Organic Compounds Responsible for the Fouling of Ultrafiltration Membrane Treating Algae-Laden Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fouling comparisons of the organic fractions in surface and algae-laden waters make it possible to determine the main compounds responsible for the fouling of ultrafiltration (UF) membranes. This study examined the fouling of UF membranes and its relationship to the characteristics of the organic fractions found in drinking-water supply. Four types of water were prepared by combining natural organic matter (NOM) from lake water with algal organic matter (AOM) from four algae species commonly found in freshwater. Liquid chromatography-organic carbon detection (LC-OCD) and a fluorescence excitation-emission matrix (FEEM) were used to analyze the feed water and permeate to assess the interactions between and fouling behavior of the organic fractions. The results showed that the interaction of large-molecular-weight AOMs on the membrane surfaces and their transport through the membrane pores were the main fouling mechanisms. Polysaccharides followed by protein-like substances were the organic compounds responsible for the fouling of the UF membranes. The fouling affinity of these substances was attributed to two processes, the adsorption of their carboxyl, hydroxyl and cationic groups on the membrane surfaces, and the molecular complexation of their organic groups. The humic substances' retention was marginal and attributed to the synergetic effects of the polysaccharides and proteins.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".