Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Membrane Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/memsci

Review article

Liquid membranes for gas/vapor separations

F.F. Krull , C. Fritzmann, T. Melin
Aachener Verfahrenstechnik, Chemical Reaction Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Turmstr. 46, 52056 Aachen, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 16 July 2008
Received in revised form
10 September 2008
Accepted 11 September 2008
Available online 19 September 2008
Keywords:
Immobilized liquid membrane
Supported liquid membrane
Gas separation
Vapor separation
Preparation
Performance
Materials

a b s t r a c t
A review on developments of liquid membranes (LMs) in the eld of gas and vapor separation of the
last 16 years is presented. Liquid membrane congurations employing supports, i.e. immobilized, supported and contained liquid membranes are focussed and detailed information on the respective materials,
i.e. supports (supplier, type, thickness, pore width, porosity, tortuosity), liquids and carriers, are presented together with their specic separation tasks. Performance of different LMs in terms of permeability
and selectivity as well as stability (duration of testing, applied differential pressures) are compared and
discussed. Finally, different preparation methods of LMs are illustrated.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Liquid membrane congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mass transfer in liquid membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials for LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Supports for LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Liquids and carriers for LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Performance of LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preparation of LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of liquid membrane review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Abbreviations: BEHA, bis(2-ethylhexyl)amine; CA, carbonic anhydrase; CAN, cellulose acetate-nitrate; CLM, contained liquid membrane; CUN, cuprophan; DAE,
diaminoethane; DBC, dibenzo-18-crown-6; DEA, diethanolamine; DETA, diethylenetriamine; DEYA, diethylamine; DGA, diglycolamine; DIPA, diisopropanolamine;
EDA, ethylenediamine; ELM, emulsion liquid membrane; FS, at sheet; HF, hollow
ber; IL, ionic liquid; ILM, immobilized liquid membrane; LiAlO2 , lithium aluminate;
LM, liquid membrane; MEA, monoethanolamine; MS, molten salt; NA, not available;
PAA, porous anodic alumina; PAMAM, polyamidoamine dendrimer; PAN, polyacrylonitrile; PEG, polyethyleneglycol; PES, polyethersulfone; PP, polypropylene;
PS, polysulfone; PTMSP, polytrimethylsilylpropyne; PVDF, polyvinylidinediuoride;
SLM, supported liquid membrane; TEG, triethyleneglycol.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 241 8 09 05 83; fax: +49 241 8 09 22 52.
E-mail addresses: orian.krull@avt.rwth-aachen.de (F.F. Krull),
clemens.fritzmann@avt.rwth-aachen.de (C. Fritzmann),
thomas.melin@avt.rwth-aachen.de (T. Melin).
0376-7388/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2008.09.018

509
510
510
511
511
513
515
517
518
518
518

1. Introduction
For more than 30 years now, liquid membranes have been in
focus of research. Since diffusivities in liquids in comparison to
solids are higher by several orders of magnitude, enhanced permeabilities of liquid in comparison to solid membranes can be
expected.
Investigated applications of liquid membranes comprise the
separation/concentration of ions [1,2], the separation of liquid feeds
[3] and the separation of gases or vapors which are subject of the
review at hand.
Several reviews have been written on liquid membrane-based
separations [49]. However, to our knowledge only one of these

510

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

reviews by Dutta et al. written in 1992 is explicitly and only

concerned with gas and vapor separation by means of liquid membranes [10]. Thus, a review on developments of liquid membranes
for gas and vapor separations covering the last 16 years is presented
here.
After presenting possible LM congurations (Section 2), the
mass transfer mechanism in LM will be briey discussed (Section
3). The core of the review at hand is then given by the literature
review of the last 16 years on LMs employed for gas or vapor separations. In Section 4, LM congurations and detailed information
on the respective materials, i.e. supports (supplier, type, thickness,
pore width, porosity, tortuosity), liquids and carriers, will be presented together with their specic separation tasks. In Section 5, the
performance of different LMs in terms of permeability and selectivity as well as stability (duration of testing, applied differential
pressures) will be compared and discussed. Finally, in Section 6,
different preparation methods of LMs will be illustrated.
2. Liquid membrane congurations
Generally, liquid membranes with and without supports can be
differentiated. For those not employing supports, the so-called bulk
liquid membranes (BLM) and emulsion liquid membranes (ELM)
are found. The liquid membranes employing a support can be subdivided into immobilized liquid membranes (ILM), supported liquid
membranes (SLM) and contained liquid membranes (CLM) (Fig. 1).
The simplest form of liquid membrane without support is given
by the BLM consisting of a u-tube and three non-miscible liquids.
BLM are mainly used to study mass transfer from the donor phase
through the membrane phase into the acceptor phase but do not
have any relevance for large-scale separation processes due to their
large thickness.
In principle, ELM represent a double emulsion consisting of an
acceptor phase being dispersed in a membrane phase and this
emulsion again being dispersed in a donor phase. A species from
the donor phase is absorbed into the membrane phase, diffuses
towards the acceptor phase and nally is desorbed into the latter.
To obtain the permeate, the double emulsion is disintegrated and
the species is extracted from the acceptor phase.
For liquid membranes employing supports, the most compact
form of a LM is given by an ILM where a liquid is held inside the
pores of a porous support (e.g. a porous solid membrane) by means
of capillary forces. The support has to be wettable by the liquid

for this conguration. If the support is not wetted by the liquid, a

SLM can be prepared where a liquid is located on top of the porous
support. The CLM represents a SLM with two porous supports on
both sides. This conguration offers the possibility of replenishing or regenerating the membrane phase during operation. Thus
a breakdown of the membrane function caused by evaporation of
the membrane liquid can be avoided by means of continuous liquid replenishment. As to stability of LM congurations employing
supports, further requirements will be discussed in more detail in
the following sections. In terms of mass transfer, the LM employing supports work according to the same principles as the ELM,
i.e. a solution-diffusion mechanism, which will be explained in the
following Section 3.
In the literature the terms SLM, ILM and CLM are often mixed
up or assigned to different liquid membrane congurations. Mostly,
the term supported liquid membrane is used for the liquid membrane conguration where the membrane liquid is situated within
the support corresponding to an immobilized liquid membrane
according to the classication given in Fig. 1. However, regardless of
what an author in the literature names a conguration and whether
that naming ts the classication given above, all naming of liquid membrane congurations in the work at hand is done to the
classication given in Fig. 1.
The review at hand exclusively concerns liquid membranes
employing supports used for gas and vapor separation applications.
In the following, the term liquid membrane is used as synonym for
liquid membranes employing supports.
3. Mass transfer in liquid membranes
Liquid membranes work according to a solution-diffusion mass
transfer mechanism as do dense solid membranes. Including the
mass transfer steps in the respective feed and permeate phases, a
gas molecule is transported across the membrane in seven steps:
(1) Convective transport of the molecule towards the membrane.
(2) Diffusion of the molecule through the boundary layer at the
feedmembrane interface.
(3) Absorption into the membrane phase.
(4) Diffusion through the liquid membrane.
(5) Desorption into the permeate phase.
(6) Diffusion of the molecule through the boundary layer at the
permeatemembrane interface.

Fig. 1. Liquid membrane congurations.

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

511

Fig. 2. Facilitated transport ILM.

(7) Convective transport of the molecule into the permeate

phase.
The actual solution-diffusion mechanism is given by the steps
35 only.
Given the assumption of similar diffusivities of two gases in a
liquid, the selectivity of a liquid membrane is based on the sorption
selectivity between the two gases in the feed phase. In case this
sorption selectivity is very low or lacking, carrier species may be
employed (Fig. 2).
A molecule of the preferred gas is reversibly bound by a carrier and transported across the membrane either via diffusion
of the carriermolecule complex or via a hopping mechanism
of the molecule from one carrier to another [8,1114]. At the
permeatemembrane interface, the molecule dissociates from the
carrier and is desorbed into the permeate phase. This transport
mechanism is often called facilitated transport.
In the case of facilitated transport, the selectivity of a separation is mainly inuenced by the availability of free carrier
molecules. On the one hand, the solubility of carrier molecules
in the membrane phase is limited. On the other hand, the mobility of the carrier molecules and the formed complexes determine
the number of free carrier molecules at the feedmembrane interface. As long as free carrier molecules are available, the ux
across the membrane increases non-linearly with increasing driving force across the membrane. From the point where diffusion
of unsaturated carriers towards the feedmembrane interphase
and diffusion of saturated carriers from the feedmembrane interphase become the limiting steps in the solution-diffusion process,
i.e. the chemisorption and diffusion process, the ux increases
due to the seizure of facilitated transport. However, superimposed physical diffusion might lead to a linear increase with
increasing driving force. At given transport of undesired species
by means of physical diffusion, the selectivity of a membrane
also increases non-linearly up to the point of full carrier saturation at the feedmembrane interface. Due to the very low
diffusive ux of undesired species at low concentration difference across the membrane, selectivity shows maximum values
within the range from zero to full carrier saturation concentration difference across the membrane. From the point of full
carrier saturation at the feedmembrane interphase, selectivity
might either show constant values (ratio of physical diffusion
between desired and undesired species stays constant) or even
decrease independent of the applied gas-concentration difference across the membrane (enhanced diffusive ux of undesired
species in contrast to slightly or non-enhanced ux of the desired
species).

A different approach to increase or obtain a sorption selectivity of the membrane liquid is given by the use of homogeneous
catalysts (Fig. 3).
In contrast to a carrier, the catalyst increases the solubility of a
gas inside the membrane liquid due to conversion of the gas to a
product, which diffuses towards the permeate phase. However, in
this case a back-diffusion of reaction products cannot be excluded
since the partial pressure for the product in the gas phases is very
low at both sides of the membrane.
The combination of the unit operations homogeneous catalysis
and gas separation into one clearly leads to process integration.
To present, homogeneous catalysis inside an ILM has only been
investigated by Carlin et al. [15,16].
4. Materials for LM
As in every membrane process, separation characteristics of the
process are determined by the properties of the membrane material. Hence, the materials of LM, i.e. liquids and carriers as well as
the supports are subject of the Sections 4.2 and 4.1, respectively.
4.1. Supports for LM
As shown in Section 3, the liquid and carriers are responsible
for LM properties in terms of permeability and selectivity, while
the choice of the support merely affects the permeability by its
porosity. However, the right choice of support ensures sufcient
stability of the LM conguration.
In Tables 1 and 2 the separation tasks, congurations and
employed supports reported in the literature of the last 16 years
are given chronologically, starting with the most recently reported
conguration.
As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, the vast majority of supports are at sheet polymeric supports. Only some authors employ
polymeric hollow ber supports [22,24,33,35] and Huang et al. and
Baltus et al. employ a ceramic support [17,25].
For preparation of an ILM, the support must be wettable by the
membrane liquid whereas it should be non-wettable for preparation of an SLM. Further, the support should be chemically and
thermally inert to avoid a mechanical breakdown of the membrane
function. Wettability is ensured if hydrophobic supports are combined with organic liquids or hydrophilic liquids with hydrophilic
supports. The latter represents the majority in the reported congurations.
The support mainly inuences the mechanical and long-term
stability of a LM conguration. According to the so-called bubble
point equation, which is derived from a thermodynamical point

512

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

Fig. 3. ILM with simultaneous gas or vapor separation and catalytic reaction.

Table 1
Separation tasks, congurations and supports of liquid membranes.
Separation task

Conguration

Support

Ref.

C6 H12 /C6 H14 , C5 H10 /C5 H12 , C5 H8 /C5 H12

CO2 /CH4

ILM
ILM (SLM)

[17]
[18]

CO2 /He
SO2 /N2 , SO2 /CH4 , SO2 /CO2
H2 O vapor/air/VOC
CO2 /air
H2 , CO, O2 , N2
CO2 /air
CO2 , N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /N2 and CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2 , water vapor/air, benzene vapor/cyclohexane vapor

ILM
ILM
ILM (SLM)
CLM
ILM
CLM
ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM

C3 H6 /C3 H8

ILM

C4 H8 /C4 H10
CO2 /N2
H2 S/CO2 , H2 S/CH4
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4

ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM

PAA
PTFE support for ILM which is sandwiched between two
hydrophobic PTFE supports
PES, PS
Hydrophilic PES
Hydrophilic CA, hydrophobic PVDF
PP
NA
PP
PAA
Hydrophilic PVDF
PES
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported on hydrophobic PVDF
support
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported on hydrophobic PVDF
support
Hydrophilized PVDF
Hydrophilized PVDF, PP
PP
Hydrophilic Supports: PAN, CUN, hydrophilized PS bers
Hydrophilic PTFE support (ILM) supported on PVDF support

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]

of view of expulsion of liquid from a capillary (Young-LaplaceEquation)

Table 2
Separation tasks, congurations and supports of liquid membranes continued.
Separation task

Conguration

Support

Ref.

CO2 /N2 , CO2 /O2

ILM

[35]

Water vapor/air

ILM

SO2 /air
CO2 /N2

ILM
ILM

CO2 /air
CO2 /N2
SO2 /N2
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2
CO2 /C2 H6
SO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
O2 /N2 (air)

ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM/SLM
ILM
ILM
ILM
ILM

NH3 /N2 , NH3 /H2

ILM

Hydrophilized PVDF,
hydrophilized PP, PAN
bers, hydrophilized PS
bers
Hydrophilic PTFE support
(ILM) supported on PVDF
support
Porous LiAlO2
Hydrophilic PVDF,
hydrophilized PP
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
PP (ILM)/PTMSP (SLM)
PP
NA
PP
Stainless steel woven wire
mesh
Stainless steel woven wire
mesh, woven zirconia cloth

[36]

[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

p =

4kp cos()
,
dp

(1)

a small contact angle  between support and liquid (ILM conguration) and a small pore diameter dp of the support ensure higher
achievable differential pressures p across the membrane [50,51].
With increasing interfacial tension between liquid and gas phase
 higher differential pressures are possible. The factor kp denotes
deviation of the experimental pressure from the theoretical bubble
point, i.e. 0 < kp 1.
In Tables 36 , details on the supports of the reported conguration in the literature are presented.
The thickness of the liquid membrane most often corresponds
to the thickness of the support and lies between 25 and 380 m.
Exceptions to this are given by the congurations of Gan et al. [23].
An additional layer of ionic liquid is placed on top of the fully wetted
support to avoid gas permeance through the solid polymeric support. This example shows that the gas permeability of the polymeric
support itself must be negligible if liquid membrane permeability
is to be determined and highly selective membrane congurations
are to be achieved.
Chen et al. investigated the effect of liquid membrane thickness
on permeability [38]. Details on this will be given in Section 6.

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

513

Table 3
Supports for liquid membranes.
Support material

Supplier/type

Shape

Thickness [m]

Ref.

PAA
PTFE support for ILM which is
sandwiched between two
hydrophobic PTFE supports
PS, PES
Hydrophilic PES
Hydrophilic CA, Hydrophobic PVDF
PP

Whatman
NA

FS
FS

60
35

[17]
[18]

Pall, HT Tuffryn (PS), Supor (PES)

NA
NA
Membrana/Hollow ber
membrane mat, Celgard/X40 - 200
Sterlitech Corp., YMHLSP1905 Polymer
Membrana/Hollow ber
membrane mat, Celgard/X30 - 240
Whatman
Millipore/Durapore
Pall
PTFE: NA, PVDF: Millipore/Durapel
hydrophobic
PTFE: Toyo Roshi Kaisha Ltd. Japan, PVDF:
Millipore/Durapel hydrophobic
NA
PVDF: Millipore, PP: Celgard/2500
Celgard/3401

FS
FS
FS
HF

152 (PS), 145 (PES)

150
52 (CA), 45 (PVDF)
NA

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

FS
FS

167 + 118
250

[23]
[24]

FS
FS
FS
FS

60
100
152
3555

[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

FS

4570

[29]

FS
FS
FS

100
PVDF: 100, PP: 25
25

[30]
[31]
[32]

NA
PP
PAA
Hydrophilic PVDF
PES
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported
on hydrophobic PVDF support
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported
on hydrophobic PVDF support
Hydrophilized PVDF
Hydrophilized PVDF, PP
PP

Yamanouchi et al. [28] and Duan et al. [29] report about different membrane congurations employing the same support for
different separation tasks. Hence a range of thicknesses is given in
Table 3.
The pore width of the supports lies between 0.005 and 13 m.
Porosity of the supports ranges from 0.4 and 0.83 while tortuosity
if determined ranges from 1.0 to 3.05.
4.2. Liquids and carriers for LM
Tables 7 and 8 show the different liquids and carriers employed
in the LM congurations of the last 16 years.
In gas separations, the long-term stability of a LM conguration is mainly dependent on the volatility of the membrane
liquid. Hence, low to non-volatile liquids such as glycerol or tri-

ethylene glycol (TEG) are most suitable to avoid a breakdown of

the membrane function due to evaporation. Ionic liquids (ILs) or
liquid molten salts (MS) do show even lower to non-measurable
vapor pressures. While molten salts have already been used about
16 years ago [48], ILs have gained importance in the last 6 years
[23,25,27].
In case a volatile liquid like water is used as membrane phase,
feed and sweep gas humidication is inevitable to avoid the loss of
the membrane function although according to
pv
p0v

= eM/RTdp

(2)

the vapor pressure pv inside a porous support is lower in comparison to the normal vapor pressure p0v for a smaller pore diameter dp
of an employed support ([52], p. 58). The terms M and  represent

Table 4
Supports for liquid membranes continued.
Support material

Supplier/type

Shape

Thickness [m]

Ref.

Hydrophilic supports: PAN, CUN,

Hydrophilized PS bers
Hydrophilic PTFE support

NA

HF

[33]

PTFE: Toyo Roshi Kaisha Ltd.

Japan
PVDF Millipore/Durapel
hydrophobic
PVDF Millipore
PP: Celgard/2500
PAN: Sepracor, PS: Minntech
PTFE: Toyo Roshi Kaisha Ltd.
Japan, PVDF Millipore/Durapel
hydrophobic
NA
PVDF: Millipore, PP:
Celgard/2500
Millipore/Type AA-WP
Millipore
Millipore/Durapore VVLP
Millipore/AA WP Type
Millipore/Durapore VVLP
PP: Celgard/3401, PTMSP: NA
Celgard/3500
NA
Celgard/2500
Pall
Steel mesh: Pall, Zirconia
cloth: Zircar Ceramics

FS

PAN: 50, CUN: 10,

PS: 40 and 275
25

(ILM) supported on PVDF support

Hydrophilized PVDF
Hydrophilized PP, PAN bers
Hydrophilized PS bers
Hydrophilic PTFE support (ILM) supported on PVDF support

Porous LiAlO2
Hydrophilic PVDF, hydrophilized PP
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
PP (ILM)/PTMSP (SLM)
PP
NA
PP
Stainless steel woven wire mesh
Stainless steel woven wire mesh
Woven zirconia cloth

[34]

FS, HF

PVDF: 100, Celgard: 25,

PAN: 50 MWCO, PS: 40

[35]

FS

35

[36]

FS
FS

NA
PVDF: 100, PP: 25

[37]
[38]

FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS

150
100
100
150
100
PP: 25, PTMSP: NA
25
NA
25
200
Wire mesh: 200,
Ceramic cloth: 380

[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

514

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

Table 5
Supports for liquid membranes continued.
Support material

Pore width [m]

Porosity

Tortuosity

Ref.

PAA
PTFE support for ILM which is sandwiched
between two hydrophobic PTFE supports
PES, PS
Hydrophilic PES
Hydrophilic CA, hydrophobic PVDF
PP
NA
PP
PAA
Hydrophilic PVDF
PES
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported PVDF
support on hydrophobic
Hydrophilic PTFE (ILM) supported on
hydrophobic PVDF support
Hydrophilized PVDF
Hydrophilized PVDF, PP
PP
Hydrophilic supports: PAN,
CUN, hydrophilized PS bers

0.1
0.1

NA
0.71

1
NA

[17]
[18]

0.2
0.22
0.22 (CA), 0.15 (PVDF)
0.04
NA
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.20
1.00

0.750.85
0.8
NA
0.4
NA
0.4
NA
NA
0.8
0.83

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
NA
NA
NA

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

1.00

0.83

NA

[29]

0.10
PVDF: 0.10
NA
PAN: NA,
CUN: 0.005,
PS: 0.10 and 0.20

0.7
PVDF: 0.7, PP: 0.45
0.5
PAN: NA,
CUN: 0.60.7,
PS: 0.30.4 and 0.70.8

2.58
PVDF: 2.58, PP: 2.54
1.25
NA

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

Table 6
Supports for liquid membranes continued.
Support material

Pore width [m]

Porosity

Tortuosity

Ref.

Hydrophilic PTFE support (ILM) supported on PVDF support

Hydrophilized PVDF
Hydrophilized PP, PAN bers
Hydrophilized PS bers
Hydrophilic PTFE support (ILM) supported on PVDF support
Porous LiAlO2
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilized PP
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic PVDF
Hydrophilic CAN
Hydrophilic PVDF
PP (ILM)/PTMSP (SLM)
PP
NA
PP
Stainless steel woven wire mesh
Stainless steel woven wire mesh, woven zirconia cloth

1.00
PVDF: 0.10,
Celgard: 0.08,
PAN: 70000 MWCO, PS: 0.70
1.00
NA
PVDF: 0.10,
PP: 0.04
0.80
0.10
NA
0.80
0.10
Celgard: 0.05 0.125, PTMSP: NA
0.075 0.25
NA
0.04
4.013.0
4.013.0

0.83
PVDF: 0.7, PP: 0.45,
PAN: NA, PS: 0.30.4

NA
PVDF: 2.58, PP: 2.54,
PAN: NA, PS: NA

[34]
[35]

0.83
NA
PVDF: 0.7,
PP: 0.45
0.82
0.7
0.63
NA
0.7
PP: 0.5, PTMSP: NA
0.45
NA
0.45
NA
NA

NA
NA
PVDF: 2.58,
PP: 2.62
3.05
2.58
2.61
3.05
3.233.35
PP: 1.25, PTMSP: NA
1.75
NA
2.1
NA
NA

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

Table 7
Separation tasks, liquids and carriers of liquid membranes; brackets in carrier column indicate that authors report on experimental results obtained with pure liquids as well
as with liquidcarrier mixtures.
Separation task

Liquid

Carrier

Ref.

C6 H12 /C6 H14 , C5 H10 /C5 H12 ,

C5 H8 /C5 H12
CO2 /CH4

[Ag][(1-hexene)Tf2N], [Ag][(1-pentene)Tf2N], [Ag][(1-isoprene)Tf2N],

[Ag][(DMBA)2Tf2N], AgNO3 in [BMI][Tf2N], [Ag][PrNH2 )2Tf2N]
[C3 NH2 mim][CF3 SO3 ], [C3 NH2 mim][Tf2N], [C4mim][Tf2N]

Functionalized liquid

[17]
[18]

CO2 /He
SO2 /N2 , SO2 /CH4 , SO2 /CO2
H2 O vapor/air/VOC
CO2 /air
H2 , CO, O2 , N2
CO2 /air
CO2 , N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /N2 and CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2 , water vapor/air, benzene
vapor/cyclohexane vapor
C3 H6 /C3 H8
C4 H8 /C4 H10
CO2 /N2

[hmim][Tf2N]
[emim][BF4 ], [bmim][BF4 ], [hmim][BF4 ], [bmim][PF6 ], [bmim][Tf2N]
LiCl H2 O
H2 O
ILs: [C4-mim][Tf2N], [C10-mim][Tf2N],[N881][Tf2N], [C8Py][Tf2N]
H2 O
ILs: [C4-mim][Tf2N], [C8F13-mim][Tf2N]
H2 O
ILs: [C2-mim][Tf2N], [C2-mim][CF3SO3],[C2-mim][dca], [thtdp][Cl]
IL [pmim][I]

Functionalized liquid,
except [C4mim][Tf2N]
- no carrier
None
None
None
CA, DEA, NaHCO3
None
DEA
None
DETA,DAE, DEYA, BEHA
None
(K2 CO3 )

H2 S/CO2 , H2 S/CH4

Salt hydrate tetramethyl-ammonium uoride tetrahydrate [(CH3 )4 N]F 4H2 O

TEG
Glycerol
Glycerol carbonate

AgBF4 or AgNO3
AgNO3
PAMAM, sodium
glycinate
Functionalized liquid

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

515

Table 8
Separation tasks, liquids and carriers of liquid membranes continued; brackets in carrier column indicate that authors report on experimental results obtained with pure
liquids as well as with liquidcarrier mixtures.
Separation task

Liquid

Carrier

Ref.

CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /N2 , CO2 /O2
Water vapor/air
SO2 /air
CO2 /N2
CO2 /air
CO2 /N2
SO2 /N2
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2

Glycerol
TEG, DGA
PAMAM
TEG, PEG
MS: 0.78 Li2 SO4 , 0.135 K2 SO4 and 0.085 Na2 SO4
Glycerol
H2 O
Glycerol
H2 O
H2 O
H2 O
MS hydrates: tetramethylammmonium
uoride tetrahydride, tetraethylammonium
acetate tetrahydrate
PEG
PEG
PEG-400
MS: anhydrous LiNO3 , dry NaNO3
MS: LiNO3 and ZnCl2

Sodium carbonate, sodium glycinate

(KHCO3 ), (DEA)
(Glycerol)
None
None
Glycine-Na, Glycine-Na2 CO3 , EDA
PEG, DBC, K2 CO3
Na2 CO3
None
K2 CO3 /KHCO3
DEA, MEA
Functionalized liquid

[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]

DEA
DEA
DEA, DIPA
Functionalized liquid
Functionalized liquid

[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

CO2 /C2 H6
SO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
O2 /N2 (air)
NH3 /N2 , NH3 /H2

the molar mass and the density of the liquid, while the terms R and
T denote the universal gas constant and the absolute temperature
in Kelvin, respectively.
In combination with glycerol, feed gas humidication also
decreases the viscosity of the membrane phase since the viscosity of glycerol is highly dependent on the water content of a
glycerolwater mixture [53,54]. Thus, the diffusivity of dissolved
species in glycerol is enhanced resulting in higher permeabilities.
Due to the difculty in nding liquids displaying a sorptionselectivity for different gases, carrier species are often employed,
which should be dissolvable in the liquid to a high extent (cf. e.g.
[24,29]). The higher the solubility of a carrier species, the higher the
allowable feed partial pressure of a desired permeant before saturation in carrier species takes place. In the past 30 years, several

review articles on facilitated transport concepts in liquid membranes by the use of carriers have been written, e.g. [7,9].
In comparison to conventional liquids (organic or aqueous mixtures) liquid molten salts offer the possibility of an intrinsic carrier
function, i.e. one of the salt ions acts like a carrier [32,44,49]. In the
following, these liquids are referred to as functionalized liquids.
5. Performance of LM
In Tables 912 the different reported gas and vapor separation
tasks and the performance of the employed liquid membrane congurations in terms of permeability, selectivity, pressure stability
and long-term stability are given.
The most encountered separation task is the removal of CO2
from gas streams containing CH4 or air. About 2/3 of the reviewed

Table 9
Performance of liquid membranes.
Separation task

Selectivity

Flux/permeability

Flux/permeability unit

Ref.

C6 H12 /C6 H14 , C5 H10 /C5 H12 ,

C5 H8 /C5 H12

C6 H12 : 1.64123.27, C5 H10 :

6.03137.14, C5 H8 : 15.66209.58

GPU
(1E6 cm3 (STP)cm/cm2 s cm
HG)
Barrer
Barrer
Barrer

[17]

H2 O vapor/air/VOC
CO2 /air
H2 , CO, O2 , N2
CO2 /air
CO2 , N2

C6 H12 /C6 H14 : 1.16531,

C5 H10 /C5 H12 : 0.97546,
C5 H8 /C5 H12 : 18.9795
CO2 /CH4 : 10120
CO2 /He: 8.73.1
CO2 /N2 : 126223, SO2 /CH4 :
87128, SO2 /CO2 : 919
NA
CO2 /air: 152234
H2 /CO max 4.3
CO2 /N2 : 90442, CO2 /O2 : 68270
CO2 /N2 : 72127

kg/m2 s
mol/(m2 s Pa)
Barrer
mol/(m2 s Pa)
mol/(bar cm2 s)

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

CO2 /CH4

CO2 /CH4 : 201000

mol/(m2 ) s kPa)

[26]

CO2 /N2 and CO2 /CH4

CO2 /N2 : 1561 CO2 /CH4 : 420

Barrer

[27]

CO2 /CH4 /H2 , water vapor/air,

benzene vapor/cyclohexane
vapor
C3 H6 /C3 H8
C4 H8 /C4 H1 0
CO2 /N2

CO2 /CH4 : 20, CO2 /H2 : 13, water/air:

1000, benzene/cyclohexane: 20

H2 O vapor: 1.14E4
CO2 : 1 108 to5 108
H2 : 151250, CO: 01450
CO2 : 1.25 108 to5.01 108
N2 : 2.1 1011 to3.2 1011 , CO2 :
1.5 109 to4.0 109
CO2 : 2 107 to1.7 106 , CH4 :
2 109 to9 109
N2 : 1048, CO2 : 3501000, CH4 :
3194
CO2 : 3 108

cm3 (STP)cm/(cm2 s cmHG)

[28]

C3 H6 : 8 109 to1 107

C4 H8 : 260
CO2 : 80380 without carrier,
346600 with carrier
H2 S: 192813, CO2 : 30109, CH4 :
4.37.4
CO2 : 2.3 109 to3.13 105
CO2 : DGA 1 108 , TEG 1.5 108

cm3 cm/(cm2 s cmHg)

Barrer
Barrer

[29]
[30]
[31]

Barrer

[32]

cm3 /(cm2 s cmHg)

cm3 (STP)cm/(cm2 s cmHg)

[33]
[34]

CO2 /CH4
CO2 /He
SO2 /N2 , SO2 /CH4 , SO2 /CO2

H2 S/CO2 , H2 S/CH4
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4

C3 H6 /C3 H8 : ca. 2570

C4 H8 /C4 H10 : as high as 850
CO2 /N2 : 90130 without carrier,
4.51000 with carrier
H2 S/CO2 : 68, H2 S/CH4 : 34140
CO2 /N2 : 7.85830
DGA CO2 /CH4 : 100, TEG CO2 /CH4 :
30

CO2 : 5002500
CO2 : 7441200
SO2 : 72809350

[18]
[19]
[20]

516

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

Table 10
Performance of liquid membranes continued.
Separation task

Selectivity

Flux/permeability

Flux/permeability unit

Ref.

CO2 /N2 , CO2 /O2

CO2 /N2 : 76016,300, CO2 /O2 :

9202300
Water vapor/air: 2000
NA
CO2 /N2 : 296990
NA
CO2 /N2 : 1003440
NA
NA
MEA - CO2 /CH4 : 1002000, DEA CO2 /CH4 : 1002000

CO2 (N2 mix): 3003200, CO2

(O2 -mix): 20004400
1 106
SO2 : 1 107 to3.5 107
CO2 : 0.64 105 to3.94 105
CO2 : 2 106 to12 106
CO2 : 2.5 106 to30.0 106
SO2 : 1 104 to6 104
CO2 : 2.8 109 to6.5 109
MEA - CO2 : 5 106 to6 105 ,
MEA - CH4 : 2 108 to9 108 ,
DEA - CO2 : 6 106 to7 105 ,
DEA - CH4 : 3 108 to1 107
ILM - CO2 : 1001720
SLM - CO2 : no permeability given
due to unknown thickness of active
membrane
CO2 : 2.0 1012 to7.8 1012
SO2 : 1.9 1011 to 3.1 1011

Barrer

[35]

Water vapor/air
SO2 /air
CO2 /N2
CO2 /air
CO2 /N2
SO2 /N2
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4

CO2 /CH4 /
H2

ILM CO2 /H2 : 9.1120,

CO2 /CH4 : 210, SLM CO2 /H2 :
30360, CO2 /CH4 : 140800

CO2 /C2 H6
SO2 /N2

CO2 /C2 H6 : 5145

Pure PEG: SO2 /N2 : 113143,
DEA-PEG SO2 /N2 : 2570
DEA-PEG membrane CO2 /CH4 :
1.543, DIPA-PEG membrane
CO2 /CH4 : 1.530
NaNO3 membrane: 480
LiNO3 membrane: 11320
LiNO3 membrane NH3 /N2 : 80245
ZnCl2 membrane (wire mesh)
NH3 /N2 : at least 1000 NH3 /H2 at
least 3000,
ZnCl2 membrane (zirconia cloth)
NH3 /N2 : 1400

CO2 /CH4

O2 /
N2 (air)
NH3 /N2
NH3 /H2

DEA-PEG membrane CO2 : 360

-11,000, DIPA-PEG membrane CO2 :
3508700
NaNO3 membrane - O2 : 581110
LiNO3 membrane: 2407700
LiNO3 membrane: 65009900 NH3
ZnCl2 membrane (wire mesh) NH3 :
10 105 ,

cm (STP)cm/(cm s cmHg)
kmol/m2 s
scm3 /(cm2 s cmHg)
cm3 /(cm2 s cmHg)
cm3 /(cm2 s cmHg)
mol/(m2 s kPa)
mol/(cm2 s)
cm3 /(cm2 s cmHg)

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

ILM: barrer

[44]

m3 m/(m2 s kPa)
m3 m/(m2 s kPa)

[45]
[46]

Barrer

[47]

Barrer

[48]

Barrer

[49]

ZNCl2 membrane (zirconia cloth)

NH3 : 2.2 105

articles report on CO2 separations, stressing the industrial relevance of this separation task. Other separation tasks are given by the
removal of SO2 , H2 S and NH3 . Water vapor transport is investigated
by Ito [36] and Yamanouchi et al. [28] who also report on separation
of benzene vapor from cyclohexane vapor. Finally, alkene/alkane
separations are examined by different authors [29,30]. This separation task as well as SO2 removal are of major industrial relevance.
Since generally only very few reports and no review article on
membrane-based SO2 removal are available, the number of ve
reports cited in the review at hand stands out.

Permeability is reported in different units. The conversion of

these units proves to be problematic due to the fact that not all
membrane thicknesses and partial pressure differentials are available. Hence, the original units found in the respective literature are
reported.
In his review on LM for gas separations Dutta claimed that LM
performance is still not comparable to polymeric membrane performance [10]. Also nowadays, this issue is worth to be discussed:
Many authors claim their congurations as comparable to polymeric membranes in terms of selectivity and permeability. Given

Table 11
Performance of liquid membranes continued.
Separation task

Differential pressure

Long-term stability

Ref.

C6 H12 /C6 H14 , C5 H10 /C5 H12 , C5 H8 /C5 H12

CO2 /CH4
CO2 /He
SO2 /N2 , SO2 /CH4 ,
SO2 /CO2
H2 O vapor/air/VOC
CO2 /air
H2 , CO, O2 , N2
CO2 /air
CO2 , N2

112 kPa
0
15.7 psi
Atmospheric

NA
More than 260 days
Up to 125 C
NA

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

Atmospheric
Atmospheric
7 bar
Atmospheric
17 psia upstream, 12 psia
downstream
160 kPa feed, 135 kPa Sweep 0,25 bar ptrans
020 kPa
Atmospheric feed, 0.11.3 kPa
vacuum permeate
Atmospheric feed, 1.3 kPa vacuum
permeate
2 atm
6 psi
None
35.852.4 kPa

NA
50 days
Stable up to 10 bar during experiments
5 days
NA

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

NA

[26]

NA
NA

[27]
[28]

23 weeks

[29]

3 weeks
More than a week
NA
Up to 300 h at 1.27 atm 40 m
glycine-Na-glycerol ILM

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

CO2 /CH4
CO2 /N2 and CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2 , water vapor/air, benzene vapor/cyclohexane vapor
C3 H6 /C3 H8
C4 H8 /C4 H10
CO2 /N2
H2 S/CO2 , H2 S/CH4
CO2 /N2

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

517

Table 12
Performance of liquid membranes continued.
Separation task

Differential pressure

Long-term stability

Ref.

CO2 /CH4
CO2 /N2 , CO2 /O2
Water vapor/air
SO2 /air
CO2 /N2
CO2 /air
CO2 /N2

186 kPa feed, 1.3 kPa vacuum

PVDF: 0.68 atm, PP: 1.7 atm, hollow bers: 1.8 atm
Atmosperic feed, vacuum <0.2 kPa permeate
Atmospheric feed and sweep
2.36 atm feed to 1 atm sweep
1 atm feed to 664 Pa sweep
2.58 atm feed to 1 atm sweep

[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]

SO2 /N2
CO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
CO2 /CH4 /H2
CO2 /C2 H6
SO2 /N2
CO2 /CH4
O2 /N2 (air)

Atmospheric
Atmospheric feed /560 mmHg sweep
Atmospheric
400 cmHg ILM, 545 cmHg SLM
Atmospheric
Atmospheric
1 atm
76 cmHg

NH3 /N2 , NH3 /H2

80 cmHg

At least 160 h up to 250 kPa

NA
NA
NA
Up to 25 days, humidied feed, dry sweep
NA
Stable up to 10 days, humidied feed, dry
sweep, 1.5 atm retentate pressure
Stable during experiments
Stable during experiments
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LiNO3 membranes: 1042 h, NaNO3
membranes: at least 18 h
ZnCl2 : 21 days

the fact that state of the art polymeric membrane selectivity for
CO2 ranges between 5 and 45 with a permeability of up to 600
barrer [55], various of the reported LM congurations prove to be
comparable. For example Hanioka et al. report permeabilities of
5002500 barrer with selectivities of 10120 for the separation of
CO2 and CH4 even exceeding the standards of polymeric membranes
[18].
For separation of propylene/propane mixtures a similar result
is achieved comparing LM congurations to data given in a review
article by Burns and Koros [56]. Selectivity of polymer membranes
for this task ranges from 1.4 to 27 with permeabilities of up to
6600 barrer. Duan et al. report on permeabilities of 801000 barrer
with selectivities of 2570 for this separation task [29].
However, two aspects need to be considered when comparing
the congurations cited beforehand. On the one hand, in most cases
high selectivity values of a membrane most often go along with low
permeability values. Thus, both values have to be taken into account
when comparing two specic membrane congurations. On the
other hand, the unit Barrer represents permeability of a membrane
with respect to its thickness. While for a thick membrane its permeability given in Barrer might be high, its absolute ux might be low.
Thus, a comparison of absolute ux values across two membranes
should be the comparison of choice. A detailed comparison of ux
values of different liquid as well as solid membrane congurations
lies beyond the scope of the work at hand. A comparison of absolute uxes between polymeric and liquid membranes even proves
to be impossible since also for polymeric membranes information
on membrane thicknesses is lacking in the review article of Burns
et al. and Powell et al. However, since in most congurations, LM
thickness still is limited to the thickness of the employed supports,
a minimization of LM thickness going along with a maximization
of ux remains a desirable aim.
Most of the reported liquid membrane congurations work at
atmospheric conditions or slightly elevated pressures. The highest
reported differential pressure is 7 bar [23].
Data concerning the long-term stability of the membrane congurations are only given by some authors. Here the most stable
conguration shows long-term performance for about 260 days
[18].
Although, regarding permeability and selectivity, LM performance seems to have improved very much in the last 16 years,
their long-term stability still constitutes the major challenge when
aiming at industrial application.

[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

6. Preparation of LM
After the materials for preparation of a liquid membrane conguration have been chosen, the preparation itself is carried out. In
general, an ex situ and in situ preparation of LM can be differentiated.
In the ex situ preparation, a support is wetted with the membrane liquid by soaking or impregnation. Depending on the pore
size and the wettability of the support, the time for preparation differs between hours or even days. After successful wetting
of the support, excess liquid is normally wiped off to obtain a
thin membrane. Generally the membrane thickness corresponds
to the support thickness, since the support is totally wetted. This
method represents by far the most applied preparation method
for LM.
Chen et al. also apply the ex situ preparation method, but report
on a wicking method to partially wet a at support with a membrane liquid and thus adjust the liquid layer thickness [38]. A at
support is put into contact with glycerol as a membrane liquid,
which is intruding into the pores of the support due to capillary
forces. Depending on the wetting time, a different liquid layer thickness is achieved.
In general, the use of feed gas humidication somehow impairs
the effect of a lower membrane thickness, since water vapor
might condense inside open pore spaces of the partially wetted
support representing a diffusion resistance for permeating gas
species.
In the in situ membrane preparation, the porous support is
mounted to a membrane module and contacted with membrane
liquid inside the module. Again, the liquid wets the support due
to capillary forces. After some time of impregnation, the liquid
is expelled out of the lumen of the membrane module via a gas
stream. Such membrane preparation is reported by Chen et al. [33]
for preparation of hollow ber liquid membrane congurations. Pez
et al. also report about an in situ preparation of LM [48] employing
liquid molten salts as membrane phase, which are liquid at temperatures well above room temperature. To prepare these membranes,
salt granules are placed on top of a wire mesh or a zirconia cloth
inside a membrane module. The closed module is then heated up
above the melting temperature of the salt granules, which become
liquid and wet the pores of the support forming a liquid membrane.
Since some of the employed salts are oxygen and water sensitive,
the whole equipment is inertised with argon gas.

518

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

Besides the preparation of single layer liquid membranes, Ito et

al. report on double layer liquid membranes [28,29,34]. One of the
two supports is wetted with the membrane liquid. This ILM is then
placed on a non-wettable support with smaller pore size to obtain
a more stable conguration.
7. Summary of liquid membrane review
The following summary and conclusions can be drawn from the
literature review:
The vast majority of liquid membrane congurations are at sheet
congurations, employing polymeric supports, which are manually prepared via ex situ methods. Exceptions are given by liquid
membranes employing hollow ber supports being prepared in
situ [33].
In general, the liquid membrane thickness corresponds to the
support thickness. Application of inorganic supports is lacking
due to their thickness greater than 200 m, being too high for
liquid membrane thickness.
Although the use of non-volatile liquids such as liquid molten
salts or ionic liquids promises improved membrane stability,
these liquids are still in the minority. In case of ionic liquids this
might be related to the water-sensitivity of some ILs and in case
of liquid molten salts to their oxygen sensitivity as well as to their
elevated melting temperature.
The main gas separation task is the separation of CO2 from gas
mixtures. Other tasks reported are the separation of alkenes and
alkanes, ammonia, hydrogen sulde, oxygen and sulfur oxide. Gan
et al. also report on the separation of hydrogen and problems on
choosing a proper polymeric support showing no permeability
for hydrogen [23].
The performance of LM in terms of permeability and selectivity of some reported congurations seems to be comparable to
polymeric membranes. However, the pressure and long-term stability of LM is still low and represents the major challenge for
future developments when aiming at industrial application. Reasons for LM instability could be a thermal or chemical degradation
or swelling (increased pore size) of the membrane support. Further, a change in interfacial tension of the membrane liquid due to
traces of surfactants within the contacting gases could be responsible.
Acknowledgements
Financial funding from the German Research Foundation
(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), grant ME 1714/9-1 is gratefully acknowledged. Further, we would like to thank Mr. Sachin
Uphadyay and Mr. Heiner Giese for their contributions to preparation of the review at hand.
References
[1] B. Swain, J. Jeong, J.-C. Lee, G.-H. Lee, Extraction of Co(II) by supported liquid membrane and solvent extraction using cyanex 272 as an extractant: a
comparison study, Journal of Membrane Science 288 (2007) 139148.
[2] B. Swain, K. Sarangi, R.P. Das, Effect of different anions on separation of copper and zinc by supported liquid membrane using TOPS-99 as mobile carrier,
Journal of Membrane Science 243 (2004) 189194.
[3] R. Fortunato, C.A. Alfonso, J. Benavente, E. Rodriguez-Castellon, J.G. Crespo,
Stability of supported liquid membranes as studied by X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy, Journal of Membranes Science 256 (2005) 216223.
[4] N.M. Kocherginsky, Q. Yang, L. Seelam, Recent advances in supported liquid membrane technology, Separation and Purication Technology 53 (2007)
171177.
[5] F. Kubota, M. Goto, Recent advances in liquid membrane technology, Solvent
Extraction Research and Development, Japan 12 (2005) 1126.

[6] A.M. Sastre, A. Kumar, J.P. Shukla, R.K. Singh, Improved techniques in liquid
membrane separations: an overview, Separation and Purication Methods 27
(2) (1998) 213298.
[7] R.D. Noble, S.A. Stern, Catalytic membrane reactors, in: Membrane Separations
TechnologyPrinciples and Applications, Elsevier, 1995, Chapter, pp. 670711.
[8] R.D. Noble, C.A. Koval, J.J. Pellegrino, Facilitated transport membane systems,
Chemical Engineering Progress 85 (3) (1989) 5870.
[9] J.D. Way, R.D. Noble, T.M. Flynn, E.D. Sloan, Liquid membrane transport: a survey, Journal of Membrane Science 12 (1982) 239259.
[10] N.N. Dutta, S. Baruah, G.S. Patil, Gas separation using liquid membrane: technological perspectives, CEW 27 (5) (1992) 7381.
[11] E.L. Cussler, R. Aris, A. Bhown, On the limits of facilitated diffusion, Journal of
Memrane Science 43 (1989) 149164.
[12] A.A. Kalachev, L.M. Kardivarenko, N.A. Plate, V.V. Bagreev, Facilitated diffusion
in immobilized liquid membranes: experimental verication of the jumping
mechanism and percolation threshold in membrane transport, Journal of Membrane Science 75 (1992) 15.
[13] N.N. Li, Facilitated transport through liquid membranesan extended abstract,
Journal of Membrane Science 3 (1978) 265269.
[14] H.C. Visser, D.N. Reinhoudt, F. de Jong, Carrier-mediated transport through liquid membranes, Chemical Society Reviews (1994) 7581.
[15] R.T. Carlin, T.H. Cho, J. Fuller, Catalytic immobilized ionic liquid membranes,
Technical report, Ofce of Naval Research, Arlington, 1998.
[16] R.T. Carlin, T.H. Cho, J. Fuller, Heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation with supported ionic liquid membranes, Technical report, Ofce of Naval Research,
Arlington, 2000.
[17] J.-F. Huang, H. Luo, C. Liang, D. Jiang, S. Dai, Advanced liqiud membranes based
on novel ionic liquids for selective separation of olen/parafn via olenfacilitated transport, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 47 (2008)
881888.
[18] S. Hanioka, T. Maruyama, T. Sotani, M. Teramoto, H. Matsuyama, K. Nakashima,
M. Hanaki, F. Kubota, M. Goto, CO2 separation facilitated by task-specic ionic
liquids using a supported liquid membrane, Journal of Membrane Science 314
(2008) 14.
[19] J. Ilconich, C. Myers, H. Pennline, D. Luebke, Experimental investigation of the
permeability and selectivity of supported ionic liquid membranes for CO2 /He
separation at temperatures up to 125 C, Journal of Membrane Science 298
(2007) 4147.
[20] Y.-Y. Jiang, Z. Zhou, Z. Jiao, L. Li, Y.-T. Wu, Z.-B. Zhang, SO2 gas separation using
supported ionic liquid membranes, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B Letters
111 (2007) 50585061.
[21] L.-Z. Zhang, Fabrication of a lithium chloride solution based composite supported liquid membrane and its moisture permeation analysis, Journal of
Membrane Science 276 (2006) 91100.
[22] L. Bao, M.C. Trachtenberg, Facilitated transport of CO2 across a liquid membrane: comparing enzyme, amine, and alkaline, Journal of Membrane Science
280 (2006) 330334.
[23] Q. Gan, D. Rooney, M. Xue, G. Thompson, Y. Zou, An experimental study of gas
transport and separation properties of ionic liquids supported on nanoltration
membranes, Journal of Membrane Science 280 (2006) 948956.
[24] L. Bao, M.C. Trachtenberg, Modeling CO2 -facilitated transport across a
diethanolamine liquid membrane, Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005)
68686875.
[25] R.E. Baltus, R.M. Counce, B.H. Culbertson, H. Luo, D.W. DePaoli, S. Dai, D.C.
Duckworth, Examination of the potential of ionic liquids for gas separations,
Separation Science and Technology 40 (2005) 525541.
[26] M.H. Al Marzouqi, M.A. Abdulkarim, S.A. Marzouk, Facilitated transport of CO2
through immobilized liquid membrane, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 44 (2005) 92739278.
[27] P. Scovazzo, D. Camper, J. Kieft, J. Poshusta, C. Koval, R. Noble, Regular solution
theory and CO2 gas solubility in room-temperature ionic liquids, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 43 (2004) 68556860.
[28] N. Yamanouchi, S. Duan, A. Ito, Gas and vapor permeation through liquid membrane using ionic liquid, Transactions of the Materials Research Society of Japan
29 (7) (2004) 32993302.
[29] S. Duan, A. Ito, A. Ohkawa, Separation of propylene/propane mixture by a supported liquid membrane containing triethylene glycol and a silver salt, Journal
of Membrane Science 215 (2003) 5360.
[30] A.S. Kovvali, H. Chen, K.K. Sirkar, Glycerol-based immobilized liquid membranes
for olenparafn separation, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 41
(2002) 347356.
[31] A.S. Kovvali, K.K. Sirkar, Carbon dioxide separation with novel solvents as
liquid membranes, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 41 (2002)
22872295.
[32] R. Quinn, J.B. Appleby, G.P. Pez, Hydrogen sulde separation from gas streams
using salt hydrate chemical absorbents and immobilized liquid membranes,
Separation Science and Technology 37 (3) (2002) 627638.
[33] H. Chen, G. Obuskovic, S. Majumdar, K.K. Sirkar, Immobilized glycerolbased liquid membranes in hollow bers for selective CO2 separation from CO2 N2 mixtures, Journal of Membrane Science 183 (2001)
7588.
[34] A. Ito, S. Duan, Y. Ikenori, A. Ohkawa, Permeation of wet CO2 /CH4 mixed
gas through a liquid membrane supported on surface of a hydrophobic
microporous membrane, Separation and Purication Technology 24 (2001)
235242.

F.F. Krull et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 509519

[35] A.S. Kovvali, K.K. Sirkar, Dendrimer liquid membranes: CO2 separation from gas
mixtures, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 40 (2001) 25022511.
[36] A. Ito, Dehumidication of air by a hygroscopic liquid membrane supported
on surface of a hydrophobic microporous membrane, Journal of Membrane
Science 175 (2000) 3542.
[37] L. Jin, L. Jian, Z. Yong, W. Ya, Sulfur dioxide removal from ue gas using a molten
salt membrane, Journal of Zhengzhou University of Technology 21 (3) (2000)
2630.
[38] H. Chen, A.S. Kovvali, K.K. Sirkar, Selective CO2 separation from CO2 N2 mixtures by immobilized glycine-na-glycerol membranes, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 39 (2000) 24472458.
[39] S.W. Park, N.H. Heo, G.W. Kim, I.J. Sohn, H. Kumazawa, Facilitated transport of
carbon dioxide through an immobilized liquid membrane of aqueous carbonate solution with additives, Separation Science and Technology 35 (15) (2000)
24972512.
[40] H. Chen, A.S. Kovvali, S. Majumdar, K.K. Sirkar, Selective CO2 separation from
CO2 N2 mixtures by immobilized carbonate-glycerol membranes, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 38 (1999) 34893498.
[41] M. Teramoto, Q. Huang, T. Maki, H. Matsuyama, Facilitated transport of SO2
through supported liquid membrane using water as a carrier, Separation and
Purication Technology 16 (1999) 109118.
[42] S.W. Park, N.H. Heo, J.S. Kim, D.S. Suh, Facilitated transport of carbon dioxide
through an immobilized liquid membrane of K2 CO3 /KHCO3 aqueous solution,
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 14 (5) (1997) 312320.
[43] M. Teramoto, K. Nakai, N. Ohnishi, Q. Huang, T. Watari, H. Matsuyama, Facilitated
transport of carbon dioxide through supported liquid membranes of aqueous amine solutions, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 35 (1996)
538545.
[44] R. Quinn, J.B. Appleby, G.P. Pez, New facilitated transport membranes for the
separation of carbon dioxide from hydrogen and methane, Journal of Membrane
Science 104 (1995) 139146.

519

[45] S. Saha, A. Chakma, Selective CO2 separation from CO2 /C2 H6 mixtures by
immobilized diethanolamine/PEG membranes, Journal of Membrane Science
98 (1995) 157171.
[46] M. Okamoto, A. Chakma, SO2 separation by reactive liquid membranes, in:
Process Technology Proceedings, vol. 11 (Separation Technology), 1994, pp.
755762.
[47] R.A. Davis, O.C. Sandall, CO2 /CH4 separation by facilitated transport
in aminepolyethylene glycol mixtures, AIChE Journal 39 (7) (1993)
11351145.
[48] G.P. Pez, R.T. Carlin, Molten salt facilitated transport membranes. Part 1. Separation of oxygen from air at high temperatures, Journal of Membrane Science
65 (1992) 2130.
[49] D.V. Laciak, G.P. Pez, P.M. Burban, Molten salt facilitated transport membranes.
Part 2. Separation of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen at high temperatures, Journal of Membrane Science 65 (1992) 3138.
[50] A.A. Shapiro, E.H. Stenby, Kelvin equation for a non-ideal multicomponent mixture, Fluid Phase Equilibria 134 (1997) 87101.
[51] M. Tuller, D. Or, L.M. Dudley, Adsorption and capillary condensation in porous
media; liquid retention and interfacial congurations in angular pores, Water
Resources Research 35 (7) (1999) 19491964.
[52] A.W. Adamson, Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1967.
[53] R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill
Professional, 2007.
[54] D.R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, B & T, 2007.
[55] C.E. Powell, G.G. Qiao, Polymeric CO2 /N2 gas separation membranes for the
capture of carbon dioxide from power plant ue gas, Journal of Membrane
Science 279 (2006) 149.
[56] R.L. Burns, W.J. Koros, Dening the challenges for C3 H6 /C3 H8 separation
using polymeric membranes, Journal of Membrane Science 211 (2003)
299309.