4.6 Review

Supported ionic liquid and polymer inclusion membranes for metal separation

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION REVIEWS
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 100-116

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15422119.2020.1846564

关键词

Supported liquid membrane; polymer inclusion membrane; ionic liquids; membrane stability; solvent extraction

资金

  1. Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supported liquid membranes and polymer inclusion membranes are interesting technologies for extraction of metal ions, but face limitations in process lifetime. Recent studies suggest that using ionic liquids could extend the lifetime of these processes.
Background: Supported liquid membranes (SLMs) and polymer inclusion membranes (PIMs) are an interesting technology for the recovery and separation of metal ions. This kind of membranes could provide the advantages of hydrometallurgy (i.e. high selectivity, possibility to treat low concentration of metals horizontal ellipsis ) without needing a large organic solvent inventory. Problem: However, the large-scale application of SLMs is limited because of the short lifetime of the process. Several authors claimed a longer lifetime when molecular diluents were replaced by ionic liquids (ILs). Possible solutions: In this review, recent advances on the extraction of metals from aqueous solutions using SLMs and PIMs based on ILs are summarized and discussed. The mechanisms of degradation are reported and the improvements as well as limitations outlined. In SLMs, ILs were shown to improve membrane stability. However, stability is improved with viscous ILs having low solubility in water. ILs were used in PIMs as plasticizers and/or carriers and have shown their potential. However, the effect of ILs on PIM structure is not fully understood. To date, extraction of anionic metallic species is the most relevant field of study for SLMs and PIMs. A larger variety of ILs could be studied to apply this technique for a broader range of metals.

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