Nanofiltration for the Recovery of Low Molecular Weight Polysaccharides and Polyphenols from Winery Effluents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of nanofiltration membranes are investigated for the fractionation of a winery effluent and recovery of the polysaccharides of low molecular weight and of the polyphenols. Permeation experiments were carried out with three laboratory-made cellulose acetate membranes and two commercial membranes: NF270 membrane supplied by Filmtec Corp., Minneapolis, MN (USA) and ETNA01PP membrane supplied by Alfa Laval, Nakskov, Denmark. The five membranes were characterized by the rejection coefficients to a set of reference solutes and evaluated in terms of the rejection coefficients to polysaccharides, polyphenols, conductivity and total organic carbon. The rejection coefficients to polyphenols were overall lower than the ones to polysaccharides, meaning that the polyphenols permeate preferentially through all the membranes. Among these membranes, the NF270 membrane displayed the highest rejection coefficients for all parameters evaluated, with rejections in the order of 93.8% and 99% for polyphenols and polysaccharides, respectively. On the other hand, the ETNA01PP membrane presented the lowest rejection coefficients: around 27% to polyphenols and 72% to polysaccharides.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".