ReviewMembranes2022
Adsorptive Membrane for Boron Removal: Challenges and Future Prospects.
Review in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Boron-tolerant bacteria in bioremediation: mechanisms, applications, and prospects for environmental sustainability.Sustainable microbiology · 2026Review
- Novel fabrication techniques for HKUST-1 adsorptive nanocomposite membrane for heavy metals removal from wastewater.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Polymeric Membranes for Liquid Separation: Innovations in Materials, Fabrication, and Industrial Applications.Polymers · 2024Review
- Preparation and Performance Study of Boron Adsorbent from Plasma-Grafted Polypropylene Melt-Blown Fibers.Polymers · 2024Article
- Graphene oxide functionalized withRSC advances · 2024Article
- Effective Removal of Boron from Aqueous Solutions by Inorganic Adsorbents: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The complexity of removing boron compounds from aqueous systems has received serious attention among researchers and inventors in the water treating industry. This is due to the higher level of boron in the aquatic ecosystem, which is caused by the geochemical background and anthropogenic factors. The gradual increase in the distribution of boron for years can become extremely toxic to humans, terrestrial organisms and aquatic organisms. Numerous methods of removing boron that have been executed so far can be classified under batch adsorption, membrane-based processes and hybrid techniques. Conventional water treatments such as coagulation, sedimentation and filtration do not significantly remove boron, and special methods would have to be installed in order to remove boron from water resources. The blockage of membrane pores by pollutants in the available membrane technologies not only decreases their performance but can make the membranes prone to fouling. Therefore, the surface-modifying flexibility in adsorptive membranes can serve as an advantage to remove boron from water resources efficiently. These membranes are attractive because of the dual advantage of adsorption/filtration mechanisms. Hence, this review is devoted to discussing the capabilities of an adsorptive membrane in removing boron. This study will mainly highlight the issues of commercially available adsorptive membranes and the drawbacks of adsorbents incorporated in single-layered adsorptive membranes. The idea of layering adsorbents to form a highly adsorptive dual-layered membrane for boron removal will be proposed. The future prospects of boron removal in terms of the progress and utilization of adsorptive membranes along with recommendations for improving the techniques will also be discussed further.
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.