See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360116764

Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment

Chapter · April 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-98202-7_1

CITATIONS READS

4 909

3 authors, including:

Muhammad Salman Muhammad Shakir

7 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
Chinese Academy of Sciences
43 PUBLICATIONS 855 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Salman on 07 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Water Science and Technology Library

Thirugnanasambandham Karchiyappan
Rama Rao Karri
Mohammad Hadi Dehghani Editors

Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment
Emerging Technologies
for Sustainability
Water Science and Technology Library

Volume 106

Editor-in-Chief
V. P. Singh, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering & Zachry
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, USA

Editorial Board
R. Berndtsson, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
L. N. Rodrigues, Embrapa Cerrados, Brasília, Brazil
Arup Kumar Sarma, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India
M. M. Sherif, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, UAE University,
Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
B. Sivakumar, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of
New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Q. Zhang, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing,
China
Thirugnanasambandham Karchiyappan ·
Rama Rao Karri · Mohammad Hadi Dehghani
Editors

Industrial Wastewater
Treatment
Emerging Technologies for Sustainability
Editors
Thirugnanasambandham Karchiyappan Rama Rao Karri
Department of Molecular Engineering Petroleum and Chemical Engineering
Lodz University of Technology Universiti Technology Brunei
Lodz, Poland Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam

Mohammad Hadi Dehghani

Department of Environmental Health
Engineering, School of Public Health
and Institute for Environmental Research
Center for Solid Waste Research
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Tehran, Iran

ISSN 0921-092X ISSN 1872-4663 (electronic)

Water Science and Technology Library
ISBN 978-3-030-98201-0 ISBN 978-3-030-98202-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98202-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Recent Developments in Membrane
Filtration for Wastewater Treatment

Muhammad Salman, Muhammad Shakir, and Muhammad Yaseen

Abstract Freshwater resources are limited and are becoming increasingly polluted
due to the rapid urbanization and industrialization. Water pollution is a preemi-
nent pervasive problem affecting the lives of more than 785 millions people glob-
ally, both in terms of quality as well as scarcity. Due to boom in industrializa-
tion, several toxins and chemicals such as inorganic particles, harmful hydrocarbon,
organic matter, and heavy metals etc. are discharged into freshwater bodies thereby
making it unsuitable for domestic and drinking purposes. Therefore, it is imperative to
design and perform wastewater treatment processes for the production of freshwater.
Various technologies have been explored for this purpose including electrochemical
oxidation, advanced oxidation process, advanced biological treatment employing
algae, bacteria and fungi and membrane-based filtration techniques. Among these,
membrane technology is the most suitable strategy applied for wastewater treat-
ment and has gained considerable attention due to its exciting features such as
high separation performance, smaller footprint area, cost-effectiveness, low energy
requirement, convenience in operation and high efficiency. In this chapter, we will
initially discuss membrane technologies applied for the treatment of wastewater.
Then, we will describe various types of synthetic membranes, membrane processes
and membrane modules being used in wastewater purification. Afterward, an insight
into the membrane operation that includes membrane performance, membrane selec-
tivity, separation mechanism, concentration polarization and membrane fouling will
be discussed. Finally, different membrane cleaning processes such as physical,
chemical, biological and physicochemical cleaning methods will be discussed.

M. Salman · M. Yaseen (B)

Institute of Chemical Sciences, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 25120, KP, Pakistan
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Shakir
Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

T. Karchiyappan et al. (eds.), Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Water Science
and Technology Library 106, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98202-7_1
2 M. Salman et al.

1 Introduction

Freshwater is indispensable for life, food, security, public health and energy manage-
ment on earth. With the increasing urbanization and boom in the human population,
the demand for freshwater has excessively increased. The growing scarcity of fresh-
water bodies is not only alarming for the survival of human and aquatic lives but
also increasing global pollution abruptly. According to a recent report, more than
785 million people are facing water scarcity, and the number is increasing gradually
(Ilahi et al. 2021). Therefore, conversing the freshwater and purifying wastewater
technology is the research hotspot that should be carefully managed and technically
fixed in recent times.
With the rapid industrialization and increased urbanization, a large number of
pollutants are directly discharged into freshwater bodies, thus making it inappropriate
for drinking and domestic purposes (Mahto et al. 2021). These pollutants include
harmful hydrocarbon, organic matter, inorganic particles (sand, grift, rubber residue,
ceramics), heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides and
other related chemical components (Issakhov et al. 2021). Where the organic pollu-
tants, i.e. dyes, textile and food waste, plant material, and paper fibers are among
the key contributor to polluting water. These pollutants adversely affect the water
quality and risk chemical oxygen demand, alter the chemical composition of water
and imparts deep coloration, which ultimately increases the toxicity and decreases
biodegradability of freshwater (Werber et al. 2016; Nqombolo et al. 2018; Karri et al.
2021; Dehghani et al. 2021).
To conserve the wastewater, various purification methods including advanced
oxidation process, electrochemical oxidation, advanced biological treatment utilizing
bacteria, algae and fungi, and membrane filtration have been used. Among
these, membrane filtration-based technologies have received considerable attention
attributed to their intriguing features such as smaller footprint area, high separa-
tion performance, low energy requirement, cost-effectiveness and convenience in
operation (Ong et al. 2017; Noamani et al. 2019).

2 Membrane Technology

Membrane technology is a widely adopted separation and purification technique

(Cui et al. 2010a). As membranes vary greatly in structure, properties and usage,
an all-inclusive description that can relate all of its properties is challenging. The
membrane can be defined as a synthetic film that separates two phases by restricting
or allowing the passage of various components through it in a selective fashion (Singh
and Hankins 2016). The movement of molecules across the membranes is the result of
convective movement or diffusion of molecules. Classification of different membrane
processes is primarily characterized by different propelling forces, including pres-
sure, concentration, temperature and membrane pore size. At the same time, its
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 3

thickness ranges from several centimetres to less than 100 nm and the average pore
diameter range from several micrometres to less than 0.1 nm. Membranes are largely
governed by different force gradients such as osmotic pressure, concentration, applied
pressure, electrical and thermal or the combination of these driving forces (Khan et al.
2021a; Lau et al. 2020). For instance, a membrane sheath can be nonporous or porous,
anisotropic or isotropic and electrically charged or neutral (Strathmann 1986).
The choice of the membrane type and the process is determined by numerous
factors, which include feed mixture, degree of separation projected and feed volume
needed to be processed.

3 Types of Membranes

Synthetic membranes are of two types, i.e. solid or liquid. Based on the morphology,
solid membranes are categorized as isotropic or anisotropic (Purkait et al. 2018).
Isotropic membranes are also sometimes called symmetric membranes whose
composition and physical structure are uniform all over the membrane. Isotropic
membranes are further classified as microporous, nonporous, and electrically charged
membranes. Isotropic microporous membranes are rigid, having highly voided struc-
tures with interconnected and randomly distributed pores that have higher permeation
fluxes (Sagle and Freeman 2004). Nonporous isotropic membranes comprise a dense
sheath where permeate diffuses under the effect of different propelling forces such
as concentration, electric potential and pressure gradient. The separation of different
mixture components and their relative transport across a membrane is reliant on
their solubility and diffusibility in the membrane. These membranes have compara-
tively lower permeation fluxes than porous membranes, due to which their applica-
tions are limited (Obotey Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020). Electrically charged isotropic
membranes are either porous or dense but are exquisitely microporous in most cases
(Purkait et al. 2018). These are cationic exchange or anionic exchange membranes,
whose pore walls contain fixed negative or positive charged ions, respectively. These
membranes are permeable to oppositely charged ions but repel similarly charged
ions (Jun et al. 2020; Jua et al. 2020). The ion charge and concentration in the
solution drive the separation process. Electrodialysis reversal is the most common
application of electrically charged membranes (Xu 2005). Conversely, anisotropic
membranes can be asymmetric or composite membranes, which are irregular all
through the membrane area and consist of multiple layers having diverse composi-
tions and structures. These membranes are composed of a very fine selective film,
which is assisted by a highly permeable and dense sheet and is specifically useful in
reverse osmosis applications (Mallevialle et al. 1996).
A liquid membrane consists of a liquid phase that exists as a supported or rather
unsupported form that works as a membrane fence to separate two distinct phases of a
solution (Hansen et al. 2021). The supported form of the liquid membrane comprises
a microporous assembly that is occupied by a liquid membrane phase. The micro-
porous assembly and the liquid-filled pores provide the much-needed mechanical
4 M. Salman et al.

strength and selective separation barrier, respectively. Higher porosity and smaller
pore size are the key contributors to maintaining the liquid phase under hydrostatic
pressure. These membranes are extensively applied both analytically and industri-
ally for preconcentration, purification and treatment of wastewater (Parhi 2013).
Conversely, an unsupported liquid membrane or emulsion liquid membrane is an
emulsion-type mixture that consists of a thin liquid film and is equilibrated by the
action of a surfactant. These membranes have tremendous potential for the treat-
ment of wastewater containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons owing to their simple
operation, removal and stripping in a single stage, high efficiency, superior interfacial
area, and choice of continuous operation (Kumar et al. 2019; Baker 2012).
Based on membrane material, synthetic membranes are categorized as organic,
inorganic, and hybrid or mixed matrix membranes (Khan et al. 2021b). Polymeric
or organic membranes are synthesized from synthetic organic polymers, i.e. poly-
tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, cellulose acetate and polypropylene, etc. Mostly,
these polymers are utilized for the synthesis of polymeric membranes for processes
that are driven by a pressure gradient, which includes ultrafiltration, microfiltration,
nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis (Aliyu et al. 2018).
Inorganic membranes are synthesized from silica, ceramics, zeolites or metals.
These membranes are stable in an intensive thermal and chemical environment and
are extensively used for industrial applications such as ultrafiltration, microfiltration
and hydrogen separation (Mallada and Menéndez 2008).
Nowadays, mixed matrix membranes or hybrid membranes have gained consid-
erable attention. Mixed matrix membranes are considered next-generation hybrid
membranes materials that combine the inherent properties of both the polymer and
the fillers. The hybrid membrane overcomes limitations of the polymeric and inor-
ganic membranes while synergizing and utilizing properties of both, i.e., easy and
viable processability of the polymers and enhanced selectivity of the inorganic fillers.
The polymeric material is utilized as a continuous phase in which various fillers are
dispersed (Qadir et al. 2017).

4 Membranes Processes

The movement of the material through the membrane is the result of various
driving forces, including pressure difference, concentration, electrical potential and
temperature gradient or a combination of these processes (Jhaveri and Murthy 2016).

4.1 Pressure Difference-Based Membrane Processes

Pressure difference-based membrane processes have been the most extensively

applied practices for the purification of wastewater. These practices are applied
from pretreatment to posttreatment of wastewater. Two factors are responsible for
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 5

Table 1 Main characteristics of pressure difference-based membrane processes

Process Pore size Pressure MWCT* Average Solutions retained
(µm) range (bar) (kilo permeability
Dalton) (L/m2 h bar)
Microfiltration 0.05–10 1–2 100–500 500 Bacteria, fat, oil,
organics, colloids,
microparticles
Ultrafiltration 0.001–0.05 2–5 20–150 150 Proteins, oils,
pigments,
organics,
microplastics
Nanofiltration <0.002 5–15 2–20 10–20 Pigments, divalent
anions, cations,
sulfates, lactose,
sucrose, sodium
chloride
Reverse osmosis ~0.0006 15–100 0.2–2 5–10 All impurities
containing
monovalent ions
* MCWO = molecular weight cut off

separation processes, i.e. the transmembrane pressure and the decreasing membrane
pore size (Chollom 2014). These processes are grouped into four types based on
transmembrane pressure and membrane pore size, i.e. microfiltration, nanofiltration,
ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. Table 1. provides the principal characteristics of
these processes.

4.1.1 Microfiltration

In microfiltration, the pressure gradient drives the membrane separation process. The
pore size of the microfiltration membrane and the pressure lie in the range from 0.05–
10 µm and from 1–2 bar, respectively. Microfiltration is widely used for the elimi-
nation of microbes, particulates, and turbidity and is often used as a preprocessing
step to different pressure-related membrane processes (membrane distillation, ultra-
filtration and reverse osmosis) (Singh 2006). Urban wastewater and drinking water
production are two main applications of MF. Also, it is used for the cleansing of
wastewater from the oil industry, heavy metal wastewater and paint industry (Obotey
Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020).

4.1.2 Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration is a pressure-gradient centered membrane operation that has a pore

size ranging from 0.001 to 0.05 µm and a pressure range from 2–5 bar. Ultrafiltration
6 M. Salman et al.

eliminates macromolecular solutes, viruses, suspension, fine colloids, organic mate-

rial, and other contaminations from water. It is used in the treatment of industrial
wastewater (textile, oil, and pulp industry), electrophoresis coating wastewater, and
wastewater having heavy metals, enzymes, and starch (Peters 2010).
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes are usually made by phase inversion
method and have comparatively wider pore distribution, due to which it offers certain
disadvantages, including higher sensitivity to fouling and are susceptibility to pore
blocking. A larger pore also lets certain species pass, which is to be retained (Obotey
Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020).

4.1.3 Nanofiltration (NF)

NF is an advanced molecular level membrane process prompted by the difference

in transmembrane pressure through the membrane. NF falls in the middle of ultra-
filtration and reverses osmosis (RO). It can also be termed as loose RO or low-
pressure RO. It separates molecules using a nano-porous permselective membrane
having a pore size of less than 0.002 µm corresponding to molecular weight cut
off ranging from 200–2000 g/mol and involving the pressure of 5–15 bar, nearly
at an ambient operational temperature. These membranes are capable of the exclu-
sion of inorganic salts and minute organic molecules. The distinctive features of
NF membranes are a lower and higher rejection of monovalent and divalent ions,
respectively, and greater fluxes in comparison to RO membranes. These features
qualify NF membranes for widespread applications, including food engineering,
pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and especially for wastewater treatment, i.e., natural
organic removal, water softening, pretreatment to remove scale former in thermal
desalination and plays the same role prior to reverse osmosis to increase the saltwater
RO (SWRO) recovery (Fane et al. 2015).

4.1.4 RO

RO is the most sophisticated pressure-related membrane purification technology

(Joo and Tansel 2015). The membrane pore size is approximately in the range of
0.0006 µm, thus preventing all the dissolved solids, sediments, colloidal particles
and microorganisms. In osmosis, water usually moves towards the salty concentrated
solution, however, in RO the water from the concentrated side infiltrates through
the semipermeable membrane in the presence of an external applied hydraulic
pressure which is about 15–100 bar in range (Macedonio and Drioli 2010). RO
eliminates particles in the molecular weight cut-off range greater than 50 Daltons
which include suspended solids, dissolved salts and matter, colloids, organic matter,
bacteria, viruses, trihalomethanes and volatile organic compounds (Abd El-Salam
and Caballero 2003). RO has widespread applications including brackish water
desalination and treatment of emissions from chemical, pharmaceutical, textile and
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 7

other industrial processes. The major disadvantages of RO during wastewater treat-

ment are membrane damage due to the presence of strong bases, acids, free chlorine,
and membrane fouling because of concentration polarization by inorganic, organic,
metal oxides, and biological matter. RO membrane eliminates all the contaminants
in a solitary step and offers an ideal and economical water cleansing process (Bartels
et al. 2005).

4.2 Concentration Gradient Based Membrane Processes

4.2.1 Forward Osmosis (FO)

FO is an osmosis driven membrane-based process wherein water molecules are forced

to permeate through a semipermeable membrane from a feed solution (FS) to a draw
solution (DS) as a consequence of concentration difference, which offers the much-
needed difference in osmotic pressure as shown in Fig. 1a. Unlike, RO which exploits
the hydraulic pressure differential, FO employs the osmotic pressure differential
(!π) as a propelling force across the membrane. Subsequently, in FO, the diluted
feed or introductory solution becomes concentrated while the highly concentrated
draw solution is diluted as a result of water transport from FS to DS. FO continues
until potential chemical equilibrium is established (Suwaileh et al. 2018). Except for
applications, where the drawn water becomes part of the draw solution, a recovery
unit is always needed that continuously extracts pure water and restores the concen-
tration of the draw solution. In the course of FO process, the draw solution generates
the driving force on the membrane permeate side. The foremost criteria for selecting
a draw solution is that its osmotic pressure must be greater than the feed solution. FO
is surely the most proficient membrane-based purification process in the treatment
of industrial wastewater (Haupt and Lerch 2018).

Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of forwarding osmosis a and pervaporation b (Obotey Ezugbe and
Rathilal 2020)
8 M. Salman et al.

4.2.2 Pervaporation

Pervaporation is a membrane-centered separation practice that couples evaporation

with membrane permeation for the preferential purification of liquid mixtures, as
shown in Fig. 1b. The feed stream, which usually contains two or more compo-
nents, interacts with one side of the membrane while the membrane permeates side
is conditioned with vacuum or sweeping gas. Different components in the liquid
stream are sorbed onto the membrane upstream to generate vapor permeate down-
stream, and a liquid reject. The feed stream is processed at a temperature and pres-
sure of about 100 °C and 1 atm respectively, however, maintaining a vaccum at the
membrane permeate side. The infiltrate vaporizes as the infiltrating components pass
through the membrane. The most commonly used membrane for PV is hydrophilic
asymmetric composite membranes, including polyvinyl alcohol/polysulfone or
PVA/polyacrylonitrile composite membranes (Kesting and Fritzsche 1993). Also,
thin layer PDMS/PAN membranes were found effective for the separation of polar
and nonpolar compounds. Frequently used membrane modules are spiral wound
and flat sheet modules. PV is employed for the treatment of wastewater for micro-
irrigation, removal of organic solvents from aqueous solution, removal of alcohols
from fermentation broth and also for recovering isopropanol from water with 99%
purity (Singh 2014).
The structure and chemical nature of the pervaporation membrane has a conse-
quential function in the separation process. Therefore, these membranes are specifi-
cally devised to achieve maximum affinities for intended applications (Basile et al.
2015). Other key features that affect the pervaporation process include partial pres-
sure, feed concentration, temperature, and feed flow rate (Gongping et al. 2011).
Unlike conventional separation processes, pervaporation is environmentally friendly
and energy-saving technology. However, due to sensitive operational parameters, its
industrial utilization is still not achieved (Huang and Meagher 2001).

4.3 Electric Potential Gradient-Based Membrane Processes

4.3.1 Electrodialysis and Electrodialysis Reversal

In electrodialysis, ions are directed across an electrically charged membrane due

to differences in electric potential. The electrodialysis cell consists of alternating
cationic and anionic exchange membranes that are positioned in between the vicinity
of two electrodes, as shown in Fig. 2. The feed solution drifts through each membrane
pair in the cell. On the application of an electric potential gradient across the system,
cations and anions travel through charged membranes towards their respective elec-
trodes, i.e. cations approaching cathode and anions approaching anode. The cation
exchange membrane permits cations to pass through, but anions are rejected, and the
anion exchange membrane lets anion flow through but rejects cation permeability.
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 9

Fig. 2 Schematic representation of ion exchange membranes (Ran et al. 2017)

The arrangement of electrically charged membranes is such that there is an alterna-

tion of chambers having greater ion concentration and chambers with a very trivial
ion concentration. The high concentrated ion solution is called the concentrate, while
the dilute solution almost free of ions is called the dilutate, which is the product of
water (Baker and Wilson 2000).
In electrodialysis reversal (EDR), the movement of ions across the membranes
is reversed by the periodic reversal of the electrodes. As a result, the concentrated
solution becomes dilute, and the dilute solution becomes concentrated, which acts as
a self-cleaning feature, thus decreasing fouling and extending membrane life (Obotey
Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020).
Electrodialysis and electrodialysis reversal have immense applications in treating
wastewater, especially for the elimination of total dissolved solids and ionizing
species in water. ED and EDR have several important features, which include a
high recovery rate of water, slight pretreatment of feed water and reduced membrane
fouling because of process reversal. However, ED is ineffective in the desalination of
highly saline water since the energy required for desalination is directly proportional
to the removal of ions. Also, it cannot remove unionized compounds and harmful
substances such as bacteria and viruses, and hence posttreatment will be required,
which elevates the process cost. Moreover, chlorine formation at anode results in
corrosion (Obotey Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020; Chao and Liang 2008).
10 M. Salman et al.

Fig. 3 Schematic representation of membrane distillation a (Curcio and Drioli 2005) and
Membrane bioreactor b (Judd 2008)

4.4 Hybrid Membrane Processes

4.4.1 Membrane Distillation (Temperature Gradient-Based Membrane

Processes)

Membrane distillation, a hybrid membrane purification method that integrates

membrane technology with thermal distillation, as shown in Fig. 3a (Belessiotis
et al. 2016). Two liquids are separated due to differences in partial pressure and
temperature across the membrane. The feed is charged at a temperature of up to 100°
C while the permeate is cooled down by applying distilled water. The difference in
temperature via membrane creates a difference in vapor pressure that drives the H2 O
vapor molecules or volatile constituents from hot feed solution through a nonporous
hydrophobic membrane. Separation comes about by vaporization followed by vapor
passage across the membrane pore opening and membrane network. The difference
in vapor pressure is proportional to the water vapor flux. The increase in temperature
difference across the membrane causes an exponential increase in the vapor pres-
sure, which accelerates the flux substantially. Salinity in the feed stream reduces the
driving force, i.e. vapor pressure, however, this effect is negligible unless salinity is
too high (Mulder and Mulder 1996).
MD is an effective process in the purification of highly saline water(seawaters)
and rejects brine concentrates of RO as high osmotic pressure cannot affect the
process. However, several factors negatively affect the process performance, such
as pore wetting, fouling, poor heat transfer, heat loss, low mass transfer due to air
entrapment in the membrane pores, and high energy consumption (Gongping et al.
2011).

4.4.2 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

In MBRs (Fig. 3b), biological wastewater purification routes such as activated sludge
processes are coupled with membrane practices including MF, UF, and NF that are
extensively applied in municipal and industrial wastewater processing. MBRs are
increasingly being applied in wastewater treatment due to several advantages such as
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 11

increased pollutant removal, low footprint required, and a reduced amount of sludge
yield. In membrane filtration, microbes are entrapped in the biological reactor, which
affords superior regulation over the biological reactions and modifiable parameters
of microbes in the ventilated chamber. Thus providing an increased accumulation of
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and prolonging solid retention time (SRT)
(Stephenson et al. 2000). Generally, MBRs are categorized into three kinds based
on operational mechanisms: rejection MBR, diffusive MBR, and extractive MBR.
MBR procedures are effectively implemented in the treatment of small-scale indus-
trial wastewater purification plants and large-scale wastewater purification plants.
Mostly two types of configuration are used in MBR; (1) side stream MBR and; (2)
immersed MBR. The membranes in sidestream MBR are installed externally to a
bioreactor which needs a pumping system for transporting biomass for the filtration
process and residue back to the reactor from the filtration unit. The advantage of
this setup is that cleaning of an externally installed membrane can be done easily.
However, side stream MBR has limited application due to higher energy and pressure
requirements. In immersed MBR, the membrane module is immersed in a bioreactor
wherein effluents are forced across the membrane. However, the sludge is stuck in
the membrane. Air is usually supplied for sustaining aerobic settings and cleaning
and scrubbing the exterior and surface of the membrane, respectively. Immersed
MBR is used more commonly as compared to side stream MBR due to its simple
operation and low energy consumption, however, cleaning the membrane module is
difficult as it is submerged in the bioreactor. MBR based process has several benefits
in comparison to conventional treatment processes that include production of high
quality clarified water, smaller footprint, better regulation of solid and hydraulic
retention time, and provides a fence to chlorine-resistant pathogens due to effective
membrane pore size less than 0.1 µm. Moreover, designing long sludge age MBR
can achieve low production of low excess sludge, thus endorsing the enrichment of
nitrifying bacteria, which in turn increases the removal of nitrogen (Wen et al. 2010).

5 Membrane Module

The membrane module is how single operation units are designed and engineered
into devices and hardware to attain the anticipated separation performance. It is
composed of a membrane, feed inlet and outlet points, permeate draw-off points and
pressure support structures (Obotey Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020). So far, four kinds of
membrane modules are in use in the industry, which is briefly discussed:
i. Tubular modules
ii. Hollow fiber modules
iii. Flat sheet modules
iv. Spiral wound modules
12 M. Salman et al.

5.1 Tubular Modules

The tubular module is composed of an outer covering called a shell which is tube-
like in nature, as demonstrated in Fig. 4a. The tube-shaped shell is composed of
a permselective membrane implanted inside poriferous fiberglass or stainless steel.
It contains about 30 porous tubes having a diameter ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 cm.
The feed to be processed is passed through the tubes by applying pressure, and the
infiltrate is concentrated via infiltrating opening on the shell side. Tubular modules
have some distinctive features: (1) these are adapted for feed streams with bigger
particle sizes because of their large inner diameters. Additionally, their chemical or
mechanical cleaning is easy; (2) they usually have a turbulent flow condition with
Reynolds number >10,000 and need huge pumping capacity; (3) their surface area
to volume ratio is the smallest among all the membranes modules and consequently

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of tubular a (Berk and Berk 2009), hollow fibre b (Bruggen et al.
2015; Bruggen et al. 2015; Heidelberg. 2015), flat sheet c (Baker 2012) spiral wound modules
(Obotey Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020)
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 13

have high hold up a volume that necessitate huge flooring space to function (Cui
et al. 2010b).

5.2 Hollow Fiber Modules

Hollow fiber modules (Fig. 4b), in principle, are analogous to tubular modules
arrangement. As the name indicates, hollow fibers consist of thin tubes, the diameters
of which range from 1 nm to capillary size fibers. These fibers, being self-supported,
have a high backflushing capacity. It contains about 50–3000 hollow fibers, which
are connected to porous end plates, and the intact package is inserted into a jacket or
vessel. They may have outside in or inside-out flow direction (Cui et al. 2010b). Their
key distinctive features, which are different from tubular modules, are: (1) mostly
they have laminar flow characteristics which correspond to a Reynolds number of
500–3000. Also, their pressure domain is low, around 2.5 bar at maximum; (2) they
are very economical concerning energy consumption because of low pressure and
crossflow rate; (3) among all the membrane modules, hollow fibers modules possess
the highest ratio of surface area to volume and have low holdup volume; (4) due
to their self-sustaining characteristic, they have improved backflushing capability
and are cleaned easily; (5) one characteristic shortcoming of hollow fiber module is
their liability to get clogged by large size particles during the inside-out operational
mode, thus it requires pretreatment to decrease the particle size to 100 µm (Singh
and Hankins 2016).

5.3 Flat Sheet Module

The flat sheet module (Fig. 4c) is composed of an upper selective horizontal
membrane sheet and bottom flat plate. A mesh-like material in between the upper
sheet and the bottom plate is placed for removal of permeate, and across the flat
plate, an additional membrane sheet and mesh-like material is positioned in the
mirror, which forms a sandwich resembling module. The channel gaps and length
in these modules range from 0.5 to 10 mm and 10 t0 60 cm, respectively. Their
Reynolds number corresponds to laminar flow characteristics, however, screening
the feed channel results in better mixing. The pretreatment required to decrease the
particle size up to 120 µm is recommended. The advantage of flat sheet modules is
that they can be cleaned easily by taking out the membrane, and thus fouling can be
controlled, however, they are less efficient due to their low packing density. In terms
of energy requirement, cost, and packing density, these modules lie in between spiral
wounds and tubular modules (Zirehpour and Rahimpour 2016).
14 M. Salman et al.

5.4 Spiral Wound Modules

Spiral wound membrane modules (Fig. 4d) show resemblance to flat sheet membrane
modules. These membrane modules are composed of large membranes which are
wrapped around a central perforated collection tube. A mesh-like permeable plate
or is inserted between two membrane sheets, the active membrane sides of which
are facing away with the supporting side facing the feed distributor directly. The
feed stream runs aligned to the central collection pipe wherein the permeate falls
perpendicular to the feed stream flowing through the permeate spacer. On an industrial
level, a tubular pressure vessel contains around six spiral wound modules which are
40 inches long having a diameter of around 8 inches. Spiral wound modules have
several important features: (1) the modules flow characteristics is turbulent due to the
existence of feed spacers; (2) these modules have relatively high pressure drop due to
the surplus drag caused by the presence of feed spacers; (3) the surface to volume ratio
is relatively high and are economical among all the membrane modules; (4) the feed
stream may contain suspended particles which can block the mesh-like spacer which
in turn can partly block the flow of feed channel. Hence pretreatment is required to
remove the suspended particles as spiral wound modules require comparatively clear
feed having a lesser amount of suspended particles (Cui et al. 2010a).

6 Operation of Membrane

6.1 Membrane Performance

The performance of a membrane depends on the permeate flow and the retainment
of dispersed, suspended and dissolved solids by the membrane. Transport charac-
teristics of different solute materials through a membrane rely on two factors, i.e.
permeability of the membrane and driving force. Usually, the main driving force
is a gradient in concentration, pressure and electric potential past the membrane.
Membrane transport performance can also be altered by flow factors like solvent
longitudinal convention, axial solute diffusion, and flow prompted solute particle drag
on the surface of the membrane. The potential difference past the membrane regulates
the amplitude of the driving forces while the transfer of mass from feed to infiltrate
side of a solution is controlled by a membrane. The lack of external forces turns
the potential difference into zero across the membrane, which develops equilibrium
in the system. Membrane processes are not equilibrium processes like evaporation,
distillation and crystallization but are kinetic processes, and under constant driving
force and steady-state conditions, there is a constant flux through the membrane
(Zirehpour and Rahimpour 2016). The correlation between flux and driving force is:

J=K×X (1)
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 15

where J represents flux or permeate flow, K demonstrates proportionality constant,

and X shows the potential gradient/membrane thickness, respectively (Singh 2014).
Numerous semiempirical models like Ohm’s law, Fick’s and Hagen Poisseuille’s
have been utilized to describe the mass transport across the membrane. For processes
that are driven by the pressure difference (RO, UF, NF and MF), the flux correlation
follows as:

J = K × !P/t (2)

where J, K, !P and t corresponds to transmembrane flux, permeability constant,

pressure difference and membrane thickness, respectively (Zirehpour and Rahimpour
2016).
The efficacy of a liquid separation practice can be assessed from the conversion or
recovery of the process, which is the combination of total membrane area and flux.
The conversion percentage is the percent conversion of feed into the product stream.
% recovery is given by

Permeate flow
R(%) = × 100
Feed flow

6.2 Membrane Selectivity

Membrane material physical and chemical nature is responsible for the membrane
separation. The difference in various features of different substances, including shape,
aperture, chemical, and electrical charge, are responsible for the separation across the
membrane. In porous membranes, the particles are fairly small to permeate through
membrane apertures by convective flow, while in nonporous membranes, transport
occurs by sorption or diffusion through the membrane (Singh 2014). The selectivity
of the membrane is quantifiable vis-à-vis rejection. The rejection coefficient (R) is
a dependable criterion for estimating the membrane separation performance of a
process

feed ÷ bulk solute concentration − product solute concentration

%Rejection (R) = × 100
feed ÷ bulk solute concentration

The value of R = 100 for an ideally selective membrane. Membrane selectivity of

some routes, i.e. MF and UF, are well explained by the retention coefficient because
the solute transport across the membrane is affected by concentration polarization
or gel layer formation. % retention is given by

solute concentration of membrance surface − permeate solute concentration

%Retention = × 100
solute concentration of membrance surface
16 M. Salman et al.

The tradeoff between membrane permeability and selectivity affects membrane

performance. Membrane selectivity is related to the permeation of different compo-
nents through the membrane, i.e. (α = A/B), where A represents the permeability
coefficient of water and B represents the permeability coefficient of solute (pollute)
(Singh 2006).

6.3 Mechanism of Separation Through the Membrane

Membrane separation underlines the ability of membranes to regulate the infiltra-

tion of various components or species. Generally, membrane separation mecha-
nisms are of two kinds, i.e., molecular filtration and solution diffusion. In micro-
porous membranes, molecular filtration drives the separation process while dense
membranes separation follows the solution diffusion model where the mobility and
diffusion of different species in the membrane drive the separation process (Zirehpour
and Rahimpour 2016).
In molecular sieving membranes, the separation of feed into different components
is brought about by pressure-driven drift through fixed-sized small pores. Different
components are separated based on the difference in their sizes. Conversely, the
membrane material of solution diffusion membranes is composed of a dense layer of
polymer that contains no pores or apertures. The permeants first dissolve in the
membrane material and then diffuse across the membrane due to concentration
gradient.
The difference in solubility and diffusion rates is responsible for the separation of
various components in these membranes. The difference in mechanism of solution
diffusion and molecular sieve membranes is due to variance in size and lifespan of
membrane pores.

6.4 Concentration Polarization (CP)

CP is actually the growth of the rejected components on or close to the surface of the
membrane. It is shared by all the membrane separation processes in which a layer of
solute particle mounts up on the membrane periphery as the feed infiltrates through
the membrane. During all membrane processes, the passage of feed components
towards the surface of the membrane is governed by convection which upsurges as
the infiltration across the membrane accelerates. The less permeable components
hold back because of membrane selectivity and are conveyed back to the bulk feed
at a steady rate (Zirehpour and Rahimpour 2016). The modeling of the membrane
module is complicated by CP due to the dissimilarity that exists amidst the wall
concentration of solute and the concentration of the bulk feed. The wall concentration
of solute is difficult to determine, and a boundary layer film model is applied to define
this singularity. The convective drift of solute particles to the membrane periphery
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 17

and the infiltration of solute particles through the membrane deduct are equal under
steady-state conditions with solute particles diffusion back to the bulk feed solution.

dC
J.C = J.Cp − Dij (3)
dz

Equation (3) integration having boundary conditions, i.e. z = 0, C = Cm , z = lbl ,

and C = Cb will give the following equation
! "
Di j Cm − C p
J= In (4)
lbl Cb − C p

Equation (4) that develops the film theory model can be applied to find the solute
concentration close to the membrane periphery.
Readjusting Eq. 4 will give:
! "
# $ J.lbl
Cm = Cb − Cp exp (6)
Di j

The solute concentration close to the periphery of the membrane is very crucial
for different models of membrane transport. The ratio Dij /lb can be described as mass
transport coefficient and could be found from conventional chemical engineering,
i.e. Reynolds number (Re), Sherwood number (Sh), Schmidt number (Sc) and Peclet
number (Pe). The permeate concentration and bulk concentration could be obtained
by employing analytical instruments.
The membrane filtration unit performance may be adversely affected by CP, which
include a reduction in rejection of undesirable solute and water flux, precipitation
caused by increased surface concentration beyond the solubility limit, altering the
separation characteristics of the membrane, and increase in colloidal and particu-
late matter that leads to fouling which blocks the membrane surface. Therefore,
designing appropriate membrane modules and suitable operating conditions are
crucial to anticipate and inhibit the influence of concentration polarization (Ang
et al. 2015).

6.5 Membrane Fouling

Membrane fouling can be described as a phenomenon in which dissolved or

suspended particles, microbes and organic materials deposit on the periphery of
the membrane material or the internal pores of the membrane material, reducing the
performance of the membrane. Membrane fouling is categorized into two groups,
i.e. reversible or irreversible fouling which depends on the deposition of rejected
solutes on the membrane periphery of internal pores of the membrane, respectively
(Speth et al. 1998).
18 M. Salman et al.

Fouling phenomena affects the functional membrane area causing a flux drop
below the theoretical capability of the membrane. Subsequently, higher pressure
is required for the passage of permeate through the membrane. Membrane fouling
adversely affects the overall membrane performance. These include reduction in
the functional membrane area, requires more downtime, and increased energy
consumption (Kucera 2015).
Different types of membrane fouling depend on and are named on the type
of foulant materials such as colloidal, bio, organic, and inorganic fouling (Amy
2008). Colloidal fouling results from the deposition of biological trash, microor-
ganism, lipoproteins, polysaccharides, proteins, clay, silt, manganese oxides, iron
and oil, etc. These constituents amass and deposit on the membrane material in due
course (Burn and Gray 2016). Biofouling occurs as a consequence of the growth and
deposition of organized and coordinated communities of microbes called biofilms on
the membrane material. These biofilms contain extracellular polymeric substances
(EPS) and microorganisms which results from the adhesion of microorganisms to
wet surfaces. These microorganisms nourish from the nutrients in the system and
reproduce, which subsequently block the membrane apertures and thus hamper the
infiltrate flow (Matin et al. 2011).
Inorganic fouling can be described as the buildup of inorganic salts on the surface
of the membrane material. These inorganic salts contain CaSO4, SiO2 and CaCO3,
and some other salts (Lisdonk et al. 2000). The less soluble salts in the feed solution
precipitate out and stick to the membrane surface during the formation of scales
(Shirazi et al. 2010). Organic fouling is the accumulation and deposition of organic
compounds onto the membrane surface. These compounds exist in natural organic
material, which reduces the permeate passage through the membrane material (Amy
2008).
Several factors are responsible for membrane fouling, such as:
• Feed characteristics, i.e., ionic strength and pH.
• Membrane features such as membrane material and surface properties, distribution
of pore size, roughness, hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity.
• Various process factors comprise the transmembrane pressure, time, crossflow
velocity and temperature.
All these factors are crucial for determining membrane performance in compar-
ison to membrane fouling (Cui et al. 2010a).

7 Membrane Cleaning: Control of Fouling

Membrane separation processes are principally size segregation-based mechanisms.

In general, the excluded solutes cause the membrane fouling and is thus inexorable.
Numerous approaches have been suggested for controlling membrane fouling. The
significance of these methods relies upon the distinctive characteristic of the nature of
the membrane material and the bulk feed solution. These methods comprise turbulent
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 19

inducers, improvement of membrane material, boundary layer velocity control, and

the practice of exterior fields (Jagannadh and Muralidhara 1996). Similarly, pretreat-
ment of feed, rotating membranes, flow handling, and gas sparging and have also
been proposed by some researchers (Williams and Wakeman 2000).
Membrane cleaning is aimed at restoring the lost permeability and permeation flux
of the membrane as a consequence of membrane fouling. It encompasses the elimi-
nation of the amassed material from the membrane periphery to ensure permeability.
Cleaning methods for membranes can be classified into physical, biological, chem-
ical, and physicochemical cleaning methods. Additionally, cleaning can be described
as ex-situ or in-situ whether the membrane module is washed outside or inside the
reactor, respectively (Wang et al. 2014).

7.1 Physical Cleaning

Physical cleaning encompasses the treatment of the membrane module mechanically

to eradicate the accumulated material that adheres to the membrane surface. These
are of different types, which include periodic backflushing, backwashing, pneumatic
cleaning, ultrasonic cleaning, and sponge cleaning (Zhao et al. 2000).

7.1.1 Periodic Backflushing

Periodic backflushing is the backward movement of permeate by applying pres-

sure from permeate side. This backflushing causes the accumulated materials to be
detached from the surface of the membrane. The applied pressure required for back-
washing should be greater than the filtration pressure (Yigit et al. 2010). Backwashing
is the most widely applied industrial method for foulants removal and can success-
fully redeem the lost flux caused by reversible fouling because of the accumulation
of material to the periphery of the membrane material. However, it is ineffective
for reversing the irreversible fouling that results from clogging or deposition of
suspended or dissolved compounds in the membrane pores (Yigit et al. 2010).

7.1.2 Pneumatic Cleaning

Pneumatic cleaning involves the use of air under pressure for cleaning membrane,
usually by airlifting, air sparging, and air scouring. The air causing a shear force
destabilizes and removes foulants material from the membrane surface. The method
is advantageous because it does not involve the use of chemicals, however, the use
of pumping air is expensive to comply with (An et al. 2010).
20 M. Salman et al.

7.1.3 Ultrasonic Cleaning

In ultrasonic cleaning, ultrasound waves are utilized to generate disturbance in the

liquid medium. The generation of vapor bubbles and their exploding as a result of
cavitation transfer energy to the membrane periphery in agitation form, consequently
eliminating the accumulated materials from the surface of the membrane material.
The procedure relies on numerous aspects that include ultrasonic power, temperature,
crossflow velocity, and pulse duration. Ultrasonic waves are functional at a molecular
level and are very effective in cleaning membranes (Kyllönen et al. 2005; Wan et al.
2013).

7.1.4 Sponge Ball Cleaning

In sponge ball cleaning, sponge balls are inserted into the reactor, and it moves
through the permeate, causing the foulants to dislodge off the membrane surface.
Sponge balls are prepared of materials like polyurethane and are used in membrane
module units having large diameters such as tubular membrane modules (Obotey
Ezugbe and Rathilal 2020).

7.2 Chemical Cleaning

Chemical cleaning techniques are utilized for irreversible membrane fouling, which
is impossible to remove with physical methods. The successful application of chem-
ical methods involves the selection of cleaning chemicals and understanding the
interactions among the membrane material, foulant and cleaning chemicals (Liu
et al. 2001). Chemical cleaning has a few key characteristics: (1) loose and dislodge
the foulant off the membrane material; (2) retain the foulant in solution; (3) should
not cause any new type of fouling; (4) and also should not deteriorate the material
of the membrane.
Chemical cleaning is a cleaning in place (CIP) strategy wherein cleaning chem-
ical is charged in the retentate channel where cleaning chemical break the bonds of
the foulant material which are removed normally by the crossflow. Different chem-
icals are utilized for cleaning irreversible fouling, which can be classified as acids,
basis/alkalis, surfactants, enzymes, chelating agents and disinfectants, etc., which
are aimed at removing different kinds of fouling. For instance, various acids like
phosphoric acid (H3 PO4 ), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3 ), etc. (Lin
et al. 2010) are used for removal of inorganic fouling while bases/alkalis such as
sodium hydroxide (NaOH), carbonates, and phosphates which are normally oper-
ated at pH 11–12 or less are employed for removing organic fouling (Obotey Ezugbe
and Rathilal 2020).
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 21

7.3 Biological /biochemical Cleaning

Biological cleaning employs active biological agents like enzymes (both in single
or mixture form) for membrane cleaning. Contrary to other methods, which require
intensive physical and chemical environments and larger footprint areas, biolog-
ical methods are sustainable and require a low footprint membrane area. Mostly
applied cleaning techniques are energy uncoupling, enzymatic cleaning, and quorum
quenching in membrane bioreactors for the cleaning of membranes which are
employed in the cleaning of wastewater from abattoir (Maartens et al. 1996).

7.4 Physico-Chemical Cleaning Methods

In physicochemical approaches, exclusion of foulants from the membrane

can be done collectively by chemical and physical methods. The combined
approach increases the overall efficiency of the process, which otherwise would
have been less. This includes the addition of a certain chemical to the physical
process. The most typical example of the physicochemical method is chemically
enhanced backwashing. Other examples include chemical cleaning assisted by ultra-
sonic waves, which could increase flux recoveries up to 95% (Obotey Ezugbe and
Rathilal 2020; Maskooki et al. 2010).

References

Abd El-Salam MH (2003) Membrane techniques | applications of reverse osmosis. In: Caballero B
(ed) Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition (Second Edition). Academic Press, Oxford,
pp 3833–3837
Aliyu UM, Rathilal S, Isa YM (2018) Membrane desalination technologies in water treatment: a
review. Water Pract Technol 13(4):738–752
Amy G (2008) Fundamental understanding of organic matter fouling of membranes. Desalination
231(1–3):44–51
An Y, Wu B, Wong FS, Yang F (2010) Post-treatment of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket effluent
by combining the membrane filtration process: fouling control by intermittent permeation and
air sparging. Water Environ J 24(1):32–38
Ang WL, Mohammad AW (2015) 12—Mathematical modeling of membrane operations for water
treatment. In: Basile A, Cassano A, Rastogi NK (eds) Advances in Membrane Technologies for
Water Treatment. Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, pp 379–407
Baker RW (2000) Membrane separation. In: Wilson ID (ed) Encyclopedia of Separation Science.
Academic Press, Oxford, pp 189–210
Baker RW (2012) Membrane technology and applications. Wiley
Bartels CR, Wilf M, Andes K, Iong J (2005) Design considerations for wastewater treatment by
reverse osmosis. Water Sci Technol 51(6–7):473–482
Basile A, Figoli A, Khayet M (2015) Pervaporation, vapour permeation and membrane distillation:
principles and applications. Elsevier
22 M. Salman et al.

Bruggen Van der B, Isotherm F (2015) In Encyclopedia of membranes. Drioli E, Giorno L (eds)
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Belessiotis V, Kalogirou S, Delyannis E (2016) Chapter four—membrane distillation, in thermal
solar desalination, Belessiotis V, Kalogirou S, Delyannis E (eds), Academic Press, pp 191–251
Berk Z (2009) Chapter 10—Membrane processes. In: Berk Z (ed) Food Process Engineering and
Technology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 233–257
Burn S, Gray S (2016) Efficient desalination by reverse osmosis: a guide to RO practice. IWA
publishing London, UK
Chao Y-M, Liang T (2008) A feasibility study of industrial wastewater recovery using electrodialysis
reversal. Desalination 221(1–3):433–439
Chollom MN (2014) Treatment and reuse of reactive dye effluent from textile industry using
membrane technology
Cui Z, Jiang Y, Field R (2010a) Fundamentals of pressure-driven membrane separation processes.
Membrane technology. Elsevier, pp 1–18
Cui ZF, Jiang Y, Field RW (2010b) Chapter 1—fundamentals of pressure-driven membrane
separation processes. In: Cui ZF, Muralidhara HS (eds) Membrane Technology. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, pp 1–18
Curcio E, Drioli E (2005) Membrane distillation and related operations—a review. Sep Purif Rev
34(1):35–86. https://doi.org/10.1081/SPM-200054951
Dehghani MH, Omrani GA, Karri RR (2021) Solid waste—sources, toxicity, and their consequences
to human health. Soft Computing Techniques in Solid Waste and Wastewater Management.
Elsevier, pp 205–213
Fane AG, Wang R, Hu MX (2015) Synthetic membranes for water purification: status and future.
Angew Chem Int Ed 54(11):3368–3386
Gongping L, Dan H, Wang W, Xiangli F, Wanqin J (2011) Pervaporation separation of butanol-
water mixtures using polydimethylsiloxane/ceramic composite membrane. Chin J Chem Eng
19(1):40–44
Hansen FA, Santigosa-Murillo E, Ramos-Payán M, Muñoz M, Øiestad EL, Pedersen-Bjergaard
SJACA (2021) Electromembrane extraction using deep eutectic solvents as the liquid membrane
1143:109–116
Haupt A, Lerch A (2018) Forward osmosis application in manufacturing industries: a short review.
Membranes 8(3):47
Huang J, Meagher M (2001) Pervaporative recovery of n-butanol from aqueous solutions and ABE
fermentation broth using thin-film silicalite-filled silicone composite membranes. J Membr Sci
192(1–2):231–242
Ilahi H, Adnan M, ur Rehman F, Hidayat K, Amin I, Ullah A, Subhan G, Hussain I, Rehman
MU, Ullah AJIJPAB (2021) Waste water application: an alternative way to reduce water scarcity
problem in vegetables: a review 9(1):240–248
Issakhov A, Alimbek A, Zhandaulet YJJOCP (2021) The assessment of water pollution by chemical
reaction products from the activities of industrial facilities: numerical study 282:125239
Jagannadh SN, Muralidhara H (1996) Electrokinetics methods to control membrane fouling. Ind
Eng Chem Res 35(4):1133–1140
Jhaveri JH, Murthy Z (2016) A comprehensive review on anti-fouling nanocomposite membranes
for pressure driven membrane separation processes. Desalination 379:137–154
Joo SH, Tansel B (2015) Novel technologies for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment: a review. J
Environ Manage 150:322–335
Jua LY, Karri RR, Mubarak NM, Yon LS, Bing CH, Khalid M, Jagadish P, Abdullah EC (2020)
Modeling of methylene blue adsorption using functionalized Buckypaper/Polyvinyl alcohol
membrane via ant colony optimization. Environ Pollut, 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2020.113940
Judd S (2008) The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnol 26(2):109–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.005
Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 23

Jun LY, Karri RR, Yon LS, Mubarak NM, Bing CH, Mohammad K, Jagadish P, Abdullah EC
(2020) Modeling and optimization by particle swarm embedded neural network for adsorption of
methylene blue by jicama peroxidase immobilized on buckypaper/polyvinyl alcohol membrane.
Environ Res, 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109158
Karri RR, Ravindran G, Dehghani MH (2021) Wastewater—sources, toxicity, and their conse-
quences to human health. Soft Computing Techniques in Solid Waste and Wastewater Manage-
ment. Elsevier, pp 3–33
Kesting RE, Fritzsche A (1993) Polymeric gas separation membranes. Wiley-Interscience
Khan FSA, Mubarak NM, Khalid M, Tan YH, Abdullah EC, Rahman ME, Karri RR (2021a) A
comprehensive review on micropollutants removal using carbon nanotubes-based adsorbents and
membranes. J Environ Chem Eng 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021a.106647
Khan FSA, Mubarak NM, Khalid M, Khan MM, Tan YH, Walvekar R, Abdullah EC, Karri RR,
Rahman ME (2021b) Comprehensive review on carbon nanotubes embedded in different metal
and polymer matrix: fabrications and applications. Critical Rev Solid State Mater Sci. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10408436.2021b.1935713
Kucera J (2015) Reverse osmosis: industrial processes and applications. Wiley
Kumar A, Thakur A, Panesar PS (2019) A review on emulsion liquid membrane (ELM) for the
treatment of various industrial effluent streams. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technology 18(1):153–182
Kyllönen H, Pirkonen P, Nyström M (2005) Membrane filtration enhanced by ultrasound: a review.
Desalination 181(1–3):319–335
Lau YJ, Karri RR, Mubarak NM, Lau SY, Chua HB, Khalid M, Jagadish P, Abdullah EC (2020)
Removal of dye using peroxidase-immobilized Buckypaper/polyvinyl alcohol membrane in a
multi-stage filtration column via RSM and ANFIS. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(32):40121–40134.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10045-2
Lin JC-T, Lee D-J, Huang C (2010) Membrane fouling mitigation: membrane cleaning. Sep Sci
Technol 45(7):858–872
Liu C, Caothien S, Hayes J, Caothuy T, Otoyo T, Ogawa T (2001) Membrane chemical cleaning:
from art to science. Pall Corporation, Port Washington, NY, p 11050
Maartens A, Swart P, Jacobs E (1996) An enzymatic approach to the cleaning of ultrafiltration
membranes fouled in abattoir effluent. J Membr Sci 119(1):9–16
Macedonio F, Drioli E (2010) 4.09—membrane systems for seawater and brackish water desalina-
tion. In: Drioli E, Giorno L (eds) Comprehensive Membrane science and engineering, Elsevier:
Oxford. pp 241–257
Mahto A, Aruchamy K, Meena R, Kamali M, Nataraj SK, Aminabhavi TM (2021) Forward osmosis
for industrial effluents treatment–sustainability considerations. Separation Purification Technol
254:117568
Mallada R, Menéndez M (2008) Inorganic membranes: synthesis, characterization and applications.
Elsevier
Mallevialle J, Odendaal PE, Wiesner MR (1996) Water treatment membrane processes. Amer Water
Works Assoc
Maskooki A, Mortazavi SA, Maskooki A (2010) Cleaning of spiralwound ultrafiltration membranes
using ultrasound and alkaline solution of EDTA. Desalination 264(1–2):63–69
Matin A, Khan Z, Zaidi S, Boyce M (2011) Biofouling in reverse osmosis membranes for seawater
desalination: phenomena and prevention. Desalination 281:1–16
Mulder M, Mulder J (1996) Basic principles of membrane technology. Springer Science & Business
Media
Noamani S, Niroomand S, Rastgar M, Sadrzadeh M (2019) Carbon-based polymer nanocomposite
membranes for oily wastewater treatment. NPJ Clean Water 2(1):1–14
Nqombolo A, Mpupa A, Moutloali RM, Nomngongo PN (2018) Wastewater treatment using
membrane technology. Wastewater Water Qual 29
Obotey Ezugbe E, Rathilal S (2020) Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: a review.
Membranes 10(5):89
24 M. Salman et al.

Ong CS, Al-Anzi B, Lau WJ, Goh PS, Lai GS, Ismail AF, Ong YS (2017) Anti-fouling double-
skinned forward osmosis membrane with zwitterionic brush for oily wastewater treatment. Sci
Rep 7(1):1–11
Parhi P (2013) Supported liquid membrane principle and its practices: a short review. J Chem
Peters T (2010) Membrane technology for water treatment. Chem Eng Technol 33(8):1233–1240
Purkait MK, Sinha MK, Mondal P, Singh R (2018) Introduction to membranes. Interface science
and technology. Elsevier, pp 1–37
Qadir D, Mukhtar H, Keong LK (2017) Mixed matrix membranes for water purification applications.
Sep Purif Rev 46(1):62–80
Ran J, Wu L, He Y, Yang Z, Wang Y, Jiang C, Ge L, Bakangura E, Xu T (2017) Ion exchange
membranes: new developments and applications. J Membr Sci 522:267–291. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2016.09.033
Sagle A, Freeman B (2004) Fundamentals of membranes for water treatment. Future Desalination
Texas 2(363):137
Shirazi S, Lin C-J, Chen D (2010) Inorganic fouling of pressure-driven membrane processes—a
critical review. Desalination 250(1):236–248
Singh R (2006) Hybrid membrane systems for water purification: technology, systems design and
operations. Elsevier
Singh R (2014) Membrane technology and engineering for water purification: application, systems
design and operation. Butterworth-Heinemann
Singh R, Hankins NP (2016) Introduction to membrane processes for water treatment. Emerg Memb
Technol Sustain Water Treatment, 15–52
Speth TF, Summers RS, Gusses AM (1998) Nanofiltration foulants from a treated surface water.
Environ Sci Technol 32(22):3612–3617
Stephenson T, Brindle K, Judd S, Jefferson B (2000) Membrane bioreactors for wastewater
treatment. IWA Publishing
Strathmann H (1986) Synthetic membranes and their preparation. Synthetic Membranes: Science,
Engineering and Applications. Springer, pp 1–37
Suwaileh WA, Johnson DJ, Sarp S, Hilal N (2018) Advances in forward osmosis membranes:
altering the sub-layer structure via recent fabrication and chemical modification approaches.
Desalination 436:176–201
Van de Lisdonk C, Van Paassen J, Schippers J (2000) Monitoring scaling in nanofiltration and
reverse osmosis membrane systems. Desalination 132(1–3):101–108
Wan M-W, Reguyal F, Futalan C, Yang H-L, Kan C-C (2013) Ultrasound irradiation combined with
hydraulic cleaning on fouled polyethersulfone and polyvinylidene fluoride membranes. Environ
Technol 34(21):2929–2937
Wang Z, Ma J, Tang CY, Kimura K, Wang Q, Han X (2014) Membrane cleaning in membrane
bioreactors: a review. J Membr Sci 468:276–307
Wen G, Ma J, Zhang L, Yu G (2010) 4.07—Membrane Bioreactor in water treatment, in compre-
hensive membrane science and engineering, Drioli E, Giorno L, (eds ), Elsevier: Oxford. pp
195–209
Werber JR, Osuji CO, Elimelech M (2016) Materials for next-generation desalination and water
purification membranes. Nat Rev Mater 1(5):1–15
Williams C, Wakeman R (2000) Membrane fouling and alternative techniques for its alleviation.
Membr Technol 2000(124):4–10
Xu T (2005) Ion exchange membranes: state of their development and perspective. J Membr Sci
263(1–2):1–29
Yigit N, Civelekoglu G, Harman I, Koseoglu H, Kitis M (2010) Effects of various backwash
scenarios on membrane fouling in a membrane bioreactor. Survival and Sustainability. Springer,
pp 917–929
 Recent Developments in Membrane Filtration for Wastewater Treatment 25

Zhao Y-J, Wu K-F, Wang Z-J, Zhao L, Li S-S (2000) Fouling and cleaning of membrane-a literature
review. J Environ Sci Beijing 12(2):241–251
Zirehpour A, Rahimpour A (2016) Membranes for wastewater treatment. Nanostructured polymer
membranes. Wiley, London, UK, 2, pp 159–207

View publication stats