Assessment of micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration process performance for removal of pharmaceutical contaminant from wastewater using response surface methodology

  • R. Salehi
  • S. M. MousaviEmail author
  • M. Taherian
Original Paper


In the present research, removal of a common pharmaceutical contaminant from wastewater was studied using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) process with applying a laboratory-scale system. Sodium dodecyl sulfate surfactant was used in this process. Response surface methodology (RSM) was applied for evaluating the MEUF process performance. The results obtained from the experiments showed that sotalol hydrochloride drug rejection using ultrafiltration membrane was maximum 32.41%, while by adding the surfactant and forming the micelle this amount increased to 96.82%. By using the RSM and investigating the interaction of surfactant concentration, transmembrane pressure (TMP), and pH, it was found that the surfactant concentration had the most impact on the rejection. Moreover, among the studied parameters, TMP and surfactant concentration played an important role in variations of the permeate flux.


Pharmaceutical contaminant Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration Response surface methodology Sotalol hydrochloride Sodium dodecyl sulfate 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Afifi M, Golestani HA, Sharifi S, Kiani S (2014) Wastewater treatment of raisins processing factory using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Desalin Water Treat 52:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azizi Namaghi H, Mousavi SM (2016) Factorial experimental design for treatment of an industrial wastewater using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Desalin Water Treat 57:5416–5424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bade R, Lee SH (2011) A review of studies on micellar enhanced ultrafiltration for heavy metals removal from wastewater. J Water Sustain 1:85–102Google Scholar
  4. Bruce GM, Pleus RC, Snyder SA (2010) Toxicological relevance of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Environ Sci Technol 44:5619–5626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daughton CG, Ternes TA (1999) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change? Environ Health Perspect 107:907–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deegan A, Shaik B, Nolan K, Urell K, Oelgemöller M, Tobin J, Morrissey A (2011) Treatment options for wastewater effluents from pharmaceutical companies. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:649–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Abbassi A, Khayet M, Hafidi A (2011) Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration process for the treatment of olive mill wastewater. Water Res 45:4522–4530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Exall K, Balakrishnan VK, Toito J, McFadyen R (2013) Impact of selected wastewater constituents on the removal of sulfonamide antibiotics via ultrafiltration and micellar enhanced ultrafiltration. Sci Total Environ 461:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gheshlaghi R (2007) Optimization of recombinant protein production by a fungal host. PhD thesis requirement for degree of doctor philosophy in chemical engineering, University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  10. Hafizi A, Ahmadpour A, Koolivand-Salooki M, Heravi M, Bamoharram F (2013) Comparison of RSM and ANN for the investigation of linear alkylbenzene synthesis over H14 [NaP5W30O110]/SiO2 catalyst. J Ind Eng Chem 19:1981–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Häyrynen P, Landaburu-Aguirre J, Pongrácz E, Keiski RL (2012) Study of permeate flux in micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration on a semi-pilot scale: simultaneous removal of heavy metals from phosphorous rich real wastewaters. Sep Purif Technol 93:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Homem V, Santos L (2011) Degradation and removal methods of antibiotics from aqueous matrices—a review. J Environ Manag 92:2304–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang J-H et al (2010) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of methylene blue from dye wastewater via a polysulfone hollow fiber membrane. J Membr Sci 365:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Husein MM, Deriszadeh A, Harding TG (2011) Experimental and modeling study of MEUF removal of naphthenic acids. Desalination 273:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacquet R, Miège C, Bados P, Schiavone S, Coquery M (2012) Evaluating the polar organic chemical integrative sampler for the monitoring of beta-blockers and hormones in wastewater treatment plant effluents and receiving surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jafari A et al (2017) Application of micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) for arsenic (v) removal from aqueous solutions and process optimization. J Dispers Sci Technol 38:1588–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juang R-S, Lin S-H, Peng L-C (2010) Flux decline analysis in micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of synthetic waste solutions for metal removal. Chem Eng J 161:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazemi-Beydokhti A, Namaghi HA, Heris SZ (2013) Identification of the key variables on thermal conductivity of CuO nanofluid by a fractional factorial design approach. Numer Heat Transf Part B Fundam 64:480–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krajnik P, Kopac J, Sluga A (2005) Design of grinding factors based on response surface methodology. J Mater Process Technol 162:629–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee J, Yang J-S, Kim H-J, Baek K, Yang J-W (2005) Simultaneous removal of organic and inorganic contaminants by micellar enhanced ultrafiltration with mixed surfactant. Desalination 184:395–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li NN, Fane AG, Ho WW, Matsuura T (2011) Advanced membrane technology and applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu C-K, Li C-W, Lin C-Y (2004) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration process (MEUF) for removing copper from synthetic wastewater containing ligands. Chemosphere 57:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu L, Wang X, Zou H, Yu M, Xie W (2017) Optimizing synthesis parameters of short carbon fiber reinforced polysulfonamide composites by using response surface methodology. Polym Test 59:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahmoodi V, Sargolzaei J (2014) Optimization of photocatalytic degradation of naphthalene using nano-TiO2/UV system: statistical analysis by a response surface methodology. Desalin Water Treat 52:6664–6672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masmoudi G, Trabelsi R, Ellouze E, Amar R (2014) New treatment at source approach using combination of microfiltration and nanofiltration for dyeing effluents reuse. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:1007–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Midi H, Sarkar S, Rana S (2010) Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. J Interdiscip Math 13:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Misra S, Mahatele A, Tripathi S, Dakshinamoorthy A (2009) Studies on the simultaneous removal of dissolved DBP and TBP as well as uranyl ions from aqueous solutions by using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration technique. Hydrometallurgy 96:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monteiro SC, Boxall AB (2010) Occurrence and fate of human pharmaceuticals in the environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 202:53–154Google Scholar
  29. Namaghi HA, Mousavi SM (2014) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of soft drink wastewater using anionic and mixed anionic/nonionic surfactants. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 45:1850–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Namaghi HA, Asl AH, Chenar MP (2015) Identification and optimization of key parameters in preparation of thin film composite membrane for water desalination using multi-step statistical method. J Ind Eng Chem 31:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neta NS, Peres AM, Teixeira JA, Rodrigues LR (2011) Maximization of fructose esters synthesis by response surface methodology. New Biotechnol 28:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ngang H, Ahmad A, Low S, Ooi B (2012) Preparation of mixed-matrix membranes for micellar enhanced ultrafiltration based on response surface methodology. Desalination 293:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Onsekizoglu P, Bahceci KS, Acar J (2010) The use of factorial design for modeling membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 349:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oosterhuis M, Sacher F, ter Laak TL (2013) Prediction of concentration levels of metformin and other high consumption pharmaceuticals in wastewater and regional surface water based on sales data. Sci Total Environ 442:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Puasa SW, Ruzitah MS, Sharifah ASAK (2011) An overview of micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration in wastewater treatment process. In: Proceedings of international conference on environment and industrial innovation (ICEII 2011), vol 12, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  36. Purkait M, DasGupta S, De S (2004) Removal of dye from wastewater using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration and recovery of surfactant. Sep Purif Technol 37:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Radjenović J, Petrović M, Ventura F, Barceló D (2008) Rejection of pharmaceuticals in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane drinking water treatment. Water Res 42:3601–3610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rahmanian B, Pakizeh M, Maskooki A (2010) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of zinc in synthetic wastewater using spiral-wound membrane. J Hazard Mater 184:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saadat S, Karimi-Jashni A (2011) Optimization of Pb(II) adsorption onto modified walnut shells using factorial design and simplex methodologies. Chem Eng J 173:743–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sahu J, Acharya J, Meikap B (2009) Response surface modeling and optimization of chromium (VI) removal from aqueous solution using Tamarind wood activated carbon in batch process. J Hazard Mater 172:818–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharifi S, Golestani HA, Afifi M, Kiani S (2014) Treatment of edible oil processing wastewater using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration process. Desalin Water Treat 52:2412–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh KP, Gupta S, Singh AK, Sinha S (2011) Optimizing adsorption of crystal violet dye from water by magnetic nanocomposite using response surface modeling approach. J Hazard Mater 186:1462–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verlicchi P, Al Aukidy M, Zambello E (2012) Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater: removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatment—a review. Sci Total Environ 429:123–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vu DH, Muttaqi KM, Agalgaonkar A (2015) A variance inflation factor and backward elimination based robust regression model for forecasting monthly electricity demand using climatic variables. Appl Energy 140:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yenphan P, Chanachai A, Jiraratananon R (2010) Experimental study on micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) of aqueous solution and wastewater containing lead ion with mixed surfactants. Desalination 253:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yurlova L, Kryvoruchko A, Kornilovich B (2002) Removal of Ni (II) ions from wastewater by micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Desalination 144:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zaghbani N, Hafiane A, Dhahbi M (2007) Separation of methylene blue from aqueous solution by micellar enhanced ultrafiltration. Sep Purif Technol 55:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeng G-M, Xu K, Huang J-H, Li X, Fang Y-Y, Qu Y-H (2008) Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration of phenol in synthetic wastewater using polysulfone spiral membrane. J Membr Sci 310:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zielińska M, Bułkowska K, Cydzik-Kwiatkowska A, Bernat K, Wojnowska-Baryła I (2016) Removal of bisphenol A (BPA) from biologically treated wastewater by microfiltration and nanofiltration. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:2239–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations