| Literature DB >> 35736333 |
Yi Li1,2, Ruonan Gao1,2, Jianwen Zhang1,2, Yue Zhang1,2, Shuai Liang1,2.
Abstract
Membrane fouling severely hinders the sustainable development of membrane separation technology. Membrane wetting property is one of the most important factors dominating the development of membrane fouling. Theoretically, a hydrophilic membrane is expected to be more resistant to fouling during filtration, while a hydrophobic membrane with low surface energy is more advantageous during membrane cleaning. However, conventional membrane materials do not possess the capability to change their wettability on demand. In this study, a stainless steel mesh-sulfosuccinate-doped polypyrrole composite membrane (SSM/PPY(AOT)) was prepared. By applying a negative or positive potential, the surface wettability of the membrane can be switched between hydrophilic and relatively hydrophobic states. Systematic characterizations and a series of filtration experiments were carried out. In the reduction state, the sulfonic acid groups of AOT were more exposed to the membrane surface, rendering the surface more hydrophilic. The fouling filtration experiments verified that the membrane is more resistant to fouling in the hydrophilic state during filtration and easier to clean in the hydrophobic state during membrane cleaning. Furthermore, Ca2+ and Mg2+ could complex with foulants, aggravating membrane fouling. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of wettability switching in membrane filtration and suggests promising applications of the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane.Entities:
Keywords: antifouling; conductive membrane; electro-responsive; reversible wettability; smart membrane
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736333 PMCID: PMC9231251 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12060626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1(A) Schematic protocol for the preparation of the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane via electro-polymerization. (B) Illustration of the wettability switching behavior and the mechanism of the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane.
Chemistry of two synthetic foulant solutions for antifouling filtration tests.
| Items | Component | Concentration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foulant Solution I | Foulant Solution II | ||
| Organic (mg L−1) | Sodium alginate (SA) | 25 | 25 |
| Humic acid (HA) | 15 | 15 | |
| Bovine serum albumin (BSA) | 8 | 8 | |
| Inorganic (mM) | CaCl2 | 0 | 1 |
| MgCl2 | 0 | 0.5 | |
| NaHCO3 | 2 | 2 | |
| NaCl | 18 | 9 | |
Figure 2Characterizations of the SSM and SSM/PPY(AOT) membranes. SEM images of the (A) SSM and (B) SSM/PPY(AOT) membranes. Elemental mappings of the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane: (C) C, (D) N, (E) O, and (F) S. (G) FTIR spectra of the SSM and SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane. (H) Cyclic voltammetry curves for the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane.
Figure 3(A) Variation in measured water contact angles as the membrane switched between its oxidation (Ox) and reduction (Re) states. SEM views of the membrane in its (B) oxidation and (C) reduction states. (D) FTIR spectra and (E) XPS survey scans of the SSM/PPY(AOT) membrane in its original, oxidation, and reduction states.
Figure 4Comparison of antifouling performance in terms of (A) TMP variation, (B) TMP increasing rate, and (C) average TMP among the different operating modes (i.e., MR, MO, MOR, and MRO) with the synthetic foulant solution I (Table 1). Comparison of antifouling performance in terms of (D) TMP variation, (E) TMP increasing rate, and (F) average TMP among the different operating modes with the synthetic foulant solution II (Table 1).
Figure 5SEM views of the (A) pristine and (B) fouled SSM/PPY(AOT) membranes operated in the MRO mode in the antifouling filtration experiments with foulant solution II. (C) FTIR spectra and (D,E) XPS analyses of the pristine and fouled membranes.