Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1226-0088(Print)
ISSN : 2288-7253(Online)
Membrane Journal Vol.29 No.1 pp.1-10
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14579/MEMBRANE_JOURNAL.2019.29.1.1

Poly(ether block amide) (PEBA) Based Membranes for Carbon Dioxide Separation

Jae Hun Lee*, Rajkumar Patel**
*Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
**Energy and Environmental Science and Engineering, Integrated Science and Engineering Division (ISED), Underwood International College, Yonsei University, 85, Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21983, Korea
Corresponding author(e-mail: rajkumar@yonsei.ac.kr)
February 1, 2019 February 21, 2019 February 21, 2019

Abstract


Poly(ether block amide) (PEBA) is one of the commercially important class of block copolymer very much suitable specifically for CO2 separation. Gas separation membrane need to have good mechanical strength as well as high gas permeability. The crystalline polyamide (PA) block provides the mechanical strength while the rubbery polyether (PE) group being CO2-philic facilitate CO2 permeation though the membrane. Composition of thermoplastic and rubbery phase in the polymer are changed to fit into suitable gas separation application. Although PEBA has good permeability, the selectivity of the membrane can be enhanced by incorporating molecular sieve without affection much the gas permeability. Mixed matrix membrane (MMM), a class of composite membrane combine the advantage of polymer matrix with the inorganic fillers. However, there are some disadvantages based on the compatibility of the inorganic fillers and polymeric phase. This review covers both the advantage and limitations of PEBA block copolymer based composite membrane.



이산화탄소 분리를 위한 PEBA공중합체 기반 분리막

이 재 훈*, 라 즈 쿠 마 파 텔**
*연세대학교 화공생명공학과
**연세대학교 에너지환경융합과

초록


Poly(ether block amide) (PEBA)는 이산화탄소 분리에 매우 적합한 상용 블록 공중합체 중 하나이다. 기체분리막 의 경우 높은 투과도 뿐 아니라 강한 기계적 강도 또한 필요로 한다. PEBA공중합체의 결정성 폴리아마이드(polyamide) 블록 은 기계적 강도를 제공하며 동시에 rubbery한 폴리에테르(polyether) 부분은 이산화탄소와의 친화도를 부여하여 이산화탄소 촉진 수송에 기여한다. PEBA공중합체에서 결정성 상과 rubber한 상의 조성은 기체분리막에 적합하게 조절될 수 있다. PEBA 공중합체를 기반으로 한 분리막은 좋은 투과도를 갖지만 추가적으로 분자체 효과를 이용하여 큰 기체 투과도 손실 없이 분리 막의 선택도를 향상시킬 수 있다. 혼합 매질 분리막은 혼합막의 한 종류로서 고분자 매트릭스와 유기 첨가제로 이루어져 있다. 하지만 고분자 매트릭스와 유기 첨가제간의 양립성(compatibility)에 따른 문제점 또한 존재한다. 따라서 본 총설에서는 PEBA 공중합체를 기반으로 한 혼합막의 장점과 한계에 대해 다루고자 한다.



1. Introduction

Global warming is increasing every year and there is very high concern how to get some solution. Growing population leads to ever increasing demand on energy and fossil fuel is the main source of energy. Environment is polluted by the huge amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) release from heavy industrialization. Natural gases contain methane (CH4) along with CO2 and other heavy gases. Separation of CO2 is essential for useful uti- lization of CH4 as combustible gas. Although there are several other processes available but membrane-based gas separation technology is one of the most efficient gas separation process[1-4]. PEBA is an block copolymer comprised of polyamide which is more hydrophobic and poly(ethylene oxide) which is more hydrophilic in nature[5-7]. The hydrophobic part which is hard one provides the mechanical strength while the ether group present in the soft part interact with the acidic CO2 molecules. Presence of hydrogen bonding within polyamide phase leads to the much stronger domain in the block copolymer. The mechanical strength of PEBA is high enough to fabricate free-standing membranes and utilize host matrix for various fillers.

Although PEBA has appropriate CO2 permeability, the selectivity of the membrane can be enhanced by mixing it with inorganic filler or other polymeric components. Mixed matrix membrane (MMM) are one of the excellent materials to combine the easy processability property of polymer matrix and greater selectivity of inorganic fillers[1-4]. There are several challenges in MMM. One of the problems is the compatibility of the organic-inorganic matrix that induce weak interface. Secondly, homogenous dispersion on filler in the polymer matrix is very critical to enhance the performance of the membrane. So, there are several kinds of molecular organic frame work (MOF), zeolite etc are used to fabricate MMM.

In this review, focus is on both binary and ternary kind of PEBA membrane in which the how type of filler affects the permeability as well as selectivity is discussed. Fabrication process of the composite membrane as well as the optimum loading is explained in detail.

2. PEBA mixed membrane

2.1. Inorganic filler filled composite membrane

Azizi reported the fabrication of nanocomposite membrane consisting of PEBAX-1074 and TiO2, SiO2 and Al2O3[8]. Pristine membrane was prepared by solution casting and nanocomposite membrane are prepared by blending technique. FESEM measurement show the uniform distribution of the inorganic filler though out the matrix. Presence of inorganic fillers increase the performance of the nanocomposite membrane and best properties is observed with 8 wt% filler in all the cases. Out of the three different fillers 8 wt% Al2O3 shows highest CO2 permeability of 163.87 Barrer at 3 bar and 25°C. It also shows the best CO2/CH4 selectivity of 14.24 under similar measurement conditions. In case of TiO2 and SiO2 there is not much difference between CO2 permeability as well as selectivity. The same author chooses ZnO nanoparticle (10~30 nm) as another filler to prepare nanocomposite membrane[9]. Free standing membrane were fabricated by solution casting method with a thickness of 60~80 μm. Gas permeation properties was checked at different pressure and at 25°C. Pristine membrane has CO2 permeability, CO2/N2 and CO2/CH4 selectivities are 110.67 Barrer, 50.08 and 11.09 respectively at 3 bar and 25°C. In case of PEBAX/ZnO (8 wt%) composite membrane permeability increased to 152.27 Barrer and CO2/N2 and CO2/CH4 selectivity are increased to 62.15 and 11.09 respectively under similar conditions. The higher adsorption capacity and higher affinity of the ZnO nanoparticles leads to the higher permeability as well enhanced selectivity of the composite membrane. A mixed matrix membrane consisting of PEBAX 1657 and fume silica (FS) was reported by Gamali et al.[10]. Fig. 1 represents the schematic diagram of PEBA composite membrane. Composite membrane with 4.6 wt% FS shows the best CO2/CH4 selectivity. It was observed from SEM image that FS are mixed homogenously in the PEBAX matrix. CO2 permeability of the pristine membrane increase from 80 to 162 Barrer when the upstream pressure increases from 1.0 to 3.5 MPa under mixed gases condition. PEBAX pristine polymer has a CO2/CH4 selectivity of 64.53 but PEBAX/4.6 wt% FS composite membrane selectivity increase to 74.5. One of the reasons is that in case of composite membrane there is no phase separation is observed whereas in pristine membrane there it is clearly visible. As a result, the crystallinity of the polymer matrix reduced, and it is well supported by AFM image that distinctly represent the integration of FS into polymer host.

Yu et al. prepared composite membrane of PEBAX- 1657 with silica, polystyrene (PS) colloids, and carbon nanotubes (CNTs)[11]. Nanocomposite membrane with different composition were prepared by solution casting and evaporation at higher temperature to prepare self-standing dense membrane with thickness of 50~90 μm. Nanocomposite membrane of silica or PS colloids reduce the CO2 permeability as well as selectivity but not for N2 or H2 as compared to pristine membrane. Two different types of CNT like single wall and multiple wall CNT were used for preparation of nanocomposite membrane. PEBAX/CNT (5 wt%) showed the best CO2 permeability and SWCNT shows 43% and MWCNT has 24% increase, although there is no enhancement in CO2/N2 or CO2/H2 selectivity for pure gas at 21°C and 2.27 bar pressure. The solubility of the composite membrane remains intact, but the diffusivity increases due to the presence of CNT. A composite membrane consisting of PEBAX-1657 and graphene oxide (GO) flakes decorated iron oxide (Fe3O4) was reported by Zhu et al.[12]. Flat sheet mixed matrix membrane was prepared by solution casting method with film thickness of about 45~65 μm. PEBAX/Fe3O4-GO membrane were characterized by SEM that indicate the uniform dispersion of the filler through the polymer matrix. Out of various composition 3 wt% loading results in highest gas separation and selectivity performance. CO2 permeability is 538 Barrer at 0.2 MPa and room temperature. CO2/N2 and CO2/CH4 gas selectivity are 47 and 75 respectively. Presence of hydroxyl group on the surface of GO leads to better interaction with CO2 and hence there is higher solubility selectivity. Instead of decorated GO, porous reduced graphene oxide (PRG) was selected as a filler to check its effect on gas separation performance[13]. PRG was prepared by wet chemical process. PEBAX was mixed with PRG in different ratio and composite free-standing membrane was prepared by casting of the solution onto Teflon petri dish. The well dried membrane thickness is around 45~60 μm. There is homogenous distribution of PRG in the polymer matrix until 5 wt%, but further enhancement leads to the agglomeration. Tg of the composite membrane increased with PRG quantity due to the hydrogen bonding interaction between the hydroxyl group on the PRG with polymer matrix and membrane rigidity increases and consequently its selectivity. PEBAX/PRG (5 wt%) composite membrane shows CO2 permeability of 119 Barrer and CO2/N2 selectivity of 104.

A filler with both organic ligand and inorganic part was selected to have better interaction with the organic PEBAX matrix. Li et al. reported composite membranes made up of PEBAX MH 1657 and octa (3-hydroxy-3- methyl butyldimethylsiloxy) (POSS (POSS-OH)) or Octa amic acid (POSS (POSS-acid))[14]. Flat sheet self-standing dense mixed matrix membrane with thickness of 80~100 μm were prepared from above materials by solution casting process as presented in Fig. 2. POSS is miscible at the molecular level as observed by SEM. CO2 permeability of PEBAX/POSS mixed matrix membrane initially increase and then decrease with the in crease in the both types POSS as compared to pristine PEBAX. The initial increase in the permeability is due to presence of large pore in POSS. As the percentage of POSS increase there is blockage of the pore due to the chain entanglement from PEBAX. Finally, the glass transition temperature of the polymer initially decreases and then increase with the increase in the filler loading which is in opposite trend to CO2 permeability. This may be due to the enhanced pore volume of the MMM at the beginning by disruption in ordering of the polymer chain. Hydrogen bonding is the additional factor between the hydroxyl or carboxyl group of POSS with the polymer matrix that lead to increase in rigidity of the polymer and reduce the permeability but enhance the selectivity of CO2 over H2. Important factor is that the effect on Tg is more by POSS-acid filler than POSS-OH which is reflected in better permeation and selectivity behavior of PEBAX/POSS-acid then PEBAX/ POSS-OH. The mixed gas permeability as well as the selectivity of PEBAX/POSS membrane is higher than the pure gas permeability which is very unusual case in general. One of the reasons may be due to the enhancement of interaction between CO2 with the polymer matrix at the cost of interaction of H2 with the matrix polymer. PEBAX/POSS shows the best CO2 permeability of 135 Barrer at 35°C and 8 atm pressure with CO2/H2 selectivity 52.3 for mixed gas. A composite membrane was prepared by selecting two different grades of PEBAX and poly(ethylene glycol) functionalized polyoctahedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (PEGPOSS) reported by Rahman et al.[15]. PEBAX MH 1657 and PEBAX 2533 composite membrane single gas permeation properties of N2, O2, CH4, H2 and CO2 were checked by time lag method. The chain length of PEG present in POSS is similar to the PEO length of PEBAX 1657 as a result of which the compatibility of the PEBAX 1657/PEG-POSS is much better than PEBAX 2533/PEG-POSS. Tg of the PEBAX 1657 blend reduced a lot due to the presence of low mol. Wt. PEG that enhance the permeability of the membrane unlike PEBAX 2533 blend where there is no significance decrease in Tg. Gas permeability of composite membrane of PEBAX 1657 increase gradually with the increase in PEG-POSS upto 30 wt%. This is due to the increase in CO2 diffusion in 30~70°C temperature range. Another factor that plays a critical role is the surface topography of the membrane. In case of PEBAX 1657/PEG-POSS composite membrane the surface roughness increases with loading of 30 wt% filler but it decreases in PEBAX 2533/PEG-POSS composite membrane. The same author linked PEG with glycidyl terminated POSS (PEG-GLY-POSS) and glycidyldimethylsilyl terminated POSS (PEG-GDMS-POSS) and used as a filler with PEBAX MH 1657 to check the CO2 permeability behavior of the composite membrane[16]. 40 wt% of the filler was mixed with the PEBAX 1657 in different solvents like tetrahydrofuran (THF), chloroform or toluene and self-standing membrane was prepared by solution blending process (Fig. 3). The morphology of the composite membrane changed drastically depending on the type of solvent which was checked by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Loading percent of the nanoparticle filler was fixed at 40 wt%. There is highest reduction of Tg for composite containing PEG-GDMS-POSS due to higher mobility of the polyether segment of PEBAX. The presence of the additional Si-O linkage in the spacer complementing the higher polyether mobility. This leads to the higher diffusion coefficient of the various gas molecules. As a result, these membranes have highest CO2, N2, H2 permeability. Composite membrane made with THF shows better performance irrespective of type of spacer. CO2/N2 and CO2/H2 selectivity of the composite remain intact but permeability increases as compared to the pristine membrane.

2.2. Metal organic framework (MOF) composite membrane

T. Khosravi et al. reported fabrication of composite membrane made up of PEBAX and metal organic frameworks[17]. Two different type of MOF are copper benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylate (CuBTC) and NH2-CuBTC. NH2-CuBTC is a modified version MOF-199[18]. Appropriate quantity of both components is mixed and casted on a teflon petri dish to prepare the composite membrane with thickness roughly between 60~90 μm. BET surface are of CuBTC is 1,261 m2/g which is almost double that of NH2-CuBTC (644 m2/g). Tg of the mixed membrane increased due to enhancement in rigidity of PEBAX in the presence of MOF. In case of PEBAX/NH2-CuBTC membrane, the presence of hydrogen bonding between the ether group of PEBAX and amine group of MOF results in more appreciable increase in Tg. PEBAX/NH2-CuBTC (20 g/g) membrane shows highest CO2 permeability of 328.4 Barrer at 30 MPa and 30°C. The CO2/CH4 selectivity of this composite membrane is 43.2 under similar condition which is highest value due to the presence of the hydrogen bonding interaction between membrane matrix and the MOF resulting in better interface. At the same time there is interaction between acidic CO2 and basic amine group that enhance the performance of the membrane. CuBTC is replaced by iron benzene-1,3,5- tricaboxylate (Fe-BTC) to prepare the composite membrane by phase inversion method[19] and structures are presented in Fig. 4. The interaction between MOF filler with the polymer matrix was checked by SEM. There is agglomeration of filler when the it is around 30 wt% that affect the selectivity of the membrane. The CO2 diffusivity and solubility of the composite membrane was measured by time lag study. It shows that diffusivity increase with MOF content having very negligible decrease in solubility indicating high porosity and specific interaction of filler with the CO2. As a result, the diffusivity is the dictating factor for the better selectivity and permeability of the composite membrane. In that case composite membrane with 40 wt% showed CO2 permeability of 425.4 Barrer at 3 bar pressure and room temperature but has the lowest CO2/CH4 selectivity may be due to filler agglomerations. But 30 wt% filler content has the best CO2 permeability of 402.69 Barrer and 21.5 CO2/CH4 selectivity among all the composite membrane.

2.3. Zeolite composite membrane

F. Karamouz et al. reported the preparation of PEBAX (1074)/Deca-dodecasil-3-rhombohedral (DD3R) composite membrane[20]. The BET surface area of DD3R is around 304 m2/g. Homogenous solution with different composition were casted Teflon petri dish and solvent was removed to prepare the free-standing membrane. FTIR measurement shows there is good interaction between the zeolite filler with the polymer matrix and Tg of the composite membrane increase with the enhancement of the zeolite loading. PEBAX/DD3R composite membrane with 5 wt% zeolite exhibit highest selectivity for CO2/CH4 and increases carbon dioxide permeability. ZIF-8 filler is introduced to prepare a dual layer mixed matrix membrane consisting of ZIF-8/PEBAX-2533[21]. Free standing dense MMM was prepared by solution casting method consisting of various ratio of ZIF-8 to PEBAX and thickness around 40~60 μm. Bottom layer of the membrane is rich in the filler layer whereas the top layer is rich in polymer matrix which is named as dual layer MMM which is clearly observed in SEM (Fig. 5) DSC analysis shows that there is hardly any difference in Tg and melting transition temperature (Tm) of MMM and pristine membrane. Loading of ZIF-8 was varied from 5 to 35 wt% in MMM. Single CO2 gas permeability increased from 351 to 1287 Barrer from pristine to 35% wt% MMM. There is not much change in the CO2/N2 and CO2/CH4 selectivity in case of pristine and MMM for single gas measurement. In case of mixed gas measurement for both dry and moist there is significant drop in the CO2/N2 selectivity for the dual layer MMM.

2.4. Polymer blend membrane

Didden et al. reported blended membrane of PEBAX with two pluronics named L-61, L-81 and poly(propylene glycol) (PPG) with different compositions by solution blending process[22]. Mixed solution is casted on the Teflon petri dishes and the free-standing membrane are prepared by evaporation of solvent at higher temperature. Pluronics are copolymer of PEG and PPG and L-81 contain one extra PPG then L-61. The addition of PPG enhances the polyether melting temperature compared to L-61, L-81 and pristine PEBAX. The polyether domain is immiscible with the additive and the degree of crystallinity increase with PPG as com pared with pluronics. Hydroxyl end group present in PPG leads to hydrogen bonding interaction that leads to further increase in crystallinity and phase separation (Fig. 6). Blending increase the gas permeation properties of the membrane but the mixed gas selectivity is reduced.

2.5. Ternary composite membrane

A flat sheet dense membrane was prepared by mixing PEBAX, silver nanoparticles and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate ([BMIM][BF4]) ionic liquid[ 23]. Silver nanoparticle (~100 nm) were dispersed in poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP). Three components are mixed homogenously and casted on a teflon plate to fabricate a free-standing membrane. The thermal property of the mixed matrix membrane was studied by differential scanning calorimetery (DSC). Presence of ionic liquid and silver nanoparticle reduce the crystallinity of PEBAX. The MMM shows only one Tg indicating good compatibility among each component. Further there is no change in Tg of the composite membrane shows that it is devoid of cross linking and rigidification due to increasing concentration of silver nanoparticle (Fig. 7). There is significant increase in the CO2 permeability to 325 Barrer in case of PEBAX/ 1% Ag binary membrane at 35°C and 10 bar. In case of the ternary blend membrane PEBAX/0.5%Ag/50%IL the CO2 permeability increased from 110 to 180 Barrer under similar condition as compared to pristine mem- brane. The CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 selectivity of the same composite membrane increased from 20.8 to 61.0 and 78.6 to 187.5 respectively. Silver nanoparticle is replaced by ZIF 8 to prepare a ternary blend[24]. Jomekian et al. reported the preparation of 1,3-Di-n-butyl-2-methylimidazolium chloride ionic liquid (DnBMCl) by following Gholap et al.[25]. ZIF 8 was synthesized by varying the ratio of 2-methyl Imidazole (MeIm) to Zinc nitrate hexahydrate (Zn(NO3)2H2O) to check the effect of Zn2+ on the gas permeation properties. MeIm/Zn2+ with molar ration 32/1 shows type I type of isotherm. It has higher surface area of 1,792 m2/g compared to other composition due to higher microporosity as well as micropore volume. PEBAX was modified with DnBMCl and solution blended at 70°C to prepare ionic liquid modified PEBAX (IL-PEBAX). ZIF-8/IL-PEBAX mixed matrix membrane selective layer on the poly(ether sulfone) (PES) substrate was prepared by coating the homogenous solution. Ionic liquid modified PEBAX mixed matrix membrane shows higher CO2/CH4, CO2/N2 and CO2/H2 selectivity than unmodified PEBAX/ZIF-8 and pristine PEBAX membrane for pure gas. In case of mixed gas, selectivity decreases due to the plasticization of the soft segment present in PEABX. The performance of the MMM reduced as well at higher pressure due to the similar reason.

Sanaeepur et al. synthesized copper nanoparticle and mixed with glycerol (Gl) modified PEBAX 1657 to prepare self-standing mixed matrix membrane by sol ution casting method with average thickness of 240 μm[26]. PEBAX modification was optimized with 15 wt% of glycerol and copper nanoparticle was varied between 0~2 wt%. CO2 permeability of the PEBAX/Gl (15 wt%) blended membrane reduced from 50.42 Barrer from 65.71 Barrer for pristine membrane but CO2/N2 selectivity of the blended membrane increased drastically to 227.7 from 81.9 for pristine membrane at 25°C and 10 bar. PEBAX/Gl (15 wt%)/Cu (1.5 wt%) MMM showed CO2 permeatility of 63.5 Barrer and CO2/N2 selectivity of 200 under similar condition which is lower than blended membrane, but permeability is higher than the blended membrane. Presence of Cu nanoparticle disrupt the hydrogen bonding of the blended membrane which results in the enhance permeability of the MMM without affecting much CO2/N2 selectivity. PEBAX 1657 and poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ethyl acrylate (PEG-MEA) was blended together by solution blending to prepare membrane. PEBAX/PEG-MEA with 50 wt% (PEBAX-PEG-MEA-50) showed the best performance [27]. Instead of copper nanoparticle GO was added as filler. GO was synthesized and disperses in solvent and mixed in polymer blend of PEBAX-PEG- MEA-50 to prepare mixed matrix membrane. PEBAX-PEG-MEA-50 blend membrane showed very high CO2 permeability of 572 Barrer as compared to 80 Barrer for pristine membrane. The same blend composition with 0.3 wt% GO showed highest CO2/N2 selectivity of 55.8 which is higher than the Robeson’s upper bound without compromising much the CO2 permeability. It is due to the higher CO2 sorption due to the CO2-philic oxygen functional group on the GO surface and edge. The MMM has good anti plasticization until 9 bar pressure and it has long term stability up to 100 days without affecting the performance of the membrane. The CO2 permeability and CO2/N2 selectivity of various PEBA-based membranes were summarized in Table 1 and Figure 8. The Robeson upper limit is used for evaluating the separation performance of these membranes.

3. Conclusions

There is growing necessity of CO2 separation membrane due to every increasing demand of energy which leads to the global warming due to the CO2 emission. Composite gas separation membrane brings in the advantage of both organic and inorganic components in the membrane that leads to better permeability as well as selectivity. PEBA has both hard as well soft component and loading of fillers into become easier due to the presence of rubbery components. But phase separation of inorganic components is one of the disadvantages of composite membrane. In this review preparation of composite membrane along with their disadvantage is discussed in detail. Keeping in mind the compatibility issue there is the scope of various modification of in- organic filler so that it will be well integrated to the polymeric matrix at molecular level.

Figure

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F1.gif

Schematic diagram of PEBA composite membrane.

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F2.gif

Flowchart of the preparation methodology of flat-sheet dense Pebax/POSS MMMs (Reproduced from Li et al., 14 with permission of Elsevier).

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F3.gif

Cross section of nanocomposites of PEBAX MH 1657 containing 40 wt% of: (a) PEG-GLY-POSS-Chloroform; (b) PEG-GLY-POSS-Toluene; (c) PEG-GLY-POSS-THF; (d) PEG-GDMS-POSS-Chloroform; (e) PEG-GDMS-POSSToluene; and (f) PEG-GDMS-POSS-THF (Reproduced from Rahman et al., 16 with permission of Elsevier).

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F4.gif

The structure of (a) FeBTC, (b) PEBAX (Reproduced from Dorosti et al., 19 with permission of Elsevier).

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F5.gif

The SEM images of PEBAX-2533/ZIF-8 MMM loading percentage in MMM is (a) 5%, (b) 10%, (c) 20%, (d) 30%, (e) 40%, (f) 50%. The inorganic thickness increases as the ZIF-8% increase in MMM (Reproduced from Nafisi et al., 21 with permission of Elsevier).

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F6.gif

The SEM images of fracture surfaces of the blends: PLA/PPG1-10 (a), PLA/PPG1-12.5 (b) and PLA/PPG4- 12.5 (c).

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F7.gif

Schematic complexation among the materials in (a) Pebax 1657 membrane, (b) Pebax 1657/Ag membrane, and (c) Pebax 1657/Ag/IL membrane for gas separation.

MEMBRANE_JOURNAL-29-1-1_F8.gif

CO2 permeability vs. CO2/N2 selectivity values of various PEBAX-based membranes.

Table

CO2 permeability, CO2/N2 selectivity and CO2/CH4 selectivity values of various PEBAX-based membranes

Reference

  1. B. Seoane, J. Coronas, I. Gascon, M. E. Benavides, O. Karvan, J. Caro, F. Kapteijn, and J. Gascon, “Metal-organic framework based mixed matrix membranes: A solution for highly efficient CO2 capture?”, Chem. Soc. Rev., 44, 2421 (2014).
  2. A. Jamil, O. P. Ching, and A. B. M. Shariff, “Current status and future prospect of polymer-layered silicate mixed-matrix membranes for CO2/CH4 separation”, Chem. Eng. Tech., 39, 1392 (2016).
  3. T. S. Chung, L. Y. Jiang, Y. Li, and S. Kulprathipanja, “Mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) comprising organic polymers with dispersed inorganic fillers for gas separation”, Prog. Polym. Sci., 32, 483 (2007).
  4. A. E. Amooghin, S. Mashhadikhan, H. Sanaeepur, A. Moghadassi, T. Matsuura, and S. Ramakrishna, “Substantial breakthroughs on function-led design of advanced materials used in mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): A new horizon for efficient CO2 separation”, Prog Mat. Sci., 102, 222 (2019).
  5. V. Bondar, B. Freeman, and I. Pinnau, “Gas transport properties of poly(Ether-B-Amide) segmented block copolymers”, J. Polym. Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys., 38, 2051 (2000).
  6. H. Rabiee, M. Soltanieh, S. A. Mousavi, and A. Ghadimi, “Improvement in CO2/H2 separation by fabrication of poly(Ether-B-Amide6)/glycerol triacetate gel membranes”. J. Membr. Sci., 469, 43 (2014).
  7. H. S. Faruque and C. Lacabanne, “Study of multiple relaxations in PEBAX, polyether block amide (PA12 2135 block PTMG 2032), copolymer using the thermally stimulated current method”, Polymer, 27, 527 (1986).
  8. N. Azizi, T. Mohammadi, and R. Mosayebi Behbahani, “Comparison of permeability performance of PEBAX-1074/TiO2, PEBAX-1074/SiO2 and PEBAX-1074/Al2O3 nanocomposite membranes for CO2/CH4 separation”, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 117, 177 (2017).
  9. N. Azizi, T. Mohammadi, and R. M. Behbahani, “Synthesis of a PEBAX-1074/ZnO nanocomposite membrane with improved CO2 separation performance”, J. Energy Chem., 26, 454 (2017).
  10. P. A. Gamali, A. Kazemi, R. Zadmard, M. J. Anjareghi, A. Rezakhani, R. Rahighi, and M. Madani, “Distinguished discriminatory separation of CO2 from its methane-containing gas mixture via PEBAX mixed matrix membrane”, Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 26, 73 (2018).
  11. B. Yu, H. Cong, Z. Li, J. Tang, and X. S. Zhao, “Pebax-1657 nanocomposite membranes incorporated with nanoparticles/colloids/carbon nanotubes for CO2/N2 and CO2/H2 separation”, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 130, 2867 (2013).
  12. W. Zhu, Y. Qin, Z. Wang, J. Zhang, R. Guo, and X. Li, “Incorporating the magnetic alignment of GO composites into Pebax matrix for gas separation”, J. Energy Chem., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2018.04.013 (2018).
  13. G. Dong, J. Hou, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, V. Chen, and J. Liu, “Enhanced CO2/N2 separation by porous redu ced graphene oxide/Pebax mixed matrix membranes”, J. Membr. Sci., 520, 860-868 (2016).
  14. Y. Li and T. S. Chung, “Molecular-level mixed matrix membranes comprising Pebax® and POSS for hydrogen purification via preferential CO2 removal”, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 35, 10560 (2010).
  15. M. M. Rahman, V. Filiz, S. Shishatskiy, C. Abetz, S. Neumann, S. Bolmer, M. M. Khan, and V. Abetz, “PEBAX® with PEG functionalized POSS as nanocomposite membranes for CO2 separation”, J. Membr. Sci., 437, 286 (2013).
  16. M. M. Rahman, S. Shishatskiy, C. Abetz, P. Georgopanos, S. Neumann, M. M. Khan, V. Filiz, and V. Abetz, “Influence of temperature upon properties of tailor-made PEBAX® MH 1657 nanocomposite membranes for post-combustion CO2 capture”,J. Memrb. Sci., 469, 344 (2014).
  17. T. Khosravi, M. Omidkhah, S. Kaliaguine, and D. Rodrigue, “Amine-functionalized CuBTC/poly(etherb- amide-6) (Pebax® MH 1657) mixed matrix membranes for CO2/CH4 separation”, Canadian J. Chem. Engg., 95, 2014 (2017).
  18. O. G. Nik, X. Y. Chen, and S. Kaliaguine, “Functionalized metal organic framework-polyimide mixed matrix membranes for CO2/CH4 separation”, J. Membr. Sci., 413, 48 (2012).
  19. F. Dorosti and A. Alizadehdakhel, “Fabrication and investigation of PEBAX/Fe-BTC, a high permeable and CO2 selective mixed matrix membrane”, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 136, 119 (2018).
  20. F. Karamouz, H. Maghsoudi, and R. Yegani, “Synthesis of high-performance Pebax®-1074/DD3R mixed-matrix membranes for CO2/CH4 separation”, Chem. Eng. Technol., 41, 1767 (2018).
  21. V. Nafisi and M. B. Hägg, “Development of dual layer of ZIF-8/PEBAX-2533 mixed matrix membrane for CO2 capture”, J. Membr. Sci., 459, 244 (2014).
  22. J. Didden, R. Thür, A. Volodin, and I. F. J. Vankelecom, “Blending PPO-based molecules with Pebax MH 1657 in membranes for gas separation”, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 135, 46433 (2018).
  23. E. G. Estahbanati, M. Omidkhah, and A. E. Amooghin, “Interfacial design of ternary mixed matrix membranes containing Pebax 1657/Silver-Nanopowder/[BMIM][BF4] for improved CO2 separation performance”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces., 9, 10094 (2017).
  24. A. Jomekian, B. Bazooyar, R. M. Behbahani, T. Mohammadi, and A. Kargari, “Ionic liquid-modified Pebax® 1657 membrane filled by ZIF-8 particles for separation of CO2 from CH4, N2 and H2”, J. Membr. Sci., 524, 652 (2017).
  25. A. R. Gholap, K. Venkatesan, T. Daniel, R. J. Lahoti, and K. V. Srinivasan, “Ultrasound promoted acetylation of alcohols in room temperature ionic liquid under ambient conditions”, Green Chem., 5, 639 (2003).
  26. H. Sanaeepur, R. Ahmadi, A. Ebadi Amooghin, and D. Ghanbari, “A novel ternary mixed matrix membrane containing glycerol-modified poly(ether-blockamide)(Pebax 1657)/copper nanoparticles for CO2 separation”, J. Membr. Sci., 573, 234 (2019).
  27. J. E. Shin, S. K. Lee, Y. H. Cho, and H. B. Park, “Effect of PEG-MEA and graphene oxide additives on the performance of Pebax®1657 mixed matrix membranes for CO2 separation”, J. Membr. Sci.,572, 300 (2019).