4.7 Article

Gas separation performance of 6FDA-DAM-ZIF-11 mixed-matrix membranes for H2/CH4 and CO2/CH4 separation

Journal

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 173, Issue -, Pages 269-279

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.09.037

Keywords

Metal organic frameworks; Zeolitic imidazolate frameworks; 6FDA-DAM polyimide; Mixed matrix membranes; Gas separation

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [113M278]
  2. Istanbul University Scientific Research Projects Department (BAP) [47275]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, gas separation performance of 6FDA-DAM-ZIF-11 mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) with various ZIF-11 percentages (0, 10, 20, 30 wt.%) were investigated. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and particle size analysis were achieved to investigate ZIF-11 structure. SEM, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR), Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) and thermogravimetric (TGA) analysis were also carried out to characterize the membranes. In the SEM images of the MMMs, no apparent agglomeration between ZIF-11 particles and the 6FDA-DAM matrix was observed, even at 30 wt.% loading of the ZIF-11. The measured permeabilities for H-2, CO2 and CH4 gases were found to be 272, 257 and 8.3 Barrers for 20 wt.% ZIF-11 containing MMMs measured at 30 degrees C and 4 bar. Pure gas permeation tests showed improvement in permeability of the MMMs but the ideal selectivity of gases remained almost constant for the various loadings. The permeability values increased as the ZIF-11 loading increased up to 20 wt.%. However, at higher loadings, 30 wt.%, the permeability decreased for all gases. The ideal selectivities of MMMs did not show significant change but the selectivity of 6FDADAM-ZIF-11 at 20 wt.% loading approached to the 2008 Robeson upper bound. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available