4.5 Article

Development of porous nanocomposite membranes for gas separation by identifying the effective fabrication parameters with Plackett-Burman experimental design

Journal

JOURNAL OF POROUS MATERIALS
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 1279-1295

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10934-016-0187-y

Keywords

Porous nanocomposite; Mixed matrix membrane; Plackett-Burman experimental design; Gas separation; Alumina nanoparticles

Funding

  1. Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI) [83481047]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this research, Plackett-Burman experimental design was used as a screening method to investigate seven processing factors in the preparation of new polyethersulfone based porous nanocomposite membrane. Polymer concentration, nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, solvent type, solution mixing time, evaporation time, and annealing temperature are variables that were evaluated to fabricate mixed matrix membranes using the evaporation phase inversion method for gas separation. According to obtained results, polymer concentration, nanoparticle concentration, solution mixing time, and evaporation time processing factors had significant effects on gas permeation. In addition, the nanoparticle type, nanoparticle concentration, and polymer concentration had substantial effects on membrane selectivity. From analysis of variance, it was found that the model used for membrane gas permeability and membrane selectivity as response values were more reliable within spaced levels. Scanning electron microscope, gas permeation experiments and statistical analysis showed that polymer concentration, nanoparticle type, nanoparticle loading and evaporation time significantly affected the final membrane morphologies and performances. According to this study, trade-off limitation between gas permeability and membrane selectivity could be eliminated by identifying the effective fabrication parameters.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available