静电纺丝制备空气过滤用抗分层聚酰胺66/聚丙烯腈/聚醚砜(PA-66/PAN/PES)三明治结构膜

doi:10.7503/cjcu20160855

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

通过在经处理的不锈钢网(SSM)上逐层电纺制备了简易有效的聚酰胺66/聚丙烯腈/聚醚砜(PA-66/PAN/PES)复合纤维过滤材料. 材料中间层采用以N,N-二甲基甲酰胺(DMF)为溶剂的PAN/PES共混聚合物电纺而成. 扫描电子显微镜表征和比表面积测试结果表明, 在相同纺丝条件下PES量的增加有利于减小纤维直径, 增大膜的孔隙率. 同时, 通过拉伸实验测量了未带有SSM的膜的机械性能(5.857 MPa). 利用PES的良好疏水性, 过滤膜表面具有相对良好的疏水效果, 接触角约为130.58°. 在样品厚度尽可能相等的情况下, 通过对实际空气环境中0.3~5 μm的颗粒进行截流测试发现, PAN/PES-3的过滤效率达到且大于99%. 通过机械振动和空气反吹考察了过滤膜的再生性能. 此外, 还通过使用喷雾喷涂SSM研究了防分层过滤介质的基质.

关键词: 静电纺丝, 抗分层, 复合膜, 空气过滤

Abstract:

A simple and effective composite fiber filter material was prepared which was composed of polyamide-66/polyacrylonitrile/polyethersulfone(PA-66/PAN/PES) fibers with layer by layer on treated stainless steal mesh(SSM). The intermediate layer of the material was dissolved in an N,N-dimethylformaide(DMF) solvent by PAN/PES. With the increase of the amount of PES under the same spinning condition, it is advantageous for the fiber dia-meter to become small and to increase the porosity of the film by the SEM and BET test. Synchronously, the mechanical properties of the films without SSM were measured(5.857 MPa) by tensile test. The surface of the filter membrane has a relatively good hydrophobic effect with contact angle(CA) of 130.58° by making use of the hydrophobicity of PES. In the case of the thickness of the sample as equal as possible, the filtration efficiency of PAN/PES-3 for the particles sized of 0.3—5 μm reached more than 99% by measuring in the actual air environment. The filtered regenerated film was observed by mechanical vibration and air backflush. In addition, we also have explored a substrate for filtered medium by using SSM which was sprayed with water spray to anti-layered.

Key words: Electrospinning, Anti-layered, Composite membrane, Air filtration

中图分类号:

TrendMD:

张莹莹, 康立娟, 韩櫂濂, 赵圣哲, 赵晓冬, 曹金山, 程志强. 静电纺丝制备空气过滤用抗分层聚酰胺66/聚丙烯腈/聚醚砜(PA-66/PAN/PES)三明治结构膜. 高等学校化学学报, 2017, 38(6): 1025.

ZHANG Yingying, KANG Lijuan, HAN Zhaolian, ZHAO Shengzhe, ZHAO Xiaodong, CAO Jinshan, CHENG Zhiqiang. Preparation of Anti-layered Polyamide-66/Polyacrylonitrile/Polyethersulfone (PA-66/PAN/PES) Sandwich Structured Membrane for Air Filtration by Electrospinning. Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2017, 38(6): 1025.

图/表 11

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of PA-66/PAN/PES structure of layer by layer composite fiber filter membrane

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of detection device for airborne particulate matter

Fig.3 SEM images of fibrous membranesMass ratio of PAN/PES: (A) 9∶3; (B) 10∶2; (C) 11∶1; (D) 12∶0; (E) the outermost PES fibrous membrane and contact angle with water drops on the part of flat films; (F) the innermost PA-66 tree-like nanofiber.

Fig.4 Fiber diameter distribution of PAN/PES composite ﬁbrous membranes(A), PES fibrous membrane(B) and PA-66 tree-like nanofiber(C)

Fig.5 N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms of PAN/PES-3(with PA-66) nanofilms, PAN/PES-0(with PA-66) nanofilms and PAN/PES-3(without PA-66) nanofilms

Fig.6 TG curves of membranes a. PES; b. PAN/PES-3; c. PAN.

Fig.7 Curves of tensile tests for films with different PAN/PES mass ratiosa. 9∶3; b. 10∶2; c. 11∶1; d. 12∶0.

Table 1 Tensile testing of electrospinning membranes

Sample	Thickness/mm	Density/(g·cm^-3)	Stress/MPa	Strain break(%)
PAN/PES-3	0.038±0.008	0.437±0.002	5.857±0.12	54.62±4.3
PAN/PES-2	0.045±0.003	0.337±0.001	5.906±0.23	52.18±5.6
PAN/PES-1	0.043±0.004	0.353±0.004	5.953±0.19	51.73±9.1
PAN/PES-0	0.042±0.010	0.353±0.007	5.882±0.16	30.94±6.3

Fig.8 SEM images of PAN/PES-3 with the natural environment(PM≥120) for 24 h and comparison of filtration efficiency of samples with different mass ratios of PAN/PES(A) Inset was the corresponding pictures for the regenerated fibers; (B) inset was the quality factor values of relevant membranes. Mass ratio of PAN/PES: a. 9∶3; b. 10∶2; c. 11∶1; d. 12∶0.

Table 2 Detailed plots of membrane for filtration of airborne particles

Sample	Filtration efficiency(%)						Thickness/mm	Δp/Pa	QF
Sample	0.3 μm				0.5 μm	0.7 μm	1 μm	2 μm	5 μm
PAN/PES-3	99.978	99.990	99.992	99.996	99.9994	100	0.038±0.008	522±7	0.016
PAN/PES-2	99.852	99.888	99.936	99.968	99.9982	100	0.045±0.003	498±3	0.013
PAN/PES-1	99.673	99.722	99.905	99.958	99.9976	100	0.043±0.004	518±6	0.011
PAN/PES-0	99.543	99.703	99.872	99.953	99.9968	100	0.042±0.010	481±3	0.011

Fig.9 Contrast of avulsion interfaces for membranes and SSM(A) and (B) are un-sprayed membrane and sprayed membrane based on the SSM by water spray treatment, respectively.

参考文献 38

[1]	Diapouli E., Chaloulakou A., Spyrellis N., Sci. Total Environ., 2007, 388(1), 128—136
[2]	Xiao G., Wang X.H., Zhang J. P., Ni M. J., Gao X., Luo Z. Y., Cen K. F., Powder Technol., 2013, 244, 93—99
[3]	Wang Q.N., Bai Y. Y., Xie J. F., Jiang Q. R., Qiu Y. P., Powder Technol., 2016, 292, 54—63
[4]	Wang Z., Zhao C.C., Pan Z. J., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2015, 441, 121—129
[5]	Charron A., Harrison R.M., Environ. Sci. Technol., 2005, 39(20), 7768—7776
[6]	Wang N., Zhu Z.G., Sheng J. L., Al-Deyab S. S., Yu J. Y., Ding B., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2014, 428, 41—48
[7]	Yoon K., Hsiao B.S., Chu B., J. Mater. Chem., 2008, 18(44), 5326—5334
[8]	Peters A., Dockery D.W., Muller J. E., Mittleman M. A., Circulation, 2001, 103(23), 2810—2815
[9]	Li Y.P., Xiao K., Luo J. T., Lee J., Pan S. R., Lam K. S., J. Control Release, 2010, 144(3), 314—323
[10]	Hung C.H., Leung W. W. F., Sep. Purif. Technol., 2011, 79(1), 34—42
[11]	Wang C.S., Otani Y., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2012, 52(1), 5—17
[12]	Mikheev A.Y., Kanev I. L., Morozova T. Y., Morozov V. N., J. Membr. Sci., 2013, 448, 151—159
[13]	Wang N., Zhu Z.G., Sheng J. L., Al-Deyab S. S., Yu J. Y., Ding B., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2014, 428, 41—48
[14]	Selvam A.K., Nallathambi G., Fibers Polym., 2015, 16(6), 1327—1335
[15]	Sambaer W., Zatloukal M., Kimmer D., Chem. Eng. Sci., 2011, 66(4), 613—623
[16]	Wang N., Wang X.F., Ding B., Yu J. Y., Sun G., J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22(4), 1445—1452
[17]	Li X.S., Liu Y., Guo C. F., Liu H. Y., Wang G., Chem. Res. Chinese Universities, 2016, 32(1), 127—133
[18]	Strain I.N., Wu Q., Pourrahimi A. M., Hedenqvist M. S., Olsson R. T., Andersson R. L., J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3(4), 1632—1640
[19]	Si Y.S., Mao X., Zheng H. X., Yu J. Y., Ding B., RSC Adv., 2015, 5(8), 6027—6032
[20]	Qin X.H., Wang S. Y., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2006, 102(2), 1285—1290
[21]	Liu X., Yang J.L., Tong L. Y., Zhang Q., Li X. W., Chen J. D., Chem. Res. Chinese Universities, 2015, 31(6), 1062—1065
[22]	Sui C.H., Wang Z. Y., Wang C., Zhou G. D., Cheng T. X., Chem. Res. Chinese Universities, 2016, 32(5), 854—861
[23]	Zhang S.C., Liu H., Yin X., Yu J. Y., Ding B., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2016, 8(12), 8086—8095
[24]	Si Y., Fu Q.X., Wang X. Q., Zhu J., Yu J. Y., Sun G., Ding B., ACS Nano, 2015, 9(4), 3791—3799
[25]	Greiner A., Wendorff J.H., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2007, 46(30), 5670—5703
[26]	Si Y., Yu J. Y., Tang X. M., Ge J. L., Ding B., Nat. Commun., 2014, 5, 5802-1—9
[27]	Leung W.W. F., Hung C. H., Yuen P. T., Sep. Purif. Technol., 2010, 71(1), 30—37
[28]	Sidorina A.I., Druzhinina T. V., Fibre Chem., 2016, 5(47), 362—366
[29]	Cheng Z.Q., Zhang Y. Y., Han Z. L., Cui L.Y., Kang L. J., Zhang F. L., RSC Adv., 2016, 6(88), 85545—85550
[30]	Liu C., Hsu P. C., Lee H. W., Ye M., Zheng G. Y., Liu N., Li W. Y., Cui Y., Nat. Commun., 2015, 6, 6205-1—9
[31]	Xu J.W., Liu C., Hsu P. C., Liu K., Zhang R. F., Liu Y. Y., Cui Y., Nano Lett., 2016, 16(2), 1270—1275
[32]	Yang Y.J., Zhang S. C., Zhao X. G., Yu J. Y., Ding B., Sep. Purif. Technol., 2015, 152, 14—22
[33]	Nataraj S.K., Yang K. S., Aminabhavi T. M., Prog. Polym. Sci., 2012, 37(3), 487—513
[34]	Zhang W.X., Liu J., Wu G., Carbon, 2003, 41(14), 2805—2812
[35]	Liu B.W., Zhang S. C., Wang X. L., Yu J. Y., Ding B., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2015, 457, 203—211
[36]	Li Z.J., Kang W. M., Zhao H. H., HuM., Ju J. G., Deng N. P., Cheng B. W., RSC Adv., 2016, 6(94), 91243—91249
[37]	Yoon K., Hsiao B.S., Chu B., Polymer, 2009, 50(13), 2893—2899
[38]	Wang N., Si Y.S., Wang N., Sun G., El-Newehy M., Al-Deyab S. S., Ding B., Sep. Purif. Technol., 2014, 126, 44—51