Advertisement

3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane-aided cross-linked chitosan membranes for gas separation: grand canonical Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics simulations

  • Hossein Riasat Harami
  • Morteza AsghariEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Molecular simulations were performed to consider the structural and transport properties of chitosan/3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTEOS) mixed matrix membranes (MMMs). In order to consider the presence of APTEOS content on the performances of membrane, various amounts of APTEOS were added to the polymeric matrix as a cross-linker. Structural characterizations such as radial distribution function (RDF), fractional free volume (FFV) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) were carried out on the simulated cells. Self-diffusivity and solubility of membranes were calculated using mean square displacement (MSD) and adsorption isotherms, respectively. Additionally, permeability and permselectivity of CO2 and N2 gases were calculated by grand canonical Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics methods. The system temperature was set to 298 K using a Nose–Hoover thermostat. According to the results, upon increasing APTEOS loading, CO2 permeability increases until 10 wt.% loading. Then, by adding 20 wt.% of APTEOS, CO2 permeability decreases, which could be related to higher crystallinity. XRD graphs indicated that the crystallinity decreased when adding 10 wt.% APTEOS, while higher APTEOS content (up to 20 wt.%) led to higher crystallinity percentage, consistent with permeability results. Compared to literature reports, the present simulation indicated higher accuracy for defining the structural and transport properties of APTEOS cross-linked chitosan MMMs.

Graphical abstract

3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane-aided cross-linked chitosan membranes for gasseparation

Keywords

Molecular simulation APTEOS cross-linked chitosan Grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) Molecular dynamics (MD) Gas separation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Energy Research Institute at University of Kashan for supporting this work. Also, the authors gratefully acknowledge the computer facilities from High Performance Computing Research Center (HPCRC) in Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Iran, due to the support of this article under the contract number of ISI-DCE-DOD-Cloud-700101-2184.

References

  1. 1.
    Gemeda AE et al (2017) Mixed gas sorption in glassy polymeric membranes. III. CO2/CH4 mixtures in a polymer of intrinsic microporosity (PIM-1): effect of temperature. J Membr Sci 524:746–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu HT, Liu L, Kanehashi S, Scholes C, Kentish SE (2017) The impact of ethylene glycol and hydrogen sulfide on the performance of cellulose triacetate membranes in natural gas sweetening. J Membr Sci 539:432–440.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.03.045
  3. 3.
    Nebipasagil A et al (2017) Polyurethanes containing poly (arylene ether sulfone) and poly (ethylene oxide) segments for gas separation membranes. Polymer 118:256–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alaslai N et al (2017) Synthesis and characterization of a novel microporous dihydroxyl-functionalized triptycene-diamine-based polyimide for natural gas membrane separation. Macromol Rapid Commun 38(18).  https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201700303
  5. 5.
    Mi F-L et al (2001) Fabrication and characterization of a sponge-like asymmetric chitosan membrane as a wound dressing. Biomaterials 22(2):165–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vijayalekshmi V, Khastgir D (2018) Chitosan/partially sulfonated poly (vinylidene fluoride) blends as polymer electrolyte membranes for direct methanol fuel cell applications. Cellulose 25(1):661–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bai R-K, Huang M-Y, Jiang Y-Y (1988) Selective permeabilities of chitosan-acetic acid complex membrane and chitosan-polymer complex membranes for oxygen and carbon dioxide. Polym Bull 20(1):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghiggi FF et al (2017) Preparation and characterization of polyethersulfone/N-phthaloyl-chitosan ultrafiltration membrane with antifouling property. Eur Polym J 92:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghaemi N, Daraei P, Akhlaghi FS (2018) Polyethersulfone nanofiltration membrane embedded by chitosan nanoparticles: fabrication, characterization and performance in nitrate removal from water. Carbohydr Polym 191:142–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martínez-Camacho A et al (2010) Chitosan composite films: thermal, structural, mechanical and antifungal properties. Carbohydr Polym 82(2):305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zubareva A et al (2017) Penetration and toxicity of chitosan and its derivatives. Eur Polym J 93:217–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2017.04.021
  12. 12.
    Xiao S, Feng X, Huang RY (2007) Trimesoyl chloride crosslinked chitosan membranes for CO2/N2 separation and pervaporation dehydration of isopropanol. J Membr Sci 306(1):36–46Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Despond S, Espuche E, Domard A (2001) Water sorption and permeation in chitosan films: relation between gas permeability and relative humidity. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 39(24):3114–3127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernard FL et al (2018) Cellulose based poly (ionic liquids): tuning cation-anion interaction to improve carbon dioxide sorption. Fuel 211:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gümüşoğlu T, Arı GA, Deligöz H (2011) Investigation of salt addition and acid treatment effects on the transport properties of ionically cross-linked polyelectrolyte complex membranes based on chitosan and polyacrylic acid. J Membr Sci 376(1–2):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ito A et al (2017) Sulfonated polyimide/ionic liquid composite membranes for carbon dioxide separation. Polym J 49(9):671–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rezakazemi M et al (2014) State-of-the-art membrane based CO 2 separation using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): an overview on current status and future directions. Prog Polym Sci 39(5):817–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernard FL et al (2017) Hybrid alkoxysilane-functionalized urethane-imide-based poly (ionic liquids) as a new platform for carbon dioxide capture. Energy Fuel 31(9):9840–9849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aquino A et al (2015) Rationalizing the role of the anion in CO 2 capture and conversion using imidazolium-based ionic liquid modified mesoporous silica. RSC Adv 5(79):64220–64227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernard FL et al (2016) CO2 capture: tuning cation-anion interaction in urethane based poly (ionic liquids). Polymer 102:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernard FL et al (2016) New cellulose based ionic compounds as low-cost sorbents for CO2 capture. Fuel Process Technol 149:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hasebe S et al (2017) CO 2 separation of polymer membranes containing silica nanoparticles with gas permeable nano-space. J Membr Sci 536:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Furukawa N, Yamada Y (1997) Preparation and characterization of siloxane-imide block copolymers based on 3, 3′, 4, 4′-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride. Polym J 29(11):923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tocci E et al (2001) A molecular simulation study on gas diffusion in a dense poly (ether–ether–ketone) membrane. Polymer 42(2):521–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torres J, Nealey P, De Pablo J (2000) Molecular simulation of ultrathin polymeric films near the glass transition. Phys Rev Lett 85(15):3221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zargar V, Asghari M, Afsari M (2017) Gas separation properties of swelled nanocomposite chitosan membranes cross-linked by 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane. Int J Environ Sci Technol:1–10Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun H, Ren P, Fried J (1998) The COMPASS force field: parameterization and validation for phosphazenes. Comput Theor Polym Sci 8(1):229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haario H, Saksman E, Tamminen J (2001) An adaptive Metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli 7(2):223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bisoi S et al (2017) Aromatic polyamides containing trityl substituted triphenylamine: gas transport properties and molecular dynamics simulations. J Membr Sci 522:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Maythalony BA et al (2017) Tuning the interplay between selectivity and permeability of ZIF-7 mixed matrix membranes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(39):33401–33407Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amani M et al (2014) Study of nanostructure characterizations and gas separation properties of poly (urethane–urea) s membranes by molecular dynamics simulation. J Membr Sci 462:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahmati M, Modarress H, Gooya R (2012) Molecular simulation study of polyurethane membranes. Polymer 53(9):1939–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    von Lilienfeld OA et al (2015) Fourier series of atomic radial distribution functions: a molecular fingerprint for machine learning models of quantum chemical properties. Int J Quantum Chem 115(16):1084–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alentiev AY et al (2014) PIM-1/MIL-101 hybrid composite membrane material: transport properties and free volume. Pet Chem 54(7):477–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Horne WJ, Shannon MS, Bara JE (2014) Correlating fractional free volume to CO 2 selectivity in [Rmim][Tf 2 N] ionic liquids. J Chem Thermodyn 77:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Golzar K, Modarress H, Amjad-Iranagh S (2017) Separation of gases by using pristine, composite and nanocomposite polymeric membranes: a molecular dynamics simulation study. J Membr Sci 539:238–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang H et al (2010) Response of nanoparticle structure to different types of surface environments: wide-angle x-ray scattering and molecular dynamics simulations. Phys Rev B 81(12):125444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rizzuto C et al (2017) Sorption and diffusion of CO 2/N 2 in gas mixture in thermally-rearranged polymeric membranes: a molecular investigation. J Membr Sci 528:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bakaev V, Steele W (1992) Grand canonical ensemble computer simulation of adsorption of argon on a heterogeneous surface. Langmuir 8(1):148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fried J, Goyal D (1998) Molecular simulation of gas transport in poly [1-(trimethylsilyl)-1-propyne]. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 36(3):519–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang Y et al (2017) Structural and water diffusion of poly (acryl amide)/poly (vinyl alcohol) blend films: experiment and molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Graph Model 71:40–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ni F, Wang G, Zhao H (2017) Molecular and condition parameters dependent diffusion coefficient of water in poly (vinyl alcohol): a molecular dynamics simulation study. Colloid Polym Sci 295(5):859–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ambrose RJ et al (2012) Shale gas-in-place calculations part I: new pore-scale considerations. SPE J 17(01):219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barrat J-L, Baschnagel J, Lyulin A (2010) Molecular dynamics simulations of glassy polymers. Soft Matter 6(15):3430–3446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Luo Y et al (2017) Molecular dynamics simulation insight into two-component solubility parameters of graphene and thermodynamic compatibility of graphene and styrene butadiene rubber. J Phys Chem C 121(18):10163–10173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Robeson LM (2008) The upper bound revisited. J Membr Sci 320:390–400Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Separation Processes Research Group (SPRG), Department of EngineeringUniversity of KashanKashanIran
  2. 2.Energy Research InstituteUniversity of KashanKashanIran

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options