Performance of a newly developed hydrophilic additive blended with different ultrafiltration base polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The capability of modifying ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with different base‐polymers using a newly synthesized hydrophilic additive was investigated in this study. Five typical base‐polymers were tested: cellulose acetate (CA), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone (PS), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). The changes in characteristics and performance of the membranes were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), contact angle analysis, and solute transport tests. It was found that the effect of the hydrophilic additive was different for each polymer. Higher additive contents resulted in higher permeation flux. A visible effect on water content and permeability was obtained but the impact was not shown clearly in contact angles, possibly the additive's concentration was not sufficiently high at the surface. In term of flux enhancement the PES and PVDF membranes benefited the most by the addition of the hydrophilic additive. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".