Next Article in Journal
Effect of Seed Size on Pervaporation Performances Through FAU Zeolite Membrane
Previous Article in Journal
Advancements and Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Material Science and Membrane Technology: A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Membranes
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/membranes15120354
membranes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Carbon Membranes Derived from Natural Polymer Precursors: Fundamentals, Developments, and Perspectives for Pervaporation Desalination

by
Yue Yuan
1,†,
Fang Wang
1,†,
Yin Yu
1,
Zhikai Qin
1,2,
Hongbo Xi
1,* and
Changyong Wu
1,2,*
1
Research Center of Environmental Pollution Control Technology, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2
College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Membranes 2025, 15(12), 354; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes15120354
Submission received: 30 October 2025 / Revised: 18 November 2025 / Accepted: 24 November 2025 / Published: 25 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Carbon membranes have emerged as a promising class of inorganic membranes for desalination due to their tunable pore structures, superior chemical and thermal stability, and molecular-sieving properties. In pursuit of sustainability, recent research has shifted focus towards replacing petrochemical-based precursors with renewable natural polymers. This review provides a comprehensive examination of the fundamentals, developments, and prospects of carbon membranes derived from natural polymer precursors—such as cellulose, chitosan, lignin, starch, and sugars—specifically for pervaporation desalination. It begins by summarizing the fundamentals of membrane separation and the mechanisms of carbon membrane formation, emphasizing the critical relationships between precursor structure, carbonization conditions, and the resulting membrane performance. The core of the review is dedicated to a detailed analysis of various natural polymer precursors, discussing their unique chemistries, carbonization behaviors, and the characteristics of the derived carbon membranes. Particular attention is given to their application in pervaporation desalination, where they demonstrate competitive water flux and high salt rejection (>99%) under moderate operating conditions, highlighting their potential for treating hypersaline brines. Finally, the challenges of large-scale fabrication, structural durability, and data-driven optimization are discussed, along with future directions toward scalable and sustainable membrane technologies.

1. Introduction

The availability of freshwater resources for human consumption, industrial use, agriculture, and emerging energy technologies such as hydrogen production via electrolysis has become an increasingly critical global challenge [1,2]. Climate change, rapid industrialization, and population growth have intensified the demand for freshwater while degrading natural water quality. As a result, desalination has emerged as a vital and rapidly expanding technology for securing water supply. Traditional thermal desalination methods, such as multistage flash (MSF) and multiple-effect distillation (MED), are effective but highly energy intensive. In contrast, membrane-based desalination technologies, including reverse osmosis (RO), membrane distillation (MD), and pervaporation (PV), have become dominant due to their lower energy requirements [3]. Among these, PV is chosen as the focus of this review for carbon membranes due to its unique advantages in treating hypersaline brines, which are challenging for RO, and its lower susceptibility to fouling compared to porous membrane processes like MD.
Despite the significant progress achieved in the past two decades, polymeric membranes remain the mainstream materials in commercial desalination systems. However, these membranes often suffer from limitations such as low thermal and chemical resistance, membrane fouling, and structural instability under harsh operating conditions [4]. These constraints hinder their long-term operation and limit their applicability in treating hypersaline or chemically aggressive streams. In response, inorganic membranes, such as titania, silica, zeolite, and carbon membranes, have attracted growing interest for their superior mechanical and chemical stability, tunable pore structures, and exceptional selectivity [5,6,7,8]. Among them, carbon membranes stand out as a promising class of inorganic membranes that combine high temperature tolerance with molecular-sieving capability.
Carbon membranes are typically fabricated by controlled pyrolysis of organic precursors, producing a rigid carbon matrix with micropores that can selectively allow the passage of specific molecules or vapors. The fundamental chemical transformation involved in this process, from polymer precursor to a porous carbon structure, is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. Owing to their tunable pore structures, high stability, and resistance to organic solvents, carbon membranes have been extensively studied for gas separation, vapor permeation, and, more recently, desalination and water purification [8,9,10]. The performance of carbon membranes is intimately tied to the chemical composition and morphology of their precursors, as well as to pyrolysis parameters such as heating rate, atmosphere, and final temperature [11]. Commonly used precursors include polyimide (PI) [12], polyacrylonitrile (PAN) [13], phenolic resin [14], and polyfurfuryl alcohol (PFA) [15], etc. However, the heavy reliance on synthetic polymers derived from petroleum feedstocks poses sustainability and cost concerns.
In recent years, driven by the principles of green chemistry and sustainable materials development, researchers have begun exploring renewable natural polymers as alternative precursors for carbon membrane fabrication. Natural biopolymers such as cellulose, chitosan, lignin, and starch offer advantages including abundance, biodegradability, and low cost. The conversion of these renewable macromolecules into functional carbon structures aligns with global trends toward circular economy and low-carbon manufacturing [16]. Moreover, the diverse molecular structures and abundant functional groups of natural polymers can facilitate tailored pore development and heteroatom doping during carbonization, enhancing adsorption and transport properties.
The past few years have witnessed accelerated progress in this area. For example, cellulose-derived carbon membranes have demonstrated competitive performance in gas and vapor separation [17], while lignin and chitosan have shown potential for fabricating nitrogen-doped carbon frameworks with enhanced hydrophilicity and stability [18,19]. Similarly, bio-derived carbons from sugars and starch have been explored for producing carbon materials and membranes with hierarchical porosity [20,21,22,23]. These developments collectively mark a significant step toward sustainable membrane materials and open new pathways for environmentally friendly desalination technologies.
Despite significant progress in carbon membrane technology, existing reviews primarily focus on synthetic polymers such as polyimide and carbon nanomaterials as precursors, with an emphasis on their applications in pressure-driven water treatment processes like gas separation, batteries, and reverse osmosis/membrane distillation. These studies mainly address process optimization, doping modifications, and structure–performance relationships [24,25,26,27,28,29]. However, two major gaps remain: first, the potential of natural polymers as sustainable precursors has been overlooked; second, there is a lack of specialized analysis on pervaporation desalination.
Therefore, this review aims to systematically evaluate the application of natural polymer-derived carbon membranes in high-salinity pervaporation desalination, establishing intrinsic links between precursor chemistry and desalination performance in the context of sustainability. The article comprehensively outlines the fundamental structure–property relationships and fabrication methods of carbon membranes prepared from natural polymer precursors, as well as their applications in desalination. It also highlights recent advances in the design and performance of bio-based carbon membranes, and discusses future directions for achieving high-performance, sustainable, and scalable membrane systems.

2. Membrane Separation and Carbon Membrane Fundamentals

2.1. Membrane Separation Technologies

Membrane separation is a physicochemical process that relies on selective mass transport through a semipermeable barrier. The driving force may be pressure difference (∆P), concentration difference (∆C), temperature difference (∆T), and electrical potential difference (∆E) [30], as summarized in Table 1, depending on the separation mode. Common technologies include microfiltration (MF) [31], ultrafiltration (UF) [32], nanofiltration (NF) [33], reverse osmosis (RO) [34], pervaporation (PV) [35], and membrane distillation (MD) [36]. The selectivity and permeability of each process are governed by the membrane’s pore structure, surface chemistry, and the nature of the driving force [37].
Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes dominate large-scale desalination owing to their ability to reject nearly all dissolved salts. However, RO systems operate at high pressure (40~80 bar for seawater), suffer from fouling, and are limited by the intrinsic permeability-selectivity tradeoff of polymeric materials. Nanofiltration (NF) offers lower energy consumption and partial ion rejection, making it suitable for brackish water and wastewater reuse. Membrane distillation (MD) and pervaporation (PV) are thermally driven processes capable of treating hypersaline or organic-laden streams that are beyond the osmotic limits of RO. In PV desalination, water evaporates through a dense hydrophilic layer and condenses on the permeate side, enabling near-complete salt rejection (>99.9%) while using moderate temperatures (50~80 °C). Recent research highlight steady progress in hybrid PV membranes incorporating inorganic or carbon-based fillers, which enhance hydrophilicity, structural stability, and anti-fouling properties. For example, Xie et al. [38] and Chaudhri et al. [39] reported that incorporating SiO2 into pervaporation desalination membranes can enhance membrane hydrophilicity, thereby increasing water flux while maintaining a salt rejection rate of over 99%.

2.2. Membrane Classification

Membranes can be categorized according to many different classification schemes such as materials, structure, geometry, and transport mechanism, as shown in Figure 2. In the materials characterisation, membranes can be polymeric, inorganic, or hybrid. Each different material has its own advantages and disadvantages.

2.2.1. Polymeric Membranes

Polymeric membranes occupy the majority of membrane market. The most widely used materials for polymeric membranes include cellulose acetate (CA), polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone (PES), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyimides (PI), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [40]. The key features of some of the materials are in Table 1. Phase inversion, interfacial polymerization, stretching, track-etching, and electrospinning are some common methods to fabricate polymeric membranes [41]. Although polymeric membranes have been successfully utilized in industries due to their low cost, flexibility and high efficiency, problems like fouling, swelling, chemical and thermal susceptibility still exist and limit their application [42]. Therefore, to tackle these problems, block copolymer membranes and surface modification methods like surface grafting and surface segregation have been developed by researchers [43,44].
Table 1. Common polymeric membrane materials [40,41,45,46,47].
Table 1. Common polymeric membrane materials [40,41,45,46,47].
MaterialsTechnology MaturityApplicationsAdvantagesDisadvantages
Cellulose acetate (CA)CommercialRO
NF
UF
MF
  • Low cost
  • Flexibility in fabrication
  • Hydrophilicity
  • Poor chemical and thermal stability
Polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone (PES)Under developmentNF
UF
MF
Gas separation
  • High mechanical strength and durability
  • Good chemical resistance and chlorine resistance
  • Wide pH tolerance
  • High thermal stability
  • High permeability
  • Hydrophobicity
  • Low operating pressure limits
  • Low fouling resistance
Polypropylene (PP)CommercialUF
MF
MD
  • High resistance to organic solvents
  • Good mechanical strength
  • Low fouling resistance
  • Not oxidant tolerant
Polyacrylonitrile (PAN)CommercialUF
MF
Pervaporation
  • Oxidant tolerant
  • Narrow pore size distribution
  • Poor thermal stability
  • Low fouling resistance
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)Under developmentPervaporation
  • Hydrophilicity
  • Good acid resistance
  • High fouling resistance
  • Poor mechanical stability
  • Low pressure resistance
Polyimides (PI)Under developmentGas separation
  • High thermal stability
  • High mechanical properties
  • High chemical tolerance
  • Polymer chain rigidity
  • Hard to process
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE),
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)		CommercialMD
  • High mechanical strength and chemical resistance
  • High thermal stability
  • Hydrophobicity
  • Broader pore size distribution

2.2.2. Inorganic Membranes

Inorganic membranes, encompassing ceramics, zeolites, and carbon-based materials, provide superior chemical and thermal stability, longer lifetime and higher antifouling property compared to their polymeric counterparts [48]. The most common inorganic membranes are glass membranes, ceramic membranes, metallic membranes, carbon membranes, and zeolitic membranes. Titania and silica membranes offer excellent hydrophilicity and resistance to oxidative degradation, while zeolite membranes provide well-defined microporous channels for molecular sieving [49,50,51]. However, high fabrication costs and brittleness restrict their widespread application. The application, advantages and disadvantages of different types of inorganic membranes are summarized in Table 2.

2.2.3. Mixed Matrix Membranes

Mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) are a promising type of membranes in both gas separation and water process, where inorganic fillers are dispersed in a polymer matrix. The objective of MMMs is to provide an approach to overcome both the upper-bound of the trade-off between selectivity and permeability for polymeric membranes and the inherent brittleness and high cost of inorganic membranes. The inorganic fillers applied in MMMs can be either porous or nonporous. Commonly used inorganic fillers include zeolite, carbon molecular sieves, silica, metal oxide, carbon nanotubes, layered silicate, metal–organic frameworks and graphene [55].

2.3. Carbon Membranes

Carbon membranes (CMs), particularly carbon molecular sieve (CMS) membranes, have emerged as an intermediate solution combining the mechanical robustness of ceramics with the tunability of polymers. Based on the configurations, common carbon membranes can be categorized into two types: unsupported and supported. Unsupported carbon membranes are mainly flat sheets (film), capillary and hollow fibre, while the supported membranes are principally either flat sheets or tubes [56]. Carbon membranes consist of rigid amorphous carbon structures with slit-like ultramicropores (0.3~0.8 nm) that facilitate selective permeation of small molecules and vapor species [57]. The CMS structure is typically obtained by controlled carbonization of an organic polymer precursor under inert atmosphere, followed by stabilization and activation to develop accessible porosity [58]. Compared with polymeric membranes, CMS membranes can withstand high temperatures (>300 °C), aggressive solvents, and strong acids or bases. They have been widely investigated for gas separation (H2/CH4, O2/N2) [59,60,61] and are increasingly studied for water purification and desalination applications [62]. Their intrinsic hydrophobic-hydrophilic balance, combined with narrow pore-size distribution, enables near-complete salt rejection during pervaporation desalination.
Notable advances in carbon membranes include (i) hollow-fiber CMS modules for industrial-scale vapor separation [63], (ii) heteroatom doping (N, O, S) to tailor surface polarity and sorption selectivity [64], and (iii) integration of CMS with inorganic supports for enhanced mechanical integrity [65]. These developments demonstrate that precise control of pore architecture and surface functionality is key to achieving superior water transport and salt exclusion in carbon-based desalination membranes.

2.4. Formation Mechanism of Carbon Membranes

The preparation of carbon membranes normally requires several steps and preparation method directly impacts the performance of the subsequent membrane. Generally, there are six processes in the preparation of a carbon membrane, as shown in Figure 3 [66]. During the whole preparation, many factors need to be considered for producing a high-performance carbon membrane.
The performance of a carbon membrane is primarily determined by its precursor chemistry and carbonization parameters. During pyrolysis, thermal decomposition of the precursor induces the elimination of heteroatoms (O, N, H) and the formation of sp2- and sp3-hybridized carbon frameworks [67]. The resulting pore structure depends strongly on the precursor’s molecular architecture, crosslinking density, and decomposition pathway [68]. For instance, polyimide and phenolic precursors generate dense, aromatic carbon networks with narrow ultramicropores, whereas polyacrylonitrile (PAN) yields graphitic domains with moderate mesoporosity [69,70,71].
Carbonization conditions, including temperature, atmosphere, dwell time, and heating rate, are vital factors affecting pore size and connectivity. Lower carbonization temperatures (400~600 °C) result in partially carbonized structures with limited conductivity and microporosity, while higher temperatures (>800 °C) enhance graphitization but may collapse ultramicropores [71]. Applicable carbonization atmosphere could be N2, Ar, CO2 or vacuum. The use of an inert gas enhances membrane permeability by improving heat and mass transfer, whereas vacuum carbonization promotes the formation of denser carbon structures characterized by smaller pore sizes and reduced d-spacings [71,72]. Hence, optimizing the carbonization conditions is essential to balance permeability and selectivity.
Another critical step is the preparation of the precursor film or coating, which influences the membrane morphology and defect formation. Spin-coating, dip-coating, and phase inversion are widely used methods for forming uniform polymer films on porous ceramic or metal supports [73,74,75]. The precursor concentration and solvent system govern the resulting layer thickness and surface smoothness.
Several studies reported green and low-temperature fabrication routes for CMS membranes, including hydrothermal pre-carbonization, templated pyrolysis using bio-derived additives (e.g., glucose, lignin), and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of carbon nanolayers on supports [21,76]. Furthermore, machine-learning-assisted process control is emerging to predict optimal carbonization parameters for desired pore-size distributions of carbon materials [77,78].

3. Natural Polymer Precursors for Carbon Membranes

The growing demand for sustainable and environmentally friendly materials has motivated intensive research into renewable biomass resources as precursors for carbon membranes. Unlike petrochemical-based polymers, natural macromolecules such as cellulose, chitosan, lignin, and starch are abundant, biodegradable, and often derived from waste streams of agriculture or forestry industries. Critically, these natural polymers are consistently highlighted for their low cost and cost-effectiveness compared to synthetic alternatives, providing a compelling economic advantage for large-scale membrane production [79]. Their molecular architectures, composed mainly of polysaccharide, polyphenolic, or protein units, provide a rich variety of functional groups (-OH, -NH2, -COOH, -OCH3), which play crucial roles in the thermal degradation and carbonization pathways.
In contrast to synthetic polymers with uniform molecular structures, biopolymers exhibit hierarchical morphologies, crystalline-amorphous domains, and strong intermolecular hydrogen bonding [80]. These features influence carbonization behavior, leading to diverse pore structures and surface functionalities in the derived carbon materials. For instance, cellulose, due to its linear β-1,4-glucan backbone and high crystallinity, tends to yield well-ordered carbon sheets with narrow micropores, whereas lignin produces amorphous carbons rich in aromatic clusters and heteroatom dopants [81]. The inherent oxygen- and nitrogen-containing moieties in these biopolymers facilitate heteroatom doping during pyrolysis, improving surface polarity and hydrophilicity-properties advantageous for pervaporation desalination.

3.1. Cellulose and Its Derivatives

Cellulose is the most abundant biopolymer and a benchmark precursor for biomass-derived carbon membranes. Its regular chain structure and extensive hydrogen bonding result in excellent mechanical strength, making it suitable for forming films or fibers prior to carbonization. Research on the production of carbon membranes using cellulose precursors has reached the pilot-scale stage [82], and its process flow is shown in Figure 4.
Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of cellulose-derived carbon membranes (CDCMs) for both gas and vapor separations. Araújo et al. fabricated cellulose-based CMS membranes via controlled pyrolysis of urea doped cellulose films, achieving a uniform carbon layer with bimodal pore size distribution (0.7~1 nm micropores and 0.35–0.70 nm ultramicropores) [17]. The resulting membranes exhibited high O2/N2 and H2/CH4 selectivity and stable gas permeation after 120 days aging. Meanwhile, incorporation with thermally labile additives such as polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) can create different porous structures, acting as a molecular spacer [83], while the addition of metallic fillers increased the micropore volume of the resulting carbon membranes [84]. Furthermore, chemical pre-treatment (e.g., acetylation or oxidation) can regulate the degree of polymerization and crystallinity, thereby controlling the carbon yield and pore connectivity [85].

3.2. Chitosan and Lignin

Chitosan, a deacetylated derivative of chitin, contains amino groups that act as intrinsic nitrogen dopants, facilitating the formation of N-doped carbon networks. Such doping improves the affinity toward water molecules and enhances selective adsorption of polar compounds [86,87]. When carbonized, chitosan can yield N-doped carbon membranes with high graphitization and good wettability, which was employed as protective layers on zinc anodes in aqueous Zn batteries [88].
Lignin, a byproduct of the paper industry, provides a cost-effective and aromatic-rich precursor. Due to its crosslinked phenylpropanoid structure, lignin produces carbons with high aromatic content and microporous/mesoporous features after carbonization at 700~900 °C [89]. Lignin-derived carbon membrane have recently gained attention for vapor separation and wastewater treatment due to their mechanical integrity and low precursor cost. For example, lignin derivative, lignocresol, has been used to prepare carbon membranes with submicron thickness and well-developed microporous structures which exhibited high selectivity for CO2/N2 and H2/CH4 [90].

3.3. Starch and Related Polysaccharides

Among natural polymers, starch offers distinct advantages such as low cost, abundance, and processability into various morphologies (films, gels, fibers). Structurally, starch consists of two polysaccharides, amylose and amylopectin, whose ratio and crystallinity strongly affect its carbonization behavior [91]. The application of raw starch outside of the food industry is limited, mostly because it has many undesirable properties like the insolubility in cold water and the tendency of retrogradation after physical treatment [92,93]. Therefore, to use starch as a biopolymer material, physical and/or chemical modifications are typically needed. Modifications can change the starch structure and affect the hydrogen bonding in a controllable way to improve and extend its applications. Common modifications of starch are cross-linking, stabilization, enzymatic hydrolysis, acid hydrolysis, derivatization, oxidation, dextrinization, lipophilic substitution, pre-gelatinization, and hydrothermal treatment [93]. While starch has long been employed as an additive or matrix material in polymeric membranes (e.g., starch/chitosan [94,95] or starch/PVA blends [96,97]), its potential as a sole carbon precursor has only recently gained recognition. It has been reported the fabrication of starch-derived carbon membranes exhibiting microporous structures and hydrophilic surfaces beneficial for vapor transport [98].
Other biomass-based materials such as sucrose and glucose have been used as small-molecule precursors to tune the pore morphology of CMS membranes. For example, sucrose-based carbon coatings applied onto alumina supports yielded continuous ultrathin films with high salt rejection (>99%) and improved hydrophilicity for pervaporation desalination [99]. In addition, glucose-derived carbon membranes prepared hydrothermally at 200 °C for 5 h formed uniform amorphous carbon layers with ~0.3 nm pores, exhibiting high gas selectivity [100].

3.4. Carbonization Mechanisms and Structural Control

Despite the diversity of biopolymer sources, their thermal decomposition follows a general pattern: dehydration, depolymerization, and aromatization [101,102]. The decomposition onset typically occurs between 250~350 °C, accompanied by the release of CO2, CO, and H2O [102]. Crosslinking reactions between fragmented intermediates lead to the formation of polyaromatic clusters, which gradually coalesce into a continuous carbon matrix at higher temperatures [103].
To tailor pore architecture, activation techniques (physical or chemical) are frequently applied. Physical activation with CO2 or steam enlarges micropores, whereas chemical activation using KOH, ZnCl2, or phosphoric acid generates mesoporous frameworks [103,104,105,106]. However, excessive activation may compromise structural integrity and reduce salt rejection in desalination membranes.
In summary, natural polymer precursors have emerged as sustainable alternatives for fabricating carbon membranes, bridging the gap between high-performance inorganic materials and environmentally responsible production. Cellulose, chitosan, lignin, starch, and other biopolymers each offer unique chemical and structural attributes that influence carbon yield, pore morphology, and surface chemistry. Nevertheless, achieving uniform films, scalable fabrication, and consistent pore structures remain the main challenges for future exploration.

4. Pervaporation Desalination Using Carbon Membranes

4.1. Principles and Advantages of Pervaporation Desalination

Pervaporation (PV) is particularly suited for carbon membrane applications in desalination for two key reasons: its ability to handle hypersaline or chemically aggressive feeds that challenge pressure-driven processes like RO, and its operation with a dense selective layer which minimizes fouling and pore wetting issues common in MD.
PV is a thermally driven membrane process in which a liquid feed is partially vaporized through a nonporous or ultramicroporous membrane, as illustrated by Figure 5 [35]. The separation is governed by a solution-diffusion mechanism: (i) selective sorption of the permeant at the feed-membrane interface, (ii) diffusion across the membrane matrix, and (iii) desorption and condensation on the permeate side under vacuum or sweep gas [107]. In desalination applications, water preferentially permeates the membrane, while salts and nonvolatile solutes are retained in the feed phase.
Compared with RO and MD, PV operates at moderate temperatures (50~80 °C) and does not require high hydrostatic pressure, which makes PV particularly advantageous for treating hypersaline brines and industrial wastewater concentrates [108]. Furthermore, PV membranes can maintain high salt rejection (>99.9%) because salt ions, being nonvolatile, cannot pass through the dense selective layer. The simplicity of PV system configuration also enables hybrid integration with solar or waste-heat sources for low-carbon desalination [109]. The successful application of carbon membranes embodying these principles is detailed in the following section, with case studies highlighting their performance and the involved chemistry.

4.2. Carbon Membranes for Pervaporation Desalination

Carbon membranes have gained increasing attention for PV desalination owing to their thermal robustness, chemical resistance, and ultramicroporous structures that permit selective water vapor transport, providing an alternative to polymeric and ceramic membranes that often suffer from swelling or hydrolytic degradation under high salinity and temperature. The hydrophobic graphitic backbone combined with polar surface functionalities creates an optimal balance for water adsorption and diffusion while rejecting ions and organics. Recent developments have focused on tailoring carbon microstructures, pore connectivity, and surface chemistry by selecting appropriate organic precursors and controlling carbonization parameters to achieve high water flux and excellent salt rejection.
The preparation of starch-derived carbon membranes on porous alumina supports, which demonstrated that natural polysaccharides can serve as effective carbon sources for PV desalination [98]. Modified starches such as gelatinized, acid-hydrolyzed, and mixed-modified starch enabled the formation of stable coating suspensions and continuous carbon layers after dip-coating and carbonization. At a carbonization temperature of about 700 °C, the membranes exhibited a pure amorphous carbon structure and achieved a water flux of 4.98 L/m2/h with 92.6% salt rejection at 1 wt% NaCl and 70 °C [98]. Following similar bio-derived routes, sucrose- and sorbitol-based carbon membranes were reported as low-cost, renewable alternatives. Sucrose-derived membranes carbonized at 300 °C on alumina tubes yielded water fluxes between 7~23 L/m2/h and salt rejection above 97%, maintaining nearly 100% rejection for 60 h of continuous operation at 60 °C [99]. Sorbitol-derived membranes, produced under N2 at 350 °C, achieved outstanding performance: 17.35 kg/m2/h water flux and >99.9% salt rejection at 3.5 wt% NaCl and 60 °C, remaining stable for 100 h, highlighting the potential of sugar alcohols as efficient carbon precursors for long-term PV desalination [110].
In addition to natural polymers, synthetic resins have also been utilized. Phenolic-resin-derived carbon membranes fabricated through a two-step wet/dry coating on freeze-cast alumina substrates showed a well-developed micro/mesoporous carbon layer. When carbonized at 800 °C, these membranes delivered water fluxes up to 14.6 L/m2/h with 99% salt rejection for 1~5 wt% NaCl feeds at 25~75 °C [75]. The two-step phase inversion ensured defect-free coating and superior mechanical adhesion compared with conventional single-step methods.
Efforts have also been directed toward hybrid and composite carbon membranes to enhance hydrophilicity and flux. A notable example is the carbon-silica hybrid membrane prepared via sol–gel condensation of TEOS/TEVS and P123 surfactant, followed by vacuum carbonization at 450 °C. The resulting interlayer-free hybrid membrane achieved 26.5 L/m2/h water flux with 99.5% rejection at 1 wt% NaCl and 60 °C, outperforming many polymeric PV membranes due to the synergistic microporous network [111]. Similarly, PVA/carbon nanotube composite membranes attained 6.96 kg/m2/h flux and 99.91% rejection at 22 °C, benefitting from hydrogen-bond-mediated water transport through nanoscale carbon pathways [112]. The desalination performance of representative carbon membranes and comparative PV membranes is summarized in Table 3, highlighting their material composition, operating conditions, and performance metrics.
Generally, the performance of carbon-based PV membranes depends on a delicate interplay among pore structure, surface chemistry, and operation conditions. Ultramicropores are essential for water vapor diffusion and salt rejection, while excessive mesoporosity can lead to nonselective permeation and decreased rejection. Moderate hydrophilicity enhances water sorption without promoting capillary condensation. Higher feed temperature and vacuum level accelerate water vaporization but may cause membrane stress. Additionally, fouling and wetting remain critical challenges for industrial deployment.
Beyond experimental studies, molecular dynamics simulations have provided mechanistic insights into water transport within carbon frameworks. For instance, a carbon honeycomb (CHC) membrane model exhibited theoretical fluxes exceeding 3.9 × 104 L/m2/h with complete salt rejection at 320 K, revealing the fundamental influence of pore diameter (6~13 Å) and membrane thickness on selective vapor transport [117].
In summary, carbon membranes for PV desalination demonstrate remarkable versatility in precursor selection, from renewable carbohydrates to engineered hybrid networks, while maintaining high salt rejection and tunable permeability. Natural polymer-derived carbon membranes are emerging as sustainable candidates due to their low cost, abundance, and ease of carbonization at moderate temperatures. Continued progress in controlling pore architecture, surface polarity, and defect density will be pivotal in translating these laboratory-scale findings into scalable, high-performance membranes for sustainable desalination.

5. Challenges and Future Perspectives

5.1. Scalability and Manufacturing Challenges

Although significant progress has been made in developing high-performance carbon and hybrid membranes for desalination, large-scale commercialization remains limited. One major challenge lies in fabrication scalability. Conventional carbon membrane production involves high-temperature carbonization (600~900 °C) in inert atmospheres, which demands high energy input and precise control of heating rates, leading to increased manufacturing cost. Moreover, the intrinsic brittleness of carbon layers makes them susceptible to cracking during pyrolysis or module assembly, reducing yield and reproducibility.
To address these limitations, emerging low-temperature carbonization routes like hydrothermal carbonization have been proposed [118]. Similarly, microwave-assisted carbonization allows rapid and uniform heating, shortening fabrication time while preserving pore structure [119]. These innovations point toward more energy-efficient and scalable manufacturing methods that align with low-carbon production principles.

5.2. Structural Stability and Long-Term Durability

For carbon membranes derived from natural polymer precursors, maintaining structural integrity during long-term pervaporation operation remains challenging. The thin carbon layer obtained from bio-based precursors often exhibits residual stress and moderate mechanical strength, making it vulnerable to cracking, delamination, or pore coarsening under cyclic thermal and hydraulic conditions. Moreover, prolonged exposure to saline or oxidizing environments can gradually alter surface functionality, thereby affecting hydrophilicity and selectivity.
Enhancing interfacial adhesion through graded carbon–ceramic transitions, optimizing carbonization to reduce internal stress, and incorporating flexible or graphitized structures are promising strategies to improve stability. Future work should emphasize durability evaluation under continuous operation to ensure that bio-derived carbon membranes sustain their high selectivity and flux over extended service lifetimes.

5.3. Data-Driven Design and Digitalization

The optimization of carbon membranes has traditionally relied on empirical trial-and-error methods, which are time-consuming and material-intensive. In recent years, data-driven modeling and artificial intelligence (AI) have emerged as transformative tools for accelerating membrane design [120,121,122]. Machine learning algorithms can correlate precursor chemistry, carbonization parameters, and pore-structure descriptors with experimental performance data, enabling predictive modeling of flux and selectivity. Combined with high-throughput experiments and automated synthesis, such digital workflows could dramatically shorten development cycles. The concept of a “digital twin” membrane reactor, where real-time process data feed into predictive control algorithms, is also under exploration for continuous carbonization and defect monitoring.

6. Conclusions

Carbon membranes derived from natural polymers offer a sustainable and high-performance solution for desalination. This review demonstrates their exceptional potential in pervaporation, with specific precursors achieving benchmark results: sorbitol-derived membranes attain fluxes up to 17.35 kg/m2/h with >99.9% salt rejection, while sucrose-derived membranes provide 7–23 L/m2/h with >97% rejection. The critical link between precursor chemistry (e.g., inherent O/N functional groups) and carbonization conditions (optimized at 300–700 °C) enables the formation of ultra-micropores essential for selective water vapor transport.
Despite this promise, scalability and durability remain primary challenges. The brittleness of carbon layers and the energy intensity of high-temperature pyrolysis hinder large-scale adoption. Future progress depends on developing low-energy carbonization routes (e.g., microwave or hydrothermal), enhancing mechanical integrity through composite structures, and employing data-driven design to optimize membrane microstructure.
In summary, natural polymer-derived carbon membranes merge high selectivity (>99% rejection), competitive flux, and robust stability. Addressing the current manufacturing and mechanical challenges will position these sustainable materials as pivotal components in the next generation of energy-efficient desalination technologies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan) and C.W.; methodology, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan); validation, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan); formal analysis, F.W.; investigation, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan) and F.W.; resources, C.W.; data curation, F.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan) and F.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.Y. (Yin Yu), Z.Q., H.X. and C.W.; visualization, Y.Y. (Yu Yin) and Z.Q.; supervision, H.X. and C.W.; project administration, H.X. and C.W.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. (Yue Yuan) and C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Science and Technology Major Project for Integrated Environmental Improvement in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, grant number 2024ZD1200502.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the author(s) used ChatGPT 5 for the purposes of language improvement. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kumar, P.; Date, A.; Shabani, B. Towards self-water-sufficient renewable hydrogen power supply systems by utilising electrolyser and fuel cell waste heat. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2025, 137, 380–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Traisak, O.; Kumar, P.; Vahaji, S.; Zhang, Y.H.; Date, A. Advancements in integrated thermoelectric power generation and water desalination technologies: A comprehensive review. Energies 2025, 18, 1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ali, A.; Tufa, R.A.; Macedonio, F.; Curcio, E.; Drioli, E. Membrane technology in renewable-energy-driven desalination. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shukla, B.K.; Parashar, B.; Patel, T.; Gupta, Y.; Verma, S.; Singh, S. Polymeric Membranes in Water Treatment: Insights into Contaminant Removal Mechanisms and Advanced Processes. Eng. Proc. 2025, 87, 69. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yacou, C.; Smart, S.; Diniz da Costa, J.C. Mesoporous TiO2 based membranes for water desalination and brine processing. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2015, 147, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Elma, M.; Yacou, C.; Diniz da Costa, J.C.; Wang, D.K. Performance and Long Term Stability of Mesoporous Silica Membranes for Desalination. Membranes 2013, 3, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cho, C.H.; Oh, K.Y.; Kim, S.K.; Yeo, J.G.; Sharma, P. Pervaporative seawater desalination using NaA zeolite membrane: Mechanisms of high water flux and high salt rejection. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 371, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Song, Y.; Wang, D.K.; Birkett, G.; Martens, W.; Duke, M.C.; Smart, S.; Diniz da Costa, J.C. Mixed Matrix Carbon Molecular Sieve and Alumina (CMS-Al2O3) Membranes. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Teixeira, M.; Campo, M.C.; Pacheco Tanaka, D.A.; Llosa Tanco, M.A.; Magen, C.; Mendes, A. Composite phenolic resin-based carbon molecular sieve membranes for gas separation. Carbon 2011, 49, 4348–4358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hamm, J.B.S.; Muniz, A.R.; Pollo, L.D.; Marcilio, N.R.; Tessaro, I.C. Experimental and computational analysis of carbon molecular sieve membrane formation upon polyetherimide pyrolysis. Carbon 2017, 119, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, C.; Ling, L.; Huang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Song, Q. Decoration of porous ceramic substrate with pencil for enhanced gas separation performance of carbon membrane. Carbon 2015, 84, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hou, M.; Li, L.; He, Z.; Xu, R.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Pan, Z.; Song, C.; Wang, T. High-performance carbon molecular sieving membrane derived from a novel hydroxyl-containing polyetherimide precursor for CO2 separations. J. Membr. Sci. 2022, 656, 120639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vatanpour, V.; Pasaoglu, M.E.; Kose-Mutlu, B.; Koyuncu, I. Polyacrylonitrile in the Preparation of Separation Membranes: A Review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 6537–6558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abd Jalil, S.N.; Wang, D.K.; Yacou, C.; Motuzas, J.; Smart, S.; Diniz da Costa, J.C. Vacuum-assisted tailoring of pore structures of phenolic resin derived carbon membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2017, 525, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. He, L.; Li, D.; Zhang, G.; Webley, P.A.; Zhao, D.; Wang, H. Synthesis of Carbonaceous Poly(furfuryl alcohol) Membrane for Water Desalination. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 4175–4180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, L.; Gong, Y.; Li, D.; Pan, C. Biomass-derived porous carbon materials: Synthesis, designing, and applications for supercapacitors. Green Chem. 2022, 24, 3864–3894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Araújo, T.; Parnell, A.J.; Bernardo, G.; Mendes, A. Cellulose-based carbon membranes for gas separations—Unraveling structural parameters and surface chemistry for superior separation performance. Carbon 2023, 204, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rahmatunnisa, C.; Chaerun, R.I.; Budi, C.S.; Gultom, N.S. Transforming Chitosan into N-Doped Carbon for Efficient CO2 Capture: A comprehensive Review. Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv. 2025, 27, 100774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, S.; Wu, S.; Cheng, H. Preparation and characterization of lignin-derived nitrogen-doped hierarchical porous carbon for excellent toluene adsorption performance. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 192, 116120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khandaker, T.; Islam, T.; Nandi, A.; Anik, M.A.A.M.; Hossain, M.S.; Hasan, M.K.; Hossain, M.S. Biomass-derived carbon materials for sustainable energy applications: A comprehensive review. Sustain. Energy Fuels 2025, 9, 693–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, X.; Eugene Chong, J.J.; Celine Fah, Z.W.; Hong, L. Glucose-derived carbon molecular sieve membrane: An inspiration from cooking. Carbon 2017, 111, 334–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, T.; Wang, G.; Dong, Q.; Zhan, F.; Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Qiao, H.; Qiu, J. Starch Derived Porous Carbon Nanosheets for High-Performance Photovoltaic Capacitive Deionization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 9244–9251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Woranuch, S.; Pangon, A.; Puagsuntia, K.; Subjalearndee, N.; Intasanta, V. Starch-based and multi-purpose nanofibrous membrane for high efficiency nanofiltration. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 35368–35375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Khan, A.A.; Maitlo, H.A.; Khan, I.A.; Lim, D.; Zhang, M.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.O. Metal oxide and carbon nanomaterial based membranes for reverse osmosis and membrane distillation: A comparative review. Environ. Res. 2021, 202, 111716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kim, I.S.; Shim, C.E.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, C.S.; Kwon, J.; Byun, K.E.; Jeong, U. Amorphous carbon films for electronic applications. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, e2204912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kim, J.; Cho, Y.W.; Woo, S.G.; Lee, J.N.; Lee, G.H. Advancements in chemical vapor deposited carbon films for secondary battery applications. Small 2025, 21, e2410570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lu, Y.M.; Wang, S.; Huang, G.J.; Xi, L.; Qin, G.H.; Zhu, M.Z.; Chu, H. Fabrication and applications of the optical diamond-like carbon films: A review. J. Mater. Sci. 2022, 57, 3971–3992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sazali, N. A review of the application of carbon-based membranes to hydrogen separation. J. Mater. Sci. 2020, 55, 11052–11070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yuan, Z.W.; Yu, Y.X.; Sui, X.; Yao, Y.Y.; Chen, Y. Carbon composite membranes for thermal-driven membrane processes. Carbon 2021, 179, 600–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Padaki, M.; Surya Murali, R.; Abdullah, M.S.; Misdan, N.; Moslehyani, A.; Kassim, M.A.; Hilal, N.; Ismail, A.F. Membrane technology enhancement in oil–water separation. A review. Desalination 2015, 357, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Anis, S.F.; Hashaikeh, R.; Hilal, N. Microfiltration membrane processes: A review of research trends over the past decade. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 32, 100941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shi, X.; Tal, G.; Hankins, N.P.; Gitis, V. Fouling and cleaning of ultrafiltration membranes: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2014, 1, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mohammad, A.W.; Teow, Y.H.; Ang, W.L.; Chung, Y.T.; Oatley-Radcliffe, D.L.; Hilal, N. Nanofiltration membranes review: Recent advances and future prospects. Desalination 2015, 356, 226–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lee, H.; Jin, Y.; Hong, S. Recent transitions in ultrapure water (UPW) technology: Rising role of reverse osmosis (RO). Desalination 2016, 399, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xu, Y.; Wang, C.; Ling, Q.; Sang, L. Advances in pervaporation desalination based on polymer membranes. RSC Adv. 2025, 15, 20985–21005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Drioli, E.; Ali, A.; Macedonio, F. Membrane distillation: Recent developments and perspectives. Desalination 2015, 356, 56–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mulder, M. Basic Principles of Membrane Technology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Xie, Z.; Hoang, M.; Duong, T.; Ng, D.; Dao, B.; Gray, S. Sol–gel derived poly(vinyl alcohol)/maleic acid/silica hybrid membrane for desalination by pervaporation. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 383, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chaudhri, S.G.; Chaudhari, J.C.; Singh, P.S. Fabrication of efficient pervaporation desalination membrane by reinforcement of poly(vinyl alcohol)–silica film on porous polysulfone hollow fiber. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018, 135, 45718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, A.; Elam, J.W.; Darling, S.B. Membrane materials for water purification: Design, development, and application. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2016, 2, 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lalia, B.S.; Kochkodan, V.; Hashaikeh, R.; Hilal, N. A review on membrane fabrication: Structure, properties and performance relationship. Desalination 2013, 326, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M.; Urbanowska, A. Comparison of polymeric and ceramic ultrafiltration membranes for separation of natural organic matter from water. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2010, 36, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nunes, S.P. Block copolymer membranes for aqueous solution applications. Macromolecules 2016, 49, 2905–2916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Werber, J.R.; Osuji, C.O.; Elimelech, M. Materials for next-generation desalination and water purification membranes. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gryta, M. Influence of polypropylene membrane surface porosity on the performance of membrane distillation process. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 287, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Warsinger, D.M.; Chakraborty, S.; Tow, E.W.; Plumlee, M.H.; Bellona, C.; Loutatidou, S.; Karimi, L.; Mikelonis, A.M.; Achilli, A.; Ghassemi, A. A review of polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2018, 81, 209–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Thakur, V.K.; Voicu, S.I. Recent advances in cellulose and chitosan based membranes for water purification: A concise review. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 146, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kayvani Fard, A.; McKay, G.; Buekenhoudt, A.; Al Sulaiti, H.; Motmans, F.; Khraisheh, M.; Atieh, M. Inorganic Membranes: Preparation and Application for Water Treatment and Desalination. Materials 2018, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Athanasekou, C.P.; Romanos, G.E.; Katsaros, F.K.; Kordatos, K.; Likodimos, V.; Falaras, P. Very efficient composite titania membranes in hybrid ultrafiltration/photocatalysis water treatment processes. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 392–393, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, M.-A.; Huiskes, C.; Keim, E.G.; Sluijter, S.N.; van Veen, H.; Nijmeijer, A.; Winnubst, L.; Luiten-Olieman, M.W.J. New Generation of Mesoporous Silica Membranes Prepared by a Stöber-Solution Pore-Growth Approach. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 18528–18539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Bowen, T.C.; Noble, R.D.; Falconer, J.L. Fundamentals and applications of pervaporation through zeolite membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 245, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ismail, A.F.; David, L. A review on the latest development of carbon membranes for gas separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 193, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mallada, R.; Menéndez, M. Inorganic Membranes: Synthesis, Characterization and Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 13. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee, M.; Wu, Z.; Li, K. Advances in ceramic membranes for water treatment. In Advances in Membrane Technologies for Water Treatment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 43–82. [Google Scholar]
  55. Goh, P.; Ismail, A.; Sanip, S.; Ng, B.; Aziz, M. Recent advances of inorganic fillers in mixed matrix membrane for gas separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2011, 81, 243–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. He, X.; Kumakiri, I. Carbon Membrane Technology: Fundamentals and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  57. Llosa Tanco, M.A.; Pacheco Tanaka, D.A. Recent Advances on Carbon Molecular Sieve Membranes (CMSMs) and Reactors. Processes 2016, 4, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tin, P.S.; Xiao, Y.; Chung, T.S. Polyimide-Carbonized Membranes for Gas Separation: Structural, Composition, and Morphological Control of Precursors. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2006, 35, 285–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Salleh, W.N.W.; Ismail, A.F. Carbon membranes for gas separation processes: Recent progress and future perspective. J. Membr. Sci. Res. 2015, 1, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Widiastuti, N.; Widyanto, A.R.; Caralin, I.S.; Gunawan, T.; Wijiyanti, R.; Wan Salleh, W.N.; Ismail, A.F.; Nomura, M.; Suzuki, K. Development of a P84/ZCC Composite Carbon Membrane for Gas Separation of H2/CO2 and H2/CH4. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 15637–15650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gao, Z.; Zhang, B.; Yang, C.; Wu, Y. Fabrication of CeO2/carbon molecular sieving membranes for enhanced O2/N2 gas separation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2024, 649, 159127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Müller, E.A. Purification of water through nanoporous carbon membranes: A molecular simulation viewpoint. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2013, 2, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jang, M.-J.; Seo, H.; Koh, D.-Y. Separation of Liquid Xylene Isomers Using Thin-Film Composite Carbon Molecular Sieve Hollow Fiber Membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2024, 63, 12166–12176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Y.; Shao, Y.; Wang, H.; Yuan, J. Advanced Heteroatom-Doped Porous Carbon Membranes Assisted by Poly(ionic liquid) Design and Engineering. Acc. Mater. Res. 2020, 1, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kong, J.; Seyed Shahabadi, S.I.; Lu, X. Integration of inorganic nanostructures with polydopamine-derived carbon: Tunable morphologies and versatile applications. Nanoscale 2016, 8, 1770–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Saufi, S.M.; Ismail, A.F. Fabrication of carbon membranes for gas separation––a review. Carbon 2004, 42, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, B. Carbon Catalysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  68. Min, Z.-h.; Cao, M.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.-d.; Wang, Y.-g. Effect of precursor on the pore structure of carbon foams. New Carbon Mater. 2007, 22, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Takeichi, T.; Yamazaki, Y.; Zuo, M.; Ito, A.; Matsumoto, A.; Inagaki, M. Preparation of porous carbon films by the pyrolysis of poly(urethane-imide) films and their pore characteristics. Carbon 2001, 39, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lu, A.; Kiefer, A.; Schmidt, W.; Schüth, F. Synthesis of Polyacrylonitrile-Based Ordered Mesoporous Carbon with Tunable Pore Structures. Chem. Mater. 2004, 16, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Salleh, W.N.W.; Ismail, A.F.; Matsuura, T.; Abdullah, M.S. Precursor Selection and Process Conditions in the Preparation of Carbon Membrane for Gas Separation: A Review. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2011, 40, 261–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Grainger, D.; Hägg, M.-B. Evaluation of cellulose-derived carbon molecular sieve membranes for hydrogen separation from light hydrocarbons. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 306, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lue, S.J.; Pai, Y.-L.; Shih, C.-M.; Wu, M.-C.; Lai, S.-M. Novel bilayer well-aligned Nafion/graphene oxide composite membranes prepared using spin coating method for direct liquid fuel cells. J. Membr. Sci. 2015, 493, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cao, Y.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, C.; Koros, W.J. Carbon molecular sieve hollow fiber membranes derived from dip-coated precursor hollow fibers comprising nanoparticles. J. Membr. Sci. 2022, 649, 120279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Athayde, D.D.; Motuzas, J.; Diniz da Costa, J.C.; Vasconcelos, W.L. Novel two-step phase inversion and dry surface coated carbon membranes on alumina freeze-cast substrates for desalination. Desalination 2021, 500, 114862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, Y.-Y.; Nomura, T.; Sakoda, A.; Suzuki, M. Fabrication of carbon coated ceramic membranes by pyrolysis of methane using a modified chemical vapor deposition apparatus. J. Membr. Sci. 2002, 197, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Li, H.; Yan, Q.; Li, J.; Qiu, J.; Zhang, H. Porous Carbon Materials: From Traditional Synthesis, Machine Learning-Assisted Design, to Their Applications in Advanced Energy Storage and Conversion. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025, 35, 2504272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sun, X.; Li, R.; Zhang, B.; Wang, H.; Cheng, Y.; Guan, J.; Liu, Q.; Chen, X. Function–Structure–Synthesis: Machine Learning Enabled Closed-Loop Design of Biomass-Derived Porous Carbon Materials. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 7698–7709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ali, A.A.; Al-Othman, A.; Tawalbeh, M. Exploring natural polymers for the development of proton exchange membranes in fuel cells. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2024, 189, 1379–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Priya, G.; Shanthi, N.; Pavithra, S.; Sangeetha, S.; Murugesan, S.; Shyamalagowri, S. Modern analytical approach in biopolymer characterization. Phys. Sci. Rev. 2024, 9, 1149–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jin, J.; Ma, H.; Liang, H.; Zhang, Y. Biopolymer-Derived Carbon Materials for Wearable Electronics. Adv. Mater. 2025, 37, 2414620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Haider, S.; Lie, J.A.; Lindbråthen, A.; Hägg, M.-B. Pilot–Scale Production of Carbon Hollow Fiber Membranes from Regenerated Cellulose Precursor-Part I: Optimal Conditions for Precursor Preparation. Membranes 2018, 8, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ismail, A.F.; Rana, D.; Matsuura, T.; Foley, H.C. Carbon-Based Membranes for Separation Processes; Springer Science & Business Media: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lie, J.A.; Hägg, M.-B. Carbon membranes from cellulose and metal loaded cellulose. Carbon 2005, 43, 2600–2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Araújo, T.; Bernardo, G.; Mendes, A. Cellulose-Based Carbon Molecular Sieve Membranes for Gas Separation: A Review. Molecules 2020, 25, 3532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Min, H.; Zhang, K.; Guo, Z.; Chi, F.; Fu, L.; Li, B.; Qiao, X.; Wang, S.; Cao, S.; Wang, B. N-rich chitosan-derived porous carbon materials for efficient CO2 adsorption and gas separation. Front. Chem. 2023, 11, 1333475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chen, X.; Oh, W.-D.; Zhang, P.-H.; Webster, R.D.; Lim, T.-T. Surface construction of nitrogen-doped chitosan-derived carbon nanosheets with hierarchically porous structure for enhanced sulfacetamide degradation via peroxymonosulfate activation: Maneuverable porosity and active sites. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 382, 122908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, H.; Wei, Z.; Xia, Y.; Han, J.; Li, X. Chitosan derived carbon membranes as protective layers on zinc anodes for aqueous zinc batteries. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2023, 30, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhang, W.; Qiu, X.; Wang, C.; Zhong, L.; Fu, F.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Qin, Y.; Yang, D.; Xu, C.C. Lignin derived carbon materials: Current status and future trends. Carbon Res. 2022, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kita, H.; Nanbu, K.; Hamano, T.; Yoshino, M.; Okamoto, K.-i.; Funaoka, M. Carbon Molecular Sieving Membranes Derived from Lignin-Based Materials. J. Polym. Environ. 2002, 10, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Srikaeo, K. Starch: Introduction and Structure–Property Relationships; The Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  92. Chisenga, S.M.; Workneh, T.S.; Bultosa, G.; Alimi, B.A. Progress in research and applications of cassava flour and starch: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 2799–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sui, Z.; Kong, X. Physical Modifications of Starch; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ilias, H.M.; Othman, S.H.; Shapi’i, R.A.; Yunos, K.F.M. Starch/chitosan nanoparticles bionanocomposite membranes for methylene blue dye removal. Nanotechnology 2024, 35, 335704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhao, J.; Wang, Y.; Tang, Q.; Li, J.; Dou, X.; Gou, D.; Liu, T. Starch–chitosan composite films for the effective removal of protein in water. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2024, 14, 16403–16413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shi, R.; Zhu, A.; Chen, D.; Jiang, X.; Xu, X.; Zhang, L.; Tian, W. In vitro degradation of starch/PVA films and biocompatibility evaluation. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 115, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Moradi, E.; Ebrahimzadeh, H.; Mehrani, Z.; Asgharinezhad, A.A. The efficient removal of methylene blue from water samples using three-dimensional poly (vinyl alcohol)/starch nanofiber membrane as a green nanosorbent. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 35071–35081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Yuan, Y. Starch-Derived Carbon Membranes for Saline Pervaporation. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  99. Darmawan, A.; Nurfadila, H.U.; Wahyuni, A.S.; Muhtar, H.; Astuti, Y. Sucrose-derived carbon membranes for sustainable water desalination. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2024, 21, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nakamura, Y.; Matsushita, S.; Nakajima, A.; Isobe, T. Preparation of amorphous carbon membranes synthesized via a glucose-solution hydrothermal method. Ceram. Int. 2023, 49, 9932–9939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kartal, F.; Dalbudak, Y.; Özveren, U. Prediction of thermal degradation of biopolymers in biomass under pyrolysis atmosphere by means of machine learning. Renew. Energy 2023, 204, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ronsse, F.; Nachenius, R.W.; Prins, W. Chapter 11—Carbonization of Biomass. In Recent Advances in Thermo-Chemical Conversion of Biomass; Pandey, A., Bhaskar, T., Stöcker, M., Sukumaran, R.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 293–324. [Google Scholar]
  103. Zhang, B.; Jiang, Y.; Balasubramanian, R. Synthesis, formation mechanisms and applications of biomass-derived carbonaceous materials: A critical review. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 24759–24802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kim, D.; Kim, J.M.; Jeon, Y.; Lee, J.; Oh, J.; Antink, W.H.; Kim, D.; Piao, Y. Novel two-step activation of biomass-derived carbon for highly sensitive electrochemical determination of acetaminophen. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2018, 259, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Guo, Z.; Zhang, X.; Kang, Y.; Zhang, J. Biomass-derived carbon sorbents for Cd (II) removal: Activation and adsorption mechanism. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 4103–4109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Jin, Z.; Yan, X.; Yu, Y.; Zhao, G. Sustainable activated carbon fibers from liquefied wood with controllable porosity for high-performance supercapacitors. J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 11706–11715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mukherjee, M.; Roy, S.; Bhowmick, K.; Majumdar, S.; Prihatiningtyas, I.; Van der Bruggen, B.; Mondal, P. Development of high performance pervaporation desalination membranes: A brief review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 159, 1092–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Li, Y.; Thomas, E.R.; Molina, M.H.; Mann, S.; Walker, W.S.; Lind, M.L.; Perreault, F. Desalination by membrane pervaporation: A review. Desalination 2023, 547, 116223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Prihatiningtyas, I.; Al-Kebsi, A.-H.A.H.; Hartanto, Y.; Zewdie, T.M.; Van der Bruggen, B. Techno-economic assessment of pervaporation desalination of hypersaline water. Desalination 2022, 527, 115538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Darmawan, A.; Miftiyati, S.D.; Azmiyawati, C. Synthesis of Carbon Membranes Using Sorbitol as a Carbon Source for Desalination Applications. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2024, 33, 10024–10034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yang, H.; Elma, M.; Wang, D.K.; Motuzas, J.; Diniz da Costa, J.C. Interlayer-free hybrid carbon-silica membranes for processing brackish to brine salt solutions by pervaporation. J. Membr. Sci. 2017, 523, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yang, G.; Xie, Z.; Cran, M.; Ng, D.; Gray, S. Enhanced desalination performance of poly (vinyl alcohol)/carbon nanotube composite pervaporation membranes via interfacial engineering. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 579, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liang, B.; Li, Q.; Cao, B.; Li, P. Water permeance, permeability and desalination properties of the sulfonic acid functionalized composite pervaporation membranes. Desalination 2018, 433, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cao, Z.; Zeng, S.; Xu, Z.; Arvanitis, A.; Yang, S.; Gu, X.; Dong, J. Ultrathin ZSM-5 zeolite nanosheet laminated membrane for high-flux desalination of concentrated brines. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaau8634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Darmawan, A.; Munzakka, L.; Karlina, L.; Saputra, R.E.; Sriatun, S.; Astuti, Y.; Wahyuni, A.S. Pervaporation membrane for desalination derived from tetraethylorthosilicate-methyltriethoxysilane. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2022, 101, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Liu, G.; Shen, J.; Liu, Q.; Liu, G.; Xiong, J.; Yang, J.; Jin, W. Ultrathin two-dimensional MXene membrane for pervaporation desalination. J. Membr. Sci. 2018, 548, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yang, L.; Feng, L.; Liu, B.; Fang, Q.; Zhou, K. Seawater pervaporation through carbon honeycomb membrane: A molecular dynamics study. Desalination 2023, 565, 116889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Maniscalco, M.P.; Volpe, M.; Messineo, A. Hydrothermal Carbonization as a Valuable Tool for Energy and Environmental Applications: A Review. Energies 2020, 13, 4098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Paramasivan, B. Microwave assisted carbonization and activation of biochar for energy-environment nexus: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Cao, Z.; Barati Farimani, O.; Ock, J.; Barati Farimani, A. Machine learning in membrane design: From property prediction to AI-guided optimization. Nano Lett. 2024, 24, 2953–2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ahmad, U.; Abdala, A.; Ng, K.C.; Akhtar, F.H. Machine learning-driven design of membranes for saline and produced water treatment across scales. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2025, 11, 2080–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gungormus, E. Data driven modeling and design of cellulose acetate-polysulfone blend ultrafiltration membranes based on Artificial Neural Networks. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 116337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Membranes 15 00354 g001
Figure 1. Carbon membrane formation schematic.
Figure 1. Carbon membrane formation schematic.
Membranes 15 00354 g001
Membranes 15 00354 g002
Figure 2. Different classifications of membranes.
Figure 2. Different classifications of membranes.
Membranes 15 00354 g002
Membranes 15 00354 g003
Figure 3. General processes for carbon membrane preparation.
Figure 3. General processes for carbon membrane preparation.
Membranes 15 00354 g003
Membranes 15 00354 g004
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the pilot-scale fabrication process for carbon membranes from cellulose acetate hollow fibers [82].
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the pilot-scale fabrication process for carbon membranes from cellulose acetate hollow fibers [82].
Membranes 15 00354 g004
Membranes 15 00354 g005
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the pervaporation process: (a) key membrane material, (b) solution-diffusion separation mechanism, and (c) process unit.
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the pervaporation process: (a) key membrane material, (b) solution-diffusion separation mechanism, and (c) process unit.
Membranes 15 00354 g005
Table 2. Comparison of different inorganic membranes [48,52,53,54].
Table 2. Comparison of different inorganic membranes [48,52,53,54].
Membrane TypesTechnology MaturityApplicationsAdvantagesDisadvantages
Metallic membranes
(mostly Pd-based membranes)		Under developmentSeparation of hydrogen
  • Mechanical strength
  • High permeating flux
  • Thermal stability
  • Very high cost
  • Surface poisoning
Ceramic membranesCommercialUF
MF
Gas separation
Membrane reactor
  • Chemical, thermal and mechanical stability
  • No swelling in any solvent
  • Resistant to chemicals
  • High costs and complex fabrication compared to polymeric membranes
  • Lower packing densities than polymeric membranes
Glass membranesCommercialGas separation
Membrane reactor
Pervaporation
  • High selectivity
  • Chemical and thermal stability
  • Simple fabrication
  • Cheaper
  • Degraded by water
Carbon membranesUnder developmentGas separation
  • Molecular sieving
  • High efficiency
  • Very fragile
  • Degraded by water and some organic compounds
Zeolitic membranesUnder developmentRO
Gas separation Pervaporation
  • Uniform and very narrow pore size
  • Catalytic properties
  • High material cost
  • Poor process ability
  • Negative thermal expansion
Table 3. Desalination performance of carbon membranes and other PV membranes.
Table 3. Desalination performance of carbon membranes and other PV membranes.
Membrane TypeFeedTemp. (°C)Water Flux (L/m2/h)Salt Rejection (%)Ref.
Starch-derived carbon membrane1 wt% NaCl704.9892.6[98]
Sucrose-derived carbon membrane1~7 wt% NaCl607~23≥97[99]
Sorbitol-derived carbon membrane3.5 wt% NaCl6017.35>99.9[110]
Phenolic resin-derived carbon membrane1–5 wt% NaCl7514.699[75]
Carbon–silica hybrid membrane1 wt% NaCl6026.599.5[111]
PVA/CNT composite membrane3.5 wt% NaCl226.9699.91[112]
Sulfonic acid functionalized PVA/PAN composite membrane3.5 wt% NaCl7046.399.8[113]
ZSM-5 thin membrane3 wt% NaCl8010.499.5[114]
TEOS-MTES silica membrane1 wt% NaCl30298[115]
Ultrathin MXene membrane3.5 wt% NaCl6085.499.5[116]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yuan, Y.; Wang, F.; Yu, Y.; Qin, Z.; Xi, H.; Wu, C. Carbon Membranes Derived from Natural Polymer Precursors: Fundamentals, Developments, and Perspectives for Pervaporation Desalination. Membranes 2025, 15, 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes15120354

AMA Style

Yuan Y, Wang F, Yu Y, Qin Z, Xi H, Wu C. Carbon Membranes Derived from Natural Polymer Precursors: Fundamentals, Developments, and Perspectives for Pervaporation Desalination. Membranes. 2025; 15(12):354. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes15120354

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yuan, Yue, Fang Wang, Yin Yu, Zhikai Qin, Hongbo Xi, and Changyong Wu. 2025. "Carbon Membranes Derived from Natural Polymer Precursors: Fundamentals, Developments, and Perspectives for Pervaporation Desalination" Membranes 15, no. 12: 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes15120354

APA Style

Yuan, Y., Wang, F., Yu, Y., Qin, Z., Xi, H., & Wu, C. (2025). Carbon Membranes Derived from Natural Polymer Precursors: Fundamentals, Developments, and Perspectives for Pervaporation Desalination. Membranes, 15(12), 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes15120354

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop