4.7 Article

Organic solvent pervaporation properties of MOF-5 membranes

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 38-45

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2013.04.033

关键词

Metal-organic frameworks; MOF-5 membranes; p-Xylene; m-Xylene; o-Xylene; Pervaporation

资金

  1. Petroleum Research Fund [50928-ND9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membranes made of microporous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with pore sizes larger than zeolites, such as MOF-5, offer potential for separation of large molecules in liquid phase. However, MOF-5 exhibits severe degradation upon contact with atmospheric levels of moisture. The objective of this work is to determine material stability of MOF-5 membranes during pervaporation of organic solvents. High quality MOF-5 membranes about 10 mu m in thickness were prepared by the secondary growth method using ball-milled MOF-5 seed crystals. On-stream p-xylene pervaporation test of the as-synthesized MOF-5 membrane shows the p-xylene flux declines and levels off at a steady-state value about 70% of the original value for fresh-membrane after 16 h on the stream. The p-xylene flux cannot be restored to the original value, suggesting permanent fouling of the MOF-5 membrane upon exposure to p-xylene stream. Subsequent characterization indicated there was no structural or microstructural degradation that occurred, and evidence of retained xylene isomers in the MOF-5 structure was found using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Nevertheless, the fouled MOF-5 membranes exhibit stable pervaporation fluxes for organic molecules with sizes smaller than the aperture of the MOF-5 cage, and exclude organic molecules with sizes larger than MOF-5 aperture. The results show that the MOF-5 membranes, after a permanent reduction in permeation flux by initial exposure to xylene stream, are stable in organic solvent and can be used for separation of liquid organic molecules based on the molecular sieving effects. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据