4.8 Article

Co-Deposition of Stimuli-Responsive Microgels with Foulants During Ultrafiltration as a Fouling Removal Strategy

Journal

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
Volume 11, Issue 20, Pages 18711-18719

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b03217

Keywords

stimuli responsive polymer; microgel; fouling reversibility; cake fouling; zwitterion; sulfobetaine

Funding

  1. TUBITAK [MAG 116M047]
  2. NSF [CBET 1437772]
  3. Middle East Technical University Research Fund [BAP-03-04-2017-001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we show that codeposition of temperature responsive microgels in the foulant cake layer and cleaning of the cake upon stimuli-induced size change of the microgels is an effective method of fouling removal. Humic acid in CaCl2 solution was used as a model foulant and poly(n-isopropylacrylamide) (p(NIPAm)) and poly(n-isopropylacrylamide-cosulfobetainemethacrylate) (p(NIPAm-co-SBMA)) were used as temperature responsive microgels. Filtrations were done below the lower critical solution temperature (LCST) and temperature was increased to above the LCST for cleaning. As an extra cleaning a temperature swing of above, below and then again above the LCST was applied. P(NIPAm) was found to be ineffective in cleaning the foulant deposit despite the 20-fold change in its volume with temperature change at LCST. P(NIPAm-co-SBMA) microgels, on the other hand, provided high fouling reversibility on hydrophilic poly(ether sulfone)(PES)/poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP) and hydrophobic PES membranes. Better fouling reversibility with these microgels was observed at low and high solution ionic strength. While the use of microgels alone increased fouling reversibility to some extent, even in the absence of temperature stimulus, 100% reversibility could only be obtained when a temperature switch was applied in the presence of microgels, showing the effect of microgels' volume change in cleaning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available