Enhanced oil-spill removal and recovery from water bodies using diatomaceous earth and C18-silane grafted polyurethane

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1732536/v1

Download PDF

Article

Enhanced oil-spill removal and recovery from water bodies using diatomaceous earth and C18-silane grafted polyurethane

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1732536/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This research focuses on novel synthesis of polyurethane (PU) foam surface functionalized with diatomaceous earth (DE) particles and non-fluoro octadecylsilane (C18), intended to improve the hydrophobicity and wettability of the PU foam, in order to evaluate its potential use in enhanced clean-up of oil spill contaminants from water. The modified PU foam has been characterized by scanning electron microscopy to understand the microstructural changes during the surface modifications, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to track the integration of functional groups, X-ray Crystallographic study to indicate the increase in the crystallinity of the resultant foam due to the incorporation of silane and thermogravimetric analysis to understand the thermal stability and to calculate the thermal mass loss during the chemical modification. Furthermore, to test the enhanced hydrophobicity and oil spill clearance from water, the water contact angle has been measured and crude oil absorption capacity has been tested. The results show increased water repellency attributed to the strong hydrophobicity, and about 2.13 folds of increased crude oil absorption in comparison to the unmodified PU foam. Hence, the results collectively suggest the use of the synthesized surface-modified PU foam with superior hydrophobicity, water repellence and surface wettability as a potential candidate for enhanced crude oil absorption from water bodies.

Oil spills

Polyurethane

Diatomaceous earth

Silane

Hydrophobic

Absorbent

Globally, oil spill disasters are rising to prominence as a potentially serious environmental issue as it imposes a significant negative impact on the marine or fresh-water ecosystem [1]. Accidental oil spills occur all over the world during the critical stages of production, transportation and storage, due to human errors, equipment failures, explosions or a natural disaster like earthquake or storm, and result in the unintentional release of millions of gallons of crude petroleum oil or refined oil products, into the ocean or fresh water like streams or lakes. These spilled oil floats on the water surface that spreads up to form a thin layer of oil slick that remains for a very long time, even decades or years, or form a thick layer of heavy oil that reaches the ocean floor or reaches the beaches or shore-lines, leading to air, water & soil contamination [2]. Consequently, the aquatic life, including the fishes, turtles, mammals, birds, plants and corals, faces a major health threat. The prolonged exposure to the harsh polluted environment almost renders the organisms in a harmful habitat and almost impossible to survive [3].

Oil spill accidents require extensive remediation and cleaning due to long-term environmental destruction, leading to ecological risks and damages and economic losses faced by the marine and tourist industries [4]. Whenever there is an oil spill, it calls for the urgent requirement to control the spread of the oil, followed by the removal and disposal. In general, to mitigate the impact of oil spills, several physical, chemical and biological remediation methods have been significantly developed and employed [5, 6]. Some of the commonly used approaches include in-situ burning [7], mechanical removal using booms [8], skimmers [9, 10] or vacuum [11], chemical treatment using dispersants [12] or sorbents and biological microbial remediation [13, 14]. However, extensive research is still happening to identify the best material/technique for effective oil spill clean-up and recovery.

One of the widely used ideal material for active oil removal and recovery is the chemical porous absorbent materials, which are simple to use, inexpensive, non-toxic and with better re-usability [15.16]. There are two broad categories of porous chemical absorbent materials: organic sorbent materials from natural fibers and synthetic sorbents.

The organic sorbents are environmentally friendly as they are based on natural fibers such as sugarcane [17], bamboo [18], peat [19], corn-stalks [20], saw dust [21], vegetable fibers [22] or other natural sorbent materials like chitosan, bentonite and activated carbon [23]. Organic sorbents are biologically degradable, renewable and have a higher absorption capacity but have some practical limitations in applications. Such as a lack of hydrophobicity for selective oil absorption that leads to absorption of both oil and water, resulting in sinking of the sorbent. The natural fibers are modified with chemical moieties to overcome this limitation to enhance hydrophobicity and oleophilicity.

There are also several synthetic absorbent materials, particularly polymer based materials such as polyurethane, polypropylene, polyethylene and other cross-linked polymers, which are hydrophobic by nature and exhibit an excellent potential to capture oil based pollutants due to the porous structural features [24–26]. Synthetic sorbents are considered one of the best agents to remediate oil pollution because most absorb up to 30 times of oil of their own weight [5].

Among the synthetic polymeric sorbents, PU foams are considered as one of the most preferred candidates, as they are very light due to low density and exhibit a high degree of porosity, which are excellent desirable features that make them ideal agents for oil removal [26–28]. One of the limitation with the use of PU is the presence of chemical moieties that absorbs water, which can be very easily tackled by chemical modification of PU for enhanced hydrophobicity as well as oleophilicity.

Several studies focus on different chemical modifications of PU for good oil removal. One of the approach is copolymer grafting PU with oleophilic monomers to decrease water sorption and increase oil sorption. Hua Li et al. has prepared PU foams with grafting copolymer with various oleophilic monomers (long-chain Lauryl Methacrylate (LMA)) with divinylbenzene and toluene as the initiator and solvent, respectively. The resulting modified PU form enhanced the sorption of oil and 50% decreased water sorption [26]. A similar study by Li H in which the PU samples were grafted with LMA or coated with LMA microspheres resulted in the reduction of water sorption by 24–50% and an increase oleophilicity by 18–27% for diesel or kerosine oil [27].

Researchers also focus on PU composites and eco-friendly natural materials for enhanced oil removal. Oribayo et al. developed a lignin-based PU foam modified with graphene oxide for enhanced oil spill clearance applications [29]. Ren L et al. successfully developed biomass carbon-based PU foam composites that exhibited oil absorption even after five consecutive cycles of absorption without any decreasing effect in absorbing the oil contaminants [30]. Another interesting study based on PU natural material composite includes rice straw residues filled with PU matrix [10] and lignin-based PU with carbon nanotubes used as photothermal sorbents for high viscous oils [31].

Incorporating natural superhydrophobic/hydrophobic silica-based materials into PU foam matrix is similar to copolymer grafting PU with oleophilic monomers to achieve better oleophilicity and hydrophobicity. Sepiolite coated PU foam [32], flexible PU foam with zeolitic imidazole framework [33], fluorinated DE coated PU foam [34] and other PU silica composites [35, 36] were found to present excellent oil absorption capacity and improved water repellence.

Our previous studies on chemical modification of PU with alkyltrimethoxysilane and fluorosilane modified DE showed improved surface roughness and a significant increase in the water contact angles, resulting in superhydrophobicity for efficient oil absorption applications [37–40]. The fluoro silane modification of the PU, despite the significant benefits in the oil removal, has some serious environmental concerns, as most of the fluorinated organic compounds are associated with acute toxicity in humans, animals and birds who are in contact with the fluoro based materials for oil remediation from water bodies. The current research focuses on synthesis of DE and non-fluoro octadecylsilane modified PU foam for enhanced crude oil adsorption that overcomes the toxic impact of using organo fluoro compounds.

Materials

The chemicals octadecyltrichlorosilane (C18) and hexane were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) and Pharmco-Aaper (Brookfield, CT, USA), and the DE particles were from Eastchem (Xinbei District, Changzhou, China). Commercially available PU foam was used for the chemical modification and the crude oil for testing the efficacy of oil absorption was from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC, Abu Dhabi, UAE). The chemicals used for the surface functionalization of PU were used without any purification or further modifications.

Chemical Modification of PU

In a glass vial (200 ml), hexane (100 ml) was added, followed by DE (1 g) and C18 (1.6 g) and mixed well. The commercial PU foam (1 cm³) cubes were soaked in this reaction mixture for about 4 hours, stirring at 1500 rpm with the help of a magnetic stirrer at 50 ºC. In a similar setting, the reaction is duplicated without C18 to form PU grafted with only DE (PU-DE) for comparison during the characterization of PU-DE-C18. Then, the PU/PU-DE/PU-DE-C18 foam samples were dried and stored in a dry place for the rest of the experiment.

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) & Elemental Analysis

The surface features on DE, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 were characterized with SEM. Samples were then made conductive by coating with gold and palladium with a sputter coater for 80 seconds at 14 mA and examined under an FEI Quanta 250 SEM (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA). Additionally, the elemental analysis was performed for the DE sample using the Energy Dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX).

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) & X-ray diffraction Analysis

The chemical moieties on the PU and PU modified samples were tracked using the Perkin Elmer Frontier FTIR spectrometer (PerkinElmer Genetics Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), operating at a scanning range of 400–4000 cm^− 1 with 32 scans in a spectral resolution of 4 cm^− 1. Samples of unmodified PU, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 were pressed against the crystal with a pressure applicator with a torque knob to ensure that the pressure was the same for all measurements taken to obtain the FTIR spectra for all samples. The XRD experiments were performed using the instrument X’Pert PRO powder diffractometer (Cu-Ka radiation 1.5406 Å, 45 kV, 40 mA) in the range of 5–80°, 2θ scale in order to study the crystallinity of the sample, using the diffraction pattern.

Thermogravimetric analysis

The thermal decomposition of DE, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 was studied by the thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) carried out at inert gas conditions using a TA instrument, model SDT 650, thermogravimetric analyzer (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA). The samples were heated from 20 to 800°C at a heating rate of 20°C per minute in nitrogen to generate the thermal mass loss curve to study the thermal stability.

Water Contact Angle measurement:

The measurement of water contact angle was done at room temperature by KRÜSS DSA25 Series (KRÜSS Scientific Instruments, Inc., Matthews, NC, USA) measurement analysis system with the help of the sessile drop standard method. The water contact angles were calculated by using the deionized water as a probe liquid, in a time interval of 3000 ms, with a liquid’s dispense volume of 0.3 µL. At least five consecutive measurements were taken to determine the water contact angle.

Water repellency & oil absorption

The unmodified and the chemically modified PU samples were plunged into a distilled water column to test the underwater hydrophobicity of those materials. The oil absorption was experimented by immersing the 1 cm³ PU foam into 50 ml of crude oil, which was allowed to stand for 30 minutes at room temperature, and then dried for 30 seconds. The oil absorption of the modified PU-DE-C18 in comparison to the unmodified PU was calculated by applying the following standard formula, wherein the variables m_f and m_i denote the mass of the PU/PU-DE-C18 before and after water/oil absorption, respectively:

$${Q}_{(g/g)}=\frac{{m}_{f}-{m}_{i}}{{m}_{i}}$$

Elemental Analysis of DE and Surface Morphology of PU during Chemical Modification.

The surface irregularities and microstructural changes on the surface of PU before and after the chemical modification was compared. Figure 1A represents the micrograph of DE possessing disk shaped and irregularly shaped particles of 20 to 40 µm. The elemental analysis of DE (Fig. 1B) using EDX reveals 54.16 wt.% of silica and 40.60 wt.% of oxygen, indicating that the DE is mainly composed of SiO₂ with some minimal impurities noted.

The micrograph of unmodified PU in Fig. 1C at 1 mm magnification shows the foam cell structures forming a smooth skeleton of a network of porous structures. Figure 1D at 500 µm magnification represents the irregular foam closed cell structure.

The SEM micrograph in Fig. 1F represents the PU coated with DE at 300 µm magnification, wherein the deposition of the disc shaped and irregularly shaped particles of the DE on the surface of the PU matrix is seen. Figures 1E and 1F represent the DE coated PU foam matrix at 500 µm and 300 µm magnification, in which the surface of the porous structures and their margins are thicker due to the deposition of the DE particles on the PU matrix.

Figures 1G and 1H represent the SEM images of PU-DE-C18 at 500 µm and 400 µm magnifications, which can confirm the surface modification as there are a number of irregular microscale protrusions, ridges and granular coatings all over the PU skeleton resulting in increased modified DE particle density, rigidness and thickness.

In our previous study on PU coated with DE and fluorosilane, the modified PU possessed several microscale protrusions due to the deposition of DE and fluorosilane on the surface of PU [34]. Similar studies on PU deposited with surplus DE particles resulted in agglomeration on the surface of PU and PU coated with multiwalled carbon nanotubes exhibited surface roughness with superior hydrophobicity [41, 42].

Study of FTIR spectra and XRD pattern for Analysing the Chemical Modification of PU

To ensure the surface chemical modification of the PU with DE and C18, FTIR is utilized to track the functional groups at the different stages of chemical modification. The FTIR spectra obtained for the unmodified PU, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 are plotted in Fig. 2. The significant peaks are represented in Table 1 to identify and compare the differences between the functional groups between the PU and the modified PU.

The DE (black line) is composed mainly of SiO₂ exhibited peaks at 795 cm^− 1 due to Si-O-Si symmetric stretching and the sharp peaks at 1080 and 1200 cm^− 1 due to in plane Si-O stretching vibrations. In the FTIR spectra of the PU-DE-C18 (red line), the three peaks above are present, indicating the conjugation of DE-C18 to PU in the chemically modified PU. The FTIR peaks corresponding to the PU (green line), mainly 2858 and 2919 cm^− 1 due to the CH₂ stretching, the peaks 1640 and 1715 cm^− 1 representing the C = O stretching of ester and urea, the peak 3280 cm^− 1 due to NH stretching, 1545 cm^− 1 due to NH deformation and 1100 cm^− 1 corresponding to the C-O stretching, can be seen both in the unmodified PU spectra as well as the PU-DE-C18 spectra.

The peaks observed in the PU-DE-C18 between 1000 to 1100 cm^− 1 are due to the appearance of R-Si-O siloxane bonds. The peaks at 1020/1080 cm^− 1 are due to the Si-O-Si vibration of the C18 silane. These unique peaks appear only in the PU-DE-C18 and are absent in the FTIR spectra of DE and PU. Our results are in agreement with the studies by Azhar et al., who designed lignin and trichloromethyl silane coated polystyrene sorbents for oil removal, who had emphasized the peaks between 1000–1100 cm^− 1 for the appearance of the siloxane bonds [43]. In addition to these peaks, CH2 stretching peaks intensity increased after adding the C18 silane coupling agent to the DE-PU form.

As shown in Fig. 3, the X-ray diffraction curves of unmodified PU and PU-DE did not exhibit any significant peaks due to the low degree of crystallinity. In contrast, the XRD curve of PU-DE-C18 exhibits a broad peak around 22º, indicating the increase in the degree of crystallinity due to the incorporation of silane into the PU. In response to the incorporation of silane compounds, most of the polymers exhibit an increase in crystallinity. For instance, Sabarinathan P et al. report an increase in the crystallinity index when fishtail palm fiber is subjected to the silane treatment in their X-ray diffraction studies [44].

Table 1

Significant peaks at FTIR spectra of unmodified PU, DE and PU-DE-C18
FTIR Peak	Functional group	PU	DE	PU-DE-C18
3280 cm^− 1	NH stretching	Present	Absent	Present
2919 cm^− 1	CH₂ stretching	Present	Absent	Present
2858 cm^− 1	CH₂ stretching	Present	Absent	Present
1715 cm^− 1	C = O stretching	Present	Absent	Present
1640 cm^− 1	C = O stretching	Present	Absent	Present
1545 cm^− 1	NH deformation	Present	Absent	Present
1020/1080 cm^− 1	Si-O-Si vibration	Absent	Absent	Present
1100 cm^− 1	C-O bending	Present	Absent	Present
1000–1100 cm^− 1	R-Si-O siloxane bonds appearance	Absent	Absent	Present
1080 cm^− 1	Si-O stretching	Absent	Absent	Present
1200 cm^− 1	Si-O stretching	Absent	Present	Present
795 cm^− 1	Si-O-Si symmetric stretching	Absent	Present	Present

Thermal Gravimetric Analysis to determine the thermal stability

The residual mass loss and derivative mass loss of DE, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 are presented in Fig. 4. As evident from Fig. 4 results, both PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 exhibited multi-step degradation thermal behavior. Between the temperatures of 0 to 320°C, both the PU-DE and the PU-DE-C18 exhibit two peaks around 100°C and 280°C, respectively, due to the physically adsorbed water and the breaking of the isocyanate and alcohol bond of PU. Subsequently, a rapid mass loss is observed in both PU-DE and the PU-DE-C18 at around 320 to 450°C (particularly about 375°C) due to polyol decomposition of the PU sample. Faisal AM et al. compared the thermal behavior of PU and ceramic embedded PU and they observed a similar major decomposition peak at around 420°C due to the main decomposition of PU [45].

Besides these common peaks, the chemically modified PU-DE-C18 exhibited a unique peak at around 491°C due to the alkyl chain decomposition of the octadecyl moiety of the octadecylsilane [37, 38]. From the comparative thermal mass loss curves, it is understood that the chemically modified PU-DE-C18 exhibited higher thermal stability compared to PU-DE. This indicates that the chemical modification of PU with DE and the C18 silane shifted the thermal degradation point higher temperature with respect to DE and PU-DE.

By analysing the thermograms of DE, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 between 440 to 800°C, the amount of C18 grafted on the PU foam was calculated. The mass loss of DE, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 were 0.2%, 1.2% and 26.8%, respectively. The C18 grafted on the PU-DE-C18 was determined by the difference between the mass loss of PU-DE-C18 and the PU-DE, around 25.6%.

Measurement of water contact angle for wettability

The main objective of the chemical modification of PU is to improve the hydrophobicity of the PU foam, which can be assessed by measuring the contact angle of the PU before and after chemical modification. The contact angle between the surface of the PU and a water droplet is measured to get an idea about the wettability or hydrophobicity of the PU after chemical modification. A water contact angle of less than 90º signifies hydrophilicity, on the other hand, a water contact angle of greater than 90º will incline towards the hydrophobicity. The higher the water contact angle, the better the hydrophobicity and oleophilicity of a sorbent material for oil removal from water bodies [37–40, 46].

The PU has an inherent water contact angle of 86º, whereas PU, upon conjugation with DE, exhibited a shift in the water contact angle to 104º due to the surface roughness of the DE on the surface of PU, which was evident from the SEM micrographs of PU-DE (Fig. 1E & 1F). Upon further chemical modification with the octadecyltricholorosilane, the PU further exhibited an improved water contact angle of about 132º due to lowered surface energy attributed to the rough surface due to the thicker coating of DE and silane on the PU skeleton (Fig. 1G & 1H). The water contact angles of PU, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18 are represented in Table 2 and Fig. 5. Our results are very consistent with similar studies on PU subjected to different types of chemical modification resulting in improved wettability and better use in oil absorption [32, 34, 43, 47] and hexadecyldimethoxy silane and DE treated natural rubber latex with increased water contact angle by Ambegoda et al [48].

Table 2

Comparison of water contact angles of PU, PU-DE and PU-DE-C18
Parameters	Water Contact Angle [θ]^a	Water Affinity
Unmodified PU	86º	Hydrophilic
PU-DE	104º	Slightly Hydrophobic
PU-DE-C18	132º	Strongly Hydrophobic
^a represents the average of at least five consecutive measurements.

Water repellence & plastronic surfaces

Figure 6 represents the progression in the surface hydrophobicity of PU-DE-C18 (Fig. 6C) compared to the unmodified PU (Fig. 6A) and PU-DE (Fig. 6B). PU-DE-C18, when in contact with water, was floating on the surface due to the water repellency, and when forcefully immersed in water, PU-DE-C18 exhibited the mirror effect due to the plastronic phenomenon, in which the air layer is locked between the PU surface and water, which can be attributed to the surface hydrophobicity of the PU-DE-C18 and repel water due to the high surface roughness [49–52]. The DE-PU also partly exhibited the water repellent properties, but the unmodified PU was hydrophilic and had the tendency to be mixed with water. The chemically modified PU-DE-C18 exhibiting the strong hydrophobicity by floating in the water also expresses a strong adherence to oil, making it a suitable candidate for oil absorption and recovery. Previous studies by Martínez-Gómez et al., Lei M et al. and O’loughlin TE et al. have demonstrated underwater superhydrophobicity and mirror effect of various materials used for oil removal [53–55].

Oil spill contamination removal from water bodies

In order to test the ability of the chemically modified PU foam to absorb oil, the foam was subjected to the absorption test with crude oil, in which the foam was immersed for a few minutes in crude oil. In a few minutes of immersion, due to the surface wettability, as shown in Fig. 7, most of the viscous crude oil was absorbed by the novel foam very effectively, whereas the foam showed extreme water repellency when immersed in water, suggesting its potential for use in removal of oil dispersed in any water body.

The novel surface modified PU (PU-DE-C18) exhibited 2.13 folds of increased crude oil absorption compared to the unmodified PU. The unmodified PU exhibited almost 350 folds of water absorption compared to the chemically modified PU (Fig. 8). The increased oil absorption and lack of water absorption of the chemically modified PU can be attributed to the increased hydrophobicity and high surface roughness achieved by the chemical modification of PU with DE and C18-silane. Our previous studies using PU grafted with DE and fluorosilane also showed a better oil absorption of about 1.67 folds than the unmodified PU [34]. Similar studies on PU grafted with non-fluorinated superhydrophobic coating, polydimethylsiloxane coated carbon nanofiber and carbon nanofiber/carbon foam composites also show better oil absorption from water [56–58].

In conclusion, we have successfully synthesized PU foam grafted with DE particles and non-fluoro octadecylsilane, exhibiting superior hydrophobicity and wettability for enhanced oil absorption. The surface modification of the PU with DE and C18 can be understood from the results of SEM analysis, FTIR and XRD studies. The SEM studies showed high surface roughness of the modified foam attributed to the deposition of DE particles and C18 on the surface of PU to increase the thickness due to the granular coatings and the formation of microscale protrusions. The FTIR studies revealed the successful conjugation of the functional groups of DE and C18 on the PU surface and the XRD studies represented the crystallinity of PU-DE-C18 acquired by the incorporation of silane moieties into the PU foam. The TGA studies showed better thermal stability of the modified foam when compared to the PU. The water contact angle due to the hydrophobic surfaces of the modified PU-DE-C18 is 132º, which is higher than the unmodified PU (86º) and the PU-DE (104º). The modified PU exhibits 2.13 folds of increased crude oil absorption than the unmodified PU when tested for oil absorption.Consequently, the PU-DE-C18 can be considered as a potential candidate for oil absorption from water bodies, as the modified PU is hydrophobic with rough surfaces, water repellent, thermostable and with increased wettability with a higher water contact angle.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This publication was supported by grant number [AYIA19-008] from the Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK). The authors would like to express their sincerely gratitude to the Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) and the Higher Colleges of Technology for their continued interest and support in this project.

Jernelov, A. The Threats from Oil Spills: Now, Then, and In the Future. Ambio. 2010, 39(5-6), 353-366.
Elhakeem, A. A., Elshorbagy, W., & Chebbi, R. (2007). Oil spill simulation and validation in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf with special reference to the UAE coast. Water, air, and soil pollution, 184(1-4), 243-254.
Geraci, JR,; St.Aubins, DJ. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. London Academic Press. 1990.
Shriadah, M. M. (1998). Impacts of an oil spill on the marine environment of the United Arab Emirates along the Gulf of Oman. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 36(11), 876-879.
Fingas M. (2011). Oil Spill Science & Technology, First Edition, Elsevier, 303-337
Al-Majed, AA,; Adebayo, AR,; Hossain, ME. A Sustainable Approach to Controlling Oil Spills, Journal of Environmental Management. 2012, 113, 213-227.
Fritt-Rasmussen J, Brandvik PJ, 2011. Measuring ignitability for in situ burning of oil spills weathered under Arctic conditions: from laboratory studies to large scale field experiments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62 (8), 1780-1785.
Muttin F, 2008. Structural analysis of oil spill containment booms in coastal and estuary waters. Appl. Ocean Res. 30 (2), 107-112.
Schwartz, SH. Performance Tests of Four Selected Oil Spill Skimmers. International Oil Spill Conference. 1979,1, 493-496.
Hoang AT, Chau MQ, 2018, A Mini Review Of Using Oleophilic Skimmers For Oil Spill Recovery, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Research & Developments, 41(2), 92-96.
Ghannam, M.T. and Chaalal, O., 2003. Oil spill cleanup using vacuum technique☆. Fuel, 82(7), 789-797.
Prince, R.C., 2015. Oil spill dispersants: boon or bane?. Environmental science & technology, 49(11), pp.6376-6384.
Ron EZ, Rosenberg E, Enhanced bioremediation of oil spills in the sea, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 27, 2014, 191-194.
Yang SZ, Jin HJ, Wei Z, He RX, Ji YJ, Li XM, Yu SP. Bioremediation of Oil Spills in Cold Environments: A Review, Pedosphere, 19 (3), 2009, 371-381.
Adebajo, M., Frost, R., Kloprogge, J. et al. (2003). Porous Materials for Oil Spill Cleanup: A Review of Synthesis and Absorbing Properties. Journal of Porous Materials 10, 159-170.
Doshi, B., Sillanpää, M., & Kalliola, S. (2018). A review of bio-based materials for oil spill treatment. Water research, 135, 262-277.
Brandão, P. C., Souza, T. C., Ferreira, C. A., Hori, C. E., & Romanielo, L. L. (2010). Removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from aqueous solution using sugarcane bagasse as adsorbent. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 175(1-3), 1106-1112.
Farid, M., Purniawan, A., Rasyida, A., Ramadhani, M., Komariyah, S. (2017). Improvement of acoustical characteristics: wideband bamboo based polymer composite. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 223. 012021.
Viraraghavan, T., & Mathavan, G. N. (1988). Treatment of oil-in-water emulsions using peat. Oil and Chemical Pollution, 4(4), 261-280.
Xu M, Bian J, Han C, Dong L. Hydrophobic modification of polypropylene/starch blend foams through tailoring cell diameter for oil-spill cleanup, 2016, RSC Advances, 6 (85), 82088-82095
Cambiella, A., Ortea, E., Rios, G., Benito, J. M., Pazos, C., & Coca, J. (2006). Treatment of oil-in-water emulsions: Performance of a sawdust bed filter. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 131(1-3), 195-199.
Annunciado, TR,; Sydenstricker, THD,; Amico SC. Experimental Investigation of Various Vegetable Fibers as Sorbent Materials for Oil Spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2005, 50 (11),1340-1346.
Ahmad, A. L., Sumathi, S., & Hameed, B. H. (2005). Residual oil and suspended solid removal using natural adsorbents chitosan, bentonite and activated carbon: A comparative study. Chemical Engineering Journal, 108(1-2), 179-185.
Hozumi, Y., Inaoka, T., Gomi, T., Goto, T., Uno, T., & Rakutani, K. (1994). U.S. Patent No. 5,374,600. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Pinto, J., Athanassiou, A. and Fragouli, D., 2016. Effect of the porous structure of polymer foams on the remediation of oil spills. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 49(14), p.145601.
Li H., Liu, L., & Yang, F. (2013). Oleophilic polyurethane foams for oil spill cleanup. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 18, 528-533.
Li H, Liu L, Yang F. (2012) Hydrophobic modification of polyurethane foam for oil spill cleanup, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64 (8), 2012, 1648-1653.
Gama N.V., Ferreira, A., Barros-Timmons A., (2018). Polyurethane foams: Past, present, and future, Materials 11 (10), 1841.
Oribayo, O., Feng, X., Rempel, G.L., Pan, Q., (2017). Synthesis of lignin-based polyurethane/graphene oxide foam and its application as an absorbent for oil spill clean-ups and recovery, Chemical Engineering Journal, 323, 191-202.
Ren L, Qiu Z, Wang Z, Yang D, Zhou D, Zhang T, Preparation of biomass carbon/polyurethane foams for selective oil/water absorption, Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology, 2020, 41 (12), 1872-1878.
Ma X, Zhang C, Gnanasekar P, Xiao P, Luo Q, Li S, Qin D, Chen T, Chen J, Zhu J, Yan N, 2021, Mechanically robust, solar-driven, and degradable lignin-based polyurethane adsorbent for efficient crude oil spill remediation, Chemical Engineering Journal, 415, 128956.
Qiu, S., Li, Y., Li, G., Zhang, Z., Li, Y., Wu, T. (2019). Robust Superhydrophobic Sepiolite-Coated Polyurethane Sponge for Highly Efficient and Recyclable Oil Absorption. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 7, 5560-5567.
Zhao S, Yin L, Zhou Q, Liu C, Zhou K, 2020, In situ self-assembly of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks on the surface of flexible polyurethane foam: Towards for highly efficient oil spill cleanup and fire safety, Applied Surface Science, 506, 144700.
Perera, H.J., Goyal, A., Banu, H. et al. Low-cost fluorinated diatomaceous earth polyurethane foam for the absorption of oil. MRS Energy & Sustainability 9, 94-104 (2022).
Lü X, Cui Z, Wei W, Xie J, Jiang L, Huang J, Liu J, 2016. Constructing polyurethane sponge modified with silica/graphene oxide nanohybrids as a ternary sorbent. Chemical Engineering Journal, 284, 478-486.
Li J, Li D, Hu W, Li J, Yang Y, Wu Y. (2015). Stable superhydrophobic and superoleophilic silica coated polyurethane sponges for the continuous capture and removal of oils from the water surface. New Journal of Chemistry, 39(12), 9958-9962.
Perera, H.J., Mortazavian, H., Blum F.D., (2017). Surface Properties of Silane-Treated Diatomaceous Earth Coatings: Effect of Alkyl Chain Length. Langmuir, 33 (11), 2799-2809.
Perera, H. J., & Blum, F. D. Alkyl chain modified diatomaceous earth superhydrophobic coatings. In 2018 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (1-4). IEEE.
Perera, H. J., & Blum, F. D. (2019, March). Competitive Adsorption on Diatomaceous Earth Particles. In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (1-4). IEEE.
Perera, H. J., Khatiwada, B. K., Paul, A., Mortazavian, H., & Blum, F. D. (2016). Superhydrophobic surfaces with silane‐treated diatomaceous earth/resin systems. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133(41).
Kucuk, F., Sismanoglu, S., Kanbur, Y., & Tayfun, U. (2021). Optimization of mechanical, thermo-mechanical, melt-flow and thermal performance of TPU green composites by diatomaceous earth content. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 4, 100251.
Ye, S., Wang, B., Shi, Y., Wang, B., Zhang, Y., Feng, Y., ... & Shen, C. (2020). Superhydrophobic and superelastic thermoplastic polyurethane/multiwalled carbon nanotubes porous monolith for durable oil/water separation. Composites Communications, 21, 100378.
Azhar, Nur & Adrus, Nadia & Rahman, Wan & Majid, Rohah. (2020). Lignin-Coated Polystyrene/Trichloromethylsilane Absorbent for Oil Spill Cleanup. Sains Malaysiana. 49. 2141-2148. 10.17576/jsm-2020-4909-12.
Sabarinathan, P., Annamalai, V. E., Rajkumar, K., Vishal, K., & Dhinakaran, V. (2022). Synthesis and characterization of randomly oriented silane-grafted novel bio-cellulosic fish tail palm fiber–reinforced vinyl ester composite. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, 1-18.
Faisal AM, Salaün F, Giraud S, Ferri A, Chen Y, Wang L. Far-Infrared Emission Properties and Thermogravimetric Analysis of Ceramic-Embedded Polyurethane Films. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(5):686.
Sedai, B.R., Khatiwada, B.K., Mortazavian, H., Blum, F.D., (2026). Development of superhydrophobicity in fluorosilane-treated diatomaceous earth polymer coatings, Applied Surface Science, 386, 178-186.
Ng, Z.C., Roslan, R. A., Lau, W.J., Gürsoy, M., Karaman, M., Jullok, N., Ismail, A., (2020). A Green Approach to Modify Surface Properties of Polyurethane Foam for Enhanced Oil Absorption. Polymers. 12. 1883.
Ambegoda, V. T., Egodage, S. M., Blum, F. D., & Maddumaarachchi, M. (2021). Enhancement of hydrophobicity of natural rubber latex films using diatomaceous earth. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 138(12), 50047.
Marmur A. Underwater superhydrophobicity: theoretical feasibility. Langmuir. 2006;22(4):1400-1402.
Law, K. Y. (2014). Definitions for hydrophilicity, hydrophobicity, and superhydrophobicity: getting the basics right. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 5(4), 686-688.
Zhu, Y., Wang, D., Jiang, L., & Jin, J. (2014). Recent progress in developing advanced membranes for emulsified oil/water separation. NPG Asia Materials, 6(5), e101-e101.
Wenzel, R. N. (1936). Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 28(8), 988-994.
Martínez-Gómez, A., Silvia, L., Fernández, G., Teresa, M., Raquel, F., Pilar, T., Nuria, G. (2017). Long-Term Underwater Hydrophobicity: Exploring Topographic and Chemical Requirements. ACS Omega, 2, 12, 8928-8939.
Lei, M., Yang, S., Hao, B., Ma, P.C. (2015). Ternary Silicone Sponge with Enhanced Mechanical Properties for Oil-Water Separation, Polymer Chemistry, 6, 5869.
O’Loughlin, T. E., Dennis, R. V., Fleer, N. A., Alivio, T. E., Ruus, S., Wood, J., ... & Banerjee, S. (2017). Biomimetic plastronic surfaces for handling of viscous oil. Energy & Fuels, 31(9), 9337-9344.
Farrokhi, S. J., Pakzad, H., Fakhri, M., & Moosavi, A. (2021). Superhydrophobic home-made polyurethane sponges for versatile and cost-effective oil and water separation. Separation and Purification Technology, 276, 119240.
Guo, Z., Long, B., Gao, S., Luo, J., Wang, L., Huang, X., ... & Gao, J. (2021). Carbon nanofiber based superhydrophobic foam composite for high performance oil/water separation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 402, 123838.
Xiao, N., Zhou, Y., Ling, Z., & Qiu, J. (2013). Synthesis of a carbon nanofiber/carbon foam composite from coal liquefaction residue for the separation of oil and water. Carbon, 59, 530-536.

No competing interests reported.

floatimage9.jpeg
Table of Contents (TOC) Graphic

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Enhanced oil-spill removal and recovery from water bodies using diatomaceous earth and C18-silane grafted polyurethane

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Experimental Section

Materials

Chemical Modification of PU

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) & Elemental Analysis

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) & X-ray diffraction Analysis

Thermogravimetric analysis

Water Contact Angle measurement:

Water repellency & oil absorption

Results And Discussion

Study of FTIR spectra and XRD pattern for Analysing the Chemical Modification of PU

Thermal Gravimetric Analysis to determine the thermal stability

Measurement of water contact angle for wettability

Water repellence & plastronic surfaces

Oil spill contamination removal from water bodies

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1