ArticleMembranes2024
Separation of Antibiotics Using Two Commercial Nanofiltration Membranes-Experimental Study and Modelling.
Article in Membranes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotics in the Environment: Occurrence, Enhanced Removal Strategies and Future Prospects.Toxics · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Application of Industrial NF and RO Membranes in Separation of Post-Fermentation Solutions: Preliminary Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
The widespread use of antimicrobial drugs has contributed to the increasing trace levels of contaminants in the environment, posing an environmental problem and a challenge to modern-day medicine seeking advanced solutions. Nanofiltration is one such breakthrough solution for the selective removal of antibiotics from wastewater due to their high efficiency, scalability, and versatility. This study examines the separation of antibiotics (sulfamethoxazole (SMX), trimethoprim (TMP), and metformin (MET), respectively) using commercially available membranes with an emphasis on AFC membranes (AFC 30 and AFC 80). Thus, we evaluate their efficacy, performance, and applicability in wastewater treatment processes. The data for characterizing the structural parameters of the NF membranes were determined from an uncharged organic solute rejection experiment, and the effect of various operating conditions on the retention of solutes was evaluated. All experimental data were collected using a laboratory-scale nanofiltration unit and HPLC, and rejection percentages were determined using analytical measurements. The results obtained allowed for the determination of the radius of the membrane pores using the Steric Hindrance Pore (SHP) model, resulting in values of 0.353 and 0.268 nm for the AFC 30 and AFC 80 membranes, respectively. Additionally, higher transmembrane pressure and feed flow were observed to lead to an increased rejection of antibiotics. AFC 30 demonstrated a rejection of 94% for SMX, 87% for TMP, and 87% for MET, while AFC 80 exhibited a rejection of 99.5% for SMX, 97.5% for TMP, and 98% for MET. The sieving effect appears to be the primary separation mechanism for AFC 30, as lower feed-flow rates were observed to intensify concentration polarization, thereby compromising rejection efficiency. On the contrary, AFC 80 experienced less concentration polarization due to its smaller pore sizes, effectively preventing pore clogging. Membrane performance was evaluated using the Spiegler-Kedem-Katchalsky model, based on irreversible thermodynamics, which effectively explained the mechanism of solute transport of antibiotics through the AFC 30 and AFC 80 membranes in the NF process.
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.