2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0011-9164(02)00733-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of pH on electrokinetic and electrochemical parameters of both sub-layers of composite polyamide/polysulfone membranes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The isoelectric point was measured at 3.7 and 2.8 for HF–O and HF–C membranes, respectively. The isoelectric point around pH 2–4 was expected due to the nature of the polyamide and the presence of the carboxylic groups at the surface of the polyamide [50]. The shift in the isoelectric point after membrane chlorination could be explained as a side effect of the chlorination post-treatment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The isoelectric point was measured at 3.7 and 2.8 for HF–O and HF–C membranes, respectively. The isoelectric point around pH 2–4 was expected due to the nature of the polyamide and the presence of the carboxylic groups at the surface of the polyamide [50]. The shift in the isoelectric point after membrane chlorination could be explained as a side effect of the chlorination post-treatment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(7) the ratio K B /K A is obtained close to 250 (m 3 /mol) 2 . Finally, K A = 10 −3 mol/m 3 is chosen in order to obtain a reasonable dissociation degree of the polymer [35] (values are reported in Tables 3 and 4). …”
Section: Model Application and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(29)) approaches unity in the pH range investigated, the remaining relevant membrane parameters are the products (X 1MAX K A ) and (X 1MAX K B ), as indicated in the following by Eqs. (35).…”
Section: Model Application and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasing the pH increased the negative surface charge of the membrane as confirmed by others (Braghetta et al, 1997;Deshmukh and Childress, 2001;Lee et al, 2002;Tanninen et al, 2002;Yoon et al, 2002), which results in increased electrostatic repulsion between a negatively charged solute and membrane and consequently rejects more solute from water. Conversely, it was determined that the presence of counter ions (Na þ , K þ , Ca 2þ , and Mg 2þ ) in feed water can decrease the membrane rejection of negatively charged solute (Braghetta et al, 1997;Ariza et al, 2002;Yoon et al, 2002).…”
Section: Separation and Fouling Of Nanofiltrationmentioning
confidence: 99%