The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Flux (Transmembrane Pressure) and Membrane Properties on Fouling and Rejection of Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membranes Treating Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Containing Wastewater
Abstract
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is an emergent contaminant of substantial environmental concerns. In this study, reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes were used to remove this toxic and persistent compound from PFOS-containing wastewater. Five RO membranes and three NF membranes were tested at a feed concentration of 10 ppm PFOS over 4 days, and the PFOS rejection and permeate flux performances were systematically investigated. PFOS rejection was well correlated to sodium chloride rejection. The rejection efficiencies for the RO membranes were > 99%, and those for the NF membranes ranged from 90-99%. Improvement in PFOS rejection, together with mild flux reduction (< 16%), was observed at longer filtration time. Such shifts in rejection and flux performance were probably due to the increased PFOS accumulation at longer duration, as shown by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and liquid chromatograph and tandem mass spectrometry results. A fraction of PFOS molecules might be entrapped in the polyamide layer of the composite membranes, which hindered the further passage of both water and other PFOS molecules. In a similar fashion, PFOS rejection and fouling were enhanced for greater initial flux and/or applied pressure, where PFOS accumulation was promoted probably due to increased hydrodynamic permeate drag. Flux reduction was also shown to correlate to membrane roughness, with the rougher membranes tend to experience more flux reduction than the smoother ones.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife
Giesy, J. P., & Kannan, K. (2001) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es001834k · Cited by 2,750
Cited by
Rahman, M. F., Peldszus, S., & Anderson, W. B. (2014) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.045 · Cited by 1,022
Li, F., Duan, J., Tian, S., Ji, H., Zhu, Y., Wei, Z., & Zhao, D. (2020) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.122506 · Cited by 707
PFAS Molecules: A Major Concern for the Human Health and the Environment
Panieri, E., Baralic, K., Djukic-Cosic, D., Buha Djordjevic, A., & Saso, L. (2022) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics10020044 · Cited by 651
Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review
Kucharzyk, K. H., Darlington, R., Benotti, M., Deeb, R., & Hawley, E. (2017) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016 · Cited by 562
Rayne, S., & Forest, K. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A · doi:10.1080/10934520903139811 · Cited by 475
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, C. Y., Fu, Q. S., Criddle, C. S., & Leckie, J. O.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-02-15
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2008-2014
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2085509557
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.