4.5 Article

The Effects of Sulfonated Poly(ether ether ketone) Ion Exchange Preparation Conditions on Membrane Properties

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 182-195

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes3030182

关键词

sulfonated poly(ether ether ketone); SPEEK; bioelectrochemical systems; cation exchange membrane; low cost; ion exchange

资金

  1. Australian Research Council under the Discovery Project [DP110100539]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A low cost cation exchange membrane to be used in a specific bioelectrochemical system has been developed using poly(ether ether ketone) (PEEK). This material is presented as an alternative to current commercial ion exchange membranes that have been primarily designed for fuel cell applications. To increase the hydrophilicity and ion transport of the PEEK material, charged groups are introduced through sulfonation. The effect of sulfonation and casting conditions on membrane performance has been systematically determined by producing a series of membranes synthesized over an array of reaction and casting conditions. Optimal reaction and casting conditions for producing SPEEK ion exchange membranes with appropriate performance characteristics have been established by this uniquely systematic experimental series. Membrane materials were characterized by ion exchange capacity, water uptake, swelling, potential difference and NMR analysis. Testing this extensive membranes series established that the most appropriate sulfonation conditions were 60 degrees C for 6 h. For mechanical stability and ease of handling, SPEEK membranes cast from solvent casting concentrations of 15%-25% with a resulting thickness of 30-50 mu m were also found to be most suitable from the series of tested casting conditions. Drying conditions did not have any apparent impact on the measured parameters in this study. The conductivity of SPEEK membranes was found to be in the range of 10(-3) S cm(-1), which is suitable for use as a low cost membrane in the intended bioelectrochemical systems.

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