Advertisement

Polymers for Membrane Filtration in Water Purification

  • Adewale Giwa
  • Menatalla Ahmed
  • Shadi Wajih HasanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Polymer and Composite Materials book series (SSPCM)

Abstract

Polymers are sometimes preferred for membrane filtration because they are more flexible, easier to handle, and less expensive than inorganic membranes fabricated from oxides, metals, and ceramics. The polymers are used as the membrane active layer and porous support in reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF), ultrafiltration (UF), microfiltration (MF) processes. However, the application of polymers for filtration suffers critical drawbacks, such as the chemical attack of polymers, membrane fouling, and hydrophobicity of most polymers. In this chapter, the polymers used for membrane filtration in recent studies and their fabrication procedures are presented and discussed. The polymers used in recent applications include cellulose acetate (CA), polyamide (PA), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polysulfone (PSF), polyethersulfone (PES), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyimide (PI), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), poly(methacrylic acid) (PMAA), poly(arylene ether ketone) (PAEK), poly(ether imide) (PEI), and polyaniline nanoparticles (PANI). A new polymeric material named polyethersulfone amide (PESA) has also been presented recently. Most of the recent studies have focused on improving the specific energy consumption, salt rejection, water flux, chemical resistance and antifouling properties of polymeric membranes and nanocomposites through blending and surface modification techniques. These techniques involve the use of zwitterionic coatings, sulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone) (SPAES), perfluorophenyl azide (PFPA), carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene oxide (GO) as nanofillers, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and nanoparticles such as titanium dioxide (TiO2), and mesoporous silica. The use of polymers for filtration is still gaining tremendous attention, and further improvements of polymeric characteristics for enhanced membrane performance are expected in the coming years.

References and Future Readings

  1. 1.
    Abdel-Karim A, Gad-Allah TA, El-Kalliny AS, Ahmed SIA, Souaya ER, Badawy MI, Ulbricht M (2017) Fabrication of modified polyethersulfone membranes for wastewater treatment by submerged membrane bioreactor. Sep Purif Technol 175:36–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.10.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmad A, Jamshaid F, Adrees M, Iqbal SS, Sabir A, Riaz T, Zaheer H, Islam A, Jamil T (2017) Novel polyurethane/polyvinyl chloride-co-vinyl acetate crosslinked membrane for reverse osmosis (RO). Desalination 420:136–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmad R (2017) Water worldwide—US water regulations and India’s water challenges. J Am Water Works Assoc 109:64–67.  https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed FE, Lalia BS, Hilal N, Hashaikeh R (2017) Electrically conducting nanofiltration membranes based on networked cellulose and carbon nanostructures. Desalination 406:60–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al Ashhab A, Gillor O, Herzberg M (2014) Biofouling of reverse-osmosis membranes under different shear rates during tertiary wastewater desalination: microbial community composition. Water Res 67:86–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.09.007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amy G, Ghaffour N, Li Z, Francis L, Linares RV, Missimer T, Lattemann S (2017) Membrane-based seawater desalination: present and future prospects. Desalination 401:16–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashoor BB, Mansour S, Giwa A, Dufour V, Hasan SW (2016) Principles and applications of direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD): a comprehensive review. Desalination 398:222–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashoor BB, Fath H, Marquardt W, Mhamdi A (2012) Dynamic modeling of direct contact membrane distillation processes. Comput Aided Chem Eng 170–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-59507-2.50026-3 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aslam M, Charfi A, Lesage G, Heran M, Kim J (2017) Membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: a review of mechanical cleaning by scouring agents to control membrane fouling. Chem Eng J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behboudi A, Jafarzadeh Y, Yegani R (2017) Polyvinyl chloride/polycarbonate blend ultrafiltration membranes for water treatment. J Memb Sci 534:18–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bereskie T, Haider H, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R (2017) Framework for continuous performance improvement in small drinking water systems. Sci Total Environ 574:1405–1414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bichai F, Ashbolt N (2017) Public health and water quality management in low-exposure stormwater schemes: a critical review of regulatory frameworks and path forward. Sustain Cities Soc 28:453–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buonomenna MG (2013) Nano-enhanced reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 314:73–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chhipi-Shrestha G, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2017) Microbial quality of reclaimed water for urban reuses: probabilistic risk-based investigation and recommendations. Sci Total Environ 576:738–751.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    da Silva Burgal J, Peeva LG, Kumbharkar S, Livingston A (2015) Organic solvent resistant poly(ether-ether-ketone) nanofiltration membranes. J Memb Sci 479:105–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.12.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daer S, Kharraz J, Giwa A, Hasan SW (2015) Recent applications of nanomaterials in water desalination: a critical review and future opportunities. Desalination 367:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.03.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Değermenci N, Cengiz İ, Yildiz E, Nuhoglu A (2016) Performance investigation of a jet loop membrane bioreactor for the treatment of an actual olive mill wastewater. J Environ Manage 184:441–447.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deshmukh K, Ahamed MB, Deshmukh RR, Pasha SKK, Sadasivuni KK, Polu AR, Ponnamma D, AlMaadeed MA-A, Chidambaram K (2017) Newly developed biodegradable polymer nanocomposites of cellulose acetate and Al2O3 nanoparticles with enhanced dielectric performance for embedded passive applications. J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 28:973–986.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-016-5616-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Di Vincenzo M, Barboiu M, Tiraferri A, Legrand YM (2017) Polyol-functionalized thin-film composite membranes with improved transport properties and boron removal in reverse osmosis. J Memb Sci 540:71–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Díez B, Roldán N, Martín A, Sotto A, Perdigón-Melón JA, Arsuaga J, Rosal R (2017) Fouling and biofouling resistance of metal-doped mesostructured silica/polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes. J Memb Sci 526:252–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drangert J-O, Sharatchandra HC (2017) Addressing urban water scarcity: reduce, treat and reuse—the third generation of management to avoid local resources boundaries. Water Policy wp2017152.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dulebohn J, Ahmadiannamini P, Wang T, Kim SS, Pinnavaia TJ, Tarabara VV (2014) Polymer mesocomposites: ultrafiltration membrane materials with enhanced permeability, selectivity and fouling resistance. J Memb Sci 453:478–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.11.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farahbaksh J, Delnavaz M, Vatanpour V (2017) Investigation of raw and oxidized multiwalled carbon nanotubes in fabrication of reverse osmosis polyamide membranes for improvement in desalination and antifouling properties. Desalination 410:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.01.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer K, Grimm M, Meyers J, Dietrich C, Gläser R, Schulze A (2015) Photoactive microfiltration membranes via directed synthesis of TiO2 nanoparticles on the polymer surface for removal of drugs from water. J Memb Sci 478:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gherasim C-V, Mikulášek P (2014) Influence of operating variables on the removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions by nanofiltration. Desalination 343:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gholami A, Moghadassi AR, Hosseini SM, Shabani S, Gholami F (2014) Preparation and characterization of polyvinyl chloride based nanocomposite nanofiltration-membrane modified by iron oxide nanoparticles for lead removal from water. J Ind Eng Chem 20:1517–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.07.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ginic-Markovic M, Barclay TG, Constantopoulos KT, Markovic E, Clarke SR, Matisons JG (2015) Biofouling resistance of polysulfobetaine coated reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 369:37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.04.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giwa A, Akther N, Dufour V, Hasan SW (2016) A critical review on recent polymeric and nano-enhanced membranes for reverse osmosis. RSC Adv 6:8134–8163.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA17221GCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Giwa A, Akther N, Housani A Al, Haris S, Hasan SW (2016) Recent advances in humidification dehumidification (HDH) desalination processes: improved designs and productivity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 57:929–944.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giwa A, Daer S, Ahmed I, Marpu P, Hasan S (2016) Experimental investigation and artificial neural networks ANNs modeling of electrically-enhanced membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. J Water Process Eng 11:88–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giwa A, Dufour V, Al Marzooqi F, Al Kaabi M, Hasan SW (2017) Brine management methods: recent innovations and current status. Desalination 407:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.12.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giwa A, Hasan S (2015) Theoretical investigation of the influence of operating conditions on the treatment performance of an electrically-induced membrane bioreactor. J Water Process Eng 6:72–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gkotsis P, Banti D, Peleka E, Zouboulis A, Samaras P (2014) Fouling issues in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) for wastewater treatment: major mechanisms, prevention and control strategies. Processes 2:795–866.  https://doi.org/10.3390/pr2040795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gong G, Nagasawa H, Kanezashi M, Tsuru T (2015) Reverse osmosis performance of layered-hybrid membranes consisting of an organosilica separation layer on polymer supports. J Memb Sci 494:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grandclément C, Seyssiecq I, Piram A, Wong-Wah-Chung P, Vanot G, Tiliacos N, Roche N, Doumenq P (2017) From the conventional biological wastewater treatment to hybrid processes, the evaluation of organic micropollutant removal: a review. Water Res.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hasan SW, Elektorowicz M, Oleszkiewicz JA (2014) Start-up period investigation of pilot-scale submerged membrane electro-bioreactor (SMEBR) treating raw municipal wastewater. Chemosphere 97:71–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.11.009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huang YW, Wang ZM, Yan X, Chen J, Guo YJ, Lang WZ (2017) Versatile polyvinylidene fluoride hybrid ultrafiltration membranes with superior antifouling, antibacterial and self-cleaning properties for water treatment. J Colloid Interface Sci 505:38–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.05.076CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jamaly S, Giwa A, Hasan SW (2015) Recent improvements in oily wastewater treatment: progress, challenges, and future opportunities. J Environ Sci 37:15–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jiang S, Li Y, Ladewig BP (2017) A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and control strategies. Total Environ, Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kanagaraj P, Nagendran A, Rana D, Matsuura T, Neelakandan S, Karthikkumar T, Muthumeenal A (2015) Influence of N-phthaloyl chitosan on poly (ether imide) ultrafiltration membranes and its application in biomolecules and toxic heavy metal ion separation and their antifouling properties. Appl Surf Sci 329:165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.12.082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Katsoyiannis IA, Gkotsis P, Castellana M, Cartechini F, Zouboulis AI (2017) Production of demineralized water for use in thermal power stations by advanced treatment of secondary wastewater effluent. J Environ Manage 190:132–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim HJ, Choi K, Baek Y, Kim D-G, Shim J, Yoon J, Lee J-C (2014) High-performance reverse osmosis CNT/polyamide nanocomposite membrane by controlled interfacial interactions. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:2819–2829.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am405398fCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Krzeminski P, Leverette L, Malamis S, Katsou E (2017) Membrane bioreactors—a review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel configurations, LCA and market prospects. J Memb Sci 527:207–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kwan SE, Bar-Zeev E, Elimelech M (2015) Biofouling in forward osmosis and reverse osmosis: measurements and mechanisms. J Memb Sci 493:703–708.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TAG (2006) Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J Memb Sci 284:17–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Le NL, Nunes SP (2016) Materials and membrane technologies for water and energy sustainability. Sustain Mater Technol 7:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2016.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee J, Chae HR, Won YJ, Lee K, Lee CH, Lee HH, Kim IC, Lee JM (2013) Graphene oxide nanoplatelets composite membrane with hydrophilic and antifouling properties for wastewater treatment. J Memb Sci 448:223–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.08.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li Y, Su Y, Zhao X, Zhang R, Zhao J, Fan X, Jiang Z (2014) Surface fluorination of polyamide nanofiltration membrane for enhanced antifouling property. J Memb Sci 455:15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.12.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liang S, Qi G, Xiao K, Sun J, Giannelis EP, Huang X, Elimelech M (2014) Organic fouling behavior of superhydrophilic polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ultrafiltration membranes functionalized with surface-tailored nanoparticles: implications for organic fouling in membrane bioreactors. J Memb Sci 463:94–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.03.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu C, Lee J, Ma J, Elimelech M (2017) Antifouling thin-film composite membranes by controlled architecture of zwitterionic polymer brush layer. Environ Sci Technol acs.est.6b05992.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu C, Mao H, Zheng J, Zhang S (2017) Tight ultrafiltration membrane: preparation and characterization of thermally resistant carboxylated cardo poly (arylene ether ketone)s (PAEK-COOH) tight ultrafiltration membrane for dye removal. J Memb Sci 530:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liu M, Chen Q, Lu K, Huang W, Lü Z, Zhou C, Yu S, Gao C (2017) High efficient removal of dyes from aqueous solution through nanofiltration using diethanolamine-modified polyamide thin-film composite membrane. Sep Purif Technol 173:135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.09.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Luo W, Phan HV, Xie M, Hai FI, Price WE, Elimelech M, Nghiem LD (2017) Osmotic versus conventional membrane bioreactors integrated with reverse osmosis for water reuse: biological stability, membrane fouling, and contaminant removal. Water Res 109:122–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ma W, Soroush A, Van Anh Luong T, Brennan G, Rahaman MS, Asadishad B, Tufenkji N (2016) Spray- and spin-assisted layer-by-layer assembly of copper nanoparticles on thin-film composite reverse osmosis membrane for biofouling mitigation. Water Res 99:188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maghsoud Z, Pakbaz M, Famili MHN, Madaeni SS (2017) New polyvinyl chloride/thermoplastic polyurethane membranes with potential application in nanofiltration. J Memb Sci 541:271–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Martín A, Arsuaga JM, Roldán N, de Abajo J, Martínez A, Sotto A (2015) Enhanced ultrafiltration PES membranes doped with mesostructured functionalized silica particles. Desalination 357:16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    McVerry BT, Wong MCY, Marsh KL, Temple JAT, Marambio-Jones C, Hoek EMV, Kaner RB (2014) Scalable antifouling reverse osmosis membranes utilizing perfluorophenyl azide photochemistry. Macromol Rapid Commun 35:1528–1533.  https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201400226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mehrparvar A, Rahimpour A (2015) Surface modification of novel polyether sulfone amide (PESA) ultrafiltration membranes by grafting hydrophilic monomers. J Ind Eng Chem 28:359–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.03.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mercer KL (2017) 2017 State of the water industry: strengthening our connections. J Am Water Works Assoc 109:56–65.  https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mi Y-F, Zhao F-Y, Guo Y-S, Weng X-D, Ye C-C, An Q-F (2017) Constructing zwitterionic surface of nanofiltration membrane for high flux and antifouling performance. J Memb Sci 541:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mohammad AW, Teow YH, Ang WL, Chung YT, Oatley-Radcliffe DL, Hilal N (2015) Nanofiltration membranes review: recent advances and future prospects. Desalination.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mokhtari S, Rahimpour A, Shamsabadi AA, Habibzadeh S, Soroush M (2017) Enhancing performance and surface antifouling properties of polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes with salicylate-alumoxane nanoparticles. Appl Surf Sci 393:93–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Monisha S, Mathavan T, Selvasekarapandian S, Milton Franklin Benial A, Aristatil G, Mani N, Premalatha M, Vinoth Pandi D (2017) Investigation of bio polymer electrolyte based on cellulose acetate-ammonium nitrate for potential use in electrochemical devices. Carbohydr Polym 157:38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.09.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nebipasagil A, Sundell BJ, Lane OR, Mecham SJ, Riffle JS, McGrath JE (2016) Synthesis and photocrosslinking of disulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone) copolymers for potential reverse osmosis membrane materials. Polym (United Kingdom) 93:14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Neoh CH, Noor ZZ, Mutamim NSA, Lim CK (2016) Green technology in wastewater treatment technologies: integration of membrane bioreactor with various wastewater treatment systems. Chem Eng J 283:582–594.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.07.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ng LY, Mohammad AW, Leo CP, Hilal N (2013) Polymeric membranes incorporated with metal/metal oxide nanoparticles: a comprehensive review. Desalination 308:15–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.11.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Oh HJ, McGrath JE, Paul DR (2017) Kinetics of poly(ethylene glycol) extraction into water from plasticized disulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone) desalination membranes prepared by solvent-free melt processing. J Memb Sci 524:257–265.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Oh HJ, Park J, Inceoglu S, Villaluenga I, Thelen JL, Jiang X, McGrath JE, Paul DR (2017) Formation of disulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone) thin film desalination membranes plasticized with poly(ethylene glycol) by solvent-free melt extrusion. Polymer (Guildf) 109:106–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2016.12.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Orooji Y, Faghih M, Razmjou A, Hou J, Moazzam P, Emami N, Aghababaie M, Nourisfa F, Chen V, Jin W (2017) Nanostructured mesoporous carbon polyethersulfone composite ultrafiltration membrane with significantly low protein adsorption and bacterial adhesion. Carbon N Y 111:689–704.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.10.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pardeshi PM, Mungray AK, Mungray AA (2017) Polyvinyl chloride and layered double hydroxide composite as a novel substrate material for the forward osmosis membrane. Desalination.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.01.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Prince JA, Bhuvana S, Boodhoo KVK, Anbharasi V, Singh G (2014) Synthesis and characterization of PEG-Ag immobilized PES hollow fiber ultrafiltration membranes with long lasting antifouling properties. J Memb Sci 454:538–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.12.050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pulido BA, Waldron C, Zolotukhin MG, Nunes SP (2017) Porous polymeric membranes with thermal and solvent resistance. J Memb Sci 539:187–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Qadir D, Mukhtar H, Keong LK (2017) Mixed matrix membranes for water purification applications. Sep Purif Rev 46:62–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2016.1196460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Qiu G, Ting YP (2014) Short-term fouling propensity and flux behavior in an osmotic membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Desalination 332:91–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rabiee H, Vatanpour V, Farahani MHDA, Zarrabi H (2015) Improvement in flux and antifouling properties of PVC ultrafiltration membranes by incorporation of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles. Sep Purif Technol 156:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Razali NF, Mohammad AW, Hilal N (2014) Effects of polyaniline nanoparticles in polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes: fouling behaviours by different types of foulant. J Ind Eng Chem 20:3134–3140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2013.11.056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sabir A, Shafiq M, Islam A, Sarwar A, Dilshad MR, Shafeeq A, Zahid Butt MT, Jamil T (2015) Fabrication of tethered carbon nanotubes in cellulose acetate/polyethylene glycol-400 composite membranes for reverse osmosis. Carbohydr Polym 132:589–597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Safarpour M, Vatanpour V, Khataee A, Zarrabi H, Gholami P, Yekavalangi ME (2017) High flux and fouling resistant reverse osmosis membrane modified with plasma treated natural zeolite. Desalination 411:89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shaffer DL, Tousley ME, Elimelech M (2017) Influence of polyamide membrane surface chemistry on gypsum scaling behavior. J Memb Sci 525:249–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Shafi HZ, Matin A, Akhtar S, Gleason KK, Zubair SM, Khan Z (2017) Organic fouling in surface modified reverse osmosis membranes: filtration studies and subsequent morphological and compositional characterization. J. Memb. Sci. 527:152–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.01.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Shao L, Wang ZX, Zhang YL, Jiang ZX, Liu YY (2014) A facile strategy to enhance PVDF ultrafiltration membrane performance via self-polymerized polydopamine followed by hydrolysis of ammonium fluotitanate. J Memb Sci 461:10–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sharma N, Purkait MK (2017) Impact of synthesized amino alcohol plasticizer on the morphology and hydrophilicity of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane. J Memb Sci 522:202–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.08.068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Son M, Kim H, Jung J, Jo S, Choi H (2017) Influence of extreme concentrations of hydrophilic pore-former on reinforced polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes for reduction of humic acid fouling. Chemosphere 179:194–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Subramanian S, Seeram R (2013) New directions in nanofiltration applications—are nanofibers the right materials as membranes in desalination? Desalination 308:198–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tang Y-J, Xu Z-L, Xue S-M, Wei Y-M, Yang H (2017) Tailoring the polyester/polyamide backbone stiffness for the fabrication of high performance nanofiltration membrane. J Memb Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tong T, Zhao S, Boo C, Hashmi SM, Elimelech M (2017) Relating silica scaling in reverse osmosis to membrane surface properties. Environ Sci Technol 51:4396–4406.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tsai H-A, Wang T-Y, Huang S-H, Hu C-C, Hung W-S, Lee K-R, Lai J-Y (2017) The preparation of polyamide/polyacrylonitrile thin film composite hollow fiber membranes for dehydration of ethanol mixtures. Sep Purif Technol 187:221–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.06.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Turek M, Mitko K, Piotrowski K, Dydo P, Laskowska E, Jakóbik-Kolon A (2017) Prospects for high water recovery membrane desalination. Desalination 401:180–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Ulbricht M (2006) Advanced functional polymer membranes. Polymer (Guildf) 47:2217–2262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2006.01.084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vatanpour V, Safarpour M, Khataee A, Zarrabi H, Yekavalangi ME, Kavian M (2017) A thin film nanocomposite reverse osmosis membrane containing amine-functionalized carbon nanotubes. Sep Purif Technol 184:135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.04.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Velu S, Arthanareeswaran G, Lade H (2017) Removal of organic and inorganic substances from industry wastewaters using modified aluminosilicate-based polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes. Environ Prog Sustain Energy  https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Verbeke R, Gómez V, Vankelecom IFJ (2016) Chlorine-resistance of reverse osmosis (RO) polyamide membranes. Polym. Sci, Prog.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2017.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wang C, Li Z, Chen J, Li Z, Yin Y, Cao L, Zhong Y, Wu H (2017) Covalent organic framework modified polyamide nanofiltration membrane with enhanced performance for desalination. J Memb Sci 523:273–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.09.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wang H, Wang Z-M, Yan X, Chen J, Lang W-Z, Guo Y-J (2017) Novel organic-inorganic hybrid polyvinylidene fluoride ultrafiltration membranes with antifouling and antibacterial properties by embedding N-halamine functionalized silica nanospheres. J Ind Eng Chem 52:295–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.03.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Wang H, Wei M, Zhong Z, Wang Y (2017) Atomic-layer-deposition-enabled thin-film composite membranes of polyimide supported on nanoporous anodized alumina. J Memb Sci 535:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.04.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Wang JJ, Wang Z, Wang JJ, Wang S (2015) Improving the water flux and bio-fouling resistance of reverse osmosis (RO) membrane through surface modification by zwitterionic polymer. J Memb Sci 493:188–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.06.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wang P, Luo L, Chung TS (2014) Tri-bore ultra-filtration hollow fiber membranes with a novel triangle-shape outer geometry. J Memb Sci 452:212–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wang X, Chang VWC, Tang CY (2016) Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: advances, challenges, and prospects for the future. J Memb Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wang X, Wang C, Tang CY, Hu T, Li X, Ren Y (2017) Development of a novel anaerobic membrane bioreactor simultaneously integrating microfiltration and forward osmosis membranes for low-strength wastewater treatment. J Memb Sci 527:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Werber JR, Deshmukh A, Elimelech M (2016) The critical need for increased selectivity, not increased water permeability, for desalination membranes. Environ Sci Technol Lett 3:112–120.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wu H, Liu Y, Mao L, Jiang C, Ang J, Lu X (2017) Doping polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane with TiO2-PDA nanohybrid for simultaneous self-cleaning and self-protection. J Memb Sci 532:20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Yang B, Yang X, Liu B, Chen Z, Chen C, Liang S, Chu L-Y, Crittenden J (2017) PVDF blended PVDF-g-PMAA pH-responsive membrane: effect of additives and solvents on membrane properties and performance. J Memb Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Yang C, Li X-M, Gilron J, Kong D, Yin Y, Oren Y, Linder C, He T (2014) CF4 plasma-modified superhydrophobic PVDF membranes for direct contact membrane distillation. J Memb Sci 456:155–161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Yin J, Deng B (2015) Polymer-matrix nanocomposite membranes for water treatment. J Memb Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.11.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    You X, Ma T, Su Y, Wu H, Wu M, Cai H, Sun G, Jiang Z (2017) Enhancing the permeation flux and antifouling performance of polyamide nanofiltration membrane by incorporation of PEG-POSS nanoparticles. J Memb Sci 540:454–463.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Yu H, Zhang Y, Sun X, Liu J, Zhang H (2014) Improving the antifouling property of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane by incorporation of dextran grafted halloysite nanotubes. Chem Eng J 237:322–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zhang G, Lu S, Zhang L, Meng Q, Shen C, Zhang J (2013) Novel polysulfone hybrid ultrafiltration membrane prepared with TiO2-g-HEMA and its antifouling characteristics. J Memb Sci 436:163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Zhang H, Li Bin, Pan J, Qi Y, Shen J, Gao C, Van der Bruggen B (2017) Carboxyl-functionalized graphene oxide polyamide nanofiltration membrane for desalination of dye solutions containing monovalent salt. J Memb Sci 539:128–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Zhang Y, Guo M, Pan G, Yan H, Xu J, Shi Y, Shi H, Liu Y (2015) Preparation and properties of novel pH-stable TFC membrane based on organic-inorganic hybrid composite materials for nanofiltration. J Memb Sci 476:500–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Zhang Y, Zhao C, Yan H, Pan G, Guo M, Na H, Liu Y (2014) Highly chlorine-resistant multilayer reverse osmosis membranes based on sulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone) and poly(vinyl alcohol). Desalination 336:58–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.12.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Zhao C, Lv J, Xu X, Zhang G, Yang Y, Yang F (2017) Highly antifouling and antibacterial performance of poly (vinylidene fluoride) ultrafiltration membranes blending with copper oxide and graphene oxide nanofillers for effective wastewater treatment. J Colloid Interface Sci 505:341–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2017.05.074CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Zhou D, Zhu L, Fu Y, Zhu M, Xue L (2015) Development of lower cost seawater desalination processes using nanofiltration technologies—a review. Desalination 376:109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.08.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adewale Giwa
    • 1
  • Menatalla Ahmed
    • 1
  • Shadi Wajih Hasan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringKhalifa University of Science and TechnologyAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations