4.7 Article

Hyperbranched-polyol-tethered poly (amic acid) electrospun nanofiber membrane with ultrahigh adsorption capacity for boron removal

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 402, 期 -, 页码 21-30

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.01.070

关键词

Nanofiber membrane; Electrospinning; Boron removal; Surface grafting; Adsorption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21574100, 21274108]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2014CB660813]
  3. MOE Key Laboratory of Macromolecular Synthesis and Functionalization, Zhejiang University [2015MSF005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of efficient adsorbents with high sorption capacity remains as a challenge for the removal of micropollutants occurred globally in water resources. In this work, poly (amic acid) (PAA) electrospun nanofiber membranes grafted with hyperbranched polyols were synthesized and used for boron removal. The PAA nanofiber was reacted with hyperbranched polyethylenimine (HPEI) and further with glycidol to introduce the vicinal hydroxyl groups. The chemical composition and surface characteristics of the obtained PAA-g-PG membranes were evaluated by FESEM, FTIR, XPS and water contact angles (WCA) measurements. The boron adsorption thermodynamics and kinetics were investigated systematically. The results showed that the PAA nanofiber spun from concentration of 15% had uniform morphology and narrow diameter distribution. The PAA-g-PG nanofiber membrane had a maximum boron uptake of 5.68 mmol/g and could adsorb 0.82 mmol/g boron from a 5 mg/L solution in 15 min. Both the high surface area of nanofibers and the hyperbranched structure should contribute to the high boron uptake and high adsorption rate. The nanofiber membrane obeyed the Langmuir adsorption model and the pseudo-first-order kinetic model. The regeneration efficiency of the nanofiber membrane remained 93.9% after 10 cycled uses, indicating good regenerability of the membrane. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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