ArticleMembranes2019
Galactoglucomannan Recovery with Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Membranes: Process Performance and Cost Estimations.
Article in Membranes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enzymatic Conversion of Different Qualities of Refined Softwood Hemicellulose Recovered from Spent Sulfite Liquor.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Hemicellulose Recovery from Spent-Sulfite-Liquor: Lignin Removal by Adsorption to Resins for Improvement of the Ultrafiltration Process.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we compared the GR51PP (hydrophobic/polysulfone) membrane with a series of hydrophilic (regenerated cellulose) membranes with the aim of increasing the retention of products and decreasing membrane fouling. The raw material used was a sodium-based spent sulfite liquor from the sulfite pulping process of spruce and pine. The results show that the hydrophilic membranes were superior to the hydrophobic membranes in terms of higher fluxes (up to twice the magnitude), higher product retentions and less fouling (up to five times lower fouling). The fouling was probably caused by pore blocking as observed in earlier studies. However, the hydrophilic membranes had a lower affinity for lignin, which was indicated by the lower retention and fouling. This also resulted in a separation degree, which was higher compared with the hydrophobic membrane, thus yielding a higher galactoglucomannan (GGM) purity. 2D HSQC NMR results show that no major structural differences were present in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic retentates. A techno-economical evaluation resulted in the RC70PP being chosen as the most cost-efficient membrane in terms of flux and product recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.