ArticleMembranes2023
Experimental Evaluation of the Process Performance of MF and UF Membranes for the Removal of Nanoplastics.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoplastics in water and wastewater: remediation technologies, challenges, and future perspectives.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Review
- From Plastic Pollution to Remediation Solutions: Micro/Nanofiber-Based Strategies for Microplastic and Nanoplastic Removal.Membranes · 2026Review
- Separation of Organic Carbon and Nutrients from Liquid Waste by Using Membrane Technologies.Membranes · 2026Review
- Water filtration using softwood membranes provides a nature-based solution for nanoplastic removal.Communications earth & environment · 2026Article
- Characterization of nanoplastics and small-sized microplastics in sewage treatment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Remediation of Micro- and Nanoplastics by Membrane Technologies.Membranes · 2025Review
- Recycling Lithium-Ion Batteries-Technologies, Environmental, Human Health, and Economic Issues-Mini-Systematic Literature Review.Membranes · 2024Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.