ArticleMembranes2022
Direct Purification of Digestate Using Polymeric Ultrafiltration Membranes: Influence of Materials on Filtration Behavior and Fouling Characteristics.
Article in Membranes, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimized Ultrafiltration Membrane Based on Acrylic Fiber Waste for Organic Compounds Removal from Wastewater.Membranes · 2025Article
- State-of-the-Art of Polymer/Fullerene CMembranes · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In-depth exploration of filtration behavior and fouling characteristics of polymeric ultrafiltration (UF) membranes can provide guidance for the selection of materials and the control of membrane fouling during the purification of digestate. In this study, four types of polymeric membranes, (polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone (PS), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and polyacrylonitrile (PAN)), were employed to filter digestate from swine manure. The results showed that the viscosity of the digestate dropped from 45.0 ± 11.3 mPa·s to 18.0 ± 9.8 mPa·s, with an increase in temperature from 30.0 °C to 45.0 °C. The four membrane fluxes all increased by more than 30%, with the cross flow velocity increasing from 1.0 m s−1 to 2.0 m s−1. During the batch experiments, the flux maintenance abilities of the membranes were in the order: PAN > PS > PVDF > PES. There were no significant differences in the effects of membrane materials on the removal of COD, TN, and TP (p < 0.05). For UV254 removal efficiency, PS showed the highest efficiency (68.6%), while PVDF showed the lowest efficiency (63.4%). The major fouling type was irreversible hydraulic fouling, and the main elements of scaling were C, O, S, and Ca. Pseudomonadales were the dominant bacteria in the PS (26.2%) and in the PVDF (51.4%) fouling layers, while Bacteroidales were the dominant bacteria in the PES (26.8%) and in the PAN (14.7%) fouling layers. The flux recovery rates (FRRs) of the cleaning methods can be arranged as follows: NaClO > NaOH > Citric acid ≈ Tap water. After NaClO cleaning, the PVDF membrance showed the highest FRR (73.1%), and the PAN membrane showed the lowest FRR (30.1%).
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.