4.7 Article

Bio-inspired gas-entrapping membranes (GEMs) derived from common water-wet materials for green desalination

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 588, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117185

关键词

Green desalination; Membrane distillation; Perfluorocarbon-free; Wetting and non-wetting materials; Biomimetics; Reentrant textures; Mass transfer; Heat transfer

资金

  1. KAUST Baseline Research Funding [BAS/1/1070-01-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Widespread stress on global water supplies compels the need for low-cost and sustainable desalination processes. In this regard, desalination through membrane distillation (MD) can harness waste-grade heat or renewable energy. So far, the membranes for MD have been exclusively derived from intrinsically water-repellant materials - mostly perfluorocarbons. However, perfluorocarbons are limiting in terms of operational conditions, and they also introduce economic and environmental concerns. The development of perfluorocarbon-free MD membranes would likely address those challenges. Here, we report on the proof-of-concept for biomimetic gas-entrapping membranes (GEMs) for MD derived from silica and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) that are water-wet materials. We drew inspiration for our GEM design from the cuticles of springtails and hairs of Halobates germanus, both of which exhibit mushroom-shaped (or reentrant) features. Accordingly, our GEMs comprise arrays of microscale cylindrical pores with reentrant inlets and outlets that can robustly entrap air on submersion in water. Our PMMA-GEMs yielded a vapor flux of J approximate to 1 L-m(-2)-h(-1) while separating a solution of similar to 0.6 M NaCl at 333 K from deionized water at 288 K under a cross-flow configuration. To our knowledge, this is the first-ever demonstration of MD membranes derived from intrinsically water-wet materials, and these findings suggest that the rational design of membranes towards greener and cheaper desalination processes is possible.

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