Fig. 3: Membrane performance evaluation. | Nature Communications

Fig. 3: Membrane performance evaluation.

From: Advanced electrically conductive carbon nanotubes-PVDF composite membranes with electro-promoted water treatment performance

Fig. 3: Membrane performance evaluation.

a Pore distribution of CNTs-PVDF, CM1, CM2, CM3 and CM4 membranes. Inserted image is the mean pore size. b Comparison of pure water permeances of CNTs-PVDF, CM1, CM2, CM3 and CM4 membranes (CM1, CM2, CM3 and CM4 are commercial PVDF membranes from internationally renowned brands). c Average porosity of CNTs-PVDF, CM1, CM2, CM3 and CM4 membranes calculated according to the Griess method. d DFT-calculated adsorption energies of CNTs-water and β-PVDF-water. Inserted images are DFT-calculated electron density difference distributions between CNTs/water and PVDF/water, respectively. e MD-calculated water molecular adsorption behavior at CNTs-water interface. f Normalized flux decreasing of CNTs-PVDF membrane filtrating HA solution under external potentials of 0 V, −0.25 V, −0.30 V, −0.68 V, −1.04 V, −1.35 V vs. Ag/AgCl. g Backwash intervals of the CNTs-PVDF membrane were extended by 12.6-19 times longer than those of the CM1, CM2, CM3, and CM4 membranes. h Antifouling performance comparison of CNTs-PVDF membranes under external potential of −1.35 V vs. Ag/AgCl. The dashed line is guide to the eye. i Surface charge density of CNTs-PVDF membranes under external potentials of 0 V and −1.35 V vs. Ag/AgCl. Error bars indicate the standard deviations from three different samples. The data are presented as mean ± SD.

Back to article page