4.7 Article

Dual-layer polybenzimidazole/polyethersulfone (PBI/PES) nanofiltration (NF) hollow fiber membranes for heavy metals removal from wastewater

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 456, 期 -, 页码 117-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2014.01.001

关键词

Heavy metal; Dual-layer hollow fiber membrane; Nanofiltration

资金

  1. Research Centre for Analysis and Measurement of Gansu Province [R-279-000-360-597]
  2. GSK-EDB Trust Fund [R-706-000-019-592]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have designed and characterized a high performance dual-layer nanofiltration (NE) hollow fiber membrane for effective removal of heavy metal ions (Cd2+, Cr2O72- and Pb2+) from model wastewater. The membrane was fabricated by the simultaneous co-extrusion of polybenzimidazole (PM) and polyethersulfone (PES)/polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) dopes through a triple-orifice spinneret using a dry-jet wet phase inversion process. PBI was chosen as the outer selective layer because of its superior chemical resistance and unique charge characteristics, while a PES/PVP blend was employed as the support layer because its reasonable cost, superior spinnerablity, hydrophilic nature, good mechanical properties and easy formation of porous membranes. In addition, PVP is miscible with both FBI and PES. The newly developed dual-layer NF membrane has superior rejections to various salts. The rejections of the membrane to Mg2+ and Cd2+ achieve 98% and 95%, respectively. By changing the pH of the solution, the rejections to Cr2O72- and Pb2+ can reach more than 98% and 93%, correspondingly. Experimental results indicate that the high rejections are owing to the following factors: (1) a narrow pore size distribution membrane with a mean effective pore radius of 0.32 nm and a molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of 249 Da; (2) an enhanced Donnan exclusion effect due to the amphoteric PBI charge property; (3) low adsorptions of heavy metals on the PM surface due to its hydrophilic nature. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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