Computational Assessment of Water Desalination Performance of Multi‐Walled Carbon Nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The desalination performance (water permeability and salt rejection) of both uncharged and charged multi‐walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) is computationally assessed by means of pressure‐driven molecular dynamics simulations. It is shown that the performance of these materials surpass that of the widely used polyamide reverse osmosis membranes and are even better than 2D materials such as nanoporous graphene or boron nitride. The molecular origin of the fast water transport through MWCNT materials is ascribed to a synergic effect between the existence of a single water layer and low friction between water molecules and the carbon nanotube surface. Furthermore, for charged MWCNTs it is highlighted that the electrical charges on the nanotube surface result in a strong anchoring of ions and water molecules. This leads to clogging of the annular region between nanotubes and the generation of a force, which makes water transport through the central channel of the MWCNT faster.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".