ArticleMembranes2025
Surfactant-Enhanced Cleaning Solutions for Ceramic Membranes: A Comparative Study on Humic Acid and BSA Fouling.
Article in Membranes, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Control of natural organic matter (NOM) reversible and irreversible fouling with ceramic membranes for drinking water applications with chemically enhanced backwash (CEB) protocols is limited. This research examines the efficiency of various chemical combinations with non-ionic surfactants to control the NOM fouling caused by humic acid (HA) and protein foulants. Two commercially available non-ionic surfactants, Tween 80 and Triton X100, combined with conventional cleaning solutions, were analyzed with respect to membrane fouling and cleaning using the resistance in series (RIS) model, membrane permeability, carbon mass balance, and contact angle measurements. The results demonstrated that in all cases, CEB outperformed hydraulic backwashing; in addition, the inclusion of surfactants demonstrated enhanced the fouling control with protein foulants more than humic acid. The transmembrane pressure (TMP) with surfactant CEB was controlled to within a range of 83-105 kPa compared to hydraulic backwash at approx. 128 kPa for HA and BSA. The carbon mass balance analysis indicates that Tween 80 surfactant-based CEB demonstrated effective fouling control, leaving only 20% irreversible fouling with HA and 30% with BSA while the hydraulic backwash resulted in 57% irreversible fouling of carbon on the membrane for HA and BSA.
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.