Issue

Vol. 30 No. 11 (2018): Vol 30 Issue 11

Copyright (c) 2018 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Synthesis, Characterization and Flux Evaluation of Chitosan tri-polyphosphate Membrane and Chitosan/tri-polyphosphate Membrane Impregnated with Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2018.21494
A. Febriasari
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitas Serang Raya, Jl.Raya Cilegon-Serang Km. 05, Drangong, Taktakan, Kota Serang, Banten 42162, Indonesia
D. Siswanta
Department of Chemistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sekip Utara BLS 21, Bulaksumur, Sinduadi, MLati, Kabupaten Sleman, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
N. Riyanto
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitas Serang Raya, Jl.Raya Cilegon-Serang Km. 05, Drangong, Taktakan, Kota Serang, Banten 42162, Indonesia
N. Hidayat Aprilita
Department of Chemistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sekip Utara BLS 21, Bulaksumur, Sinduadi, MLati, Kabupaten Sleman, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
F. Silvianti
Politeknik ATK Yogyakarta, Jl. Ringroad Selatan, Glugo, Panggungharjo, Sewon, Bantul, Yogyakarta 55188, Indonesia

Corresponding Author(s) : A. Febriasari

arifinafebriasari@lppmunsera.org; arifinafebriasari25@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 30 No. 11 (2018): Vol 30 Issue 11

Abstract

The present study report the synthesis of chitosan tri-polyphosphate (CTP) membrane and of CTP membrane impregnated with zinc oxide nanoparticles. The zinc oxide nanoparticles was intended to improve the antifouling performance in membrane. Synthesis was performed by mixing method. In the CTP membrane synthesis, tri-polyphosphate concentrations were varied. Meanwhile, in impregnation of the CTP membrane with zinc oxide, the ratios of chitosan to zinc oxide nanoparticles were varied. SEM-EDS analysis showed the biggest zinc oxide nanoparticle distribution occurred with a chitosan to zinc oxide ratio of 2:1 (32.08 %). The addition of zinc oxide nanoparticles occurred the wider pore radius of membranes. Water contact angle analysis showed that chitosan, CTP and CTP-zinc oxide membranes are hydrophilic and the additions of zinc oxide affect the decrease in hydrophilic property of membranes. Membrane performance test on methylene blue showed reduced flux at the most stable time in CTP-zinc oxide (2:1) membrane and maximum flux recovery ratio was present in CTP-zinc oxide (2:1).

Keywords

Membrane Chitosan Tri-polyphosphate Zinc oxide nanoparticles Antifouling performance
Febriasari, A., Siswanta, D., Riyanto, N., Aprilita, N. H., & Silvianti, F. (2018). Synthesis, Characterization and Flux Evaluation of Chitosan tri-polyphosphate Membrane and Chitosan/tri-polyphosphate Membrane Impregnated with Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 30(11), 2509–2514. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2018.21494
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. X. Lu, S. Romero-Vargas Castrillón, D.L. Shaffer, J. Ma and M. Elimelech, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 12219 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1021/es403179m.
  2. W.I. Mortada, K.A. Nabieh, A.F. Donia, A.M. Ismail and I.M.M. Kenawy, J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol., 36, 52 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.04.004.
  3. I.M. Atadashi, M.K. Aroua, A.R.A. Aziz and N.M.N. Sulaiman, Appl. Energy, 88, 4239 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.05.029.
  4. V.K. Thakur and S.I. Voicu, Carbohydr. Polym., 146, 148 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.03.030.
  5. C. Bhattacharjee, V.K. Saxena and S. Dutta, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol., 43, 136 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2017.08.002.
  6. J. Zhou, G. Romero, E. Rojas, L. Ma, S. Moya and C. Gao, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 345, 241 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2010.02.004.
  7. W. Zhang, L. Ding, J. Luo, M.Y. Jaffrin and B. Tang, Chem. Eng. J., 302, 446 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.05.071.
  8. S. Judd, Trends Biotechnol., 26, 109 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.005.
  9. R.F.M. Elshaarawy, F.H.A. Mustafa, L. van Geelen, A.E.A. Abou-Taleb, H.R.Z. Tadros, R. Kalscheuer and C. Janiak, Carbohydr. Polym., 172, 352 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.05.059.
  10. F.M. Sukma and P.Z. Çulfaz-Emecen, J. Memb. Sci., 545, 329 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.080.
  11. A. Febriasari, D. Siswanta, A.A. Kiswandono and N.H. Aprilita, J. Rekayasa Kim. Lingkung., 11, 99 (2016); https://doi.org/10.23955/rkl.v11i2.5112.
  12. A.A. Alshahrani, H. Al-Zoubi, L.D. Nghiem and M. in het Panhuis, Desalination, 418, 60 ( 2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.05.031.
  13. S. Tamburaci and F. Tihminlioglu, Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 80, 222 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.05.069.
  14. M. Ahmad, K. Manzoor and S. Ikram, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 105, 190 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.07.008.
  15. A. Zahir, Z. Aslam, M.S.Kamal, W. Ahmad, A.Abbas and R. A. Shawabkeh, J. Mol. Liq., 244, 211 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.09.006.
  16. C.C. dos Santos, R. Mouta, M.C.C. Junior and S.A.A. Santana, Carbohydr. Polym., 180, 182 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.09.076.
  17. H. Altaher, J. Hazard. Mater., 233–234, 97 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.06.061.
  18. C. Liu, R. Bai and L. Nan, Sodium Tripolyphosphate (TPP) Crosslinked Chitosan Membranes and Application in Humic Acid Removal, AIChE Annual Meeting, Conf. Proceeding, pp. 5561-5574 (2004).
  19. M. Mohajeri, H. Akbarpour and V. Karimkhani, Mater. Today Proc., 4, 4906 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.04.094.
  20. L. Djerahov, P. Vasileva, I. Karadjova, R.M. Kurakalva and K.K. Aradhi, Carbohydr. Polym., 147, 45 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.03.080.
  21. R. Cai, H. Wang, M. Cao, L. Hao, L. Zhai, S. Jiang and X. Li, Mater. Des., 87, 17 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.004.
  22. R. Ma, Y.L. Ji, Y.S. Guo, Y.F. Mi, Q.F. An and C.J. Gao, Desalination, 416, 35 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.016.
  23. I. Munnawar, S.S. Iqbal, M.N. Anwar, M. Batool, S. Tariq, N. Faitma, A.L. Khan, A.U. Khan, U. Nazar, T. Jamil and N.M. Ahmad, Carbohydr. Polym., 175, 661 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.08.036.
  24. N. Ghaemi, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 485, 81 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.09.035.
  25. S. Mokhtari, A. Rahimpour, A.A. Shamsabadi, S. Habibzadeh and M. Soroush, Appl. Surf. Sci., 393, 93 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.10.005.
  26. J. He, A. Cui, S. Deng and J.P. Chen, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 512, 190 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.09.106.
  27. Minkal. M. Ahuja and D.C. Bhatt, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 106, 1184 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.128.
  28. A. Gnanaprakasam, V.M. Sivakumar, P.L. Sivayogavalli and M. Thirumarimurugan, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 121, 121 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.04.043.
  29. Z. Xu, X. Li, K. Teng, B. Zhou, M. Ma, M. Shan, K. Jiao, X. Qian and J. Fan, J. Membr. Sci., 535, 94 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.04.029.
  30. J. Kalmár, G. Lente and I. Fábián, Dyes Pigments, 127, 170 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2015.12.025.
  31. C.P. Kiilll, H.S. Barud, S.H. Santagneli, S.J.L. Ribeiro, A.M. Silva, A. Tercjak, J. Gutierrez, A.M. Pironi and M.P.D. Gremião, Carbohydr. Polym., 157, 1695 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.053.
  32. F. Rázga, D. Vnuková, V. Némethová, P. Mazancová and I. Lacík, Carbohydr. Polym., 151, 488 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.05.092.
  33. S.H. Woo, B.R. Min and J.S. Lee, Separ. Purif. Tech., 187, 274 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.06.030.
  34. Y. Feng, K. Wang, C. Davies and H. Wang, Nanomaterials, 5, 1366 (2015); https://doi.org/10.3390/nano5031366.
  35. F. Zhang, J. Lan, Y. Yang, T. Wei, R. Tan and W. Song, J. Nanopart. Res., 15, 2034 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2034-2
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0