Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 30;9(9):111. doi: 10.3390/membranes9090111

Table 13.

Performance of various polyamide (m-phenylenediamine (MPD)–trimesoyl chloride) composite membranes prepared with graphene oxide (GO) as compared to commercially available, polyamide (PA), and thin-film nanotechnology (TFN) membranes. Type: B = brackish water, S = seawater, N = nanofiltration. Adapted from Ali et al. [287]. Used with permission of Elsevier B.V.

Type GO Concentration (ppm) GO Addition Procedure Pressure (bar) NaCl Concentration (ppm) Permeability (l/m2-h/bar) Salt Rejection (%) REF
B 76 in MPD embedded 15 2000 1.1 99 131
S 1000 on PSf * substrate 55 32,000 0.51 98 133
N 2000 in MPD embedded 15 2000 1.5 88 136
B 20,000 on PA layer 15.5 2000 0.90 96 134
B 100 in MPD embedded 15 2000 2.0 98 126
B-PA ** 0 15.5 1500 3.4 99.8 CPA7-LD
S-PA ** 0 54 32,000 0.94 99.8 SWC6-LD
B-TFN *** 0 15.5 2000 2.9 99.6 LGBW400R
S-TFN *** 0 55 32,000 0.47 99.85 LGSW400R

* Polysulfone, ** Hydranautics commercial polyamide membranes (a Nitto Group Company, Oceanside, CA, USA), *** LG Chem Water Solutions commercial TFN membranes (El Segundo, CA, USA).