Weak-reduction graphene oxide membrane for improving water purification performance

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2019.08.024

Abstract

Abstract:

Two-dimensional (2D) materials are promising candidates for advanced water purification membranes. In this work, UV reduced GO (UrGO) membranes on the support of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) had been fabricated for wastewater treatment. The reduction degree of GO membrane on the effect of water purification performance was investigated, and it was found that the weak-reduction GO membrane exhibited the optimal performance of removing pollutant from wastewater than GO membrane. Besides, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Raman spectra and contact angle tests were used to characterize the physical and chemical properties of the UrGO membranes, and the permeance and rejection ability of the as-prepared filtration membranes were determined. Due to the weak-reduction of GO, pristine graphitic sp² domains increased with slightly decreasing D-spacing. Thus, the UrGO membrane showed a higher water flux of 38.27 L m^-2 h^-1 bar^-1, which was improved more than 270% compared to GO membrane, and dyes rejection increased. Those outstanding performances indicated that the UrGO membrane could effectively regulate the contradiction of the trade-off balance between flux and rejection, and hold great potential in real-world waste-water purification.

Key words: Graphene oxide, Membrane, UV irradiation, Weak-reduction, Purification

Hao Yu, Yi He, Guoqing Xiao, Yi Fan, Jing Ma, Yixuan Gao, Ruitong Hou, Jingyu Chen. Weak-reduction graphene oxide membrane for improving water purification performance[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2020, 39: 106-112.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the fabrication of weak-reduction GO membranes.

Fig. 2. Characterization of the membranes. (a) photographs of GO/UrGO membranes under different UV irradiation time. (b) Water CAs on GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO, 18-UrGO membranes with different UV irradiation time (0 h, 6 h, 12 h, 18 h). (c) XRD patterns of GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO, 18-UrGO membranes (wet and dry).

Fig. 3. SEM images of the GO and UrGO membranes. (a, e, i) GO membranes, (b, f, j) 6-UrGO membranes, (c, g, k) 12-UrGO membranes, (d, h, l) 18-UrGO membranes. The area density of all membranes was 2 g m-2.

Fig. 4. High-resolution C 1s XPS spectra of the (a) GO, (b) 6-UrGO, (c) 12-UrGO and (d) 18-UrGO membranes. (e) Raman spectra of the GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO and 18-UrGO membranes.

Fig. 5. Digital photos of GO membranes during ultrasonic treatment 10 min (a) before and (b) after filtrated 1.5 h.

Fig. 6. (a) Relationship between flux of GO membranes (53.03 mg m-2 on PVDF, 50 nm) and filtrated (1 bar) time. (b) The water flux of GO membranes with different loading mass. (c) The flux ratio of MB solution to pure water and MB rejection of GO membranes with different loading mass. (d) The D-spacing and oxygen content of GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO and 18-UrGO membranes. (e) The water flux of GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO and 18-UrGO membranes (53.03 mg m-2). (f) The flux ratio of Rh B solution to pure water and Rh B rejection of GO, 6-UrGO, 12-UrGO and 18-UrGO membranes (53.03 mg m-2).

Fig. 7. (a) Flux and rejection of different dyes of 6-UrGO membrane. (b) Stability of GO and 6-UrGO membranes with different pH conditions.

References

[1]	Q. Schiermeier, Nature 452 (2011) 260-261.
[2]	K. Rahaoui, L.C. Ding, L.P. Tan, W. Mediouri, F. Mahmoudi, K. Nakoa, A. Akbarzadeh, Energy Proc. 110 (2017) 414-419.
[3]	M.A. Eltawil, Z. Zhengming, L. Yuan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2245-2262.
[4]	V. Freger, Science 348 (2015) 1317-1318.
[5]	Z. Jiang, A.G. Livingston, K. Santanu, Science 348 (2015) 1347-1351.
[6]	J. Kamcev, H.B. Park, B.D. Freeman, L.M. Robeson, M. Elimelech, Science 356 (2017), eaab0530.
[7]	S.P. Koenig, L. Wang, J. Pellegrino, J.S. Bunch, Nat. Nanotechnol. 7 (2012) 728-732.
[8]	H.H. Huang, R.K. Joshi, K.K.H De Silva, R Badam, M Yoshimura, J. Membr. Sci. 572 (2019) 12-19.
[9]	Y. Wei, Y. Zhang, X. Gao, Z. Ma, X. Wang, C. Gao, Carbon 139 (2018) 964-981.
[10]	J. Abraham, K.S. Vasu, C.D. Williams, K. Gopinadhan, Y. Su, C.T. Cherian, J. Dix, E. Prestat, S.J. Haigh, I.V. Grigorieva, P. Carbone, A.K. Geim, R.R. Nair, Nat. Nanotechnol. 12 (2017) 546-550.
[11]	M.Y. Lim, Y.S. Choi, J. Kim, K. Kim, H. Shin, J.J. Kim, D.M. Shin, J.C. Lee, J. Membr. Sci. 521 (2017) 1-9.
[12]	Q. Yang, Y. Su, C. Chi, C.T. Cherian, K. Huang, V.G. Kravets, F.C. Wang, J.C. Zhang, A. Pratt, A.N. Grigorenko, F. Guinea, A.K. Geim, R.R. Nair, Nat. Mater. 16 (2017) 1198-1202.
[13]	J. Ma, D. Ping, X. Dong, Membranes 7 (2017) 52.
[14]	Q. Zhang, X. Qian, K.H. Thebo, H.M. Cheng, W. Ren, Sci. Bull. 63 (2018) 788-794.
[15]	W.S. Hung, T.J. Lin, Y.H. Chiao, A. Sengupta, Y.C. Hsiao, S.R. Wickramasinghe, C.C. Hu, K.R. Lee, J.Y. Lai, J. Mater. Chem. A 6 (2018) 19445-19454.
[16]	L. Huang, J. Chen, T. Gao, M. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Dai, L. Qu, G. Shi, Adv. Mater. 28 (2016) 8669-8674.
[17]	H.B. Park, H.W. Yoon, Y.H. Cho, Graphene Oxide Fundam. Appl. 61 (2017) 296-313.
[18]	P. Sun, M. Zhu, K. Wang, M. Zhong, J. Wei, D. Wu, Z. Xu, H. Zhu, ACS Nano 7 (2013) 428-437.
[19]	P. Sun, R. Ma, H. Deng, Z. Song, Z. Zhen, K. Wang, T. Sasaki, Z. Xu, H. Zhu, Chem. Sci. 7 (2016) 6988-6994.
[20]	Y. Han, Z. Xu, C. Gao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 23 (2013) 3693-3700.
[21]	L. Qiu, X. Zhang, W. Yang, Y. Wang, G.P. Simon, D. Li, Chem. Commun. 47 (2011) 5810-5812.
[22]	R.J. Mashl, S. Joseph, N.R. Aluru, E. Jakobsson, Nano Lett. 8 (2003) 589-592.
[23]	K. Wu, Z. Chen, J. Li, X. Li, J. Xu, X. Dong, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (2017) 3358-3363.
[24]	K. Wu, Z. Chen, J. Li, X. Li, J. Xu, X. Dong, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (2017) 3358-3363.
[25]	H. Zeng, K. Wu, X. Cui, Z. Chen, Nano Today 16 (2017) 7-8.
[26]	K. Goh, W. Jiang, H.E. Karahan, S. Zhai, L. Wei, D. Yu, A.G. Fane, R. Wang, Y. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 25 (2015) 7348-7359.
[27]	L. Huang, J. Chen, T. Gao, M. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Dai, L. Qu, G. Shi, Adv. Mater. 28 (2016) 8669-8674.
[28]	P. Sun, Q. Chen, X. Li, H. Liu, K. Wang, M. Zhong, J. Wei, D. Wu, R. Ma, T. Sasaki, H. Zhu, NPG Asia Mater. 7 (2015) e162-e168.
[29]	Y.H. Ding, P. Zhang, Q. Zhuo, H.M. Ren, Z.M. Yang, Y. Jiang,Nanotechnology 22 (2011), 215601.
[30]	G. Heit, A. Neuner, P. Saugy, M. Braun, J. Phys. Chem. A 102 (1998) 5551-5561.
[31]	C.K. Chua, M. Pumera, Chem. Soc. Rev. 43 (2014) 291-312.
[32]	J. Zhang, H. Yang, G. Shen, P. Cheng, J. Zhang, S. Guo, Chem. Commun. 46 (2010) 1112-1114.
[33]	A.A. Nezhad, M. Alimoradi, M. Ramezani, Mater. Res. Express 5 (2018), 025508.
[34]	E.F. Sheka, N.A. Popova, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15 (2013) 13304-13322.
[35]	D. Li, M.B. Müller, S. Gilje, R.B. Kaner, G.G. Wallace, Nat. Nanotechnol. 3 (2008) 101-105.
[36]	A.I.P Advances, T Madras, AIP Adv. 2 (2012), 032183.
[37]	K.N. Kudin, B. Ozbas, H.C. Schniepp, R.K. Prud’homme, I.A. Aksay, R. Car, Nano Lett. 8 (2008) 36-41.
[38]	S. Zheng, Q. Tu, J.J. Urban, S. Li, B. Mi, ACS Nano 11 (2017) 6440-6450.
[39]	J. Hou, C. Bao, S. Qu, X. Hu, S. Nair, Y. Chen, Appl. Surf. Sci. 459 (2018) 185-193.
[40]	C. Sun, X. Feng, Sep. Purif. Technol. 185 (2017) 94-102.
[41]	N.G.P Chew, S Zhao, C Malde, R Wang, J. Membr. Sci. 563 (2018) 31-42.
[42]	M. Ping, X. Zhang, M. Liu, Z. Wu, Z. Wang, J. Membr. Sci. 570-571 (2019) 286-293.
[43]	Z. Cui, X. Tang, W. Li, H. Liu, J. Zhang, H. Wang, J. Li, J. Mater. Sci. 54 (2019) 5971-5987.
[44]	G.E. Chen, W.G. Sun, Y.F. Kong, Q. Wu, L. Sun, J. Yu, Z.L. Xu, Polym. Technol. Eng. 57 (2018) 108-117.
[45]	D.W. Boukhvalov, M.I. Katsnelson, Y.W. Son, Nano Lett. 13 (2013) 3930-3935.