2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.08.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing potential of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for removal of toxic pharmaceuticals from water

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
53
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 154 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
3
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Correspondingly, as indicated in Table 3 , electrospinning and phase inversion are the most frequently applied methods to manufacture PVDF, PSF, CA membranes predominantly exploited for the rejection of EDCs from potable and synthetic water. Technically, the phase inversion method comprises non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) (a leading method), thermal phase separation, and regulated evaporation, and lastly, vapor induced phase inversion (VIPS) [ 112 ]. Most of the composite membranes utilized in the rejection of EDCs contaminants possess pore size ranged from 0.0003–357 µm, which is comparatively lower than the size of some EDCs contaminants, therefore might be efficient to retain some of the EDCs contaminants during the membrane filtration processes as indicated in Table 3 .…”
Section: Rejection Of Edcs By Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Correspondingly, as indicated in Table 3 , electrospinning and phase inversion are the most frequently applied methods to manufacture PVDF, PSF, CA membranes predominantly exploited for the rejection of EDCs from potable and synthetic water. Technically, the phase inversion method comprises non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) (a leading method), thermal phase separation, and regulated evaporation, and lastly, vapor induced phase inversion (VIPS) [ 112 ]. Most of the composite membranes utilized in the rejection of EDCs contaminants possess pore size ranged from 0.0003–357 µm, which is comparatively lower than the size of some EDCs contaminants, therefore might be efficient to retain some of the EDCs contaminants during the membrane filtration processes as indicated in Table 3 .…”
Section: Rejection Of Edcs By Membranesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… SEM micrographs at ( a ) low and ( b ) high magnification of the cross-section of S/O = 2, and ( c ) cross-section of NF90 (image reprinted from Ref [ 27 ] with permission from Elsevier, 2018). …”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mechanisms of nanofiltration membrane to remove organic micropollutants usually consisted of electrostatic interaction, hydrophobic interaction, and steric hindrance [21]. Licona et al [22] studied the effect of surface properties of nanofiltration membrane on the rejection performance of many kinds of phAc under different pH value conditions. They found that the rejection performance of nanofiltration membrane was affected by many factors, and this effect was the result of the interaction of many kinds of forces.…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%