4.7 Article

Carbon molecular sieve membrane structure-property relationships for four novel 6FDA based polyimide precursors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 487, 期 -, 页码 60-73

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.03.079

关键词

Gas separation; Carbon molecular sieve membrane; Polyimide membrane; Pyrolysis; Physical aging

资金

  1. American Air Liquide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study considers separation performance of carbon molecular sieve (CMS) membranes formed by pyrolysis under argon at 550 degrees C for four novel polyimide precursors referred to as 6FDA/DETDA, 6FDA:BPDA(1:1)/DETDA, 6FDA/DETDA:DABA(3:2) and 6FDA/1,5-ND:ODA(1:1). The CMS precursors were characterized using Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA), Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), and Wide-angle X-ray Diffraction (WAXD). Separation performance of polymer precursor films formed from these polymers was examined using pure gases CO2, CH4, O-2 and N-2; a relationship between gas permeability and polymer fractional free volume (FFV) is reported. The pyrolyzed polymer precursor films to create dense CMS membranes produced separation performance that significantly exceeded the polymer precursor performance in all cases. The 6FDA/DETDA:DABA(3:2) derived CMS membranes showed the highest permeability (above 20,000 barrer for CO2 and above 4000 barrer for O-2 at 35 degrees C) and offered the greatest practical potential among the various precursors. Separation performance of the CMS membranes was studied as a function of time, with storage under vacuum between tests to assess physical aging. As expected, permeability showed a decreasing trend with time, and CO2/CH4, O-2/N-2 selectivity showed an increasing trend. Sorption isotherms also provided insight into the microstructure evolution over time. For practical applications, continuous active feed of mixed gas 50% CO2/50% CH4 was shown to effectively suppress physical aging in 6FDA/DETDA:DABA(3:2) CMS membrane. (C) 2015 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