ArticleMembranes2022
A Comparison between Various Polymeric Membranes for Oily Wastewater Treatment via Membrane Distillation Process.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Permeation Flux Prediction of Vacuum Membrane Distillation Using Hybrid Machine Learning Techniques.Membranes · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Oily wastewater (OW) is detrimental towards the environment and human health. The complex composition of OW needs an advanced treatment, such as membrane technology. Membrane distillation (MD) gives the highest rejection percentage of pollutants in wastewater, as the membrane only allows the vapor to pass its microporous membrane. However, the commercial membranes on the market are less efficient in treating OW, as they are prone to fouling. Thus, the best membrane must be identified to treat OW effectively. This study tested and compared the separation performance of different membranes, comparing the pressure-driven performance between the membrane filtration and MD. In this study, several ultrafiltration (UF) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes (NFS, NFX, XT, MT, GC and FILMTEC) were tested for their performance in treating OW (100 ppm). The XT and MT membranes (UF membrane) with contact angles of 70.4 ± 0.2° and 69.6 ± 0.26°, respectively, showed the best performance with high flux and oil removal rate. The two membranes were then tested for long-term performance for two hours with 5000 ppm oil concentration using membrane pressure-filtration and MD. The XT membrane displayed a better oil removal percentage of >99%. MD demonstrated a better removal percentage; the flux reduction was high, with average flux reduction of 82% compared to the membrane pressure-filtration method, which experienced a lower flux reduction of 25%. The hydrophilic MT and XT membranes have the tendency to overcome fouling in both methods. However, for the MD method, wetting occurred due to the feed penetrating the membrane pores, causing flux reduction. Therefore, it is important to identify the performance and characteristics of the prepared membrane, including the best membrane treatment method. To ensure that the MD membrane has good anti-fouling and anti-wetting properties, a simple and reliable membrane surface modification technique is required to be explored. The modified dual layer membrane with hydrophobic/hydrophilic properties is expected to produce effective separation in MD for future study.
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.