Characterizing NF and RO membrane surface heterogeneity using chemical force microscopy

Chemical force microscopy (CFM) was used to characterize the chemical heterogeneity of two commercially available nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. CFM probes were modified with three different terminal functionalities: methyl (CH3), carboxyl (COOH), and hydroxyl (OH). Chemically distinct information about the membrane surfaces was deduced based on differences in adhesion between the CFM probes and the membrane surfaces using both traditional atomic force microscopy (AFM) force measurements and spatially resolved friction images. Contact angle titration and streaming potential measurements provided general information about surface chemistry and potential, which largely complemented the CFM analyses, but could not match the accuracy of CFM on the atomic level. Using CFM it was found that both membranes were characterized as chemically heterogeneous. Specifically, membrane chemical heterogeneity became more significant as the scan size approached colloidal or micron-sized dimensions. In many instances, the chemically unique regions, contributing to the overall chemical heterogeneity of the membrane surface, were substantially different in chemistry (e.g., hydrophobicity) from that determined for the surface at large from contact angel and streaming potential analyses. Topographical and corresponding CFM images supports previous adhesion studies finding a correlation between surface roughness and the magnitude of adhesion measured with AFM. However, chemical specificity was also significant and in turn measurable with CFM. The implication of these findings for future membrane development is discussed.

[1]  Nidal Hilal,et al.  A new technique for membrane characterisation: direct measurement of the force of adhesion of a single particle using an atomic force microscope , 1998 .

[2]  H Takano,et al.  Chemical and biochemical analysis using scanning force microscopy. , 1999, Chemical reviews.

[3]  James R. Smith,et al.  Mapping the Surface Heterogeneity of a Polymer Blend: An Adhesion-Force-Distribution Study Using the Atomic Force Microscope , 2000 .

[4]  S. Bhattacharjee,et al.  Role of spatial distribution of porous medium surface charge heterogeneity in colloid transport , 2001 .

[5]  M. D. Pinho,et al.  Membrane surface characterisation by contact angle measurements using the immersed method , 1997 .

[6]  C. J. Oss,et al.  On the Predominant Electron- Donicity of Polar Solid Surfaces* , 1997 .

[7]  G. Whitesides,et al.  Chemical force spectroscopy in heterogeneous systems: intermolecular interactions involving epoxy polymer, mixed monolayers, and polar solvents. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[8]  Edward A. McBean,et al.  Statistical procedures for analysis of environmental monitoring data and risk assessment , 2000 .

[9]  G. Dietler,et al.  Force-distance curves by atomic force microscopy , 1999 .

[10]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Transient deposition of colloidal particles in heterogeneous porous media , 1994 .

[11]  Clear,et al.  Chemical Force Microscopy Study of Adhesion and Friction between Surfaces Functionalized with Self-Assembled Monolayers and Immersed in Solvents. , 1999, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[12]  N. Spencer,et al.  Toward a force spectroscopy of polymer surfaces , 1998 .

[13]  Hua Zhang,et al.  Demonstration of High-Resolution Capability of Chemical Force Titration via Study of Acid/Base Properties of a Patterned Self-Assembled Monolayer , 2000 .

[14]  T. Beebe,et al.  Determination of Single-Bond Forces from Contact Force Variances in Atomic Force Microscopy , 1996 .

[15]  Singh,et al.  Adhesion between Nanoscale Rough Surfaces. , 2000, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[16]  G. Leggett Friction force microscopy of self-assembled monolayers: probing molecular organisation at the nanometre scale , 2003 .

[17]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[18]  T. Olson,et al.  Colloid deposition rates on silica bed media and artifacts related to collector surface preparation methods , 1993 .

[19]  C. V. Oss,et al.  Interfacial Forces in Aqueous Media , 1994 .

[20]  E. Molis,et al.  The effect of CA membrane properties on adsorptive fouling by humic acid , 1999 .

[21]  B. Logan,et al.  Effect of molecular scale roughness of glass beads on colloidal and bacterial deposition. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  Chung-Yuen Hui,et al.  The mechanics of contact and adhesion of periodically rough surfaces , 2001 .

[23]  Rosário Oliveira,et al.  Understanding Adhesion: A Means for Preventing Fouling , 1997 .

[24]  C. Tanford Macromolecules , 1994, Nature.

[25]  W. D. Mores,et al.  Direct visual observation of yeast deposition and removal during microfiltration , 2001 .

[26]  Timothy Senden,et al.  Surface chemistry and tip-sample interactions in atomic force microscopy , 1995 .

[27]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Colloidal adhesion to hydrophilic membrane surfaces , 2004 .

[28]  Gupta,et al.  Substrate Morphology and Particle Adhesion in Reacting Systems. , 2000, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[29]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Role of membrane surface morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes , 1997 .

[30]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Colloid Transport in Geochemically Heterogeneous Porous Media: Modeling and Measurements , 1996 .

[31]  J. K. Walters,et al.  Particle deposition and aggregation, measurement, modelling and simulation , 1996 .

[32]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Membrane–Colloid Interactions: Comparison of Extended DLVO Predictions with AFM Force Measurements , 2002 .

[33]  H. Schönherr,et al.  Surface characterization of oxyfluorinated isotactic polypropylene films: scanning force microscopy with chemically modified probes and contact angle measurements , 1998 .

[34]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes , 2001 .

[35]  Xiaohong Gu,et al.  Mapping Polymer Heterogeneity Using Atomic Force Microscopy Phase Imaging and Nanoscale Indentation , 2000 .

[36]  Howard A. Mizes,et al.  Small particle adhesion: measurement and control , 2000 .

[37]  D. Stamatialis,et al.  Atomic force microscopy of dense and asymmetric cellulose-based membranes , 1999 .

[38]  Lianfa Song,et al.  Mechanisms and Parameters Affecting Flux Decline in Cross-Flow Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration of Colloids , 2000 .

[39]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Relating Nanofiltration Membrane Performance to Membrane Charge (Electrokinetic) Characteristics , 2000 .

[40]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Kinetics of Colloid Deposition onto Heterogeneously Charged Surfaces in Porous Media. , 1994, Environmental science & technology.

[41]  Ponisseril Somasundaran,et al.  Particle deposition and aggregation, measurement, modeling and simulation , 1997 .

[42]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Assessing short-range membrane–colloid interactions using surface energetics , 2002 .

[43]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Relative Insignificance of Mineral Grain Zeta Potential to Colloid Transport in Geochemically Heterogeneous Porous Media , 2000 .

[44]  Richard Bowen W,et al.  Atomic Force Microscopy Studies of Membranes: Effect of Surface Roughness on Double-Layer Interactions and Particle Adhesion. , 2000, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[45]  Gupta,et al.  Analysis of Contact Interactions between a Rough Deformable Colloid and a Smooth Substrate. , 2000, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[46]  M. Vanlandingham,et al.  Characterization of chemical heterogeneity in polymer systems using hydrolysis and tapping-mode atomic force microscopy† , 2001 .

[47]  Douglas W. Fuerstenau,et al.  Mutual coagulation of colloidal dispersions , 1966 .