4.7 Article

Microfiltration performance of electrospun nanofiber membranes with varied fiber diameters and different membrane porosities and thicknesses

期刊

POLYMER
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 64-72

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2017.02.084

关键词

Electrospinning; Nanofiber membrane separation; Microfiltration

资金

  1. US Air Force Civil Engineering Center [FA4819-14-C-0004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrospun nanofiber membranes (with varied fiber diameters and different membrane porosities and thicknesses) have been explored as innovative microfiltration media for the highly efficient and cost-effective removal of contaminations with particle sizes of 0.2 mm (even 0.1 mm) from water. For the first time, the membrane porosity has been judiciously adjusted/controlled by a facile hot-pressing method; and the relationships between membrane properties and microfiltration performances have been systematically investigated. Upon the hot-pressing process, the membrane porosity could be significantly decreased from similar to 86% to as low as similar to 34%, further leading to the substantial increase of rejection fraction from 0% to similar to 100% for 0.2 mm particles; moreover, some of these membranes (consisting of small diameter nanofibers) that were hot-pressed with relatively high pressure could even reject all of 0.1 mm particles. As compared to conventional microfiltration media, these membranes exhibited significantly higher flux values and substantially lower degrees of fouling without distinguishably sacrificing particle rejection fractions. For example, the rejection fraction and permeate flux value of one membrane (fiber diameters: similar to 150-250 nm, membrane porosity: similar to 40%) were similar to 99.3% and similar to 71.2.L.h(-1).m(-2).psi(-1) at 13 mL volume fed, respectively, indicating that electrospun nanofiber membranes might be highly promising for microfiltration applications (particularly water purification). (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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