Effects of preparation conditions on the surface modification and performance of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact that some membrane preparation steps had on ultrafiltration (UF) membrane characteristics and performance was studied. Polyethersulfone (PES) was employed as base polymer, while N ‐methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) was used as a solvent, and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) was used as a nonsolvent pore‐forming additive. The manufacturing variables studied were solvent evaporation time and membrane surface modification, using a fluorine‐based copolymer referred to as surface‐modifying macromolecule (SMM). The flat sheet membranes, prepared via phase inversion, were characterized using solute transport data, X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and contact angle measurements. Membrane performance was evaluated via filtration test protocol that included a 6‐day filtration of concentrated river water. The flux reduction with time was modeled using single and dual mechanisms of fouling. The pore blockage/cake filtration model described better the behavior of the permeation rate along the experiments. Increasing the solvent evaporation time decreased the size of the pores and the permeation rate. However, it did not significantly affect the removal of the organic compounds naturally present in the river water used as feed. XPS and contact angle measurements proved that the short evaporation periods did not allow enough SMM migration to the surface to provoke a significant effect on the membrane performance. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2006
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".