4.5 Review

A review of polymer-derived carbon molecular sieve membranes for gas separation

期刊

NEW CARBON MATERIALS
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 484-507

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-5805(22)60613-9

关键词

Precursor; Carbon molecular sieve membranes; Gas separation performance; Permeability; Selectivity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U21A2096, 52173090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane technology for gas separation and purification offers economic and environmental advantages. Carbon molecular sieve membranes (CMSMs) have superior gas permeability, selectivity, chemical resistance, and thermal stability compared to polymer membranes. The fabrication process and gas separation performance of CMSMs made from various precursors are summarized and discussed. The progress made in the last 20 years has significantly improved the gas separation performance of CMSMs, bringing their commercial use closer.
Membrane technology for gas separation and purification has unique economic and environmental advantages over conventional purification processes. Carbon molecular sieve membranes (CMSMs) have a higher gas permeability, selectivity, chemical resistance, and better thermal stability than polymer membranes, and have therefore received more attention. CMSMs are commonly fabricated by the pyrolysis of polymer precursors such as polyimides, resins, cellulose and polyetherimide. The reported fabrication process and gas separation performance of CMSMs made from various precursors are summarized and discussed. Both the chemical and physical structures of the precursor membranes affect the carbon structures and gas separation performances of the resulting CMSMs. Overall, the gas separation performance of CMSMs has been significantly improved in the last 20 years, and their possible commercial use is not far away. An in-depth understanding of this progress on CMSMs should provide researchers from different fields an understanding of how to promote their fabrication and applications.

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

4.5
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