Protein fouling of ultrafiltration membranes — investigation of several factors relevant for tertiary wastewater treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fouling of two different ultrafiltration membranes by solutions of three globular proteins with different molecular weights and isoelectric points was investigated at low concentrations relevant to secondary effluents (10 mg·L–1). The results reveal the increased fouling potential of macromolecules being small enough to enter the membrane pores due to the resulting blockage and (or) constriction of the pores, compared to a moderate increase of the filtration resistance due to gel layer formation by larger compounds. Differences between the applied membranes in terms of fouling behaviour, protein retention, as well as attachment of macromolecules to membrane surface and pore walls demonstrate the impact of pore size distribution, zeta potential, surface roughness, and hydrophobicity of the membranes on the fouling mechanism. Comparative ultrafiltration experiments using two different pumps indicate the influence of type and dimensioning of the pumping system on membrane fouling due to structural changes of solutes by pump-induced shear forces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".