4.7 Article

Side-chain-type imidazolium-functionalized anion exchange membranes: The effects of additional hydrophobic side chains and their hydrophobicity

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 579, 期 -, 页码 219-229

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.02.058

关键词

Anion exchange membrane; Phase separation; Perfluorinated side chain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51873054, 21404030]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province, China [1708085QB35]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [JZ2018HGTB0264]
  4. Open Foundation of Key Laboratory of Advanced Functional Materials and Devices of the Anhui Province [4500-411104/011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionic-conducive polymers with highly ordered, phase-separated structure are the promising materials used as anion exchange membranes (AEMs), thanks to their pronounced ion mobility. In this study, apart from imidazolium-functionalized hydrophilic pendants, additional octyl and perfluorooctyl-containing grafts were tethered to the polymer backbone and the resultant structure-morphology relationships were systemically investigated. The results revealed that the introduction of hydrophobic side chains as well as the corresponding hydrophobicity plays an important role in the formation of a phase-separated morphology in the membrane. AEMs containing perfluorooctyl-containing pendants (PPO-x-Im(y)8F(z)) exhibited a pronounced microphase-separated morphology with ion clusters of about 2-5 nm size and a spacing of similar to 6 nm, while the membranes with octyl pendants (PPO-x-Im(y)8C(z)) or no additional hydrophobic side chains (PPO-x-Im) only showed indistinct or no phase separation. In addition, PPO-x-Im(y)8F(z) AEMs showed better ion conductivity and suppressed water absorption, thereby exhibiting a good balance between water uptake and ion conductivity. The results of this study provide an efficient strategy to guide the architectural design of high-performance AEMs.

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