Modelling the Molecular Permeation through Mixed-Matrix Membranes Incorporating Tubular Fillers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Membrane-based processes are considered a promising separation method for many chemical and environmental applications such as pervaporation and gas separation. Numerous polymeric membranes have been used for these processes due to their good transport properties, ease of fabrication, and relatively low fabrication cost per unit membrane area. However, these types of membranes are suffering from the trade-off between permeability and selectivity. Mixed-matrix membranes, comprising a filler phase embedded into a polymer matrix, have emerged in an attempt to partly overcome some of the limitations of conventional polymer and inorganic membranes. Among them, membranes incorporating tubular fillers are new nanomaterials having the potential to transcend Robeson's upper bound. Aligning nanotubes in the host polymer matrix in the permeation direction could lead to a significant improvement in membrane permeability. However, although much effort has been devoted to experimentally evaluating nanotube mixed-matrix membranes, their modelling is mostly based on early theories for mass transport in composite membranes. In this study, the effective permeability of mixed-matrix membranes with tubular fillers was estimated from the steady-state concentration profile within the membrane, calculated by solving the Fick diffusion equation numerically. Using this approach, the effects of various structural parameters, including the tubular filler volume fraction, orientation, length-to-diameter aspect ratio, and permeability ratio were assessed. Enhanced relative permeability was obtained with vertically aligned nanotubes. The relative permeability increased with the filler-polymer permeability ratio, filler volume fraction, and the length-to-diameter aspect ratio. For water-butanol separation, mixed-matrix membranes using polydimethylsiloxane with nanotubes did not lead to performance enhancement in terms of permeability and selectivity. The results were then compared with analytical prediction models such as the Maxwell, Hamilton-Crosser and Kang-Jones-Nair (KJN) models. Overall, this work presents a useful tool for understanding and designing mixed-matrix membranes with tubular fillers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".