Characterization of surface‐modified hollow fiber polyethersulfone membranes prepared at different air gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hollow fibers were spun from a solution of surface‐modifying macromolecule blended polyethersulfone in dimethyl acetamide by using dry‐wet spinning method at different air gaps and at room temperature. The air gap was varied from 10 to 90 cm. The ultrafiltration performance of hollow fibers was studied by using aqueous solutions of polyethylene glycols and polyethylene oxides of different molecular weights. Significant difference in surface morphology between the inner and outer surface of the hollow fibers was observed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Similar results were obtained by contact angle measurement and XPS. Mean pore sizes of the inner surface and outer surface were calculated from AFM images and compared with the pore sizes obtained from mass transport data. Pore size distribution curves were drawn from both data, i.e., from AFM images and mass‐transport data, both methods gave similar results. Roughness parameters of the inner and outer surfaces and the sizes of nodular aggregates on both surfaces were measured. An attempt was made to correlate the above parameters with the performance of the membranes. Unexpected values of contact angles of both inner surface and outer surface were obtained. It was observed that the studied membranes could be put into two groups: (i) the membranes fabricated between 10 and 50 cm air gap and (ii) fabricated at higher than 50 cm air gap. A plausible mechanism for the unexpected results was discussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 104: 710–721, 2007
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".