Comparison of CTA and TFC FO-membranes for water recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For centuries, mankind has faced water-related issues for it is a limited good of vital importance for\nhuman development. Climate change, pollution and world water scarcity now have given more\nawareness to these problems. However, it is in human societies nature to consume water and return\nit to the environment in a form that is no longer profitable for human use. Ages of developing\ntechniques and systems for water distribution has led to nowadays being able to obtain water from\nour own wastewater. Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) processes are a very important step in\nwater tertiary treatment and furthermore, forward osmosis OMBR (FO-OMBR), which is at the\nvanguard of research and innovation. FO-OMBR uses the water gradient that the difference of osmotic\npressure creates to separate physiochemically water from wastewater. In this project, first steps at\nlaboratory-scale experiments are carried out to characterize osmotic membranes for further use at\npilot-scale. Cellulose triacetate (CTA) has been widely used, and new materials such as thin-film\ncomposite (TFC) polyamide membranes have been produced. Therefore, new work is needed to\ncompare their behavior at different concentration of the osmotic agent while also comparing\nperformances at water recovery, lifespan of membrane and costs. In this work, sodium chloride is\nused as the osmotic agent. Also, the system configuration is considered as a limiting variable at\noperating, so different experiments were carried in both suction and pulsion modes. Impact of the\npump is contemplated too so different pump speed experiments were held. In this study, it was also\nconsidered challenges such as salt loss from the draw solution (DS), so RSD value is reckoned.\nHowever, membrane fouling was not contemplated in this study; further work needs to be done. Once\nthe results were obtained, it was regarded that when operated with TFC membrane better\nperformance of the OMBR is done, as RSD values were lower and permeate volumes higher. Even\nthough no essential differences where seen between suction and pulsion configurations, it was pulsion\nthat showed better performance values
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".