ArticleJournal of membrane science2021
2-Aminoimidazole Reduces Fouling and Improves Membrane Performance.
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.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Correlating the Role of Nanofillers with Active Layer Properties and Performance of Thin-Film Nanocomposite Membranes.Desalination · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.