Bacterial Anti-Adhesion of Coated and Uncoated Thin-Film-Composite (TFC) Polyamide (PA) Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the bacterial anti-adhesion performance of uncoated and coated reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. All the membranes were commercially available fully-aromatic thin-film-composite (TFC) polyamide (PA) membranes. Two of the TFC PA membranes (SW30 and BW30) were coated using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) coating, while the other three membranes (LE, XLE and NF90) were uncoated. Among the characterised TFC PA membranes, the PVA coated were more hydrophilic and their surface energy was higher in comparison to uncoated. In addition, the PVA coated membranes had lower surface roughness. AFM interaction force measurement demonstrated higher repellence performance for the more polar surface. Bacteria attachment test showed differences between the coated and the uncoated membranes. Indeed, the increase in hydrophilicity and surface polarity showed decrease in the attachment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells. Moreover, the results demonstrated that the surface polarity showed better correlation with the attachment of the bacteria. In addition, the type of the surface roughness may somehow contribute to the bacteria repellence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".