ArticleMembranes2020
Rapid Surface Modification of Ultrafiltration Membranes for Enhanced Antifouling Properties.
Article in Membranes, 2020. 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.
- Advancements in Nanoparticle Deposition Techniques for Diverse Substrates: A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Application of Cyclized Polyacrylonitrile for Ultrafiltration Membrane Fouling Mitigation.Membranes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, several ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with enhanced antifouling properties were fabricated using a rapid and green surface modification method that was based on the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD). Two types of hydrophilic monomers-acrylic acid (AA) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) were, respectively, deposited on the surface of a commercial UF membrane and the effects of plasma deposition time (i.e., 15 s, 30 s, 60 s, and 90 s) on the surface properties of the membrane were investigated. The modified membranes were then subjected to filtration using 2000 mg/L pepsin and bovine serum albumin (BSA) solutions as feed. Microscopic and spectroscopic analyses confirmed the successful deposition of AA and HEMA on the membrane surface and the decrease in water contact angle with increasing plasma deposition time strongly indicated the increase in surface hydrophilicity due to the considerable enrichment of the hydrophilic segment of AA and HEMA on the membrane surface. However, a prolonged plasma deposition time (>15 s) should be avoided as it led to the formation of a thicker coating layer that significantly reduced the membrane pure water flux with no significant change in the solute rejection rate. Upon 15-s plasma deposition, the AA-modified membrane recorded the pepsin and BSA rejections of 83.9% and 97.5%, respectively, while the HEMA-modified membrane rejected at least 98.5% for both pepsin and BSA. Compared to the control membrane, the AA-modified and HEMA-modified membranes also showed a lower degree of flux decline and better flux recovery rate (>90%), suggesting that the membrane antifouling properties were improved and most of the fouling was reversible and could be removed via simple water cleaning process. We demonstrated in this work that the PECVD technique is a promising surface modification method that could be employed to rapidly improve membrane surface hydrophilicity (15 s) for the enhanced protein purification process without using any organic solvent during the plasma modification process.
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.