ArticleMembranes2025
Flux and Fouling Behavior of Graphene Oxide-Polyphenylsulfone Ultrafiltration Membranes Incorporating ZIF-67/ZIF-8 Fillers.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wider adoption of membrane technology is hindered by fouling and flux/rejection challenges. Recent practice in mitigating these is to incorporate hydrophilic and porous fillers. Herein the addition of hydrophilic graphene oxide (GO) in conjunction with porous mixed ZIFs (ZIF-67/ZIF-8) crystallites were used as inorganic fillers in the preparation of polyphenylenesulfone (PPSU) ultrafiltration (UF) membranes. The morphology of the resultant composite membranes was assessed using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) whilst surface hydrophilicity through water contact angle. The pure water flux (PWF) and membrane permeability were found to increase with increasing filler content. This was attributed to the combined hydrophilicity of GO and porous structure of the ZIF materials because of increasing alternative water pathways in the membrane matrix with increasing filler content. Furthermore, the increase in the ZIF component led to increasing bovine serum albumin (BSA) fouling resistance as demonstrated by increasing fouling recovery ratio (FRR). The dye rejection was due to a combination of electrostatic interaction between the fillers and the dyes as well as size exclusion. The chemical interactions between the ZIFs and the dyes resulted in slightly different rejection profiles for the smaller dyes, the cationic methylene blue being rejected less efficiently than the anionic methyl orange, potentially leading to their separation. The larger anionic dye, Congo red was rejected predominately through size exclusion.
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.