A theoretical and experimental study of the crossflow microfiltration process of silica particles in an aqueous suspension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work presents a theoretical and experimental analysis of a crossflow microfiltration process of silica particles in suspension. The silica suspensions were 0.001 M of NaCl with a pH of 6 (to maintain a constant ionic force within the medium to produce a stable silica particle suspension) for three different concentrations of silica particles: 100, 300, and 500 mg L−1. The membrane used in the crossflow microfiltration experiments was a commercial polymeric membrane, microporous, asymmetric with a nominal pore diameter of 0.2 µm, manufactured by OSMONICS (Minnetonka, MN). The experiments were performed in a bench scale crossflow microfiltration system with a flat rectangular membrane cell. The permeate flux was obtained as a function of the transmembrane pressure, the crossflow velocities, and the silica particles concentration. The mathematical model describing the process takes into account the variation of the physical properties of the suspension (dynamic viscosity and mass diffusivity) with the silica concentration. The experimental data are used to predict the maximum silica concentration at the membrane surface as a function of the operating conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".