• Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society
• /
• 제29권4호
• /
• pp.842-846
• /
• 2008

Layer-by-layer assembled multilayers of poly(ethersulfone)s were deposited on the surface of Nafion membrane for the application of direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC). Aminated poly(ethersulfone) (APES) and sulfonated poly(ethersulfone) (SPES) were used as a polycation and a polyanion for fabrication of the multilayer films. UV/Vis absorption spectroscopy verified a linear build-up of the multilayers of APES and SPES on the surface of Nafion. Thin multilayer films deposited on the Nafion membrane enabled methanol permeability of the membrane to decrease by 78% in comparison with the pristine Nafion. The performance of DMFCs in concentrated methanol was highly enhanced by using the multilayer modified Nafion.

• 한국막학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국막학회 2005년도 추계 총회 및 학술발표회
• /
• pp.291-294
• /
• 2005

• 폴리머
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.70-76
• /
• 2008

UV 조사방법으로 poly(ethersulfone) PES 막에 1,2,3,4-butanetetracarboxylic acid(BTCA)를 그래프트 공중합하고, 이를 아민화시켜 PES 음이온교환막을 합성하였으며, 이들의 구조 및 특성을 확인하였다. PES 음이온교환막의 그래프트율과 아민화율은 반응 시간에 따라 증가하였으며, 80분에서 최대 134%, 1.20 mmol/g이었다. PES 음이온교환막의 초기 열분해온도는 $400^{\circ}C$로 표면개질반응이 진행됨에 따라 감소하였다. PES 음이온교환막의 접촉각은 아민화율이 증가함에 따라 $68.1^{\circ}{\sim}40.2^{\circ}$로 감소하였으며, 함수율과 이온교환용량은 UV 조사시간이 증가함에 따라 80분까지 선형적으로 증가하였다. 또한 막의 평균 기공의 크기와 비표면적은 PES 막, PES-g-BTCA 공중합체막, PES 음이온교환막의 순이었으며, 평균기공 크기값은 624.8, 359.7, 138.5 ${\AA}$, 비표면적은 10.1, 9.7, 1.7 $m^2/g$이었다.

• 한국막학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국막학회 2003년도 추계 총회 및 학술발표회
• /
• pp.188-192
• /
• 2003

• Membrane and Water Treatment
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.25-34
• /
• 2012

Carboxylated polysulfone (CPS), poly (1,4-phenylene ether ethersulfone) (PPEES), membranes were prepared and used for the separation of NaCl and $CaCl_2$, in efficient way with less energy consumption. In this work, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes were employed to the salt rejection behavior of the different salt solutions. The influence of applied pressure (1-12 bar), on the membrane performance was assessed. In CM series of membranes, $CM_1$ showed maximum of 97% water uptake and 36% water swelling, whereas, $CM_4$ showed 75% water uptake and 28% water swelling. In RCM series, $RCM_1$ showed 85% water uptake and 32% water swelling whereas, in $RCM_4$ it was 68% for water uptake and 20% for water swelling. Conclusively reverse osmosis membranes gave better rejection whereas nanofiltration membrane showed enhanced flux. CM1 showed 58% of rejection with 12 L/($m^2$ h) flux and $RCM_1$ showed 55% of rejection with 15 L/($m^2$ h) flux for 0.1 wt.% NaCl solution. Whereas, in 0.1 wt.% $CaCl_2$ solution, membrane $CM_1$ showed 78% of rejection with 12 L/($m^2$ h) flux and $RCM_1$ showed 63% rejection with flux of 9 L/($m^2$ h).