Feasibility of using polycarbonate as a substrate of thin film composite membrane in forward osmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present study, thin film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes with polycarbonate (PC (and polyether sulfone (PES) as substrates were fabricated to investigate the impact of the structural parameters of substrate on the performance of the membranes. Firstly, the substrates were prepared by Loeb‐Sourirajan method. Characterization techniques including FESEM, contact angle measurement, pure water flux, gas permeability test, and tensile test were applied to investigate the properties of the substrates. After preparing suitable substrates, active layers were fabricated via interfacial polymerization (IP) technique. The performance and characterization test showed that PC is a relatively hydrophilic polymer with a good property for using as a substrate of FO TFC membrane but as the result of gas permeability test show, this membrane has large surface pore size in comparison with PES membrane. Mean pore size of PC and PES membrane is 378 and 139 nm, respectively. Also, the results show that the effective surface porosity of PC (285, 1/m) is more than PES (213, 1/m) substrate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".