4.5 Article

Preparation and characterization of novel PES-(SiO2-g-PMAA) membranes with antifouling and hydrophilic properties for separation of oil-in-water emulsions

期刊

POLYMERS FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES
卷 30, 期 9, 页码 2221-2232

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pat.4651

关键词

nanoparticles; oil-in-water emulsion; PES-(SiO2-g-PMAA) membranes; surface modification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, modification of nanoparticles (NPs) was investigated to mitigate aggregation of SiO2 nanoparticles and improve the polymeric membrane's performance. For this purpose, the surface of SiO2 nanoparticles was activated with amine groups, and polymethacrylic acid (PMAA) was grafted on the surface of NPs by atom transfer radical polymerization. Modified NPs were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) tests. Polyethersulfone (PES) membranes were fabricated with both SiO2 and SiO2-g-PMAA NPs via nonsolvent-induced phase separation method. The fabricated membranes were characterized regarding their permeability, hydrophilicity, and porosity properties, and their separation efficiency was tested using the synthetic oil-in-water emulsion. The surface and cross-sectional morphologies of membranes were observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM). The experimental trials showed that modified NPs dispersed more uniformly in the structure of membranes and hydroxyl groups on the surface of NPs acted more effectively. Modification of NPs enhance the membrane performance in terms of permeate flux, hydrophilicity, and porosity. NPs modification improved the permeate flux about 46%. Oil rejection for all tested membranes was more than 98%, and modification of NPs did not reduce the rejection of membranes. The optimum concentration was obtained as 1 wt.% and 1.5 wt.% for SiO2 and SiO2-g-PMAA, respectively. Aggregation effect dominated at concentrations beyond the optimum values that decreased the permeate flux, consequently.

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