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 OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Amin Halali, Charles‐François de Lannoy

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207