MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367396338 · doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2023.04.007

The influence of multiple fouling and cleaning cycles upon the performance of polyethersulphone membrane filters during coffee extract decaffeination

2023· article· en· W4367396338 on OpenAlex
Triantafyllos K. Manios, Davide Mattia, Michael R. Bird

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Bioproducts Processing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsMembraneUltrafiltration (renal)FoulingFiltration (mathematics)ChemistryChromatographyCleaning agentPermeationMembrane foulingMicrofiltrationChemical engineeringPulp and paper industryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Filtration processes have been applied widely in food processing industry over the recent decades and could offer a viable alternative to the use of solvents in the decaffeination process, comprising low operational costs, high selectivities and mild processing conditions. This paper reports the development and evaluation of the fouling occurring in multiple filtration cycles during the selective reduction of caffeine from coffee brews comparing the performance of (i) a commercially available synthetic tight ultrafiltration (TUF) polyethersulphone (PES) membrane (GP95PP – Alfa Laval) and (ii) a self-made mixed matrix (MMMs) PES membranes (PSCD) fabricated in-house. The effectiveness and performance of the PES MMMs was benchmarked against the commercial 2 kDa PES membranes showing promising results. A cross-flow rig was operated at transmembrane pressures of 2–9 bar and cross-flow velocities (CFV) of 0.04–0.1 m/s at 25 °C. The flux decline and recovery along with changes in the key component rejection and resistances are reported for multiple fouling and cleaning cycles. PSCD exhibited a higher permeate flux of ca. 10.5 L m-2 h-1 compared to the GR95PP membranes, which exhibited a permeate flux of 6.1 L m-2 h-1 over the 29 h filtration period selected, at 9 bar and a CFV of 0.04 m/s. The rejection ratios of the GR95PP and PSCD membranes were monitored for three consecutive filtration cycles, and showed values ca. 30% and 35% for caffeine,> 90% and ∼90% for both polyphenols & proteins, & ∼ 80% for melanoidins, respectively. An effective cleaning protocol was reported, comprised of 0.5 wt% NaOH at 50 °C, exhibiting cleaning efficiencies (CE)> 99%. FT-IR data indicated the presence of key compounds residuals after membrane cleaning. Modification to the membrane surface occurs due to fouling, altering the hydrophobicity. Differences in filtration performance and cleanability between the two classes of membranes are identified and linked to variations in surface and structure properties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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