1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0376-7388(99)00067-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Permeation and tangential flow streaming potential measurements for electrokinetic characterization of track-etched microfiltration membranes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
35
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, in the case of the template zeta potential, it is possible that values at the outside surface and within the pore walls differ. However, values obtained by streaming potential measurements of PC membranes, as shown in literature [16], are quite similar to values obtained by our method, at least for membranes with 100-200 nm pores. In addition, the data measured for AAM samples show reasonable agreement with reports from the literature [17] as well.…”
Section: Zeta Potentialsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, in the case of the template zeta potential, it is possible that values at the outside surface and within the pore walls differ. However, values obtained by streaming potential measurements of PC membranes, as shown in literature [16], are quite similar to values obtained by our method, at least for membranes with 100-200 nm pores. In addition, the data measured for AAM samples show reasonable agreement with reports from the literature [17] as well.…”
Section: Zeta Potentialsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Thus, the measured values for AAM zeta potential showed a reasonably close trend to the actual values. Similarly, the PC values were also quite close to those reported in the literature [16].…”
Section: Zeta Potentialsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results from the limiting hydrodynamic pressure measurement can also be used to calculate µ eo , see (Zeng et al 2001): where Δp lim is the limiting hydrodynamic pressure and r the pore radius (0.2 µm), resulting in ζ = −1.9 ± 0.1 mV (corrected with α = 0.9), which is much smaller in magnitude than reported by others, e.g., −25 mV at pH = 6, for both pure polycarbonate and PVP-treated polycarbonate membranes (Kirby and Hasselbrink 2004;Lettmann et al 1999). Note that both ζ and eo should be calculated with the actual potential drop across the membrane, which we estimate to be about 75% of the actual applied potential, meaning that we have underestimated each by ~ 33%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…34,57 Previously reported data shows that the EOP using a polycarbonate should be able to produce even higher flow rates than what we reported; it was not determined if the difference in electroosmotic mobility was due to the coating of the membrane with residues from the PEDOT electrodes or whether it was caused by altering pH in the measuring chamber.…”
Section: Figure 8 Polyethylene Glycol (Peg)mentioning
confidence: 64%