PVDF ultrafiltration membranes of controlled performance via blending PVDF-g-PEGMA copolymer synthesized under different reaction times
- 62 Downloads
Polyvinylidene fluoride grafted with poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (PVDF-g-PEGMA) was synthesized using atomic transfer radical polymerization (ATRP) at different reaction times (9 h, 19 h, and 29 h). The corresponding conversion rates were 10%, 20% and 30%, respectively. PVDF was blended with the copolymer mixture containing PVDF-g-PEGMA, solvent and residual PEGMA under different reaction times. In this study, we explored the effect of the copolymer mixture additives with different synthesis times on cast membrane performance. Increasing the reaction time of PVDF-g-PEGMA causes more PVDF-g-PEGMA and less residual PEGMA to be found in the casting solution. Incremental PVDF-g-PEGMA can dramatically increase the viscosity of the casting solution. An overly high viscosity led to a delayed phase inversion, thus hindering PEGMA segments in PVDF-g-PEGMA from migrating to the membrane surface. However, more residual PEGMA contributed to helping more PEGMA segments migrate to the membrane surface. The pure water fluxes of the blended membrane with reaction times of 9 h, 19 h, and 29 h are 5445 L∙m–2∙h–1, 1068 L∙m–2∙h–1 and 1179 L∙m–2∙h–1, respectively, at 0.07 MPa. Delayed phase inversion can form smaller surface pore size distributions, thus decreasing the water flux for the membranes with PVDF-g-PEGMA at 19 h and 29 h. Therefore, we can control the membrane pore size distribution by decreasing the reaction time of PVDF-g-PEGMA to obtain a better flux performance. The membrane with PVDF-g-PEGMA at 19 h exhibits the best foulant rejection and cleaning recovery due to its narrow pore size distribution and high surface oxygen content.
KeywordsPolyvinylidene fluoride ultrafiltration membrane Amphiphilic copolymer Blended modification High flux Atomic transfer radical polymerization
We are extremely grateful to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos: 51278317 and 51678377), Key Projects in the Science & Technology Program of Hainan Province (No: zdkj2016022), the Applied Basic Research of Sichuan Province (No: 2017JY0238), and the Litree Purifying Technology Co., Ltd (No: 16H0155).
- 9.Rajasekhar T, Trinadh M, Veera Babu P, Sainath A V S, Reddy A V R. Oil–water emulsion separation using ultrafiltration membranes based on novel blends of poly(vinylidene fluoride) and amphiphilic tri-block copolymer containing carboxylic acid functional group. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 481: 82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Liu B C, Chen C, Zhao P J, Li T, Liu C H, Wang Q Y, Chen Y S, Crittenden J. Thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with substrate layer composed of polysulfone blended with PEG or polysulfone grafted PEG methyl ether methacrylate. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2016, 10(4): 562–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Liang S, Gao P, Gao X Q, Xiao K, Huang X. Improved blending strategy for membrane modification by virtue of surface segregation using surface-tailored amphiphilic nanoparticles. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2016, 10 (6):113–121 doi:10.1007/s11783-016-0875-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Ma W Z, Rajabzadeh S, Shaikh A R, Kakihana Y, Sun Y C, Matsuyama H. Effect of type of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) based amphiphilic copolymer on antifouling properties of copolymer/poly (vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) blend membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2016, 514: 429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Wang J S, Matyjaszewski K. Controlled/“living” radical polymerization. atom transfer radical polymerization in the presence of transition-metal complexes. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1995, 117(20): 5614–5615Google Scholar
- 27.Kato M, Kamigaito M, Sawamoto M, Higashimura T. Polymerization of methyl methacrylate with the carbon tetrachloride/dichlorotris-( triphenylphosphine)ruthenium(ii)/methylaluminum Bis(2,6- di-tert-butylphenoxide) initiating system: possibility of living radical polymerization. Macromolecules, 1995, 28(5): 1721–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar