ArticleMembranes2025
Characterization of the Regenerative Capacity of Membranes in the Presence of Fouling by Microalgae Using Detergents.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The filtration of microalgae generates fouling through algal matter and exopolymer particles with consequences for the flow rate. Therefore, regeneration that is as complete and continuous as possible is necessary. For this purpose, a commercial membrane with a pore size of 0.8 µm is contaminated with the microalgae mixture Haematoccocus Pluvialis and Tetradesmus obliquus, and then regenerated with mechanical (backwashing), chemical (HCl, NaOH, NaClO, P3-Ultrasil) and biological (dishwashing and laundry detergents) cleaning methods. The filtration time of the individual experiments is compared with a new membrane, and the increase is determined. Backwashing cleans the pores, but the biofilm sticks to the membrane surface and blocks the pores shortly after a new cycle. It was shown that the biofilm can only be removed chemically through oxidative effects or anionic surfactants. Hydrolysis does not remove the biofilm, and it can actually make the blockage worse. Bigger cellular residues can only be removed with enzymes. This improves cleaning performance by 61% compared to commercial cleaning agents for membranes and 42% compared to backwashing.
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.