4.7 Article

Aluminosilicate Nanotubes Embedded Polyamide Thin Film Nanocomposite Forward Osmosis Membranes with Simultaneous Enhancement of Water Permeability and Selectivity

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym11050879

关键词

forward osmosis; imogolite nanotubes; polyamide; water permeability; selectivity

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY18E030002]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo [2018A610111]
  3. Key Laboratory of Marine Materials and Related Technologies [2016K07]
  4. K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanocomposite membranes are strongly desired to break a trade-off between permeability and selectivity. This work reports new thin film nanocomposite (TFN) forward osmosis (FO) membranes by embedding aluminosilicate nanotubes (ANTs) into a polyamide (PA) rejection layer. The surface morphology and structure of the TFN FO membranes were carefully characterized by FTIR, XPS, FESEM and AFM. The ANTs incorporated PA rejection layers exhibited many open and broad leaf-like folds with ridge-and-valley structures, high surface roughness and relatively low cross-linking degree. Compared with thin film composite (TFC) membrane without ANTs, the TFN membrane with only 0.2 w/v% ANTs loading presented significantly improved FO water permeability, selectivity and reduced structural parameters. This promising performance can be mainly contributed to the special ANTs embedded PA rejection layer, where water molecules preferentially transport through the nanochannels of ANTs. Molecular dynamic simulation further proved that water molecules have much larger flux through the nanotubes of ANTs than sodium and chloride ions, which are attributed to the intrinsic hydrophilicity of ANTs and low external force for water transport. This work shows that these TFN FO membranes with ANTs decorated PA layer are promising in desalination applications due to their simultaneously enhanced permeability and selectivity.

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