Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

Postal Subscription Code 80-969

2018 Impact Factor: 2.809

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.    2023, Vol. 17 Issue (9) : 1162-1182    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-022-2276-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Incorporation of 3-dimensional lycopodium with hydrophobic nature and interconnected nano-channels into polyvinylidene fluoride membranes for desalination applications by vacuum membrane distillation
Saeed Seraj, Toraj Mohammadi(), Maryam Ahmadzadeh Tofighy()
Center of Excellence for Membrane Research and Technology, Department of Chemical, Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran 1684613114, Iran
 Download: PDF(8248 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In the present research, for the first time, lycopodium as a novel nanofiller was incorporated into a polyvinylidene fluoride matrix to fabricate lycopodium/polyvinylidene fluoride flat-sheet membrane for desalination applications by vacuum membrane distillation process. The prepared lycopodium/polyvinylidene fluoride membranes and lycopodium were characterized by field emission scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared, energy dispersive X-ray, and mapping analyses. Water contact angle and liquid entry pressure measurements were also performed. Response surface methodology was applied to optimize membrane structure and performance. The optimized lycopodium/polyvinylidene fluoride membrane exhibits superior performance compared to the neat polyvinylidene fluoride membrane in terms of flux, salt rejection, water contact angle, and hydrophobicity. In vacuum membrane distillation experiments, using a 15000 ppm NaCl solution as a feed at 70 °C, the neat polyvinylidene fluoride membrane, optimum membrane, and agglomerated membrane (with high lycopodium loading) demonstrated 3.80, 25.20, and 14.83 LMH flux and 63.30%, 99.99%, 99.96% salt rejection, respectively. This improvement in flux and salt rejection of the optimized membrane was related to the presence of lycopodium with hydrophobic nature and interconnected nano-channels in membrane structure. It was found that lycopodium, as the most hydrophobic material, effectively influences the membrane performance and structure for membrane distillation applications.

Keywords lycopodium      hydrophobicity      vacuum membrane distillation      desalination     
Corresponding Author(s): Toraj Mohammadi,Maryam Ahmadzadeh Tofighy   
About author:

* These authors contributed equally to this work.

Online First Date: 19 April 2023    Issue Date: 29 August 2023
 Cite this article:   
Saeed Seraj,Toraj Mohammadi,Maryam Ahmadzadeh Tofighy. Incorporation of 3-dimensional lycopodium with hydrophobic nature and interconnected nano-channels into polyvinylidene fluoride membranes for desalination applications by vacuum membrane distillation[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(9): 1162-1182.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-022-2276-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2023/V17/I9/1162
Fig.1  The fabrication method of lycopodium/PVDF MMM.
VariableMinMax
PVDF (A)14%18%
Lycopodium (B)0.5%1%
Ethylene glycol (C)0.2 g0.5 g
Tab.1  Variables and their surfaces
Fig.2  (a–c) FESEM images of lycopodium with different resolutions, (d) mapping analysis, and (e) EDAX analysis of lycopodium.
Fig.3  (a) FTIR and (b) XRD analysis of lycopodium.
NumberFirst factorSecond factorThird factorFirst responseSecond response
A/%B/%C/gSalt rejection/%Water flux/LMH
1140.750.355.00148.31
2160.750.3542.0034.88
3180.50.281.337.82
41610.3540.3727.79
5140.50.24.06480.63
6160.750.3542.0034.88
7160.750.537.00143.66
81810.596.558.23
9160.750.3542.0034.88
101410.55.00619.58
11160.750.239.8027.00
12180.50.573.4011.24
13160.50.3530.0042.37
141810.298.206.88
15180.750.3599.9614.83
16140.50.55.00590.70
17160.750.3542.0034.88
181410.25.00400.00
19160.750.3542.0034.88
20160.750.3542.0034.88
211810.6095.599.61
Tab.2  Experimental design performed by Design-Expert software
Fig.4  FESEM images of the (a–f) optimum membrane surface, (g–i) agglomerated membrane surface, (j) neat membrane surface, (k) neat membrane cross-section, and (l) optimum membrane cross-section.
Fig.5  EDAX analysis of the (a) optimum and (b) agglomerated membranes.
MembraneRa/nmRq/nmRz/nm
Neat PVDF43.768304
Optimized membrane87.3107387.7
Agglomerated membrane105.2150225.3
Tab.3  Surface roughness parameters of the prepared membranes
Fig.6  3D AFM images and WCA of the (a) neat PVDF, (b) optimized, and (c) agglomerated membranes.
Fig.7  Effects of (a) PVDF concentration, (b) lycopodium concentration, and (c) ethylene glycol content on salt rejection of the fabricated membranes.
Fig.8  Interactive effects of (a) PVDF/ethylene glycol, (b) lycopodium/ethylene glycol and (c) lycopodium/PVDF on salt rejection.
SourceSequential P-valueAdjusted R2Predicted R2
Linear< 0.00010.97680.9648
2FI0.38380.97720.9048
Quadratic0.00030.99530.9785Suggested
Cubic0.08990.99760.0578Aliased
Tab.4  The R-squared and fit summary in Design-Expert software (salt rejection)
SourceSum of squaresdfMean squareF-valueP-value
Mean vs. total736.72001736.7200
Linear vs. mean133.2900344.4300267.21< 0.0001
2FI vs. linear0.539130.17971.100.3838
Quadratic vs. 2FI1.780030.594317.560.0003Suggested
Cubic vs. quadratic0.234240.05863.370.0899Aliased
Residual0.104260.0174
Total872.67002043.6300
Tab.5  The sum of squares and the estimated P-values of different regressions in Design-Expert software (salt rejection)
SourceSum of squaresdfMean squareF-valueP-value
Model135.6100915.0700445.1800< 0.0001Significant
A132.21001132.21003905.98< 0.0001
B1.050011.050031.16000.0002
C0.029110.02910.85950.3757
AB0.465010.465013.74000.0041
AC0.071410.07142.11000.1771
BC0.002710.00270.07890.7845
A20.095110.09512.81000.1246
B20.413010.413012.20000.0058
C20.031610.03160.93480.3564
Residual0.3385100.0338
Lack of fit0.338550.0677
Pure error0.000050.0000
Cor total135.9519
Tab.6  ANOVA for the quadratic equation
Fig.9  Effects of (a) PVDF concentration, (b) lycopodium concentration, and (c) ethylene glycol content on water flux of the fabricated membranes.
Fig.10  Interactive effects of (a) lycopodium/PVDF, (b) lycopodium/ethylene glycol and (c) PVDF/ethylene glycol on water flux.
SourceSequential P-valueLack of fit P-valueAdjusted R2Predicted R2
Linear< 0.00010.88440.8418Suggested
2FI0.99750.85820.5344
Quadratic0.10230.89810.5774
Cubic< 0.00010.99820.3210Aliased
Tab.7  The R-squared and fit summary in Design-Expert software (water flux)
SourceSum of squaresdfMean squareF-valueP-value
Mean vs. total57.1300157.1300
Linear vs. mean6.820032.270049.4600< 0.0001Suggested
2FI vs. linear0.002530.00080.01460.9975
Quadratic vs. 2FI0.327630.10922.70000.1023
Cubic vs. quadratic0.400740.1002144.0300< 0.0001Aliased
Residual0.004260.0007
Total64.6800203.2300
Tab.8  The sum of squares and the estimated P-values of different regressions in Design-Expert software (water flux)
SourceSum of squaresdfMean squareF-valueP-value
Model6.820032.270049.4600< 0.0001Significant
A6.640016.6400144.6200< 0.0001
B0.018810.01880.40850.5318
C0.154010.15403.35000.0858
Residual0.7349160.0459
Lack of fit0.7349110.0668
Pure error0.000050.0000
Cor total7.550019
Tab.9  ANOVA for the linear equation
PVDF/%Lycopodium/%Ethylene glycol/gSalt rejection/%Water flux/LMH
17.9990.8020.2791007.27
Tab.10  Optimum predicted point by Design-Expert software
PVDF/%Lycopodium/gEthylene glycol/gWithout soakingWith soaking
Water flux/LMHSalt rejection/%Water flux/LMHSalt rejection/%
160.0120.3534.8842.00118.6141.30
160.0120.2027.0039.8091.4639.10
180.0180.508.2396.5528.5596.15
180.0090.5011.2473.4038.9973.15
180.0180.609.6195.9930.7395.45
Tab.11  Effect of non-woven soaking on the water flux and salt rejection in 5 points
NumberPVDF/gLycopodium/gEthylene glycol/gWater flux/LMHSalt rejection/%
11.79990.01440.27925.2099.99
21.79990.01440.27924.1799.99
31.79990.01440.27923.8999.99
Tab.12  Final experiment results of the optimum membrane
Membrane materialNanomaterialMembrane distillation configurationMembrane fabrication methodDescriptionResultsRef.
PTFEFunctionalized CNTVMDVacuum filtration? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: 25 °C? Flow rate: 150 L·h–1? 10 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 111 LMH? Salt rejection: 99.41%? WCA: 133°[27]
PTFEPolydopamine-coatingVMDCoating? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: 25 °C? Flow rate: –? 35 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 84 LMH? Salt rejection: 99.90%? WCA: 127°[47]
Isotactic polypropylene/ ethylene vinyl acetate co-blending membraneN/AVMDTIPS? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: –? Flow rate: 30 L·h–1? 30 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 27 LMH? Salt rejection: 99.90%? WCA: 120°[48]
Ceramic aluminaSilica/alumina mixtureVMDCoating? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: 25 °C? Flow rate: 60 L·h–1? 35 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 29 LMH? Salt rejection: 99.90%? WCA: 158°[49]
PVDFVMDNIPS? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: 20 °C? Flow rate: –? 35 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 23 LMH? Salt rejection: –? WCA: –[50]
PVDFLycopodiumVMDNIPS? Feed temperature: 70 °C? Permeate temperature: 25 °C? Flow rate: 110 L·h–1? 15 g·L–1 NaCl solution? Water flux: 25.2 LMH? Salt rejection: 100%? WCA: 84°(This work)
Tab.13  Recent studies regarding VMD configuration for desalination applications
1 L D Tijing, J S Choi, S Lee, S H Kim, H K Shon. Recent progress of membrane distillation using electrospun nanofibrous membrane. Journal of Membrane Science, 2014, 453: 435–462
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.11.022
2 M Qasim, I U Samad, N A Darwish, N Hilal. Comprehensive review of membrane design and synthesis for membrane distillation. Desalination, 2021, 518: 115168–115233
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.115168
3 H Susanto. Towards practical implementations of membrane distillation. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 2011, 50(2): 139–150
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2010.12.008
4 R W Baker. Membrane Technology and Applications. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2012,
5 S Capizzano, M Frappa, F Macedonio, E Drioli. A review on membrane distillation in process engineering: design and energy equations, materials and wetting problems. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2022, 16(5): 592–613
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-021-2105-3
6 S Leaper, A Abdel-Karim, P Gorgojo. The use of carbon nanomaterials in membrane distillation membranes: a review. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2021, 15(4): 755–774
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-020-1993-y
7 X Jiang, L Tuo, D Lu, B Hou, W Chen, G He. Progress in membrane distillation crystallization: process models, crystallization control and innovative applications. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2017, 11(4): 647–662
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-017-1649-8
8 L Deng, P Li, K Liu, X Wang, B S Hsiao. Robust superhydrophobic dual layer nanofibrous composite membranes with a hierarchically structured amorphous polypropylene skin for membrane distillation. Journal of Materials Chemistry A: Materials for Energy and Sustainability, 2019, 7(18): 11282–11297
https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TA02662B
9 M K Purkait, M K Sinha, P Mondal, R Singh. Introduction to membranes. Interface Science and Technology, 2018, 25: 1–37
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813961-5.00001-2
10 H Li, W Shi, X Zeng, S Huang, H Zhang, X Qin. Improved desalination properties of hydrophobic GO-incorporated PVDF electrospun nanofibrous composites for vacuum membrane distillation. Separation and Purification Technology, 2020, 230: 115889–115902
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115889
11 J Zhang, Q Ding, Q Xu, T Xiao, X Yang. An ultra-robust fabric-embedded PVDF membrane fabricated by NTIPS method and its application for monosodium glutamate concentration in membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 2021, 635: 119448–119460
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119448
12 S Seraj, T Mohammadi, M A Tofighy. Graphene-based membranes for membrane distillation applications: a review. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2022, 10(3): 107974–108007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107974
13 V Murugesan, D Rana, T Matsuura, C Q Lan. Optimization of nanocomposite membrane for vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) using static and continuous flow cells: effect of nanoparticles and film thickness. Separation and Purification Technology, 2020, 241: 116685–116699
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.116685
14 Z Li, D Rana, Z Wang, T Matsuura, C Q Lan. Synergic effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic nanoparticles on performance of nanocomposite distillation membranes: an experimental and numerical study. Separation and Purification Technology, 2018, 202: 45–58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.03.032
15 Z Li, D Rana, T Matsuura, C Q Lan. The performance of polyvinylidene fluoride-polytetrafluoroethylene nanocomposite distillation membranes: an experimental and numerical study. Separation and Purification Technology, 2019, 226: 192–208
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.05.102
16 R Zhou, D Rana, T Matsuura, C Q Lan. Effects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and integrated MWCNTs/SiO2 nano-additives on PVDF polymeric membranes for vacuum membrane distillation. Separation and Purification Technology, 2019, 217: 154–163
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.02.013
17 S SerajM SheikhiT MohammadiM A Tofighy. Membrane materials for forward osmosis and membrane distillation in oily wastewater treatment. In: Oil-water Mixtures and Emulsions. American Chemical Society: New York, 2022, 305–346
18 J Wittborn, K V Rao, G El-Ghazaly, J R Rowley. Nanoscale similarities in the substructure of the exines of fagus pollen grains and lycopodium spores. Annals of Botany, 1998, 82(2): 141–145
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0649
19 J Wittborn, K V Rao, G El-Ghazaly, J R Rowley. Substructure of spore and pollen grain exines in lycopodium, alnus, betula, fagus and rhododendron: investigation with atomic force and scanning tunnelling microscopy. Grana, 1996, 35(4): 185–198
https://doi.org/10.1080/00173139609430006
20 M Bidabadi, P Ghashghaei Nejad, H Rasam, S Sadeghi, B Shabani. Mathematical modeling of non-premixed laminar flow flames fed with biofuel in counter-flow arrangement considering porosity and thermophoresis effects: an asymptotic approach. Energies, 2018, 11(11): 2945–2970
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11112945
21 M Sang, J Shin, K Kim, K J Yu. Electronic and thermal properties of graphene and recent advances in graphene based electronics applications. Nanomaterials, 2019, 9(3): 374–407
https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9030374
22 S Rajpoot, R Malik, Y W Kim. Low thermal conductivity in porous SiC-SiO2-Al2O3-TiO2 ceramics induced by multiphase thermal resistance. Ceramics International, 2021, 47(14): 20161–20168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.04.022
23 W Zhu, G Zheng, S Cao, H He. Thermal conductivity of amorphous SiO2 thin film: a molecular dynamics study. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1): 1–9
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28925-6
24 A Çimen, A Bilgiç, A N Kursunlu, İ H Gübbük, H İ Uçan. Adsorptive removal of Co(II), Ni(II), and Cu(II) ions from aqueous media using chemically modified sporopollenin of lycopodium clavatum as novel biosorbent. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2014, 52(25-27): 4837–4847
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.806228
25 M Kahrizi, N Kasiri, T Mohammadi, S Zhao. Introducing sorption coefficient through extended UNIQAC and Flory-Huggins models for improved flux prediction in forward osmosis. Chemical Engineering Science, 2019, 198: 33–42
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2018.11.056
26 T H Young, D T Lin, L Y Chen, Y H Huang, W Y Chiu. Membranes with a particulate morphology prepared by a dry-wet casting process. Polymer, 1999, 40(19): 5257–5264
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-3861(98)00753-8
27 Z A Pouya, M A Tofighy, T Mohammadi. Synthesis and characterization of polytetrafluoroethylene/oleic acid-functionalized carbon nanotubes composite membrane for desalination by vacuum membrane distillation. Desalination, 2021, 503: 114931–114944
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.114931
28 A E Khalifa, D U Lawal. Performance and optimization of air gap membrane distillation system for water desalination. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2015, 40(12): 3627–3639
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1772-0
29 T Rakić, I Kasagić-Vujanović, M Jovanović, B Jančić-Stojanović, D Ivanović. Comparison of full factorial design, central composite design, and Box-Behnken design in chromatographic method development for the determination of fluconazole and its impurities. Analytical Letters, 2014, 47(8): 1334–1347
https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2013.867503
30 S Simone, A Figoli, A Criscuoli, M C Carnevale, A Rosselli, E Drioli. Preparation of hollow fiber membranes from PVDF/PVP blends and their application in VMD. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 364(1-2): 219–232
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.013
31 A Figoli, S Simone, A Criscuoli, S A Al-Jlil, Shabouna F S al, H S Al-Romaih, Nicolò E Di, O A Al-Harbi, E Drioli. Hollow fibers for seawater desalination from blends of PVDF with different molecular weights: morphology, properties and VMD performance. Polymer, 2014, 55(6): 1296–1306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2014.01.035
32 E Drioli, A Ali, S Simone, F Macedonio, S A AL-Jlil, F S Al Shabonah, H S Al-Romaih, O Al-Harbi, A Figoli, A Criscuoli. Novel PVDF hollow fiber membranes for vacuum and direct contact membrane distillation applications. Separation and Purification Technology, 2013, 115: 27–38
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.04.040
33 A Yadav, P K Labhasetwar, V K Shahi. Fabrication and optimization of tunable pore size poly(ethylene glycol) modified poly(vinylidene-co-hexafluoropropylene) membranes in vacuum membrane distillation for desalination. Separation and Purification Technology, 2021, 271: 118840–118851
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118840
34 N M Mokhtar, W J Lau, B C Ng, A F Ismail, D Veerasamy. Preparation and characterization of PVDF membranes incorporated with different additives for dyeing solution treatment using membrane distillation. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2015, 56(8): 1999–2012
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.959063
35 C Ursino, I Ounifi, Nicolò E di, X Q Cheng, L Shao, Y Zhang, E Drioli, A Criscuoli, A Figoli. Development of non-woven fabric-based ECTFE membranes for direct contact membrane distillation application. Desalination, 2021, 500: 114879–114889
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114879
36 A K F Dyab, E M Abdallah, S A Ahmed, M M Rabee. Fabrication and characterization of novel natural lycopodium clavatum sporopollenin microcapsules loaded in-situ with nano-magnetic humic acid-metal complexes. Journal of Encapsulation and Adsorption Sciences, 2016, 6(4): 109–132
https://doi.org/10.4236/jeas.2016.64009
37 R Serzane, J Locs, L Berzina-Cimdina, R Sadretdinovs. Development of porous ceramics by lycopodium using uniaxial pressing and sintering. Processing and Application of Ceramics, 2010, 4(4): 231–235
https://doi.org/10.2298/PAC1004231S
38 J Li, G Chen, S Luo, H Pang, C Gao, S Huang, S Liu, S Qin. Tuning the microstructure of SMA/CPVC membrane for enhanced separation performance by adjusting the coagulation bath temperature. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2022, 139(20): 52148–52159
https://doi.org/10.1002/app.52148
39 M S Salem, A H El-Shazly, N Nady, M R Elmarghany, M N Sabry. PES/PVDF blend membrane and its composite with graphene nanoplates: preparation, characterization, and water desalination via membrane distillation. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2019, 166: 9–23
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.24611
40 H Qiu, Y Peng, L Ge, B Villacorta Hernandez, Z Zhu. Pore channel surface modification for enhancing anti-fouling membrane distillation. Applied Surface Science, 2018, 443: 217–226
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.03.004
41 Z Yang, G Zhang, L Lin, D Ren, Q Meng, H Zhang. Effects of baffles on separation of aqueous ethanol solution with hollow fibers. Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China, 2009, 3(1): 68–72
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-009-0130-8
42 A Abdel-Karim, S Leaper, B Faki, J Miguel, L Alled. Flux-enhanced PVDF mixed matrix membranes incorporating APTS-functionalized graphene oxide for membrane distillation graphene-based membranes for water purification. Journal of Membrane Science, 2018, 559: 309–323
43 A B D Cassie, S Baxter. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 1944, 40: 546–551
https://doi.org/10.1039/tf9444000546
44 A Abdel-Karim, J M Luque-Alled, S Leaper, M Alberto, X Fan, A Vijayaraghavan, T A Gad-Allah, A S El-Kalliny, G Szekely, S I A Ahmed, S M Holmes, P Gorgojo. PVDF membranes containing reduced graphene oxide: effect of degree of reduction on membrane distillation performance. Desalination, 2019, 452: 196–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.11.014
45 D Cheng, J Zhang, N Li, D R Ng, S Gray, Z Xie. Antiwettability and performance stability of a composite hydrophobic/hydrophilic dual-layer membrane in wastewater treatment by membrane distillation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2018, 57(28): 9313–9322
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b02027
46 N M Mokhtar, W J Lau, A F Ismail. The potential of membrane distillation in recovering water from hot dyeing solution. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 2014, 2: 71–78
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2014.05.006
47 Y Zhang, F Shen, W Cao, Y Wan. Hydrophilic/hydrophobic janus membranes with a dual-function surface coating for rapid and robust membrane distillation desalination. Desalination, 2020, 491: 114561–114571
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114561
48 N Tang, C Feng, H Han, X Hua, L Zhang, J Xiang, P Cheng, W Du, X Wang. High permeation flux polypropylene/ethylene vinyl acetate co-blending membranes via thermally induced phase separation for vacuum membrane distillation desalination. Desalination, 2016, 394: 44–55
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.024
49 C Y Huang, C C Ko, L H Chen, C T Huang, K L Tung, Y C Liao. A simple coating method to prepare superhydrophobic layers on ceramic alumina for vacuum membrane distillation. Separation and Purification Technology, 2018, 198: 79–86
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.12.037
50 H Chen, C Wu, Y Jia, X Wang, X Lu. Comparison of three membrane distillation configurations and seawater desalination by vacuum membrane distillation. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2011, 28(1-3): 321–327
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.1605
[1] FCE-22101-OF-SS_suppl_1 Download
[1] Qizhao Shao, Lan Sun, Xinzhou Wu, Dafeng Zheng. Investigation of the roles of lignin in biomass-based hydrogel for efficient desalination[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 954-965.
[2] Zongliang Kou, Guanlun Sun, Qiuyan Ding, Hong Li, Xin Gao, Xiaolei Fan, Xiaoxia Ou, Qinhe Pan. Benzenesulfonic acid-grafted UIO-66 with improved hydrophobicity as a stable Brønsted acid catalyst[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(10): 1389-1398.
[3] Feng Zhang, Lu Tan, Li Gong, Shuqi Liu, Wangxi Fang, Zhenggong Wang, Shoujian Gao, Jian Jin. Ionic strength directed self-assembled polyelectrolyte single-bilayer membrane for low-pressure nanofiltration[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(5): 699-708.
[4] Sebastian Leaper, Ahmed Abdel-Karim, Patricia Gorgojo. The use of carbon nanomaterials in membrane distillation membranes: a review[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 755-774.
[5] Wenqian Chen, Vikram Karde, Thomas N. H. Cheng, Siti S. Ramli, Jerry Y. Y. Heng. Surface hydrophobicity: effect of alkyl chain length and network homogeneity[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 90-98.
[6] Fan Shu, Meng Wang, Jinbo Pang, Ping Yu. A free-standing superhydrophobic film for highly efficient removal of water from turbine oil[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 393-399.
[7] Lijuan Qiu, Ruiyang Zhang, Ying Zhang, Chengjin Li, Qian Zhang, Ying Zhou. Superhydrophobic, mechanically flexible and recyclable reduced graphene oxide wrapped sponge for highly efficient oil/water separation[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 390-399.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed