ArticleMembranes2022
Non-Supported and PET-Supported Chitosan Membranes for Pervaporation: Production, Characterization, and Performance.
Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop non-supported and PET-supported chitosan membranes that were cross-linked with glutaraldehyde, then evaluate their physical-chemical, morphological, and mechanical properties, and evaluate their performance in the separation of ethanol/water and limonene/linalool synthetic mixtures by hydrophilic and target-organophilic pervaporation, respectively. The presence of a PET layer did not affect most of the physical-chemical parameters of the membranes, but the mechanical properties were enhanced, especially the Young modulus (76 MPa to 398 MPa), tensile strength (16 MPa to 27 MPa), and elongation at break (7% to 26%), rendering the supported membrane more resistant. Regarding the pervaporation tests, no permeate was obtained in target-organophilic pervaporation tests, regardless of membrane type. The support layer influenced the hydrophilic pervaporation parameters of the supported membrane, especially in reducing transmembrane flux (0.397 kg∙m
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.