Preparation method of standard molecules for the precise estimation of molecular weight cut-off of membranes by gel permeation chromatography

In this study, the weighted mass of standard molecular weight compounds (SMWC) was adopted to improve the accuracy of molecular weight distribution measured by the gel permeation chromatography (GPC). To evaluate the impact of SMWC compositions, the mixture prepared by constant, linear-weighted, and polynomial-weighted SMWC (3 g/L total) was used for the calibration of GPC, and results were confirmed with typical membrane-based size-exclusion experiments. The results obtained by GPC analysis revealed that the composition of SMWC in the feed significantly altered the final molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of same membranes, and the polynomial-weighted SMWC provided the best match with the result of MWCO measured by the single-compound rejection experiment due to the enhanced signal intensity at the higher molecular weight compounds (>20,000 Da). Consequently, the preparation of SMWC in the polynomial manner should be suggested during the calibration and MWCO measurements of membranes by GPC.

[1]  D. Bracewell,et al.  Characterisation of porous anodic alumina membranes for ultrafiltration of protein nanoparticles as a size mimic of virus particles , 2019, Journal of Membrane Science.

[2]  Abdul Rahman Hassan,et al.  Ultrafiltration of palm oil mill effluent: Effects of operational pressure and stirring speed on performance and membranes fouling , 2018, Environmental Engineering Research.

[3]  S. Alban,et al.  Size-dependent pharmacological activities of differently degraded fucoidan fractions from Fucus vesiculosus. , 2018, Carbohydrate polymers.

[4]  Qingchun Ge,et al.  Novel functionalized forward osmosis (FO) membranes for FO desalination: Improved process performance and fouling resistance , 2018, Journal of Membrane Science.

[5]  M. Ulbricht,et al.  Polyarylsulfone-based blend ultrafiltration membranes with combined size and charge selectivity for protein separation , 2018 .

[6]  Junjie Shen,et al.  A wide range and high resolution one-filtration molecular weight cut-off method for aqueous based nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes , 2017 .

[7]  A. Zydney,et al.  Tight ultrafiltration membranes for enhanced separation of dyes and Na2SO4 during textile wastewater treatment , 2016 .

[8]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  A comprehensive physico-chemical characterization of superhydrophilic loose nanofiltration membranes , 2016 .

[9]  Zagabathuni Venkata Panchakshari Murthy,et al.  A comprehensive review on anti-fouling nanocomposite membranes for pressure driven membrane separation processes , 2016 .

[10]  W. Krantz,et al.  Improved design and protocol for evapoporometry determination of the pore-size distribution , 2015 .

[11]  Farah Ejaz Ahmed,et al.  A review on electrospinning for membrane fabrication: Challenges and applications , 2015 .

[12]  J. Calvo,et al.  Fitting approach to liquid–liquid displacement porosimetry based on the log-normal pore size distribution , 2014 .

[13]  Tai-Shung Chung,et al.  Application of thin film composite membranes with forward osmosis technology for the separation of emulsified oil–water , 2014 .

[14]  A. Mendes,et al.  Characterization of Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by GPC/SEC and HPLC Techniques: Effect of Ageing , 2010 .

[15]  I. Suffet,et al.  Ultrafiltration separation of aquatic natural organic matter: chemical probes for quality assurance. , 2009, Water research.

[16]  Andrew G. Livingston,et al.  In search of a standard method for the characterisation of organic solvent nanofiltration membranes , 2007 .

[17]  D. Blank,et al.  ZrO2 and TiO2 membranes for nanofiltration and pervaporation Part 1. Preparation and characterization of a corrosion-resistant ZrO2 nanofiltration membrane with a MWCO < 300 , 2006 .

[18]  S. Vigneswaran,et al.  Analytical methods of size distribution for organic matter in water and wastewater , 2006 .

[19]  K. Kimura,et al.  Rejection of neutral endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceutical active compounds (PhACs) by RO membranes , 2004 .

[20]  C. Causserand,et al.  Improvement of a method for the characterization of ultrafiltration membranes by measurements of tracers retention , 2004 .

[21]  Poonam Mulherkar,et al.  Flex test: a fluorescent dextran test for UF membrane characterization , 2004 .

[22]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Determination of membrane pore size distribution using the fractional rejection of nonionic and charged macromolecules , 2002 .

[23]  J. R. White,et al.  Effect of tensile stress on chain scission and crosslinking during photo-oxidation of polypropylene , 2001 .

[24]  Changsheng Zhao,et al.  Determination of pore size and pore size distribution on the surface of hollow-fiber filtration membranes : a review of methods , 2000 .

[25]  T. Matsuura,et al.  MEMBRANE CHARACTERIZATION BY SOLUTE TRANSPORT AND ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY , 1998 .

[26]  Shin-ichi Nakao,et al.  Determination of pore size and pore size distribution: 3. Filtration membranes , 1994 .

[27]  A. Tremblay,et al.  Membrane pore characterization—comparison between single and multicomponent solute probe techniques , 1991 .

[28]  Akira Yamashita,et al.  Molecular Weight Distribution and Correlation between Chemical Composition and Molecular Weight in a High-Conversion Copolymer of Styrene-Methyl Acrylate , 1978 .

[29]  W. Walton,et al.  Feret's Statistical Diameter as a Measure of Particle Size , 1948, Nature.