Talk:Ultrafiltration

message: 1. Go into discussion on which types of ultrafiltration can be used at specific sizes, maybe going into discussion of batch versus continuous processes.
2. Talk about industrial applications for the different kinds of ultrafiltrations.
3. Go into the math of performance metrics and flow, and calculation of optimal TMPs.
4. Problems with the technique.
--Revwar98 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General tips 

message: Hey, overall nice job on your article!    The only changes I would suggest are to fix the "membrane filtration" link because that page doesn't exist so the link doesn't go anywhere.  And to maybe add some inline citations if you can.  
Good job and have a good break. Srah27 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah's comments

message: I'm trying to understand the differences between microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and RO.  Unfortunately, there are two sentences in MF and UF articles that seem to contradict each other:
* Microfiltration: "Microfiltration is fundamentally different from reverse osmosis and nanofiltration because those systems use pressure as a means of forcing water to go from low pressure to high pressure"
* Ultrafiltration: "Ultrafiltration is not fundamentally different from microfiltration, nanofiltration or gas separation, except in terms of the size of the molecules it retains".
The first sentence says "MF != NF", the second sentence says "UF = MF = NF".  This seems to be a contradiction.
Also, I suspect the the first sentence should read "those systems use pressure ... to go from the high-pressure side to the low-pressure side" (not the other way around).
Mgwalker (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: It seems like there is a consistent,  and common, subtle/implicit assumption that UF and RO (if not MF and NF as well) are somehow comparable as though UF was like a cheap low performance version of RO.   Some of the posts here draw, or presume, similiarities between UF and RO that simply don't exist in reality.  Some of the posts here seem to assume that UF and RO somehow connect to one another through an evolution of technology and science, and/or that UF and RO are either interchangable or else that UF is otherwise like a "sibling technology" of RO......
Nothing, nor anything similar, is accurate or true.  RO and UF exist as distinct, though related, subsets of filtration PERFORMANCE regimes.  RO, simply put, refers to chemistry and/or process design capable of rejecting almost all or all divalent inorganic salts, and most monovalent salts.  UF, on the other hand, refers to rejection of macromolecules, biomolecules, and/or aggregates of a particular size and weight range.   They are not interchangable.  RO is not an alternative for UF because you can afford to use the filters184.189.220.114 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lots of fundamental misunderstanding in the comments 

message: Somebody has done a huge addit at the article Ultrafiltration. The article Ultrafiltration (industrial) is compared to that not relevant any more. Even the former articles had no need to be split from my pov. I have added the 3 or 4 little things that been missing in Ultrafiltation. --Peter in s (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ultrafiltration (industrial)]] in [[Ultrafiltration]]