4.6 Article

Mixed Dimensional Nanostructure (UiO-66-Decorated MWCNT) as a Nanofiller in Mixed-Matrix Membranes for Enhanced CO2/CH4 Separation

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 43, 页码 11132-11140

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202101017

关键词

carbon dioxide; methane; mixed-matrix membranes; mixed-dimensional nanostructures; Schiff base reaction

资金

  1. Center of Research Excellence in Nanotechnology (CENT) at Research Institute of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in the Kingdom Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a mixed-matrix membrane (MMM) was developed using NH2-MWCNT and UiO-66-NH2 as nanofillers, creating a crosslinked mixed-dimensional nanostructure in a polysulfone (PSf) polymer matrix, leading to improved gas separation performance for CO2.
Mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) with combination of two distinct dimensional nanofillers (such as 1D-3D, 2D-3D, or 3D-3D, etc.) have drawn special attention for gas separation applications due to their concerted effects on gas permeation and mechanical properties. An amine-functionalized 1D multiwalled carbon nanotube (NH2-MWCNT) with exceptional mechanical strength and rapid gas transport was crosslinked with an amine-functionalized 3D metal-organic framework (UiO-66-NH2) with high CO2 affinity in a Schiff base reaction. The resultant crosslinked mixed-dimensional nanostructure was used as a nanofiller in a polysulfone (PSf) polymer matrix to explore the underlying synergy between 1D and 3D nanostructures on the gas separation performance of MMMs. Cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy and mapping revealed the homogenous dispersion of UiO-66@MWCNT in the polymer matrix. The MMM containing 5.0 wt. % UiO-66@MWCNT demonstrated a superior permeability 8.3 Barrer as compared to the 4.2 Barrer of pure PSf membrane for CO2. Moreover, the selectivity (CO2/CH4) of this MMM was enhanced to 39.5 from the 28.0 observed for pure PSf under similar conditions of pressure and temperature.

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