ArticleMembranes2022
MXene (Ti
Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymer Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes Containing Inorganic Modifiers: Functional Properties and Performance-Review.Polymers · 2026Review
- Extracellular Polymeric Substance-Intercalated MXene Membranes Toward Removal of Emerging Contaminants.Membranes · 2026Article
- Composite Membranes Based on MXene and Nanocellulose for Water Purification: Structure, Efficiency, and Future Prospects.Membranes · 2025Review
- Article
- MXene/Carbon Nanocomposites for Water Treatment.Membranes · 2024Review
- Article
- Stability of Ion Exchange Membranes in Electrodialysis.Membranes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstacles in the membrane-based separation field are mainly related to membrane fouling. This study involved the synthesis and utilization of covalently crosslinked MXene/cellulose acetate mixed matrix membranes with MXene at different concentrations (CCAM-0% to CCAM-12%) for water purification applications. The membranes' water flux, dye, and protein rejection performances were compared using dead-end (DE) and crossflow (CF) filtration. The fabricated membranes, especially CCAM-10%, exhibited high hydrophilicity, good surface roughness, significantly high water flux, high water uptake, and high porosity. A significantly higher flux was observed in CF filtration relative to DE filtration. Moreover, in CF filtration, the CCAM-10% membrane exhibited 96.60% and 99.49% rejection of methyl green (MG) and bovine serum albumin (BSA), respectively, while maintaining a flux recovery ratio of 67.30% and an irreversible fouling ratio at (
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.