Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42152007›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2026

Methodological estimation of pore size in hen eggshell membranes.

Masahide Hagiri, Mayuko Suzuki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Masahide HagiriDepartment of Chemistry and Materials Science, Gunma College, National Institute of Technology, 580, Toribamachi, Maebashi, 371-8530, Gunma, Japan. hagiri@gunma-ct.ac.jp.
Mayuko SuzukiDepartment of Applied Chemistry and Biochemistry, Fukushima College, National Institute of Technology, Nagao 30, Taira-Kamiarakawa, Iwaki, 970-8034, Fukushima, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP22H01631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEggshell membranes (ESM) are proteinaceous biobarriers critical to avian embryonic development and microbial exclusion. Despite their importance, quantitative assessments of ESM pore dimensions remain limited. This study aimed to determine the effective pore size of chicken ESM and to validate methodological approaches for its estimation.

resultsTwo orthogonal strategies were employed to evaluate ESM pore architecture. First, pressure-driven pure-water permeation was performed within a low transmembrane pressure range (0.01-0.05 MPa). The resulting flux-pressure data were analyzed using the Guéout-Bjerrum-Manegold relation to approximate average pore dimensions. Second, size-selective filtration experiments were conducted using colloidal silica and polystyrene latex particles ranging from 14 to 204 nm. Rejection rates were plotted against particle size and interpreted through the Ferry-Renkin model to derive effective pore estimates. Comparison of the two methods demonstrated strong consistency, supporting their mutual applicability. While numerical outcomes suggested pore dimensions on the order of ~ 100-200 nm, the emphasis of this work lies in validating complementary approaches. Together, these techniques provide a robust framework for probing semipermeable biological barriers and open avenues for applying ESM, an abundant biowaste, in bioinspired membrane technologies and biosafety studies.

Indexed as

Egg ShellAnimalsChickensFiltrationMembranesParticle SizePermeabilityPorosityPressureSilicon DioxideWaterSilicon DioxideWaterBiological membraneColloidal rejectionEggshell membraneMembrane characterizationPore size estimationWater permeability

Identifiers

PMID42152007
PMCPMC13352705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.