ArticleMembranes2024
Application of Recycled Ultrafiltration Membranes in an Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor (aMBR): A Validation Study.
Article in Membranes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
A validation study using recycled ultrafiltration membranes (r-UF) on an aerobic membrane bioreactor (aMBR) was conducted for the first time. Four different polyethersulfone (PES) membranes were tested using synthetic urban wastewater (COD 0.4-0.5 g/L) during two experimental periods: (i) recycled ultrafiltration membrane (r-UF) and commercial UF membrane (molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) 150 kDa) (c-150 kDa); (ii) r-UF membrane modified by dip-coating using catechol (CA) and polyethyleneimine (PEI) (mr-UF) and c-20 kDa membrane. Permeability, fouling behavior, and permeate quality were evaluated. Extensive membrane characterization was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX), and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Permeate quality for r-UF and mr-UF membranes was excellent and comparable to that obtained using commercial membranes under similar conditions. Additionally, r-UF and mr-UF membranes presented a steadier performance time. Additionally, r-UF membrane demonstrated less tendency to be fouled (R
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.