Cargando…
A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the so...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10301009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37376282 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 |
_version_ | 1785064711060979712 |
---|---|
author | Adeniyi, Amos Odo, Gerald Oke Gonzalez-Ortiz, Danae Pochat-Bohatier, Celine Mbakop, Sandrine Onyango, Maurice Stephen |
author_facet | Adeniyi, Amos Odo, Gerald Oke Gonzalez-Ortiz, Danae Pochat-Bohatier, Celine Mbakop, Sandrine Onyango, Maurice Stephen |
author_sort | Adeniyi, Amos |
collection | PubMed |
description | This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10301009 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103010092023-06-29 A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance Adeniyi, Amos Odo, Gerald Oke Gonzalez-Ortiz, Danae Pochat-Bohatier, Celine Mbakop, Sandrine Onyango, Maurice Stephen Polymers (Basel) Article This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. MDPI 2023-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10301009/ /pubmed/37376282 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Adeniyi, Amos Odo, Gerald Oke Gonzalez-Ortiz, Danae Pochat-Bohatier, Celine Mbakop, Sandrine Onyango, Maurice Stephen A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title | A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title_full | A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title_short | A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance |
title_sort | comparison of the effect of cellulose nanocrystals (cncs) and polyethylene glycol (peg) as additives in ultrafiltration membranes (pes-uf): characterization and performance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10301009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37376282 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT adeniyiamos acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT odogeraldoke acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT gonzalezortizdanae acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT pochatbohatierceline acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT mbakopsandrine acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT onyangomauricestephen acomparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT adeniyiamos comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT odogeraldoke comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT gonzalezortizdanae comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT pochatbohatierceline comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT mbakopsandrine comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance AT onyangomauricestephen comparisonoftheeffectofcellulosenanocrystalscncsandpolyethyleneglycolpegasadditivesinultrafiltrationmembranespesufcharacterizationandperformance |