4.7 Article

Preparation of full-bio-based nanofiltration membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 618, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118674

关键词

Glycerol derivatives; Cellulose acetate; Bio-based solvents; Polymeric membranes; NanofiItration

资金

  1. KU Leuven
  2. FWO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulose acetate, glycerol derivatives, and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran were selected as bio-based ingredients for nanofiltration membrane preparation via non-solvent induced phase separation. Membrane performance and morphology were investigated, with the best membranes obtained using diacetin as a solvent and 2-MeTHF as co-solvent. Evaporation step prior to coagulation was found to impact rejection rates, particularly in the case of diacetin and triacetin solvents.
Cellulose acetate (CA) as polymer, glycerol derivatives (namely triacetin, diacetin, monoacetin or glycerolformal) as solvents and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (2-MeTHF) as co-solvent were selected as bio-based ingredients for the preparation of full-blo-bascd nanofiltration membranes via non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS). Membrane performance was investigated using an aqueous rose bengal (1017Da) solution (RB/H2O) as feed. Membrane morphologies were characterized using SEM (scanning electron microscopy). Both kinetic and thermodynamic aspects of the phase inversion process were studied in detail to gain more insight in the membrane formation process. When implementing a 90s evaporation step prior to coagulation, rejection increased with increasing 2-MeTHF concentration in the casting solution in the case of diacetin and triacetin solvents. In the case of monoacetin and glycerol-formal based casting solutions, evaporation had a less significant impact on RB rejection even though the same volatile co-solvent was used. The best membranes were finally obtained using diacetin as a solvent and 2-MeTHF as co-solvent with permeances ranging from 5.5 to 12.8 L/m(2) h bar for membranes with >90% RB rejections.

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