, the region inside the red rectangle shows a few nanometres thick top selective layer formed by interfacial polymerization. Reproduced from ref. 147 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2013.
Fig. 11Schematic representation of adsorptive removal of heavy metal ions via an ideal polymeric ENM showing negative impacts of heavy metals on human health, different ways of modification of ENMs and advantageous properties of an ideal ENM for heavy metal removal from aqueous system.
Fig. 12(A) Probable modified reaction mechanism of As(iii) adsorption on cerium(iii)-CS/PVA composite nanofiber.[164] Reproduced from ref. 164 with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2014. (B) Schematic representation of the preparation and evaluation of amidoxime polyacrylonitrile/regenerate cellulose (AOPAN/RC) blend ENMs for adsorptive removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous system.[165] Reproduced from ref. 165 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2018.
Fig. 13(A) Schematic illustration of the preparation of the CS-PGMA-PEI ENM and its application in removal of heavy metal ions from water. (B) Chemical characterization and performance evaluation of CS-PGMA-PEI ENM; (a) XRD patterns. (b) ATR-FTIR spectra. (c) Effect of pH on competitive adsorption among Cr(vi), Cu(ii), and Co(ii) ions.[168] Reproduced from ref. 168 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2019.
Fig. 14Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs for oil/water microemulsion separation; (A) schematic of synthesis of hierarchical porous Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs, (B) morphological and mechanical characterization; (a) TEM image of Silica/PBZ-CHO ENM doped with 2 wt% silica, (b) tensile stress–strain curves of Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs without silica and with 2 wt% silica, (c) digital images show the robust flexibility of Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs without silica and with 2 wt% silica, (C) wettability and permeability studies: (a) underwater oil contact angle (OCA(°)) of Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs, (b) changes in separation flux with increasing number of cycles using Silica/PBZ-CHO ENMs.[174] Reproduced from ref. 174 with permission from The Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2014.
Fig. 15Two-nozzle electrospun fabricated PS/PVDF/Iron oxide ENMs for oil–water separation; (A) mechanical and morphological characterization of PS/PVDF/Iron oxide ENMs; (a) stress–strain curves, (b) tensile strength, (c and d) TEM images, (B) wettability and oil–water separation study of PS/PVDF/Fe3O4 ENMs; (a) water contact angle measurement, (b) oil adsorption capacity of PS/PVDF/Fe3O4 ENMs for different oils.[175] Reproduced from ref. 175 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2015.
Fig. 16Calcinable hierarchical titanium dioxide (TiO2)-polysulfonamide (PSA)/PAN ENMs for long term oil/water separation application; (A) morphology and wettability characterization; (a) TEM and (b) AFM images of the hierarchical TiO2-0.4@PSA/PAN ENM. (c) Water and oil droplets dyed with Sudan red G on the TiO2-0.4@PSA/PAN ENM in air. (d) Digital image of underwater oil droplets (3 μL) on the surface of TiO2-0.4@PSA/PAN ENM. (B) Thermal, mechanical and wettability properties of hierarchical TiO2-PSA/PAN ENMs; (a) TGA, (b) stress–strain curves, (c) digital images of underwater oil-repelling and dynamic water permeation measurements on the surface of TiO2-0.4@PSA/PAN ENM. (C) Separation devices and separation efficiency; (a) schematic diagram showing the separation set up in real application, (b) digital image showing the custom-made separation device in operation, (c) the pure water flux and the separation performance for the various oil-in-water emulsions using TiO2-0.4@PSA/PAN ENM. Reproduced from ref. 183 with permission from Wiley-VCH GmbH, Weinheim, copyright 2018.