Transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) and their precursors are gel-like acidic polysaccharide particles. Both TEP precursors and TEP have been identified as causal factors in fouling of desalination and water treatment systems. For comparison between studies, it is important to accurately measure the amount and fouling capacity of both components. However, the accuracy and recovery of the currently used Alcian blue based TEP measurement of different surrogates and different size fractions are not well understood. In this study, we compared Alcian blue based TEP measurements with a total carbohydrate assay method. Three surrogates; xanthan gum, pectin and alginic acid; were evaluated at different salinities. Total carbohydrate concentrations of particulates (>0.4 μm) and their precursors (<0.4 μm, >10 kDa) varied depending on water salinity and method of recovery. As xanthan gum is the most frequently used surrogate in fouling studies, TEP concentration is expressed as xanthan gum equivalents (mg XGeq/L) in this study. At a salinity of 35 mg/L sea salt, total carbohydrate assays showed a much higher particulate TEP fraction for alginic acid (38%) compared to xanthan gum (9%) and pectin (12%). The concentrations of particulate TEP therefore may only represent ∼10% of the total mass; while precursor TEP represents ∼80% of the total TEP. This highlights the importance of reporting both particulate and precursor TEP for membrane biofouling studies. The calculated concentrations of TEP and their precursors in seawater samples are also highly dependent on type of surrogate and resulting calibration factor. A linear correlation between TEP recovery and calibration factor was demonstrated in this study for all three surrogates. The relative importance and accuracy of measurement method, particulate size, surrogate type, and recovery are described in detail in this study.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#8,103
of 11,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#342,778
of 448,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#161
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
