4.7 Article

Graphene oxide - Filled polyimide membranes in pervaporative separation of azeotropic methanol-MTBE mixtures

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 224, 期 -, 页码 265-272

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.05.034

关键词

Pervaporation; Matrimid (R) 5218; Graphene oxide; Methanol (MeOH); Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE); Mixed matrix membranes (MMMs)

资金

  1. European Commission Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) under the program: Erasmus Mundus Doctorate in Membrane Engineering -EUDIME [2011-0014]
  2. Operational Program Prague - Competitiveness [CZ.2.16/3.1.00/24501]
  3. National Program of Sustainability [(NPU I LO1613) MSMT-43760/2015]
  4. Spanish MINECO
  5. FEDER [MAT2016-77290-R]
  6. Aragon Government [T43-17R]
  7. ESF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene oxide (GO)-polyimide mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) were produced using chloroform by solvent evaporation. These membranes have been used, for the first time, in pervaporation (PV) for the separation of azeotropic methanol (MeOH)- methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) mixtures (14.3 and 85.7%, respectively). The effect of GO loading in the PV process was investigated. The PV experiments were carried out at different feed operating temperatures (25-45 degrees C). Furthermore, an analysis of the PV process through the Arrhenius relationship has been given. The feed temperature (in the range of 25-45 degrees C) affected the permeation of both components producing an increase in total permeate flux; however, separation factor was compromised. Indeed, the best permeate fluxes (ca. 0.091 kg m(-2) h(-1)) of the MMMs (4 wt% GO) were found at 45 degrees C, while the best separation factor (alpha = 28) was found at 1 wt% GO at 25 degrees C. In addition, the membranes were characterized by TGA, SEM, DSC, solvent uptake and mechanical test (Young's modulus). Finally, the performance of the GO-polyimide membranes was compared with other polymeric and MMMs membranes at the azeotropic conditions.

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