4.5 Review

Investigation of Cross-Linked and Additive Containing Polymer Materials for Membranes with Improved Performance in Pervaporation and Gas Separation

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 727-763

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/membranes2040727

关键词

pervaporation; separation; photocrosslinking; membranes; permeability; permselectivity; mixed-matrix membranes; mechanism; crosslinking degree; photochemistry; metal-organic frameworks; MOFs; porosity

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [KL 531/29-1]
  2. Anton-Betz-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pervaporation and gas separation performances of polymer membranes can be improved by crosslinking or addition of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). Crosslinked copolyimide membranes show higher plasticization resistance and no significant loss in selectivity compared to non-crosslinked membranes when exposed to mixtures of CO2/CH4 or toluene/cyclohexane. Covalently crosslinked membranes reveal better separation performances than ionically crosslinked systems. Covalent interlacing with 3-hydroxypropyldimethylmaleimide as photocrosslinker can be investigated in situ in solution as well as in films, using transient UV/Vis and FTIR spectroscopy. The photocrosslinking yield can be determined from the FTIR-spectra. It is restricted by the stiffness of the copolyimide backbone, which inhibits the photoreaction due to spatial separation of the crosslinker side chains. Mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) with MOFs as additives (fillers) have increased permeabilities and often also selectivities compared to the pure polymer. Incorporation of MOFs into polysulfone and Matrimid polymers for MMMs gives defect-free membranes with performances similar to the best polymer membranes for gas mixtures, such as O-2/N-2 H-2/CH4, CO2/CH4, H-2/CO2, CH4/N-2 and CO2/N-2 (preferentially permeating gas is named first). The MOF porosity, its particle size and content in the MMM are factors to influence the permeability and the separation performance of the membranes.

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