4.7 Article

A comparative experimental study on the deviation of the ideal selectivity in HDTMS-functionalized and untreated ceramic structures with pores in the upper mesoporous range

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 253-261

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.06.042

关键词

Knudsen diffusion; Mesoporous ceramic membrane; Surface functionalization; Gas permeation; Carbon dioxide adsorption

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Research Training Group [GRK 1860]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mesoporous ceramic capillary membranes with mean pore sizes of about 20 nm are prepared as model structures to investigate the influence of an altered surface chemistry on the flow behavior of gases. To modify the membrane surface, a wet chemical silanization process with hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (HDTMS) is used to gain an alkyl-functionalized surface. Structural and surface characterizations show that the surface chemistry is altered without affecting the mean pore diameter. For the non-functionalized membrane, single gas permeation measurements at 20 degrees C reveal ideal permselectivities which are in good agreement with the Knudsen theory. In contrast, the HDTMS-functionalized membrane shows permselectivities regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) which deviate about 20% from Knudsen theory. The gas permeation measurements further indicate a relative flow enhancement for CO2 in comparison to nitrogen (N-2), argon (Ar) and methane (CH4). Adsorption and desorption isotherms of CO2 and N-2 at 20 degrees C show a decreased specific adsorption capacity for both gases, while the adsorption selectivity for CO2/N-2 is increased. This indicates a weaker interaction of gas molecules and membrane surface due to HDTMS functionalization. This weaker gas-solid interaction along with the increased adsorption selectivity is proposed as reason for the experimentally observed deviation of the permselectivities from Knudsen theory. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据