4.7 Article

High performance electrospun thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane by tailoring polyamide active layer with polydopamine interlayer for desulfulrization wastewater desalination

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 534, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2022.115781

关键词

Desalination; Desulfurization wastewater; Electrospun nanofiber membrane; Forward osmosis; Selectivity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978639]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Xiamen City [3502Z20191021]
  3. Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS [2019307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study successfully improved the performance of eTFC-FO membrane by fabricating a PDA interlayer on the ENM substrate, achieving high water flux and ions rejection.
The relatively poor selectivity of electrospun nanofiber membrane (ENM) substrate supported thin film com-posite forward osmosis (eTFC-FO) membranes has hindered their applications. In this study, to overcome the high roughness and large pore size of ENM substrate, a smooth and hydrophilic polydopamine (PDA) interlayer was fabricated on a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ENM, which was found to be favourable for the formation of a thinner, more cross-linked and less defective polyamide (PA) active layer on the ENM substrate. Desalination tests proved the great effectiveness of PDA interlayer on performance improvement for the eTFC-FO membrane. A quite high water flux (43.0 LMH) and ions rejection (>97.0%) were achieved for a real desulfurization wastewater desalination tested in FO mode. The alleviated PA defects by the PDA interlayer could greatly improve the selectivity. As a comparison with PDA interlayer, PDA coating on each individual nanofiber inside the PVDF ENM substrate was also prepared for eTFC-FO membrane, which would not overcome the disadvan-tages of rough and large pore sized ENM substrate for PA preparation. Mechanisms of PA formation and per-formance improvement were detailly discussed in this work.

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

4.7
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