4.5 Article

New high permeable polysulfone/ionic liquid membrane for gas separation

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 2301-2311

出版社

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY PRESS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjche.2020.04.002

关键词

Membrane; CO2/CH4 separation; Polysulfone; Ionic liquid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the effects of 1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ionic liquid on CO2/CH4 separation performance of symmetric polysulfone membranes are investigated. Pure polysulfone membrane and ionic liquid-containing membranes are characterized. Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) is used to analyze surface morphology and thickness of the fabricated membranes. Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and elemental mapping, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), thermal gravimetric (TGA), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Tensile strength analyses are also conducted to characterize the prepared membranes. CO2/CH4 separation performance of the membranes are measured twice at 0.3 MPa and room temperature (25 degrees C). Permeability measurements confirm that increasing ionic liquid content in polymer-ionic liquid membranes leads to a growth in CO2 permeation and CO2/CH4 selectivity due to high affinity of the ionic liquid to carbon dioxide. CO2 permeation significantly increases from 4.3 Barrer (1 Barrer=10(-10) cm(3)(STP) . cm.cm(-2).s(-1).cmHg(-1), 1cmHg=1.333kPa) for the pure polymer membrane to 601.9 Barrer for the 30 wt% ionic liquid membrane. Also, selectivity of this membrane is improved from 82 to 25.8. mixed gas tests are implemented to investigate gases interaction. The results showed, the disruptive effect of CH4 molecules for CO2 permeation lead to selectivity decrement compare to pure gas test. The fabricated membranes with high ionic liquid content in this study are promising materials for industrial CO2 /CH4 separation membranes. (C) 2020 The Chemical Industry and Engineering Society of China, and Chemical Industry Press Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.

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