ArticleMethodsX2022
Methods for stability assessment of electrically conductive membranes.
Article in MethodsX, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surface properties of electrically conductive membranes (ECMs) govern their advanced abilities. During operation, these properties may differ considerably from their initially measured properties. Depending on their operating conditions, ECMs may undergo various degrees of passivation. ECM passivation can detrimentally impact their real time performance, causing large deviations from expected behaviour based on their initially measured properties. Quantifying these changes will enable consistent performance comparisons across the active and electrically conductive membrane research field. As such, consistent methods must be established to quantify ECM membrane properties. In this work, we proposed three standardized methods to assess the electrochemical, chemical, and physical stability of such membrane coatings: 1) electrochemical oxidation, 2) surface scratch testing, and 3) pressurized leaching. ECMs were synthesized by the most common approach - coating support ultrafiltration (UF) and/or microfiltration (MF) polyethersulfone (PES) membranes with carbon nanotubes (CNT) cross-linked with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and two types of cross-linkers (either succinic acid (SA) or glutaraldehyde (GA)). We then evaluated these ECMs based on the three standardized methods: 1) We evaluated electrochemical stability as a function of electro-oxidation induced by applying anodic potentials. 2) We measured the scratch resistance to quantify the surface mechanical stability. 3) We measured physical stability by quantifying the leaching of PVA during separation of a model foulant (polyethylene oxide (PEO)). Our methods can be extended to all types of electrically conductive membranes including MF, UF, nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO) ECMs. We propose that these fundamental measurements are critical to assessing the viability of ECMs for industrial MF, UF, NF, and RO applications.•Anodic-oxidation was used to check the electrochemical stability of ECMs•Depth of penetration resulted from scratch test is an indicator of the electrically conductive membrane coating's mechanical stability•The leaching of the main components forming the nanolayer was quantified to assess the membranes' physical stability.
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.