Colloidal Fouling of Nanofiltration Membranes: Development of a Standard Operating Procedure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fouling of nanofiltration (NF) membranes is the most significant obstacle to the development of a sustainable and energy-efficient NF process. Colloidal fouling and performance decline in NF processes is complex due to the combination of cake formation and salt concentration polarization effects, which are influenced by the properties of the colloids and the membrane, the operating conditions of the test, and the solution chemistry. Although numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the influence of these parameters on the performance of the NF process, the importance of membrane preconditioning (e.g., compaction and equilibrating with salt water), as well as the determination of key parameters (e.g., critical flux and trans-membrane osmotic pressure) before the fouling experiment have not been reported in detail. The aim of this paper is to present a standard experimental and data analysis protocol for NF colloidal fouling experiments. The developed methodology covers preparation and characterization of water samples and colloidal particles, pre-test membrane compaction and critical flux determination, measurement of experimental data during the fouling test, and the analysis of that data to determine the relative importance of various fouling mechanisms. The standard protocol is illustrated with data from a series of flat sheet, bench-scale experiments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it