Polymer hollow fiber membranes for gas separation: A comparison between three commercial resins
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
Polymer hollow fibre membranes are becoming more and more used for gas separation. In this work, asymmetric hollow fibre membranes were prepared by a phase inversion technique with three commonly used commercial polymers: polyethersulfone (PES), polyetherimide (Ultem® 1000), and polyimides (Matrimid® 5218). The effect of spinning parameters (composition of the dope and bore solution, bore flow rate, air gap distance, temperature of the spinneret and coagulation bath, as well as take-up speed) on the membrane morphology and gas permeation properties was investigated. The membrane separation performances were characterized in terms of gas transport properties (perméance/selectivity) for different gases (H2, CO2, O2, N2, CH4) to relate this information with their morphology studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Furthermore, dense flat membranes from the same materials were prepared by solvent casting to investigate the relationships between the gas separation performance and membrane configuration (hollow fibers vs. compact flat membrane). Finally, a comparison between the apparent skin layer thickness from O2 permeability/permeance and SEM image gave good agreement.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it