ArticleBMC research notes2026
Methodological estimation of pore size in hen eggshell membranes.
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.
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
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
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.