MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impacts of Hydrophilic Membrane Additives on the Ultrafiltration of River Water

2007· article· en· W1988918683 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Nguyen, Roberto Narbaitz, Takeshi Matsuura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMembraneUltrafiltration (renal)FoulingContact anglePermeationChemical engineeringMembrane foulingWater treatmentSurface modificationBiofoulingChemistryMaterials scienceChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most serious disadvantages of membrane applications in water treatment is the decreasing water permeation rate with time, which is often called fouling. This study investigates surface modification of polyethersulfone (PES) ultrafiltration membranes as a fouling reduction strategy for drinking water treatment applications. Surface modification was achieved through the addition of three different tailor-made hydrophilic surface modifying macromolecules (LSMM200, LSMM400, and LSMM600). Flat sheet membranes were prepared via a single-step casting procedure; their surface hydrophilicity was quantified via contact angle measurements. The incorporation of hydrophilic additives produced slightly more hydrophilic membranes (contact angle reduction of up to 8°) and improved membrane performance compared with the PES membrane without blending. In the treatment of highly colored river water, LSMM400- and LSMM600-modified membranes achieved up to 32% higher final fluxes. Surface modification resulted in significantly decreased flux reductions and natural organic matter accumulation. Dissolved organic carbon removals were approximately 70% for all the membranes studied. No clear correlation between membrane hydrophilicity and fouling reduction was observed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207