A Review on Porous Polymeric Membrane Preparation. Part I: Production Techniques with Polysulfone and Poly (Vinylidene Fluoride)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous polymeric membranes have emerged as the core technology in the field of separation. But some challenges remain for several methods used for membrane fabrication, suggesting the need for a critical review of the literature. We present here an overview on porous polymeric membrane preparation and characterization for two commonly used polymers: polysulfone and poly (vinylidene fluoride). Five different methods for membrane fabrication are introduced: non-solvent induced phase separation, vapor-induced phase separation, electrospinning, track etching and sintering. The key factors of each method are discussed, including the solvent and non-solvent system type and composition, the polymer solution composition and concentration, the processing parameters, and the ambient conditions. To evaluate these methods, a brief description on membrane characterization is given related to morphology and performance. One objective of this review is to present the basics for selecting an appropriate method and membrane fabrication systems with appropriate processing conditions to produce membranes with the desired morphology, performance and stability, as well as to select the best methods to determine these properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".