Effect of Membrane Orientation and Concentration of Draw Solution on the Behavior of Commercial Osmotic Membrane in a Novel Dynamic Forward Osmosis Tests
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic performance tests, commonly used to characterize gas separation membranes, are not utilized to characterize osmotic membranes. This paper demonstrates the application of a novel dynamic forward osmosis test to characterize a commercial osmotic membrane. In particular, we report the effect of membrane orientation (active layer draw solution (AL-DS) vs. active layer feed solution (AL-FS)) and the draw solution concentration on the membrane’s transient and steady-state behaviors. A step-change in the draw solution concentration initiated the dynamic test, and the mass and concentration of the feed and draw solutions were recorded in real-time. The progress of the experiments in two different membrane orientations is markedly different; also, the draw solution concertation has a different effect in the orientations. A positive salt time lag is observed in both orientations; however, the salt time lag in the AL-FS orientation (4.3−4.6 min) is practically independent of the draw solution concentration, but it increases from 7 to 20 min with the draw solution concertation in the AL-DS orientation. A negative water time lag, ranging from −11 to −20 min depending on the draw solution concentration, is observed in the AL-DS orientation. Still, in the AL-FS orientation, the water flux is practically constant from the experiment’s onset, leading to a negligible water time lag (<1 min). The new method demonstrated in this paper can be a potent tool for characterizing osmotic membranes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it