A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance

This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the so...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Amos Adeniyi [verfasserIn] Gerald Oke Odo [verfasserIn] Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz [verfasserIn] Celine Pochat-Bohatier [verfasserIn] Sandrine Mbakop [verfasserIn] Maurice Stephen Onyango [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Polymers - MDPI AG, 2011, 15(2023), 12, p 2636
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2023 ; number:12, p 2636

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/polym15122636

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ094074984

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ094074984
003	DE-627
005	20240413025245.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	240413s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/polym15122636 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ094074984
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QD241-441
100	0		\|a Amos Adeniyi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.
650		4	\|a ultrafiltration
650		4	\|a PEG
650		4	\|a CNC
650		4	\|a COD
650		4	\|a turbidity
650		4	\|a morphology
653		0	\|a Organic chemistry
700	0		\|a Gerald Oke Odo \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Celine Pochat-Bohatier \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sandrine Mbakop \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Maurice Stephen Onyango \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Polymers \|d MDPI AG, 2011 \|g 15(2023), 12, p 2636 \|w (DE-627)61409612X \|w (DE-600)2527146-5 \|x 20734360 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2023 \|g number:12, p 2636
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2119
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2023 \|e 12, p 2636

Indexfelder

author_variant	a a aa g o o goo d g o dgo c p b cpb s m sm m s o mso
matchkey_str	article:20734360:2023----::cmaiootefetfellsnncytlccadoytyeelcleaadtvsnlrflrtommrn
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
callnumber-subject-code	QD
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.3390/polym15122636 doi (DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Amos Adeniyi verfasserin aut A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry Gerald Oke Odo verfasserin aut Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz verfasserin aut Celine Pochat-Bohatier verfasserin aut Sandrine Mbakop verfasserin aut Maurice Stephen Onyango verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 15(2023), 12, p 2636 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2023 12, p 2636
spelling	10.3390/polym15122636 doi (DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Amos Adeniyi verfasserin aut A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry Gerald Oke Odo verfasserin aut Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz verfasserin aut Celine Pochat-Bohatier verfasserin aut Sandrine Mbakop verfasserin aut Maurice Stephen Onyango verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 15(2023), 12, p 2636 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2023 12, p 2636
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/polym15122636 doi (DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Amos Adeniyi verfasserin aut A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry Gerald Oke Odo verfasserin aut Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz verfasserin aut Celine Pochat-Bohatier verfasserin aut Sandrine Mbakop verfasserin aut Maurice Stephen Onyango verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 15(2023), 12, p 2636 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2023 12, p 2636
allfieldsGer	10.3390/polym15122636 doi (DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Amos Adeniyi verfasserin aut A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry Gerald Oke Odo verfasserin aut Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz verfasserin aut Celine Pochat-Bohatier verfasserin aut Sandrine Mbakop verfasserin aut Maurice Stephen Onyango verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 15(2023), 12, p 2636 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2023 12, p 2636
allfieldsSound	10.3390/polym15122636 doi (DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QD241-441 Amos Adeniyi verfasserin aut A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated. ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry Gerald Oke Odo verfasserin aut Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz verfasserin aut Celine Pochat-Bohatier verfasserin aut Sandrine Mbakop verfasserin aut Maurice Stephen Onyango verfasserin aut In Polymers MDPI AG, 2011 15(2023), 12, p 2636 (DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5 20734360 nnns volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636 https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2023 12, p 2636
language	English
source	In Polymers 15(2023), 12, p 2636 volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636
sourceStr	In Polymers 15(2023), 12, p 2636 volume:15 year:2023 number:12, p 2636
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology Organic chemistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Polymers
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Amos Adeniyi @@aut@@ Gerald Oke Odo @@aut@@ Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz @@aut@@ Celine Pochat-Bohatier @@aut@@ Sandrine Mbakop @@aut@@ Maurice Stephen Onyango @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	61409612X
id	DOAJ094074984
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ094074984</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413025245.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240413s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/polym15122636</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ094074984</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD241-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amos Adeniyi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ultrafiltration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PEG</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">CNC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">COD</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">turbidity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">morphology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Organic chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gerald Oke Odo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Celine Pochat-Bohatier</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sandrine Mbakop</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maurice Stephen Onyango</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Polymers</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2023), 12, p 2636</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)61409612X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2527146-5</subfield><subfield code="x">20734360</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:12, p 2636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">12, p 2636</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	Amos Adeniyi
spellingShingle	Amos Adeniyi misc QD241-441 misc ultrafiltration misc PEG misc CNC misc COD misc turbidity misc morphology misc Organic chemistry A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
authorStr	Amos Adeniyi
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)61409612X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QD241-441
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20734360
topic_title	QD241-441 A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance ultrafiltration PEG CNC COD turbidity morphology
topic	misc QD241-441 misc ultrafiltration misc PEG misc CNC misc COD misc turbidity misc morphology misc Organic chemistry
topic_unstemmed	misc QD241-441 misc ultrafiltration misc PEG misc CNC misc COD misc turbidity misc morphology misc Organic chemistry
topic_browse	misc QD241-441 misc ultrafiltration misc PEG misc CNC misc COD misc turbidity misc morphology misc Organic chemistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Polymers
hierarchy_parent_id	61409612X
hierarchy_top_title	Polymers
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)61409612X (DE-600)2527146-5
title	A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ094074984 (DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797
title_full	A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
author_sort	Amos Adeniyi
journal	Polymers
journalStr	Polymers
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Amos Adeniyi Gerald Oke Odo Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz Celine Pochat-Bohatier Sandrine Mbakop Maurice Stephen Onyango
container_volume	15
class	QD241-441
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Amos Adeniyi
doi_str_mv	10.3390/polym15122636
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of the effect of cellulose nanocrystals (cncs) and polyethylene glycol (peg) as additives in ultrafiltration membranes (pes-uf): characterization and performance
callnumber	QD241-441
title_auth	A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
abstract	This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.
abstractGer	This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.
abstract_unstemmed	This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	12, p 2636
title_short	A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636 https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636 https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360
remote_bool	true
author2	Gerald Oke Odo Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz Celine Pochat-Bohatier Sandrine Mbakop Maurice Stephen Onyango
author2Str	Gerald Oke Odo Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz Celine Pochat-Bohatier Sandrine Mbakop Maurice Stephen Onyango
ppnlink	61409612X
callnumber-subject	QD - Chemistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/polym15122636
callnumber-a	QD241-441
up_date	2024-07-03T21:06:25.316Z
_version_	1803593486507704320
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ094074984</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413025245.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240413s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/polym15122636</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ094074984</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD241-441</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amos Adeniyi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This work demonstrated the potential of CNC as a substitute for PEG as an additive in ultrafiltration membrane fabrication. Two sets of modified membranes were fabricated using the phase inversion technique, with polyethersulfone (PES) as the base polymer and 1-N-methyl-2 pyrrolidone (NMP) as the solvent. The first set was fabricated with 0.075 wt% CNC, while the second set was fabricated with 2 wt% PEG. All membranes were characterized using SEM, EDX, FTIR, and contact angle measurements. The SEM images were analyzed for surface characteristics using WSxM 5.0 Develop 9.1 software. The membranes were tested, characterized, and compared for their performance in treating both synthetic and real restaurant wastewater. Both membranes exhibited improved hydrophilicity, morphology, pore structure, and roughness. Both membranes also exhibited similar water flux for real and synthetic polluted water. However, the membrane prepared with CNC gave higher turbidity removal and COD removal when raw restaurant water was treated. The membrane compared well with the UF membrane containing 2 wt% PEG in terms of morphology and performance when synthetic turbid water and raw restaurant water were treated.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ultrafiltration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PEG</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">CNC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">COD</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">turbidity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">morphology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Organic chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gerald Oke Odo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Danae Gonzalez-Ortiz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Celine Pochat-Bohatier</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sandrine Mbakop</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maurice Stephen Onyango</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Polymers</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2023), 12, p 2636</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)61409612X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2527146-5</subfield><subfield code="x">20734360</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:12, p 2636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122636</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/1935a512b1044d8184cd4cd7c9a2f797</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/12/2636</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2073-4360</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">12, p 2636</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4021015

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A Comparison of the Effect of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as Additives in Ultrafiltration Membranes (PES-UF): Characterization and Performance

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?