4.7 Article

Minimizing Non-selective Nanowrinkles of Reduced Graphene Oxide Laminar Membranes for Enhanced NaCl Rejection

期刊

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00143

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, and Science through the Australia-China Science and Research Fund [ACSRF48154]
  2. Monash University
  3. Australia-China Joint Research Centre for Food Innovation
  4. Monash Center for Atomically Thin Film Materials
  5. Australia Research Council Research Hub for Energy-efficient Separation [IH 170100009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced graphene oxide membranes (rGOMs) have been intensively studied for desalination and molecular sieving applications, benefiting from their selective and stable two-dimensional (2D) nanochannels. However, their performance is usually over-rated because of the limited understanding of nanowrinkles. In this study, we tuned 2D nanochannels and nanowrinkles in rGOMs to improve their performance and revealed the underlying role of nanowrinkles for water and salt separation. A good trade-off between water permeance (1.05 LMH/bar) and NaCl rejection (83%) was obtained in rGOMs thermally treated in air (Air-rGO), compared with their counterparts synthesized via thermal treatment in vacuum (Va-rGO) and HI vapor reduction (HI-rGO). Instead of the narrow and impermeable 2D nanochannels in Va-rGO and HI-rGO, 5-10 nm-sized nanowrinkles were evident to transport water and salts without selectivity, leading to the low water permeance and NaCl rejection. For Air-rGO membranes, however, the smaller and fewer nanowrinkles retarded the NaCl transfer and the slightly narrowed 2D nanochannels maintained the fast water flow, contributing to the high NaCl rejection and water permeance, respectively. This study provides new insights into the mass transport mechanism in nanowrinkles of rGOMs and advances the design of 2D membranes for desalination, molecular/ionic sieving, and other environmental applications.

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