4.4 Article

Investigation of cellulose acetate and ZIF-8 mixed matrix membrane for CO2 separation from model biogas

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2023.2192366

关键词

Cellulose acetate membrane; ZIF-8 mixed matrix membrane; MMMs for CO2 separation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, biodegradable cellulose acetate (CA) based mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) with varying weight percentages (2-20 wt.%) of ZIF-8 were tested for CO2 separation from a model biogas mixture. MMMs with 5% and 10% ZIF-8 content showed the best performance, with CO2 permeabilities of 9.65 Barrer and 9.5 Barrer, approximately two times higher than pure CA, and CO2/CH4 selectivities of 10.37 and 15.3.
The separation of CO2 from the biogas mixtures (CH4/CO2) is essential for biogas upgradation. However, polymer membranes used for CO2 separation exhibit low permeability. Mixed Matrix Membranes (MMMs) incorporating inorganic filler in the polymer enhance CO2 separation. In this work, bio-degradable cellulose acetate (CA) based MMMs with varying filler weight percentages (2-20 wt.%) of ZIF-8 were studied for the separation of CO2 from a model biogas (CH4/CO2) mixture. The MMMs were characterized by analysis of TGA and DSC for thermal stability and FTIR for alteration or formation of any new functional group. FESEM was done to evaluate the dispersion and interaction of ZIF-8 in the CA polymer matrix. Considering the economic aspect, the fabricated MMMs were tested for gas separation performance at reasonably lower feed pressure (1.5, 2 bar). MMM with 5 and 10 wt.% of ZIF-8/ CA MMMs showed the best performance with CO2 permeability of 9.65 Barrer and 9.5 Barrer, approximately two folds as compared to pure CA, and CO2/CH4 selectivity was 10.37 and 15.3. The experimental results were compared with the predicted gas permeation results determined using MMM transport predictive models, and found that the permeabilities were higher than the model predictions.

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