ArticleMembranes2025
Evaluation of a Non-Stagnant Water Gap in Hollow-Fiber Membrane Distillation and Multistage Performance Limitations.
Article in Membranes, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hollow-fiber water gap membrane distillation (HF-WGMD) modules are gaining attention for desalination applications due to their compact design and high surface-area-to-volume ratio. This study presents a comprehensive CFD model to analyze and compare the performance of two HF-WGMD module configurations: one with a conventional stagnant water gap (WG) and the other incorporating water gap flow circulation. The model was validated against experimental data, showing excellent agreement, and was then used to simulate flow patterns in the feed, water gap, and coolant domains. Results indicate that, at a feed temperature of 80 °C with a stagnant WG, employing a turbulent flow scheme in the feed side increases water flux by 20.7% compared to laminar flow, while increasing coolant flow rate has a minor impact. In contrast, introducing circulation within the water gap significantly enhances performance, boosting water flux by 30.1%. This effect becomes more pronounced with rising feed temperature: increasing from 50 °C to 80 °C leads to a flux increase from 6.74 to 27.89 kg/(m
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.