4.8 Article

Osmotic Pumping and Salt Rejection by Polyelectrolyte Hydrogel for Continuous Solar Desalination

期刊

ADVANCED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 9, 期 38, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201900552

关键词

ionic pumping; osmotic pressure; polyelectrolyte hydrogels; salt rejection; solar desalination

资金

  1. ACS PRF grant [54109-ND10]
  2. UC Solar Institute (UC Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives grant) [MR-15-328386]
  3. National Science Foundation [CMMI-1762560]
  4. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at UC San Diego
  5. Chinese Scholarship Council of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient mass transport and selective salt rejection are highly desirable for solar or thermally driven seawater desalination, but its realization is challenging. Here a new liquid supply mechanism is proposed, i.e., ionic pumping effect, using a polyelectrolyte hydrogel foam (PHF), demonstrated with poly(sodium acrylate) [P(SA)] embedded in a microporous carbon foam (CF). The PHF simultaneously possesses high osmotic pressure for liquid transport and a strong salt-rejection effect. The PHF is able to sustain high flux of approximate to 24 L per m(2) per hour (LMH), comparable to the evaporative flux under 15 suns, and a salt rejection ratio over 80%. Compared to the porous carbon foam without the polyelectrolyte hydrogel, i.e., with only the capillary pumping effect, the PHF yields a 42.4% higher evaporative flux, at approximate to 1.6 LMH with DI water and approximate to 1.3 LMH with simulated seawater under one-sun condition due to the more efficient ionic liquid pumping. More importantly, thanks to the strong salt-rejection effect, the PHF shows a continuous and stable solar-driven desalination flux of approximate to 1.3 LMH under one-sun over 72 h, which has not been achieved before. The successful demonstration of both efficient ionic pumping and strong salt rejection effects makes the PHF an attractive platform for sustainable solar-driven desalination.

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

4.8
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