Reverse osmosis membrane biofouling

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Curt Flemming
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (9) ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Mohiuddin Md. Taimur Khan ◽  
William Mickols ◽  
Steffen Danielsen ◽  
Keith Thomsen ◽  
Anne Camper

2015 ◽  
Vol 477 ◽  
pp. 86-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Hee Kim ◽  
Myung Seop Shin ◽  
Sung-Jo Kim ◽  
Chang-Min Kim ◽  
Kyu-Jung Chae ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R.R. Pintelon ◽  
Sarah A. Creber ◽  
Daniel A. Graf von der Schulenburg ◽  
Michael L. Johns

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (8) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Mohiuddin Md. Taimur Khan ◽  
William Mickols ◽  
Steffen Danielsen ◽  
Keith Thomsen ◽  
Anne Camper

2018 ◽  
Vol 549 ◽  
pp. 495-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Wang ◽  
Zhi Wang ◽  
Jixiao Wang ◽  
Shichang Wang

Author(s):  
H. K. Plummer ◽  
E. Eichen ◽  
C. D. Melvin

Much of the work reported in the literature on cellulose acetate reverse osmosis membranes has raised new and important questions with regard to the dense or “active” layer of these membranes. Several thickness values and structures have been attributed to the dense layer. To ensure the correct interpretation of the cellulose acetate structure thirteen different preparative techniques have been used in this investigation. These thirteen methods included various combinations of water substitution, freeze drying, freeze sectioning, fracturing, embedding, and microtomy techniques with both transmission and scanning electron microscope observations.It was observed that several factors can cause a distortion of the structure during sample preparation. The most obvious problem of water removal can cause swelling, shrinking, and folds. Improper removal of embedding materials, when used, can cause a loss of electron image contrast and, or structure which could hinder interpretation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document