3.1. GO and AGO Sheet Solution Properties
Aluminum cations can be introduced to an acidic aqueous solution from several sources, including alumina (Al
2O
3), aluminum chloride (AlCl
3), and solid aluminum foil (Al foil). Each species reacts differently in water to produce aqueous Al
3+ and corresponding aqua ions, which can affect the solution pH and thus the extent to which Al
3+ interacts with the OFGs on the GO sheet surfaces and edges. Below, we describe the reactivity of Al
2O
3, AlCl
3, and Al foil with water and the resulting effects on the pH of the GO sheet solution (
Figure 1a).
Al
2O
3 is insoluble in water under neutral conditions. However, Al
2O
3 will dissolve in acidic solutions according to the following overall reaction:
Based on Reaction 1, it is expected that as alumina dissolves in solution, the pH will increase due to the consumption of H
+. However, as seen in
Figure 1a, the average pH of the GO-Al
2O
3 solution (pH = 2.40) was not significantly different than the pure GO sheet solution (pH = 2.40), which suggests that the extent of Al
2O
3 dissolution is relatively small. This result is consistent with previous studies showing that the rate of alumina dissolution increases with decreasing pH but that the overall dissolution can be hindered by the presence of insoluble oxygen-containing species on the alumina surface that originate from the reaction of alumina with water [
27].
Aluminum chloride is soluble in aqueous solutions. Upon dissolution, Al
3+, a Lewis acid, complexes with water to form the hexaaqua ion:
Because Al
3+ is a small and highly charged cation, the hexaaqua ion is acidic (pKa = 5.0) and can further react with water to produce H
3O
+:
As seen in
Figure 1a, and consistent with the reactivity of Al
3+ in an aqueous solution, the average pH of the GO-AlCl
3 solution (pH = 2.30) was slightly lower than that of the pure GO sheet solution.
Aluminum foil reacts in acidic solutions via an oxidation-reduction reaction to produce Al
3+(aq) and hydrogen gas:
The consumption of H+(aq) during this reaction is supported by the increase in the average pH of the GO-Al(s) sheet solution (pH = 2.60) compared to that of the pure GO-sheet solution.
Overall, the differing reactivity of each aluminum-containing species with the acidic GO sheet solution affected both the pH of the solution and the number of available aluminum cations that could interact with the OFGs on the GO sheet surfaces and edges. The extent and number of these interactions can further affect the properties of the GO sheets and membranes, including sheet and membrane hydrophobicity, membrane wrinkling, and membrane stability.
We previously reported that surface tension measurements of GO sheets at the air–water interface are indicative of the extent of sheet hydrophobicity and how the addition of Al
3+ affects the assembly of the GO sheets as the membrane dries [
22,
23]. Previous studies have also shown that the interfacial activity of GO sheets is highly dependent on the solution pH, and that the surface tension of a GO sheet solution decreases with decreasing pH [
28,
29,
30]. Specifically, the surface tension of a GO sheet solution with a pH value of 1 was reported to be ~52 mN/m, while the surface tension of a GO sheet solution with a pH of 14 was reported to be ~72 mN/m [
29]. These studies showed that between pH 1 and 14, the zeta potential of the GO sheets changed from approximated −4 mV to approximately −45 mV as the carboxylic acid groups on the edges of the sheets became deprotonated [
29,
31]. Thus, at high pH, the high negative charges on the sheets caused them to be stable in the aqueous phase such that they did not adsorb to the air–water interface. At low pH, GO sheets were hydrophobic enough to adsorb to the air–water interface.
For this study, the surface tension of the pH 2.40 GO sheet solution in the absence of Al
3+ had an initial value of ~60 mN/m that increased to ~70 mN/m over the course of 30 min. These results indicate that the GO sheets initially adsorbed to the air–water interface, but to a lesser extent than GO sheets in a pH 1 solution. Previous studies have reported that at a pH near 2.5, the GO sheet zeta potential is approximately −25 mV [
31]. Thus, compared to GO sheets in a pH 1 solution, GO sheets in a pH 2.40 solution have more deprotonated carboxylic acid groups, are more hydrophilic and thus more stable in water, and adsorb to the air–water interface to a lesser extent. The increase in surface tension to 70 mN/m over time may be due to the desorption, reorganization, and/or increased interactions between the sheets at the surface as the GO surface layer formed.
In the presence of Al
2O
3, the surface tension of the GO sheet solution (~76 mN/m) was higher than that of both the neat air–water interface (72 mN/m) and the pure GO sheet solution (~70 mN/m). Moreover, the surface tension did not significantly change over the course of 30 min, which suggests that in the presence of Al
2O
3 the GO sheets did not assemble to the air–water interface. Previous studies have shown that the assembly of alumina nanoparticles to the air–water interface resulted in an increase in the surface tension relative to that of the neat air–water interface due to van der Waals forces between adsorbed particles [
32]. Here, it is thus likely that unreacted nanometer-to-micrometer sized alumina particles existed in the GO sheet solution and assembled preferentially to the air–water interface over the GO sheets.
In the presence of AlCl
3, the surface tension of the GO sheet solution immediately decreased to a value of ~45 mN/m and subsequently increased to a value of ~54 mN/m over the course of 30 min. This result is consistent with previous work that reported the surface tension of a 1 mg/mL GO sheet solution at a pH of 1 to be ~52 mN/m. The rapid decrease in surface tension suggests that the presence of Al
3+ in solution acted to increase the surface activity of the GO sheets by increasing their hydrophobicity, which can be attributed to a decrease in the magnitude of the sheet zeta potential that results from protonation of the carboxylate groups with decreasing pH as well as interactions between the negatively charged carboxylate groups and the Al
3+ ions. As was seen in the GO sheet solution, the increase in surface tension over time was likely due to the desorption, reorganization, and/or increased surface interactions as the GO sheet surface layer formed. That the final surface tension of the GO sheet solution in the presence of AlCl
3 was similar to the surface tension of a GO sheet solution at pH 1 [
29] suggests a similar extent of GO sheet assembly to the air–water interface under these different conditions.
In the presence of Al foil, the surface tension of the GO sheet solution immediately decreased to ~50 mN/m and continued to decrease over the course of 30 min to a value of ~30 mN/m. Here, the initial rapid surface tension decrease can be attributed to an increase in GO sheet hydrophobicity as Al
3+ interacted with the negatively charged OFGs. The low surface tension value indicates that GO sheets in the pH 2.55 Al foil sample packed together more efficiently at the air–water interface than GO sheets in the pH 2.25 AlCl
3 sample. Previous studies have shown that between a pH of 2 and 3, the GO sheet zeta potential changed from approximately −20 mV to −30 mV due to carboxylic acid deprotonation [
31]. Thus, there are more available carboxylate groups to interact with Al
3+ cations on GO sheets in the Al foil sample than on sheets in the AlCl
3 sample. Our previous work showed that interactions between Al
3+ and the carboxylate groups on the GO sheet edges act to decrease the intralayer spacing between sheets in the as-formed AGO membranes [
22,
23]. Here, we believe that a greater extent of interactions between Al
3+ and the GO sheets in the Al foil samples allowed these sheets to pack together to a greater extent at the air–water interface than GO sheets in the AlCl
3 sample.
3.2. GO and AGO Membrane Morphology and Structure
The differences in pH and surface tension behavior for each Al–GO sheet solution indicate that there may be differences in the morphologies and structures of GO membranes self-assembled from these different sheet solutions. We thus imaged the surfaces of the as-formed GO membranes using digital photography (
Figure 2a), OM (
Figure 2b), and SEM (
Figure 2c). The membranes in
Figure 2a,b were formed by cast-drying the GO sheet solutions in Teflon evaporation dishes. At the macroscopic scale, the unmodified GO membrane surface looked very similar to all three AGO membrane surfaces. However, the diameter of the AGO (Al foil) membrane was slightly smaller than the diameter of the Teflon dish, whereas the diameters of the unmodified GO, AGO (Al
2O
3), and AGO (AlCl
3) membranes were roughly the same as the Teflon dishes. These images suggest that the AGO (Al foil) membrane shrank slightly during membrane drying, whereas the other membranes did not shrink. The shrinking of the AGO membrane may be due to extensive cross-linking between Al
3+ and the carboxylate groups on the GO sheets edges, as suggested by the surface tension measurements.
To characterize the morphologies of the membranes at the micrometer scales, OM images (
Figure 2b) were obtained of the membranes shown in
Figure 2a. These images reveal the presence of wrinkles on all membrane surfaces. The wrinkles on the membrane surfaces have been explained as ‘peak and valley’ undulations of laminated GO sheets caused by the mixed interactions between the faces and edges of the GO sheets [
33]. Stronger interaction between Al
3+ and GO sheets will increase the ‘peak and valley’ undulations, and thus cause more wrinkles. Both coordination and electrostatic interactions between Al
3+ and GO sheets in the solution hold the GO sheets together during the assembly process, which can cause more lateral sheet overlap and thus more wrinkles. Here, the addition of Al
3+ through Al
2O
3 did not have an obvious effect on the density of wrinkles on the GO membrane surface. This insignificant effect is likely because Al
2O
3 did not produce Al
3+ cations to a large extent when dissolved in the GO solution, as supported by the pH and surface tension data. For GO membranes formed with Al
3+ added through AlCl
3 and Al foil, the obvious increase in the number of wrinkles per area was likely due to the strong interactions between Al
3+ and the individual GO sheets in the membranes.
The SEM images of GO membranes dried on silicon substrates (
Figure 2c) further demonstrate that the addition of Al
3+ from Al
2O
3 did not affect the extent of wrinkling, but that the addition of Al
3+ from AlCl
3 and Al foil did increase the extent of wrinkling on the GO membrane surface. These images additionally show large particles on the AGO (Al
2O
3) surface, which we attribute to undissolved Al
2O
3 particles. Moreover, both the OM and SEM images of the AGO (Al foil) membrane surface showed bubble-like features, which we attribute to the hydrogen gas evolved in Reaction 4.
To better understand how the extent of membrane wrinkling affected the hydrophobicity and thus wettability of the different GO membranes, we quantified the wrinkle density using average surface roughness values obtained from AFM analysis of membranes dried on silicon wafers (
Figure 3a and
Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials). Subsequently, we collected contact angle data for the corresponding membranes dried on glass slides (
Figure 3b).
Figure 3a shows both the average roughness (Ra) and root mean squared surface roughness (Rq) values for the membranes, which were collected from five 5 µm × 5 µm AFM scans from each membrane sample. Here, the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane Ra (23.9 nm) and Rq (29.7 nm) values were on average lower than the unmodified GO membrane Ra (29.8 nm) and Rq (36.9 nm) values. Thus, adding Al
2O
3 to the GO sheet solution resulted in self-assembled GO membranes that had on average fewer wrinkles than unmodified GO membranes. We attribute this wrinkle decrease to the presence of Al
2O
3 particles that interrupted the interactions between GO sheets that lead to wrinkling.
However, both the AGO (AlCl3) membrane Ra (41.1 nm) and Rq (49.4 nm) values and AGO (Al foil) membrane Ra (37.6 nm) and Rq (46.2 nm) values were on average larger than the unmodified GO membrane Ra and Rq values, thus indicating an increase in the extent of membrane wrinkling, as seen in the corresponding OM and SEM images, due to strong interactions between Al3+ and the OFGs on the GO sheet edges. Overall, the AGO (AlCl3) membrane had on average the highest Ra and Rq values, and thus the greatest extent of wrinkling of all membranes studied.
To determine if the membrane surface roughness was correlated with the membrane wettability, the contact angles of water droplets on the membrane surfaces were measured (
Figure 3b). These data show that the contact angle value of water on the unmodified GO membrane was 21.5°, while the contact angles increased to 27.3°, 39.6°, and 46.2° for the AGO (Al
2O
3), AGO (AlCl
3) and AGO (Al foil) membranes, respectively. Thus, all AGO membranes studied were more hydrophobic than the unmodified GO membrane. For the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, this result is inconsistent with the surface roughness result, which suggests that the decrease in membrane roughness should lead to an increase in membrane wettability and thus decrease in contact angle value. We suspect that the increase in contact angle value and thus membrane hydrophobicity was in part due to screening of the negatively charged OFGs by positively charged Al
2O
3 particles on the membrane surface.
For the AGO (AlCl3) and AGO (Al foil) membranes, the increase in the contact angle values relative to that of the unmodified GO membrane is consistent with the increase in surface roughness values. However, the surface roughness data suggest that there was more extensive wrinkling in AGO (AlCl3) membranes than in AGO (Al foil) membranes. With this result, it is expected that the AGO (Al foil) membrane should be more wettable than the AGO (AlCl3) membrane. However, this is not the case based on the contact angle data, which indicate that the AGO (Al foil) membrane was more hydrophobic than the AGO (AlCl3) membrane. As with the AGO (Al2O3) membrane, the relative hydrophobicity of the membrane cannot be completely attributed to the membrane surface roughness. Rather, the chemistry of the membrane surface layer must also be considered along with the membrane roughness.
The chemistries of the AGO (Al foil) and AGO (Al2O3) membrane surfaces can in part be deduced from the surface tension data. The surface tension data suggest that there were more extensive interactions between Al3+ and GO sheets at the air–water interface in the GO-Al foil solution than in the GO-AlCl3 solution. The extent of surface interactions can affect the structure of the membrane surface. For the AGO (Al foil) membrane, the extensive Al3+–GO sheet interactions that neutralize the negative charges of the OFGs present at the very top layer of the membrane likely created a very hydrophobic surface that resulted in the highest contact angle value measured. While still present, surface tension results indicate that these interactions were likely less extensive on the AGO (AlCl3) membrane surface, which resulted in a membrane that was more hydrophobic than the unmodified GO membrane but less hydrophobic than the AGO (Al foil) membrane. The slight difference in the extent of wrinkling between the AGO (AlCl3) membrane and the AGO (Al foil) membrane may be due to the differences in the membrane surface structures that occurred as the membranes dried.
We also performed elemental analysis on all membranes to both determine the relative water content in each membrane and confirm the incorporation of Al into the membranes (
Figure 4). The water content, which is related to membrane wettability, was approximated by measuring oxygen/carbon (O/C) ratios from EDS maps of each membrane (
Figure 4a). To verify that changes in the AGO membrane O/C ratios were not due to reduction of the GO sheets, as has been noted in previous studies [
26], we obtained UV-visible spectra of each membrane (
Figure S2). Here, the spectra of all membranes were nearly identical. The peak near 228 nm is attributed to the π → π* transition and the shoulder near 300 nm is attributed to the n → π* transition of the C=O bonds [
31]. Previous work has shown that GO sheets can be purified with alkaline washing, which acts to remove OFGs from the GO sheet surface [
31]. This purification process causes the π → π* band to red shift to 250 nm due to the restoration of sp
2 conjugation. Based on the similarity of the AGO spectra to the GO spectrum, we conclude that the addition of Al from all sources likely did not significantly affect the O/C ratio due to the removal of OFGs.
As seen in
Figure 4a, the average O/C ratio for the unmodified GO membrane was 0.53, which was not significantly different than the O/C ratio for the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane (O/C ratio = 0.51) or the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane (O/C ratio = 0.57). It is expected that adding alumina to the GO membrane would increase the O/C ratio, especially since there is evidence that the alumina did not completely react in the acidic GO solution according to Reaction 1. However, the small amount of alumina added to the 4 mg/mL GO sheet solution would not significantly change the O/C ratio based on the error associated with the EDS measurements. Thus, it is likely that both the AGO (Al
2O
3) and AGO (AlCl
3) membranes had a similar water content as the unmodified GO membrane. However, the O/C ratio for the AGO (Al foil) membrane (O/C ratio = 0.46) was significantly lower than the other membranes studied. While this result may suggest partial reduction of the GO sheets due to the introduction of Al foil as noted in other studies [
26], it is more likely that the water content in the AGO (Al foil) membrane was less than that in the other membranes studied. The shrinking of the AGO (Al foil) membrane due to the prevalent Al
3+–GO interactions at the membrane surface likely allowed for more water to evaporate from the membrane structure as it dried, which resulted in a decrease in the O/C ratio for the AGO (Al foil) membrane compared to all other membranes studied. EDS mapping (
Figure S3) revealed that the carbon and oxygen atoms were uniformly distributed throughout all membranes studied.
EDS measurements were also performed to determine both the percent (
Figure 4b) and lateral distribution (
Figure 5 and
Figure S3) of aluminum in each membrane. Based on a concentration of 0.5 mM for each Al
3+-containing species, the wt% of Al was approximately 0.6% in the GO-Al
2O
3 solution and 0.3% in both the GO-AlCl
3 and GO-Al foil solutions. As seen in
Figure 4b, the average Al wt% was 0.42% for the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, 0.22% for the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane, and 0.34% for the AGO (Al foil) membrane. Based on the error associated with the balance used to weigh the compounds, it is likely that the total amount of Al added to the GO solutions from each source was incorporated into the AGO membranes. To determine how the Al was laterally distributed in each AGO membrane, EDS mapping of each membrane was performed. These maps show that for the AGO (AlCl
3) and AGO (Al foil) membranes, the lateral distribution of Al was homogeneous (
Figure S3). However, for the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, higher Al densities were observed near particle-like features on the membrane surface than in the rest of the membrane (
Figure 5). The EDS mapping supports the conclusion that these particles were likely unreacted alumina particles.
To better understand how the introduction of aluminum to the GO membranes from the different Al sources affected the membrane structure, FTIR (
Figure 6a) and XRD (
Figure 6b) spectra were obtained for all membranes studied. FTIR spectra can provide information related to the interactions between Al
3+ and the GO sheet OFGs and π-orbitals. The spectrum of the unmodified GO membrane was similar to previously reported spectra [
6,
8,
11,
23,
34,
35], and displayed the characteristic peak for the aromatic C=C stretching modes from unoxidized graphite domains (1618 cm
−1) as well as peaks attributed to the OFGs on the sheet surfaces, including carbonyl C=O (1718 cm
−1), carboxylate C-O (1400 cm
−1), epoxy/ether C-O (1222 cm
−1), and hydroxyl/alkoxide/carboxyl C-O (1035 cm
−1) functional groups. The broad peak near 3200 cm
−1 is attributed to the O-H stretching modes of water molecules within the membrane structures.
The spectra of the AGO membranes exhibited key features related to interactions between Al
3+ and the GO sheets within the membranes. For one, our previous work showed that an increase in the ratio of the peak intensity due to the carboxylate groups (1400 cm
−1) to the peak intensity due to the carbonyl groups (1718 cm
−1) can be attributed to an increase in the GO sheet solution pH and subsequent coordination interactions between Al
3+ and membrane carboxylate groups [
22]. Here, this ratio decreased from 1.19 for the unmodified GO membrane to 1.12 and 1.18 for the AGO (Al
2O
3) and AGO (AlCl
3) membranes, respectively. This result is consistent with the pH decrease resulting from reacting AlCl
3 with water (Reactions 2 and 3) as well as insignificant coordination interactions between Al
3+ and membrane carboxylate groups. However, the corresponding ratio increased to 1.25 for the AGO (Al foil) membrane due to carboxylic acid group deprotonation upon an increase in the GO sheet solution pH (Reaction 4) as well as coordination interactions between Al
3+ and resulting membrane carboxylate groups.
Previous studies of metal ion-functionalized GO membranes have attributed a peak near 1591 cm
−1 to cross-linking between the GO sheet basal planes via cation–π interactions [
6]. For the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane spectrum, a sharp peak appeared near 1570 cm
−1 that was not as pronounced in the spectra of the other membranes. Thus, it is likely that AGO (AlCl
3) membranes experienced the most significant Al
3+–π interactions between the GO sheet basal planes. For the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, the FTIR spectrum did not reveal significant interactions between Al
3+ and the GO sheet OFGs and π-orbitals. This lack of interaction is likely due to the incomplete reaction between alumina and water (Reaction 1) that limited the number of free Al
3+ ions available to interact with the GO sheets. Overall, the FTIR results suggest that the greatest extent of interactions between Al
3+ and the basal planes of GO sheets were present in the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane, while the greatest extent of interactions between Al
3+ and the carboxylate groups on the GO sheet edges were present in the AGO (Al foil) membrane.
XRD is most effective in determining the interplanar distance increase with addition of metal cations to GO membranes. The diffraction angles (2θ) shown in
Figure 6b were used to determine the interlayer distances (d-spacings) of laminated sheets based on Bragg’s law [
25,
34]. Inserting Al
3+ into the gallery spaces between the GO sheet basal planes increased the d-spacing from 0.77 nm for the unmodified GO membrane to 0.85 nm for the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, to 0.87 nm for the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane, and 0.83 nm for the AGO (Al foil) membrane (
Figure S4). The slight differences in d-spacing between the different AGO membranes were likely due to the extent to which the Al
3+ cations interacted with charged carboxylate groups on the edges of the sheets vs. the extent to which the Al
3+ cations interacted with OFGs and π orbitals on the basal planes of the sheets. As seen in the FTIR results, the smallest d-spacing increase seen in the AGO (Al foil) membrane is consistent with significant coordination between Al
3+ and the edges of the GO sheets, while the largest d-spacing increase seen in the AGO (AlCl
3) is consistent with significant cation–π interactions within the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane. Even though the FTIR spectra did not reveal extensive interactions between Al
3+ and the OFGs or π-orbitals in the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane, we suspect the increase in d-spacing relative to that for the unmodified GO membrane was due to the presence of alumina particles, and potentially some Al
3+ cations, in the membrane gallery spaces. Overall, the XRD spectra are consistent with a model in which intra-layer Al
3+-OFGs were more prevalent in AGO (Al foil) membranes, and interlayer Al
3+–π interactions were more prevalent in AGO (AlCl
3) membranes.
3.3. GO and AGO Membrane Stability in Water
The stability of GO membranes in water is critical to their use in filtration technologies. In unmodified GO membranes, individual sheets are held together through intra- and inter-layer hydrogen bonding as well as inter-layer van der Waals interactions. Because the GO sheets hold a net negative charge and are decorated with hydrophilic OFGs, unmodified membranes are unstable in water due to electrostatic repulsions between individual sheets as well as solvation of the hydrophilic OFGs located both on the membrane surface and within its interior. Our previous study suggested that unmodified GO membranes formed via a slow self-assembly process were more stable under soaking in water than GO membranes formed via vacuum filtration methods, but readily disintegrated under mechanical stresses of stirring and sonication [
22]. Our work also showed that modifying the GO membrane with Al
3+ introduced to the solution from Al foil increased their stability in water with stirring and sonication. Here, we explore the effect of the Al
3+ source, and ultimately the effect of the extent of inter-plane vs. intra-plane interactions, on membrane stability in water under mechanical stresses.
Here, we assessed the stabilities of all membranes under stirring and sonication. The results of this study are illustrated as digital camera photos shown in
Figure 7,
Figure 8 and
Figure 9. All membranes completely disintegrated within 1 h of gentle stirring (no collisions between the stir bar and membranes) at 200 rpm (
Figure 7). Under a frequency of 60 Hz, both the unmodified GO and AGO membranes nearly disintegrated within 30 s of sonication (
Figure 8). No further changes in the membrane solutions were observed when sonicated past 30 s. Even though all membranes did not persist for long under mechanical agitation, the addition of Al
3+ from different sources affected the membrane stability differently over the course of 1 h of stirring and 30 s of sonication. As seen in
Figure 7, an almost intact unmodified GO membrane persisted up to 20 min of stirring. Addition of alumina to the GO sheet solution decreased the AGO membrane stability such that an almost intact AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane only persisted up to 10 min of stirring. The membrane stability was improved when either AlCl
3 or Al foil was added to the GO sheet solution. Here, an almost intact AGO (AlCl
3) membrane persisted up to 30 min of stirring, while an almost intact AGO (Al foil) membrane persisted up to 40 min of stirring. These results suggest that the AGO (Al foil) membrane was the most stable in water under stirring.
The sonication results show a similar trend as the stirring results (
Figure 8 and
Figure 9). As seen in
Figure 8, the unmodified GO membrane disintegrated into a homogeneous brown solution, with a small intact membrane still existing after 30 s of sonication. The AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane similarly disintegrated into a homogeneous brown solution, but no visible membrane was present after 20 s of sonication. Thus, the AGO (Al
2O
3) was less stable than the unmodified GO membrane under sonication. Both the AGO (AlCl
3) and the AGO (Al foil) membranes disintegrated non-uniformly, which resulted in solutions that contained visible black flakes. These black flakes are attributed to AGO sheet aggregates rather than individual reduced GO sheets. However, some key differences existed between the AGO (AlCl
3) and AGO (Al foil) membrane solutions after sonication. Specifically, the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane solution was brown in color, suggesting that some of the membrane uniformly disintegrated into free GO sheets under sonication, while only black flakes could be observed in the AGO (Al foil) membrane solution.
The overall relative stabilities of all the membranes studied can be further seen when comparing 10-× diluted GO sheet solutions to the corresponding membrane solutions after 60 s of sonication (
Figure 9). Here, the post-sonication unmodified GO membrane solution was slightly darker in color than the 10-× diluted GO sheet solution yet was still relatively homogenous. This result suggests that the unmodified GO membrane mostly disintegrated into free GO sheets with sonication, yet some small intact membrane pieces likely remained in the solution. The AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane solution after sonication looked nearly identical to the 10-× diluted AGO (Al
2O
3) sheet solution, indicating that the membrane completely disintegrated into free GO sheets during sonication. This result is consistent with a decrease in membrane stability upon Al
3+ modification with Al
2O
3. For the AGO (AlCl
3) membrane, the post-sonication solution was a darker brown color than either the unmodified GO or AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane solutions yet was still relatively homogeneous. Thus, it is likely that either more or larger intact membrane pieces still existed after sonication than was observed in the unmodified GO membrane solution, which indicates that Al
3+ modification with AlCl
3 increased the GO membrane stability. Lastly, the AGO (Al foil) membrane solution was the least homogenous after sonication, showing black flakes consisting of relatively large intact membrane pieces. After storage, these flakes persisted, which further demonstrates that Al
3+-modification with Al foil was the most effective in increasing the stability of GO membranes.
These results are consistent with our previous study [
22], which suggested that hydrogen bonding, ion–dipole, and dipole–dipole interactions between water molecules and OFGs both on the membrane surface and interior were strong enough to overcome the hydrogen bonding and van der Waals interactions between the individual sheets within the unmodified GO membrane. Thus, the unmodified GO membrane readily disintegrated in water under mechanical stresses. Here, we have attempted to improve membrane stability by adding Al
3+ to the membrane structure from three different sources, which can improve GO membrane stability by replacing inter-sheet hydrogen bonds and relatively weak van der Waals interactions with overall stronger cation-to-OFGs coordinate covalent bonds, cation–π interactions, and electrostatic interactions. Modification of the GO membrane via addition of Al
2O
3 to the sheet solution decreased the as-formed membrane stability in water under mechanical stresses. Conversely, adding either AlCl
3 or Al foil to the sheet solution increased the as-formed membrane stability in water under mechanical stresses.
Our previous work indicated that an increase in membrane stability in water was related to an increase in membrane hydrophobicity [
22]. Here, as indicated by the contact angle results, all AGO membranes were more hydrophobic than the unmodified GO membrane, but only the AGO (AlCl
3) and AGO (Al foil) membranes were more stable in water than the unmodified GO membrane. Our previous work also showed that an increase in membrane stability resulted in a decrease in membrane permeability to water vapor [
22]. We measured the permeability of each membrane to water vapor (
Figure S5) and, as expected, these results showed that the permeability of the AGO (Al
2O
3) membrane was greater than that of the unmodified GO membrane, while the permeabilities of the AGO (AlCl
3) and AGO (Al foil) membranes were less than that of the unmodified GO membrane. Thus, adding either AlCl
3 or Al foil to the acidic GO sheet solution produced enough Al
3+ to promote membrane stability and slightly reduce membrane permeability, while adding Al
2O
3 did not produce enough Al
3+ to promote membrane stability or reduce membrane permeability. Even though enhanced membrane permeability is important for filtration applications, the enhanced water stability seen in our AGO (AlCl
3) and especially AGO (Al foil) membranes may allow them to serve as recyclable and reusable filters.
We attribute the decrease in membrane stability and increase in membrane permeability with Al2O3 addition to the limited reactivity of alumina in the acidic GO solution. We suspect that many alumina particles persisted in solution and were incorporated into the GO membrane interlayer gallery spaces upon drying. Even though these positively charged particles can screen the negative charges on the AGO (Al2O3) membrane, they likely interrupted van der Waals interactions that stabilize unmodified GO membranes in water without providing the stabilizing effects of free Al3+ cations. Based on the FTIR, XRD, and stability data, we suspect that the stabilizing effect in the AGO (AlCl3) membrane is different than in the AGO (Al foil) membrane. Inter-layer and intra-layer interactions between the GO sheets and Al3+ cations likely existed in both membranes. However, intra-layer coordination and electrostatic interactions between Al3+ and the negatively charged carboxylate groups on the sheet edges were more prevalent in the AGO (Al foil) membrane, while inter-layer Al3+–π interactions were more prevalent in the AGO (AlCl3) membrane. While these different interactions resulted in an increase in membrane hydrophobicity and consequently water stability, they likely affected the membrane structure and thus the mechanism by which each membrane disintegrated in water under mechanical stresses. Overall, it appears that GO membrane modification with Al3+ introduced via the oxidation of Al foil resulted in membranes with the greatest stability enhancement, thus it is likely that intra-layer interactions with Al3+ promote membrane stability more so than inter-layer interactions with Al3+.