2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.09.296
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation of alumina based tubular asymmetric membranes incorporated with coal fly ash by centrifugal casting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“… Porosity (∼34.36–39.0 %), pore size (∼0.65–1.81 μm) flexural strength (∼10–30 mpa) [ 83 ] SiC-Coal fly ash ceramic membranes dry pressing method Polyvinyl alcohol Graphite- pore former Porosity 54.46 % exhibited good, mechanical properties [ 79 ] Coal fly ash ceramic membrane extrusion method Dolomite used as a pore-forming Carboxymethyl cellulose (cmc) used as a binder Glycerin used as a plasticizer , Large particles reduced mechanical strength of fly ash based membranes while increasing porosity. [ 104 ] Lumina based tubular asymmetric membranes incorporated with coal fly ash Centrifugalcasting technique Increased porosity and enhanced water permeability coincide with reduced mechanical strength and diminished linear shrinkage [ 105 ] High-aluminum coal fly ash ceramic membrane supports Uniaxial cold-pressing PVA solution as organic binder CaCO 3 pore forming agent Mechanical strengths 34–90 MPa [ 86 ] Coal fly ash-based tubular ceramic membrane Extrusion Dextrin as pore-forming agent CMC, as organic binder Glycerin, to improve the plasticity Porosity 38.9−45.9 % Mechanical strength 14.8−36.0 MPa [ 84 ] Fly ash cenosphere ceramic membrane uniaxial pressing organic binder PVA- CaCO 3 - pore forming agent Porosity 59.25 % Mechanical strength 70 ± 2.58 MPa [ 81 ] Tubular supported ceramic microfiltration membranes from fly ash Slip- casting Dispersant lomar-d Binder dsx 3290 ...…”
Section: Synthesis Of Coal Fly Ash Based Ceramic Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Porosity (∼34.36–39.0 %), pore size (∼0.65–1.81 μm) flexural strength (∼10–30 mpa) [ 83 ] SiC-Coal fly ash ceramic membranes dry pressing method Polyvinyl alcohol Graphite- pore former Porosity 54.46 % exhibited good, mechanical properties [ 79 ] Coal fly ash ceramic membrane extrusion method Dolomite used as a pore-forming Carboxymethyl cellulose (cmc) used as a binder Glycerin used as a plasticizer , Large particles reduced mechanical strength of fly ash based membranes while increasing porosity. [ 104 ] Lumina based tubular asymmetric membranes incorporated with coal fly ash Centrifugalcasting technique Increased porosity and enhanced water permeability coincide with reduced mechanical strength and diminished linear shrinkage [ 105 ] High-aluminum coal fly ash ceramic membrane supports Uniaxial cold-pressing PVA solution as organic binder CaCO 3 pore forming agent Mechanical strengths 34–90 MPa [ 86 ] Coal fly ash-based tubular ceramic membrane Extrusion Dextrin as pore-forming agent CMC, as organic binder Glycerin, to improve the plasticity Porosity 38.9−45.9 % Mechanical strength 14.8−36.0 MPa [ 84 ] Fly ash cenosphere ceramic membrane uniaxial pressing organic binder PVA- CaCO 3 - pore forming agent Porosity 59.25 % Mechanical strength 70 ± 2.58 MPa [ 81 ] Tubular supported ceramic microfiltration membranes from fly ash Slip- casting Dispersant lomar-d Binder dsx 3290 ...…”
Section: Synthesis Of Coal Fly Ash Based Ceramic Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A preparação de membranas poliméricas também pode ser realizada por outros métodos além dos citados até agora no texto, sobretudo pelo método da extrusão, alongamento, gravação em trilha, sinterização, lixiviação por molde (template), revestimento por imersão, processo sol-gel, eletrofiação, impressão/moldagem suave, impressão 3D e outros. 66,81,82…”
Section: Outros Processosunclassified
“…The thin top layer is responsible for separating components; the porous ceramic support provides the necessary mechanical strength to the membrane top layer to withstand the stress induced by the pressure difference applied over the entire membrane, offering, at the same time, a low resistance to the filtrate flow. The most common supports fabrication processes used for membrane systems include extrusion [36,37], tape casting [38], dry pressing, slip casting [39], and centrifugal casting [40][41][42][43]. Amongst them, slip casting, centrifugal casting, and dry pressing methods are widely used in laboratories, while the preferred method in industry is extrusion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%