Advertisement

Preparation of adsorptive nanoporous membrane using powder activated carbon: Isotherm and thermodynamic studies

  • Majid PeyraviEmail author
Research Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Adsorptive polyethesulfone (PES) membranes were prepared by intercalation of powder activated carbon (PAC) with and without functionalization. Accordingly, PAC was aminated with 1,5-diamino-2-methylpentane, and the physicochemical properties of the functionalized PAC were analyzed. Intercalation of PAC within the PES scaffold changed the porosity and mean pore size of the aminated membrane (AC-NH2) from 52.6% to 92.5% and from 22.6 nm to 3.5 nm, respectively. The effect of temperature on the performance of the modified membranes was monitored by the flux and chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal of leachate. At ambient temperature, the COD removal of the neat, AC-containing, and AC-NH2 membranes was 47%, 52%, and 58.5%, respectively. A similar increment was obtained for the membrane flux, which was due to the synergistic effect of the high porosity and large number of hydrophilic functional groups. The experimental leachate adsorption data were analyzed by Langmuir, Freundlich, and Dubinin-Radushkevich isotherm models. For all membranes, the significant thermodynamic parameters (ΔH, ΔS, and ΔG) were calculated and compared. The isosteric heat of adsorption was lower than 80 kJ∙mol–1, indicating that the interaction between the membranes and the leachate is mainly physical, involving weak van der Waals forces.

Keywords

amine functionality nanoporous membrane adsorption isotherm thermodynamic parameters landfill leachate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the funding support of Babol Noshirvani University of Technology through Grant program No. BNUT/389026/97. Also, the author thanks Dr. Soodabeh Khalili for her technical advice and extensive editing of the manuscript, and Prof. Mohsen Jahanshahi as a head of Nanotechnology Research Institute and Marieh Nazoktabar for providing facilities. Moreover, the authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Salehi E, Daraei P, Shamsabadi A A. A review on chitosan-based adsorptive membranes. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2016, 152: 419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun J, Wu L. Adsorption of protein onto double layer mixed matrix membranes. Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 2014, 123: 33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo Y, Jia Z. Novel sandwich structure adsorptive membranes for removal of 4-nitrotoluene from water. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2016, 317: 295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashemifard S A, Ismail A F, Matsuura T. Mixed matrix membrane incorporated with large pore size halloysite nanotubes (HNT) as filler for gas separation: Experimental. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2011, 359(2): 359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rahman M F, Peldszus S, Anderson W B. Behaviour and fate of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in drinking water treatment: A review. Water Research, 2014, 50: 318–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang W, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Luo M, Wang Y, Liu Q, Chen Y, Li M, Wang D. Amine-functionalized PVA-co-PE nanofibrous membrane as affinity membrane with high adsorption capacity for bilirubin. Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces, 2017, 150: 271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar M, Shevate R, Hilke R, Peinemann K V. Novel adsorptive ultrafiltration membranes derived from polyvinyltetrazole-co-polyacrylonitrile for Cu(II) ions removal. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 301: 306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Habiba U, Afifi A M, Salleh A, Ang B C. Chitosan/(polyvinyl alcohol)/zeolite electrospun composite nanofibrous membrane for adsorption of Cr6+, Fe3+ and Ni2+. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2017, 322: 182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thuyavan Y L, Anantharaman N, Arthanareeswaran G, Ismail A F. Adsorptive removal of humic acid by zirconia embedded in a poly (ether sulfone) membrane. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2014, 53(28): 11355–11364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao Y, Qiao Y, Yang S. Fabrication of PAN/PHCS adsorptive UF membranes with enhanced performance for dichlorophenol removal from water. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2014, 131(19): 40837–40846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khodadoust S, Ghaedi M, Sahraei R, Daneshfar A. Application of experimental design for removal of sunset yellow by copper sulfide nanoparticles loaded on activated carbon. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 2014, 20(5): 2663–2670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan M M, Filiz V, Bengtson G, Shishatskiy S, Rahman M M, Lillepaerg J, Abetz V. Enhanced gas permeability by fabricating mixed matrix membranes of functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes and polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIM). Journal of Membrane Science, 2013, 436: 109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orooji Y, Faghih M, Razmjou A, Hou J, Moazzam P, Emami N, Aghababaie M, Nourisfa F, Chen V, Jin W. Nanostructured mesoporous carbon polyethersulfone composite ultrafiltration membrane with significantly low protein adsorption and bacterial adhesion. Carbon, 2017, 111: 689–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark T E, Deckman H W, Cox D M, Chance R R. In situ determination of the adsorption characteristics of a zeolite membrane. Journal of Membrane Science, 2004, 230(1–2): 91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nie H L, Chen T X, Zhu L M. Adsorption of papain on dye affinity membranes: Isotherm, kinetic, and thermodynamic analysis. Separation and Purification Technology, 2007, 57(1): 121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madaeni S S, Salehi E. Adsorption-transport modeling of anions through PVD membrane in the presence of the screen phenomenon. Applied Surface Science, 2009, 255(6): 3523–3529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johansen O J, Carlson D A. Characterization of sanitary landfill leachates. Water Research, 1976, 10(12): 1129–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peyravi M, Rahimpour A, Jahanshahi M. Developing nanocomposite PI membranes: Morphology and performance to glycerol removal at the downstream processing of biodiesel production. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 473: 72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jahanshahi M, Peyravi M, Shafaei N, Mirani H. Analysis of nanoporous membrane fouling relying on experimental observation and theoretical model for landfill leachate treatment. Water Science and Technology, 2016, 73(1): 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zirehpour A, Rahimpour A, Jahanshahi M, Peyravi M. Mixed matrix membrane application for olive oil wastewater treatment: Process optimization based on Taguchi design method. Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, 132: 113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kilic M, Apaydin-Varol E, Pütün A E. Adsorptive removal of phenol from aqueous solutions on activated carbon prepared from tobacco residues: Equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 189(1–2): 397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yagub M T, Sen T K, Afroze S, Ang H M. Dye and its removal from aqueous solution by adsorption: A review. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2014, 209: 172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yousef R I, El-Eswed B, Ala’a H. Adsorption characteristics of natural zeolites as solid adsorbents for phenol removal from aqueous solutions: Kinetics, mechanism, and thermodynamics studies. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 171(3): 1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boparai H K, Joseph M, O’Carroll D M. Kinetics and thermodynamics of cadmium ion removal by adsorption onto nano zerovalent iron particles. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 186(1): 458–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar P S, Ramalingam S, Senthamarai C, Niranjanaa M, Vijayalakshmi P, Sivanesan S. Adsorption of dye from aqueous solution by cashew nut shell: Studies on equilibrium isotherm, kinetics and thermodynamics of interactions. Desalination, 2010, 261(1–2): 52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yilmaz M S, Ozdemir O D, Kasap S, Piskin S. The kinetics and thermodynamics of nickel adsorption from galvanic sludge leachate on nanometer titania powders. Research on Chemical Intermediates, 2015, 41(3): 1499–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khalili S, Khoshandam B, Jahanshahi M. Optimization of production conditions for synthesis of chemically activated carbon produced from pine cone using response surface methodology for CO2 adsorption. RSC Advances, 2015, 5(114): 94115–94129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chowdhury S, Mishra R, Saha P, Kushwaha P. Adsorption thermodynamics, kinetics and isosteric heat of adsorption of malachite green onto chemically modified rice husk. Desalination, 2011, 265(1–3): 159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madaeni S S, Salehi E. Adsorption of cations on nanofiltration membrane: Separation mechanism, isotherm confirmation and thermodynamic analysis. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2009, 150(1): 114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heidari A, Younesi H, Rashidi A, Ghoreyshi A. Adsorptive removal of CO2 on highly microporous activated carbons prepared from Eucalyptus camaldulensis wood: Effect of chemical activation. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2014, 45(2): 579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barroso-Bogeat A, Alexandre-Franco M, Fernández-González C, Macías-García A, Gómez-Serrano V. Temperature dependence of the electrical conductivity of activated carbons prepared from vine shoots by physical and chemical activation methods. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2015, 209: 90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saka C. BET, TG–DTG, FT-IR, SEM, iodine number analysis and preparation of activated carbon from acorn shell by chemical activation with ZnCl2. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2012, 95: 21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Przepiórski J, Skrodzewicz M, Morawski A W. High temperature ammonia treatment of activated carbon for enhancement of CO2 adsorption. Applied Surface Science, 2004, 225(1–4): 235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Przepiórski J. Enhanced adsorption of phenol from water by ammonia-treated activated carbon. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2006, 135(1–3): 453–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khalili S, Ghoreyshi A A, Jahanshahi M, Pirzadeh K. Enhancement of carbon dioxide capture by amine—functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotube. Clean–Soil, Air. Water (Basel), 2013, 41(10): 939–948Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khalili S, Ghoreyshi A A, Jahanshahi M. Carbon dioxide captured by multiwalled carbon nanotube and activated charcoal: A comparative study. Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly/CICEQ, 2013, 19(1): 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rahimpour A, Madaeni S S, Mansourpanah Y. Nano-porous polyethersulfone (PES) membranes modified by acrylic acid (AA) and 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) as additives in the gelation media. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 364(1–2): 380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ismail A F, Hassan A R. Effect of additive contents on the performances and structural properties of asymmetric polyethersulfone (PES) nanofiltration membranes. Separation and Purification Technology, 2007, 55(1): 98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zodrow K, Brunet L, Mahendra S, Li D, Zhang A, Li Q, Alvarez P J. Polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes impregnated with silver nanoparticles show improved biofouling resistance and virus removal. Water Research, 2009, 43(3): 715–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yan L, Li Y S, Xiang C B, Xianda S. Effect of nano-sized Al2O3-particle addition on PVDF ultrafiltration membrane performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 276(1–2): 162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li Y Q, Xi D L, Fan S L. Preparation and characterization of novel hollow fiber membrane with multicomponent polymeric materials. Advanced Materials Research, 2012, 534: 8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kuilla T, Bhadra S, Yao D, Kim N H, Bose S, Lee J H. Recent advances in graphene based polymer composites. Progress in Polymer Science, 2010, 35(11): 1350–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bottino A, Capannelli G, Munari S, Turturro A. High performance ultrafiltration membranes cast from LiCl doped solutions. Desalination, 1988, 68(2–3): 167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee H J, Won J, Lee H, Kang Y S. Solution properties of poly(amic acid)-NMP containing LiCl and their effects on membrane morphologies. Journal of Membrane Science, 2002, 196(2): 267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang D, Li K, Teo W K. Porous PVDF asymmetric hollow fiber membranes prepared with the use of small molecular additives. Journal of Membrane Science, 2000, 178(1–2): 13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mänttäri M, Pihlajamäki A, Kaipainen E, Nyström M. Effect of temperature and membrane pre-treatment by pressure on the filtration properties of nanofiltration membranes. Desalination, 2002, 145(1–3): 81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van den Brink P, Satpradit O A, Van Bentem A, Zwijnenburg A, Temmink H, Van Loosdrecht M. Effect of temperature shocks on membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors. Water Research, 2011, 45(15): 4491–4500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sharma R R, Chellam S. Temperature and concentration effects on electrolyte transport across porous thin-film composite nanofiltration membranes: Pore transport mechanisms and energetics of permeation. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2006, 298(1): 327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yener J, Kopac T, Dogu G, Dogu T. Adsorption of Basic Yellow 28 from aqueous solutions with clinoptilolite and amberlite. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2006, 294(2): 255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Karime M, Bouguecha S, Hamrouni B. RO membrane autopsy of Zarzis brackish water desalination plant. Desalination, 2008, 220(1–3): 258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Xu P, Bellona C, Drewes J E. Fouling of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes during municipal wastewater reclamation: membrane autopsy results from pilot-scale investigations. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 353(1–2): 111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Toor M, Jin B. Adsorption characteristics, isotherm, kinetics, and diffusion of modified natural bentonite for removing diazo dye. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2012, 187: 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dawodu F A, Akpomie G K, Ogbu I C. Isotherm modeling on the equilibrium sorption of cadmium (II) from solution by Agbani Clay. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Engineering, 2012, 3(9): 9–14Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cinke M, Li J, Bauschlicher C W Jr, Ricca A, Meyyappan M. CO2 adsorption in single-walled carbon nanotubes. Chemical Physics Letters, 2003, 376(5–6): 761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringBabol Noshirvani University of TechnologyBabolIran

Personalised recommendations