| Literature DB >> 35566841 |
Yuanyuan Tang1, Lu Cao1, Li Xu2,3, Zhaoyu Wang1, Qian Shi1, Yingying Zhang1, Liangmin Yu2,3.
Abstract
To address trade-off and membrane-fouling challenges during the development of nanofiltration membranes, a thin-film composite membrane was prepared on the basis of interfacial polymerization regulated by adjusting the capsaicin-derived self-polymer poly N-(2-hydroxy-5-(methylthio) benzyl) acrylamide (PHMTBA) on the polysulfone substrate in this study. Through the self-polymerization of the monomer HMTBA with varied contents, microwave-assisted technology was employed to develop a variety of PHMTBAs. It was discovered that PHMTBA is involved in the interfacial polymerization process. Piperazine and PHMTBA competed for the reaction with trimesoyl chloride, resulting in a flatter and looser membrane surface. The PHMTBA-modified membrane presented a typical double-layer structure: a thicker support layer and a thinner active layer. The addition of PHMTBA to membranes improved their hydrophilicity and negative charge density. As a result, the PHMTBA-modified membrane showed dependable separation performance (water flux of 159.5 L m-2 h-1 and rejection of 99.02% for Na2SO4) as well as enhanced anti-fouling properties (flux recovery ratio of more than 100% with bovine serum albumin-fouling and antibacterial efficiency of 93.7% against Escherichia coli). The performance of the prepared membranes was superior to that of most other modified TFC NF membranes previously reported in the literature. This work presents the application potential of capsaicin derivatives in water treatment and desalination processes.Entities:
Keywords: capsaicin derivatives; desalination; interfacial polymerization; nanofiltration membrane; self-polymer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566841 PMCID: PMC9103837 DOI: 10.3390/polym14091671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1The synthesis route of self-polymer PHMTB.
Figure 2The schematic diagram of a fabrication process of unmodified and PHMTBA-modified TFC membranes.
Figure 3(a) FTIR spectra and (b) TG curve of PA−PHMTBA and PA−HMTBA membranes.
Figure 4XPS assessment of as-fabricated membranes. XPS spectra of (a) control TFC membranes, (b) PA-HMTBA membranes, and (c) PA-PHMTBA membranes; C1s survey spectra of (d) PA-HMTBA and (e) PA-PHMTBA membranes.
XPS surface elemental compositions and high-resolution C1s spectra of the prepared membranes.
| Membrane | Atomic Contents (%) | Atomic Ratio | Species Contents (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | O | N | S | O/N | C=C | C-C, C-H | C=O | C-N, C-O | |
| Control TFC | 72.64 | 13.12 | 14.24 | / | 0.92 | / | / | / | / |
| PA-HMTBA | 80.45 | 10.69 | 8.52 | 0.34 | 1.25 | 34.06 | 41.99 | 11.22 | 12.74 |
| PA-PHMTBA0.05 | 80.96 | 10.36 | 8.36 | 0.32 | 1.24 | 29.60 | 48.47 | 10.69 | 11.23 |
Figure 5(a–e) SEM surface images and (f,g) schematic diagrams of the interfacial diffusion process of unmodified and PHMTBA-modified TFC membranes. (The red coils in (c,d) represented the particle-like structure).
Figure 6(a) WCA of unmodified and PHMTBA−modified membranes and (b) zeta potential at different pH values of control TFC and PA−PHMTBA0.05 membranes.
Figure 7(a) Permeance and (b) selectivity of prepared TFC membranes.
Figure 8(a) Selectivity for different inorganic salt solutions and (b) stability of the control TFC membrane and the PA-PHMTBA0.05 membrane.
Figure 9Anti-fouling properties of the as-prepared TFC membrane. (a) Normalized fluxes with various pollutants filtration, (b) fouling indexes, and (c) images of Petri dishes of the unmodified and PHMTBA-modified membranes.
Antibacterial property of the as-prepared TFC membrane.
| Membrane | CFU after Incubating for 24 h | Antibacterial Efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Control TFC | 158 ± 6 | / |
| PA-PHMTBA0.01 | 22 ± 4 | 53.4 |
| PA-PHMTBA0.05 | 10 ± 1 | 93.7 |
Performance comparison of prepared membrane with other NF membranes reported in the literature.
| Membrane | Permeance (L/m2hbar) | R (%) | FRR (%) | Testing Conditions | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIP/ZA-TMC | 29.0 | 91.0 | 95.2 | 6 bar, 1.0 g/L MgSO4, | [ |
| TFN-SGO | 2.37 | 96.5 | 98.0 | 5 bar, 2.5 g/L Na2SO4, | [ |
| TFC-PAMTB | ~27.5 | 98.0 | ~92.0 | 5 bar, 2.0 g/L Na2SO4, | [ |
| AAIL-TFC | 12.2 | 94.5 | / | 6 bar, 1.0 g/L MgSO4 | [ |
| M-40COOH | 48.1 | 84.0 | 40.1 | 6 bar, 1.0 g/L Na2SO4, | [ |
| PA/GO TFN | 1.47 | ~97.0 | / | 15 bar, 2.0 g/L MgSO4 | [ |
| TFC-cGO | ~11.66 | 99.2 | 96.0 | 7 bar, 2.0 g/L MgSO4, | [ |
| NFM-PAO | 25.2 | ~99.0 | 76.0 | 4 bar, 1.0 g/L Na2SO4, | [ |
| PDA@SiO2-PMIA | 31.3 | 97.0 | / | 6 bar, 1.0 g/L Na2SO4 | [ |
| TFN-AA/GO | 11.34 | >95.0 | / | 8 bar, 1.0 g/L Na2SO4 | [ |
| TFC-HPE | 50.62 | 98.0 | 95.7 | 2 bar, 1.0 g/L Na2SO4, | [ |
| TFC | 34.8 | 97.8 | 99.5 | 5 bar, 2.0 g/L Na2SO4, | This work |
| PA-PHMTBA | 43.1 | 99.0 | >100.0 | 5 bar, 2.0 g/L Na2SO4, | This work |