MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210473977 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2022.101627

Methods for stability assessment of electrically conductive membranes

2022· article· en· W4210473977 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembraneMaterials scienceGlutaraldehydeChemical engineeringPassivationMicrofiltrationCoatingUltrafiltration (renal)Cellulose triacetateComposite materialChemistryChromatographyPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface properties of electrically conductive membranes (ECMs) govern their advanced abilities. During operation, these properties may differ considerably from their initially measured properties. Depending on their operating conditions, ECMs may undergo various degrees of passivation. ECM passivation can detrimentally impact their real time performance, causing large deviations from expected behaviour based on their initially measured properties. Quantifying these changes will enable consistent performance comparisons across the active and electrically conductive membrane research field. As such, consistent methods must be established to quantify ECM membrane properties. In this work, we proposed three standardized methods to assess the electrochemical, chemical, and physical stability of such membrane coatings: 1) electrochemical oxidation, 2) surface scratch testing, and 3) pressurized leaching. ECMs were synthesized by the most common approach - coating support ultrafiltration (UF) and/or microfiltration (MF) polyethersulfone (PES) membranes with carbon nanotubes (CNT) cross-linked with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and two types of cross-linkers (either succinic acid (SA) or glutaraldehyde (GA)). We then evaluated these ECMs based on the three standardized methods: 1) We evaluated electrochemical stability as a function of electro-oxidation induced by applying anodic potentials. 2) We measured the scratch resistance to quantify the surface mechanical stability. 3) We measured physical stability by quantifying the leaching of PVA during separation of a model foulant (polyethylene oxide (PEO)). Our methods can be extended to all types of electrically conductive membranes including MF, UF, nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO) ECMs. We propose that these fundamental measurements are critical to assessing the viability of ECMs for industrial MF, UF, NF, and RO applications.•Anodic-oxidation was used to check the electrochemical stability of ECMs•Depth of penetration resulted from scratch test is an indicator of the electrically conductive membrane coating's mechanical stability•The leaching of the main components forming the nanolayer was quantified to assess the membranes' physical stability.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.359 · 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