4.5 Article

Performances of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) ultrafiltration membranes modified with poly(vinyl pyrrolidone)

期刊

POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 11, 页码 2482-2492

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pen.24138

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [SR/FT/CS-22-2011]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure and performance of modified poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVdF-co-HFP) ultra-filtration membranes prepared from casting solutions with different concentrations of poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP) were investigated in this study. Membrane properties were studied in terms of membrane compaction, pure water flux (PWF), water content (WC), membrane hydraulic resistance (R-m), protein rejection, molecular weight cut-off (MWCO), average pore size, and porosity. PWF, WC, and thermal stability of the blend membranes increased whereas the crystalline nature and mechanical strength of the blend membranes decreased when PVP additive concentration was increased. The contact angle (CA) decreased as the PVP concentration increased in the casting solution, which indicates that the hydro-philicity of the surface increased upon addition of PVP. The average pore size and porosity of the PVdF-co-HFP membrane increased to 42.82 angstrom and 25.12%, respectively, when 7.5 wt% PVP was blended in the casting solution. The MWCO increased from 20 to 45 kDa with an increase in PVP concentration from 0 to 7.5 wt%. The protein separation study revealed that the rejection increased as the protein molecular weight increased. The PVdF-co-HFP/PVP blended membrane prepared from a 7.5 wt% PVP solution had a maximum flux recovery ratio of 74.3%, which explains its better antifouling properties as compared to the neat PVdF-co-HFP membrane. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 55:2482-2492, 2015. (c) 2015 Society of Plastics Engineers

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

4.5
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