4.4 Article

Feasibility of hydrophobized PES membrane in hybrid MD/FO process using magnetic draw solution

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 1557-1565

出版社

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-021-1058-z

关键词

Membrane Distillation; PES Membrane Modification; PMHS Polymer; Osmotic Pressure; Draw Solution

资金

  1. Babol Noshirvani University of Technology [BNUT/389026/00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feasibility of using hydrophobic PES membranes as porous polymeric support in membrane distillation (MD) process was studied. The membranes were modified with a hydrophobic polymer to increase salt rejection and improve permeate flux. The use of a draw solution containing magnetic nanoparticles further increased water flux.
The feasibility of PES membrane with hydrophobic property, high glass transition temperature, excellent thermal and chemical stability, with good mechanical properties as porous polymeric support was studied in membrane distillation (MD) process. Several strategies were considered and investigated to decrease membrane wetting by keeping up salt rejection and also to improve the permeate flux of PES membrane in the MD process. From this point of view, hydrophobic PMHS polymer with different concentrations was used as a surface coating solution. The morphology and structure of prepared membranes were evaluated by AFM and FESEM analyses. After coating modification, the salt rejection was increased up to 98% and the contact angle was changed from 65.11 degrees to >100.2 degrees. To increase the water flux, the effect of feed temperature (55 degrees C and 75 degrees C) and draw solution utilization containing magnetic nanoparticle (Fe3O4) was investigated. Using draw solution provided a driving force from feed solution to permeate side and increased average permeate flux from 2.9 kg/m(2)center dot h to 6.9 kg/m(2)center dot h in the 0.06 g/l of draw solute concentration. It improved permeate flux and salt rejection simultaneously.

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

4.4
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