Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35207108›Full record

ArticleMembranes2022

Permeate Flux in Ultrafiltration Processes-Understandings and Misunderstandings.

Robert W Field, Jun Jie Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Purifying circular RNA by ultrafiltration.Separation and purification technology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Robert W FieldFaculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle NE1 8ST, UK.
Jun Jie WuDepartment of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concentration polarization refers to the rapid emergence of concentration gradients at a membrane/solution interface resulting from selective transfer through the membrane. It is distinguishable from fouling in at least two ways: (1) the state of the molecules involved (in solution for concentration polarization, although no longer in solution for fouling); and (2) by the timescale, normally less than a minute for concentration polarization, although generally at least two or more orders of magnitude more for fouling. Thus the phenomenon of flux decline occurring over a timescale of tens of minutes should not be attributed to concentration polarization establishing itself. This distinction and a number of questions surrounding modelling are addressed and clarified. There are two paradigmatic approaches for modelling flux, one uses the overall driving force (in which case allowance for osmotic effects are expressed as additional resistances) and the other uses the net driving force across the separating layer or fouled separating layer, although often the two are unfortunately comingled. In the discussion of flux decline models' robust approaches for the determination of flux-time relationships, including the integral method of fouling analysis, are discussed and various concepts clarified. The final section emphases that for design purposes, pilot plant data are vital.

Indexed as

concentration polarizationdesignfoulingmodes of foulingosmotic model

Identifiers

PMID35207108
PMCPMC8875253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.