Content uploaded by Sweta Parimita Bera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sweta Parimita Bera on Feb 16, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: 6 June 2021
|
Revised: 7 August 2021
|
Accepted: 21 August 2021
DOI: 10.1002/jobm.202100259
REVIEW
Emerging and advanced membrane technology for
wastewater treatment: A review
Sweta Parimita Bera
1
|Manoj Godhaniya
2
|Charmy Kothari
3
1
School of Sciences, P P Savani
University, Kosamba, Surat, Gujarat,
India
2
Department of Biosciences, Veer
Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat,
Gujarat, India
3
Department of Biotechnology, Christ
Campus, Rajkot, Gujarat, India
Correspondence
Sweta Parimita Bera, School of Sciences,
P P Savani University, Kosamba, Surat,
Gujarat 394125, India.
Email: swetaparimitabera@gmail.com
Abstract
Over the years, conventional wastewater treatment processes have achieved to
some extent in treating effluents for discharge pints. Development in waste-
water treatment processes is essential to make treated wastewater reusable for
industrial, agricultural, and domestic purposes. Membrane technology has
emerged as an ideal technology for treating wastewater from different
wastewater streams. Membrane technology is one of the most up‐to‐date ad-
vancements discovered to be successful in fundamentally lessening impurities
to desired levels. In spite of having certain impediments, membrane bior-
eactors (MBRs) for biological wastewater treatment provide many advantages
over conventional treatment. This review article covers all the aspects of
membrane technology that are widely used in wastewater treatment process
such as the principle of membrane technology, the classification of membrane
technology processes in accordance to pressure, concentration, electrical and
thermal‐driven processes, its application in different industries, advantages,
disadvantages and the future prospective.
KEYWORDS
biological process, membrane bioreactor, membrane fouling, membrane technology,
wastewater treatment
J Basic Microbiol. 2021;1–15. www.jbm-journal.com © 2021 Wiley‐VCH GmbH
|
1
Abbreviations: AEMs, anion exchange membranes; AnMBR, anaerobic membrane bioreactor; BOD, biological oxygen demand; CE, cell
entrapment; CEMs, cation exchange membranes; CNT, carbon nanotubes; COD, chemical oxygen demand; EC, electro‐coagulation; EGSB, expanded
granular sludge bed reactors; EP, electrophoresis; EPS, extracellular polymeric substances; FO‐MBR, forward osmosis membrane bioreactor; FO,
forward osmosis; GS, gas separation; HRT, hydraulic retention period; IEM, ion exchange membranes; IFAS, integrated fixed‐film activated sludge;
LM, liquid membrane; MABR, membrane‐aerated biofilm reactor; MBfR, membrane‐biofilm reactor; MBRs, membrane bioreactors; MF,
microfiltration; MBBR, moving bed bio‐film reactor; MLSS, mixed liquor suspended solids; NCs‐MBR, nanocrystals membrane bioreactor; NF,
nanofiltration; NFs‐MBR, nanofibers membrane bioreactor; NMs, nanomaterial membranes; NOM, nominal organic matter; NPs‐MBR,
nanoparticles membrane bioreactor; NSs‐MBR, nanosheets membrane bioreactor; NTs‐MBR, nanotubes membrane bioreactor; NWs‐MBR,
nanowires membrane bioreactor; OLR, organic loading rate; PAC‐UF, powdered activated carbon ultra filtration; PE, polyethylene; PODH,
polyoxadiazole‐co‐hydrazide; PTFE, polytetrafluorethylene; PVDF–HFP, polyvinylid‐enefluoride–hexafluoropropylene; PVDF–TFE, polyvinylid‐
enefluoride–tetrafluoroethylene; PVDF, polyvinyl difluoride; RO, reverse osmosis; RO‐MBR, reverse osmosis membrane bioreactor; SRT, solids
retention time; SS, suspended solids; TPI, textile processing industry; TSS, total suspended solids; UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; UF,
ultrafiltration; WWTP, waste water treatment plant.
1|INTRODUCTION
Water consumption has been increasing significantly in
the last few decades due to rapid industrialization,
urbanization, and population explosion. The shortage of
freshwater has led to the development of new treatment
techniques [1]. Various industries discharge their
effluents directly into the environment, which poses
adverse effects on biodiversity and aquatic ecosystem.
The hazardous waste pollutants that are released every-
day are a challenge toward conserving the environment.
Tonnes of solid as well as liquid waste are generated each
day throughout the world [2]. With the ever‐growing
population and shrinking landfills, managing the dis-
posal of pollutants is a matter of severe concern. Much
technological advancement has already been made to
check the limits but still there's a long way to go. The air,
soil, and water are bearing the consequences for a sig-
nificant time period now. The toxic effluents generated in
bulk amount hugely affect the chemical oxygen demand
(COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), sus-
pended and dissolved solids, chromium, surfactants, and
other toxicities of the water bodies where these are dis-
charged [3]. Therefore, these effluents should be effi-
ciently treated to protect the environment, aquatic life,
and humans from intoxication.
The development of membranes started in the 1960s
when the first water desalination plants based on RO tech-
nology were designed. This was one of the widely accepted
and cost‐effective methods for the treatment of wastewater.
Due to its diversified applications in various sectors, US
environmental protection agency had recognized it as
the “best available technology.”Benefits of membrane
processes include low energy consumption, continuous
separation, and easy scaling up [4]. Membranes can be
organic or inorganic depending on the constituent
material. A synthetic organic polymer uses organic
membranes for pressure‐driven separation processes.
This includes polyethylene (PE), polytetrafluorethylene
(PTFE), polypropylene, and cellulose acetate. Micro-
filtration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are
made from a wide variety of materials, like poly-
propylene, polyvinyl difluoride (PVDF), polysulfone,
polyethersulfone, and cellulose acetate. All these
membrane materials have very different characteristics
and thus, are used for filtering different types of pollu-
tants. Further explanation to all of these is given in the
following review paper.
2|MEMBRANE SEPARATION
PROCESSES
Membrane separation processes involve the separation of
chemical species through membrane interphase by the
difference in the rate of transport. This transport rate is
dependent on the driving force, mobility, and concentration
of the individual component within the interphase. Solute
molecular size, morphological structure of membrane, and
chemical affinity are the key factors for the efficient
FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram representing the various categories of membrane used in wastewater treatment industries. The
classification is based on nature, structure, material, and surface charge of the membrane
2
|
BERA ET AL.
separation of chemical components. Separation efficiency of
membranes depends upon its types and module [5]. Mem-
branes are usually categorized as isotropic and anisotropic,
organic and inorganic, porous and nonporous, and compo-
site membranes as shown in Figure 1.
The principle of membrane technology is based on
the selective allowance of certain constituents to pass
through the membrane while blocking the passage of
others. To facilitate this process an external driving
force is generally required. To understand this easily the
membrane process is classified based on the type of
driving force applied to separate the components in
wastewater. The diverse type of driving force that
initiates solute partition includes a pressure differential
(micro‐,ultra‐,nano‐filtration, and reverse osmosis
[RO]); a concentration difference across the membrane,
which initiates diffusion of a species between two so-
lutions (dialysis); and a potential field application of an
ion exchange membrane (IEM) that initiates migration
of ions throughout the membrane (electrodialysis,
electro‐electrodialysis, and electrochemical devices) [6].
Apart from the various separate membrane technique,
new integrated and hybrid technologies are also developed
in recent times. All of the membranes either cellulosic or
noncellulosic membranes that are utilized for municipal
water treatment are prepared from synthetic organic
polymers. MF and UF membranes are made from a wide
variety of materials, like polypropylene, PVDF, poly-
sulfone, polyethersulfone, and cellulose acetate. The dif-
ferent materials used to make the membrane have
different properties and thus have distinctive pH, surface
charge, and hydrophobicity. The overall utility of the
membrane is largely affected by the characteristic of
membrane material. To attain desired separation through
membrane‐based separation techniques, selection of sui-
table process with appropriate driving force, size, shape,
and membrane are required. Membrane separation
processes are classified into pressure, concentration,
electrical‐and thermal‐driven processes [7]. The following
classification has been summarized in Table 1.
2.1 |Pressure‐driven membrane
separation process
Pressure‐driven membrane processes are most com-
monly used technology for wastewater treatment. This
technology is used for reconcentrating the dilute solu-
tion based on the application of pressure to separate
permeate and retention phases. Permeate phase has
low solute content as compared to retention and feed
solution. The applied pressure determines the total
operational cost of the system.
2.1.1 |MF
MF is a physical separation process that contains poros
membrane. It removed dissolved solids, turbidity, and mi-
croorganisms by the sieving mechanism, based on the pore
size of the membrane. If the particle size is larger than the
pores size of the membranes (0.1–0.2 μm), they can be fully
removed while smaller than the pores of the membranes are
partially removed. It is a pretreatment for UF, and a post-
treatment for granular media filtration to reduce the fouling.
In MF, membrane material can be organic or inorganic.
Organic membranes are composed of different types of
polymers such as polyvinylidine fluoride, polyamide, poly-
sulfone, cellulose acetate, and so forth, while inorganic
membranes are made up of porous alumina and metals. It is
suitable for the isolation of suspensions and emulsions and
can retain up to approximately 40% organic. This method
filters remove mainly sediment, algae, protozoas, bacteria
while water (H
2
O), monovalent ions like Na
+
,Cl
−
,dissolved
or organic matter, and small colloids and viruses can pass
through the filter [2]. The schematic diagram of MF process
is presented in Figure 2.
2.1.2 |UF
UF membranes are extremely popular low‐energy water
filter and serve in the elimination of pathogenic micro-
organisms, macromolecules, and suspended matter.
These membranes have pore sizes up to around 0.1 μmin
dimension. However, its drawbacks include inability to
remove some dissolved inorganic contaminants from
water and frequent cleaning to ensure proper pressure
stream of water. For the separation of particles, pressure
or concentration gradient is required through mem-
branes. These membranes retain proteins, endotoxins,
viruses, and silica. This method applied in industries like
pharmaceuticals, dairy industry, beverage, food proces-
sing, and so forth. UF is also used for the protection of
RO membrane as the prefiltration in RO [9]. Figure 3
represents the schematic diagram of UF process.
2.1.3 |Nanofiltration
Nanofiltration (NF) membrane was first introduced in
the late 1980s. It has properties between RO and UF
membrane [18]. In this process, a hydrostatic pressure is
applied to transport a molecular mixture to the surface of
a membrane. The solvent and some low molecular
weight solutes permeate the membrane while other
components are retained. It is sufficient to remove ions
that greatly add to osmotic pressure and thus requires
BERA ET AL.
|
3
TABLE 1 Classification of membrane separation method
Membrane separation
process
Type of
membrane Pore size Driving force
Mechanism of separation
(principle of separation) Application References
Pressure‐driven membrane separation process
Microfiltration Porous 0.05–10 µm Pressure difference (0.1–2 bar) Sieving Food, pharmaceutical industries, water
treatment
[8]
Ultrafiltration Porous 1–100 nm Pressure difference (1–10 bar) Sieving Textile, food, pharmaceutical
industries, dairy, water treatment
[9]
Nanofiltration 0.1‐10 nm Pressure difference
(10–25 bar)
Solution‐diffusion Brackish water desalination,
wastewater treatment
[10]
Reverse osmosis <2 nm Pressure difference
(15–80 bar)
Solution‐diffusion Brackish and seawater desalination,
concentration of juice and milk
[11]
Concentration‐driven separation process
Pervaporation Nonporous Vapor pressure difference
(0.001–1 bar)
Solution‐diffusion Hydrogen, helium recovery [12]
Concentration difference
Gas separation Porous/
nonporous
<1 µm Partial pressure difference Solution/diffusion (nonporous
membranes) Knudsen flow
(porous membranes)
Removal of organic components from
water
[13]
Concentration difference
Electrical‐driven membrane separation process
Electrodialysis Nonporous Electrical potential difference Donnan exclusion mechanism Seawater desalination, separation of
amino aids
[14]
Temperature‐driven separation process
Membrane distillation 0.2–1 µm Vapor pressure difference Vapor–liquid equilibrium Seawater desalination, semiconductor
industry
[15]
4
|
BERA ET AL.
lower operating pressures. Highly contaminated waters
require successful pretreatment before NF, though so-
luble fractions cannot be removed by it. Free chlorine in
the feed water affects the membranes. NF membrane is
used for dairy, medicine, and wastewater treatment and
desalination applications. This is also used for water
softening and removal of by‐product from surface water
and fresh groundwater. Membranes used for NF are
FIGURE 2 Schematic diagram of
microfiltration process, sourced from Singh
et al. [16]. It contains a porous membrane of size
0.1–0.2 μm. The membrane material used here
can be organic or inorganic. The technique is
used as pretreatment for microfiltration and
posttreatment for granular media filtration
FIGURE 3 Schematic diagram of ultrafiltration process, adapted from Kazemimoghadam and Mohammadi [17]. The setup consists of a
jacketed tank and a filtration module. The membrane has the pore sizes of around 0.1 μm in dimension
FIGURE 4 Schematic diagram of
nanofiltration process, adapted from Waite
et al. [18]. The membrane is composed of
cellulose acetate blends or polyamide
composites. A hydrostatic pressure is applied to
move the molecular mixture
BERA ET AL.
|
5
composed of cellulose acetate blends or polyamide
composites, or they could be modified forms of UF
membranes like sulfonated polysulfone [10]. The sche-
matic diagram of NF process is presented in Figure 4.
2.1.4 |RO
RO is a pressure‐driven procedure, used to eliminate
dissolved substances and smaller particles, is only
permeable to water molecules. The pressure applied
to RO must be sufficient to allow water to pass the
osmotic pressure. The efficiency of the RO membrane
usually benefits from higher penetrability, greater
selectivity, and higher resistance to fouling. It is one
of the finest separation membrane processes avail-
able. Here, the water is put under pressure and forced
through a membrane that filters out the minerals and
nitrate. RO retain mostly all molecules except water
and due to the size of the pores, the required osmotic
pressure is significantly greater than that for MF. RO
is a high‐pressure‐driven process for the desalting of
the salt water. Both RO and NF are fundamentally
different because of the flow goes against the con-
centration gradient, because those systems use pres-
sure to force water so that it goes from low‐pressure
side to side of high pressure. The drawbacks include
the use of high pressure, RO membranes are costly
compared with other membrane processes and are
often vulnerable to fouling. In certain situations, a
high pretreatment is essential [19].
2.1.5 |Forward osmosis (FO)
FO is a mechanism in which water is driven across a
semipermeable membrane from a feed solution to a
drawing solution due to the osmotic pressure gradient.
The obvious benefit over traditional pressure‐driven
membrane technology is that the FO mechanism does
not rely on high hydraulic pressure. There by it offers an
incentive to conserve electricity and membrane main-
tenance costs (low fouling potential). A FO membrane
was engineered and checked for its efficiency in desa-
lination of water. The commercially available FO
membrane are polymerized using polyoxadiazole‐co‐
hydrazide (PODH) and polytriazole‐co‐oxadiazole‐co‐
hydrazide and is used for the filtration of reactive azo
dyes from the wastewater generated from textile dyeing
industries. The physical properties of the membrane can
be easily determined with the field emission scanning
electron microscopy and atom force microscopy [15].
Themembraneissymmetricalwithactivefiltrationarea
of 10 cm
2
and because of its highly density and nega-
tively charged surface; the polymerized FO membrane
can efficiently retained high concentration of dyes. The
schematic diagram of FO process is shown in Figure 5.
2.2 |Concentration‐driven
separation process
The function of biological membrane system is driven by
concentration gradient at isobaric and isothermal con-
dition. Most common example of synthetic membrane
using concentration‐driven membrane process is artifi-
cial kidney. FO and dialysis come under this category,
where the concentration gradient becomes dominant for
separation through membrane.
2.2.1 |Pervaporation
Pervaporation is used for the removal of trace elements of
volatile components present in liquid mixtures by vapor
pressures through a porous/nonporous membrane. This
FIGURE 5 The schematic diagram of forward osmosis process, adapted from Elimelech and Mi [20]. CP, conductivity probe; FR, flow
recorder; GP, gear pump; LPRO, Loeb pressure retarded osmosis; PDP, positive displacement pump; TC, temperature controller
6
|
BERA ET AL.
method couples membrane permeation and evaporation, for
the separation of the liquid mixture on the basis of their
preference. It is applied in the separation of hydrocarbons
(petrochemical industries), volatile organic compounds. In
this technique concentration difference is the driving force. It
is based on a solution‐diffusion mechanism, which results in
the formation of vapor as it permeates. The vapor formed
during the process is removed by either applying low pres-
sure or by flowing inert medium in the later stage of the
process. An example of this method is the separation of the
ethanol–water mixture [12].
2.2.2 |Gas separation
Gas separation (GS) process is also based on the same me-
chanism of pervaporation process. Initially sorption of feed
takes place into the membrane followed by diffusion of
permeates through membrane and finally desorption of
permeate takes place at low‐pressure side. Selectivity is a key
factor for GS process. Transport of gaseous molecule thor-
ough the membrane takes place by the solution diffusion
mechanism. This process is specifically applicable for the
separation of gaseous mixture and polar vapors using
asymmetric, homogenous, or polymeric membranes.
Generally, hollow‐fiber configuration of polymeric mem-
braneisusedinGS.Butmainproblemariseswiththe
membrane material when it is applied for the high‐
temperature application like petrochemical and petroleum
refineries, natural gas treatment, heavy hydrocarbon
separation, and so forth [15].
2.3 |Electrical‐driven membrane
separation process
Electrodialysis is used for the removal of selective ionic
components from an aqueous solution by applying
electric potential through IEMs. IEMs are made from poly-
meric materials with fixed ionic charge groups in the poly-
meric matrix and these are dense in nature. IEMs are
classified into two types, which are cation exchange mem-
branes (CEMs) and anion exchange membranes (AEMs).
CEMs contain negatively charged groups in their polymer
matrix, while AEMs contain positively charged groups. It is
mostly used for the desalination of seawater, removal of
organic acids from food, pharmaceutical industries [10].
2.3.1 |Ion exchange‐membrane process
IEMs are semipermeable membranes in which ionic
groups are attached with a polymeric backbone. In this
process, fluidized ion exchange and magnetic ion
exchange combine together. The concentration and ionic
groups have helped in different applications. Removal of
nominal organic matter (NOM) is effectively carried out
by a nanoporous anion exchanger. IEMs can be classified
by ion's functionality and the polymer backbone [12].
The foremost driving force for IEM is electrochemical
interaction between the molecules.
2.4 |Temperature‐driven membrane
separation process
2.4.1 |Membrane distillation
From many years' membrane distillation is a promising
method for desalting of seawater and treatment of waste-
water. Almost all macromolecules, colloids, volatile, non-
volatile substances, salts are removed by hydrophobic
membranes as compared to hydrophilic membranes [21].
This membrane filtration system helps in higher recalcitrant
biodegradation,thuslesssludgeisproducedandcauses
lowered footprint from this process, in spite of providing
better effluent quality. For its outstanding stability, it is
cheaper than RO‐membrane bioreactor (RO‐MBR). It has
limited potential in COD removal from the feed water.
2.5 |Liquid membrane (LM)
In this process, a thin layer of the organic liquid acts as a
semipermeable barrier between two aqueous phases of
different compositions. Unlike other membrane pro-
cesses, LM does not require solid membranes. LM pos-
sesses the attractive feature of high selectivity, single‐
stage extraction, and stripping, characteristic of none-
quilibrium mass transfer. LM can be categorized as
supported LM, emulsion LM, and bulk LM. Supported
LMs consist of inert microporous support on which
organic phase can be immobilized. In an emulsion LM,
an immiscible liquid layer exists between two miscible
liquids. Bulk LM employs a limited diffusion path, dis-
tant from the boundary layer [22]. The main application
of the LM process includes separation of metal ions from
wastewater, separation, recovery, and concentration of
acids, bioconversion, GS, and so forth. The major draw-
back associated with LM is the instability of the mem-
brane interface that may be due to the difference in
pressure and turbulence inside the LM setup. The mode
of the mass transport through the membrane is by dif-
fusion. However, some other mechanisms are also re-
sponsible for the separation that can be defined in a
stepwise manner. Initially, diffusion in the feed solution
BERA ET AL.
|
7
across the boundary layer takes place, followed by the
sorption on the feed‐membrane interface. Thereafter,
convective transport occurs in the membrane, the diffu-
sion on the receiving side across the boundary layer [3].
2.6 |Integrated/hybrid membrane
separation processes
Major drawback of membrane method is membrane fouling.
To overcome this, the hybrid processes are introduced with
increase the water quality and reduce the operating cost.
A hybrid process is a combination of two processes one is a
conventional membrane process and another conventional
process [23]. The hybrid process can be categorized into two
groups: (i) combination of two or more different membrane
processes and (ii) combination of membrane process and
another process [6]. As no particular treatment procedure
can meet all of the treatment goals, generally shuffling of
several procedures are used to solve the problem.
Following are the newly developed integrated or hy-
brid membrane technology:
2.6.1 |FO‐MBR
This process is more energy efficient than other con-
ventional methods. With this process, one can recover
phosphorus from the feed and can produce decent
quality effluent. This also helps in the removal of trace
organic contaminants successfully from high total sus-
pended solids (TSS) containing wastewater (better than
RO‐MBR). The fouling is mostly reversible and less than
RO‐MBR. The drawback of this technique includes the
uncertainty of membrane stability and with rising sali-
nity, it can reduce microbial kinetics and water flow [11].
2.6.2 |RO‐MBR
It is a cheaper alternative of FO‐MBR as it leads to con-
sumption of low energy as compared to the conventional
MBR. It shows low effectiveness for high saline wastewater
treatment in comparison to FO‐MBR process. The treatment
process provides stable and high‐quality product water [24].
2.6.3 |Advanced oxidation processes/
electrocoagulation‐MBR
It is easy to handle system can remove colors and recalcitrant
such as pharmaceutical contaminants. During operation, less
sludge is generated and possesses lower fouling potential. Its
main set back is that it is not really effective in treatment of
high TSS contaminated wastewater. High operation cost has
also limited its application [25].
2.6.4 |Granular MBR
This process has higher rate of nitrification and deni-
trification and it is more shock resistant. It possesses less
fouling potential and leaves fewer footprints during
operation. Though fouling can become a severe concern
during later stage of operation and it takes longer time
during start up to form granules [26].
2.6.5 |Biofilm/bio‐entrapped MBR
This system has considerably good nitrification and deni-
trification rate, has less fouling tendency, can reduce the
concentration of suspended solids (SS). But severe fouling
can be a draw back after long time of operation [5].
2.6.6 |Coagulation‐membrane process
Combination of coagulation with membrane filtration
increases the removal of pollutants and reduces the
membrane fouling. Many researchers combined coagu-
lation with membrane filtration for the treatment of
surface water and coagulants such as chitosan, alumi-
num sulfate, aluminum chloride, polyaluminum chlor-
ide, ferric chloride, and ferric sulfate were used. In this
study, they found that permeate quality increased and
membrane fouling got diminish. Moreover, coagulation
combined with UF membrane for the removal of heavy
metal ions like As, Sb [27].
2.6.7 |Adsorption‐membrane process
Adsorption technology is mainly used for the treatment
of water. Organic compounds can be removed by pow-
dered activated carbon (PAC). Hybrid adsorption mem-
brane process reduced the membrane fouling rate. Many
researchers have reported the effect of particle size on
membrane fouling at a PAC‐UF system [28].
2.6.8 |Prefiltration‐membrane process
In this method, for the removal of coarse materials
and microorganisms sand, packed bed materials are
used as preliminary barriers. By using granular media
8
|
BERA ET AL.
filters both the membrane surface fouling and pore
clogging can be reduced [7].
3|MBR
MBR is an updated and sophisticated weapon against
wastewater. It is a method that combines biode-
gradation of pollutants by activated sludge, with di-
rect solid–liquid separation by membrane filtration,
that is, by means of an MF or UF membrane [21].
Wastewater treatment in MBR systems requires two
processes, namely biological processing in a sus-
pended growth bioreactor for biochemical reactions
(e.g., bio‐oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification)
and a physical membrane filtration method. Globally,
MBR is being used in mitigation of both industrial and
municipal wastewater. It has been reported that the
annual growth rate of MBRs in the global market is
around 15%. In addition, the sieving effect of the
membranes shorts according to the size of the con-
taminant and hold them to the membrane there by
brings in contact to the degrading microorganisms
within the MBR for their complete degradation [22].
The widespread use of MBRs has been due to its sig-
nificant advantages such as high quality of produced
water, high biodegradation ability of pollutants
for a lower cumulative footprint. The schematic
representation of MBR is shown in Figure 6.
3.1 |Types of MBRs
3.1.1 |Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
MBBR and integrated fixed‐film activated sludge (IFAS)
are correlated with growth secondary biological treatment
in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Contaminated
water can be biologically treated through adequate ana-
lysis and environmental control. Small plastic carrier
material supports biofilm growth in MBBR. The perfor-
mance of the reactor has been shown in many coupled
operations for the elimination of BOD and nutrients. The
key benefit of the process relative to the activated sludge
reactors is its compactness and it does not involve the
recirculation of sludge. Flexibility is the advantage over
most biofilm systems [23].
3.1.2 |Anaerobic MBR (AnMBR)
Two most effective anaerobic technologies in use for
wastewater treatment are upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) and expanded granular sludge bed
reactors (EGSB). The most established AnMBR con-
figuration is where the high shear operation can
promote higher fluxes. It is particularly suited to
high‐strength wastewaters (WWs) of high fouling
propensity. However, the energy input for such op-
eration is relatively high. More recently, the im-
mersed configuration has been successfully
implemented, in which the biogas is used to scour the
membrane in the same way as air is used for an
aerobic process. While the AnMBR technology offers
the key advantage of resource recovery over the
aerobic equivalent, and provides a higher treated
water quality as well as greater flexibility and opera-
tional resilience over the classical nonmembrane
process, it is nonetheless constrained by membrane
fouling, and subsequent cleaning requirements.
Anaerobic processes in industrial wastewater treat-
ment are beneficial due to lower sludge generation
and conversion of organic matter into useful biogas
without energy consumption [30].
FIGURE 6 The schematic
representation of membrane bioreactor,
adapted from Jefferson and Bixio [29]. The
reactor consists of a buffer tank, an aeration
tank, a membrane bioreactor tank, and a
chemical dosing tank
BERA ET AL.
|
9
3.1.3 |Membrane‐biofilm reactor (MBfR)
The MBfR or membrane‐aerated biofilm reactor
(MABR), is an emerging treatment technology. MBfR
is centered on gas‐permeable membranes that offer a
gaseous substrate to biofilms naturally formed on the
outer surface of the membrane in counter‐diffusional
manner. This technology presents distinct benefits
over traditional biofilm treatment methods and allows
advanced treatment for a broad range of reduced,
oxidized, and organic compounds [31].
3.1.4 |Nanomaterials membranes MBR
(NMs‐MBR)
The idea of NMs promises to be a sustainable route to im-
prove membrane characteristics and enhance the efficiency
of MBRs in wastewater treatment. NM‐based membranes
are more efficient than traditional membranes in terms of
hydrophilicity, surface roughness, thermal stability,
hydraulicstability,fouling,higherwaterpermeability,and
higher selectivity due to their tiny pore size [18]. Different
types of nanofibers MBR (NFs‐MBR) that are actively used
in wastewater treatment comprises NFs‐MBR, nanoparticles
MBR (NPs‐MBR), nanotubes MBR (NTs‐MBR), nanocrystals
MBR (NCs‐MBR), nanowires MBR (NWs‐MBR), and
nanosheets MBR (NSs‐MBR).
4|APPLICATION OF
MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
4.1 |Industrial wastewater treatment
The features of industrial wastewater can generally be re-
presented by specific parameters, including COD, BOD, SS,
ammonium nitrogen (NH
4
+
‐N), heavy metals, pH, color,
turbidity, and biological parameters. Membrane methods
are commonly used for the handling of municipal waste-
water leading to higher costs for treated water and also
wastewater discharge. This technique helps in directly re-
covering the recycled materials, by‐products, and solvents.
It also assists in prevention of massive, high‐polluted was-
tewater flows [22].
4.2 |Food industries
The food industry covers a diverse number of sub-
sidiaries, such as fish, dairy, livestock, vegetable, and
beverage manufacturing sectors. As a consequence, the
wastewater of each branch varies in its quality
with high organic loads. In addition, these waste
waters contain high added value compounds (e.g.,
phenols, carotenoids, pectin, lactose, proteins) that can
be extracted [8]. Successful implementation of mem-
brane technology includes wastewater from potato
starch production, fruit juice, seafood industries, and
so forth.
4.3 |Pulp and paper industries
The processes in the pulp and paper industries are focused
on the use of water and an incredible amount of waste-
water can be generated. Membrane filtration makes it
possible to increase the performance of the existing was-
tewater treatment system in the pulp and paper industry.
Usually, MBR systems will extract 82%–99% of COD, ap-
proximately 100% of SS at a hydraulic retention time
(HRT) period of 0.12–2.5 days. The NF treatment process
decreased the COD and the color of the effluent by
around 90%.
4.4 |Textile industry
The textile processing industry (TPI) is a water‐
intensive field, as water is used as the primary medium
for the application of coloring, finishing agent, and the
elimination of impurities. Recent trend of industrial
wastewater treatment for energy recovery and reuse,
the combination AnMBR and aerobic MBR method
will be a viable technique for TPI wastewater treat-
ment. The AnMBR method is used for energy recovery
and the subsequent use of aerobic MBR will accom-
plish color reduction to generate the effluent for
subsequent reuse [24].
4.5 |Tannery industries
Tanning is a water‐consuming process and, as a result,
wastewater disposal is one of the biggest issues of
tanneries. A hybrid system of low‐cost MBR minerals
and found that the combined system could easily re-
move chromium, while the additional minerals miti-
gated fouling. The aerobic MBR is a viable technology
for tannery wastewater treatment, however, pilot and
full‐scale implementations are minimal. More atten-
tion needs to be given to the possible role of AnMBR in
tannery wastewater treatment [25].
10
|
BERA ET AL.
4.6 |Landfill leachate
Leachate is a high organic matter and ammonia nitrogen‐
strong wastewater produced as a result of rainwater
percolation and moisture from waste in landfills. The
chemical constituent of the leachate depends on the age
and maturity of the dump site. For a young leachate, the
organic components are much higher as compared to old
or matured one. Successful reduction of leachate con-
taminants can be done using stripping accompanied by
flocculation, MBR, and RO therapy [26]. A combination
of MBR and electro‐oxidation methods can reduce COD
and NH
+4
‐N and were followed by substantial
detoxification [32].
4.7 |Pharmaceutical wastewaters
The pharma industry disposal contains a wide‐ranging
class of compounds with significant structural hetero-
geneity, function, actions, and operation. Cephalosporin
containing pharmaceutical wastewater after treatment
with MBR causes increased degradation by bioaugmen-
tation. MBRs implementing special microorganisms can
serve as potential contenders to current pharmaceutical
wastewater treatment processes [21].
4.8 |Oily and petrochemical
wastewaters
Oil and petrochemical wastewater are among the most
troubled sources of pollutants due to their poisonous and
refractory traits that originate from a number of sources,
such as crude oil extraction, oil refining, petrochemical
industry, metal manufacturing, lubricants and coolants,
and car wash. A modified full‐scale facility from chemi-
cal deemulsification to a UF process accompanied by an
MBR method was used to treat oil‐contaminated waste-
water, was able to remove 90% COD and full tar, grease,
and phenolic [12].
4.9 |Municipal wastewater treatment
The quantity and type of wastewater and contaminants
from the municipality vary by country due to climate
change, socioeconomic conditions, household infra-
structure, and other factors. Municipal wastewater is typi-
cally treated to eliminate unwanted contaminants by
bacterial biodegradation of organic matter to smaller mo-
lecules (CO
2
,NH
3
,PO
4
, etc.) in presence of oxygen [22].
5|ADVANTAGES OF
MEMBRANE SEPARATION
TECHNIQUES
The membrane separation techniques have offered many
advantages as compared to other methods. Following are
the advantages of membrane separation technology [33].
•Membrane separation methods are applicable at both
molecular as well as scale up to level and thus many
separations need to be met by membrane process.
There is no need of changing the phase to make out
the membrane separation processes. So, the energy
requirement is less unless it needs to be required to
increase the pressure of the feed stream to drive the
permeate stream across the membrane.
•Membrane techniques are economical and en-
vironmentally friendly one because it is simple, ef-
ficient, and based on nonharmful materials. This
method is used for the softening of water. Main
benefit that is associated with membrane techniques
is performing gentle molecular separation that is
often not included with other forms of separation
processes (centrifugation). Membrane technique has
a very favorable benefit of being able to process large
volumes and continuously produce streams of
products [34].
•The membrane techniques offer a simple, low
economic‐based, and easy operational service to sepa-
rate unwanted components from wastewater. Also,
there is no need of complex controlling systems.
Membranes are manufactured with high selectivity
according to the components that need to be separated.
The selectivity values are generally higher for mem-
brane separation than the common values for volatility
for distillation operations [35].
•Removal of bacteria and particles very convenient
through this process. The simplicity and automation
operation allows for less operator attention which
makes them suitable for small system applications.
•Nearly all contaminant ions and most dissolved non-
ions are removed. It is suitable for small systems with a
high degree of seasonal fluctuation in water demand.
The technique is insensitive to flow and total dissolved
solids levels and can be operated immediately without
any minimum break‐in period.
•As many polymers and inorganic compounds can be
used to make membranes and thus there are more
chances of having control over the separation se-
lectivity. Membrane techniques are also able to recover
the minor components from the feed stream without
making any increase in the energy cost value [36].
BERA ET AL.
|
11
6|DISADVANTAGES OF
MEMBRANE SEPARATION
TECHNIQUES
The drawbacks associated with membrane separation
techniques include two major phenomena, that is, mem-
brane fouling and membrane modules.
6.1 |Membrane fouling
6.1.1 |Factors that influence membrane
fouling
Membrane fouling relies on different aspects of the set
up, that is, feed properties (pH and ion strength), mem-
brane features (roughness, hydrophobicity, etc.), and
processing parameters (cross‐flow rate, transmembrane
pressure, and temperature) [20]. Several of these vari-
ables combine in one form or another to intensify
membrane fouling. Factors that can be held responsible
for fouling are summed up below.
6.1.2 |Membrane characteristics
Hydrophilic such as ceramic membranes are less prone
to fouling, whereas hydrophobic membranes like poly-
meric membranes are more prone to fouling. The rough
surface creates a groove for colloidal particle to gather on
the membrane surface during the operation, fouling
keeps increasing with rising surface roughness. Higher
the membrane pore sizes, the higher chance of blocking
by contaminant, thus greater chance of fouling [37].
Increased hydrophilicity implies less membrane fouling,
while hydrophobicity associates with enhanced mem-
brane fouling tendency. Membranes get negatively
charged due to dumping of colloidal particles, thus can
accumulate positively charged ions such as Ca
2+
,Al
3+
from mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), and causes
inorganic membrane fouling [38].
6.1.3 |Operating conditions
Running in cross‐flow filtration mode causes less cake
layer formation on the membrane, resulting in lower
chance of fouling of membrane. Higher aeration rates
lead to lower rates of membrane fouling. Low tempera-
tures enhance the potential for membrane fouling as
more bacterial extracellular polymeric substances (EPS)
are released and higher the load of filamentous bacteria.
Higher COD/N ratio in feed lowers membrane fouling
rate, better membrane efficiency, and longer operating
time [39]. However, reports also suggest low COD/N
ratio implies lower fouling. Fouling increases with de-
clining HRT. Though, excessive HRT results in aggrega-
tion of fouling agents. Low EPS production by operating
at high solids retention time (SRT) limits fouling. Fouling
increases at extremely high SRT as it incorporates MLSS
and high sludge viscosity. Fouling increases with in-
crease in organic loading rate (OLR). When the EPS
production is increased from increasing the food to mi-
croorganism ratio through high biomass intake it results
in results in drastic increase in fouling [40].
6.1.4 |Feed/biomass properties
Fouling of the membrane rises with lower floc size.
Bound EPS released with rising salinity causes more
membrane fouling. Reduce in pH leads to an increase
membrane fouling rates.
High fouling is caused through higher MLSS. How-
ever, study also suggests that no or very little impact of it
on fouling. When the EPS concentration in the feed is
high, the chances of fouling increase. Increased viscosity
leads to increased membrane fouling [30].
6.1.5 |Control of membrane fouling
The various methods employed in overcoming the issues
generated due to fouling are described below [41].
Air spargin
It lowers the concentration of polarization and fouling. It
reduces the turbulence fluctuations by putting shear
stress on the membrane surface. A high aeration rate can
enhance the fouling of the membrane.
Mechanical cleaning
This is done by applying sheer pressure to the membrane
surface.
Ultrasonic mitigation
In this system, an ultrasound‐assisted aqueous medium
is used to remove soluble and insoluble particles. It es-
sentially reduces the concentration polarization and
eliminates the biofilm covering on the membrane sur-
face [42].
Chemical cleaning
This include the use of acids, bases, oxidants, surfactants,
and chelates, and the recent introduction of nitrite and
rhamnolipidsacidstoeliminatefoulingthrough
12
|
BERA ET AL.
solubilization and neutralization of bases which are re-
sponsible for hydrolysis, solubilization, and saponification of
the foulant [43].
Fouling release surfaces and nanomaterials
The membrane fouling can be controlled by preparing
membranes with antifouling surfaces with specific phy-
sical and chemical surface properties. Hydrophilic sur-
faces have demonstrated tremendous usefulness to
regulate different forms of foulants by suppressing non-
specific interactions. Postmodification of membranes by
polymeric antifouling materials or inorganic nanoma-
terials are also known to reduce fouling [44].
Cell entrapment (CE)
Cell immobilization (passive immobilization and
CE) restricts free movement of cells by confining them
into, or attaching them to a solid support that
artificially entraps cells in a porous polymer matrix.
Thistechniquecannotbesolelyreliablewithremoval
of pathogens and large particles, but is a good alter-
native for conventional biological treatment sys-
tems [45].
Biological mitigation
It's a newer approach with high capabilities in bio-
fouling control. The microbial attachment or biofilm
formation inhibits through inhibition of adenosine
triphosphate synthesis. Enzymes (proteinase K, tryp-
sin, subtilisin, etc.) which targets EPSs, can be used to
prevent initial microbial attachment than disrupt
established biofilm. The protease is much better than
traditional chemicals for the control of irreversible
membrane in spite of drawbacks (instability, tem-
perature, and pH) [46].
Electrically based mitigation
Electrophoresis (EP) and electrostatic repulsion, and the
forces exerted by electric fields on the charged particles
can inhibit membrane fouling by electrical methods. It is
used to control fouling in MBRs, mainly external such as
electro‐coagulation (EC) and EP or internal such as mi-
crobial fuel cells (MFCs).
6.2 |Membrane modules
To achieve the required separation, industrial membrane
plants require hundreds to thousands of square meters of
membrane. There are many ways of economic mem-
brane packages to provide huge surface area for effective
and efficient separation [7]. Usually, the designs of
membrane module are used for prevention of membrane
fouling. Commonly used membrane modules are plate
and frame, spiral wound, tubular, hollow‐fiber.
6.2.1 |Plate‐and‐frame modules
One of the initial types of membrane systems are plate‐
and‐frame modules, which are substituted by spiral‐
wound modules and hollow‐fiber modules because they
are relatively cheaper than plate‐and‐frame modules. At
present, plate‐and‐frame modules are in minimal
usage in RO and UF processes with highly fouling
conditions [4].
6.2.2 |Tubular modules
Tubular modules are used especially when there is ne-
cessity of high resistance to membrane fouling, which are
usually bounded to UF applications. These membranes
contain small tubes having diameter 0.5–1 cm embedded
inside a single large tube. Huge numbers of tubes are
held in series inside a tubular membrane system [31].
6.2.3 |Spiral‐wound modules
Commercial‐scale modules contain few membrane en-
velopes each having area of 10–20 ft
2
, enclosed around
the axial collection pipe. The typical commercial spiral
wound is 0.66 ft diameter and 3.33 ft long. The pressure
drop is reduced by multienvelope designs in which
permeate travels through central pipe [4].
6.2.4 |Hollow‐fiber modules
Usually hollow‐fiber modules are 10–20 cm in diameter and
of height ranging 3–5 ft. They are mostly operated with the
feed stream on the exterior of the fiber. Water traverses into
the lumen of the fiber inside the membrane. Large number
of fibers are composed together and "potted" in an epoxy
resin at two ends and placed into an outer shell [47].
7|FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Membrane technology is dramatically improving the man-
agement of water and wastewater. It shows extensive ap-
plications and observed as a very beneficial method for
wastewater treatment [48]. New researchers are being car-
ried out till date for application and development of new,
more efficient membrane materials, copolymers like
BERA ET AL.
|
13
polyvinylid‐enefluoride–hexafluoropropylene (PVDF–HFP)
and polyvinylid‐enefluoride–tetrafluoroethylene (PVDF–
TFE). For the last decade, most efforts have concentrated
primarily on the use of modern and innovative approaches
to solve the issue of membrane fouling in MBRs [30]. Most
recent experiments have worked on the use of NMs, CE,
biological principles, and electrically based approaches to
manage membrane fouling. These novel membrane fouling
management techniques have demonstrated high efficiency
[7]. Also application of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and buckey‐
paper membrane is being tested. However, the introduction
of these for large‐scale MBRs needs further study and in-
vestigation. Moreover, regulation of membrane fouling re-
quires more than one solution [49]. Membrane fouling is still
a significant problem in the area of membrane methods,
especially bio‐membrane technology, which must be ad-
dressed in the coming years [15]. This review article was an
effort to summarize major membrane technologies, focusing
on biomembrane technology; the MBR configuration, types
and their application, integration of MBR systems, quoting
theirmeritsanddemerits;aswellasmajormembranedraw
back, that is, fouling and their antifouling strategies. A lot of
research work has been done in this area for many years.
There is still space for reform in many ways, though. Re-
garding the previous success of conventional MBRs, NMs‐
MBR technology can also be used in other emerging areas.
This may be resistant to both chemical and mechanical
barriers also. So, in conclusion, we can say that the advanced
membrane technology will definitely be helpful in solving
the issues of wastewater treatment process and induce a
long‐term performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their valu-
able feedback.
ORCID
Sweta Parimita Bera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2102-295X
REFERENCES
[1] Kaushik G. Bioremediation of industrial effluents: distillery
effluent in applied environmental biotechnology present
scenario and future trends. India: Springer; 2015. p. 1–167.
[2] Bharagava RN, Chowdhary P. Emerging and eco‐friendly
approaches for waste management. Singapore: Springer;
2019. p. 1–435.
[3] Sen TK. Review on dye removal from its aqueous solution
into alternative cost effective and non‐conventional
adsorbents. J Chem Process Eng. 2014;1:1–11.
[4] Fritzmann C, Löwenberg J, Wintgens T, Melin T. State‐of‐
the‐art of reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination. 2007;
216:1–76.
[5] Sonune A, Ghate R. Developments in wastewater treatment
methods. Desalination. 2004;167:55–63.
[6] de Gisi S, Notarnicola M. Industrial wastewater treatment.
Encyclopedia of sustainable technologies. 1 Ohio, United
States: Elsevier; 2017. p. 23–42.
[7] Ezugbe EO, Rathilal S. Membrane technologies in waste-
water treatment: a review. Membranes (Basel). 2020;10:89.
[8] Radjenovic J, Petrovic M, Barcelo D. Membrane bioreactor
(MBR) as an advanced wastewater treatment technology cy-
totreat view project SEA‐on‐a‐CHIP view project. Artic
Handb Environ Chem. 2008;5:37–101.
[9] Gitis V, Hankins N. Water treatment chemicals: trends and
challenges. J Water Process Eng. 2018;25:34–8.
[10] Bolong N, Ismail AF, Salim MR, Matsuura T. A review of the
effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options
for their removal. Desalination. 2009;239:229–46.
[11] Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF. Surfactant‐enhanced re-
mediation of contaminated soil: a review. Eng Geol. 2001;60:
371–80.
[12] Ahmadian M, Ravanchi MT, Kaghazchi T, Kargari A.
Application of membrane separation processes in petro-
chemical industry: a review. Desalination. 2009;235:199–244.
[13] Abedini R, Nezhadmoghadam A. Application of membrane
in gas separation processes: its suitability and mechanisms.
Pet Coal. 2010;52:69–80.
[14] Ananthashankar R. AG. Production, characterization and
treatment of textile effluents: a critical review. J Chem Eng
Process Technol. 2013;5:1–18.
[15] Ismail AF, Khulbe KC, Matsuura T. Reverse osmosis. Reverse
Osmosis. 2018;227:395–405.
[16] Singh G, Kumar, Bulasara V. Preparation of low‐cost mi-
crofiltration membranes from fly ash. Desalin Water Treat.
2015;53:1204–12.
[17] Kazemimoghadam M, Mohammadi T. Chemical cleaning of
ultrafiltration membranes in the milk industry. Desalination.
2007;204:213–8.
[18] Waite T, Fane A, Schäfer A. Nanofiltration: principles and
applications. J Am Water Works Assoc. 2005;1:1–560.
[19] Srinivasan A, Ahilan B, Divya CM, Divya M, Aanand S,
Srinivasan A, et al. Bioremediation–an eco‐friendly tool for
effluent treatment: a review. Int. J Appl Res. 2015;1:530–7.
[20] Elimelech M, Mi B. Organic fouling of forward osmosis
membranes: fouling reversibility and cleaning without che-
mical reagents. Artic J Membr Sci. 2010;348:337–45.
[21] Peters T. Membrane technology for water treatment. Chem
Eng Technol. 2010;33:1233–40.
[22] Jyoti J, Alka D, Jitendra, Kumar S. Application of membrane‐
bio‐reactor in waste‐water treatment: a review. Int J Chem
Eng Syst. 2013;3:115–22.
[23] Magara Y, Kunikane S. Advanced membrane technology for
application to water treatment. Water Sci Technol. 1998;37:
91–9.
[24] Collivignarelli MC, Abbà A, Carnevale Miino M, Damiani S.
Treatments for color removal from wastewater: state of the
art. J Environ Manage. 2019;236:727–45.
[25] Ahmad A, Mohammad‐Setapar SH, Chuong CS, Khatoon A,
Wani VA, Kumar R, et al. Recent advances in new generation
dye removal technologies: novel search for approaches to
reprocess wastewater. RSC Adv. 2015;21:182–8.
14
|
BERA ET AL.
[26] Koc‐Jurczyk J. Removal of refractory pollutants from landfill
leachate using two‐phase system. Water Environ Res. 2014;
86:74–80.
[27] Pavithra KG, Sentil Kumar P, Jaikumar V, Sundar, Rajan P.
Removal of colorants from wastewater: a review on sources
and treatment strategies. J Ind Eng Chem. 2019;75:1–19.
[28] Zoubeik M, Ismail M, Salama A, Henni A. New developments
in membrane technologies used in the treatment of produced
water: a review. Arabian J Sci Eng. 2018;43:2093–2118.
[29] Jefferson B, Bixio D. Membrane bioreactor technology for
wastewater treatment and reuse. Desalination. 2006;187:271–82.
[30] Chang IS, Le Clech P, Jefferson B, Judd S. Membrane fouling
in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment.
J Environ Eng. 2002;128:1018–29.
[31] Valladares Linares R, Fortunato L, Farhat NM, Bucs SS,
Staal M, Fridjonsson EO, et al. Desalination and water
treatment mini‐review: novel non‐destructive in situ biofilm
characterization techniques in membrane systems. Taylor
Fr. 2016;57:22894–901.
[32] Babuponnusami A, Muthukumar K. A review on Fenton and
improvements to the fenton process for wastewater treat-
ment. J Environ Chem Eng. 2014;2:557–72.
[33] Gao W, Liang H, Ma J, Han M, Chen Z, Han Z, et al. Membrane
fouling control in ultrafiltration technology for drinking water
production: a review. Desalination. 2011;272:1–8.
[34] Qu F, Liang H, Zhou J, Nan J, Shao S, Zhang J, et al. Ul-
trafiltration membrane fouling caused by extracellular or-
ganic matter (EOM) from Microcystis aeruginosa: effects of
membrane pore size and surface hydrophobicity. J Membr
Sci. 2014;449:58–66.
[35] Wang N, Li X, Yang Y, Zhou Z, Shang Y, Zhuang X.
Photocatalysis‐coagulation to control ultrafiltration mem-
brane fouling caused by natural organic matter. J Clean Prod.
2020;265:121790.
[36] Wang H, Park M, Liang H, Wu S, Lopez IJ, Ji W, et al. Re-
ducing ultrafiltration membrane fouling during potable wa-
ter reuse using pre‐ozonation. Water Res. 2017;125:42–51.
[37] Liao Y, Bokhary A, Maleki E, Liao B. A review of membrane
fouling and its control in algal‐related membrane processes.
Bioresour Technol. 2018;264:343–58.
[38] Liu T, Drews A. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors ‐
characterisation, contradictions, cause and cures. J Membr Sci.
2010;363:1–28.
[39] Hilal N, Ogunbiyi OO, Miles NJ, Nigmatullin R. Methods
employed for control of fouling in MF and UF membranes: a
comprehensive review. Sep Sci Technol. 2005;40:1957–2005.
[40] Vrouwenvelder JS, van Paassen JAM, Wessels LP,
van Dam AF, Bakker SM. The membrane fouling simu-
lator: a practical tool for fouling prediction and control.
J Membr Sci. 2006;281:316–24.
[41] Iorhemen OT, Hamza RA, Tay JH. Membrane fouling control
in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) using granular materials.
Bioresour Technol. 2017;240:9–24.
[42] Peng N, Widjojo N, Sukitpaneenit P, Teoh MM,
Lipscomb GG, Chung TS, et al. Evolution of polymeric hol-
low fibers as sustainable technologies: past, present, and fu-
ture. Prog Polym Sci. 2012;37:1401–24.
[43] Mishima I, Nakajima J. Control of membrane fouling in
membrane bioreactor process by coagulant addition. Water
Sci Technol. 2009;59:1255–62.
[44] Bagheri M, Akbari A, Mirbagheri SA. Advanced control of
membrane fouling in filtration systems using artificial in-
telligence and machine learning techniques: a critical review.
Process Saf Environ Prot. 2019;123:229–52.
[45] Ahmad A, Mohd‐Setapar SH, Chuong CS, Khatoon A,
Wani WA, Kumar R, et al. Recent advances in new gen-
eration dye removal technologies: novel search for ap-
proaches to reprocess wastewater. RSC Adv. 2015;5:
30801–18.
[46] Kimura K, Oki Y. Efficient control of membrane fouling in
MF by removal of biopolymers: comparison of various pre-
treatments. Water Res. 2017;115:172–9.
[47] Togo N, Nakagawa K, Shintani T, Yoshioka T, Takahashi T,
Kamio E, et al. Osmotically assisted reverse osmosis utilizing
hollow fiber membrane module for concentration process.
ACS Publ. 2019;58:6721–9.
[48] Mbakop S, Nthunya LN, Onyango MS. Recent advances in
the synthesis of nanocellulose functionalized–hybrid mem-
branes and application in water quality improvement.
Processes. 2021;9:611.
[49] Bouhid de Aguiar I, Schroën K. Microfluidics used as a tool
to understand and optimize membrane filtration processes.
Membranes. 2020;10:316.
How to cite this article: Bera SP, Godhaniya M,
Kothari C. Emerging and advanced membrane
technology for wastewater treatment: a review.
J Basic Microbiol. 2021;1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.202100259
BERA ET AL.
|
15
