Dependence of Performance of Poly(Sulfone‐co‐Amide) Membranes on Compositional Variation of Casting Solution and Coagulation Media—Development of Reverse Osmosis and Nano Filtration Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(sulfone‐co‐amide) polymer was synthesized by a low temperature solution polycondensation technique from benzene 1,3 dicarboxylic acid chloride (isophthaloyl chloride), benzene 1,4 dicarboxylic acid chloride [terephthaloyl chloride (TPC)], and bis[4‐amino phenyl] sulfone, i.e., (4,4′‐diamino diphenyl sulfone) as monomers using N,N dimethyl acetamide (DMAc) as solvent cum acid acceptor. Casting solutions using various combinations of DMAc and acetone as solvent and LiCl and LiNO3 as additives were prepared. Wet phase inversion membranes were prepared from them at ambient temperature (25°C) using demineralized water (DMW) or aqueous sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as coagulation media. Solute rejections of the membranes increased and solvent flux decreased with increasing proportion of acetone and decreasing DMAc content in the casting solution. Use of 1% and 2% aqueous SDS solution as gelling media improved the flux of the membranes significantly. Evaporation of solvent at room temperature prior to gelling, in certain cases, led to high solute rejecting membranes. By the proper combination of casting solution composition, evaporation time, and gelling medium, it was possible to make a range of NF membranes and also high solute rejecting brackish water RO membranes from the single polymer. More importantly, use of a significant amount of acetone in the casting solution enabled us to make high solute rejecting integrally skinned asymmetric membranes simply by evaporation of solvent followed by coagulation in a proper medium, all at ambient temperature. The membranes do not need any other treatment before use.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".