| Literature DB >> 36132639 |
Bofan Li1, Chen-Gang Wang1, Nayli Erdeanna Surat'man1, Xian Jun Loh1, Zibiao Li1,2.
Abstract
Membrane-based separations have been widely applied in gas, water and organic solvent purifications to reduce energy consumption and minimize environmental pollution. In recent years, graphene oxide (GO) membranes have attracted increasing attention due to their self-assembly ability and excellent stability. In this review, publications within the last 3 years on microscopically tuning the GO framework are summarized and reviewed. Various materials, including organic molecules, polymers, inorganic particles, ions and 2D materials, have been deployed to intercalate with GO nanosheets. Due to the varied interlayer spacing and packing structure, the developed GO composites exhibit enhanced stabilities and separation performances. In addition, designing horizontal GO membranes and functionalizing GO nanosheets have also been reported to improve the performance. This review sheds light on the techniques to microscopically tune the GO framework and the resulting macroscopic changes in membrane properties and performances. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 36132639 PMCID: PMC9417198 DOI: 10.1039/d1na00483b
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Fig. 1Number of publications on GO membranes in the past 10 years. The data were obtained on 27th May 2021 from Scopus by searching “graphene oxide” and “membrane” in the article title, abstract and keywords.
Fig. 2(a) Illustration of the transport mechanism in the GOM. Adapted from ref. 30 with permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, copyright 2014. (b) Correlation of solvent permeances with dielectric constant ε and solvent viscosity η. Adapted from ref. 21 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2018. (c) Correlation of the GO interlayer spacing with the solvent solubility distance of GO and solvent. Adapted from ref. 22 with permission from the American Chemical Society, copyright 2020.
A comparison of GOMs with different intercalates
| Intercalate type | Intercalate | Application | Permeability | Rejection or selectivity | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covalent cross-linking | Diamines | Pervaporation | 2297 g m−2 h−1 | Water concentration: 99.8 wt% |
|
| Diamines | Pervaporation | 19.7 kg m−2 h−1 | Ion rejection: 99.9% (3.5 wt% seawater at 90 °C) |
| |
| Amine-terminated polyamidoamine dendrimers | Water desalination | Water: 124 kg m−2 h−1; butanol: 9108 g m−2 h−1 | NaCl rejection: >99.99% |
| |
| Interfacial molecular bridges | Water purification | Water: 7.6–8.1 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Dye rejection: 98.3%–98.9% |
| |
| Cysteamine | Gas separation | H2: 51.5 × 10−6 cm3 (STP)/(cm2 s cmHg) | H2/CO2: 21.3 |
| |
| Polyethyleneimine | Nanofiltration | Water: 67.5–72.2 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Crystal violet and Victoria blue B rejection: >99% |
| |
| Polymer composite | PEG | Oil/water separation | Water: 4890 L m−2 h−1 | Oil: 100% |
|
| PDMAEMA | Nanofiltration | Water: 62.61 L m−2 h−1 MPa−1 | Congo red and methylene blue rejection: >95% |
| |
| Polyvinylidene fluoride- | Water purification | Water with bovine serum albumin: 113.4 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Bovine serum albumin rejection: 82.5% |
| |
| Lignin | Nanofiltration | Water: 1182 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Rhodamine B rejection: ∼100% |
| |
| PAN-GPs | Water purification | Cu-EDTA feed solution: 14.6 L m−2 h−1 | Cu-EDTA rejection: 99.2% |
| |
| Polypyrrole | Nanofiltration | Water: 21.14 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Crystal violet, eriochrome black T, Congo red, and trypan blue rejection: >99% |
| |
| Nanoparticle | SiO2 ( | Organic solvent nanofiltration | Methanol: 290 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Rose bengal: 91.9%; methylene blue: 45.8% |
|
| SiO2 | Nanofiltration | Water: 44.2 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Eosin Y: 97.2%; methyl orange: 91.0% |
| |
| EDA-SiO2 | Oil/water separation | Water: 330 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Oil: 99.4% |
| |
| Fe3O4 ( | Nanofiltration | Water: 296 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Rhodamine B: 98% |
| |
| NH2-Fe3O4 | Nanofiltration | Water: 15.6 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Congo red: 98%; methylene blue: 70%; NaCl: 15% |
| |
| POSS-NH2 | Gas separation | CO2: 16.5 × 10−6 cm3 (STP)/(cm2 s cmHg) | CO2/CH4: 74.5 |
| |
| ZIF-8 ( | Organic solvent nanofiltration | Methanol: ∼6800 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Rose bengal: 97%; rhodamine B: 57%; methylene blue: 15% |
| |
| ZIF-8 (ice templating and | Nanofiltration | Water: 60 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Methyl blue: 99%; vitamin B12: 90% |
| |
| Cation modification | Li+, Na+, K+, Ca2+ or Mg2+ ions | Ion sieving and separation | Water: 0.1–0.36 L m−2 h−1 | Ion rejection: >99% |
|
| K+ ion | Molecular separation and water purification | Water: 0.47 L m−2 h−1 | Mg2+ selectivity: 97.5% |
| |
| 2D material | Triazine-based COF | Nanofiltration | Water: 226.3 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | NaCl: 95.5%; methyl blue: 93.3% |
|
| COF, TpPa | Gas separation | H2: 1.067 × 10−6 mol m−2 s−1 Pa−1 | H2/CO2: 25.57 |
| |
| Glycine and g-C3N4 | Nanofiltration | Water: 207 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Methylene blue: 87%; Evans blue: 99% |
| |
| g-C3N4 | Nanofiltration | Water: 15.4 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Methylene blue: 92.6%; methyl orange: 41.2% |
| |
| TiO2 nanosheets | Nanofiltration | Water: 9.36 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | Methylene blue: 98.8%; methyl orange: 97.3% |
| |
| Horizontal membrane | Heat treatment | Gas separation | H2: 2253 × 10−6 cm3 (STP)/(cm2 s cmHg) | H2/CO2: 6.7 |
|
| Physical confinement | Water desalination | Water: 2–3 L m−2 h−1 bar−1 | NaCl: 97% |
|
Fig. 3(a) Structural diagram and properties of diamine-crosslinked GO membranes. Adapted with permission from ref. 28. American Chemical Society, Copyright 2014. (b) Schematic illustration and synthetic process of the nacre-mimetic membrane with GO and p-phenylenediamine. (c) Stress, hardness and elastic modulus of the nacre-mimetic crosslinked GO membrane. CA: crosslinker. Adapted with permission from ref. 38. American Chemical Society, copyright 2019. Schematic illustrations of the GO stacking structure in the (d) ethylene diamine-crosslinked GO and (e) polyethyleneimine (1800 Da)-crosslinked GO membranes. Reproduced with permission from ref. 43. Elsevier Science Ltd., copyright 2021.
Fig. 4(a) Schematic diagram for the mechanism of nacre-like GO–lignin composited membranes. The membrane structure is inspired by a frog's skin. (b) Schematic illustration of intercalating PAN-GPs to fabricate the PAN-GP-GO membrane. (c) The fluxes and rejections for heavy metal–organic complex anions. NTA: nitrilotriacetic acid; CA: citric acid; EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. (d) Variation of the flux and rejection for Cu-EDTA by the PAN-GO membrane with KOH treatment. Insets: schematic illustration of Cu-EDTA solution permeating behavior and image of the above solutions before and after filtration. Adapted with permission from ref. 49 and 50. American Chemical Society, copyright 2020.
Fig. 5(a) Schematic illustration of the d-spacing for GO, GO-Si1 and GO-Si2 membranes. GO was the pristine GO membrane, GO-Si1 was fabricated from GO nanosheets with the attachment of APTES and GO-Si2 was fabricated by filtering NaOH solution through GO-Si1. (b) The water permeance and rose bengal rejection of the GO, GO-Si1 and GO-Si2 membranes. Adapted with permission from ref. 55. The Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2019. (c) The relationship between the interlayer channel size and the loading of POSS-NH2. (d) The CO2 permeance and CO2/CH4 selectivity of the developed membrane with different POSS-NH2 loadings. Adapted with permission from ref. 59. Elsevier Science Ltd., copyright 2020. (e) Schematic illustration of the interlayer spacing and solvent flow of GO, GO/Zn2+ and GO/ZIF-8 membranes. Adapted with permission from ref. 60. Elsevier Science Ltd., copyright 2021.
Fig. 6(a) A bar graph depicting the interlayer spacings in angstroms when the GO membranes are immersed in pure water as compared to in KCl solutions (0.05 M to 1.50 M). (b) A bar graph depicting the Mg2+ permeation rates of untreated GO membranes as compared to treated membranes in KCl solutions (0.05 M to 1.50 M). Adapted with permission from ref. 63. Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2020. (c) A schematic illustration of the chemical crosslinking between GO and CTF and the transport pathway in the GO membrane and GO-CTF mixed membrane. Reproduced from ref. 65. American Chemical Society, copyright 2019. (d) A scheme illustrating the direction of gas permeation horizontally along the planes of graphene sheets. (e) The relationship of the gas permeation rate with interlayer spacing. Adapted from ref. 70. Elsevier Science Ltd, copyright 2020.
Fig. 7(a) Intercalation of La3+ (blue sphere) onto the nanosheets allowing permeation of methanol (C, black; H, white; O, red) but not other solute molecules (yellow sphere). As compared to SFGO, using LFGO makes the methanol molecule pass through a more tortuous and longer pathway, which causes lower methanol permeance. Adapted with permission from ref. 73. American Association for the Advancement of Science, copyright 2020. (b) A schematic illustration to depict the synthesis of graphene dispersions to decrease the flake size using bath sonication. (c) An illustration to demonstrate the combination of size exclusion and ionic charge repulsion utilised in SFGO as compared to LFGO when substances permeate through. Adapted with permission from ref. 74. Elsevier Science Ltd, copyright 2019.
Fig. 8(a) An illustration of the fabrication of GO membranes using chiral amplification. Adapted with permission from ref. 78. Royal Society of Chemistry, copyright 2020. (b) Left: An illustration of the preparation steps of functionalized graphene oxide (FGO) nanosheets using a one-step plasma processing method. Right: The chemical structure of graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets and plasma FGOMs. Adapted with permission from ref. 79. American Chemical Society, copyright 2021. (c) A schematic illustrating the synthetic pathway of PB-GO. BiBB: 2-bromo-2-methylpropanoyl bromide. Adapted with permission from ref. 80. Elsevier Science Ltd. Copyright 2020.