4.7 Article

Latex particle rejections from virgin and mixed charged surface polycarbonate track etched membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 584, 期 -, 页码 110-119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.04.065

关键词

Microfiltration membranes; Membrane surface modification; Surface charge; Membrane fouling

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET grant] [1604715]
  2. Federal State of Germany
  3. Free State of Saxony
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1604715] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the impact of membrane surface characteristics on particle rejections was experimentally examined for virgin and surface modified polycarbonate track etched microporous membranes with different pore sizes. The membrane surface was modified by covalently binding tetraethylpentamine, resulting in changes in measured zeta potential. The zeta potential of the modified membranes was pH sensitive, indicating these membranes had mixed surface charges, with the tetraethylpentamine binding to only a fraction of the carboxylic acid groups on the original polycarbonate surface. There was no observable change in pore size with the surface modification. Rejections of 0.71 mu m diameter negatively charged spherical red fluorescent latex particles were measured under conditions where the virgin membranes carry a strong negative charge and the surface modified membranes carry a net zero charge. Observed particle rejections from both types of membranes were two to three times larger than predictions based on steric particle-membrane interactions. These results are interpreted by considering particle adsorption to the membrane surface which is greater for the modified membranes than for the virgin membranes. This work demonstrates that mixed charged membrane surfaces show enhanced fouling, in contrast to previous studies which have shown reduced fouling for membranes with zwitterionic surfaces.

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