Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 14;9(11):e22343. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22343

Table 2.

Comparison with traditional SLM.

Type of process Conditions Removal efficiency Ref.
SLM with microporous hydrophobic PVDF film [Co]feed = 10 mol/m3, feed pH = 6.00, [Cyanex272] memb. = 750 mol/m3
[H2 SO4 ]strip = 100 mol/m3 		50 % at 7 h
99.99 % at 24 h		 47
SLM with millipore Durapore GVHP4700 PVDF Feed phase: 0.01 g/l cobalt (II) at pH 4.75. Membrane phase: (10 % v/v DP8R + 10 % v/vAcorga M5640) in Exxsol D100. [ H2 SO4 ]strip = 25 g/L 77.9 % at 4 h [51]
SLM with Millipore Durapore GVHP 10 0.265 kg/m3 cobalt(II) solutions in 0.2 M acetate buffer, pH 5,
Membrane phase: 10 % solution of CYANEX 272 in commercial paraffin
H2 SO4 ]strip = 0.2 M		 34.91 % at 2 h [52]
EME with SLM polypropylene membrane sheet SLM: 1-octanol with DEHP (1 % v/v), feed solution: 15 mg/l cobalt (II) in deionized water; acceptor solution: 0.1 M HCl; stirring rate: 1000 rpm; voltage: 60 V; pH: 5 87 % at 6 h Present work