Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37505049›Full record

ArticleMembranes2023

Experimental Evaluation of the Process Performance of MF and UF Membranes for the Removal of Nanoplastics.

Serena Molina, Helena Ocaña-Biedma, Laura Rodríguez-Sáez, Junkal Landaburu-Aguirre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Membranes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Serena MolinaIMDEA Water Institute, Punto Com. nº 2, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7316-0019
Helena Ocaña-BiedmaIMDEA Water Institute, Punto Com. nº 2, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Laura Rodríguez-SáezIMDEA Water Institute, Punto Com. nº 2, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8502-6389
Junkal Landaburu-AguirreIMDEA Water Institute, Punto Com. nº 2, 28805 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8546-4127

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the high removal ability of the wastewater treatment technologies, research efforts have been limited to the relatively large-sized microplastics, leaving nanoplastics outside the studied size spectrum. This study aims to evaluate the process performance of MF and UF membranes for the removal of single and mixed solutions of polystyrene nanospheres (120 and 500 nm) and BSA. The process performance was evaluated in terms of the rejection coefficient, the normalized flux, and the permeability recovery. The fouling mechanism of these pollutants was studied, evaluating the effect of different membrane materials, membrane pore sizes, and nanoplastic sizes, as well as the synergetic effect of the mixture of foulants. This study was complemented by surface membrane characterization. Polystyrene nanospheres were successfully removed with all the membranes studied, except for the MF membrane that obtained PS 120 nm rejection coefficients of 26%. Single nanoplastic particles were deposited in UF membranes creating a pore blocking and cake layer formation, whilst the nanoplastics of 120 nm were accumulated inside the MF membrane creating an internal pore blocking. In mixed solutions, the BSA acted in two different ways: (i) as a stabilizer, hindering the deposition of nanoplastics and (ii) as a main foulant that caused a substantial flux reduction.

Indexed as

BSAmembrane process performancemicrofiltration membranesnanoplasticssynergetic effectultrafiltration membraneswastewater treatment

Identifiers

PMID37505049
PMCPMC10384815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.