Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A pilot plant study was carried out to evaluate the performance of continuous cross flow micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) method for the simultaneous separation of phenol and ortho‐cresol from the aqueous phase using a cationic surfactant, cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide. The membranes used in this study are polysulfone tubular hollow fibre membrane with 6 kDa and a ceramic membrane having pore diameter 50 nm with an active layer of microporous zirconia (ZrO2) supported on α‐alumina, respectively. The work includes comparing the effectiveness of membranes based on pollutants structural parameters, membrane properties and membrane modules. The characteristic parameters such as the distribution coefficient (D), micelle binding constant (Kp) and micelle loading (Lm) were obtained at optimal experimental conditions. High initial rejections were observed (above 95%) for both the membranes and the permeate flux remained almost constant at 17 LMH. It was found that the polysulfone material membrane suited better for MEUF with higher and steady rejections over a period of time. High micelle leakage was observed in ceramic membrane. The energy consumption for hollow fibre polysulfone membrane was less than the ceramic membrane. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".