Hydophilic polypropylene microporous membrane for using in a membrane bioreactor system and optimization of preparation conditions by response surface methodology

Document Type: Original research


1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

2 Environmental Engineering Research Center, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

3 Young Researchers and Elites Club, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran


In this study, the response surface methodology (RSM) based on the central composite design (CCD) was used to optimize the preparation condition of polypropylene-grafted maleic anhydride (PP-g-MA) microporous membrane by thermally-induced phase separation (TIPS) method. A mixture of dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and dioctyl phthalate (DOP) was used as diluent. The effect of polymer composition and quenching bath temperature on the morphology and performance of the fabricated microporous membranes was investigated by using RSM. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine which variables and interactions between variables had a significant effect on our responses. The ANOVA revealed that the bath temperature was the most significant variable associated with porosity and pure water flux responses and the polymer concentration was the most significant variable associated with tensile response. The obtained results also showed that with increasing the polymer concentration and decreasing the quenching bath temperature, the membrane porosity and pure water flux decreased, whereas the membrane tensile increased. The regression equations were reasonably validated and used to predict and optimize the performance of PP-g-MA membranes within the limits of the variables. Finally, the maximum responses (flux of 115.6 L/m2h, porosity of 62% and tensile of 1.6 MPa) were obtained under the following conditions: polymer concentration of 28.5 wt% and temperature of 329 K. Further, comparison of laboratory-made and commercial membranes in a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system showed that the rate of membrane fouling was decreased by 4.2 times.


Main Subjects

  1. Jafarzadeh Y, Yegani R, Sedaghat M (2015) Preparation, characterization and fouling analysis of ZnO/polyethylene hybrid membranes for collagen separation. Chem Eng Res Des 94: 417-427
  2. Lee MK, Lee J (2015) Mimicking permafrost formation for the preparation of porous polymer membranes. Polymer 74: 176-181
  3. Cooney DA, Way JD, Wolden CA (2014) A comparison of the performance and stability of Pd/BCC metal composite membranes for hydrogen purification. Inter J Hyd Energy 39:19009-19017
  4. Juang RS, Hou WT, Huang YC, Tseng YC, Huang C (2016) Surface hydrophilic modifica-tions on polypropylene membranes by remote methane/oxygen mixture plasma discharges. J Taiwan Ins Chem Eng 65: 420–426
  5. Gazagnes L, Cerneaux S, Persin M, Prouzet E, Larbot A (2007) Desalination of sodium chloride solutions and seawater with hydrophobic ceramic membranes. Desalination 217: 260-266
  6. Karkhanechi H, Rajabzadeh S, Nicolò ED, Usuda H, Matsuyama H, Preparation and char-acterization of ECTFE hollow fiber membranes via thermally induced phase separation (TIPS). Polymer 97: 515-524
  7. Tang YH, He YD, Wang XL (2015) Investigation on the membrane formation process of polymer–diluent system via thermally induced phase separation accompanied with mass transfer across the interface: Dissipative particle dynamics simulation and its experimental verification. J Membr Sci 474: 196-206
  8. Bang Ly H,  Le Droumaguet B,  Monchiet V, Grande D (2016) Tailoring doubly porous poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)-based materials via thermally induced phase separation. Polymer 86: 138-146
  9. Matsuyama H, Kim MK, Lloyd DR (2002) Effect of extraction and drying on the structure of microporous polyethylene membranes prepared via thermally induced phase separation. J Membr Sci 204: 413-419
  10. Madaeni SS, Rahimpour A (2005) Effect of type of solvent and non-solvents on morphology and performance of polysulfone and polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes for milk concentration. Polym Adv Technol 16: 717-724
  11. Liang HQ, Wu QY, Wan LS, Huang XJ, Xu ZK (2013) Polar polymer membranes via thermally induced phase separation using a universal crystallizable diluent. J Membr Sci 446: 482-493
  12. Krajewski SR (2006) Application of fluoroal-kylsilanes (FAS) grafted ceramic membranes in membrane distillation process of NaCl solutions. J Membr Sci 281: 253-259
  13. Chou WL, Yang MC (2005) Effect of coagulant temperature and composition on surface morphology and mass transfer properties of cellulose acetate hollow fiber membranes. Polym Adv Technol 16: 524-532
  14. Sun X, Sun G, Wang X (2017) Morphology modeling for polymer monolith obtained by non-solvent-induced phase separation. Polymer 108: 432-441
  15. Buonomenna MG, Figoli A, Jansen JC, Drioli E (2004) Preparation of asymmetric PEEKWC flat membranes with different microstructures by wet phase inversion. J Appl Polym Sci 92: 576-591
  16. Zheng L, Wu Z, Zhang Y, Wei Y, Wang J (2016) Effect of non-solvent additives on the morphology, pore structure, and direct contact membrane distillation performance of PVDF-CTFE hydrophobic membranes. J Environ Sci 45: 28-39
  17. Wang Z, Yu W, Zhou C (2015) Preparation of polyethylene microporous membranes with high water permeability from thermally induced multiple phase transitions. Polymer 56: 535-544
  18. Luo B, Li Z, Zhang J, Wang X (2008) Formation of anisotropic microporous isotactic polypropylene (iPP) membrane via thermally induced phase separation. Desalination 233:19-31
  19. Jones TD, Chaffin KA, Bates FS (2002) Effect of tacticity on coil dimensions and thermodynamic properties of polypropylene. Macromolecules 35: 5061-5068
  20. Matsuyama H, Maki T, Teramoto M, Asano K (2002) Effect of polypropylene molecular weight on porous membrane formation by thermally induced phase separation. J Membr Sci 204: 323-328
  21. Lin Y, Chen G, Yang J, Wang X L (2009) Formation of isotactic polypropylene membranes with bicontinuous structure and good strength via thermally induced phase separation method. Desalination 236: 8-15
  22. Bae B, Chun BH, Kim D (2001) Surface characterization of microporous polypropylene membranes modified by plasma treatment. Polymer 42: 7879-7885
  23. Yu HY, Liu LQ, Tang ZQ, Yan MG, Gu JS, Wei XW (2008) Surface modification of polypropylene microporous membrane to improve its antifouling characteristics in an SMBR: Air plasma treatment. J Membr Sci 311: 216-224
  24. Shi H, Shi D, Yin L, Luan S, Zhao J (2010) Synthesis of amphiphilic polycyclooctene-graft–poly (ethylene glycol) copolymers by ring-opening metathesis polymerization. React Functional Polym 70: 449-455
  25. Saffar A, Carreau PJ, Kamal MR, Ajji A (2014) Hydrophilic modification of polypropylene mi‌croporous membranes by grafting TiO2 nanoparticles with acrylic acid groups on the surface. Polymer 55: 6069-6075
  26. Wang H, Yang L, Zhao X, Yu T, Du Q (2009) Improvement of hydrophilicity and blood compatibility on polyethersulfone membrane by blending sulfonated polyethersulfone. Chinese J Chem Eng 17: 324-329
  27. Saffar A, Carreau PJ, Ajji A, Kamal MR (2014) Development of polypropylene microporous hydrophilic membranes by blending with PP-g-MA and PP-g-AA. J Membr Sci 462: 50-61
  28. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, New York, John Wiley & Sons
  29. Wang C, Wei A, Wu H, Qu F, Chen W, Liang H, Li G (2016) Application of response surface methodology to the chemical cleaning process of ultrafiltration membrane. Chinese J Chem Eng 24: 651-657
  30. Ilbeygi HM, Ismail AF, Nasef MM, Jaafar J, Ghasemi M, Matsuura T, Zaidi SMJ (2014) Transport properties of SPEEK nanocomposite proton conducting membranes: Optimization of additives content by response surface methodology. J Taiwan Ins Chem Eng 45: 2265–2279
  31. Khayet M, Seman M, Hilal N (2010) Response surface modeling and optimization of composite nanofiltration modified membranes. J Membr Sci 349: 113-122
  32. Idris A, Kormin F, Noordin M (2006) Application of response surface methodology in describing the performance of thin film composite membrane. Sep Purif Technol 49: 271-280
  33. Wongkaew K, Wannachod T, Mohdee V, Pancharoen U, Arpornwichanop A, Lothongkum AW (2016) Mass transfer resistance and response surface methodology for separation of platinum (IV) across hollow fiber supported liquid membrane. J Ind Eng Chem 42: 23-35
  34. Subramonian S, Abdul Rahim S (2014) Comparison between Taguchi Method and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) in modelling CO2 laser machining. Jordan J Mechanical Ind Eng 8: 35-42
  35. Fallon M, Walton AJ, Newsam MI, Gaston GJ (1995) A comparison of Taguchi methods and response surface methodology for optimising a CMOS process. IEE Colloquium on Improving the Efficiency of IC Manufacturing Technology, p. 4
  36. Luo F, Jun Z, Xiaolin W, Jianfei C, Zhongzi X (2002) Formation of hydrophilic ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer microporous membranes via thermally induced phase separation. Acta Polym Sinica 5: 566-571
  37. Chang IS, Lee CH, Ahn KH (1999) Membrane filtration characteristics in membrane coupled activated sludge system: The effect of floc structure on membrane fouling. Sep Sci Technol 34: 1743–1758
  38. Zhang XQ, Bishop PL, Kinkle BK (1999) Comparison of extraction methods for quantifying extracellular polymers in biofilms. Water Sci Technol 39: 211-218
  39. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton K, Rebers PA (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28: 350-357