journal article·2021-08-04

Controlling Ultrafiltration Membrane Rejection via Shear-Aligned Deposition of Cellulose Nanocrystals from Aqueous Suspensions

Ceren Kocaman, Emre Bukusoglu, P. Zeynep Culfaz-Emecen

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 13· Issue 30
Publisher page

Abstract

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) of 180 nm length and 8 nm diameter were deposited on porous supports by tangential flow filtration followed by salt permeation to form ultrafiltration membranes. At a high enough shear rate on the support surface, CNCs aligned in the direction of flow, showing a nematic order. The shear rates for transition to the nematic phase determined from rheology analysis, polarized optical microscopy, and membrane performance were consistent with one another, at ca. 10 s–1. Permeating an AlCl3 solution through the shear-aligned CNC deposit stabilized the CNC layer by screening repulsive electrostatic interactions, and the stable CNC layer was obtained. On changing the surface shear rate from 10 to 50 s–1, the order parameter of CNCs increased from 0.17 to 0.7 and the rejection for Blue Dextran (5 kDa) increased from 80.4 to 92.7% and that for β-lactoglobulin (18 kDa) increased from 89.6 to 95.4%. Hence, a simple and scalable method for controlling rejection properties of ultrafiltration membranes is developed, which uses aqueous CNC suspensions to form the selective layer.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Electrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics · Nanomaterials for catalytic reactions

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

Affiliations

Department of Chemical Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupinar Bulvari No:1 Cankaya, Ankara 06800, Turkey

Funding

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik AraÅ?tirma Kurumu

References (34)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.2147/NSA.S6438610.2147/NSA.S64386 ↗
2. 10.1021/cr900339w10.1021/cr900339w ↗
3. 10.1063/1.320402410.1063/1.3204024 ↗
4. 10.1002/adma.20170447710.1002/adma.201704477 ↗
5. 10.1021/acsnano.0c0982910.1021/acsnano.0c09829 ↗
6. 10.1021/ma000417p10.1021/ma000417p ↗
7. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11775110.1016/j.carbpol.2021.117751 ↗
8. 10.1007/s10570-019-02278-310.1007/s10570-019-02278-3 ↗
9. 10.1021/ma201649f10.1021/ma201649f ↗
10. 10.1002/app.4052510.1002/app.40525 ↗
11. 10.1021/acsabm.0c0010410.1021/acsabm.0c00104 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.stam.2006.02.00710.1016/j.stam.2006.02.007 ↗
13. 10.1002/polb.2147910.1002/polb.21479 ↗
14. 10.1007/s10570-020-03320-510.1007/s10570-020-03320-5 ↗
15. 10.1080/0267829940803652510.1080/02678299408036525 ↗
16. 10.1021/ma970503y10.1021/ma970503y ↗
17. 10.1007/s10570-016-1150-410.1007/s10570-016-1150-4 ↗
18. 10.1021/bm400794e10.1021/bm400794e ↗
19. 10.1039/c0sm01113d10.1039/c0sm01113d ↗
20. 10.1016/j.cej.2020.12812810.1016/j.cej.2020.128128 ↗
21. Baker R. W. · 201210.1002/9781118359686 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.11717510.1016/j.memsci.2019.117175 ↗
23. 10.1039/C4CC00467A10.1039/C4CC00467A ↗
24. 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2014.09.01410.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2014.09.014 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.11.00510.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.11.005 ↗
26. 10.1021/la303380v10.1021/la303380v ↗
27. 10.1021/la304679f10.1021/la304679f ↗
28. COMSOL Multiphysics v. 5.2a; COMSOL AB: Stockholm, 2018.
29. 10.1007/s10570-016-1080-110.1007/s10570-016-1080-1 ↗
30. 10.1002/cphc.20140006210.1002/cphc.201400062 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jcis.2021.04.07110.1016/j.jcis.2021.04.071 ↗
32. 10.1021/acsanm.8b0094710.1021/acsanm.8b00947 ↗
33. De Gennes P. G. · 1993 · 8310.1093/oso/9780198520245.001.0001 ↗
34. 10.1021/ma971145210.1021/ma9711452 ↗