journal article·2023-04-12

Microporous Polyethersulfone Membranes Grafted with Zwitterionic Polymer Brushes Showing Microfiltration Permeance and Ultrafiltration Bacteriophage Removal

Ji Qin, Eric Ziemann, Edo Bar-Zeev, Sharon E. Bone, Yuanzhe Liang, Meagan S. Mauter, Moshe Herzberg, Roy Bernstein

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 15· Issue 14
Publisher page

Abstract

Virus removal from water using microfiltration (MF) membranes is of great interest but remains challenging owing to the membranes' mean pore sizes typically being significantly larger than most viruses. We present microporous membranes grafted with polyzwitterionic brushes (N-dimethylammonium betaine) that combine bacteriophage removal in the range of ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with the permeance of MF membranes. Brush structures were grafted in two steps: free-radical polymerization followed by atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP). Attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) and X-ray photoelectron (XPS) verified that grafting occurred at both sides of the membranes and that the grafting increased with increasing the zwitterion monomer concentration. The log reduction values (LRVs) of the pristine membrane increased from less than 0.5 LRV for T4 (∼100 nm) and NT1 (∼50 nm) bacteriophages to up to 4.5 LRV for the T4 and 3.1 LRV for the NT1 for the brush-grafted membranes with a permeance of about 1000 LMH/bar. The high permeance was attributed to a high-water fraction in the ultra-hydrophilic brush structure. The high measured LRVs of the brush-grafted membranes were attributed to enhanced bacteriophages exclusion from the membrane surface and entrapment of the ones that penetrated the pores due to the membranes' smaller mean pore-size and cross-section porosity than those of the pristine membrane, as seen by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and measured using liquid-liquid porometry. Micro X-ray fluorescence (μ-XRF) spectrometry and nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry showed that 100 nm Si-coated gold nanospheres accumulated on the surface of the pristine membrane but not on the brush-coated membrane and that the nanospheres that penetrated the membranes were entrapped in the brush-grafted membrane but passed the pristine one. These results corroborate the LRVs obtained during filtration experiments and support the inference that the increased removal was due to a combined exclusion mechanism and entrapment. Overall, these microporous brush-grafted membranes show potential for use in advanced water treatment.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Membrane Separation Technologies · Membrane-based Ion Separation Techniques · Water Treatment and Disinfection

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Campus Sde Boker, Midreshet 84990, Israel

Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, California 94025, United States

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States

Funding

Israel Science Foundation · National Science Foundation

References (70)

Show source-provided references
1. Domenico B. · 2022 · 20910.1007/978-3-030-83160-8_10 ↗
2. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00151-510.1016/S2214-109X(15)00151-5 ↗
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · Fed. Regist. · 2002 · 67 · 1811
4. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.10710.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.107 ↗
5. 10.1007/s11157-017-9449-710.1007/s11157-017-9449-7 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.watres.2021.11782910.1016/j.watres.2021.117829 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.coviro.2013.12.00310.1016/j.coviro.2013.12.003 ↗
8. 10.1021/es303210510.1021/es3032105 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.watres.2009.10.03810.1016/j.watres.2009.10.038 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.08710.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.087 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.watres.2011.05.00810.1016/j.watres.2011.05.008 ↗
12. 10.1021/acs.est.7b0544010.1021/acs.est.7b05440 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.04410.1016/j.watres.2009.03.044 ↗
14. 10.2166/ws.2002.010510.2166/ws.2002.0105 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.11058310.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110583 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.14967810.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149678 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jece.2021.10561310.1016/j.jece.2021.105613 ↗
18. 10.1002/bit.2237010.1002/bit.22370 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00418-810.1016/S0043-1354(00)00418-8 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.04.05610.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.04.056 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.12045410.1016/j.seppur.2022.120454 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.12.10710.1016/j.jcis.2018.12.107 ↗
23. 10.1128/aem.43.3.659-663.198210.1128/aem.43.3.659-663.1982 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.13208510.1016/j.cej.2021.132085 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.05410.1016/j.watres.2017.02.054 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.watres.2008.02.00710.1016/j.watres.2008.02.007 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.09.04410.1016/j.memsci.2008.09.044 ↗
28. 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00522-110.1016/S0376-7388(01)00522-1 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.11976610.1016/j.memsci.2021.119766 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.memsci.2018.10.08110.1016/j.memsci.2018.10.081 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.06.02010.1016/j.memsci.2013.06.020 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.06210.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.062 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jcis.2018.01.10610.1016/j.jcis.2018.01.106 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.10096010.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100960 ↗
35. 10.1126/sciadv.abl881210.1126/sciadv.abl8812 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.02310.1016/j.watres.2017.03.023 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.01.02210.1016/j.memsci.2019.01.022 ↗
38. 10.1002/admi.20180082310.1002/admi.201800823 ↗
39. 10.1021/acsapm.0c0068610.1021/acsapm.0c00686 ↗
40. 10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00347-010.1016/S0376-7388(98)00347-0 ↗
41. 10.1021/cm990786410.1021/cm9907864 ↗
42. Adams, M. H. Bacteriophages. In Bacteriophages; 1959.10.5962/bhl.title.6966 ↗
43. Webb, S. In The Microanalysis Toolkit: X-Ray Fluorescence Image Processing Software; AIP Conference Proceedings; American Institute of Physics; 2011; pp 196–199.10.1063/1.3625338 ↗
44. 10.1016/0301-9322(73)90003-710.1016/0301-9322(73)90003-7 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.watres.2020.11652210.1016/j.watres.2020.116522 ↗
46. 10.1128/am.27.5.980-982.197410.1128/am.27.5.980-982.1974 ↗
47. 10.1186/1743-422X-7-35610.1186/1743-422X-7-356 ↗
48. Zeman L. · 1981 · 41110.1021/bk-1981-0154.ch023 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.seppur.2013.09.02610.1016/j.seppur.2013.09.026 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.memsci.2014.11.05310.1016/j.memsci.2014.11.053 ↗
51. 10.1016/0376-7388(94)80090-110.1016/0376-7388(94)80090-1 ↗
52. 10.3390/ma905037610.3390/ma9050376 ↗
53. 10.1007/s11705-021-2115-110.1007/s11705-021-2115-1 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.06.01310.1016/j.memsci.2012.06.013 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.memsci.2005.03.05310.1016/j.memsci.2005.03.053 ↗
56. 10.1039/D0RA05936F10.1039/D0RA05936F ↗
57. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c0037410.1021/acs.chemmater.1c00374 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.memsci.2018.03.03710.1016/j.memsci.2018.03.037 ↗
59. 10.1039/c2jm15022k10.1039/c2jm15022k ↗
60. 10.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.02410.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.024 ↗
61. 10.1021/la401069y10.1021/la401069y ↗
62. 10.1039/C5SM01962A10.1039/C5SM01962A ↗
63. 10.1021/jp071995b10.1021/jp071995b ↗
64. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b0370010.1021/acs.langmuir.9b03700 ↗
65. 10.1021/acs.macromol.7b0183010.1021/acs.macromol.7b01830 ↗
66. 10.1039/C7NR09432A10.1039/C7NR09432A ↗
67. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c0401010.1021/acs.jpcb.2c04010 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.03210.1016/j.polymer.2008.04.032 ↗
69. 10.1021/ja809009210.1021/ja8090092 ↗
70. 10.1088/1361-648X/aac90b10.1088/1361-648X/aac90b ↗