3.1. Separation Characteristics of Fluoropolymers
The feed and permeate signals of the MOX sensor are plotted in
Figure 3. In PVF no permeate signals can be seen when subjected to 150 ppm H
2, 30 ppm CO, CH
4, 1000 ppm, 500 ppm ethanol, 500 ppm acetone and 25 ppm acetaldehyde. The less polar PVDF membrane shows a high retention capacity for the gases H
2, CO, CH
4 and acetaldehyde. For ethanol and acetone signals of 5.5 and 4 can be obtained. These maxima take 5 min (ethanol) and 12 min (acetone) to reach after exposure to the gas. The duration of the gas exposure was 20 min. After 18 min, the sensor signal for ethanol is with a value of 4.2 already close to the maximum, while the sensor signal for acetone with a value of 1.1 is still very low. The membrane shows an increased selectivity to ethanol. The non-polar PTFE membrane shows very high retention capacities for CO, CH
4 and acetaldehyde. For H
2, ethanol and acetone sensor signals of 13.8, 24.8 and 44.8 were obtained, respectively. The retention capacity towards acetone (0.265) is much lower than that for H
2 and ethanol. Unlike in PVF and PVDF, the macromolecules in the fully fluorinated PTFE do not organize in zigzag but helically. Thus PTFE has the highest density of all investigated fluoropolymers. For the PTFE membrane we observed an increased selectivity towards acetone. The permeate concentrations are below the detection limit of the TC sensor. The CB sensor shows signals for ethanol and acetone only when using the PTFE. The sensor signals for the permeates and the retention capacities are summarized in
Table 2 and
Table 3. Each measurement was repeated at least two times. The signal strength remain in all tested gases.
The feed and permeate signals of the MOX sensor are plotted in
Figure 4. When comparing the permeate signals of the PVDF membrane with those of ETFE the following becomes clear: the larger CF
2 distances caused by ethylene monomers in ETFE reduce the ethanol and acetone signals. The carbon chain in ETFE is less shielded than in PTFE and PVDF. Due to this, intermolecular forces are larger. The maxima of the sensor signals are reached even later. Additionally, we see a signal upon exposure to H
2. The chlorination in ECTFE leads to a complete disappearance of ethanol and acetone signals. We suppose this is due to the fact that in ECTFE one fluorine atom is replaced by a chlorine atom with a lower electronegativity, so a weak dipole develops. The ECTFE membrane is impermeable to CO, CH
4, ethanol, acetone and acetaldehyde, and thus highly selective to hydrogen.
Furthermore, the influence of the introduction of side chains and heterocycles on the transport properties in fluorine membranes was investigated. For this, the fully fluorinated copolymers FEP, PFA and Teflon
® AF2400 were used. The results on the permeability of these membranes using the MOX sensor are shown in
Figure 5.
Compared to PTFE, the trifluoromethyl substituents in FEP lead to a significant weakening of the H2, ethanol and acetone signals. This is against our expectations, since the -CF3 side chain increases the distances between neighboring macromolecules. For methane and acetaldehyde no signal is visible. The maximum in the signal for ethanol and acetone is not reached until 18 min and 21 min, respectively. This effect has already been observed in the PVDF and ETFE membranes. The propoxy group in PFA causes, in contrast to FEP, a strong retention to ethanol and acetone. The propoxy side chain (-O-R) is more flexible than the -CF3 side chain in FEP. Water absorption, density, degree of crystallization and melting point are almost identical. The PFA membrane as well as the ECTFE membrane is impermeable for CO, CH4, ethanol, acetone and acetaldehyde and therefore highly selective to H2, yet the permeability for H2 is in the PFA membrane approximately twice as high. The amorphous Teflon AF2400 membrane is permeable for all gases. The free volume is very high due to the low density. Due to the high permeability of this membrane for H2, ethanol and acetone also the CB and TC (MTCS2201) sensors obtain sufficiently high feed concentrations. The comparison of the highly crystalline PTFE membrane with the amorphous AF2400 membrane shows that the degree of crystallization and hence the density are suitable to only a limited extent for predicting gas permeation properties.
The permeate signals of the examined fluoropolymers are summarized in
Table 2. The signals for the membranes PVDF, ETFE and FEP still increase after exposure to the target gas. The maxima are marked in the table with an asterisk. The membranes ETFE and FEP do not show a sensor signal in the permeate upon ethanol and acetone exposure.
In addition to the permeability, the retention capacity is another important parameter to describe the separation properties of polymers. The retention
R is defined as normalized ratio of the concentration of a material component
i in the permeate
p to the concentration in the feed
f. The sensor signals are simply proportional to the concentration. The sensor signals can be described by the following relationship:
where
c is the concentration,
S the sensor signal of the MOX sensors, ∆
S the sensor signal of the CB sensors or TC (MTCS) sensors, the subscript
i refers to a material component and the superscript
p or
f to permeate and feed. Since the gas sensors have a high reproducibility, two different sensors can be used for measuring the concentration in the feed and permeate. The retention capacities of the investigated fluoropolymers are summarized in the following
Table 3. The specified values are the arithmetic mean of three pairs of sensors.
If the retention capacity is 1, the membrane is impermeable for the gas. If the retention capacity is 0, then the gas can diffuse freely through the membrane. In the feed of the membranes made from ETFE, ECTFE and FEP only very low concentrations could be observed. This requires the specification of three significant digits. The standard deviation (1σ) of the membranes ETFE, ECTFE and FEP when using three pairs of sensors during the application of 150 ppm H
2 are ±0.0004, ±0.001 and ±0.001, respectively. In a 10-fold repetition of the gas exposure to 150 ppm H
2 to the ECTFE and PFA membranes (highly selective to H
2), the retention capacities and standard deviations listed in
Table 4 were obtained for the sensor pairs A, B and C. The uncertainty is, after 10 measurements, still in the third decimal place for each sensor pair.
To determine the limit of detection (LOD) and the linearity, an additional concentration series was measured using the hydrogen-selective membrane ECTFE and PFA. For this purpose, concentrations of 1, 3, 5, 10, 50, 100, 150, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, 20,000 and 30,000 ppm H
2 were applied for 20 min each. In
Figure 6, the average of the three sensor types as well as their standard deviation is shown. Using the ECTFE membrane, concentrations can be detected from 150 ppm H
2 with the MOX sensors. When using CB sensors, the LOD is significantly higher with 1 vol%. No feed signal can be observed in the TC sensors, even for 3 vol%. Using the PFA membrane, concentrations can be detected already from 50 ppm H
2 with the MOX sensors. The LOD of the CB sensors is 5000 ppm. With the TC sensors, concentrations of at least 1 vol% (MTCS-D1) or 2.000 ppm (MTCS-2201, see Figure 9b) can be detected.
The LOD of the MOX sensors is about forty times better than that of the TC sensors. In the following section we investigate the advantages of using passive filter membranes in combination with MOX sensors in greater detail. Membranes showing increased selectivity towards non-polar gases were tested again with the gases CO and CH
4 at elevated concentrations of 100 ppm and 3000 ppm, and with the non-polar gases NO
2 (1 ppm) and CO
2 (1 vol%, but only with the CB and TC sensor). The concentrations for CO, CO
2 and NO
2 are based on the STEL guidelines. The H
2-selective membranes ECTFE and PFA were used and additionally the PVF membrane which did not show any permeability to the gases used in the previous measurement. Assuming that an increase in gas concentration leads to potentially higher feed signals, these membranes could be further modified, e.g., through a reduction of the layer thickness or an increase in the membrane diameter. The thin layers could then be stabilized by an asymmetrical structure, by which the permeability of a membrane is only slightly affected. The results of the measurement with elevated concentrations using the MOX sensors are depicted in
Figure 7.
The exposure to 1 ppm NO
2, 100 ppm CO and 3000 ppm CH
4 did not lead to sensor signals using the PVF and ECTFE membranes. Using the PFA membrane, sensor signals of 1.1 were obtained for CO and CH
4. These gases can be easily distinguished by temperature modulation of the MOX sensors. In the absence of H
2, PFA thus represents a highly selective membrane for CO and CH
4. No signals were obtained with the CB and TC sensors because the concentrations were still below their LOD (cf.
Figure 6).
3.3. Influence of Membrane Thickness and Diameter
The permeability through a non-porous dense membrane is influenced both by the gas and the membrane properties, as well as by the thickness and diameter (i.e., area) of the membrane. In order to investigate the influence of membrane thickness on the permeability of H
2, CO, CH
4, ethanol, acetone and acetaldehyde, PFTE membranes were used with layer thicknesses of 10, 25, 35 and 50 µm and a diameter of 6.4 mm. The non-polar PTFE membrane shows a very high retention capacity for CO, CH
4 and acetaldehyde.
Figure 10 shows the results using MOX sensors and CB sensors. With the MOX sensors in combination with the 10 µm PTFE membrane, signals of 13.8 for H
2, 24.8 for ethanol and 44.8 for acetone were obtained. An increase of the membrane thickness to 25 µm lead to approximately sevenfold lower sensor signals, the 35 µm thick membrane again decreased the signals roughly threefold. The results using the CB sensors are very similar, but with significantly higher LOD. With a variation in layer thickness, an increase of the selectivity is possible if the sensor signals of the material components vary greatly.
The results showing the influence of membrane diameter on the permeability of H
2, CO, CH
4, ethanol, acetone and acetaldehyde are depicted in
Figure 11 for PFTE membranes with a diameter of 1.6 mm, 3.2 mm and 6.4 mm and a membrane thickness of 25 µm. We can see that if the membrane diameter increases from 3.2 mm to 6.4 mm, the sensor signals of the MOX sensor upon exposure to 500 ppm ethanol increases of 1.3 to 3.4 and for 500 ppm acetone from 1.6 to 6.0. Using 150 ppm H
2, a sensor signal is only observed with a membrane diameter of 6.4 mm. Thus it is possible to minimize interferences by varying the membrane diameter.
Since for the TC sensors we did not expect signals after 20 min of gas exposure due to the low diffusion rate through the membrane matrix, membranes from PFA and PTFE with a diameter of 3.2 mm and 6.4 mm were exposed for a period of 6 h with 2 vol% H
2. After 6 h, 33% (MTCS-2201) and 26% (MTCS-D1) of the feed concentration were reached in the permeate using the PTFE membrane with a diameter of 3.2 mm. Using a diameter of 6.4 mm, 83% (MTCS-2201) and 84% (MTCS-D1) were obtained. In contrast, only 6% (MTCS-2201) and 4% (MTCS-D1) of the feed concentration were reached in the permeate using the PFA membrane with a thickness of 3.2 mm. With an increased diameter of 6.4 mm, 16% (MTCS-2201) and 18% (MTCS-D1) were obtained (
Figure 12).
When the membrane is combined with a TC sensor, a reduction of the cross-sensitivity by variation of the thickness or diameter is not possible because the gases do not chemically react.
3.4. Influence of Humidity on the Retention
Changing humidity levels are interfering signals in all three sensor types involved in our study. For this reason we also need to consider the retention of water vapor. For this, the absolute humidity was increased in two steps of 4.8 g/m
3 each and kept constant for 2 h. The concentrations in the feed and permeate are shown in
Figure 13.
The permeability to water vapor is the highest in the amorphous Teflon
® AF2400. Due to their high electronegativity, the chalcogen atoms in PDD lead to a strong polarization of the ring system in the 2-position. In addition, the PDD monomers increase the distance between adjacent macromolecules and lower the density to 1.74 g/cm
3. This explains the strong increase in the absolute humidity in the Permeate to 5.7 g/m
3. In addition to the Teflon
® AF2400 membrane, also the PVF, PVDF and ETFE show a permeability to water vapor, yet significantly lower. The fluoropolymers PVF and PVDF are polar, as well as water. This results in a substantial increase in the adsorption of the adjacent phase. However, the PVF membrane is not permeable to any of the gases H
2, CO, CH
4, ethanol, acetone, acetaldehyde and NO
2. PVF has the lowest density of all investigated fluoropolymers (1.37–1.39 g/cm
3). Also, the degree of crystallization is lower than in the other polymers (20%–60%). We expected that due to the lower degree of crystallinity, i.e., lower density, the selectivity is decreased, while the permeability or solubility increases compared to the other polymers. This assumption therefore is not generally valid.
Table 5 shows the results for all membranes.
The copolymer ETFE consists of alternating ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) monomers. The inductive effect described for PVDF decreases with increasing distance from the fluorine atom. Thus, the permeability to water vapor is for ETFE (1 g/m3) is significantly lower compared to 2.8 g/m3 in PVDF. The difference of ETFE and ECTFE is that in ECTFE a fluorine atom is replaced by a chlorine atom. This reduces the difference in electronegativity of 1.4 (C-F bond) to 0.6 (C-Cl bond). ECTFE is therefore polar. The densities of ETFE and ECTFE are almost identical. The permeability of water is interestingly in ECTFE, regardless of the polarity, fivefold lower than in the non-polar ETFE. In the PTFE, FEP and PFA membranes, all H atoms of the carbon backbone are replaced by fluorine atoms and the membranes are thus non-polar. This results in a high retention capacity for water vapor. The permeability of these membranes has a maximum of 0.3 g/m3. With the exception of PTFE, the measured permeability values for water vapor correlate very well with the literature data for water absorption.