Content uploaded by Samuel Kolade
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samuel Kolade on Dec 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring emerging water treatment technologies for the removal of
microbial pathogens
Oluwatobi Victoria Obayomi
a,*
, Damilare Cornelius Olawoyin
b
, Olumide Oguntimehin
b
,
Lukman Shehu Mustapha
c
, Samuel Oluwaseun Kolade
d
, Peter Olusakin Oladoye
e
,
Seungdae Oh
f
, Kehinde Shola Obayomi
d,g,h,**
a
Department of Food Science and Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria
b
Department of Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria
d
Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research (ZIWR), The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion 84990,
Israel
e
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Modesto Maidique Campus, Miami 33199, FL, United States
f
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
g
Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, CDT 250, 98009, Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia
h
Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Water
Contaminants
Disinfection
Pathogens, Microbes
ABSTRACT
The availability of potable and clean water has become a global challenge. There are many variables that affect
how equally people have access to clean water. Disparities are a result of inadequate infrastructure, which in-
cludes a deciency of suitable pipelines, sanitation systems, and water treatment facilities. The presence of
pathogenic microbes such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa in water has become a global public health concern.
Pathogens present in water caused various disease outbreaks, health emergencies and increased cost of treat-
ments. To address this challenge, a variety of methods for removing microbial pathogens from water sources
have been developed and implemented. This review provides a thorough exploration of diverse methods utilized
for pathogen removal in water treatment, encompassing physical, chemical, and biological approaches. It delves
into the efcacy of each method, scrutinizing their constraints and practical implications. Furthermore, recent
advancements and emerging technologies within the domain are explored, offering insights into potential future
developments and enhancements. Future research efforts should focus on addressing these challenges to enhance
the efciency, reliability, and sustainability of water treatment systems for safeguarding public health and
ensuring access to safe drinking water worldwide.
Introduction
Microbial contaminants in water pose serious health risks to humans,
and access to clean water is a fundamental human right that millions of
people around the world lack. According to Allaq et al., (2023), these
contaminants, which are mainly bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and para-
sites, have the potential to cause waterborne diseases that can have a
severe negative impact on health, especially in populations with weak-
ened immune systems. Contaminated water frequently contains bacteria
like Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli (E. coli) (Cho et al.,
2020). According to (Pal et al., 2018), these pathogens can induce
gastrointestinal disorders like vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.
In extreme situations, they can even result in kidney failure or even
death (Obayomi et al., 2024). Waterborne and extremely contagious
viruses include rotavirus, norovirus, and hepatitis A virus. They
endanger public health by causing ailments like liver inammation,
jaundice, and gastrointestinal problems (Boussettine et al., 2020).
Consuming water contaminated with these microorganisms causes
gastrointestinal tract infections, which can lead to protracted diarrhea,
dehydration, and malnourishment. This condition is particularly
* Corresponding author at: Department of Food science and Microbiology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara state, Nigeria.
** Corresponding author at: Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research (ZIWR), The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion 84990, Israel.
E-mail addresses: obayomivictoria06@gmail.com (O.V. Obayomi), obayomikehindeshola@gmail.com (K.S. Obayomi).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Current Research in Biotechnology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/crbiot
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2024.100252
Received 8 May 2024; Received in revised form 12 August 2024; Accepted 3 September 2024
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
Available online 13 September 2024
2590-2628/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
hazardous for susceptible groups such as children and the elderly.
Waterborne infections can have a negative impact on the developing
fetus as well as the mother, increasing the risk of complications and
possible birth defects in expectant mothers (Kumar et al., 2019).
Throughout history, waterborne diseases have aficted civilizations,
resulting in widespread illness, suffering, and death. Signicant histor-
ical outbreaks of waterborne diseases have inuenced our knowledge of
public health in an enormous way. These incidents, which span histor-
ical periods, emphasize the signicance of adequate sanitation, a clean
water supply, and efcient disease control strategies (Nichols et al.,
2018). Europe was ravaged by the Black Death in the fourteenth century,
which was brought on by the bacterium Yersinia pestis and occurred
between 1347 and 1351. Although this fatal disease was mainly spread
by eas on rats, new research suggests that waterborne transmission was
also involved. An estimated 75–200 million people died as a result of the
widespread outbreak, which was exacerbated by contaminated water
sources and poor sanitation (Zahler, 2009). One of the key moments in
the history of epidemiology is acknowledged to have been John Snow’s
1854 study of the Broad Street cholera outbreak in London. Snow
effectively illustrated how cholera is spread by water when he deter-
mined that the outbreak was caused by contaminated water from the
public pump. Modern water treatment systems and urban sanitation
have advanced signicantly as a result of this discovery (Tulchinsky,
2018). A serious outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis affected over 400,000
people in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the spring of 1993. Widespread
sickness was brought on by the city’s water supply being contaminated
by the parasite Cryptosporidium. This event brought attention to the
fragility of even highly developed water systems and spurred changes in
water treatment procedures all around the country (Doyle, 2017).
Walkerton, a small town in Ontario, Canada, experienced a devastating
outbreak of E. Coli (Escherichia coli) contamination in its water supply in
May 2000. Drinking polluted water caused over 2,300 illnesses and
seven fatalities. Signicant oversight and regulatory improvements
resulted from the incident’s exposure of shortcomings in drinking water
management procedures (Watters, 2019). Haiti was hit by a severe
cholera epidemic in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. The outbreak,
which was ascribed to UN peacekeeping troops, introduced a Vibrio
cholerae strain to the nation that had not existed for more than a cen-
tury. This incident brought to light the importance of strict sanitation
regulations in post-disaster situations and the worldwide impact of
waterborne diseases (Jutla et al., 2017). A notable waterborne Campy-
lobacteriosis outbreak occurred in the town of Havelock North, New
Zealand, in 2016. The contaminated water supply in the town caused
about 5,500 illnesses, underscoring the vulnerability of rural water
supplies. Stronger drinking water regulations and more money was
invested nationwide in protecting water sources as a result of this
outbreak (McLaren et al., 2022).
There are a number of sources of microbiological contamination.
Human and animal feces are among the main sources (Schriewer et al.,
2015). Pathogens such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and E. Coli can enter
water sources through sewage leaks, broken septic systems, and agri-
cultural runoff (Pal et al., 2018). Pathogens can enter streams, rivers,
and lakes through urban runoff from rainwater, which also carries pol-
lutants from the streets (Singh et al., 2022). In natural water environ-
ments like freshwater, soil, and vegetation, certain microorganisms like
Legionella can ourish (Gardu˜
no, 2020). There are numerous routes for
contamination. The most direct way to be exposed to microbiological
contaminants in water is through the consumption of polluted water.
Skin infections, rashes, and other dermatological problems can result
from dermal contact, which includes swimming, bathing, or even un-
intentional contact with contaminated water (Dufour, 2018). Foodborne
illnesses can arise from the transfer of pathogens to food through
contaminated water used in crop irrigation or food preparation (Iwu &
Okoh, 2019). According to Bashir et al., (2020), contaminated water can
have an adverse effect on the ecosystem by contaminating crops and soil
or by entering aquatic ecosystems and affecting wildlife and aquatic life.
Regional differences in access to clean water continue to affect
people’s health, education, employment prospects, and general quality
of life (Carter et al., 2016). Regional differences in access to clean water
are substantial. While some developed nations claim nearly universal
access, many developing nations struggle to offer their citizens access to
clean water. Inadequate infrastructure and resources, for example,
present serious challenges for Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia
(Niasse & Varis, 2021; Pink, 2016). Within nations, disparities also exist
between rural and urban areas. Because infrastructure and resources are
concentrated in urban areas, these areas typically have better access,
whereas rural areas frequently lack adequate facilities and have dif-
culty accessing sources of clean water (Gomez et al., 2019). There are
many variables that affect how equally people have access to clean
water. Disparities are a result of inadequate infrastructure, which in-
cludes a deciency of suitable pipelines, sanitation systems, and water
treatment facilities. Numerous communities, particularly those in rural
areas, depend on ponds, rivers, or tainted wells as sources of unsafe
water (Adeyeye et al., 2020). Differences are made worse by poverty.
Poorer neighborhoods frequently lack the resources to purchase clean
water supplies or make infrastructure improvements. Because of nan-
cial difculties, they might turn to questionable sources (Capps et al.,
2016). The availability and quality of water are impacted by climate
change, with vulnerable areas being disproportionately affected. Water
resources may be under stress due to oods, droughts, and shifting
rainfall patterns, which will make access even more difcult (du Plessis
& du Plessis, 2017). Access to clean water is often impeded in conict-
affected regions by limited resources and disrupted infrastructure.
Furthermore, ineffective governance and poor management impede at-
tempts to successfully address water disparities (Schillinger et al., 2020).
Numerous implications and difculties arise from microbial
contamination of water (Obayomi et al., 2024). Healthcare costs may
rise as a result of microbially-induced waterborne illnesses. Healthcare
systems must spend resources to treat diseases like cholera, typhoid, and
other diarrheal illnesses, which has an effect on both public and private
healthcare budgets (DeFlorio-Barker et al., 2018). Sicknesses brought on
by contaminants in the water caused workers to miss work. This lowers
productivity, which has an impact on economic output on a personal,
local, and national level. Economic growth may be considerably
impacted by this lost productivity (Juntunen et al., 2017). To purify
water sources, governments and communities need to invest in water
treatment facilities and technologies. These expenses may add up,
particularly in areas with poor infrastructure or few resources (Connor,
2015). Water resources are vital to agriculture. Crop yields are impacted
by contaminated water, which lowers agricultural productivity. Crop
damage can result in losses for farmers, which affects their means of
subsistence and the supply of food in the market (Lu et al., 2015).
Because of numerous implications and difculties arise from microbial
contamination of water, it is therefore important to reduce or totally
remove microbial contaminants in water. This review aims to compre-
hensively examine various methods for pathogen removal in water
treatment, including physical, chemical, and biological approaches. The
effectiveness of each method, their limitations, and practical implica-
tions of each method were discussed, as well as recent advancements
and emerging technologies in the eld.
Physical methods of microbial contaminants removal from water
Adsorption
Adsorption techniques can be highly effective in removing microbes
from water. The process involves attaching microbes to a surface
(adsorbent material) where they are trapped, preventing them from
remaining in the uid (Balaure & Grumezescu, 2020). These techniques
can target a wide range of microbes, including bacteria, viruses, and
some fungi, depending on the properties of the adsorbent material used.
Some adsorbent materials, like activated carbon or certain clays, can be
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
2
relatively inexpensive and readily available, making them cost-effective
options for microbial removal (Obayomi et al., 2020). Not all adsorption
techniques are highly specic to certain types of microbes. Some
adsorbent materials might capture a broad spectrum of microorganisms,
including benecial ones, leading to a reduction in overall microbial
diversity. Adsorption technique has been reported for the removal of
pathogens from water as a cost-effective technique (Da’ana et al, 2021).
Chung et al., (2016) studied the removal of two rotavirus and adenovirus
(pathogenic viruses) from groundwater using hydrochar obtained from
sludge improved soil beds as adsorbent. The study revealed that more
than 99 % removal potency was recorded which equals the removal
efciency of both viruses by the adsorbent. The addition of hydrophobic,
meso-surface, and macro-surface structure of the hydrochar may be the
reason for the enhanced removal potency whereby it made available
conducive adherence points for the viruses. Another example is the
preparation of aluminosilicate clay which was treated hydrothermally
for the to remove uoride and bacteria simultaneously from water.
Furthermore, the potency of the materials prepared was observed
against Escherichia coli as inhibition zone for the growth of bacteria
(Obijole et al., 2021). Adsorption techniques can be relatively simple to
implement and can often be used in conjunction with existing water
treatment systems (Bonilla-Petriciolet et al., 2017).
Adsorption techniques for microbial removal are effective in certain
contexts but also come with their own set of drawbacks (Crini & Badot,
2010). Adsorbents can become saturated with microbes over time,
reducing their effectiveness. Regenerating these materials often requires
specic processes (like heating, chemical treatment, etc.), which can be
expensive or complicated (Obayomi et al., 2022). The stability and
durability of adsorbent materials can vary. Some materials may degrade
or leach contaminants into the water or air, potentially causing sec-
ondary pollution or health risks (Yahya et al., 2021). Higher ow rates
might reduce the contact time between microbes and adsorbent sur-
faces, decreasing effectiveness. The efciency of adsorption can be
inuenced by the ow rate of the uid being treated (Yahya et al.,
2021). Disposal of used adsorbent materials, especially those with
contaminants trapped within them, can pose environmental challenges.
It requires proper disposal or regeneration to prevent potential
contamination (Saravanan et al., 2022). Implementing large-scale
adsorption techniques for microbial removal might require substantial
infrastructure and space, which could limit their feasibility in certain
settings. While adsorption techniques offer promise in microbial
removal, their effectiveness and drawbacks vary based on the specic
method, adsorbent material, and environmental conditions. Integrating
these techniques within a comprehensive treatment strategy and
addressing their limitations is crucial for maximizing their efcacy while
minimizing potential drawbacks (Smith & Rodrigues, 2015).
Filtration
A highly effective technique for eliminating microorganisms from a
variety of substances is ltration (Ahmed et al., 2021). Microltration is
a popular microbial removal ltration technique that employs mem-
branes with pore sizes typically ranging from 0.1 to 10 µm. According to
Anis et al., (2019a) it works well at removing of larger particles, viruses,
and some larger bacteria (Saravanakumar et al., 2022). Using ultral-
tration, tiny bacteria, viruses, colloids, and macromolecules can be
removed from liquids by using smaller pore sizes (0.001 to 0.1 µm)
(Majumdar et al., 2022). Higher levels of purication can be achieved
through nanoltration, which has even smaller pore sizes (0.001 µm and
below) and is effective against viruses, some organic molecules, and
divalent ions (Joseph et al., 2023). A semipermeable membrane is used
in the Reverse Osmosis method to lter out molecules, ions, and larger
particles, such as microbes. Using a thick, porous ltration medium,
depth ltration involves trapping particles at every depth. Although it
works well against larger bacteria, membrane-based techniques might
be able to eradicate smaller ones more quickly (Akduman & Kumbasar,
2018). Sterilization is the process of ltering, which is used in labs and
industries, entails using lters with pore sizes small enough to capture
and eliminate every viable microbe, resulting in sterilization (Prins &
Paulsson, 2015). Pore size, ow rate, pressure requirements, and the
particular kind of microbe or particle being targeted are all important
considerations when choosing a ltration technique. Whether the choice
is to sterilize drugs, purify water, or guarantee the sterility of lab sam-
ples, it frequently depends on the intended use (Ray et al., 2016).
Research on the activity of two settings of household slow sand l-
ters, known as intermittent household slow sand lters (I-HSSF) and
continuous household slow sand lters (C-HSSF) ow was carried out
succeeded by sodium hypochlorite to remove E. coli, Giardia muris cysts,
and Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts at the same time from groundwater.
Two phases of operation were investigated in this research work to
catalyze the HSSF ripening, both with the use and without the use of
river water as a ripening substance. A ripening substance is often added
to the lter to provide nutritional materials for the growth of the bio-
logical layer in a while. Results obtained revealed that effective micro-
organism’s removal in groundwater took place by C-HSSF in comparison
to I-HSSF. Moreover, it was reported that the feeding the HSSFs weekly
with river water as a ripening substance increase the process of ripening
in about 80 days, which caused the process efciency amelioration as
compared to the process without the ripening substance. The results
obtained showed the application of HSSF to provide quality water in
rural residentials (Andreoli and Sabogal-Paz, 2020).
Although ltration have its own benets and drawbacks, ltration
techniques are useful in lowering microbial populations. Larger viruses,
fungi, bacteria, and protozoa can all be successfully eliminated from
liquids or gases through ltration. Certain microorganisms are targeted
by lters with varying pore sizes (Bharti et al., 2022). Filtration, in
contrast to chemical disinfection techniques, does not require the
addition of chemicals that might change the substance being ltered’s
avor or characteristics (Sarma, 2020). Because of their capacity to
exclude microorganisms based on size, lters function as a physical
barrier that retains out microbes. Filtration methods can be scaled up for
various volumes, making them adaptable for small-scale laboratory use
to large industrial applications (Hakami et al., 2020). There are several
Drawbacks associated with ltration method as a means of microbial
pollutant removal as Some very small viruses might pass through certain
types of lters if the pore size is not small enough to capture them (Nasir
et al., 2022). Filters can become clogged with microbes, reducing their
effectiveness and necessitating frequent replacement or cleaning. High-
quality lters and ltration systems can be costly, particularly in large-
scale applications. Maintenance costs also contribute to overall expenses
(Cahoon, 2019). Filtration can be a slow process, especially when
dealing with large volumes of uids or gases, which may limit its use-
fulness for time-sensitive processes. In some cases, microbes trapped in
lters can form biolms, causing contamination and reducing ltration
effectiveness (de Vries et al., 2020). Different lters have specic limi-
tations in terms of the types and sizes of microbes they can effectively
remove, so selecting the appropriate lter for a given application is
critical (Barbusinski et al., 2017).
Disinfection
One of the essential aspects of the process involving treatment of
water treatment that inactivates as well as removes waterborne patho-
genic microbes is disinfection, hence providing protection to human
health (Collivignarelli et al., 2017). Therefore, disinfection is inevitable
in treating drinking water because it gives protection to human health
by destroying pathogenic microbes (Collivignarelli et al., 2017). This
method has been globally used as the basic and landmark treatment
process of wastewater, drinking water and swimming pool (Mazhar et
al., 2020). Physical disinfection is the most used method of disinfection
used in treatment of water (for example, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and
chemical disinfection (examples include chloramine, ozone, dioxide,
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
3
and chlorine) (Gelete et al., 2020). Furthermore, a lot of people has
serious concerns about the use of disinfectants as a result of their reli-
ability, efciency, costs and toxic by-product formation (Koley et al.,
2024). Disinfection is often the nal step in the treatment of water for
the destruction and removal of microorganisms that cause diseases
which can lead to disease in humans when using disinfectant. The pro-
cess either destroys or inactivates pathogens (bacteria, parasites, fungi,
and other pathogens) in a community water supply (Ngwenya et al.,
2012; Gelete et al., 2020). Disinfectants eliminate pathogenic microor-
ganisms in water through various mechanisms as shown in Fig. 1. Some
common ways disinfectants work include Protein Denaturation, Cell
Membrane Disruption, DNA/RNA Damage. Disinfectants like chlorine
and ozone work by releasing reactive oxygen species that damage the
cell components of microorganisms (McDonnell, 2007).
Chlorination
The main goal of disinfection in the water distribution process is to
remove pathogenic microbes that causes waterborne diseases. Chlorine-
based disinfectants or chlorine gas, eliminate microorganisms by
oxidizing their cellular components (Gerba, 2015). This disrupts their
metabolism and destroys their genetic material, eventually destroying
them. Chlorination is a proved process of pathogen removal and is the
most used disinfection method used in treating water in most countries.
During this process, the chlorine or by-product added undergoes re-
actions with water to form hypochlorite ions and hypochlorous acid
(Pichel et al., 2019). Chlorine is inexpensive and efcient at low con-
centrations, after which a residual is formed, which means it requires no
post-treatment. The ability of chlorine to last long in water as residual
chlorine makes it a preferred method of microbial removal, therefore,
the disinfectant action of chlorine continues both during storage and
distribution (Gelete et al., 2020). Due to its affordability and effective
disinfection potentials, Chlorine is a broadly-used disinfection method
all over the world. However, chlorine has disadvantages which include
unpleasant smell, taste and it is not effective against cysts and protozoa
eggs, these limitations have caused the introduction of other disinfection
techniques (Zhai et al., 2017). The other problem involving the use of
chlorine is the lack of standard on the quantity that is required. None-
theless, the quantity required relies on the water quality and the
requirement for disinfection (Gelete et al., 2020).
Chloramination
Chloramine (monohloramine) is composed of chlorine and ammonia
under controlled conditions. Chloramines, which form when chlorine
reacts with ammonia or nitrogen compounds, are powerful disinfec-
tants. They penetrate the microorganisms’ cell walls and damage their
proteins and enzymes, preventing growth and proliferation. The process
of chloramination should be carried out under strictly-controlled con-
ditions to avoid the formation of undesirable tastes and by-products in
the water (Poleneni, 2020; Gelete et al., 2020). The efciency of
monochloramine in the reduction of microbes is low in comparison to
chloramination. One of the advantages in the use of chloramination is
that it does not produce dangerous by-products such as trihalomethanes
in the presence of organic compounds. However, the taste is very high
than that of chlorine alone. The residue of chloramine stops the water
from becoming contaminated again. Disadvantages of chloramination
include chemical substance dependent, less potency in removal of
pathogen compared to other methods, requires skilled individuals and
harmful to sh farming (Gelete et al., 2020).
Ozonation
Production of Ozone (O
3
) is by passing dry oxygen through a high-
voltage electrodes system. Ozone is known as a strong oxidizing agent
which is highly applicable in supply of quality water and improvement
in water disinfection (Brodowska et al., 2018; Van der Merwe et al.,
2012). As a result of its high oxidizing potential, it has been reported as
one of the most effective disinfection methods that has been used for the
treatment of water. Ozone is a strong oxidizing agent used in water
disinfection. It works by breaking down the cell walls and membranes of
microorganisms. Ozone also interferes with the enzymes required for
their survival, causing death to the pathogen. When compared to chlo-
rine, ozone is known as a very effective disinfectant that removes
chemical remains, pesticides, different microbes and organic com-
pounds in a reduced time of contact and minimal concentrations (Ge et
al., 2012; Gelete et al., 2020). It is majorly effective against microbial
cysts and their spores. Ozonation has been reported as the major
chemical disinfectant that can act against proliferation and activities of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium. One of the most outstanding advantages of
ozone is that it does not have unwanted substances as by-products. As a
result, using ozone in treating contaminated water has got researchers’
attention in recent years. One disadvantage of ozonation is the rapid
reduction in concentration in water in comparison with methods that
uses chlorine, chloramine, and dioxide. Therefore, recontamination is
possible in the system when using this method (Chiozzi et al., 2022).
Furthermore, ozonation is expensive and requires trained workers for
maintenance, high input of energy, onsite production, and post-
treatment for the removal of organic carbon generated during the pro-
cess (Thomas et al., 2022).
Chlorine dioxide
Chlorine dioxide (ClO
2
) is a method used in water treatment espe-
cially for the removal of algae. Furthermore, chlorine dioxide also gets
rid of odour, taste, and elements such as manganese and iron from the
water. Chloride dioxide is sensitive to light, pressure, and temperature
and also unstable, these characteristics makes it highly explosive in the
presence of oxygen if the concentrations are more than 4 %. Chlorine
dioxide is usually produced and used at the contamination site to pre-
vent storage and distribution problems. (Gelete et al., 2020).
Ultraviolet radiation
This method is one of the most used treatments for the removal of
pathogens or waste from water. UV radiation damages pathogens’ DNA
or RNA, preventing replication and rendering them harmless. Presently,
ultraviolet radiation is a well-known disinfectant method in treatment of
water as a result of its ability to inactivate various pathogenic micro-
organisms. This disinfectant does not produce any form of harmful by-
products (Chiozzi et al., 2022; Gelete et al., 2020). In ultraviolet radia-
tion process, contaminated water is exposed to radiation that has
shortwave to destroy any microorganisms present in the water. Ultra-
violet radiation disrupts the proliferation of microorganisms by directly
affecting the replication of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (Bono et al.,
2021). Ultraviolet radiation is an effective physical means of removing
bacteria that does not affect water quality and no chemical agent is
Fig. 1. A Pictural representation of mechanism of action of disinfectants.
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
4
added to the water for disinfection (Shahawy et al., 2019). Due to their
unique properties, the taste, smell, and the pH remain unchanged, the
only target organism is bacteria. This method is also used to disinfect
treated wastewater. For the past seventy-ve (75) years, ultraviolet ra-
diation has been used in municipal water supply disinfection. One of the
major advantages of ultraviolet radiation disinfectant in the supply of
drinking water is that it disinfects the water without the use chemicals.
Another advantage is that it is very rapid process that is cost-effective,
easily amenable and does not produce any harmful by-products. How-
ever, one of the shortcomings of using ultraviolet radiation is the lack of
residual disinfection (Chawla et al., 2021).
A decision support tool for water treatment technology has been
built in advanced nations as well as developing nations worldwide as a
result of the difculty in choosing an appropriate water treatment
technology by researchers, engineers, lawyers, and/or policymakers
that will contribute to sustainable development (Kamami, 2014; Oertl´
e
et al., 2019). Thus, it is crucial to conduct research to assess all or some
of the water treatment technologies to select the most suitable process
among the available options for both advanced and developing countries
(Ali et al., 2020). In order to evaluate and analyze the aforementioned
treatment technologies, the TOPSIS Method is widely used. Other factors
or criteria to be taken into account for this exercise include: membrane
pore size, water ux and pressure, Biochemical Oxygen Control (BOD)
removal efciency, space requirement, investment cost, and energy
required, among others (Baquero-Rodriguez et al., 2018). The three
main types of decision-making problems that multi-criteria analysis
depends on are choice problems, which involve choosing the best or
optimum alternative, ranking problems, which involve placing all of the
alternatives in order of preference, and sorting problems, which involve
selecting the best option from a given list of options (Alvarez et al., 2021;
Aydin & Gümcs, 2022). Regarding conception and implementation,
TOPSIS is among the most easy and efcient multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) tools available. Yahya et al., (2021) list the following
advantages of using TOPSIS above alternative decision-making pro-
cedures: An organized approach that follows the decision maker’s ten-
dency, a single value that takes into account both positive and negative
alternatives, the measurement of all the alternatives’ performance with
reference to attributes that can be visualized as an ideal system for no
less than two variables, and TOPSIS’s ease of implementation and high
computational accuracy all contribute to its improved reach in spread-
sheets (Keçeci et al., 2019). An additional advantage is that, like any
other MCDM tool, it provides an overall estimation of the performance
of every component in a TOPSIS (Amudha et al., 2021; Mousavi-Nasab &
Sotoudeh-Anvari, 2017). This measurement can be used to assess water
treatment technology as well as many other elds of study when
determining which option is the most effective or least effective out of
several. Numerous industries, including engineering, manufacturing,
human resources, water resource management, supply chain and logis-
tics management, and many more, have found success with this
approach (Aghalari et al., 2020). Thus, the use of TOPSIS will be useful
for government, non-governmental organizations, entrepreneurs, and
economic experts in adopting necessary decisions concerning the choice
of the best option among the range of alternatives (I.-Y. Lu et al., 2016).
Furthermore, using TOPSIS in assessing the water treatment technolo-
gies is that it can minimize the vagueness of the experts from different
elds of study and uncertainty inherent in natural problems (Attri et al.,
2022). Table 1 depicts the relative closeness of different disinfection
methods to the positive ideal solution using TOPSIS technique as re-
ported by Gelete et al., (2020). However, Gelete et al., (2020), reported
that Ultraviolet radiation disinfection method is the ideal and the most
preferrable method using Fuzzy PROMETHEE which is a technique used
widely all over the world in various decision-making processes as well as
TOPSIS technique.
Chemical treatments for microbial removal
Coagulation-occulation
Coagulation-occulation process is a method used in the separation
of solid substances suspended in waters (Ukiwe et al., 2014). This pro-
cess functions in steps that disrupt forces which stabilize charged par-
ticles that is available in water which permit inter-particle collision to
take place, hence, producing ocs (Wang et al., 2021). Solids suspended
in water have a negative charge. Since the charge of their surface is
something similar, they will quite often balance out and repulse each
other. The coagulation-occulation process expects to weaken the
charged particles of suspended solids (Asharuddin et al., 2023). Proper
use of the process considers satisfactory comprehension of specic
connection factors which include the source of the charge, composition,
size of the molecule, density and shape of the particles suspended in
water. Addition of coagulants to water neutralizes the negative charge of
the particles suspended (Lee et al., 2014). After neutralization, particles
suspended remain unseparated to frame marginally bigger particles.
Fast stirring for effective dispersal of the coagulant and support mole-
cule crash is applied for procient coagulation. The next step is occu-
lation, in which the size of the particle goes from microoc to visible
solids suspended through gentle mixing. As a result, macroocs grow in
size when particles are bound together. To prevent shearing of the
macroocs, cautious consideration is applied to the mixing rate and
energy. The speed of the mixing and energy are decreased anytime there
is all earmarks of being an expansion in oc formation (Ukiwe et al.,
2014; Metaxas et al., 2021).
Electrocoagulation and chemical
Electrocoagulation and chemicals are two common techniques of
coagulation utilized during the treatment of water. Both processes are
effective in eliminating different of pollutants involving dissolved
organic matter in form of biological and chemical oxygen demand, oils,
microorganisms, colloidal particles, and heavy metals (Padmaja et al.,
2020). Reviews have shown that the activities of the two methods de-
pends on oc arrangement and charge balance. The effectiveness of both
coagulation methods relies upon variables, for example, pH, portion of
coagulation, type of coagulant, ow thickness, applied voltage, water
type, electrode type, as well as size and amount of electrodes (Shokri and
Fard, 2022; Gafoor et al., 2021). Aluminum and iron salt-based inorganic
coagulants are the most widely used chemical coagulants (Karnena and
Saritha, 2021). Notwithstanding, there is impressive achievements in
the improvement of pre-hydrolyzed coagulants of which there have been
added advantage over traditional coagulants such that they perform well
over a wide range water pH and temperatures. Electrocoagulation has
been predicted as a good alternative compared to chemical coagulation
since it is environmentally friendly as well as modest to work (Javed and
Mushtaq, 2023; Kabdas¸lı et al., 2012). There are majorly two types of
coagulant chemicals, which are primary coagulants and coagulant aids.
Those involved in the neutralization of electrical charges of solids sus-
pended in water are known as primary coagulants, Coagulant aids in-
crease the density that include slow-settling ocs by inuencing
resistance to the ocs to prevent shearing when the mixing takes place as
well as settling processes. Three types of polymers exist, which are;
positively charged polymers (cation), negatively charged polymers
Table 1
Relative closeness of different disinfection methods.
S/
N
Different disinfection
methods
Similar closeness to the positive ideal
solution
1. Ultraviolet radiation 0.84
2. Ozonation 0.57
3. Chlorination 0.42
4. Chloramination 0.32
5. Chlorine dioxide 0.32
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
5
(anion), and neutrally charged polymers (non-ion) (Dwari et al., 2018;
Shaikh et al., 2017).
Chemical coagulants
The two types of chemical coagulants used in water are pre-
polymerized inorganic coagulants and inorganic metal coagulants.
Aluminum salts and iron salts are the most widely used of pre-
polymerized coagulants type (Karnena and Saritha, 2021). There has
been recent improvement in inorganic pre-polymeric coagulant (Zah-
matkesh et al., 2024). There has been added advantage using inorganic
pre-polymeric coagulants over traditional chemical coagulants such as
aluminium and iron salts because they function effectively over a broad
range of conditions such as temperature, pH at lower cost (Ukiwe et al.,
2014). Silica has been used in the form of polysilicates which is a novel
improvement in the group of effective coagulants for the removal of
organic and inorganic particulate substances and pathogenic microbes
from water (Wang et al., 2023; Nejad, 2014). Composite of alumi-
nium–silicate polymer and metals are preferred as coagulant to treat
waters. (Zahmatkesh et al., 2024) It has been documented by several
authors that chlorides of polyaluminum silicate are effective to remove
turbidity and after-treatment of landll leachate (Yanga et al., 2021).
Electrocoagulation (EC)
Electrocoagulation, also referred to as short-wave electrolysis is
becoming well-known as an alternative means of treating water. This
process can be used when the removal of pollutants using chemical
coagulation method is difcult or impossible (Hakizimana et al., 2017).
Electrocoagulation is a modern cost-effective water treatment procedure
that has proven to be effective in the removal of suspended solids, heavy
metals as well as breaking of emulsiers (Rincon et al., 2014). Different
research have evaluation the use of electrocoagulation to increase water
quality in industry. Sample of water with initial chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD) of 1140 mg/L and turbidity of 491NTU (nephelometric
turbidity unit) had a removal potency of 65 % COD and more than 90 %
turbidity when the water was treated with electrocoagulation (Ukiwe et
al., 2014). Electrocoagulation is an effective method for the treatment of
water because it has the ability of the cost reduction and requirement for
chemicals mostly used during coagulation (Shahedi et al., 2020).
Even though treated water is free of faecal coliforms, the water may
still transmit viral diseases. (Goyal, 2018). The time for viruses’ survival
in water is different and depends on the target virus, the pH, tempera-
ture, and the total quality of the water. Under specic conditions and
with specic virus types, the survival time might be up to 200 days in
waterbodies such as river (Alegbeleye and Sant’Ana, 2020). It has been
documented that virus inactivation is not totally effective using chlorine
(Zhang et al., 2019). A probable cause is that in conditions where large
virus counts were obtained in treated waters, there is contact time of
disinfection. The removals obtained using metal coagulants have been
documented by different authors (Ghernaout et al., 2023; Kim et al.,
2022). Using metal coagulants such as aluminium and ferric salts, re-
movals of over 95 % have been documented. Different cationic poly-
electrolytes have been used to remove more than 99 % viruses, but the
disadvantage is that if other materials are present in the form of colour
or turbidity, removal of such material will be limited. Conjoint use of
polyelectrolytes and metal coagulants has advantage such that better
oc characteristics are generated. In addition, if different materials are
present in water, it is likely that the use of both will cause a more
effective total removal (Khan et al., 2019). However, this is dependent
on the conditions which pertains to each case. The use of poly-
electrolytes as aids for occulant increases formation of oc, but virus
removals does not increase more than those achieved when using only
metal coagulants (Shakeel et al., 2020; Petzold et al., 2014).
Viruses are either Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or Ribonucleic acid
(RNA) units found in a protein coat (Blatchley et al., 2020; Bhat et al.,
2020). The mechanism of virus destabilization involves coordination
reactions between species of metal coagulant and carboxyl groups of the
protein coat of the virus (Parra-Ortiz and Malmsten, 2022). (Alansari,
2021). The percentage of viruses removed using aluminium sulphate
were more than 97 %, while the turbidity removal was between the
range 98.3 to 99.3 % (Das and Paul, 2023). The use of cationic poly-
electrolyte as occulant aid, increased removal turbidity and virus to
98.5 % and 99.9 % respectively. Iron coagulation process was used for
the removal of a bacterial virus called bacteriophage MS2 against
Escherichia coli. Furthermore, Viruses are not totally inactivated using
either metal coagulants or polyelectrolytes. Hence, there is a potential
health issue with water disposal treatment sludges of plant (Ghernaout
et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2022).
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs)
In the 1980 s, AOPs were rst introduced for the treatment of water.
Later in the 20th century, biological and physiochemical methods have
been fully developed. To solve practical problems, new technologies
have been developed in conventional methods ever since. Based on
observations and studies, there is an urgent need for a new technique
since the complex substances found in anthropogenic pollutants were
scarcely being attacked by the microbes in biological processes (Dewil et
al., 2017). Since the 1980 s, different AOPs have been studied and used
in several areas including municipal and industrial water. Major focus
has been given to AOPs due to lack of effectiveness of conventional
methods. To improve the performance of this method, a lot of mecha-
nisms have been developed based on and are still being developed and
the method cannot be declared as yet as fully developed
(Babuponnusami et al., 2023). Sources of pollutant include water, in-
dustrial and agricultural activities. Ultraviolet-AOP with ozone (O
3
) and
hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
) has proved to be the most efcient method
for the lowering of water from phenol when compared to other
Ultraviolet-based processes (Ulliman et al., 2018). Advanced Oxidation
Processes are characterized by the generation of hydroxyl (OH) radicals,
a reactive radical which react with a major part of organic compounds.
Advanced Oxidation Processes depends on oxidative reactions produced
by (Hydroxyl) OH radicals (Kilic et al., 2019).
AOP combines typical oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
),
ozone (O
3
), or hydroxyl radicals (OH), with the production of (ultravi-
olet) UV radiation or other forms of energy. The oxidants attack and
disrupt the outer cell membrane of microbial pathogens, which results in
their inactivation or destruction (Miklos et al., 2018; Duan et al., 2021).
The combined use of UV radiation and hydrogen peroxide, known as
UV/H
2
O
2
, is widely used in AOP-based water treatment technique. UV
light activates H
2
O
2
, which generate hydroxyl radicals (OH) that shows
high oxidative potential (Mishra et al., 2017). UV/H
2
O
2
is a special
effective alternative to remove organic molecules which can be pro-
duced from the metabolic activities of microorganisms including anti-
biotics, these molecules can show low response to ozone and radicals of
hydroxyl, but they are photoactive. The system also takes benets of the
combined activity of the Ultraviolet photolytic capability (direct or in-
direct) and the reaction of the pollutants dissolved with the hydroxyl
radicals that are produced in the cleavage of the Oxygen-Oxygen bond in
hydrogen peroxide (Mir-Tutusaus et al., 2021). Antibiotics produced by
microorganism such as Amoxillin, Ciprooxacin, Doxycycline, Oxytet-
racycline, Ooxacin, Sulfaquinoxaline, Roxithromycin, Sulfadiazine,
Sulfamerazine, and Sulfathiazole have been reported to have been
removed by UV/H
2
O
2
(Cuerda-Correa et al., 2019; De Souza Santos et
al., 2015). These radicals effectively inactivate the DNA or RNA struc-
ture of pathogenic microorganisms, which renders them non-viable.
UV/H
2
O
2
has been successfully employed in the removal of pathogens
like Escherichia coli (E. coli), Enterococcus spp., and Giardia lamblia from
contaminated water sources (Ganiyu et al., 2022; Rocher et al., 2021).
Ozone is an effective oxidizing agent with the potential of reacting
with a high number of organic and inorganic compounds. Ozone has
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
6
high oxidation potential and does not form harmful byproducts, these
unique characteristics have improved the importance of ozone in
treatment of water in the past decades (Cuerda-Correa et al., 2019).
Ozone-based AOPs involve the introduction of ozone to water, which
leads to the formation of OH radicals through the decomposition of
ozone. These radicals’ attack and degrades microbial pathogens. The
major disadvantage is the production of ozone from oxygen, in which
electric release over air or pure oxygen is used. Ozone-based AOPs have
shown impressive efciency in the removal of various waterborne
pathogens, including rotaviruses, Hepatitis A virus, Giardia cysts, Cryp-
tosporidium,Legionella and Parvum oocysts (Lanrewaju et al., 2022; Xi
et al., 2017).
Photolytic methods for degrading pollutants dispersed in water
depend on releasing energy in the form of radiation to chemical com-
pounds, which is steeped by several molecules to attain excited points
for the required time for different chemical reactions to take place
(Wang et al., 2020). Radiant energy absorbed molecules in the form of
photons, and this makes available the energy needed to form free radi-
cals that take part in a series of chain reactions and to excite certain
electrons and to produce the products of reaction (Kawamoto and Ito,
2018). The radicals formed can be produced through decomposition of
weak bonds, or by electron transfer from excited state of the organic
compound to molecular oxygen, that results in the superoxide radical, or
other reagents like hydrogen or ozone so that hydroxyl radicals are
generated. Photocatalytic AOPs which also uses radiation include the
use of semiconductors, such as titanium dioxide (TiO
2
), which produce
OH radicals upon exposure to UV light (Paumo et al., 2021). These
radicals effectively damage the cell membranes and internal structures
of pathogenic microorganisms. Photocatalysis has shown promise in
eliminating bacteria like Salmonella enterica, Vibrio cholerae, and viruses
such as Adenovirus and Norovirus (Saravanan et al., 2021).
Solar energy is converted into chemical energy by photocatalysis
(Zhang & Lou, 2019). Numerous potential photo-sensitive nano-semi-
conductor metal oxides, sulphides, and halides, including Bi
2
O
3
, Fe
2
O
3
,
ZnO, TiO
2
, CdS, and BiOCl, have been synthesized and employed as
photocatalysts for water purication as a result of the rapid advance-
ments in nanotechnology (Parida et al., 2023). UV TiO
2
photocatalysis, a
heterogeneous type AOP, has been thoroughly investigated for the
conversion of solar energy and air and water purication. At the liq-
uid–solid interface, UV TiO
2
photocatalysis produces hydroxyl radicals
for water treatment purposes. The hydroxyl radical reactions that follow
are governed by heterogeneous reaction dynamics (Iervolino et al.,
2020). Low quantum yields and the need for UV light have been the
main problems with TiO
2
photocatalysis (Peiris et al., 2021). Due to
these constraints, several visible-light-activated (VLA) materials, sensi-
tized methods, and semiconductor composites have been developed.
Although it seems that VLA TiO
2
methods include more specic oxida-
tive species, they might not be as useful for routine water ltration
procedures (Likodimos, 2018). Among AOPs, a photocatalytic advanced
oxidation process is a desirable method that uses free radicals to initiate
oxidation to remove contaminants and impurities at room temperature
and pressure (Liu et al., 2020). In situ formation produces the highly
reactive species known as OH radicals. The non-selective oxidation of
pollutants to CO
2
, H
2
O, and related inorganic cations and anions is the
outcome of their in-situ production (Ganiyu et al., 2022). The most
effective oxidant is uorine (E◦=3.0 eV), followed by OH radicals with
severe oxidation potential (K. Lv et al., 2010). Free radicals have a short
lifetime in water, therefore they quickly disappear from the reaction
medium (L. Chen et al., 2022). AOP taxonomy is exceedingly chal-
lenging due of the many combinations of oxidants, light energy, and
catalysts. Nevertheless, AOPs may be categorized as either homoge-
neous or heterogeneous processes depending on the catalyst used (Lama
et al., 2022). Conventional advanced oxidation techniques have several
limitations, including laborious monitoring, ozone half-life, insufcient
mineralization of pollutants, UV light activity, and expensive process
costs (Mahbub & Duke, 2023). Semiconductor photocatalysts are
efcient photocatalytic materials that address these limitations by pre-
venting the development of secondary pollutants in water. Because of
this photocatalyst’s chemical stability in an aqueous solution, it may be
recycled (Adeola et al., 2022). According to the mechanism of semi-
conductor photocatalysis, an electron in the photocatalyst’s valance
band is transported to the conduction band when lit light strikes the
photocatalyst’s valance band, creating electron and hole pairs (Feliczak-
Guzik, 2022). This stage is referred to as the semiconductor’s photo
excitation state. Water molecules are broken down by the photo-
catalyst’s hole into hydroxyl radicals (OH
–
). When the conduction band
electron interacts with an oxygen molecule, it produces the superoxide
anion (O
2−
) (Q. Li & Li, 2021). The primary oxidizing species in the
photocatalytic oxidative degradation process that breaks down inor-
ganic and organic pollutants in water are O
2−
h
+
and OH
–
(Pavel et al.,
2023). Developing visible light active Bi-based photocatalysts has
received a lot of interest lately (P. Chen et al., 2020). Bi-based com-
pounds are often categorized as multi-component oxides, oxyhalides,
and binary suldes or oxides (Hassan et al., 2022). Except for BiOCl and
BiOF, which have bandgaps more than 3.0 eV, the majority of these
compounds are functional in the visible light area with band gaps less
than 3.0 eV. BiOX, or bismuth oxyhalides (X=F, Cl, Br, and I), is an
innovative class of compounds (Castillo-Cabrera et al., 2022). Every
BiOX is tetragonal in shape. Because of the resulting internal electric
eld disassociation and transfer of photoexcited electron–hole pairs, the
layered structure of BiOX aids in the creation of an internal electric eld
(IEF) between slabs of halogen and [Bi
2
O
2
] (Sridharan et al., 2021). It is
known that the O 2p and X p orbitals (X=Cl, Br, and I, respectively)
make up the maximal valence band of the BiOX crystal (X. Lv et al.,
2022). The primary components of the minimal conduction band were
Hydrothermal, calcination, precipitation, microwave, reverse micro-
emulsion, sonochemical methods, and template methods are the
typical methods employed for the production of BiOX nanostructures
(Dutta et al., 2022). The two main issues with semiconductor photo-
catalysts are inadequate photon absorption and photogenerated charge
carrier recombination (Tsao et al., 2021). Every BiOX is tetragonal in
shape. The induced internal electric eld (IEF) between halogen and
[Bi
2
O
2
] slabs is facilitated by the layered structure of BiOX (Ikram &
Bari, 2024). Although BiOX exhibits robust photocatalytic activity in
visible light, its total photocatalytic efciency is still lower (Ahmad
et al., 2022). There has been a growing interest in solar light aided
semiconductor photocatalysis for environmental cleanup since 1972
(Goodarzi et al., 2023). However, traditional binary and ternary pho-
tocatalysts, like TiO2, ZnO, CdS, Ag
3
PO
4
, BiWO
4
, CdWO
4
, AgBr, AgCl,
and so forth, have numerous disadvantages, including inherent disad-
vantages like low specic surface area, inadequate light absorption, high
likelihood of repeatedly combining photo-generated electron-hole pairs,
poor stability, and short quantum (Ahmad et al., 2023; Kusworo et al.,
2022).
Membrane technologies
In essence, a membrane is a barrier that separates two phases apart
by limiting the selective passage of constituents through it. The inven-
tion of membranes dates back to the 18th century. Since then, numerous
advancements have been made to improve the suitability of membranes
for an array of diverse applications (Nath, 2017). Membranes can be
categorized as isotropic or anisotropic based on their characteristics.
The physical structure and composition of isotropic membranes are
uniform. If they are microporous, their permeation uxes are higher
than those of nonporous (dense) materials, which have lower perme-
ation uxes and a much narrower range of applications. Microltration
membranes frequently use isotropic microporous membranes (Abdullah
et al., 2018). On the other hand, anisotropic membranes consist of
distinct layers with varying compositions and structures, and they are
non-uniform throughout the membrane region (Valappil et al., 2021).
These membranes consist of a larger, highly permeable layer overlying a
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
7
thin, selective layer. They are specically used in procedures involving
reverse osmosis (RO) (Shenvi et al., 2015). According to Souza and
Quadri, (2013), membranes are divided into two categories based on the
materials that make them up: organic and inorganic. Synthetic organic
polymers have been utilized to make organic membranes. Synthetic
organic polymers are usually utilized for making membranes for
pressure-driven separation processes such as reverse osmosis, ultral-
tration, nanoltration, and microltration. Such are polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene polytetrauorethylene (PTFE), and cellulose acetate (Ray
et al., 2020). Materials such as silica, zeolites, metals, and ceramics are
used for the production of inorganic membranes. They are commonly
employed in industrial applications such as microltration, ultraltra-
tion, and hydrogen separation because they are chemically and ther-
mally stable (Kayvani Fard et al., 2018).
Reverse osmosis
The reverse osmosis (RO) technique is based on the notion of natural
osmosis. Solvent ows spontaneously toward the solution with a higher
concentration when the membrane divides the solution from the solvent
or between two solutions of different concentrations and osmotic pres-
sure is the pressure as represented in Fig. 2. (Qasim et al., 2019). The
solvent will permeate from the more concentrated solution to the diluted
solution in the opposite direction as in the natural osmosis process if the
hydrostatic pressure on that side of the solution is higher than the os-
motic pressure. When compared to the working pressures used in ul-
traltration (UF) and microltration (MF), the transmembrane
pressures used in reverse osmosis (RO) should be far greater than the
osmotic pressure of the ltered solution (Charcosset, 2016). Reverse
osmosis (RO) is a crucial technological advancement for removing mi-
crobes from water. Through the use of a semi-permeable membrane and
the principles of osmosis in reverse, the RO technology efciently ex-
tracts contaminants from water. The solute concentration variations
between two compartments separated by a semi-permeable membrane
provide the basis for RO functions (der Bruggen, 2018). This membrane
serves as a pivot, allowing only water molecules to pass through and
preventing contaminants like microbes from entering. The procedure
begins when hydraulic pressure is applied to the contaminated water to
force it through the membrane (Armah et al., 2021). RO membrane is
semi-permeable because it has tiny pores that allow water molecules to
pass through freely while blocking the passage of bigger molecules,
microorganisms, and other contaminants. In order to remove microbes
from water, this selective permeability is essential since it leaves behind
cleansed water on the opposite side of the membrane (Ergozhin et al.,
2019). The complex interaction of pressure differentials across the
membrane enhances RO efcacy in eliminating microorganisms. The
process of purication is enhanced when the polluted water is exposed
to increased pressure on one side of the membrane. This is because the
driving force behind the water molecules’ passage through the mem-
brane becomes stronger. Therefore, a greater pressure differential
strengthens the microbial agent’s rejection (Pandey et al., 2012).
Adequate pretreatment stands as a crucial element for the efcient
functioning and cost-effectiveness of reverse osmosis (RO) systems. Its
purpose lies in optimizing RO performance by minimizing fouling,
scaling, and membrane degradation (Zhao and Yu, 2015). Despite
effective pretreatment, RO systems inevitably experience performance
decline over time due to factors like compaction, fouling, and scaling
(Anis et al., 2019b). Research has shown that the quality of pretreatment
directly inuences RO performance. Marginal pretreatment leads to
more frequent performance declines compared to ideal pretreatment,
while inadequate pretreatment results in rapid and often irreversible
performance decline that standard membrane cleaning cannot rectify
(Kakalou and Tsiamis, 2021). Similarly, RO systems with subpar pre-
treatment require more frequent cleaning and suffer from shorter
membrane lifespans. Continuous evaluation of pretreatment system
performance is essential post-optimization (Anis et al., 2019b). Pre-
treatment methods can be broadly categorized into mechanical, chem-
ical, or a combination of both, with selection based on inuent water
quality. Some waters necessitate minimal pretreatment due to low waste
concentrations, while others with higher concentrations demand more
extensive treatment (Pandey et al., 2012). Mechanical pretreatment
involves physical techniques like clarication, ltration, and preltra-
tion to remove impurities such as turbidity, suspended solids, and bac-
teria from RO inuent water (Trishitman et al., 2020). Chemical
pretreatments, utilizing substances like chlorine, ozone, and hydrogen
peroxide, target reduction of hardness, color, and microbial content.
Chlorine is commonly used as a disinfectant, while nonoxidizing bio-
cides such as sodium bisulte and DBNPA are employed to prevent
microbial fouling without damaging polyamide composite membranes
(Trishitman et al., 2020). DBNPA can also effectively eliminate microbes
within the RO membrane module. The use of sodium bisulte depends
on water temperature and nutrient concentration for microbes (Maeda,
2022).
Electrodialysis
Ions are transported via semipermeable membranes by electrodial-
ysis, a membrane-based process that uses an applied electric eld
(Zeynali et al., 2022). Desalination, table salt manufacturing, wine sta-
bilization, whey demineralization, and pickling bath recovery are
among the processes that use electrodialysis (Mei et al., 2022). Poly-
electrolyte membranes are used in an electrodialysis cell to separate the
permeating stream from the feed stream during the operation. The
membranes used are cationic membranes like poly (vinyl benzyl tri-
methyl ammonium hydroxide) and anionic polyelectrolytes like poly
(styrene sulfonic acid). The cation exchange membrane is represented
by the anionic polyelectrolyte, while the anion exchange membrane is
represented by the cationic polyelectrolyte (Cheng et al., 2014). These
polymers are often cross-linked for stability during the electrodialysis
process because they are soluble in water or dispersible. Anion perme-
ability is allowed through the anion exchange membranes, while cation
permeability is allowed through the cation exchange membranes but
anion permeability is rejected (Tufa et al., 2020). The procedure known
as electrodialysis (ED) uses ion-exchange membranes to extract ionic
components from aqueous solutions while applying an electric current
as a driving force (Jiang et al., 2014). Similar to reverse osmosis, but
with electricity instead of pressure, ED removes ionic pollutants from
water. Because it uses energy, ED usually not a suitable choice for
treating water in remote areas (Ortiz et al., 2008). This movement of
ions through the membranes reduces the concentration of dissolved
contaminants by eliminating the ions from the wastewater stream in a
selective manner. Because it forces charged microbiological parti-
cles—such as bacteria and viruses—toward the electrodes, (Alkhadra
Fig. 2. A pictorial representation of Reverse osmosis.
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
8
et al., 2022) where they are extracted from the water, ED is highly
effective. One of the factors that makes electrodialysis efcient at
eliminating microorganisms is its selectivity in identifying charged
species. Because of the charged functional groups that are present on
their surfaces, microbial cells usually contain a net charge (Sedighi et al.,
2023). These charged microbe particles migrate a phenomenon known
as electromigration in the direction of the electrodes in response to an
electric eld, based on the polarity of their charges (Gidudu & Chirwa,
2022).
When it comes to treating brackish water, salt water and wastewater
ED is one of the most promising methods. ED provides excellent water
recovery and performance without the use of chemicals, in contrast to
many other water treatment technologies mthat use chemicals for water
pretreatment and posttreatment activities such cleaning, anticorrosion,
antifoaming, and disinfection (Al-Amshawee et al., 2020). Because of
this, ED is a very safe and environmentally benecial method for Zero
Liquid Discharge (ZLD). Moreover, ED is one of the most scalable
methods for treating wastewater because it doesn’t require high pres-
sures to accomplish desalination (Yaqub and Lee, 2019). The high water
recovery rate, ease of use, and extended membrane life of ED are only a
few of its many noteworthy benets (Juve et al., 2022). Unlike RO,
which is the most widely utilized technique for ZLD, ED can function at
high temperatures (Benneker et al., 2018). Contrary to traditional
chemical disinfection techniques, which could make use of oxidizing
agents like chlorine, electrodialysis works without the need of
consumable chemicals. By doing this, the wastewater treatment proc-
ess’s total environmental impact is decreased and the production of
hazardous byproducts is minimized (Chopra et al., 2011). RO uses
pressure-driven membrane separation as its operating principle and
achieves remarkable microbial elimination effectiveness of 97––99 %
(Echevarria et al., 2020). RO efciently strains out impurities and mi-
crobes while permitting pure water to ow through semi-permeable
membranes. On the other hand, ED works by transporting ions
through an electric eld, which has an indirect effect on microbial
populations by eliminating vital ions needed for microbial development.
However, compared to RO, the usual range of ED’s microbial elimina-
tion effectiveness is between 80 % and 95 % (Li et al., 2020). RO requires
a signicant amount of energy because it requires high pressure to push
water through the membrane; this energy-intensive process can present
problems for both environmental sustainability and operational costs
(Okamoto and Lienhard, 2019). On the other hand, ED usually demands
less energy than RO because it relies on electrochemical processes
instead of hydraulic pressure; this lower energy footprint of ED makes it
a desirable choice for applications that prioritize energy efciency (Patel
et al., 2021). The suitability of RO and ED for treating wastewater differs
according on specic requirements and limitations. RO is widely used in
processes such as industrial and municipal wastewater treatment that
require high microbiological removal rates and high efuent quality
requirements. Its vulnerability to fouling, however, calls for routine
maintenance (Matin et al., 2021) and could eventually result in higher
operating expenses. Conversely, ED works effectively in situations when
mild microbial clearance is adequate, including in brackish water
desalination or some industrial wastewater treatment scenarios
(Rodriguez-DeLaNuez et al., 2012). Moreover, ED systems have longer
operational lifespans and require less maintenance since they are less
likely to foul (Wenten et al., 2024).
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology has demonstrated promising results in detecting
and removing microbial contaminants from water (Obayomi, Lau,
Danquah, et al., 2022). Nanomaterial-based membranes with nanoscale
pores can efciently lter out bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants
from water. These membranes can eliminate pathogens while allowing
water molecules to pass through (Hajipour et al., 2021). Antimicrobial
nanoparticles include silver, copper, and titanium dioxide (Obayomi
et al., 2023). When introduced into water, these nanoparticles can
disrupt microorganism cell membranes or produce reactive oxygen
species, killing them (Gold et al., 2018). Nanotechnology provides novel
ltration methods utilizing nanomaterials such as nanotubes, nano-
bers, and nanoparticles. These materials have a large surface area-to-
volume ratio and unique properties that enable them to capture and
remove microbial contaminants from water more effectively than
traditional lters (Krishna et al., 2023). Nanostructured catalysts can be
used to degrade organic pollutants and inhibit microbial growth. These
catalysts can improve oxidation and reduction reactions, converting
contaminants into less harmful substances (Honorio et al., 2019).
Nanosensors are being developed to detect and track microbial
contaminants in water in real time. These sensors can quickly identify
pathogens, alerting authorities to potential hazards and allowing for
quick remedial actions (Vikesland, 2018). One advantage of
nanotechnology-based sensors is that they can be tailored to specic
microbes, reducing false positives while ensuring accurate detection.
Their high sensitivity allows for detection at extremely low concentra-
tions, which increases their effectiveness (Hajipour et al., 2021). Some
nanomaterials have inherent antimicrobial properties. For example,
silver nanoparticles can disrupt microbial cell membranes, preventing
their growth and effectively removing them from water (Obayomi et al.,
2023). Nanomaterials like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide nanoparticles
can be used in photocatalytic processes to degrade organic pollutants
and microbial contaminants when exposed to light, making water safer
(Obayomi et al., 2023). Because of their larger surface area and tailored
properties, nano-enabled methods frequently outperform traditional
approaches in terms of detection sensitivity and contamination removal
(Ganie et al., 2021). Despite their potential, some nanomaterials used in
water treatment face challenges such as scalability, cost-effectiveness,
and potential environmental impacts, necessitating additional research
and development before widespread adoption (Obayomi, et al., 2023).
Comparative study of different technique in removal of
pathogenic microbes from water
The efcacy of different technique
To improve water quality and public health, several approaches for
minimizing microbiological pollutants in water treatment must be
effective. Microltration, ultraltration, and sand ltration are a few
examples of ltration processes that work by physically entangling
bacteria in porous materials. Although ltering techniques are useful for
eliminating larger microbiological species such as protozoa and some
bacteria, their effectiveness against smaller organisms like viruses may
be restricted because of the ltration media’s limited pore size
(Tcharkhtchi et al., 2021). Chlorination, ultraviolet (UV) irradiation,
and ozonation are examples of disinfection techniques that target mi-
crobial populations by disrupting cellular integrity or metabolic pro-
cesses that result in microbial inactivation. These methods frequently
produce great rates of microbial reduction; nevertheless, careful obser-
vation is necessary to prevent the development of disinfection by-
products, which can present further health hazards (Grellier et al.,
2015). Reactive oxygen species are used by Advanced Oxidation Pro-
cesses (AOPs), which use photocatalysis and ozonation to oxidize and
break down microbiological impurities. Even while AOPs show
encouraging results in the eradication of microorganisms, their exten-
sive adoption may be hindered by high energy and operational costs
(Saravanan, Deivayanai, et al., 2022). Membrane technologies use semi-
permeable membranes to separate microbes based on size and charge.
Membrane processes require frequent maintenance and cleaning to
maintain maximum performance because of their susceptibility to
fouling and scaling, despite their high efcacy in removing microor-
ganisms (Goh et al., 2018). Graphene-based lters and nanotechnology
are modern methods for eliminating microorganisms that use the qual-
ities of nanomaterials to improve ltration and disinfectant
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
9
performance. These technologies, while still in the early phases of
research, have the potential to signicantly increase the effectiveness of
microbial removal and lower the energy usage of wastewater treatment
systems (Zaidi et al., 2021). The kind and amount of microbiological
pollutants, treatment goals, nancial constraints, and site-specic pa-
rameters all play a role in the choice of an effective microbial removal
technique (Bhat et al., 2022). To guarantee the effectiveness of waste-
water treatment operations and accomplish thorough microbiological
eradication, the integration of various strategies could be required.
Table 2 shows various microbial contaminants that have been removed
from wastewater.
The economic impact of different treatment techniques in removing various
microbial contaminants from water
Different disinfection techniques have different economic proles
when it comes to initial investment, ongoing expenditures, and main-
tenance. These techniques include chlorination, ultraviolet (UV) irra-
diation, and ozonation. Table 3 shows techno-economic comparison of
wastewater treatment technique. Disinfectant selection, equipment size,
complexity, and other variables can all affect the initial cost of disin-
fection systems. Chemical purchases and energy usage for ozone gen-
erators and UV lights are two common sources of operational
expenditures (Guo et al., 2014). To maintain constant performance and
efcacy, periodic calibration, bulb or chemical reservoir replacement,
and system monitoring are common maintenance expenditures associ-
ated with disinfection methods (Englande Jr et al., 2015). Over time,
certain disinfection techniques can provide more affordable options for
the removal of microbes, even if they may need larger initial expendi-
tures. Ozone generation and photocatalysis are two examples of
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) that often demand large initial
expenditures because of the equipment complexity and requirement for
specialist catalysts or ozone generators (Mahamuni & Adewuyi, 2010).
The main sources of operational expenses for AOPs are energy usage for
UV lamps, ozone production, and catalyst regeneration. AOP mainte-
nance costs might include catalyst replacement, recurring system
checks, and troubleshooting to x any catalyst deterioration or perfor-
mance problems (Rani & Karthikeyan, 2021). High microbe elimination
efciency may be provided by AOPs, but their economic feasibility is
dependent on costs of energy, catalyst lifespan, and implementation
size. Membrane technologies, which include often require large upfront
expenditures for pressure vessels, membrane modules, and related
equipment. Membrane cleaning procedures to reduce fouling and pre-
serve system efciency and energy usage for pump operation are the
major sources of operational costs for membrane systems (Judd, 2017).
The lifespan of the membrane, the likelihood of fouling, and how
frequently it has to be cleaned and replaced are some of the variables
that affect membrane technology maintenance costs. Membrane tech-
nologies provide economical options for microbial removal, even with
potentially larger initial expenditures (Kamali et al., 2019). This is
especially true for applications that need strict regulatory compliance
and high-quality efuent. Innovative methods for microbial elimination
in wastewater treatment include nanotechnology and graphene-based
lters, which may have an impact on initial investment, ongoing
costs, and maintenance requirements. Even though these technologies
could need large initial expenditures for R&D, things like scalability,
material cost, and production efciency will determine if they are
protable in the long run. Graphene-Based Filters and nanotechnology
may have different operating and maintenance costs based on a number
of variables, including material stability, ltration effectiveness, and the
requirement for certain tools or coatings to improve longevity and
performance. These cutting-edge technologies have the potential to
improve the effectiveness of microbiological eradication while
providing competitive nancial benets over conventional treatment
techniques, provided research and development continue.
Evaluation of the environmental Impact, sustainability, and any ecological
implications of water treatment techniques
In water treatment, the assessment of environmental impact, sus-
tainability, and ecological implications of microbial removal technolo-
gies is paramount to ensure the preservation of ecosystems and natural
resources. Filtration techniques, such as sand ltration, microltration,
and ultraltration, generally exhibit favorable environmental proles
due to their reliance on physical processes and minimal use of chemicals
(Bardhan et al., 2022). These techniques contribute to sustainable water
treatment practices by avoiding the generation of harmful by-products
and minimizing ecological disturbances (Shah et al., 2020). The use of
natural ltration media, such as sand or gravel, can enhance ecosystem
services by promoting habitat creation and biodiversity in treatment
systems. Vary disinfection techniques, like ozonation, UV irradiation,
and chlorination, have different effects on the environment and require
attention for sustainability. Although chlorination is a useful process for
inactivating microorganisms, it can also result in the production of
disinfection byproducts such trihalomethanes (THMs) and chloramines,
which can be harmful to aquatic life and human health (Li & Mitch,
2018).
Because they depend on physical or chemical processes to achieve
microbial inactivation rather than producing toxic byproducts, UV
irradiation and ozonation provide more ecologically benign options.
Nevertheless, energy inputs are needed for UV lights and ozone gener-
ators, which might have an effect on sustainability based on the elec-
tricity source and the treatment system’s total energy efciency (Li &
Mitch, 2018). Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs): Ozone and pho-
tocatalysis are two examples of AOPs that show potential ecological and
environmental advantages. Although AOPs are capable of efciently
breaking down microbiological pollutants, they may also need the use of
chemical catalysts or reactive species, which, if not handled carefully,
might endanger aquatic ecosystems (Babuponnusami et al., 2023;
Cuerda-Correa et al., 2019). AOPs’ overall sustainability may also be
impacted by their energy intensity (Chatzisymeon et al., 2013), which
emphasizes the signicance of maximizing process efciency and
reducing environmental impact through the use of renewable energy
sources and effective reactor designs. Membrane technologies provide
ecologically friendly methods for microbial removal in water treatment,
such as reverse osmosis (RO) and electrodialysis (ED). These technolo-
gies contribute to lessening ecological hazards and environmental con-
sequences since they rely on physical separation processes and do not
Table 2
Microbial contaminants and methods of removal.
S/N Method of Microbial Removal Microorganism Removed Infection Associated with pathogen |Efciency of the Method References
1 volcanic rock catalytic ozonation Polyomavirus BK virus-associated nephropathy High (Gomes et al., 2019)
2 Chlorination Escherichia coli (E. coli) Hemorrhagic colitis High (Anastasi et al., 2013)
3 Filtration (Sand, Membrane) Cryptosporidium parvum Cryptosporidiosis High (Hijnen et al., 2007)
4 Activated Carbon Adsorption Campylobacter jejuni Campylobacteriosis Moderate (Duggan et al., 2001)
5 Filtration Sand Salmonella spp. Salmonellosis Moderate (Semsayun et al., 2015)
6 UV Irradiation Giardia lamblia Giardiasis High (Adeyemo et al., 2019)
7 Single ozonation Norovirus Norovirus infection low (Gomes et al., 2019)
8 Adsorption Salmonella typhi Salmonellosis High (Obayomi, et al., 2022)
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
10
produce chemical byproducts (Bodzek, 2019). However, energy-
intensive procedures and environmental concerns, such as the usage of
polymers and membrane materials produced from fossil fuels, may be
involved in the manufacture and disposal of membranes (Drioli &
Fontananova, 2012). Improvements in membrane design and material
innovation, such as the creation of bio-based and biodegradable mem-
branes, have the potential to improve membrane technologies’ long-
term sustainability. Nanotechnology and Graphene-Based Filters are
two new methods of eliminating microorganisms that may have positive
effects on the environment and ecology by improving ltration and
disinfection procedures and utilizing the special qualities of nano-
materials (Thanigaivel et al., 2022), these technologies present chances
to lower the amount of chemicals and energy used in water treatment.
To guarantee responsible and sustainable implementation, however, the
environmental effects of nanomaterial synthesis, disposal, and possible
ecotoxicity need to be carefully considered (Corsi et al., 2018). Miti-
gating potential ecological dangers connected with nanotechnology-
based techniques may be possible with research efforts centered on
establishing eco-friendly synthesis processes and comprehending the
fate and transit of nanomaterials in aquatic ecosystems.
Conclusion
Water treatment technologies for microbial removal are critical to
ensuring the safety and quality of water to serve various purposes such
as drinking and domestic use. Waterborne microbial pathogens are a
signicant threat to public health, and effective treatment methods must
be implemented to eliminate or reduce these contaminants. The devel-
opment of efcient and effective water treatment systems has become a
top priority, especially in areas where waterborne diseases are preva-
lent. Water treatment involves a variety of technologies, including
disinfection, ltration, and advanced oxidation processes. These
methods help to remove or inactivate harmful bacteria, viruses, and
protozoa, lowering the risk of waterborne diseases. A variety of well-
established technologies can be used to provide a comprehensive path-
ogen removal strategy that is appropriate for the intended use. In
conclusion, A multiple-barrier approach is typically required to achieve
the highest removal efciencies for drinking water applications. While
contemporary ultra ltration or reverse osmosis technologies provide a
reliable substitute, inactivation is still necessary to establish and main-
tain disinfection. Filtration can be an effective component of a water
treatment strategy if it is applied and maintained correctly. Filtrations
are useful techniques for removing pathogens concurrently with other
water treatment goals in more general wastewater discharge
applications.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Oluwatobi Victoria Obayomi: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Damilare Cornelius
Olawoyin: Writing – original draft. Olumide Oguntimehin: Writing –
original draft. Lukman Shehu Mustapha: Writing – review & editing.
Samuel Oluwaseun Kolade: Writing – review & editing. Peter Olu-
sakin Oladoye: Writing – review & editing. Seungdae Oh: Writing –
review & editing. Kehinde Shola Obayomi: Supervision, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abdullah, N., Rahman, M.A., Othman, M.H.D., Jaafar, J., Ismail, A.F., 2018. Membranes
and membrane processes: fundamentals. In: Current Trends and Future
Developments on (bio-) Membranes. Elsevier, pp. 45–70.
Adeola, A.O., Abiodun, B.A., Adenuga, D.O., Nomngongo, P.N., 2022. Adsorptive and
photocatalytic remediation of hazardous organic chemical pollutants in aqueous
medium: A review. J. Contam. Hydrol. 248, 104019.
Adeyemo, F.E., Singh, G., Reddy, P., Bux, F., Stenstr¨
om, T.A., 2019. Efciency of chlorine
and UV in the inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in wastewater. PLoS One
14 (5), e0216040.
Table 3
Techno-economic comparison of water treatment technique for microbial removal.
Treatment
Technique
Process
Design
Media Treatment Efuent Quality Nutrient
Removal
Sludge
Production
Energy
Usage
Operational
Cost
References
Chlorination Chemical
disinfection
Chlorine gas or
liquid
Disinfection May contain
residual
chlorine
Limited Low Low to
moderate
Low (Jim´
enez-
Cisneros,
2014)
Filtration Physical
separation
Filter media
(sand)
Particle and
microorganism
removal
Variable,
depends on
lter type
Limited Minimal Low Moderate (Sathya
et al., 2022)
UV Irradiation Physical/
chemical
disinfection
Quartz or
specialized
lamps
Disinfection,
pathogen
reduction
Pathogen free
efuent
Limited None Moderate
to high
Moderate (Gonz´
alez
et al., 2023)
Ozonation Chemical
oxidation
Ozone gas Oxidation,
disinfection
Good
disinfection,
oxidation
Limited Low High High (Tripathi &
Hussain,
2022)
Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
(AOP)
Chemical
oxidation and
radical
generation
Oxidants
(Ozone,
Hydrogen
Peroxide)
Oxidation,
degradation of
pollutants
High-quality,
degradation of
many
pollutants
Moderate, Low to
moderate
High High (Ugwuanyi
et al., 2024)
Membrane
Technology
Physical
separation
Membranes Removal of
particles and
contaminants
High-quality,
near-pure water
Limited, Moderate,
depends on
system
High High (Ugwuanyi
et al., 2024)
Nanotechnology Varied,
depends on
application
Nanoparticles,
various
materials
Targeted
removal of
contaminants
High-quality,
depending on
nanoparticles
Potentially
effective,
depends on
design
Minimal Variable,
can be
high
Potentially
high
(Anjum
et al., 2019)
Graphene-Based
Filter
Physical
separation &
adsorption
Graphene
sheets,
composites
Removal of
contaminants,
adsorption
High-quality,
depending on
lter design
Limited Minimal Variable,
can be
high
Potentially
high
(Khalil
et al., 2021)
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
11
Adeyeye, K., Gibberd, J., Chakwizira, J., 2020. Water marginality in rural and peri-urban
communities. J. Clean. Prod. 273, 122594.
Aghalari, Z., Dahms, H.U., Sillanp¨
a¨
a, M., Sosa-Hernandez, J.E., Parra-Saldívar, R., 2020.
Effectiveness of wastewater treatment systems in removing microbial agents: A
systematic review. Glob. Health 16 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-
0546-y.
Ahmad, I., Shukrullah, S., Naz, M.Y., Ullah, S., Assiri, M.A., 2022. Designing and
modication of bismuth oxyhalides BiOX (X=Cl, Br and I) photocatalysts for
improved photocatalytic performance. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 105, 1–33.
Ahmad, I., Zou, Y., Yan, J., Liu, Y., Shukrullah, S., Naz, M.Y., Hussain, H., Khan, W.Q.,
Khalid, N.R., 2023. Semiconductor photocatalysts: A critical review highlighting the
various strategies to boost the photocatalytic performances for diverse applications.
Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 311, 102830.
Ahmed, S.F., Mojur, M., Nuzhat, S., Chowdhury, A.T., Rafa, N., Uddin, M.A., Inayat, A.,
Mahlia, T.M.I., Ong, H.C., Chia, W.Y., et al., 2021. Recent developments in physical,
biological, chemical, and hybrid treatment techniques for removing emerging
contaminants from wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 416, 125912.
Akduman, C., Akcakoca Kumbasar, E.P., 2018. Nanobers in face masks and respirators
to provide better protection. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 460, 12013.
Al-Amshawee, S., Yunus, M.Y.B.M., Azoddein, A.A.M., Hassell, D.G., Dakhil, I.H.,
Hasan, H.A., 2020. Electrodialysis desalination for water and wastewater: A review.
Chem. Eng. J. 380, 122231.
Ali, Y., Pervez, H., Khan, J., 2020. Selection of the most feasible wastewater treatment
technology in Pakistan using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Water
Conserv. Sci. Eng. 5 (3), 199–213.
Alkhadra, M.A., Su, X., Suss, M.E., Tian, H., Guyes, E.N., Shocron, A.N., Conforti, K.M.,
De Souza, J.P., Kim, N., Tedesco, M., et al., 2022. Electrochemical methods for water
purication, ion separations, and energy conversion. Chem. Rev. 122 (16),
13547–13635.
Allaq, A.A.A., Mahid, H.H., Yahya, E.B., Saleh, A.M., Sidik, N.J., Abdulsamad, M.A.,
Saad, N.R., Elengoe, A., Abdul-Aziz, A., 2023. Emerging drinking water borne
diseases: A review on types, sources and health precaution. J. Pharma. Res. Int. 35
(31), 1–17.
Alvarez, P. A., Ishizaka, A., & Mart\’\inez, L. (2021). Multiple-criteria decision-making
sorting methods: A survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 183, 115368.
Amudha, M., Ramachandran, M., Saravanan, V., Anusuya, P., Gayathri, R., 2021. A study
on TOPSIS MCDM techniques and its application. Data Analyt. Artif. Intell. 1 (1),
9–14.
Anastasi, E.M., Wohlsen, T.D., Stratton, H.M., Katouli, M., 2013. Survival of Escherichia
coli in two sewage treatment plants using UV irradiation and chlorination for
disinfection. Water Res. 47 (17), 6670–6679.
Anis, S.F., Hashaikeh, R., Hilal, N., 2019a. Microltration membrane processes: A review
of research trends over the past decade. J. Water Process Eng. 32, 100941.
Anis, S.F., Hashaikeh, R., Hilal, N., 2019b. Reverse osmosis pretreatment technologies
and future trends: A comprehensive review. Desalination 452, 159–195.
Anjum, M., Miandad, R., Waqas, M., Gehany, F., Barakat, M.A., 2019. Remediation of
wastewater using various nano-materials. Arab. J. Chem. 12 (8), 4897–4919.
Armah, E.K., Chetty, M., Adedeji, J.A., Kukwa, D.T., Mutsvene, B., Shabangu, K.P.,
Bakare, B.F., 2021. Emerging trends in wastewater treatment technologies: The
current perspective. Promis. Tech. Wastewater Treat. Water Qual. Assess. 1, 71.
Attri, S.D., Singh, S., Dhar, A., Powar, S., 2022. Multi-attribute sustainability assessment
of wastewater treatment technologies using combined fuzzy multi-criteria decision-
making techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 357, 131849.
Aydin, F., Gümücs, B., 2022. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making
methods for the assessment of optimal SVC location. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci.
70 (2).
Babuponnusami, A., Sinha, S., Ashokan, H., Paul, M.V., Hariharan, S.P., Arun, J.,
Gopinath, K.P., Le, Q.H., Pugazhendhi, A., 2023. Advanced oxidation process (AOP)
combined biological process for wastewater treatment: A review on advancements,
feasibility and practicability of combined techniques. Environ. Res., 116944
Balaure, P. C., & Grumezescu, A. M. (2020). Recent advances in surface nanoengineering
for biolm prevention and control. Part I: molecular basis of biolm recalcitrance.
passive anti-biofouling nanocoatings. Nanomaterials, 10(6), 1230.
Baquero-Rodr\’\iguez, G. A., Lara-Borrero, J. A., Nolasco, D., & Rosso, D. (2018). A
Critical Review of the Factors Affecting Modeling Oxygen Transfer by Fine-Pore
Diffusers in Activated Sludge: Baquero-Rodr{\’\i}guez et al. Water Environment
Research, 90(5), 431–441.
Barbusinski, K., Kalemba, K., Kasperczyk, D., Urbaniec, K., Kozik, V., 2017. Biological
methods for odor treatment–A review. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 223–241.
Bardhan, A., Akhtar, A., Subbiah, S., 2022. Microltration and ultraltration membrane
technologies. In: Advancement in Polymer-Based Membranes for Water
Remediation. Elsevier, pp. 3–42.
Bashir, I., Lone, F. A., Bhat, R. A., Mir, S. A., Dar, Z. A., & Dar, S. A. (2020). Concerns and
threats of contamination on aquatic ecosystems. Bioremediation and Biotechnology:
Sustainable Approaches to Pollution Degradation, 1–26.
Benneker, A.M., Klomp, J., Lammertink, R.G.H., Wood, J.A., 2018. Inuence of
temperature gradients on mono-and divalent ion transport in electrodialysis at
limiting currents. Desalination 443, 62–69.
Bharti, B., Li, H., Ren, Z., Zhu, R., Zhu, Z., 2022. Recent advances in sterilization and
disinfection technology: A review. Chemosphere, 136404.
Bhat, S.A., Sher, F., Hameed, M., Bashir, O., Kumar, R., Vo, D.-V.-N., Ahmad, P., Lima, E.
C., 2022. Sustainable nanotechnology based wastewater treatment strategies:
Achievements, challenges and future perspectives. Chemosphere 288, 132606.
Bodzek, M., 2019. Membrane separation techniques: removal of inorganic and organic
admixtures and impurities from water environment. Arch. Environ. Prot. 45 (4),
4–19.
Bonilla-Petriciolet, A., Mendoza-Castillo, D. I., & Reynel- ´
Avila, H. E. (2017). Adsorption
processes for water treatment and purication (Vol. 256). Springer.
Boussettine, R., Hassou, N., Bessi, H., & Ennaji, M. M. (2020). Waterborne transmission
of enteric viruses and their impact on public health. In Emerging and reemerging viral
pathogens (pp. 907–932). Elsevier.
Cahoon, L.B., 2019. Water purication: treatment of microbial contamination. In:
Advances in Water Purication Techniques. Elsevier, pp. 385–395.
Capps, K. A., Bentsen, C. N., & Ram\’\irez, A. (2016). Poverty, urbanization, and
environmental degradation: urban streams in the developing world. Freshwater
Science, 35(1), 429–435.
Carter, E.E., Barr, S.G., Clarke, A.E., 2016. The global burden of SLE: prevalence, health
disparities and socioeconomic impact. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 12 (10), 605–620.
Castillo-Cabrera, G. X., Espinoza-Montero, P. J., Alulema-Pullupaxi, P., Mora, J. R., &
Villac\’\is-Garc\’\ia, M. H. (2022). Bismuth oxyhalide-based materials (BiOX: X=
Cl, Br, I) and their application in photoelectrocatalytic degradation of organic
pollutants in water: a review. Frontiers in Chemistry, 10, 900622.
Charcosset, C., 2016. Ultraltration, microltration, nanoltration and reverse osmosis
in integrated membrane processes. Integr. Membr. Syst. Process. 1–22.
Chatzisymeon, E., Foteinis, S., Mantzavinos, D., Tsoutsos, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment
of advanced oxidation processes for olive mill wastewater treatment. J. Clean. Prod.
54, 229–234.
Chen, L., Duan, J., Du, P., Sun, W., Lai, B., Liu, W., 2022. Accurate identication of
radicals by in-situ electron paramagnetic resonance in ultraviolet-based homogenous
advanced oxidation processes. Water Res. 221, 118747.
Chen, P., Liu, H., Cui, W., Lee, S.C., Wang, L., Dong, F., 2020. Bi-based photocatalysts for
light-driven environmental and energy applications: Structural tuning, reaction
mechanisms, and challenges. EcoMat 2 (3), e12047.
Cheng, C., White, N., Shi, H., Robson, M., Bruening, M.L., 2014. Cation separations in
electrodialysis through membranes coated with polyelectrolyte multilayers. Polymer
55 (6), 1397–1403.
Cho, S., Jackson, C.R., Frye, J.G., 2020. The prevalence and antimicrobial resistance
phenotypes of Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus sp. in surface water.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 71 (1), 3–25.
Chopra, A.K., Sharma, A.K., Kumar, V., 2011. Overview of Electrolytic treatment: An
alternative technology for purication of wastewater. Arch. Appl. Sci. Res. 3 (5),
191–206.
Connor, R. (2015). The United Nations world water development report 2015: water for a
sustainable world (Vol. 1). UNESCO publishing.
Corsi, I., Winther-Nielsen, M., Sethi, R., Punta, C., Della Torre, C., Libralato, G.,
Lofrano, G., Sabatini, L., Aiello, M., Fiordi, L., et al., 2018. Ecofriendly
nanotechnologies and nanomaterials for environmental applications: Key issue and
consensus recommendations for sustainable and ecosafe nanoremediation.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 154, 237–244.
Crini, G., & Badot, P.-M. (2010). Sorption processes and pollution: conventional and non-
conventional sorbents for pollutant removal from wastewaters. Presses Univ. Franche-
Comt´
e.
Cuerda-Correa, E.M., Alexandre-Franco, M.F., Fern´
andez-Gonz´
alez, C., 2019. Advanced
oxidation processes for the removal of antibiotics from water. An overview. Water 12
(1), 102.
de Vries, H.J., Stams, A.J.M., Plugge, C.M., 2020. Biodiversity and ecology of
microorganisms in high pressure membrane ltration systems. Water Res. 172,
115511.
DeFlorio-Barker, S., Wing, C., Jones, R.M., Dorevitch, S., 2018. Estimate of incidence and
cost of recreational waterborne illness on United States surface waters. Environ.
Health 17, 1–10.
der Bruggen, B. (2018). Microltration, ultraltration, nanoltration, reverse osmosis,
and forward osmosis. In Fundamental modelling of membrane systems (pp. 25–70).
Elsevier.
Doyle, H. K. (2017). Bad water, dirty politics: Contrasting governmental responses to two US
water crises.
Drioli, E., Fontananova, E., 2012. Membrane materials for addressing energy and
environmental challenges. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 3, 395–420.
du Plessis, A., & du Plessis, A. (2017). Global water scarcity and possible conicts.
Freshwater Challenges of South Africa and Its Upper Vaal River: Current State and
Outlook, 45–62.
Dufour, A. P. (2018). Diseases caused by water contact. In Waterborne Diseases in the US
(pp. 23–41). CRC Press.
Duggan, J., Bates, M. P., & Phillips, C. A. (2001). The efcacy of subsurface ow reed bed
treatment in the removal of Campylobacter spp., faecal coliforms and Escherichia
coli from poultry litter. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 11(2),
168–180.
Dutta, V., Chauhan, A., Verma, R., Gopalkrishnan, C., Nguyen, V.-H., 2022. Recent trends
in Bi-based nanomaterials: challenges, fabrication, enhancement techniques, and
environmental applications. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 13 (1), 1316–1336.
Echevarr\’\ia, C., Valderrama, C., Cortina, J. L., Mart\’\in, I., Arnaldos, M., Bernat, X., la
Cal, A., Boleda, M. R., Vega, A., Teuler, A., & others. (2020). Hybrid sorption and
pressure-driven membrane technologies for organic micropollutants removal in
advanced water reclamation: A techno-economic assessment. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 273, 123108.
Englande Jr, A. J., Krenkel, P., & Shamas, J. (2015). Wastewater treatment &water
reclamation. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences.
Ergozhin, E. E., Chalov, T. K., Begenova, B. E., & Khakimbolatova, K. K. (2019). Semi-
permeable membranes for ultra-, microltration and reverse osmosis. Chemical
Journal of Kazakhstan.
Feliczak-Guzik, A., 2022. Nanomaterials as photocatalysts—synthesis and their potential
applications. Materials 16 (1), 193.
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
12
Ganie, A.S., Bano, S., Khan, N., Sultana, S., Rehman, Z., Rahman, M.M., Sabir, S.,
Coulon, F., Khan, M.Z., 2021. Nanoremediation technologies for sustainable
remediation of contaminated environments: Recent advances and challenges.
Chemosphere 275, 130065.
Ganiyu, S.O., Sable, S., El-Din, M.G., 2022. Advanced oxidation processes for the
degradation of dissolved organics in produced water: A review of process
performance, degradation kinetics and pathway. Chem. Eng. J. 429, 132492.
Gardu˜
no, R. A. (2020). Freshwater ecology of Legionella pneumophila. Legionellosis
Diagnosis and Control in the Genomic Era, 7–76.
Gerba, C. P. (2015). Disinfection. In Environmental microbiology (pp. 645–662). Elsevier.
Gidudu, B., Chirwa, E.M.N., 2022. The role of pH, electrodes, surfactants, and
electrolytes in electrokinetic remediation of contaminated soil. Molecules 27 (21),
7381.
Goh, P.S., Lau, W.J., Othman, M.H.D., Ismail, A.F., 2018. Membrane fouling in
desalination and its mitigation strategies. Desalination 425, 130–155.
Gold, K., Slay, B., Knackstedt, M., Gaharwar, A.K., 2018. Antimicrobial activity of metal
and metal-oxide based nanoparticles. Adv. Therap. 1 (3), 1700033.
Gomes, J., Frasson, D., Quinta-Ferreira, R.M., Matos, A., Martins, R.C., 2019. Removal of
enteric pathogens from real wastewater using single and catalytic ozonation. Water
11 (1), 127.
Gomez, M., Perdiguero, J., Sanz, A., 2019. Socioeconomic factors affecting water access
in rural areas of low and middle income countries. Water 11 (2), 202.
Gonz´
alez, Y., G´
omez, G., Moeller-Ch´
avez, G.E., Vidal, G., 2023. UV Disinfection Systems
for wastewater treatment: Emphasis on reactivation of microorganisms.
Sustainability 15 (14), 11262.
Goodarzi, N., Ashra-Peyman, Z., Khani, E., Moshfegh, A.Z., 2023. Recent progress on
semiconductor heterogeneous photocatalysts in clean energy production and
environmental remediation. Catalysts 13 (7), 1102.
Grellier, J., Rushton, L., Briggs, D.J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2015. Assessing the human
health impacts of exposure to disinfection by-products—A critical review of concepts
and methods. Environ. Int. 78, 61–81.
Guo, T., Englehardt, J., Wu, T., 2014. Review of cost versus scale: water and wastewater
treatment and reuse processes. Water Sci. Technol. 69 (2), 223–234.
Hajipour, M.J., Saei, A.A., Walker, E.D., Conley, B., Omidi, Y., Lee, K.-B., Mahmoudi, M.,
2021. Nanotechnology for targeted detection and removal of bacteria: opportunities
and challenges. Adv. Sci. 8 (21), 2100556.
Hakami, M.W., Alkhudhiri, A., Al-Batty, S., Zacharof, M.-P., Maddy, J., Hilal, N., 2020.
Ceramic microltration membranes in wastewater treatment: Filtration behavior,
fouling and prevention. Membranes 10 (9), 248.
Hassan, J.Z., Raza, A., Qumar, U., Li, G., 2022. Recent advances in engineering strategies
of Bi-based photocatalysts for environmental remediation. Sustain. Mater. Technol.
33, e00478.
Hijnen, W.A.M., Dullemont, Y.J., Schijven, J.F., Hanzens-Brouwer, A.J., Rosielle, M.,
Medema, G., 2007. Removal and fate of Cryptosporidium parvum, Clostridium
perfringens and small-sized centric diatoms (Stephanodiscus hantzschii) in slow sand
lters. Water Res. 41 (10), 2151–2162.
Honorio, L.M.C., Trigueiro, P.A., Viana, B.C., Ribeiro, A.B., Osajima, J.A., 2019.
Nanostructured materials for the photocatalytic degradation of organic pollutants in
water. Nanostruct. Mater. Treat. Aquat. Pollut. 65–90.
Iervolino, G., Zammit, I., Vaiano, V., & Rizzo, L. (2020). Limitations and prospects for
wastewater treatment by UV and visible-light-active heterogeneous photocatalysis: a
critical review. Heterogeneous Photocatalysis: Recent Advances, 225–264.
Ikram, M., & Bari, M. A. (2024). Bismuth Oxyhalides: Synthesis and photocatalytic
applications. IOP Publishing.
Iwu, C.D., Okoh, A.I., 2019. Preharvest transmission routes of fresh produce associated
bacterial pathogens with outbreak potentials: a review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 16 (22), 4407.
Jiang, C., Hossain, M.M., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Xu, T., 2014. Ion exchange membranes for
electrodialysis: a comprehensive review of recent advances. J. Membr. Separ.
Technol. 3 (4), 185.
Jim´
enez-Cisneros, B., 2014. Water reuse and recycling. Comprehensive Water Quality
and Purication. Elsevier, Waltham, MA, pp. 296–323.
Joseph, T. M., Al-Hazmi, H. E., ´
Sniatała, B., Esmaeili, A., & Habibzadeh, S. (2023).
Nanoparticles and nanoltration for wastewater treatment: From polluted to fresh
water. Environmental Research, 117114.
Judd, S.J., 2017. Membrane technology costs and me. Water Res. 122, 1–9.
Juntunen, J., Meril¨
ainen, P., Simola, A., 2017. Public health and economic risk
assessment of waterborne contaminants and pathogens in Finland. Sci. Total
Environ. 599, 873–882.
Jutla, A., Khan, R., Colwell, R., 2017. Natural disasters and cholera outbreaks: Current
understanding and future outlook. Curr. Environ. Health Reports 4, 99–107.
Juve, J.-M.-A., Christensen, F.M.S., Wang, Y., Wei, Z., 2022. Electrodialysis for metal
removal and recovery: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 435, 134857.
Kakalou, E., & Tsiamis, C. (2021). Infectious Diseases Outbreaks Following Natural
Disasters: Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control. In Emergency Medicine, Trauma
and Disaster Management: From Prehospital to Hospital Care and Beyond (pp. 525–535).
Springer.
Kamali, M., Suhas, D.P., Costa, M.E., Capela, I., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2019. Sustainability
considerations in membrane-based technologies for industrial efuents treatment.
Chem. Eng. J. 368, 474–494.
Kamami, M. I. (2014). Fuzzy based decision support method for selection of sustainable
wastewater treatment technologies.
Kayvani Fard, A., McKay, G., Buekenhoudt, A., Al Sulaiti, H., Motmans, F.,
Khraisheh, M., Atieh, M., 2018. Inorganic membranes: Preparation and application
for water treatment and desalination. Materials 11 (1), 74.
Keçeci, B., Iç, Y.T., Eraslan, E., 2019. Development of a spreadsheet DSS for multi-
response taguchi parameter optimization problems using the TOPSIS, VIKOR, and
GRA methods. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 18 (05), 1501–1531.
Khalil, A.M.E., Memon, F.A., Tabish, T.A., Fenton, B., Salmon, D., Zhang, S., Butler, D.,
2021. Performance evaluation of porous graphene as lter media for the removal of
pharmaceutical/emerging contaminants from water and wastewater. Nanomaterials
11 (1), 79.
Krishna, R.H., Chandraprabha, M.N., Samrat, K., Murthy, T.P.K., Manjunatha, C.,
Kumar, S.G., 2023. Carbon nanotubes and graphene-based materials for adsorptive
removal of metal ions–A review on surface functionalization and related adsorption
mechanism. Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv. 16, 100431.
Kumar, S., Sharma, A., Kshetrimayum, C., 2019. Environmental \& occupational
exposure \& female reproductive dysfunction. Indian J. Med. Res. 150 (6), 532.
Kusworo, T.D., Kumoro, A.C., Utomo, D.P., et al., 2022. Photocatalytic nanohybrid
membranes for highly efcient wastewater treatment: A comprehensive review.
J. Environ. Manage. 317, 115357.
Lama, G., Meijide, J., Sanrom´
an, A., Pazos, M., 2022. Heterogeneous advanced oxidation
processes: Current approaches for wastewater treatment. Catalysts 12 (3), 344.
Li, Q., Li, F., 2021. Recent advances in molecular oxygen activation via photocatalysis
and its application in oxidation reactions. Chem. Eng. J. 421, 129915.
Li, J., Liu, R., Zhao, S., Wang, S., Wang, Y., 2020. Simultaneous desalination and nutrient
recovery during municipal wastewater treatment using microbial electrolysis
desalination cell. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121248.
Li, X.-F., Mitch, W.A., 2018. Drinking water disinfection byproducts (DBPs) and human
health effects: multidisciplinary challenges and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Tech. 52
(4), 1681–1689.
Likodimos, V., 2018. Photonic crystal-assisted visible light activated TiO2 photocatalysis.
Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 230, 269–303.
Liu, H., Wang, C., Wang, G., 2020. Photocatalytic advanced oxidation processes for water
treatment: recent advances and perspective. Chem. Asian J. 15 (20), 3239–3253.
Lu, I.-Y., Kuo, T., Lin, T.-S., Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, S.-L., 2016. Multicriteria decision
analysis to develop effective sustainable development strategies for enhancing
competitive advantages: Case of the TFT-LCD industry in Taiwan. Sustainability 8
(7), 646.
Lu, Y., Song, S., Wang, R., Liu, Z., Meng, J., Sweetman, A.J., Jenkins, A., Ferrier, R.C.,
Li, H., Luo, W., et al., 2015. Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and
health risks in China. Environ. Int. 77, 5–15.
Lv, X., Lam, F.L.Y., Hu, X., 2022. A review on bismuth oxyhalide (BiOX, X=Cl, Br, I)
based photocatalysts for wastewater remediation. Front. Catal. 2, 839072.
Lv, K., Li, X., Deng, K., Sun, J., Li, X., Li, M., 2010. Effect of phase structures on the
photocatalytic activity of surface uorinated TiO2. Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 95 (3–4),
383–392.
Maeda, Y., 2022. Roles of sultes in reverse osmosis (RO) plants and adverse effects in
RO operation. Membranes 12 (2), 170.
Mahamuni, N.N., Adewuyi, Y.G., 2010. Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) involving
ultrasound for waste water treatment: a review with emphasis on cost estimation.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 17 (6), 990–1003.
Mahbub, P., Duke, M., 2023. Scalability of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in
industrial applications: A review. J. Environ. Manage. 345, 118861.
Majumdar, R., Mishra, U., Bhunia, B., 2022. Advanced functional membranes for
microltration and ultraltration. Adv. Funct. Membr. Mater. Appl 120, 43–71.
Matin, A., Laoui, T., Falath, W., Farooque, M., 2021. Fouling control in reverse osmosis
for water desalination & reuse: Current practices & emerging environment-friendly
technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 765, 142721.
McDonnell, G., 2007. Biocides: Modes of action and mechanisms of resistance. In:
Disinfection and Decontamination. CRC Press, pp. 101–138.
McLaren, S.J., Sahli, M.W., Selig, S., Masten, S.J., Page, W.H., 2022. The drinking water
crises of Flint and Havelock North: a failure of public health risk management.
J. Water Health 20 (9), 1314–1328.
Mei, Y., Jiang, C., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Tang, C.Y., 2022. Electrodialysis
membrane technology for industrial wastewater treatment: recent advances.
Electrochem. Membr. Technol. Water Wastewater Treat. 265–315.
Mousavi-Nasab, S.H., Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., 2017. A comprehensive MCDM-based
approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection
problems. Mater. Des. 121, 237–253.
Nasir, A.M., Adam, M.R., Kamal, S.N.E.A.M., Jaafar, J., Othman, M.H.D., Ismail, A.F.,
Aziz, F., Yusof, N., Bilad, M.R., Mohamud, R., et al., 2022. A review of the potential
of conventional and advanced membrane technology in the removal of pathogens
from wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 286, 120454.
Nath, K. (2017). Membrane separation processes. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Niasse, M., Varis, O., 2021. Quenching the thirst of rapidly growing and water-insecure
cities in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Global Water Resources. Routledge, pp. 283–305.
Nichols, G., Lake, I., Heaviside, C., 2018. Climate change and water-related infectious
diseases. Atmos. 9 (10), 385.
Obayomi, K.S., Bello, J.O., Yahya, M.D., Chukwunedum, E., Adeoye, J.B., 2020.
Statistical analyses on effective removal of cadmium and hexavalent chromium ions
by multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Heliyon 6 (6).
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Danquah, M., Chiong, T., Takeo, M., 2022. Advances in
graphene oxide based nanobiocatalytic technology for wastewater treatment.
Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manage. 17, 100647.
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Akubuo-Casmir, D., Yahya, M.D., Auta, M., Bari, A.S.M.F.,
Oluwadiya, A.E., Obayomi, O.V., Rahman, M.M., 2022. Adsorption of endocrine
disruptive congo red onto biosynthesized silver nanoparticles loaded on Hildegardia
barteri activated carbon. J. Mol. Liq. 352, 118735.
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
13
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Danquah, M.K., Zhang, J., Chiong, T., Takeo, M.,
Jeevanandam, J., 2023. Novel concepts for graphene-based nanomaterials synthesis
for phenol removal from Palm Oil Mill Efuent (POME). Materials 16 (12), 4379.
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Ibrahim, O., Zhang, J., Meunier, L., Aniobi, M.M., Atunwa, B.T.,
Pramanik, B.K., Rahman, M.M., 2023. Removal of Congo red dye from aqueous
environment by zinc terephthalate metal organic framework decorated on silver
nanoparticles-loaded biochar: Mechanistic insights of adsorption. Micropor.
Mesopor. Mater. 355, 112568.
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Mayowa, I.E., Danquah, M.K., Zhang, J., Chiong, T.,
Meunier, L., Rahman, M.M., 2023. Recent advances in graphene-derived materials
for biomedical waste treatment. J. Water Process Eng. 51, 103440.
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Zahir, A., Meunier, L., Zhang, J., Dada, A.O., Rahman, M.M.,
2023. Removing Methylene Blue from Water: A study of sorption effectiveness onto
nanoparticles-doped activated carbon. Chemosphere 313, 137533.
Obayomi, K.S., Lau, S.Y., Danquah, M.K., Zhang, J., Chiong, T., Obayomi, O.V.,
Meunier, L., Rahman, M.M., 2024. A response surface methodology approach for the
removal of methylene blue dye from wastewater using sustainable and cost-effective
adsorbent. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.
Oertl´
e, E., Hugi, C., Wintgens, T., Karavitis, C.A., 2019. Poseidon—Decision support tool
for water reuse. Water 11 (1), 153.
Okamoto, Y., Lienhard, J.H., 2019. How RO membrane permeability and other
performance factors affect process cost and energy use: A review. Desalination 470,
114064.
Ortiz, J. M., Exp´
osito, E., Gallud, F., Garc\’\ia-Garc\’\ia, V., Montiel, V., & Aldaz, A.
(2008). Desalination of underground brackish waters using an electrodialysis system
powered directly by photovoltaic energy. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 92
(12), 1677–1688.
Pal, M., Ayele, Y., Hadush, M., Panigrahi, S., Jadhav, V.J., 2018. Public health hazards
due to unsafe drinking water. Air Water Borne Dis. 7 (1000138), 2.
Pandey, S.R., Jegatheesan, V., Baskaran, K., Shu, L., 2012. Fouling in reverse osmosis
(RO) membrane in water recovery from secondary efuent: A review. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Bio/technol. 11, 125–145.
Parida, V.K., Srivastava, S.K., Gupta, A.K., Rawat, A., 2023. A review on nanomaterial-
based heterogeneous photocatalysts for removal of contaminants from water. Mater.
Express 13 (1), 1–38.
Patel, S.K., Biesheuvel, P.M., Elimelech, M., 2021. Energy consumption of brackish water
desalination: identifying the sweet spots for electrodialysis and reverse osmosis. Acs
Es&t Eng. 1 (5), 851–864.
Pavel, M., Anastasescu, C., State, R.-N., Vasile, A., Papa, F., Balint, I., 2023.
Photocatalytic degradation of organic and inorganic pollutants to harmless end
products: assessment of practical application potential for water and air cleaning.
Catalysts 13 (2), 380.
Peiris, S., de Silva, H.B., Ranasinghe, K.N., Bandara, S.V., Perera, I.R., 2021. Recent
development and future prospects of TiO2 photocatalysis. J. Chin. Chem. Soc. 68 (5),
738–769.
Pink, R.M., 2016. Water Rights in Southeast Asia and India. Springer.
Prins, M., & Paulsson, M. (2015). Sterilisation Methods. Practical Pharmaceutics: An
International Guideline for the Preparation, Care and Use of Medicinal Products,
677–693.
Qasim, M., Badrelzaman, M., Darwish, N.N., Darwish, N.A., Hilal, N., 2019. Reverse
osmosis desalination: A state-of-the-art review. Desalination 459, 59–104.
Rani, C.N., Karthikeyan, S., 2021. Synergic effects on degradation of a mixture of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a UV slurry photocatalytic membrane reactor
and its cost estimation. Chem. Eng. Process.-Process Intensif. 159, 108179.
Ray, S.S., Chen, S.-S., Li, C.-W., Nguyen, N.C., Nguyen, H.T., 2016. A comprehensive
review: Electrospinning technique for fabrication and surface modication of
membranes for water treatment application. RSC Adv. 6 (88), 85495–85514.
Ray, P., Singh, P.S., Polisetti, V., 2020. Synthetic polymeric membranes for the removal
of toxic pollutants and other harmful contaminants from water. In: Removal of Toxic
Pollutants through Microbiological and Tertiary Treatment. Elsevier, pp. 43–99.
Rodr\’\iguez-DeLaNuez, F., Franquiz-Su´
arez, N., Santiago, D. E., Veza, J. M., &
Sadhwani, J. J. (2012). Reuse and minimization of desalination brines: a review of
alternatives. Desalination and Water Treatment, 39(1–3), 137–148.
Saravanan, A., Kumar, P.S., Hemavathy, R.V., Jeevanantham, S., Harikumar, P.,
Priyanka, G., Devakirubai, D.R.A., 2022. A comprehensive review on sources,
analysis and toxicity of environmental pollutants and its removal methods from
water environment. Sci. Total Environ. 812, 152456.
Saravanan, A., Deivayanai, V.C., Kumar, P.S., Rangasamy, G., Hemavathy, R.V.,
Harshana, T., Gayathri, N., Alagumalai, K., 2022. A detailed review on advanced
oxidation process in treatment of wastewater: Mechanism, challenges and future
outlook. Chemosphere 308, 136524.
Sarma, J., 2020. Filtration and chemical treatment of waterborne pathogens. In:
Waterborne Pathogens. Elsevier, pp. 105–122.
Sathya, K., Nagarajan, K., Carlin Geor Malar, G., Rajalakshmi, S., & Raja Lakshmi, P.
(2022). A comprehensive review on comparison among efuent treatment methods
and modern methods of treatment of industrial wastewater efuent from different
sources. Applied Water Science, 12(4), 70.
Schillinger, J., ¨
Ozerol, G., Güven-Griemert, \cSermin, & Heldeweg, M. (2020). Water in
war: Understanding the impacts of armed conict on water resources and their
management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(6), e1480.
Schriewer, A., Odagiri, M., Wuertz, S., Misra, P.R., Panigrahi, P., Clasen, T., Jenkins, M.
W., 2015. Human and animal fecal contamination of community water sources,
stored drinking water and hands in rural India measured with validated microbial
source tracking assays. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 93 (3), 509.
Sedighi, M., Use, M.M.B., Ismail, A.F., Ghasemi, M., 2023. Environmental sustainability
and ions removal through electrodialysis desalination: Operating conditions and
process parameters. Desalination 549, 116319.
Semsayun, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Chiemchaisri, C., Patchanee, N., 2015. Reduction of
waterborne microorganisms in treated domestic wastewater for reuse in agriculture:
Comparison between oating media lter and sand lter. Environ. Eng. Res. 20 (4),
403–409.
Shah, A.I., Dar, M.U.D., Bhat, R.A., Singh, J.P., Singh, K., Bhat, S.A., 2020. Prospectives
and challenges of wastewater treatment technologies to combat contaminants of
emerging concerns. Ecol. Eng. 152, 105882.
Shenvi, S.S., Isloor, A.M., Ismail, A.F., 2015. A review on RO membrane technology:
Developments and challenges. Desalination 368, 10–26.
Singh, N., Poonia, T., Siwal, S. S., Srivastav, A. L., Sharma, H. K., & Mittal, S. K. (2022).
Challenges of water contamination in urban areas. In Current directions in water
scarcity research (Vol. 6, pp. 173–202). Elsevier.
Smith, S.C., Rodrigues, D.F., 2015. Carbon-based nanomaterials for removal of chemical
and biological contaminants from water: A review of mechanisms and applications.
Carbon 91, 122–143.
Souza, V.C., Quadri, M.G.N., 2013. Organic-inorganic hybrid membranes in separation
processes: a 10-year review. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 30, 683–700.
Sridharan, K., Shenoy, S., Kumar, S.G., Terashima, C., Fujishima, A., Pitchaimuthu, S.,
2021. Advanced two-dimensional heterojunction photocatalysts of stoichiometric
and non-stoichiometric bismuth oxyhalides with graphitic carbon nitride for
sustainable energy and environmental applications. Catalysts 11 (4), 426.
Thanigaivel, S., Priya, A.K., Gnanasekaran, L., Hoang, T.K.A., Rajendran, S., Soto-
Moscoso, M., 2022. Sustainable applicability and environmental impact of
wastewater treatment by emerging nanobiotechnological approach: Future strategy
for efcient removal of contaminants and water purication. Sustainable Energy
Technol. Assess. 53, 102484.
Tripathi, S., & Hussain, T. (2022). Water and wastewater treatment through ozone-based
technologies. In Development in wastewater treatment research and processes (pp.
139–172). Elsevier.
Trishitman, D., Cassano, A., Basile, A., & Rastogi, N. K. (2020). Reverse osmosis for
industrial wastewater treatment. In Current trends and future developments on (bio-)
membranes (pp. 207–228). Elsevier.
Tsao, C.-W., Fang, M.-J., Hsu, Y.-J., 2021. Modulation of interfacial charge dynamics of
semiconductor heterostructures for advanced photocatalytic applications. Coord.
Chem. Rev. 438, 213876.
Tufa, R.A., Piallat, T., Hnat, J., Fontananova, E., Paidar, M., Chanda, D., Curcio, E., di
Proo, G., Bouzek, K., 2020. Salinity gradient power reverse electrodialysis: Cation
exchange membrane design based on polypyrrole-chitosan composites for enhanced
monovalent selectivity. Chem. Eng. J. 380, 122461.
Tulchinsky, T. H. (2018). John Snow, cholera, the broad street pump; waterborne
diseases then and now. Case Studies in Public Health, 77.
Ugwuanyi, E.D., Nwokediegwu, Z.Q.S., Dada, M.A., Majemite, M.T., Obaigbena, A.,
2024. Review of emerging technologies for nutrient removal in wastewater
treatment. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 21 (2), 1737–1749.
Valappil, R.S.K., Ghasem, N., Al-Marzouqi, M., 2021. Current and future trends in
polymer membrane-based gas separation technology: A comprehensive review.
J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 98, 103–129.
Victoria Obayomi, O., Folakemi Olaniran, A., & Olugbemiga Owa, S. (2024). Unveiling
the role of functional foods with emphasis on prebiotics and probiotics in human
health: A review. Journal of Functional Foods, 119, 106337. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2024.106337.
Vikesland, P.J., 2018. Nanosensors for water quality monitoring. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13
(8), 651–660.
Watters, A. (2019). Freshwater Scarcity: The Current Situation in Southern Ontario.
Wenten, I. G., Bazant, M. Z., & Khoiruddin, K. (2024). Mitigating electrodialysis
membrane fouling in seawater desalination. Separation and Purication Technology,
127228.
Yahya, M.D., Agie, J.O., Obayomi, K.S., Olugbenga, A.G., Afolabi, E.A., 2021.
Immobilization of maize tassel in polyvinyl alcohol for the removal of phosphoric
compounds from surface water near farmland. Cogent Eng. 8 (1), 1924940.
Yahya, M. N., Usman, I. M. T., G¨
okçeku\cs, H., Uzun Ozsahin, D., & Uzun, B. (2021).
Comparative Analysis for Irrigation Water Application Methods Using TOPSIS.
Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental and Civil Engineering,
157–171.
Yahya, M.D., Obayomi, K.S., Orekoya, B.A., Olugbenga, A.G., Akoh, B., 2021. Process
evaluation study on the removal of Ni (II) and Cu (II) ions from an industrial paint
efuent using kola nut pod as an adsorbent. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 43 (1),
105–113.
Yaqub, M., Lee, W., 2019. Zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) technology for resource recovery
from wastewater: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 681, 551–563.
Zahler, D. (2009). The black death. Twenty-First Century Books.
Zaidi, A. J., Ahsan, H., & Munshi, A. B. (2021). A review on cancer probability in human
beings due to environmental impact of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and remediation. Pakistan Journal of Scientic & Industrial Research Series A: Physical
Sciences, 64(3), 275–286.
Zeynali, R., Ghasemzadeh, K., & Basile, A. (2022). Transport phenomena in
electrodialysis/reverse electrodialysis processes. In Current Trends and Future
Developments on (Bio-) Membranes (pp. 91–109). Elsevier.
Zhang, P., Lou, X.W., 2019. Design of heterostructured hollow photocatalysts for solar-
to-chemical energy conversion. Adv. Mater. 31 (29), 1900281.
Zhao, D., Yu, S., 2015. A review of recent advance in fouling mitigation of NF/RO
membranes in water treatment: Pretreatment, membrane modication, and
chemical cleaning. Desalin. Water Treat. 55 (4), 870–891.
O.V. Obayomi et al.
Current Research in Biotechnology 8 (2024) 100252
14
