Concentration Polarization in Ultrafiltration/Nanofiltration for the Recovery of Polyphenols from Winery Wastewaters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentration polarization is intrinsically associated with the selective character of membranes and often means flux decline and which causes a subsequent decrease of ultrafiltration and nanofiltration performance. More important is the fact that it acts as a precursor of membrane fouling and creates severe fouling problems in the longer times range. The quantification of its dependence on the operating parameters of cross-flow velocities and transmembrane pressures makes recourse to the film theory to introduce mass-transfer coefficients that generally are calculated by dimensionless correlations of the Sherwood number as a function of the Reynolds and Schmidt numbers. In the present work, the mass-transfer coefficients are obtained through the fitting of experimental results by the pressure variation method. The ultrafiltration/nanofiltration of the winery wastewaters from the racking operation is carried out with the membranes ETNA 01PP (Alfa Laval) and NF 270 (Dow Filmtec) under a wide range of cross-flow velocities and transmembrane pressures up to 15 bar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".