3D Printed and Conventional Membranes-A Review

Abstract

Polymer membranes are central to the proper operation of several processes used in a wide range of applications. The production of these membranes relies on processes such as phase inversion, stretching, track etching, sintering, or electrospinning. A novel and competitive strategy in membrane production is the use of additive manufacturing that enables the easier manufacture of tailored membranes. To achieve the future development of better membranes, it is necessary to compare this novel production process to that of more conventional techniques, and clarify the advantages and disadvantages. This review article compares a conventional method of manufacturing polymer membranes to additive manufacturing. A review of 3D printed membranes is also done to give researchers a reference guide. Membranes from these two approaches were compared in terms of cost, materials, structures, properties, performance. and environmental impact. Results show that very few membrane materials are used as 3D-printed membranes. Such membranes showed acceptable performance, better structures, and less environmental impact compared with those of conventional membranes.

Keywords: 3D-printed membranes; additive manufacturing; membrane process.

Figure 1

Schematic illustrations of membrane techniques. (A) Phase inversion [9] Reproduced from Doyan, A.; Leong, C.L.; Bilad, M.R.; Kurnia, K.A.; Susilawati, S.; Prayogi, S.; Narkkun, T.; Faungnawakij, K. Cigarette Butt Waste as Material for Phase Inverted Membrane Fabrication Used for Oil/Water Emulsion Separation. Polymers; published by MDPI, 2021. (B) Electrospinning [8] Reproduced from Tan, X. and Rodrigue, D., A Review on Porous Polymeric Membrane Preparation. Part I: Production Techniques with Polysulfone and Poly (Vinylidene Fluoride) Polymers; published by MDPI, 2019. (C) Layer by layer [10] Reproduced from Dmitrenko, M.; Kuzminova, A.; Zolotarev, A.; Ermakov, S.; Roizard, D.; Penkova, A. Enhanced Pervaporation Properties of PVA-Based Membranes Modified with Polyelectrolytes. Application to IPA Dehydration, Polymers; published by MDPI, 2021. (D) TFC manufacturing [11] Reproduced with permission from Shi, M.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, S. A Support Surface Pore Structure Re-Construction Method to Enhance the Flux of TFC RO Membrane; published by Journal of Membrane Science: published by Elsevier, 2017.

Figure 2

Schematic illustrations of 3D printing technologies. (A) FDM printing. (B) SLA printing. (C) SLS printing. [5]. Adapted from Low, Z.-X.; Chua, Y.T.; Ray, B.M.; Mattia, D.; Metcalfe, I.S.; Patterson, D.A. Perspective on 3D Printing of Separation Membranes and Comparison to Related Unconventional Fabrication Techniques, Journal of Membrane Science; Published by Elsevier, 2017.

Figure 3

Polymers used for the manufacture of membranes: conventional membrane (CM) vs. 3D-printed membrane (3DPM) materials.

Figure 4

Structures of (A) 3D-printed and (B) conventional membranes. (a1,a2) 3D membrane support and its CAD, respectively; (a3–a6) 3D-printed membranes surface structures [31,37]; Reproduced with permission from Koh, E.; Lee, Y.T. Development of an Embossed Nanofiber Hemodialysis Membrane for Improving Capacity and Efficiency via 3D Printing and Electrospinning Technology, Separation and Purification Technology; published by Elsevier, 2020. Reproduced with permission from Al-Shimmery, A.; Mazinani, S.; Ji, J.; Chew, Y.M.J.; Mattia, D., 3D Printed Composite Membranes with Enhanced Anti-Fouling Behaviour, Journal of Membrane Science; published by Elsevier, 2019. (b1) surfaces of a conventional membrane, (b2) SEM micrographs of cross-sections of conventional membranes (phase inversion) [43] Reproduced with permission from Zhu, L.-J.; Liu, F.; Yu, X.-M.; Gao, A.-L.; Xue, L.-X. Surface Zwitterionization of Hemocompatible Poly(Lactic Acid) Membranes for Hemodiafiltration. Journal of Membrane Science; Elsevier 2015. (b3) SEM images of the surface of electrospinning membrane [44] Reproduced with permission from Zhang, Z.-M.; Gan, Z.-Q.; Bao, R.-Y.; Ke, K.; Liu, Z.-Y.; Yang, M.-B.; Yang, W. Green and Robust Superhydrophilic Electrospun Stereocomplex Polylactide Membranes: Multifunctional Oil/Water Separation and Self-Cleaning, Journal of Membrane Science; Elsevier, 2020.

Figure 5

SEM images of polyamide TFC membranes with a polyamide layer: (A) printed [7]. Reproduced from Yanar, N.; Kallem, P.; Son, M.; Park, H.; Kang, S.; Choi, H. A New Era of Water Treatment Technologies: 3D Printing for Membranes, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry; published by Elsevier, 2020 and (B) conventional [47]. Reproduced with permission from Perera, D.H.N.; Song, Q.; Qiblawey, H.; Sivaniah, E. Regulating the Aqueous Phase Monomer Balance for Flux Improvement in Polyamide Thin Film Composite Membranes, Journal of Membrane Science; published by Elsevier, 2015.

Figure 6

Structures of complex shapes of 3D-printed membranes. (A) Design of an integrated membrane device [27]. Reproduced with permission from Kalsoom, U.; Hasan, C.K.; Tedone, L.; Desire, C.; Li, F.; Breadmore, M.C.; Nesterenko, P.N.; Paull, B., Low-Cost Passive Sampling Device with Integrated Porous Membrane Produced Using Multimaterial 3D Printing; Anal. Chem., American Chemical Society, 2018. (B) Sheetlike triply periodic minimal-surface architecture (TPMS)-like 3D membrane [48]. Reproduced with permission from Femmer, T.; Kuehne, A.J.C.; Wessling, M. Print Your Own Membrane: Direct Rapid Prototyping of Polydimethylsiloxane, Lab Chip; published by Royal Society of Chemistry, 2014.

Figure 7

Separation performance of 3DP-M1 and conventional membranes. (A) Water contact angle. (B) Separation efficiency (n-hexane/water). (C) Permeation flux. (D) Permeation flux of n-hexane/water mixture for 10 separation cycles.

Figure 8

Desalination performance of printed polyamide vs. conventional membranes [46,47,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. NaCl salt rejection and pure water permeance.