ArticleMembranes2023
Ultrafiltration and Nanofiltration for the Removal of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds from Water: The Effect of Operating Pressure on Electrostatic Solute-Membrane Interactions.
Article in Membranes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymer Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes Containing Inorganic Modifiers: Functional Properties and Performance-Review.Polymers · 2026Review
- Effects of PVA/TiOMembranes · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Pressure-Driven Membrane Processes for Removing Microplastics.Membranes · 2025Review
- Comparison of Sulfamethoxazole Removal Efficiency Using Polyethersulfone Ultrafiltration Membrane Modified by Various Methods.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Pharmaceutically Active Compounds Removal: A Solution Diffusion Model Approach.Membranes · 2024Article
- Separation of Antibiotics Using Two Commercial Nanofiltration Membranes-Experimental Study and Modelling.Membranes · 2024Article
- Prediction of Flux and Rejection Coefficients in the Removal of Emerging Pollutants Using a Nanofiltration Membrane.Membranes · 2023Article
- Simulation, Fabrication and Microfiltration Using Dual Anodic Aluminum Oxide Membrane.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present work investigates nanofiltration (NF) and ultrafiltration (UF) for the removal of three widely used pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs), namely atenolol, sulfamethoxazole, and rosuvastatin. Four membranes, two polyamide NF membranes (NF90 and NF270) and two polyethersulfone UF membranes (XT and ST), were evaluated in terms of productivity (permeate flux) and selectivity (rejection of PhACs) at pressures from 2 to 8 bar. Although the UF membranes have a much higher molecular weight cut-off (1000 and 10,000 Da), when compared to the molecular weight of the PhACs (253-482 Da), moderate rejections were observed. For UF, rejections were dependent on the molecular weight and charge of the PhACs, membrane molecular weight cut-off (MWCO), and operating pressure, demonstrating that electrostatic interactions play an important role in the removal of PhACs, especially at low operating pressures. On the other hand, both NF membranes displayed high rejections for all PhACs studied (75-98%). Hence, considering the optimal operating conditions, the NF270 membrane (MWCO = 400 Da) presented the best performance, achieving permeate fluxes of about 100 kg h
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.