Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Comment on Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing
My Activity
  • Free to Read
Letter to the Editor

Comment on Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDF

ACS Nano

Cite this: ACS Nano 2021, 15, 6, 9201–9203
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c10476
Published June 22, 2021

Copyright © 2021 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2021 American Chemical Society

Recently, Zhuet al. published an interesting article entitled “Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing”. They show a robust way to control the interlayer spacing of Ti3C2Tx membranes (TM), which is beneficial for ion selectivity. (1)

The authors show that by intercalating Al13 ions, the swelling of TM is largely suppressed, which is reflected by an increase in ion rejection of ion species with larger hydrated radii. It is shown that for TM with intercalated Al13, the Al3+ ions are rejected. In original TMs, they can pass through. This is a good indication that the intercalated membrane was improved toward rejection of species with smaller hydrated radii. (2) However, smaller ions such as K+ and Na+ still show a permeation rate (∼10–2 mol m–2 h–1) on same order of magnitude as that of the original and intercalated membranes.

It is now surprising that the authors claim a NaCl rejection rate of 99% in forward osmosis (FO). In the methods part of the article, it is described that the rejection rate was calculated with the NaCl concentration in the feed side Cf and draw side Cd, similar to methods reported earlier: (2)

(1)
When calculating the salt rejection in the described experimental setup, it is not sufficient to simply calculate the rejection rate from Cf and Cd. (3−6) During the osmosis, a small amount of water containing a certain number of ions will permeate through the membrane from the feed to the draw side. The number of ions that permeate together with water through the membrane is dependent on the rejection rate of the membrane. After diffusion through the membrane, the permeated water mixes with the draw side. Thus, Cd increases with time and is dependent on the initial volume of the draw side. Calculating the rejection rate from Cd is therefore time-dependent and can be artificially increased by choosing a large draw side volume or by probing Cd shortly after starting the experiment. However, it does not reflect the rejection rate of the membrane.

A simple thought experiment with the setup described by Zhuet al. and others (2) underlines the major problem of this methodology. Let us assume two containers separated by a nonselective, semipermeable barrier. One side, the feed side, f, is filled with a NaCl solution having an initial, i, concentration Cf,i,NaCl. The other side, the draw side, d, is filled with a sucrose solution, S, with an initial, i, concentration Cd,i,SCf,i,NaCl, while Cd,i,NaCl = 0. During the experiment, water will be drawn to the draw side. Similarly, NaCl will also diffuse into the draw side, due to the lack of salt selectivity by the barrier. The final, F, NaCl concentration of the draw and feed side will be equal: Cd,F,NaCl = Cf,F,NaCl = 0.5 × Cf,i,NaCl. However, using eq 1 will still result in a salt rejection of 50% regardless of the inability of the nonselective membrane to separate salt and water:

With the reported Na+ permeation rate of ∼0.02 mol m–2 h–1, a membrane size of 50 mm diameter and 0.1 M initial NaCl concentration, it would take several weeks to reach such an equilibrium state. Therefore, it is not surprising that the authors did not report such an equilibrium state.

Even though the reported membranes are probably not completely nonselective, the problem in calculating the rejection rate with eq 1 becomes clearer with the following calculation. It may be noted that the permeation rate is derived from experiments with 0.5 M NaCl solution and no sucrose in the draw side. Thus, the actual permeation rate for the FO experiments was probably lower. However, this permeation rate can still illustrate the problems of the methodology. If Cd is measured only 1 h after initializing the experiment, only a small amount of salt will be permeated through the membrane. The amount of salt in the draw side would be

With the draw side volume given in the method section of the article of 60 mL, one can calculate Cd,1h:
With eq 1, the erroneous rejection rate will be calculated as
However, if Cd is measured 10 h after the start of the experiment, the rejection rate calculated with eq 1 is only 93.4%, after 50 h 67.3%, and so on. This false time dependence of the rejection rate shows the major flaw of the reported methodology and why it does not reflect the rejection rate of the membrane. This is also true if the actual permeation rate of NaCl is lower or decreases with time due to the equalization of concentrations in the feed and draw side.

As an example for appropriate FO testing, Sapkota et al. recently reported an equation: (6)

(2)
where Cd,i is the initial NaCl concentration in the draw side, ΔCd is the increase in the concentration of the salt in the draw side, Vd,i is the initial volume of the draw side, ΔV is the increase in the volume of the draw side, and Cf,i is the initial NaCl concentration in the feed side.

Due to the low water flux (0.3 l m–2 h–1) reported by Zhuet al., ΔV can be considered small. Following the simplifications in ref (6), eq 2 simplifies to

(3)
where Vd,iΔCd is the amount of salt in the draw side and Cf,iΔV is the amount of salt that would have gone through in case of zero rejection. Using the permeation rate of Na+, PNa, the water permeance, PW, the time, t, and membrane area, A, eq 3 further simplifies to experimental accessible values:
(4)

In this case, the rejection rate shows no time dependence, as it takes both into account, the permeated water and salt. Hypothetically for a nonselective membrane, the rejection rate would be 0%.

In Figure 4g of the article, the authors provide a NaCl rejection rate for different thicknesses of the membranes. It is not further described whether these experiments were conducted with or without sucrose draw solution.

If it was conducted without a draw solution, the rejection rate has no meaning. The water permeates from the DI water side to the saltwater side, whereas the salt diffuses from the saltwater side to the DI water side. If it was conducted with sucrose draw solution, an estimate of the true rejection rate is possible. (5,6) The authors report a water permeance PW of 0.3 l m–2 h–1 with a Na+ permeation rate PNa of ∼0.02 mol m–2 h–1 in Figure 4g of the article. These values can be used to estimate the correct rejection rate by utilizing eq 4:

It may be noted that in the methods section of the article, the authors provide two starting NaCl concentrations, 0.1 and 0.5 M, but it is not clear which one was used for the experiments. We assumed that 0.5 M was used, which provides the 86.7% rejection rate calculated above. This may not be the correct rejection rate as for an appropriate calculation one needs to know the exact experimental parameters. In contrast, in the article, 99% rejection is claimed. In the FO experiments, no permeation rate for the ions is given. By that, an estimation of the correct rejection rate is not possible. However, the calculation of the rejection rate in Figure 4g indicates that the rejection rate calculated in the FO experiment of the article needs to be analyzed carefully, as well. Our calculated value for salt rejection of 86.7% is much closer to the value given in the article for reverse osmosis RO mode of 80%. The reason behind the inability to completely block NaCl in both modes might originate from stripping of the hydration shell, as mentioned by the authors or framework defects in the 2-D laminar structure. (7,8) However, the authors report a low permeation rate of Al3+ of 1 × 10–4 mol m–2 h–1 that suggests the general possibility of TM to block salt ions. If the permeation rate and water permeance are similar in FO experiments compared to the recorded values from the U-tube setup in the article, the rejection rate can be estimated >99% for Al3+ ions with eq 4. To validate that further, FO experiments are necessary.

It may also be noted that in the article the water flux is sometimes given in L m–2 h–1 and in L m–2 h–1 bar –1. However, in the FO experiments and in the ion permeation measurements, no pressure was applied.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 8 other publications.

  1. 1
    Zhu, J.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, F.; Tian, M.; Zheng, S.; Shao, N.; Wang, L.; He, M. Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 15306,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c05649
  2. 2
    Abraham, J.; Vasu, K. S.; Williams, C. D.; Gopinadhan, K.; Su, Y.; Cherian, C. T.; Dix, J.; Prestat, E.; Haigh, S. J.; Grigorieva, I. V.; Carbone, P.; Geim, A. K.; Nair, R. R. Tunable Sieving of Ions Using Graphene Oxide Membranes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017, 12 (6), 546550,  DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2017.21
  3. 3
    Shon, H. K.; Phuntsho, S.; Zhang, T. C.; Surampalli, R. Y. Forward Osmosis; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, 2015.
  4. 4
    Song, X.; Liu, Z.; Sun, D. D. Nano Gives the Answer: Breaking the Bottleneck of Internal Concentration Polarization with a Nanofiber Composite Forward Osmosis Membrane for a High Water Production Rate. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23 (29), 32563260,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201100510
  5. 5
    McCutcheon, J. R.; McGinnis, R. L.; Elimelech, M. A Novel Ammonia—Carbon Dioxide Forward (Direct) Osmosis Desalination Process. Desalination 2005, 174 (1), 111,  DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.002
  6. 6
    Sapkota, B.; Liang, W.; VahidMohammadi, A.; Karnik, R.; Noy, A.; Wanunu, M. High Permeability Sub-Nanometre Sieve Composite MoS2Membranes. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11 (1), 19,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16577-y
  7. 7
    Ritt, C. L.; Werber, J. R.; Deshmukh, A.; Elimelech, M. Monte Carlo Simulations of Framework Defects in Layered Two-Dimensional Nanomaterial Desalination Membranes: Implications for Permeability and Selectivity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (11), 62146224,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06880
  8. 8
    Lu, X.; Gabinet, U. R.; Ritt, C. L.; Feng, X.; Deshmukh, A.; Kawabata, K.; Kaneda, M.; Hashmi, S. M.; Osuji, C. O.; Elimelech, M. Relating Selectivity and Separation Performance of Lamellar Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Disulfide (MoS2) Membranes to Nanosheet Stacking Behavior. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (15), 96409651,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02364

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 7 publications.

  1. Cody L. Ritt, Mohsen Nami, Menachem Elimelech. Laser Interferometry for Precise Measurement of Ultralow Flow Rates from Permeable Materials. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2022, 9 (3) , 233-238. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00026
  2. Jiani Zhu, Lei Wang, Jin Wang. Reply to the Comment on Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (6) , 9204-9206. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c01485
  3. Ting Si, Xinyao Ma, Tairan Wang, Sai Tak Chu, Jun Fan. Improvement of desalination performance by adjusting the arrangement of lamellar MXene membrane. Separation and Purification Technology 2023, 322 , 124265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.124265
  4. Lalita Saini, Siva Sankar Nemala, Aparna Rathi, Suvigya Kaushik, Gopinadhan Kalon. Selective transport of water molecules through interlayer spaces in graphite. Nature Communications 2022, 13 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28162-6
  5. Tobias Foller, Huanting Wang, Rakesh Joshi. Rise of 2D materials-based membranes for desalination. Desalination 2022, 536 , 115851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115851
  6. Cody L. Ritt, Timothée Stassin, Douglas M. Davenport, Ryan M. DuChanois, Ines Nulens, Zhe Yang, Adi Ben-Zvi, Naama Segev-Mark, Menachem Elimelech, Chuyang Y. Tang, Guy Z. Ramon, Ivo F.J. Vankelecom, Rhea Verbeke. The open membrane database: Synthesis–structure–performance relationships of reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science 2022, 641 , 119927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119927
  7. Xiaopeng Liu, Ling Zhang, Xinwei Cui, Qian Zhang, Wenjihao Hu, Jiang Du, Hongbo Zeng, Qun Xu. 2D Material Nanofiltration Membranes: From Fundamental Understandings to Rational Design. Advanced Science 2021, 8 (23) https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202102493
Open PDF

ACS Nano

Cite this: ACS Nano 2021, 15, 6, 9201–9203
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c10476
Published June 22, 2021

Copyright © 2021 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

3301

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • This publication has no figures.
  • References


    This article references 8 other publications.

    1. 1
      Zhu, J.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, F.; Tian, M.; Zheng, S.; Shao, N.; Wang, L.; He, M. Precisely Tunable Ion Sieving with an Al13–Ti3C2Tx Lamellar Membrane by Controlling Interlayer Spacing. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 15306,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c05649
    2. 2
      Abraham, J.; Vasu, K. S.; Williams, C. D.; Gopinadhan, K.; Su, Y.; Cherian, C. T.; Dix, J.; Prestat, E.; Haigh, S. J.; Grigorieva, I. V.; Carbone, P.; Geim, A. K.; Nair, R. R. Tunable Sieving of Ions Using Graphene Oxide Membranes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017, 12 (6), 546550,  DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2017.21
    3. 3
      Shon, H. K.; Phuntsho, S.; Zhang, T. C.; Surampalli, R. Y. Forward Osmosis; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, 2015.
    4. 4
      Song, X.; Liu, Z.; Sun, D. D. Nano Gives the Answer: Breaking the Bottleneck of Internal Concentration Polarization with a Nanofiber Composite Forward Osmosis Membrane for a High Water Production Rate. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23 (29), 32563260,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201100510
    5. 5
      McCutcheon, J. R.; McGinnis, R. L.; Elimelech, M. A Novel Ammonia—Carbon Dioxide Forward (Direct) Osmosis Desalination Process. Desalination 2005, 174 (1), 111,  DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.002
    6. 6
      Sapkota, B.; Liang, W.; VahidMohammadi, A.; Karnik, R.; Noy, A.; Wanunu, M. High Permeability Sub-Nanometre Sieve Composite MoS2Membranes. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11 (1), 19,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16577-y
    7. 7
      Ritt, C. L.; Werber, J. R.; Deshmukh, A.; Elimelech, M. Monte Carlo Simulations of Framework Defects in Layered Two-Dimensional Nanomaterial Desalination Membranes: Implications for Permeability and Selectivity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (11), 62146224,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06880
    8. 8
      Lu, X.; Gabinet, U. R.; Ritt, C. L.; Feng, X.; Deshmukh, A.; Kawabata, K.; Kaneda, M.; Hashmi, S. M.; Osuji, C. O.; Elimelech, M. Relating Selectivity and Separation Performance of Lamellar Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Disulfide (MoS2) Membranes to Nanosheet Stacking Behavior. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (15), 96409651,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02364