4.8 Article

Selective Molecular Separation on Ti3C2Tx-Graphene Oxide Membranes during Pressure-Driven Filtration: Comparison with Graphene Oxide and MXenes

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 9, 期 51, 页码 44687-44694

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b10932

关键词

nanofiltration; MXene; graphene oxide; membrane; two-dimensional materials

资金

  1. Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (MSIP) [2015R1A2A1A05001844]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education [2015R1A6A3A04057367]
  3. Climate Change Research Hub of KAIST [N1117056]
  4. Leading Foreign Research Institute Recruitment Program - MSIP [2016K1A4A3945038]
  5. Korean National Research Foundation via the NNFC-KAIST-Drexel Nano2 Co-op Center [NRF-2015K1A4A3047100]
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A6A3A04057367, 2015K1A4A3047100, 2015R1A2A1A05001844] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we prepared 90 nm thick Ti3C2Tx-graphene oxide (GO) membranes laminated on a porous support by mixing GO with Ti3C2Tx. This process was chosen to prevent the penetration of target molecules through inter-edge defects or voids with poor packing. The lattice period of the prepared membrane was 14.28 angstrom, as being swelled with water, resulting in an effective interlayer spacing of around 5 angstrom, which corresponds to two layers of water molecules. The composite membranes effectively rejected dye molecules with hydrated radii above 5 angstrom, as well as positively charged dye molecules, during pressure-driven filtration at bar. Rejection rates were 68% for methyl red, 99.5% for methylene blue, 93.5% for rose Bengal, and 100% for brilliant blue (hydrated radii of 4.87, 5.04, 5.88, and 7.98 angstrom, respectively). Additionally, the rejections of composite membrane were compared with GO membrane and Ti3C2Tx membrane.

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

4.8
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