journal article·2024-10-30Open access

Optimization of Reactive Ink Formulation for Controlled Additive Manufacturing of Copolymer Membrane Functionalization

Xinhong Liu, Jonathan A. Ouimet, John R. Hoffman, Jialing Xu, William A. Phillip, Alexander W. Dowling

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 16· Issue 43

Abstract

Multifunctional, nanostructured membranes hold immense promise for overcoming permeability-selectivity trade-offs and enhancing membrane durability in challenging molecule separations. Following the fabrication of copolymer membranes, additive manufacturing technologies can introduce reactive inks onto substrates to modify pore wall chemistries. However, large-scale implementation is hindered by a lack of systematic optimization. This study addresses this challenge by elucidating the membrane functionalization mechanisms and optimal manufacturing conditions using a copper(I)-catalyzed azide-alkyne cycloaddition (CuAAC) "click" reaction. Leveraging a data science toolkit (e.g., nonlinear regression, uncertainty quantification, identifiability analyses, model selection, and design of experiments), we developed two mathematical models: (1) algebraic equations to predict equilibrium concentrations after preparing reactive inks by mixing copper sulfate, ascorbic acid (AA), and an alkynyl-terminated reactant; and (2) reaction-diffusion partial differential equations (PDEs) to describe the functionalization process. The ink preparation chemistry with side reactions was validated through pH and UV-vis measurements, while the diffusion and kinetic parameters in the PDE model were calibrated using time-series conversion of the azide moieties inferred from Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. This modeling framework avoids redundant experimental efforts and offers a functionalization protocol for scaling up designs. Ink optimization problems were proposed to reduce the use of expensive and environmentally insulting ink materials, i.e., Cu(II), while ensuring the desired chemical distributions. With optimal ink formulation Cu(II)/AA/alkyne = 1:1:2 identified, we uncovered trade-offs between Cu(II) usage and functionalization time; for example, in continuous roll-to-roll manufacturing with a conserved functionalization bath setup, our optimal operational conditions to achieve ≥90% functionalization enable at least a 20% reduction in total copper investment compared to previous experimental results. The data science-enabled ink optimization framework is extendable for on-demand multifunctional membranes in numerous future applications such as metal recovery from wastewater and brine.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Membrane Separation Technologies · Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation · Recycling and Waste Management Techniques

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

Affiliations

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

University of Notre Dame

Funding

University of Notre Dame · Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation · Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems

References (76)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.watres.2003.11.00810.1016/j.watres.2003.11.008 ↗
2. 10.2166/wst.2015.01510.2166/wst.2015.015 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.07610.1016/j.desal.2004.11.076 ↗
4. 10.3390/membranes1309078910.3390/membranes13090789 ↗
5. 10.1126/science.aab053010.1126/science.aab0530 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.memsci.2023.12229110.1016/j.memsci.2023.122291 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.coche.2023.10099410.1016/j.coche.2023.100994 ↗
8. 10.69997/sct.11470510.69997/sct.114705 ↗
9. 10.1021/acsmacrolett.7b0027810.1021/acsmacrolett.7b00278 ↗
10. 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b0005010.1021/acs.estlett.6b00050 ↗
11. 10.1038/s44221-024-00252-310.1038/s44221-024-00252-3 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.coche.2020.01.00210.1016/j.coche.2020.01.002 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.seppur.2024.12628710.1016/j.seppur.2024.126287 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.03510.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.035 ↗
15. 10.1021/cr800208y10.1021/cr800208y ↗
16. 10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c0048210.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00482 ↗
17. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b0333410.1021/acs.chemmater.8b03334 ↗
18. 10.1021/acsami.6b0604810.1021/acsami.6b06048 ↗
19. 10.1021/acsami.0c0307510.1021/acsami.0c03075 ↗
20. 10.1002/adma.20180149510.1002/adma.201801495 ↗
21. 10.1021/acsapm.9b0041910.1021/acsapm.9b00419 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.12004110.1016/j.memsci.2021.120041 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.11990210.1016/j.memsci.2021.119902 ↗
24. 10.1038/s41545-018-0002-110.1038/s41545-018-0002-1 ↗
25. 10.1021/acscombsci.5b0008710.1021/acscombsci.5b00087 ↗
26. 10.1039/c1sm06039b10.1039/c1sm06039b ↗
27. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b0466010.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04660 ↗
28. 10.1126/science.122950610.1126/science.1229506 ↗
29. 10.1126/sciadv.150030410.1126/sciadv.1500304 ↗
30. 10.1021/acsnano.8b0869110.1021/acsnano.8b08691 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.coche.2019.10.00210.1016/j.coche.2019.10.002 ↗
32. 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-100722-11485310.1146/annurev-chembioeng-100722-114853 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.11974310.1016/j.memsci.2021.119743 ↗
34. 10.1002/aic.1781310.1002/aic.17813 ↗
35. 10.1039/C8RE00345A10.1039/C8RE00345A ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ces.2007.11.03410.1016/j.ces.2007.11.034 ↗
37. 10.1016/B978-0-323-85159-6.50177-910.1016/B978-0-323-85159-6.50177-9 ↗
38. 10.1039/D3RE00156C10.1039/D3RE00156C ↗
39. 10.1016/B978-0-323-85159-6.50143-310.1016/B978-0-323-85159-6.50143-3 ↗
40. Wang, J.; Peng, Z.; Hughes, R.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Neira, D. E. B.; Dowling, A. W. Measure This, Not that: Optimizing the Cost and Model-Based Information Content of Measurements; Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2024; p 108786.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2024.108786 ↗
41. Bynum M. L. · 2021 · 6710.1007/978-3-030-68928-5 ↗
42. 10.1007/s12532-017-0127-010.1007/s12532-017-0127-0 ↗
43. 10.1002/kin.55011050310.1002/kin.550110503 ↗
44. 10.1021/cr078347910.1021/cr0783479 ↗
45. Wade L. G. · 2008
46. Deen W. M. · 2012
47. 10.1002/polb.1066110.1002/polb.10661 ↗
48. 10.1002/polb.2319210.1002/polb.23192 ↗
49. 10.1002/app.4168310.1002/app.41683 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.aml.2017.05.00510.1016/j.aml.2017.05.005 ↗
51. Bates D. M. · 1988
52. 10.1252/jcej.32.32810.1252/jcej.32.328 ↗
53. Bard Y. · 1974
54. George A. F. · 2003
55. 10.1002/aic.69047081110.1002/aic.690470811 ↗
56. 10.2307/191326710.2307/1913267 ↗
57. 10.1109/TAC.1974.110070510.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 ↗
58. 10.1093/biomet/76.2.29710.1093/biomet/76.2.297 ↗
59. Burnham K. P. · 2002
60. Montgomery D. C. · 2017
61. 10.1109/MCSE.2021.308321610.1109/MCSE.2021.3083216 ↗
62. 10.1016/b978-0-12-818597-1.50007-210.1016/b978-0-12-818597-1.50007-2 ↗
63. 10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y ↗
64. HSL. A Collection of Fortran Codes for Large Scale Scientific Computation, 2023; http://www.hsl.rl.ac.uk.
65. 10.1002/amp2.1009510.1002/amp2.10095 ↗
66. 10.1021/ja072679d10.1021/ja072679d ↗
67. 10.1021/ja105743g10.1021/ja105743g ↗
68. 10.1007/s10668-024-04558-w10.1007/s10668-024-04558-w ↗
69. 10.1021/acs.iecr.1c0298410.1021/acs.iecr.1c02984 ↗
70. 10.1021/acsapm.2c0004810.1021/acsapm.2c00048 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.10142510.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101425 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.07.00710.1016/j.drudis.2017.07.007 ↗
73. 10.1080/17460441.2019.161491010.1080/17460441.2019.1614910 ↗
74. 10.1039/C9ME00160C10.1039/C9ME00160C ↗
75. 10.1002/ntls.2021009910.1002/ntls.20210099 ↗
76. 10.1021/jp209899m10.1021/jp209899m ↗