Impacts of Flow Rate and Pulsed Electric Field Current Mode on Protein Fouling Formation during Bipolar Membrane Electroacidification of Skim Milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fouling is one of the major problems in electrodialysis. The aim of the present work was to investigate the effect of five different solution flow rates (corresponding to Reynolds numbers of 162, 242, 323, 404 and 485) combined with the use of pulsed electric field (PEF) current mode on protein fouling of bipolar membrane (BPM) during electrodialysis with bipolar membranes (EDBM) of skim milk. The application of PEF prevented the fouling formation by proteins on the cationic interface of the BPM almost completely, regardless of the flow rate or Reynolds number. Indeed, under PEF mode of current the weight of protein fouling was negligible in comparison with CC current mode (0.07 ± 0.08 mg/cm2 versus 5.56 ± 2.40 mg/cm2). When a continuous current (CC) mode was applied, Reynolds number equals or higher than 323 corresponded to a minimal value of protein fouling of BPM. This positive effect of both increasing the flow rate and using PEF is due to the facts that during pauses, the solution flow flushes the accumulated protein from the membrane while in the same time there is a decrease in concentration polarization (CP) and consequently decrease in H+ generation at the cationic interface of the BPM, minimizing fouling formation and accumulation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".