4.7 Article

The rheology of Torlon® solutions and its role in the formation of ultra-thin defect-free Torlon® hollow fiber membranes for gas separation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 326, 期 2, 页码 608-617

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.10.038

关键词

Torlon (R) poly(amide imide); Rheology; Defect-free; Ultra-thin; Gas separation

资金

  1. Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF) [R-279-000-261-281]
  2. A-Star
  3. National University of Singapore (NUS) [R-279-000-218-305]
  4. UOP
  5. Mitsui
  6. Merck [WBS N-279-000008-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fundamental understanding of the material science and theological engineering to fabricate Torlon (R) 4000T-MV and 4000TF hollow fiber membranes with an ultra-thin and defect-free dense-selective layer for gas separation has been revealed. We have firstly investigated the rheology of Torlon (R) 4000T-MV and 4000TF dope solutions, and then determined the effect of temperature-correlated shear and elongational viscosities on the formation of Torlon (R) fibers for gas separation. Interestingly, Torlon (R) 4000T-MV and 4000TF possess different theological characteristics: the elongational viscosity of Torlon (R) 4000T-MV/NMP solution shows strain thinning, while Torlon (R) 4000TF/NMP solution shows strain hardening. The balanced viscoelastic properties of dope solutions, which are strongly dependent on the spinning temperature, have been found to be crucial for the formation of a defect-free dense layer. The optimum theological properties to fabricate Torlon (R) 400OT-MV/NMP hollow fibers appear at about 48-50 degrees C, and the resultant fibers have an O-2/N-2 selectivity of 8.37 and an apparent dense layer thickness of 781 angstrom. By comparison, the best Torlon (R) 4000TF fibers were spun at 24 degrees C with an O-2/N-2 selectivity of 8.96 and a dense layer of 1116 angstrom. The CO2/CH4 selectivity of the above two Torlon (R) variants is 47 and 53.5, respectively. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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