4.6 Article

Synthesis and characterization of PVC-TFC hollow fibers for forward osmosis application

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POLYMER SCIENCE
卷 138, 期 35, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/app.50871

关键词

membranes; morphology; separation techniques; poly(vinyl chloride); polyamides

资金

  1. Chemical Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology in Iraq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study for the first time uses PVC HF as support for TFC-FO membranes, demonstrating that membranes with lower PVC concentration have higher water flux. While decreasing PVC concentration reduces water flux, it also decreases salt flux.
Forward osmosis (FO) is considered among the most encouraging water desalination processes as a result of its high performance and low energy demand. Thin-film composite (TFC) hollow fibers (HF) were synthesized and examined in the FO process. Three different concentrations of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) support polymer were fabricated via the phase inversion technique. The polyamide layer was synthesized on the outer surface of the PVC-HF substrate via interfacial polymerization (IP) reaction. To the best of our knowledge, PVC HF was used in this research for the first time as a support for TFC-FO membranes. PVC HFs have high-quality specifications that are expected to have outstanding performance in TFC-FO applications, especially for water desalination. The obtained membranes were characterized using contact angle measurement, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscope and Fourier-transform Infrared. The performance of the PVC-TFC HF was examined in the FO under standard conditions. Results showed that the membrane fabricated with a lower concentration of PVC substrate exhibited higher water flux in comparison to the higher concentration PVC membrane. Changing the concentration of PVC from 15% to 18% reduced water flux from 25 to 13 L m(-2) h(-1); however, salt flux also decreased from 8 to 3 g m(-2) h(-1).

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

4.6
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