4.4 Article

Design of block copolymer membranes using segregation strength trend lines

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS DESIGN & ENGINEERING
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 278-289

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6me00033a

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) [1671 - CRG2]
  2. National Science Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences under NSF [DMR-1332208]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Block copolymer self-assembly and non-solvent induced phase separation are now being combined to fabricate membranes with narrow pore size distribution and high porosity. The method has the potential to be used with a broad range of tailor-made block copolymers to control functionality and selectivity for specific separations. However, the extension of this process to any new copolymer is challenging and time consuming, due to the complex interplay of influencing parameters, such as solvent composition, polymer molecular weights, casting solution concentration, and evaporation time. We propose here an effective method for designing new block copolymer membranes. The method consists of predetermining a trend line for the preparation of isoporous membranes, obtained by computing solvent properties, interactions and copolymer block sizes for a set of successful systems and using it as a guide to select the preparation conditions for new membranes. We applied the method to membranes based on poly(styrene-b-ethylene oxide) diblocks and extended it to newly synthesized poly.styrene-b-2-vinyl pyridine-b-ethylene oxide) (PS-b-P2VP-b-PEO) terpolymers. The trend line method can be generally applied to other new systems and is expected to dramatically shorten the path of isoporous membrane manufacture. The PS-b-P2VP-b-PEO membrane formation was investigated by in situ Grazing Incident Small Angle X-ray Scattering (GISAXS), which revealed a hexagonal micelle order with domain spacing clearly correlated to the membrane interpore distances.

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

4.4
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