Advertisement

Adhesion

Part of the Springer Laboratory book series (SPLABORATORY)

Abstract

Although membranes are widely used for seawater desalination, wastewater treatment, drinking water production, and many other industrial and medical applications, a major obstacle for the efficient application of membrane technology is the phenomenon of membrane fouling. Fouling results in deterioration of membrane performance and ultimately shortensmembrane life.Thus, understanding the causes of membrane fouling and developing strategies for fouling control and cleaning are major challenges. Adhesion of particles on the membrane surface is the main cause for fouling.The property of adhesion is also important in membrane science for fabricating composite membranes. Adhesion is defined as the physical attraction or joining of two substances, especially the macroscopically observable attraction of dissimilar substances. There are many techniques to study adhesion, namely pull-off tests, interfacial fracture tests, blister tests, mapping of interfacial properties, probe modification, and scratch tests. Van derWaals forces are always present between molecules or between particles and may be attractive or repulsive [1, 2], depending on whether they are working between like materials or dislike materials. For like materials, the van derWaals forces are always attractive; however, repulsive forces are predicted for certain dissimilar material combinations [3]. Van derWaals forces have been used to explain why neutral chemically saturated atoms congregate to formliquids and solids.These forces are a main reason for fouling of membranes. Using AFM, repulsive van derWaals forces can be measured with higher precision than attractive van derWaals forces [3, 4]. Membrane separation processes are used to separate ions, colloids, and biological molecules from the fluid stream. For optimum operation, the membrane has to possess physical properties, giving appropriate interactions with solutes in the process stream. The most important properties are pore size distribution, surface morphology, appropriate electrical double layer interactions, and minimum adhesion (fouling) [5]. Within the framework of the DLVO theory [6] by the interplay between van der Waals forces and the electrical double layer force, surface interactions can be explained. (DLVO theory is an acronym for a theory of the stability of colloidal dispersions developed by Derjaguin, Landau, Verwey, and Overbeek [6, 7]. The theory was developed to predict the stability against aggregation of electrostatically charged particles in dispersion [1].) AFM has been widely used to measure DLVO-type interactions [5,8–12] between a single colloid particle and a normally flat surface, as a function of separation distance. The electrical properties of membrane surfaces have been most commonly evaluated by electrokinetic techniques such as streaming potential measurements [12], but they have some limitations [5].The adhesion of many polymers is still not clear at a nanometric scale. Surface and interface properties can be modified by a change in chemical composition or structure. Several devices for measuring surface forces have been developed, including the surface force apparatus [13, 14], the force balance [15], the osmotic stress method, and the total internal reflectance microscope [16]. But in all these methods there are limitations. Atomic force microscopy is now used for the measurement of adhesion forces. In fact, atomic force microscopic studies can be divided into topographical applications (imaging mode) and force spectroscopy, or so-called atomic force spectroscopy (AFS), i.e., measuring forces as a function of distance [17]. In the former, one generates an image of the sample surface to observe its structural or dynamic features, which has been employed very successfully on a wide variety of surfaces, including polymers [18–20] with resolutions in the micrometer to subnanometer ranges, thus facilitating imaging at the submolecular level. There are two methods to measure adhesion forces by AFM: Contact mode AFM In contact mode AFM, the tip is mechanically contacted with the sample surface under a defined applied force.This applied force can be estimated from a force–distance curve, which is obtained by extending the tip to the surface to make contact between the tip and the surface, followed by retracting the tip. Figure 7.1 shows the force–distance curve.There is no interaction between the tip and the surface when the tip is far away from the surface (A in Fig. 7.1). When the tip is close to the surface, there is an attractive force between them. At some point, the force gradient becomes larger than the spring constant of the cantilever, so the tip snaps to the surface (B–C). Once the tip is in contact with the surface, cantilever deflection will increase as the end of the cantilever is brought closer to the sample. If the cantilever is sufficiently stiff, the probe tip may indent the surface at this point. In this case, the slope or shape of the contact part of the force curve can provide information about the elasticity of the sample surface. Extending the tip (along line C–D) results in loading (repulsive) forces to the surface.These repulsive forces are usually used as a feedback parameter for the AFM system to obtain surface morphology.

Keywords

Adhesion Force Composite Membrane DLVO Theory Ether Sulfone Surface Force Apparatus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Israelachvili JN (1997) Intermolecular and surface forces. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter RJ (1989) Foundations of colloid science. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee S, Sigmund WM (2001) J Colloid Interface Sci 243:365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee S, Sigmund WM (2003) Colloids Surf A 204:43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowen WR, Doneva TA, Austin J, Stoton G (2002) Colloids Surf A 201:73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verwey EJW, Overbeek JThG (1948) Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Derjaguin BV, Landau L (1941) Acta Physicochim URSS 14:633Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowen WR, Hilal N, Lovitt RW, Wright CJ (1999) Colloids Surf A 157:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nishimura S, Kodama M, Noma H, Inoue K, Tateyama H (1998) Colloids Surf A 143:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ducker W, Senden T, Pashley R (1992) Langmuir 8:1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larson I, Drummond C, Chan D, Grieser F (1997) Langmuir 13:21Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nyström M, Lindström M, Matthiasson E (1989) Colloids Surf A 36:297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tabor D, Winterton FRS, Winterton RHS (1969) Proc R Soc London Ser A 312:435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Israelachvili JN, Adams GE (1978) J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 74:975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derjaguin BV, Rabinobich YI, Churaev NV (1978) Nature 272:313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Butt HJ, Jaschke M, Ducker W (1995) Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 38:191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leite FL, Herrmann PSP (2005) J Adhes Sci Technol 19:365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Souza NC, Silva JR, Pereira-da-Silva MA, Roposo M, Faria RM, Giacometti JA, Oliveira ON Jr (2004) J Nanosci Nanotechnol 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Job AE, Herrmann PSP, Vaz DO, Mattoso LHC (2001) J Appl Polym Sci 79:1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riul A, Dhanabalan A, Cotta MA, Herrmann PSP, Mattoso LHC, MacDiarmid AG, Oliveira ON (1999) Synth Met 101:830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Radmacher M, Fritz M, Cleveland JP, Walters DA, Hansma PK (1994) Langmuir 10:3809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toikka G, Hayes RA, Ralston J (1996) J Colloid Interface Sci 180:329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nie HY, Walzak MJ, Berno B, McIntyre NS (1999) Appl Surf Sci 144–145:627Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nie HY, Walzak MJ, Berno B, McIntyre NS (1999) Langmuir 15:6484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Vegte EW, Hadzioannou G (1997) Langmuir 13:4357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li Q, Elimelech M (2004) Environ Sci Technol 38:4683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowen WR, Hilal N, Lovitt RW, Sharif AO, Williams PM (1997) J Membr Sci 126:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bowen WR, Hilal N, Jain M, Lovitt RW, Sharif AO, Wright CJ (1999) Chem Eng Sci 54:369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hilal N, Bowen WR (2002) Desalination 150:2889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hilal N, Bowen WR, Lovitt RW, Wright C (2002) Eng Life Sci 2:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aimé JP, Elkaakour Z, Odin C, Bouhacina T, Michel D, Curély J, Dautant A (1994) J Appl Phys 76:754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siedle P, Butt HJ, Bamberg E, Wang DN, Kuhlbrandt W, Zach J, Haider M (1992) Inst Phys Conf Ser 130:361Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drummond CJ, Senden TJ (1994) Colloids Surf A 87:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harame DL, Bouse LJ, Shott JD, Meindl JD (1987) IEEE Trans Electron Devices 34:1700Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sende TJ, Drummond CJ (1994) Colloids Surf A 94:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bowen WR, Hilal N, Lovitt RW, Wright CJ (1998) J Membr Sci 139:269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Veeramasuneni S, Yalmanchili MR, Miller JD (1996) J Colloid Interface Sci 184:594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu WG, Li F, Zhao XD, Yao KD, Liu QG (2002) Polym Int 51:1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bowen WR, Stoton JAG, Doneva TA (2002) Surf Interface Anal 33:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mizes HA, Loh KG, Miller RJD, Ahuza SK, Grabowski EF (1991) Appl Phys Lett 59:2901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eaton PJ, Graham P, Smith JR, Smart JD, Nevell TG, Tsibouklis J (2000) Langmuir 16:7887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gordano A, Arcella V, Drioli E (2004) Desalination 163:127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weisenhorn AL, Maivald P, Butt HJ, Hansma PK (1992) Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 45:11226Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations