Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?

Polyethersulfone (PES) hollow fiber membranes were fabricated using dry-jet wet spinning technique, a phase inversion method, with 16 and 20% PES, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as solvent and tap water as nonsolvent, in order to evaluate if the amount of polymer has a significant effect on its proper...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Karen Gonzaga, Jose Carlos Mierzwa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidade Estadual Paulista 2021-01-01
Series:Eclética Química
Online Access:http://revista.iq.unesp.br/ojs/index.php/ecletica/article/view/1134
id doaj-5e54e09435054d20baaa17552d370731
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5e54e09435054d20baaa17552d3707312021-01-04T14:43:05ZengUniversidade Estadual PaulistaEclética Química1678-46182021-01-01461526010.26850/1678-4618eqj.v46.1.2021.p52-601067Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?Karen Gonzaga0Jose Carlos Mierzwa1University of São Paulo, Engineering, Polytechnic School, Department of Hydraulic and Environmental, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.University of São Paulo, Engineering, Polytechnic School, Department of Hydraulic and Environmental, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.Polyethersulfone (PES) hollow fiber membranes were fabricated using dry-jet wet spinning technique, a phase inversion method, with 16 and 20% PES, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as solvent and tap water as nonsolvent, in order to evaluate if the amount of polymer has a significant effect on its properties. They were characterized using SEM for a morphological analysis, a continuous system to measure pure water permeability (PWP) and molecular weight cutoff (MWCO), and a universal testing machine to tensile tests. The obtained results for PWP was an average of about 220 L m- ² h-1 bar-1 for the 16% PES membrane and 174 L m- ² h-1 bar-1 for the 20% PES membrane. The results of mechanical resistance and MWCO did not present statistical differences. Thus, it is confirmed that the 16% PES membrane can be as good as the 20%, despite using less polymer, a finding that can further motivate membrane modification studies and other related works.http://revista.iq.unesp.br/ojs/index.php/ecletica/article/view/1134
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Karen Gonzaga
Jose Carlos Mierzwa
spellingShingle Karen Gonzaga
Jose Carlos Mierzwa
Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
Eclética Química
author_facet Karen Gonzaga
Jose Carlos Mierzwa
author_sort Karen Gonzaga
title Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
title_short Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
title_full Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
title_fullStr Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between two Polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. Is it worth to use more polymer?
title_sort comparison between two polyethersulfone concentrations in hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes. is it worth to use more polymer?
publisher Universidade Estadual Paulista
series Eclética Química
issn 1678-4618
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Polyethersulfone (PES) hollow fiber membranes were fabricated using dry-jet wet spinning technique, a phase inversion method, with 16 and 20% PES, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as solvent and tap water as nonsolvent, in order to evaluate if the amount of polymer has a significant effect on its properties. They were characterized using SEM for a morphological analysis, a continuous system to measure pure water permeability (PWP) and molecular weight cutoff (MWCO), and a universal testing machine to tensile tests. The obtained results for PWP was an average of about 220 L m- ² h-1 bar-1 for the 16% PES membrane and 174 L m- ² h-1 bar-1 for the 20% PES membrane. The results of mechanical resistance and MWCO did not present statistical differences. Thus, it is confirmed that the 16% PES membrane can be as good as the 20%, despite using less polymer, a finding that can further motivate membrane modification studies and other related works.
url http://revista.iq.unesp.br/ojs/index.php/ecletica/article/view/1134
work_keys_str_mv AT karengonzaga comparisonbetweentwopolyethersulfoneconcentrationsinhollowfiberultrafiltrationmembranesisitworthtousemorepolymer
AT josecarlosmierzwa comparisonbetweentwopolyethersulfoneconcentrationsinhollowfiberultrafiltrationmembranesisitworthtousemorepolymer
_version_ 1724349322992025600