Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34366551›Full record

ArticleJournal of membrane science2021

2-Aminoimidazole Reduces Fouling and Improves Membrane Performance.

Ariel J Atkinson, Mikayla D Armstrong, John T Eskew, Orlando Coronell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of membrane science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. RSC advances · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ariel J AtkinsonDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4985-7238
Mikayla D ArmstrongDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0381-9324
John T EskewDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Orlando CoronellDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7018-391X
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Biostatstics for Research in Environmental HealthT32ES007018 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel, Rebecca Fry · 1985 to 2026
$31.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofouling is difficult to control and hinders the performance of membranes in all applications but is of particular concern when natural waters are purified. Fouling, via multiple mechanisms (organic-only, biofouling-only, cell-deposition-only, and organic+biofouling), of a commercially available membrane (control) and a corresponding membrane coated with an anti-biofouling 2-aminoimidazole (2-AI membrane) was monitored and characterized during the purification of a natural water. Results show that the amount of bacterial cell deposition and organic fouling was not significantly different between control and 2-AI membranes; however, biofilm formation, concurrent or not with other fouling mechanisms, was significantly inhibited (95-98%, p<0.001) by the 2-AI membrane. The limited biofilm that formed on the 2-AI membrane was weaker (as indicated by the polysaccharide to protein ratio) and thus presumably easier to remove. The conductivity rejection by the 2-AI and control membranes was not significantly different throughout the 75-hour experiments, but the rejection of dissolved organic carbon by biofouled (biofouling-only, cell-deposition-only, and organic+biofouling) 2-AI membranes was statistically higher (10-12%, p=0.003-0.07). When biofouled, the water permeance of the 2-AI membranes decreased significantly less (p<0.05) over 75 hours than that of the control membranes, whether or not other additional types of fouling occurred concurrently. Despite the initially lower water permeances of 2-AI membranes (11% lower on average than controls), the 2-AI membranes outperformed the controls (10-11% higher average water permeance) after biofilm formation occurred. Overall, 2-AI membranes fouled less than controls without detriment to water productivity and solute rejection.

Indexed as

Anti-biofoulingbiofilmmembrane modificationorganic matterreverse osmosis

Identifiers

PMID34366551
PMCPMC8345324
OpenAlexW3137872159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.