ArticleWater science & technology, water supply2024
Rejection of malathion by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes exposed to foulant and two clean-in-place procedures.
Article in Water science & technology, water supply, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This research tested the treatment efficacy of an Energy Savings Nanofiltration 1 Low Fouling (ESNA 1-LF) nanofiltration (NF) and an Energy Saving Polyamide 2 (ESPA2) reverse osmosis (RO) membrane for removing malathion from water. Both membranes are of composite polyamide construction. The study included measuring malathion rejection using both pristine membranes and membranes exposed to a simulated secondary wastewater effluent foulant before and after two types of clean-in-place procedures. Across all conditions studied, malathion rejection ranged from 84 to 95% for the ESNA1-LF NF membrane and 77 to 94% for the ESPA2 RO membrane. Contact angle measurements were also collected for each membrane exposure condition. While the contact angle measurements indicated changes to the hydrophobicity of the selective layer of the membranes, they did not correlate to changes in the performance of malathion rejection. As expected, it was observed that malathion rejection improved with the introduction of foulant. Also, the clean-in-place procedures helped restore flux while maintaining malathion rejection.
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.