Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Review
You have accessRestricted Access

Mass Transport in High-Flux Hemodialysis

Application of Engineering Principles to Clinical Prescription

Farzad Mohajerani, William R. Clark, Claudio Ronco and Vivek Narsimhan
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 749-756; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.09410721
Farzad Mohajerani
1Davidson School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William R. Clark
1Davidson School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudio Ronco
2International Renal Research Institute of Vicenza, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
3Nephrology Department, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
4Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padua, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claudio Ronco
Vivek Narsimhan
1Davidson School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

An understanding of the processes underlying mass transfer is paramount for the attainment of adequate solute removal in the dialytic treatment of patients with kidney failure. In this review, engineering principles are applied to characterize the physical mechanisms behind the two major modes of mass transfer during hemodialysis, namely diffusion and convection. The manner in which flow rate, dialyzer geometry, and membrane microstructure affect these processes is discussed, with concepts such as boundary layers, effective membrane diffusivity, and sieving coefficients highlighted as critical considerations. The objective is to improve clinicians’ understanding of these concepts as important factors influencing the prescription and delivery of hemodialysis therapy.

  • mass transfer
  • membrane
  • diffusion
  • convection
  • ultrafiltration
  • uremic toxin
  • hemodialysis

Introduction

Although a better understanding of the biochemical characteristics of uremic toxins has been gained over the past several years (1), their removal by different dialysis modalities remains relatively poorly understood by many clinicians. For example, although most clinicians are aware of the proportionality between blood flow rate and small solute clearance in hemodialysis (HD), the scientific basis for this relationship is not widely appreciated. In this review, the principles of solute mass transport for HD are explored from a fundamental perspective, and the different mechanisms of toxin clearance are discussed in detail, namely diffusion and convection. (Adsorption, whether as a solute removal mechanism or the role that it plays in membrane fouling, is not considered in detail.) The goal is to propose updated perspectives for the mechanisms involved in HD in relation to clinical therapy prescription. The concepts of boundary layers, effective membrane diffusivity, and sieving coefficients are developed and translated to clinical practice. With respect to membrane sieving properties, the influence of high ultrafiltration rates (especially in the context of hemodiafiltration) is highlighted. Although other membrane types (e.g., flat sheet) were used at one time, hollow fibers have been the nearly universal component of clinical dialyzers for many years and will be the sole focus of this review.

A hemodialyzer is a membrane-based unit with several thousand hollow fibers carrying blood within a surrounding cylindrical housing (Figure 1A) (2,3). Dialysate flows outside the fibers countercurrent to blood. For most high-flux therapies offered today (high-flux HD or hemodiafiltration) (4), the inner diameter of the membrane fibers is approximately 180–220 μm, with membrane thickness of approximately 20–50 μm (5). The pore radii for the membranes of high-flux filters are typically between 4.0 and 6.0 nm (6) and large enough to allow a broad array of solutes to be exchanged between blood and dialysate. As detailed previously (5,7⇓–9), optimized removal of molecules in the small solute (<500 Da) and middle molecule (500 to 60,000 Da) categories is the desired objective in modern membrane and dialyzer design.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Schematic of a hemodialyzer. (A) Thousands of membrane fibers having length L extend along the cylindrical housing. (B) Characteristic diameters along with expressions defining average flow rates for the blood and dialysate compartments. The parameters are as follows: Embedded Image, hollow fiber inner diameter; dout, hollow fiber outer diameter; L, fiber length; dhousing, dialyzer casing diameter; dh,B, effective blood diameter; dh,D, effective dialysate diameter; Ub, average blood flow velocity; UD, average dialysate flow velocity; Qb, average blood flow rate; QD, average dialysate flow rate; and N, number of fibers. The blood and dialysate parameters are obtained from refs. 22 and 60, respectively.

The two transmembrane mass transfer mechanisms of toxin removal in HD therapies are diffusion and convection (10). Diffusion arises from the concentration difference of solutes between the blood and dialysate compartments in the dialyzer, with movement from regions of high concentration to low concentration across the membrane. Convection arises from fluid flow through the membrane (i.e., ultrafiltration), which is driven by a local pressure difference between the blood and dialysate compartment. This fluid flow carries solute with it by the mechanism of “solvent drag” and hence removes toxins. Because achieving adequate solute mass transfer is a fundamental requirement of HD, its rational prescription by clinicians requires insights into these two mechanisms.

Although the same dialyzer is frequently used for both high-flux HD and hemodiafiltration, the operating parameters are quite different. In HD, the prescribed ultrafiltration rate is determined strictly by the patient’s fluid removal requirements. (As will be discussed, this net rate is the result of ultrafiltrate flow in both directions across the membrane.) On the other hand, as a means of enhancing convective solute removal, hemodiafiltration involves the use of ultrafiltration rates far in excess of a patient’s net fluid removal rate, which is the difference between the absolute ultrafiltration rate and the replacement fluid (“infusate”) rate. Typical infusate volumes for contemporary hemodiafiltration are in the 20- to 30-L per treatment range.

Diffusive Transport

The driving force for diffusive solute transport in high-flux HD and hemodiafiltration is the concentration gradient of solute between the blood and dialysate compartments in the hemodialyzer (11). This transport involves (1) diffusion from the bulk flow of blood to the inner surface of the membrane, (2) diffusion across the membrane, and, finally, (3) diffusion from the membrane outer wall into the bulk flow of dialysate. Each of these steps has resistance to mass transfer. For small molecular mass solutes, the resistance of all three steps is comparable, and thus, all regions must be considered. For larger molecular mass solutes (approximately >500 Da), the mass transfer resistance is dominated by the membrane. More details are discussed below.

Diffusive Transport in Blood and Dialysate

In HD, both blood and dialysate flow tangential to the membrane surface. Although this flow appears unrelated to the solute diffusion, it plays a very important role in this mode of transport. Figure 2A shows a typical tangential velocity profile for blood in a fiber tube. The velocity profile is highest at the tube center and zero at the membrane wall (12). For relatively high flow rates (i.e., Embedded Image, where UB is the average velocity in the tube, din is the tube’s inner diameter, and DB is the solute diffusivity in blood), solutes at the center are not able to diffuse to the wall but are, instead, swept away by the bulk flow. Only solutes near the wall (where the flow is nearly zero) are able to diffuse to the membrane surface. This effect creates a thin region near the membrane wall where the solute concentration varies substantially. This region—termed the concentration boundary layer—exists on both the blood and the dialysate sides due to tangential flow (13). The thickness of the boundary layer is denoted as δB on the blood side and δD on the dialysate side (Figure 2B).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Effect of blood flow on diffusive mass transfer. (A) Velocity profile of blood flow in a tube. For sufficiently high flow rates, solutes near the tube center (“bulk region”) are swept away by flow, and only those near the wall are able to reach the membrane. (B) This phenomenon causes the concentration to vary in a thin region near the wall (the concentration boundary layer). Depicted here are concentration boundary layers on both the blood and dialysate sides. (C) Clearance level of three different toxins by an AN69 dialyzer with increasing blood flow rate at zero net ultrafiltration rate. Increasing the blood flow rate significantly improves small molecule clearance through attenuation of boundary layer effects while marginally affecting transport for larger toxins. The molecular masses of creatinine, vitamin B12, and myoglobin are 113, 1355, and 16,700 Da, respectively. (C) is reprinted from ref. 24, with permission.

The major consequence of concentration boundary layers is alteration of the mass transfer rate of solutes in their passage from blood to dialysate. To get a qualitative picture of this effect, an examination of Fick's law is helpful (14). This law states that the flux of solute (rate of moles transferred per unit area) entering the membrane from the blood side is equal to the solute diffusivity times the slope in concentration. Because the majority of concentration change occurs across the boundary layer, an approximate expression for the magnitude of the flux isEmbedded Image (1)where DB is the diffusivity of the solute, Embedded Image is the change in concentration across the boundary layer, and Embedded Image is the boundary layer thickness. The mass transfer resistance is defined as the ratio of concentration drop to the solute flux. On the blood side, this quantity is Embedded Image, with a similar expression for the dialysate side: Embedded Image. This analysis indicates that reducing the boundary layer thicknesses on the blood and dialysate sides decreases their mass transfer resistances and, hence, increases the overall rate of solute removal. Thus, controlling boundary layer thicknesses is a key design consideration for dialysis engineering (15), especially with regard to small solutes.

Boundary layers have been studied extensively in the engineering community for over a half century. For the given dialyzer geometry (Figure 2B), one sees that the boundary layer develops nonuniformly from the flow inlet and is determined by the tangential flow rate (either blood or dialysate), dialyzer geometry, and solute diffusivity. Theoretical expressions and empirical correlations are given in many classic papers (16⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–23). The key point to make from a clinical standpoint is that the average boundary layer thickness can be tuned by the external flow rate—the higher the flow rate, the smaller the boundary layer thickness.

Figure 2C shows a typical example of how increasing flow rate alters the diffusive removal rates for different surrogate toxins (24). For small solutes, increasing the flow rate increases the rate of toxin removal because the mass transfer resistance of the blood and dialysate makes up a significant fraction of the overall resistance. However, this strategy only works to a certain extent. For larger molecular mass toxins (e.g., myoglobin; molecular mass, 17 kDa), boundary layer effects play only a minor role in mass transport, as the dominant mass transfer resistance for a compound of this size is the membrane itself. In conclusion, the benefit of increasing blood flow rate, a common clinical approach used to augment diffusive solute clearance, is limited largely to small solutes and is mediated by mitigation of boundary layer effects.

One important distinction between blood and dialysate is that the former is a suspension composed of red blood cells and plasma, creating additional considerations. The distribution of some solutes, such as urea and creatinine, includes the intracellular space of red blood cells, and transfer from this region to the plasma has to occur before dialytic removal is achieved. As such, the transfer rate for such solutes across cellular membranes affects dialytic removal rates. Furthermore, red blood cells may influence solute mass transfer rates both negatively (by effectively increasing diffusive path length) and positively (by augmenting diffusivity through their rotational motion). Finally, the nonaqueous constituents of plasma (especially proteins) affect diffusive mass transfer resistance by influencing the plasma viscosity.

Diffusive Membrane Transport

Solutes must diffuse through a porous membrane in addition to the fluid in the blood and dialysate compartments. In the following analysis, it is assumed that pores provide the only pathway by which solute and fluid transfer can occur through the membrane. For larger solutes, the pore structure substantially hinders the diffusivity of the solute compared with the bulk fluid phases; Figure 3A describes what membrane-related factors give rise to this effect (25).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Solute diffusion through a porous membrane. (A) The effective diffusivity of solute moving through a porous membrane is hindered by four factors discussed in the text. Blue spheres represent solute molecules. (Note that because this figure is intended to highlight pore tortuosity, it does not depict the interconnectivity that exists between pores in a membrane.) (B) Overall mass transport coefficient from blood to dialysate measured for dextrans with varying molecular mass. Three types of high-flux dialyzers are tested: SOLACEA-25H (cellulose triacetate membrane), Optiflux F250NR (polysulfone membrane), and CT190 (cellulose triacetate membrane). For all three dialyzers, the overall mass transport coefficient Embedded Image is dominated by the membrane diffusivity for the relatively high molecular mass dextrans studied. The exponential decay with molecular mass is indicative of mass transfer limited by the membrane due to the equilibrium partitioning of solute. (B) is reprinted from ref. 29, with permission.

The membrane physical properties that hinder diffusion include the porosity of the membrane (i.e., the volume fraction occupied by the pores), tortuosity of the pores (defined as the average length of the pore divided by the membrane thickness), the frictional forces exerted on the solute by the membrane pores (26), and the equilibrium partition coefficient of the membrane (∅). For solutes that do not interact with the pore walls, this latter parameter represents the ratio of pore volume accessible for the solute to the total pore volume. This thermodynamic property drastically reduces the concentration of solute inside the membrane, and hence, it reduces the driving force (concentration gradient) for mass transfer. Generally, the most important factor controlling the effective diffusivity within the membrane is the equilibrium partition coefficient.

Giddings et al. (27) used statistical analysis to find the equilibrium partition coefficient for different geometries. They found that for membranes having pores formed by a network of randomly intersecting planes, the partition coefficient exponentially decays as a function of the ratio of solute size to pore size (27,28). Thus, effective solute diffusivity within the membrane is exquisitely sensitive to the relationship between solute and pore dimensions.

As an illustration of membrane diffusion, experimental data from Kim et al. (29) are shown in Figure 3B. These researchers determined an overall mass transport coefficient (30) Embedded Image for three commercially available dialyzers, where Js is the solute flux through the membrane and (Embedded Image) is the concentration change of solute between the bulk blood and dialysate compartments. Figure 3B shows the trend for mass transfer coefficients of dextrans having different molecular masses. For the large molecular mass dextrans studied (>5 kDa), Embedded Image is dominated by the membrane diffusivity, where Dm is the membrane diffusivity and Embedded Image is the membrane thickness. The overall mass transport coefficient is seen to decrease exponentially with respect to the molecular mass (i.e., solute size) due to the equilibrium partitioning of solute, as predicted by the above analysis.

Clinical Implications

For clinical correlation, one source of confusion pertains to dialyzer KoA, a manufacturer-derived in vitro value for a specific solute/dialyzer combination used to estimate in vitro clearance when blood and dialysate flow rates are known (30). In this expression, KoA is the product of the overall mass transfer coefficient (Ko) and the membrane surface area (A). The term Ko is the inverse of the overall diffusive mass transfer resistance (Ro), which is the sum of the resistances provided individually by the blood, membrane, and dialysate. Although KoA traditionally has been considered to be independent of blood and dialysate flow rates, data from Leypoldt et al. (31) demonstrated a dependence of in vitro KoA on dialysate flow rate most likely due to dialysate boundary layer effects, challenging the validity of this assumption. Furthermore, several experts have raised fundamental questions about the validity of translating in vitro KoA data to the clinical environment, challenging the assumption that in vivo KoA is independent of blood flow rate (31⇓–33). These questions have focused specifically on the characteristics of blood that influence diffusive mass transfer resistance (especially viscosity and hematocrit). Furthermore, because KoA is by definition a “pure” diffusive parameter, it is not clear how the convective contribution to solute clearance by modern high-flux dialyzers is incorporated as a result of internal filtration (a ubiquitous phenomenon when such a dialyzer is used in the HD mode). It is worthwhile noting that the original KoA derivation by Michaels (30) applied only to low-flux dialyzers with no internal filtration, for which “pure diffusion” conditions could be achieved. A corollary relevant point is that internal filtration rates are influenced by blood flow rate itself. (Internal filtration is developed more fully in the next section.) Thus, although data are inconclusive at present, the validity of the original assumption that blood flow rate does not influence Ko (and therefore, overall mass transfer resistance) is highly questionable on the basis of the characteristics of contemporary high-flux HD. This alternative viewpoint is an important consideration in light of the axiom that the blood compartment provides the most significant (“controlling”) resistance to diffusive mass transfer for small solutes in modern dialyzers.

Another clinical correlation relates to the relationship between solute clearance and blood flow rate, which has traditionally divided into “blood flow–limited” and “membrane-limited” regions. However, the former term largely reflects blood flow delivery per fiber, which is determined by the relationship between membrane surface area and total blood flow rate to the filter. In turn, per fiber blood flow rate (rather than total blood flow rate to the filter) is the primary parameter influencing boundary layer phenomena for small solutes in the blood compartment, consistent with the above discussion.

Convective Transport

Because middle molecule (approximately >500 Da) removal from blood by diffusion is limited in HD, most therapies incorporate some element of convection as another mechanism of mass transport. Convective clearance refers to the transport of solutes due to the flow of plasma water perpendicular to the membrane wall (i.e., ultrafiltration) (34). This process is driven by a net pressure difference between the blood and dialysate compartment (Figure 4A). Two important concepts relating to convective mass transfer are discussed below.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Convective solute transport across a semipermeable membrane operating in the ultrafiltration mode. (A) Solute movement is driven by hydrostatic and osmotic pressure differences. These pressure differences create an ultrafiltration flux of fluid JF (rate of volume transferred per surface area) across the membrane. A typical concentration profile of a toxin on the blood side, in the membrane pores, and on the filtrate side is plotted from stagnant film theory with definitions of different sieving coefficients (Φ: equilibrium partition coefficient). Note the “step down” in concentration from the wall value (CB*) to the value just inside the membrane pore due to partitioning. (B) Observed and actual sieving coefficients of bovine serum albumin at different flow rates in in vitro ultrafiltration experiments using a polyethersulfone membrane with a nominal molecular mass cutoff of 100 kDa. The actual sieving coefficient drops from an initially high value to Embedded Image at high flow rates, whereas the observed sieving coefficient S0 decreases and then returns to unity. This loss in membrane selectivity at high flow rate is due to concentration polarization. The units for filtrate flux reflect normalization of the ultrafiltration rate to membrane surface area. (B) is reprinted from ref. 50, with permission.

Membrane Hydraulic Permeability

The ultrafiltration velocity at which fluid moves through a membrane is (35)Embedded Image (2)where JF is ultrafiltrate flux (rate of volume transferred normalized to surface area), Lp is the hydraulic permeability of the membrane, Embedded Image is the hydrostatic (i.e., measured) pressure difference across the membrane, and Embedded Image is the osmotic pressure difference. The permeability Lp depends on the pore geometry, membrane thickness, and fluid properties. For example, for cylindrical (nonconnecting) pores of uniform radius and moderate tortuosity, Embedded Image on the basis of the Poiseuille law, where s is the pore radius, ε is the membrane porosity, Embedded Image is the membrane thickness, τ is the membrane tortuosity, and μ is the fluid viscosity (25). It should be noted here that all membranes have some degree of pore interconnectivity (36⇓–38), which plays a significant role in determining Lp by influencing the number of pathways that fluid can take to traverse the membrane. Nevertheless, a general rule of thumb is that a strong dependence exists between hydraulic permeability and the square of average pore size (Embedded Image). (Although not accounting for osmotic pressure effects, the hydraulic permeability surrogate used in clinical practice, ultrafiltration coefficient [Κuf: milliliters per hour per millimeter Hg], is approximately equivalent to Lp times the nominal surface area of the membrane [5].)

The osmotic pressure depends on the total concentration of impermeable solutes in both the blood and dialysate. In HD and hemodiafiltration, the osmotic pressure difference (Δπ) is largely a function of blood protein concentration through its nonlinear effect on plasma oncotic pressure (39,40). Lastly, concentration polarization plays a significant role in determining the osmotic pressure of a protein-containing solution subjected to membrane ultrafiltration (see next section).

For a high-flux dialyzer (operated in the HD mode), the net transmembrane pressure gradient at a given point along the length of a dialyzer varies considerably, mostly due to the large axial pressure drop in the blood compartment. At the approximate midpoint of the filter, the combination of hydrostatic and osmotic pressures in the blood compartment actually produces a “reverse transmembrane pressure,” resulting in ultrafiltration from dialysate to blood (“back filtration”) in the distal filter segment (35). This flow, in combination with the blood to dialysate ultrafiltration in the proximal segment, creates an “internal filtration” circuit in which the proximal ultrafiltration rate may be as high as 80 ml/min. (As suggested previously, on the basis of the direct relationship between blood flow rate and pressure drop, increased blood flow rate leads to a greater degree of internal filtration.) In fact, the convective solute removal occurring in association with this circuit is typically responsible for the majority of middle molecule elimination during high-flux HD (15). On the other hand, ultrafiltration occurs only from blood to diafiltrate along the entire length of the hollow fiber under typical hemodiafiltration operating conditions (i.e., blood flow rate >350 ml/min; ultrafiltration rate ∼100 ml/min).

Sieving Coefficient and Concentration Polarization

When a fluid passes through a membrane, some dissolved solutes may pass freely, while others may be partially rejected. The fraction of the solute that can penetrate through the pores and exit the other side of the membrane is termed the sieving coefficient (41,42), S, ranging from zero to unity. (Note that S is used as an abbreviation for sieving coefficient and s for mean pore size.) Sieving coefficients are typically measured in steady-state ultrafiltration mode and are used clinically in the estimation of convective clearance of middle molecular uremic toxins. In its most rigorous form, the blood compartment concentration comprising the sieving coefficient is on the basis of a plasma water determination.

The value of S for a particular solute depends on the relative size between the molecule and the pore (i.e., Embedded Image). For particles much smaller than the average membrane pore size (e.g., urea and creatinine), sieving coefficients are close to unity, whereas particles much larger than the membrane pore size have sieving coefficients close to zero. When the size of the solute corresponds to the membrane molecular mass cutoff, the value is Embedded Image. Dialyzer manufacturers typically target S >0.6 for β2-microglobulin (43,44) and S <0.008 for albumin (66.5 kDa) after blood or plasma exposure that modifies the membrane’s effective permeability through fouling (45).

To understand the physics underlying sieving, a typical concentration profile for a partially rejected solute can be evaluated using “stagnant film theory” (Figure 4A) (46). When fluid moves from the blood to the filtrate side, solute accumulates at the membrane entrance due to rejection from the membrane. This local increase in concentration is called concentration polarization and can increase the wall concentration to several times that in the bulk (47⇓–49). The exact shape of the concentration profile in the polarized solute region is set by the steady-state competition between convection pushing the solute toward the wall and “back diffusion” of the solute into the bulk blood solution. This phenomenon is more pronounced at higher ultrafiltration rates. Although increasing blood flow rate may diminish polarization (by decreasing the boundary layer thickness over which polarization occurs), the effect is very small due to the large size of molecules for which concentration polarization is relevant.

Figure 4A shows that stagnant film theory yields three different sieving coefficient parameters. The observed sieving coefficient (So) is the ratio between the bulk concentrations in the filtrate and the blood compartments (Embedded Image). This parameter is what one measures experimentally or clinically. The actual sieving coefficient Sa is the ratio of concentrations just outside the membrane (Sa = CF/CB*), reflecting the effect of solute polarization. The values of So and Sa do not differ greatly at low ultrafiltration rates (i.e., when concentration polarization is not prominent). In fact, at zero ultrafiltration, no solute polarization occurs, and the blood and filtrate concentrations are equal (because diffusion across the membrane abolishes any concentration gradient), such that Embedded Image. As ultrafiltration rate increases, these two parameters diverge (Embedded Image) due to solute accumulation at the wall (CB*>CB). Finally, Embedded Image reflects the value of Sa at very high ultrafiltration rates (i.e., maximal concentration polarization).

Figure 4B (50) reinforces the important clinical observation that observed (measured) sieving coefficient is a strong function of ultrafiltration flux. Although a flat-sheet polyethersulfone membrane was used in the study generating these data, its molecular mass cutoff is consistent with membranes used for clinical therapy. Furthermore, the filtration flux range studied includes values typically seen in high-flux HD and, especially, hemodiafiltration (approximately 10−6 m/s). The observed sieving coefficient is numerically high at low ultrafiltration rates, decreases at intermediate rates, and increases back to So = 1 at high rates. The practical learning here is that the prescribed ultrafiltration rate in high-flux HD, and especially hemodiafiltration, has a significant effect on membrane selectivity, along with the size of the solute and membrane pore geometry. The reason for the loss of selectivity at high ultrafiltration rates stems from the fact that the increased concentration at the wall amplifies the concentration drop across the membrane. This effect augments diffusive mass transfer of species across the membrane and concomitantly reduces the effectiveness of membrane sieving (i.e., selectivity). Although proximal ultrafiltration rates may be as high as 80 ml/min in high-flux HD as part of an internal filtration circuit, this loss of selectivity is particularly important in hemodiafiltration due to the use of higher ultrafiltration rates that operate over the entire length of the diafilter.

The physical arguments discussed above demonstrate the need for careful consideration in choosing ultrafiltration rates that balance toxin removal against albumin losses, especially in hemodiafiltration (51,52). On one hand, prescription of net ultrafiltration rates substantially greater than those used typically in high-flux HD (<20 ml/min) (53) is expected to enhance the removal of larger molecular mass toxins (54). However, the ultrafiltration rate range typically applied in hemodiafiltration (>80 ml/min) may lead to a self-defeating scenario in which membrane selectivity is lost (as discussed above) and albumin losses are substantial (55,56). Prescription of relatively high blood flow rates (typically at least 350 ml/min) may be helpful in this context by mitigating concentration polarization and loss of selectivity, at least to some extent.

A specific study clearly demonstrating this loss of membrane selectivity in hemodiafiltration was performed by Gayrard et al. (56), who measured mass removal of several uremic surrogate molecules and albumin over a 20- to 25-L infusate volume range. Although an increase in infusate volume from 20 to 25 L per session resulted in an essentially linear increase in the mass removal of β2-microglobulin (12 kDa) and retinol binding protein (21 kDa), mass removal of α-1-antitrypsin (55 kDa) demonstrated an exponential increase. However, the mass removal curve for albumin showed a similar exponential increase in this range, demonstrating a loss of membrane selectivity between a high molecular mass uremic surrogate and albumin. The authors suggested in their conclusion that the higher ultrafiltration rates effectively increased the molecular mass cutoff of the membrane, consistent with an effect on membrane sieving properties. Although a quantitative score encompassing the removal of uremic solutes across a wide molecular spectrum has been developed by Maduell et al. (57), more clinical data are required to assess the effect of ultrafiltration rate on membrane selectivity.

In addition to loss of membrane selectivity, concentration polarization can lead to other detrimental effects. The increased concentration of solute at the membrane wall increases the blood osmotic pressure, which decreases fluid flow across the membrane through a reduction in the net transmembrane pressure gradient. Maintenance of the prescribed ultrafiltration rate can only be achieved through an increase in hydrostatic pressure, potentially degrading dialyzer performance (especially in hemodiafiltration) (55,56,58). The accumulation of proteins at the wall can eventually lead to the formation of a permanent “gel-like” layer, effectively fouling the membrane (by pore blockage or narrowing) and increasing its hydraulic resistance (48,59).

Summary

Long-term HD is now prescribed so commonly that many clinicians may fail to have a deep technical understanding of the therapy. The purpose of this review has been to provide fundamental aspects of HD mass transfer with clinical correlation (Box 1). The basic structure of a hollow fiber dialyzer has been presented, with emphasis on its three basic components (blood compartment, membrane, and dialysate compartment). The principles of diffusion and convection have been discussed along with their determinants. It is hoped that this information will allow clinicians to improve their understanding of the factors influencing the prescription and delivery of HD therapy from a solute removal perspective.

Box 1

  • Due to substantial improvements in membrane technology over time, the blood compartment of a modern high-flux dialyzer is typically the controlling mass transfer resistance for diffusive removal of small solutes.

  • Controlling boundary layer effects for small solutes in the blood compartment is achieved mainly by prescribing blood flow rates of at least 450 ml/min—higher blood flow rates are needed for large surface area dialyzers (2.0 m2 or more).

  • Diffusive clearance of larger molecular weight uremic solutes is limited by slow mass transfer in the blood compartment and, especially, the membrane—convection is the primary removal mechanism for such compounds.

  • While high (absolute) ultrafiltration rates mediate convective removal of large solutes in hemodiafiltration, internal filtration largely accounts for such removal in high-flux hemodialysis.

  • In hemodiafiltration, achieving clinically significant removal of large toxins without significant albumin losses may be difficult due to the loss of membrane selectivity at high ultrafiltration rates.

Disclosures

W.R. Clark reports consultancy agreements from bioMerieux, ExThera Medical, Fresenius Medical Care, Novaflux, and Nuwellis; ownership interest in Baxter; and honoraria from bioMerieux, ExThera Medical, Fresenius Medical Care, and Nuwellis. F. Mohajerani reports employment with Amgen Inc. V. Narsimhan reports research funding from NovaFlux. C. Ronco reports consultancy agreements with Asahi, Astute, Baxter, Biomerieux, Cytosorbents, GE, Jafron, Medtronic, OCD, and Toray; honoraria from Astute, Baxter, B. Braun, Estor, Fresenius, GE, Jafron, Medtronic, and Toray; and serving as Editor-in-Chief of Blood Purification and Contributions to Nephrology and Cardiorenal Medicine and as an associate editor of Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation.

Funding

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Rosner MH,
    2. Reis T,
    3. Husain-Syed F,
    4. Vanholder R,
    5. Hutchison C,
    6. Stenvinkel P,
    7. Blankestijn PJ,
    8. Cozzolino M,
    9. Juillard L,
    10. Kashani K,
    11. Kaushik M,
    12. Kawanishi H,
    13. Massy Z,
    14. Sirich TL,
    15. Zuo L,
    16. Ronco C
    : Classification of uremic toxins and their role in kidney failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 1918–1928, 2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Bowry SK,
    3. Brendolan A,
    4. Crepaldi C,
    5. Soffiati G,
    6. Fortunato A,
    7. Bordoni V,
    8. Granziero A,
    9. Torsello G,
    10. La Greca G
    : Hemodialyzer: From macro-design to membrane nanostructure; the case of the FX-class of hemodialyzers. Kidney Int Suppl 61: 126–142, 2002
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Ghezzi PM,
    3. Metry G,
    4. Spittle M,
    5. Brendolan A,
    6. Rodighiero M,
    7. Milan M,
    8. Zanella M,
    9. La Greca G,
    10. Levin NW
    : Effects of hematocrit and blood flow distribution on solute clearance in hollow-fiber hemodialyzers. Nephron 89: 243–250, 2001
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Crepaldi C,
    3. Brendolan A,
    4. Bragantini L,
    5. d’Intini V,
    6. Inguaggiato P,
    7. Bonello M,
    8. Krause B,
    9. Deppisch R,
    10. Goehl H,
    11. Scabardi A
    : Evolution of synthetic membranes for blood purification: The case of the Polyflux family. Nephrol Dial Transplant 18[Suppl 7]: vii10–vii20, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Clark WR
    : Haemodialysis membranes. Nat Rev Nephrol 14: 394–410, 2018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Boschetti-de-Fierro A,
    2. Voigt M,
    3. Storr M,
    4. Krause B
    : MCO membranes: Enhanced selectivity in high-flux class. Sci Rep 5: 18448, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Dehghani NL,
    3. Narsimhan V,
    4. Ronco C
    : Uremic toxins and their relation to dialysis efficacy. Blood Purif 48: 299–314, 2019
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Gao D
    : Determinants of uraemic toxin removal. Nephrol Dial Transplant 17[Suppl 3]: 30–34, 2002
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Gao D
    : Low-molecular weight proteins in end-stage renal disease: Potential toxicity and dialytic removal mechanisms. J Am Soc Nephrol 13[Suppl 1]: S41–S47, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Hamburger RJ,
    3. Lysaght MJ
    : Effect of membrane composition and structure on solute removal and biocompatibility in hemodialysis. Kidney Int 56: 2005–2015, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Shinaberger JH
    : Effect of dialysate-side mass transfer resistance on small solute removal in hemodialysis. Blood Purif 18: 260–263, 2000
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ronco C,
    2. Ghezzi PM,
    3. Brendolan A,
    4. Crepaldi C,
    5. La Greca G
    : The haemodialysis system: Basic mechanisms of water and solute transport in extracorporeal renal replacement therapies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13[Suppl 6]: 3–9, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Huang Z,
    2. Clark WR,
    3. Gao D
    : Determinants of small solute clearance in hemodialysis. Semin Dial 18: 30–35, 2005
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Warady BA,
    2. Schaefer FN,
    3. Alexander SR
    1. Huang Z,
    2. Gao D,
    3. Ronco C,
    4. Clark WR
    : The biology of dialysis. In: Pediatric Dialysis, 2nd Ed., edited by Warady BA, Schaefer FN, Alexander SR, New York, Springer Publishers, 2012, pp 17–35
  15. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Rocha E,
    3. Ronco C
    : Solute removal by hollow-fiber dialyzers. Contrib Nephrol 158: 20–33, 2007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Leal LG
    : Advanced Transport Phenomena: Fluid Mechanics and Convective Transport Processes, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2007
  17. ↵
    1. Deen WM
    : Analysis of Transport Phenomena, New York, OUP USA, 2012
  18. ↵
    1. Bird RB,
    2. Stewart WE,
    3. Lightfoot EN,
    4. Klingenberg DJ
    : Introductory Transport Phenomena, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2015
  19. ↵
    1. Acrivos A
    : The extended Graetz problem at low Peclet numbers. Appl Sci Res 36: 35–40, 1980
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Graetz L
    : Ueber die Wärmeleitungsfähigkeit von Flüssigkeiten. Ann Phys 254: 79–94, 1882
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Papoutsakis E,
    2. Ramkrishna D,
    3. Lim HC
    : The extended Graetz problem with Dirichlet wall boundary conditions. Appl Sci Res 36: 13, 1980
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Raff M,
    2. Welsch M,
    3. Göhl H,
    4. Hildwein H,
    5. Storr M,
    6. Wittner B
    : Advanced modeling of highflux hemodialysis. J Membr Sci 216: 1–11, 2003
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Abaci HE,
    2. Altinkaya SA
    : Modeling of hemodialysis operation. Ann Biomed Eng 38: 3347–3362, 2010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Jaffrin MY,
    2. Ding LH,
    3. Laurent JM
    : Simultaneous convective and diffusive mass transfers in a hemodialyser. J Biomech Eng 112: 212–219, 1990
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Kokubo K-i,
    2. Sakai K
    : Evaluation of dialysis membranes using a tortuous pore model. AIChE J 44: 2607–2619, 1998
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Mavrovouniotis GM,
    2. Brenner H
    : Hindered sedimentation, diffusion, and dispersion coefficients for Brownian spheres in circular cylindrical pores. J Colloid Interface Sci 124: 269–283, 1988
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Giddings JC,
    2. Kucera E,
    3. Russell CP,
    4. Myers MN
    : Statistical theory for the equilibrium distribution of rigid molecules in inert porous networks. Exclusion chromatography. J Phys Chem 72: 4397–4408, 1968
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Mochizuki S,
    2. Zydney AL
    : Dextran transport through asymmetric ultrafiltration membranes: Comparison with hydrodynamic models. J Membr Sci 68: 21–41, 1992
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Kim TR,
    2. Hadidi M,
    3. Motevalian SP,
    4. Sunohara T,
    5. Zydney AL
    : Transport characteristics of asymmetric cellulose triacetate hemodialysis membranes. Blood Purif 45: 46–52, 2018
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Michaels AS
    : Operating parameters and performance criteria for hemodialyzers and other membrane-separation devices. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 12: 387–392, 1966
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Leypoldt JK,
    2. Cheung AK,
    3. Agodoa LY,
    4. Daugirdas JT,
    5. Greene T,
    6. Keshaviah PR
    : Hemodialyzer mass transfer-area coefficients for urea increase at high dialysate flow rates. The Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study. Kidney Int 51: 2013–2017, 1997
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Bhimani JP,
    2. Ouseph R,
    3. Ward RA
    : Effect of increasing dialysate flow rate on diffusive mass transfer of urea, phosphate and β2-microglobulin during clinical haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25: 3990–3995, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Ouseph R,
    2. Ward RA
    : Increasing dialysate flow rate increases dialyzer urea mass transfer-area coefficients during clinical use. Am J Kidney Dis 37: 316–320, 2001
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Clark WR,
    2. Winchester JF
    : Middle molecules and small-molecular-weight proteins in ESRD: Properties and strategies for their removal. Adv Ren Replace Ther 10: 270–278, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Fiore GB,
    2. Guadagni G,
    3. Lupi A,
    4. Ricci Z,
    5. Ronco C
    : A new semiempirical mathematical model for prediction of internal filtration in hollow fiber hemodialyzers. Blood Purif 24: 555–568, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Hedayat A,
    2. Szpunar J,
    3. Kumar NAPK,
    4. Peace R,
    5. Elmoselhi H,
    6. Shoker A
    : Morphological characterization of the Polyflux 210H hemodialysis filter pores. Int J Nephrol 2012: 304135, 2012
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Ho C-C,
    2. Zydney AL
    : Measurement of membrane pore interconnectivity. J Membr Sci 170: 101–112, 2000
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Atkins PW,
    2. De Paula J,
    3. Keeler J
    : Atkins’ Physical Chemistry, Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2018
  39. ↵
    1. Legallais C,
    2. Catapano G,
    3. von Harten B,
    4. Baurmeister U
    : A theoretical model to predict the in vitro performance of hemodiafilters. J Membr Sci 168: 3–15, 2000
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Landis EM,
    2. Pappenheimer JR
    : Handbook of Physiology Section 2: Circulation, 2nd Ed., Washington, DC, American Physiological Society, 1963
  41. ↵
    1. Henderson LW,
    2. Clark WR,
    3. Cheung AK
    : Quantification of middle molecular weight solute removal in dialysis. Semin Dial 14: 294–299, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Ofsthun NJ,
    2. Zydney AL
    : Importance of convection in artificial kidney treatment. Contrib Nephrol 108: 53–70, 1994
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Tattersall J
    : Clearance of beta-2-microglobulin and middle molecules in haemodiafiltration. Contrib Nephrol 158: 201–209, 2007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Tattersall JE,
    2. Ward RA; EUDIAL group
    : Online haemodiafiltration: Definition, dose quantification and safety revisited. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 542–550, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Hulko M,
    2. Haug U,
    3. Gauss J,
    4. Boschetti-de-Fierro A,
    5. Beck W,
    6. Krause B
    : Requirements and pitfalls of dialyzer sieving coefficients comparisons. Artif Organs 42: 1164–1173, 2018
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Zydney AL
    : Stagnant film model for concentration polarization in membrane systems. J Membr Sci 130: 275–281, 1997
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Baker RW
    : Membrane Technology and Applications, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2012
  48. ↵
    1. Bacchin P,
    2. Si-Hassen D,
    3. Starov V,
    4. Clifton MJ,
    5. Aimar P
    : A unifying model for concentration polarization, gel-layer formation and particle deposition in cross-flow membrane filtration of colloidal suspensions. Chem Eng Sci 57: 77–91, 2002
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Strathmann H
    : Membrane Separation Processes 4. Concentration Polarization and Membrane Fouling, 2011
  50. ↵
    1. Opong WS,
    2. Zydney AL
    : Diffusive and convective protein transport through asymmetric membranes. AIChE J 37: 1497–1510, 1991
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Fournier A,
    2. Birmelé B,
    3. François M,
    4. Prat L,
    5. Halimi J-M
    : Factors associated with albumin loss in post-dilution hemodiafiltration and nutritional consequences. Int J Artif Organs 38: 76–82, 2015
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Ahrenholz PG,
    2. Winkler RE,
    3. Michelsen A,
    4. Lang DA,
    5. Bowry SK
    : Dialysis membrane-dependent removal of middle molecules during hemodiafiltration: The beta2-microglobulin/albumin relationship. Clin Nephrol 62: 21–28, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Flythe JE,
    2. Kimmel SE,
    3. Brunelli SM
    : Rapid fluid removal during dialysis is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Kidney Int 79: 250–257, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Ward RA,
    2. Schmidt B,
    3. Hullin J,
    4. Hillebrand GF,
    5. Samtleben W
    : A comparison of on-line hemodiafiltration and high-flux hemodialysis: A prospective clinical study. J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 2344–2350, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Pedrini LA,
    2. Cozzi G,
    3. Faranna P,
    4. Mercieri A,
    5. Ruggiero P,
    6. Zerbi S,
    7. Feliciani A,
    8. Riva A
    : Transmembrane pressure modulation in high-volume mixed hemodiafiltration to optimize efficiency and minimize protein loss. Kidney Int 69: 573–579, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Gayrard N,
    2. Ficheux A,
    3. Duranton F,
    4. Guzman C,
    5. Szwarc I,
    6. Vetromile F,
    7. Cazevieille C,
    8. Brunet P,
    9. Servel M-F,
    10. Argilés À,
    11. Le Quintrec M
    : Consequences of increasing convection onto patient care and protein removal in hemodialysis. PLoS One 12: e0171179, 2017
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Maduell F,
    2. Rodas L,
    3. Broseta JJ,
    4. Gomez M,
    5. Xipell M,
    6. Guillen E,
    7. Montagud-Marrahi E,
    8. Arias-Guillén M,
    9. Fontseré N,
    10. Vera M,
    11. Rico N
    : Medium cut-off dialyzer versus eight hemodiafiltration dialyzers: Comparison using a global removal score. Blood Purif 48: 167–174, 2019
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Ronco C
    : Hemodiafiltration: Technical and clinical issues. Blood Purif 40[Suppl 1]: 2–11, 2015
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Chen V,
    2. Fane AG,
    3. Madaeni S,
    4. Wenten IG
    : Particle deposition during membrane filtration of colloids: Transition between concentration polarization and cake formation. J Membr Sci 125: 109–122, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Sellars JR,
    2. Tribus M,
    3. Klein J
    : Heat transfer to laminar flow in a round tube or flat conduit: The Graetz probem extended. Trans ASME 78: 441–448, 1956
    OpenUrl

If you are:

  • an ASN member, select the "ASN Member" login button. 
  • an individual subscriber, login with you User Name and Password.
  • an Institutional user, select the Institution option where you will be presented with a list of Shibboleth federations. If you do not see your federation, contact publications@asn-online.org. 

ASN MEMBER LOGIN

ASN MEMBER LOGIN

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.

Purchase access

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$34.00

In order to get access to the article, you must have an account.  If you have an account, enter your user name and password into the boxes above. If you do not have an account, follow the instructions below to create one.  Once you have purchased the article, you will have access to it for 24 hours.  

Steps for Creating an Account:

Click the "Purchase Access" button.  The page will redisplay with the following message at the top of the screen which contains the link to register for an account.

When you create an account, you will be asked for your name, email address and other information.  Just like commercial web sites, we do need details from you in order to complete your purchase of an article.  

You will then be asked to register a user name, email address and you will need to create a password that is at least eight characters in length. You do not need an ASN Member number to complete the form. As you move through the registration page, you will have to verify you are a person by completing a Captcha request.   Lastly, your first and last name will be required. 

Once your information is successfully saved, the system will redisplay the home page of the journal.  From there, navigate back to the article to purchase.  Select the article and at the bottom of the page, use the credentials you just created to login. The article will be added to your shopping cart.  You can continue to navigate across JASN and CJASN adding to your cart from both journals. When you are ready to complete your purchse, select the Shopping Cart from the upper right hand corner of the page and follow the onscreen instructions. 

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 17 (5)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 17, Issue 5
May 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mass Transport in High-Flux Hemodialysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mass Transport in High-Flux Hemodialysis
Farzad Mohajerani, William R. Clark, Claudio Ronco, Vivek Narsimhan
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 749-756; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09410721

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Mass Transport in High-Flux Hemodialysis
Farzad Mohajerani, William R. Clark, Claudio Ronco, Vivek Narsimhan
CJASN May 2022, 17 (5) 749-756; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.09410721
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Diffusive Transport
    • Convective Transport
    • Summary
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Detecting and Treating Lung Congestion with Kidney Failure
  • Chronic Kidney Disease and Severe Mental Illness
Show more Review

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • mass transfer
  • membrane
  • diffusion
  • convection
  • ultrafiltration
  • uremic toxin
  • hemodialysis

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire