2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.06.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Change of surface morphology, permeate flux, surface roughness and water contact angle for membranes with similar physicochemical characteristics (except surface roughness) during microfiltration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the further detailed study is necessary to clarify the reason for the decrease in surface roughness. A similar result was also reported by Woo and research team 20 in their recently published work. The hydrophilicity of prepared membranes with various content of SiO2 was also investigated by water contact angle as presented in Figure 4.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, the further detailed study is necessary to clarify the reason for the decrease in surface roughness. A similar result was also reported by Woo and research team 20 in their recently published work. The hydrophilicity of prepared membranes with various content of SiO2 was also investigated by water contact angle as presented in Figure 4.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, seen from Figures 10 and 11 again, when 5% PEG was blended with the PES casting solution, the CA of the PES/PEG5% hybrid membrane surface reduced to 68.3° (74.8° of PES membrane), but FRR 1st (74.3%) was significantly lower than that of PES/PA-OH5% (85.2%) hybrid membrane and even lower than that of PES/PA-OH3% (82.1%) hybrid membrane, which was explained that PEG molecules acting as pore-forming agents were easily soluble in water and had the weaker force with the membrane matrix during Non solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) process, which caused almost all of PEG molecules to migrate from the membrane matrix to the coagulation bath, resulting in the so-called oversegregation 20 ; in addition, the PES/PEG5% hybrid membrane had the largest roughness in all the prepared membranes (Table 3), which was also detrimental to the cleaning of the membrane. 34 In summary, it was a matter of course that the addition of PEG did not significantly improve the antifouling performance of the PES UF membrane. Thus, although the PWF of PES/PEG5% hybrid membrane in the first cycle was the highest in all the prepared PES hybrid membranes, after the second cycle, the PWF ( J w3 ) of PES/PEG5% hybrid membrane was significantly lower than that of the PES/PA-OH3% and PES/PA-OH 5% hybrid membranes (seen from the flux-time curves of Figure 6).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Yet, the water CA was determined not only by the chemical composition of the membrane surface but also by the morphology of the membrane surface (including roughness, porosity, pore size and pore size distribution), meanwhile, the latter was also another factor that affected the antifouling performance of membranes. 34…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some membrane properties influenced the filtration performance, including hydrophilicity, roughness, porosity, and charge. Those properties dictate the interaction between the molecules in the feed and membrane surface [34,35].…”
Section: Membrane Performance In α-La Solution Filtrationmentioning
confidence: 99%