MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106865421 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04464

Modeling of Air-Gap Membrane Distillation and Comparative Study with Direct Contact Membrane Distillation

2020· article· en· W3106865421 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMembrane distillationVolumetric flow rateMaterials scienceMass transferMembraneHeat transferPermeationHeat fluxFlux (metallurgy)DistillationThermodynamicsChemistryConcentration polarizationHeat exchangerMechanicsChromatographyDesalination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the developed models for the air-gap membrane distillation (AGMD) process are one-dimensional and rely on experimentally determined parameters. Herein, inspired by the effectiveness-number of transfer units method for the design of heat exchangers, a new approach of theoretical model is developed based on mass and heat transfer mechanisms in the AGMD process by considering the temperature variation in two dimensions. The results of our self-sustained model match well with the AGMD experimental results, with less than 4% deviation. Using the developed model, the AGMD performance is systematically investigated in terms of permeate flux, energy efficiency, and temperature and concentration polarization effects, and the results are compared with direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD). The results showed that the feed temperature had the most significant impact on the permeate flux and energy efficiency. The thickness of the air-gap and the flow rate were found to be the second most effective parameters. In contrast, the membrane thermal conductivity and porosity did not play a determining role. A 60% increase in the feed temperature increased the permeate flux and energy efficiency by 200 and 2%, respectively. By increasing the flow rate from 0.2 to 8 liters per minute, the permeate flux was enhanced by 67.19%. The air-gap thickness increment from 0.6 to 5.6 mm caused a 36.8% reduction in the permeate flux. In our comparative study, the permeate flux and the gained output ratio for DCMD were 56.6 and 27.3% higher as compared to AGMD at the same conditions. However, the thermal efficiency of the AGMD process was 24.7% larger than that of the DCMD process. The developed model provides solutions to minimize the undesirable effects of temperature and concentration polarization and proposes an optimum design map to achieve higher energy efficiency and permeate flux.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it