4.7 Article

Gas separation performance of C/CMS membranes derived from poly (furfuryl alcohol) (PFA) with different chemical structure

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 361, 期 1-2, 页码 22-27

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.06.018

关键词

Chemical structure; Carbon membranes; Gas separation; Poly(furfuryl alcohol)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20276008, 20776024, 20836006, 20976021]
  2. National High-tech Research and Development Project of China [2009AA03Z215]
  3. Visiting Scholar Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals in Dalian University of Technology [KF0705]
  4. Scientific Research Project for Higher Education Institutes of Education Department of Liaoning Province [2009A098]
  5. Young Teacher Foundation of Dalian Maritime University [DLMU-ZL-200817]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon molecular sieve (CMS) membranes derived from two kinds of PFAs synthesized by oxalic acid and iodine catalyst were prepared respectively. In order to investigate the effect of chemical structure of the PFAs on properties of their CMS membranes, TG, FTIR, XRD and HRTEM were employed to characterize the microstructural change of CMS membranes during pyrolysis. Gas separation performance of CMS membranes was also investigated by molecular probe study with pure gases (H-2, CO2, O-2, N-2 and CH4). The results show two kinds of PFAs are composed of a large amount of same function groups by different cross-linking style, which was confirmed by their similar MR spectra and slightly different TG curves. After pyrolysis, there are significant differences in microstructure and gas permeation for resultant CMS membranes. The PFA-OA carbon membrane exhibits high carbon yield, smaller d(0) (02) value (interlayer spacing) and short, slightly irregular but roughly parallel fringes in HRTEM. In contrast, the PFA-I carbon membrane shows a higher gas permeability and lower gas permselectivity in gas permeation experiments. (C) 2010 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