4.6 Article

Characterizing NF and RO membrane surface heterogeneity using chemical force microscopy

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.01.024

Keywords

chemical force microscopy; membrane; chemical heterogeneity; AFM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chemical force microscopy (CFM) was used to characterize the chemical heterogeneity of two commercially available nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. CFM probes were modified with three different terminal functionalities: methyl (CH3) carboxyl (COOH), and hydroxyl (OH). Chemically distinct information about the membrane surfaces was deduced based on differences in adhesion between the CFM probes and the membrane surfaces using both traditional atomic force microscopy (AFM) force measurements and spatially resolved friction images. Contact angle titration and streaming potential measurements provided general information about surface chemistry and potential, which largely complemented the CFM analyses, but could not match the accuracy of CFM on the atomic level. Using CFM it was found that both membranes were characterized as chemically heterogeneous. Specifically, membrane chemical heterogeneity became more significant as the scan size approached colloidal or micron-sized dimensions. In many instances, the chemically unique regions, contributing to the overall chemical heterogeneity of the membrane surface, were substantially different in chemistry (e.g., hydrophobicity) from that determined for the surface at large from contact angel and streaming potential analyses. Topographical and corresponding CFNI images supports previous adhesion studies finding a correlation between surface roughness and the magnitude of adhesion measured with AFM. However, chemical specificity was also significant and in turn measurable with CFM. The implication of these findings for future membrane development is discussed. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available