4.8 Review

Nanofluidics for osmotic energy conversion

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS MATERIALS
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 622-639

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41578-021-00300-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFA0206904, 2017YFA0206900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [21625303, 21905287, 21988102]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses nanofluidics-based osmotic energy conversion systems, exploring ion diffusion principles in nanofluidic systems, optimization of membrane architectures for increased energy conversion, and potential integration with other technologies such as water splitting.
The osmotic pressure difference between river water and seawater is a promising source of renewable energy. However, current osmotic energy conversion processes show limited power output, mainly owing to the low performance of commercial ion-exchange membranes. Nanofluidic channels with tailored ion transport dynamics enable high-performance reverse electrodialysis to efficiently harvest renewable osmotic energy. In this Review, we discuss ion diffusion through nanofluidic channels and investigate the rational design and optimization of advanced membrane architectures. We highlight how the structure and charge distribution can be tailored to minimize resistance and promote energy conversion, and examine the possibility of integrating nanofluidic osmotic energy conversion with other technologies, such as desalination and water splitting. Finally, we give an outlook to future applications and discuss challenges that need to be overcome to enable large-scale, real-world applications. Osmotic energy conversion is a promising renewable energy source. This Review discusses nanofluidics-based osmotic energy conversion systems, investigating the principles of ion diffusion in nanofluidic systems, optimization of membrane architectures to increase energy conversion and possible integration with other technologies, such as water splitting.

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