For the first time, self-standing microfiltration (MF) hollow fiber membranes were prepared from cellulose triacetate (CTA) via the thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) method. The resultant membranes were compared with counterparts prepared from cellulose diacetate (CDA) and cellulose acetate propionate (CAP). Extensive solvent screening by considering the Hansen solubility parameters of the polymer and solvent, the polymer’s solubility at high temperature, solidification of the polymer solution at low temperature, viscosity, and processability of the polymeric solution, is the most challenging issue for cellulose membrane preparation. Different phase separation mechanisms were identified for CTA, CDA, and CAP polymer solutions prepared using the screened solvents for membrane preparation. CTA solutions in binary organic solvents possessed the appropriate properties for membrane preparation via liquid–liquid phase separation, followed by a solid–liquid phase separation (polymer crystallization) mechanism. For the prepared CTA hollow fiber membranes, the maximum stress was 3–5 times higher than those of the CDA and CAP membranes. The temperature gap between the cloud point and crystallization onset in the polymer solution plays a crucial role in membrane formation. All of the CTA, CDA, and CAP membranes had a very porous bulk structure with a pore size of ∼100 nm or larger, as well as pores several hundred nanometers in size at the inner surface. Using an air gap distance of 0 mm, the appropriate organic solvents mixed in an optimized ratio, and a solvent for cellulose derivatives as the quench bath media, it was possible to obtain a CTA MF hollow fiber membrane with high pure water permeance and notably high rejection of 100 nm silica nanoparticles. It is expected that these membranes can play a great role in pharmaceutical separation.

For the first time, we have successfully fabricated microfiltration (MF) hollow fiber membranes by the thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) and non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) methods using cellulose acetate benzoate (CBzOH), which is a cellulose derivative with considerable chemical resistance. To obtain an appropriate CBzOH TIPS membrane, a comprehensive solvent screening was performed to choose the appropriate solvent to obtain a membrane with a porous structure. In parallel, the CBzOH membrane was prepared by the NIPS method to compare and evaluate the effect of membrane structure using the same polymer material. Prepared CBzOH membrane by TIPS method showed high porosity, pore size around 100 nm or larger and high pure water permeability (PWP) with slightly low rection performance compared to that by NIPS. On the contrary, CBzOH membranes prepared with the NIPS method showed three times lower PWP with higher rejection. The chemical resistance of the prepared CBzOH membranes was compared with that of cellulose triacetate (CTA) hollow fiber membrane, which is a typical cellulose derivative as a control membrane, using a 2000 ppm sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solution. CBzOH membranes prepared with TIPS and NIPS methods showed considerable resistance against the NaClO solution regardless of the membrane structure, porosity and pore size. On the other hand, when the CTA membrane, as the control membrane, was subjected to the NaClO solution, membrane mechanical strength sharply decreased over the exposure time to NaClO. It is interesting that although the CBzOH TIPS membrane showed three times higher pure water permeability than other membranes with slightly lower rejection and considerably higher NaClO resistance, the mechanical strength of this membrane is more than two times higher than other membranes. While CBzOH samples showed no change in chemical structure and contact angle, CTA showed considerable change in chemical structure and a sharp decrease in contact angle after treatment with NaClO. Thus, CBzOH TIPS hollow fiber membrane is noticeably interesting considering membrane performance in terms of filtration performance, mechanical strength and chemical resistance on the cost of slightly losing rejection performance.