| Literature DB >> 35495256 |
Man Xu1,2, Chenxi Xu1, K P Rakesh1, Yuge Cui1, Jun Yin1, Changlian Chen1,2, Shulin Wang1,2, Bingcai Chen1, Li Zhu1,2.
Abstract
The dry-wetting spinning technique involving immersion-induced phase inversion and dry-sintering was applied to prepare two types of SiC and Al2O3 hollow fiber membranes. The two hollow fiber membranes were characterized in terms of morphology and chemical surface composition by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), water contact angle and zeta potential measurements. The filtration capabilities of the two hollow fiber membranes were assessed by the separation of 200 mg L-1 synthetic (O/W) emulsions. During the treatment of O/W emulsions, the permeation flux of the SiC hollow fiber membrane was 163.9 L h-1 m-2, which was higher than that of the Al2O3 hollow fiber membrane (139.4 L h-1 m-2) at the beginning of the experiment. The membrane surface properties and the filtration results of O/W emulsion microfiltration demonstrated that the SiC hollow fiber membranes with a higher hydrophilicity had higher water flux and better anti-fouling properties. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35495256 PMCID: PMC9049029 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra06695k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up for the fabrication of hollow fiber membranes.
Fig. 2TG data of SiC green hollow fiber membrane under air atmosphere.
Fig. 3XRD patterns of Al2O3 hollow fiber membrane sintered at 1500 °C and SiC hollow fiber membrane sintered at 2050 °C.
Fig. 4(A) Digital image, (B) overall cross-sectional SEM image, (C) local enlarged cross-sectional SEM image, and (D) SEM image of porous structure of SiC hollow fiber membranes (A(1)–D(1)) and Al2O3 hollow fiber membranes (A(2)–D(2)).
Fig. 5The Pore size distribution of the SiC and Al2O3 hollow fiber membranes.
Fig. 6Zeta potential for SiC powders, Al2O3 powders, and O/W emulsions as a function of pH.
Fig. 7XPS depth profile spectra of the O-1s peaks for the surface of SiC hollow fiber membrane (a) and Al2O3 hollow fiber membrane (b).
Fig. 8Photographs and optical microscopy images of O/W emulsions (a) and the permeate (b) separated by the SiC hollow fiber membranes.
Fig. 9Variation of permeation flux and oil rejection rate with time during membrane filtration of O/W emulsions using the two hollow fiber membranes regeneration for two runs via a back-flushing of 0.1 wt% NaOH aqueous solution.
Comparison between permeation fluxes for the as-fabricated SiC hollow fiber membrane in this work and those reported in the literatures
| Membrane | Performance | Ref. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material | Pore size | Water contact angles | Configuration | Normalized flux (L h−1 m−2 bar−1) | Rd (%) | |
| SiC | 0.71 | 11 | Hollow fiber | 654 | 93.5 | This work |
| SiC | 0.25 | — | Tubular | 200 | — |
|
| Si3N4 | 0.68 | — | Hollow fiber | 260 | 91 |
|
| TiO2–mullite | 0.11 | 11 | Hollow fiber | 150 | 97 |
|
| TiO2–Al2O3 | 6 | 8 | Tubular | 320 | >99 |
|