Polymer hollow fiber membranes for gas separation: A comparison between three commercial resins
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".