Next Article in Journal
Intermediate Temperature PEFC’s with Nafion® 211 Membrane Electrolytes: An Experimental and Numerical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Membrane Repairing Capability of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells Is Regulated by Drug Resistance and Epithelial-Mesenchymal-Transition
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Membranes
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/membranes12040429
membranes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Membrane Bioreactors for Molecular Micro-Contaminant Removal from Aquatic Environment

by
My-Linh Nguyen
1,
Ali Taghvaie Nakhjiri
2,*,
Mehnaz Kamal
3,
Abdullah Mohamed
4,
Mohammed Algarni
5,
Subbotina Tatyana Yu
6,
Fu-Ming Wang
1 and
Chia-Hung Su
7,*
1
Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City 106335, Taiwan
2
Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran 1477893855, Iran
3
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
4
Research Centre, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11845, Egypt
5
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 344, Rabigh 21911, Saudi Arabia
6
South Ural State University, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia
7
Department of Chemical Engineering, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei City 243303, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Membranes 2022, 12(4), 429; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12040429
Submission received: 20 February 2022 / Revised: 29 March 2022 / Accepted: 8 April 2022 / Published: 15 April 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, the emergence of disparate micro-contaminants in aquatic environments such as water/wastewater sources has eventuated in serious concerns about humans’ health all over the world. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is considered a noteworthy membrane-based technology, and has been recently of great interest for the removal micro-contaminants. The prominent objective of this review paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review on the potential utilization of MBRs in the field of wastewater treatment and micro-contaminant removal from aquatic/non-aquatic environments. Moreover, the operational advantages of MBRs compared to other traditional technologies in removing disparate sorts of micro-contaminants are discussed to study the ways to increase the sustainability of a clean water supplement. Additionally, common types of micro-contaminants in water/wastewater sources are introduced and their potential detriments on humans’ well-being are presented to inform expert readers about the necessity of micro-contaminant removal. Eventually, operational challenges towards the industrial application of MBRs are presented and the authors discuss feasible future perspectives and suitable solutions to overcome these challenges.

1. Introduction

Global scarcity of water has highlighted the necessity of developing promising wastewater treatment technologies to remove its toxic/detrimental micro-contaminants [1,2]. In recent years, the global accessibility of clean water resources has significantly decreased owing to the existence of some important parameters such as population growth, agricultural-/industrial-based activities and humans’ tendency to live in urban areas. These factors have improved the motivation of scientists all over the world to explore promising water sources [3]. Abnormal distribution of toxic/detrimental micro-contaminants to the aquatic environment without appropriate treatment may eventuate in the occurrence of serious impacts on humans’ health [4,5,6,7,8]. Micro-contaminants (i.e., pesticides, cosmetic devices, detergents, drugs and food additives) are a wide classification of chemical materials existing in the environment at very trace concentrations in the range of ng L−1 to µg L−1. The European Union (EU) has reported that more than 100,000 chemical substances can be labeled as micro-contaminants and from 30,000 to 70,000 of them are of daily application in disparate activities [9]. Figure 1 schematically demonstrates the principal sources of micro-contaminants in aquatic environments.
Several physicochemical/advanced oxidation (AO) procedures including adsorption on activated carbon, nanofiltration, membrane separation, liquid–liquid extraction, photo-catalytic degradation and photo-oxidation have been recently under evaluation to remove micro-contaminants from aquatic/gaseous environments [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Despite the noteworthy privileges of the abovementioned techniques to remove prevalent micro-contaminants from water/waste water sources, they suffer from some undesirable drawbacks such as high energy demand, generation of secondary sludge disposal and the need of poisonous chemical materials [10,20]. Therefore, the development of more promising approaches towards removing micro-contaminants from aquatic environments is of great interest. In the preceding three decades, membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have been well identified as a novel and promising technology to remove different types of micro-contaminants from aquatic environments [21,22]. During these years, MBRs have found great potential of application in disparate industrial operations, especially wastewater treatment and micro-contaminant removal [23,24]. The schematic demonstration of the micro-contaminants’ removal process in an MBR is depicted in Figure 2.
In recent decades, membranes have shown their great potential to remove different types of micro-contaminants from water/wastewater sources. Water treatment processes apply different types of membranes such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes. MF membranes possess the greatest pore size and usually separate large particles and microorganisms. UF membranes possess smaller pores in comparison with MF membranes and thus, apart from big particles/microorganisms, have the capability to separate bacteria and soluble macromolecules (i.e., proteins). RO membranes are non-porous. Hence, they have brilliant potential of application to remove various low-molar-mass species like salt ions and organic micro-contaminants. NF membranes are related to a new classification of membranes called “loose” reverse osmosis membranes, which unlike RO membranes, can act at low pressure and suggest selective solute rejection according to both size and charge [26,27].
MBRs can combine biological treatment process and membrane-based separation approach. Sometimes, chemical materials are involved in MBR systems to improve their efficiency [28,29,30,31]. In industrial-associated activities, the operational efficiency of MBRs for micro-contaminant removal has been under accurate investigation since the early 1990s when the installation of the first large-scale MBR was conducted in the United States [32]. Recently, MBRs have achieved great popularity as a reliable alternative for conventional activated sludge (CAS) treatment. MBRs have been able to solve the settleability challenge and unfavorable biomass regeneration by eliminating the clarifier in CAS and its substitution with membrane. MBRs also possess noteworthy characteristics such as high efficiency in removing micro-contaminants from water/wastewater sources, great ability to resist high organic loading and the generation of low amounts of sludge [33,34,35,36,37]. High-quality treated water with a negligible number of micro-contaminants achieved from MBRs may be re-applied for heat integration and process engineering. Very low values of micro-contaminants can hinder the functional failure of sensitive apparatuses or pipes [38,39,40]. Despite the presence of numerous advantages, membrane fouling can be identified as one of the most important operational challenges in MBRs. The occurrence of membrane fouling inside the MBRs results in the contamination of microorganisms and also considerable decrement of the membrane performance [36,41,42,43,44]. Therefore, finding promising ways to decline this problem is of great importance.
The main purpose of this review paper is to discuss the advantages of MBRs compared to other conventional techniques to remove disparate sorts of micro-contaminants in aquatic environments to increase the sustainability of clean water supplement. As a novelty, prevalent types of micro-contaminants in water/wastewater sources are discussed and their potential detriments on humans’ health are presented to inform expert readers about the necessity of micro-contaminant removal. Additionally, operational challenges/constraints towards the industrial application of MBRs are presented and appropriate solutions to overcome these challenges are presented to highlight the future outlook.

2. Various Types of Micro-Contaminants in Water/Wastewater Sources and Their Potential Detriments for Health

Pesticides, disinfectants, detergents, triclosan, personal care products, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) drugs (i.e., ibuprofen), sulfamethoxazole and carbamazepine have been recently identified as the micro-contaminants that appear most in ground and surface water/wastewater resources [10,45]. Pollution of ground and surface water/wastewater resources with disparate sources of micro-contaminants is often due to the sewer systems, ground-surface water interaction inside the soil and the polluted water permeation from agricultural lands. It has been reported that the value of micro-contaminants in ground water is lower than this amount in surface water [46]. Table 1 represents comprehensive data about the most prevalent identified micro-contaminants accompanied by their average concentration in wastewater/surface water sources. The concentration amount of the abovementioned micro-contaminants in wastewater sources can fluctuate due to various parameters such as generation rate, application of products, excretion rate and climatic situations [47].
Most micro-contaminants dispersed in the aquatic environment are significantly detrimental and result in serious genotoxicity/mutagenicity in humans/animals because of their non-biodegradable nature [48,49]. For example, successive distribution of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in surface-/underground water sources eventuates in serious reproduction abnormalities among various types of marine species [50]. Moreover, abnormal increment of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms in the aquatic/non-aquatic environment can be considered as another challenge. Global augmentation in the application of various sorts of antibiotics has caused the appearance of antibiotic-resistant species in disparate environmental matrices [40,43,44]. It is believed that the distribution of toxic micro-contaminants in the aquatic environment will be enhanced in the future because of the increasing rate of population and strong dependency on pharmaceutics. Table 2 enlists the potential detriments of micro-contaminants on the environment.
Scientific investigations about the emergence of macroplastics and microplastics in marine/oceanic environments have been of paramount attention in the recent decades [72,73]. The first evidence about the presence of plastic contamination in marine/oceanic environments was obtained in the 1970s. Based on a report by Carpenter et al., the plastic concentration (mainly cigarette holders) was approximately 3500 items/km2 [74]. Recently, numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the amount of plastic contamination in aquatic environments, particularly rivers and lakes. For instance, Andrady proved that about eighty percent of the plastic contamination in aquatic environments originated from the terrestrial environment [75]. In 2019, Horton et al. perceived that the amount of macroplastic pollution in the terrestrial medium was from 4 to 23 times greater than their existence in marine ecosystems [76]. Freshwater can be identified as the most prominent sources of macroplastics/microplastics flowing into the seas and rivers. Additionally, it can be regarded as a noteworthy transport vector of plastic wastes from terrestrial sources [77]. Therefore, conducting more theoretical/experimental investigations towards studying some important parameters like freshwater ecosystems, main sources of the macroplastics/nanoplastics and dispersion dynamics is of great importance.

3. Different Technologies towards Micro-Contaminants Removal

Disparate physicochemical/biological techniques have been recently evaluated to separate micro-contaminants from surface-/underground water sources. Coagulation–flocculation and activated carbon adsorption (ACA) are two procedures that have demonstrated great efficiency in removing micro-contaminants [78,79,80,81]. Biological methods, including MBRs, activated sludge and constructed wetland, are another classification of micro-contaminant removal technologies, which have gained significant popularity in recent years due to their positive advantages such as cost-effectiveness and eco-friendly characteristics [82,83,84,85,86,87]. Hybrid methods, which consider the combination of biological and physicochemical techniques, are the most novel approaches that have been able to open new horizons towards the removal of micro-contaminants from aquatic environments including surface-/underground water sources. This section aims to review the abovementioned procedures to highlight the advantages/disadvantages of each approach in the field of wastewater treatment and micro-contaminant removal technologies [6,54,55].

3.1. Prevalent Physico-Chemical Treatment Procedures for Micro-Contaminant Removal

3.1.1. ACA Technique

ACA is one of the most important adsorption-based techniques to remove different types of micro-contaminants from aquatic environments. This process is conducted by the diffusion of contaminants on the surface and after that on the micropores of the activated carbon. Due to the implementation of the diffusion process, hydrophobic contaminants (i.e., toluene and chlorinated solvents) demonstrate superior removal performance compared to the hydrophilic/highly water-soluble contaminants [88,89,90,91]. EDCs, pharmaceutical components (such as antibiotics) and xenobiotic compounds are the most common micro-contaminants that possess the potential of removal using the ACA technique. The removal process of micro-contaminants using the ACA method relies on different parameters, like particle size and pH/concentration of micro-contaminants. Figure 3 illustrates granular, pelletized and powdered types of activated carbons applied to remove micro-contaminants from surface-/underground water sources.

3.1.2. Coagulation–Flocculation (G-F) Technique

This method is identified as a promising adsorption-based technique, which applies colloidal particles (usually named as coagulants) to remove various types of micro-contaminants. Overall, this technique possesses a brilliant capability to remove the existing suspended solids/organic substances in aquatic environments (water and wastewater sources) by adding metal salts/hydroxides (i.e., iron or aluminum salts) [93,94,95,96,97]. The removal process of micro-contaminants from surface-/underground water sources takes place by their adsorption on the surface of metal hydroxide and their consequent collection in the form of sludge for more treatment processing [98]. The removal efficiency of the micro-contaminants on the surface of metal hydroxide depends on their physicochemical properties. Generally, hydrophobic micro-contaminants have better potential to be removed by the G-F technique. To put the issue into perspective, various sorts of micro-pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic components and humic acid, have satisfactory potential of removal using the G-F technique. Despite the presence of noteworthy privileges, insufficient removal of micro-contaminants with low sorption capability is the principal drawback of the G-F technique [99]. Table 3 represents information about the removal process of micro-contaminants from various wastewater sources applying the G-F technique.

3.2. Biological Treatment Procedures

3.2.1. Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs)

The existence of great chemical stability and negligible biodegradability of an extensive range of micro-contaminants has reduced their appropriate removal treatment from aquatic environment. Alteration of micro-contaminants to their less poisonous structures occurred using chemical oxidation processes (CAPs). AOPs are known as a well identified class of chemical oxidation processes that have shown their great efficiency in the removal of disparate sorts of micro-contaminants [105]. The categorization of AOPs can take place by the production of hydroxyl and sulfate free radicals [106]. Compared to other CAPs, AOPs are corroborated to be the most efficacious technique in producing hydroxyl radicals, which results in decreasing the amount of organic micro-contaminants in aquatic environments. The non-selectivity of AOPs in the oxidation process of micro-contaminants is one of the privileges of this technique. On the other hand, the emergence of hydroxyl scavenging species in wastewater sources eventuates in decreasing the accessibility of oxidants for micro-contaminant degradation and consequently their removal performance [99,107].

3.2.2. Constructed Wetland (CW) Technique

The CW technique, as a promising environmental-based treatment procedure, has shown great potential of application for removing disparate types of micro-contaminants from aquatic environments in rural areas of third-world countries [108,109]. Recent investigations have corroborated that the CW technique (relying on its structure, configuration and feature), can be effective in removing micro-contaminants from an extensive range of wastewater sources such as domestic/agricultural wastewater and industrial effluent [110,111]. In recent years, the CW method has been of great interest in terms of being applied for removing micro-contaminants from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) due to its affordability and excellent adaptability. CW possesses great potential to remove organic/inorganic micro-contaminants such as detrimental pathogens from WWTP effluents, and plays an important role in improving the quality of water and maintaining the ecological environment of aquatic environments [112,113].

3.2.3. Hybrid Reactor System (HRS)

HRS is another novel and promising technology to remove micro-pollutants from disparate aquatic/non-aquatic environments. In HRS, a combination of biological and chemical processes takes place to enhance the performance of the removal process. This system possesses great efficiency in removing EDCs and pharmaceutical micro-contaminants by biological processes and chemical-based micro-contaminants such as pesticides and personal care products by chemical processes (i.e., activated carbon based adsorption technique) [55,80,81,114]. Therefore, it is worth noting that the combination of biological and chemical processes can form hybrid treatment systems, which is of great attraction for removing the emergent micro-contaminants in water/wastewater sources. As an example, a hybrid system containing AOP accompanied by a biological treatment procedure has been reported to be significantly efficacious in removing Beta blockers and pesticides with the removal percentage of approximately 100% [99,115]. A schematic demonstration of an anaerobic HRS is presented in Figure 4.

3.2.4. Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)

Despite the acceptable efficiency of conventional treatment techniques to mitigate the amount of different micro-contaminants (i.e., organic materials and food products) from aquatic environments, they have not been able to demonstrate appropriate performance in the removal of pharmaceutical micro-contaminants. As a result, these detrimental components appear in surface-/ground water sources and significantly endanger humans’ well-being [117,118]. Pharmaceutical components are defined as biologically recalcitrant materials, which means their break down in the environment takes a long time. In doing so, the development of efficient techniques to remove pharmaceutical components (even at trace levels) from aquatic environments is of great importance. In recent years, MBRs have been extensively applied due to their great efficiency in removing various micro-contaminants [119,120]. MBRs have shown their great potential in the removal of numerous organic/inorganic micro-contaminants due to having three privileges such as excellent adsorption capacity, great sludge biodegradation and suitable efficiency in removing different types of micro-contaminants adsorbed on rejected particles inside the membrane [121,122]. It has been reported that the removal efficiency of micro-contaminants applying MBR systems is much higher than the other technologies due to the existence of a microbial population in the proximity of the membrane surface [99]. Table 4 presents the removal efficiency of different sorts of pharmaceutical micropollutants using MBR systems.
Table 5 aims to enlist the advantages and disadvantages of prevalent techniques for micro-contaminant removal from various water/wastewater sources.

4. Challenges and Limitations towards the Use of MBR

4.1. Membrane Fouling and Its Mitigation in MBRs

Fouling/biofouling is one of the most operational challenges inside membranes. The fouling phenomenon eventuates in clogging the membrane micropores when exposed to wastewater sources with high values of micro-contaminants [148,149,150,151]. One of the major limitations towards the perception of membrane fouling is the complexity in the formation of membrane foulants. Current investigations have proved that the soluble microbial products and extracellular polymeric substances play momentous roles in the rudimentary and final stages of fouling, respectively [152]. Fouling inside the MBRs takes place due to the physicochemical interactions between the biofluid and membrane. When the membrane surface comes into contact with the biological suspension, biosolids precipitation on the membrane surface takes place resulting in a decrement in the amount of flux [153]. Membrane fouling may be divided into two classifications—reversible and irreversible types. Reversible fouling takes place because of weakly bound external substance that precipitate on the surface of the membrane, which results in the formation of a cake layer. In contrast, irreversible fouling can be attributed to the strong attached foulant compounds and pore blocking of the membrane. The controlling process of reversible fouling is done by applying physical cleaning techniques like back flushing, while the cleaning process of irreversible fouling seems to be harder than reversible fouling [154].

4.2. Different Techniques to Mitigate Membrane Fouling/Biofouling

In order to mitigate the undesirable fouling phenomenon inside the MBRs, the membrane cleaning process seems to be necessary [155]. Physical, chemical and physicochemical techniques are considered as three prevalent procedures of membrane cleaning. The backwash process is a physical cleaning method, which is just appropriate for hollow fiber membranes where the pumping process of sewage takes place in the reverse direction but it does not have good efficiency for flatsheet membranes. Membrane brushing is identified as another physical cleaning procedure that has the potential of in situ application for a flatsheet membrane. Despite the high speed of utilization, the physical cleaning technique possesses less efficiency than chemical cleaning. Generally, the physical cleaning technique is only able to remove the coarse solid/cake on the membrane’s surface but the chemical cleaning technique possesses a great ability to remove the flocs. The chemical cleaning technique is significantly effective in removing strong particles attached on the membrane’s surface. [156,157,158,159]. If the fouling amount inside the MBRs is not extreme, the in situ cleaning process is generally implemented; if not, the ex situ cleaning process is a suitable choice. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was the first material industrially applied for membrane cleaning [160,161]. Another momentous parameter, which drastically affects the fouling reduction, is membrane configuration. In an investigation, Katayon et al. corroborated that horizontal membrane configuration caused slower decrement in the flux of permeate flux than the vertical configuration [162]. The well-organized trend of the membrane’s cleaning can considerably enhance the membrane life. Activated carbon (AC) is considered as a promising biofouling reducer in MBRs to extend the membrane life. Biofouling reducers possess great potential to adsorb organic/non-organic micro-contaminants due to having high a surface area that improves the adsorption velocity. Compared to granular AC, powder AC has greater capability to remove low molecular-weight organic micro-contaminants due to having a better surface area [163]. Generally, pore blocking, pore constriction and cake formation are known as the most common mechanisms of membrane fouling occurrence. In many cases, the increment in the powdered activated carbon (PAC)–water contact time applying low operating flux may significantly decline membrane fouling. Moreover, relying on the process configuration and mode of operation, application of a high dose of PAC can reduce membrane fouling. The use of oxidants may possess a brilliant ability to decrease the amount of membrane fouling by modifying the interactions between membrane surface and components of the solution [164]. An appropriate design of bioreactor is of great importance to reduce the occurrence of membrane fouling. Owing to the fact that decreasing the amount of chemical oxygen demand (COD) before exposure to the membrane may reduce membrane fouling, greater sludge retention time (SRT) operation can be effective.

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

MBRs have emerged as a promising and efficient technology to remove various types of micro-contaminants from aquatic environments. In recent decades, the application of MBRs has illustrated substantial growth. Recent investigations have implied the fact that the MBR-based approaches are of great potential for efficient removal of various types of micro-contaminants such as pesticides, NSAIDs, EDCs, pathogens and cosmetics. One of the most important operational challenges towards the application of MBRs is the occurrence of fouling inside the membrane. Therefore, the development of promising technologies to mitigate its amount inside the MBRs is of great importance. To overcome this challenge, the use of some approaches, such as pretreatment techniques, changing the configuration of the membrane and modification of operating conditions, may be beneficial. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the cleaning techniques of membranes are essential to mitigate fouling with the aim of ensuring the long-term efficiency of the membrane-based systems for micro-contaminant removal. Despite the lack of efficacy fulfillment of the chemical cleaning approach in the actual operation, more effective cleaning modes should be developed. The main focus must be attributed to the development innovative cleaning approaches to increase the mitigation of fouling in MBRs while consuming less energy, simultaneously. This review paper comprehensively discusses the advantages of MBRs compared to other conventional techniques to remove micro-contaminants in the aquatic environment. Moreover, the removal efficiency of various micro-contaminants using MBRs and other conventional techniques are discussed. Based on the findings, MBRs were significantly efficacious for the removal of various pharmaceutical micro-contaminants from aquatic environment. For example, the average removal percentage of Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen from the aquatic environment using MBRs is more than 90%, which is higher than other removal approaches.

Author Contributions

M.-L.N.: conceptualization, writing-draft; A.T.N.: analysis, writing-draft, writing-review, revision; M.K.: data collection, analysis; A.M.: revision, M.A.: conceptualization, S.T.Y.: analysis, F.-M.W.: data collection and C.-H.S.: methodology development. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available within the published paper.

Acknowledgments

The author M.K. is thankful to the Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for providing support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gu, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Luo, P.; Wang, H.; Robinson, Z.P.; Wang, X.; Wu, J.; Li, F. The feasibility and challenges of energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment plants. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 1463–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Shin, C.; Bae, J. Current status of the pilot-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatments of domestic wastewaters: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1038–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Besha, A.T.; Gebreyohannes, A.Y.; Tufa, R.A.; Bekele, D.N.; Curcio, E.; Giorno, L. Removal of emerging micropollutants by activated sludge process and membrane bioreactors and the effects of micropollutants on membrane fouling: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2395–2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ma, X.Y.; Li, Q.; Wang, X.C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Ngo, H.H. Micropollutants removal and health risk reduction in a water reclamation and ecological reuse system. Water Res. 2018, 138, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ngweme, G.N.; al Salah, D.M.M.; Laffite, A.; Sivalingam, P.; Grandjean, D.; Konde, J.N.; Mulaji, C.K.; Breider, F.; Poté, J. Occurrence of organic micropollutants and human health risk assessment based on consumption of Amaranthus viridis, Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Grandclément, C.; Seyssiecq, I.; Piram, A.; Wong-Wah-Chung, P.; Vanot, G.; Tiliacos, N.; Roche, N.; Doumenq, P. From the conventional biological wastewater treatment to hybrid processes, the evaluation of organic micropollutant removal: A review. Water Res. 2017, 111, 297–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Francesco, P.; Coppola, G.; Curcio, S. Modeling aspects in simulation of phase change materials used for thermal regulation of buildings. J. Phase Change Mater. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cao, Y.; Alizadeh, S.M.S.; Fouladvand, M.T.; Khan, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Heidari, Z.; Pelalak, R.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Albadarin, A.B. Mathematical modeling and numerical simulation of CO2 capture using MDEA-based nanofluids in nanostructure membranes. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 148, 1377–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schwarzenbach, R.P.; Gschwend, P.M.; Imboden, D.M. Air–Organic Solvent and Air–Water Partitioning; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; Volume 2, pp. 181–212. [Google Scholar]
  10. Goswami, L.; Kumar, R.V.; Borah, S.N.; Manikandan, N.A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Membrane bioreactor and integrated membrane bioreactor systems for micropollutant removal from wastewater: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 26, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cao, Y.; Khan, A.; Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Albadarin, A.B.; Agustiono Kurniawan, T.; Rezakazemi, M. Recent advancements in molecular separation of gases using microporous membrane systems: A comprehensive review on the applied liquid absorbents. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 337, 116439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siegrist, H.; Joss, A. Review on the fate of organic micropollutants in wastewater treatment and water reuse with membranes. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 1369–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Marjani, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Pishnamazi, M.; Shirazian, S. Evaluation of potassium glycinate, potassium lysinate, potassium sarcosinate and potassium threonate solutions in CO2 capture using membranes. Arab. J. Chem. 2021, 14, 102979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yacouba, Z.A.; Mendret, J.; Lesage, G.; Zaviska, F.; Brosillon, S. Removal of organic micropollutants from domestic wastewater: The effect of ozone-based advanced oxidation process on nanofiltration. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 39, 101869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Marjani, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Adimi, M.; Jirandehi, H.F.; Shirazian, S. Effect of graphene oxide on modifying polyethersulfone membrane performance and its application in wastewater treatment. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ghadiri, M.; Hemmati, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Shirazian, S. Modelling tyramine extraction from wastewater using a non-dispersive solvent extraction process. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 39068–39076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mailler, R.; Gasperi, J.; Coquet, Y.; Derome, C.; Buleté, A.; Vulliet, E.; Bressy, A.; Varrault, G.; Chebbo, G.; Rocher, V. Removal of emerging micropollutants from wastewater by activated carbon adsorption: Experimental study of different activated carbons and factors influencing the adsorption of micropollutants in wastewater. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 1102–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. De Paola, M.G.; Paletta, R.; Lopresto, C.G.; Calabrò, V. Multiple light scattering as a preliminary tool for starch-based film formulation. J. Phase Change Mater. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cao, Y.; Rehman, Z.U.; Ghasem, N.; Al-Marzouqi, M.; Abdullatif, N.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Ghadiri, M.; Rezakazemi, M.; Marjani, A.; Pishnamazi, M. Intensification of CO2 absorption using MDEA-based nanofluid in a hollow fibre membrane contactor. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sathe, S.S.; Mahanta, C.; Mishra, P. Simultaneous influence of indigenous microorganism along with abiotic factors controlling arsenic mobilization in Brahmaputra floodplain, India. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2018, 213, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yamamoto, K.; Hiasa, M.; Mahmood, T.; Matsuo, T. Direct solid-liquid separation using hollow fiber membrane in an activated sludge aeration tank. In Water Pollution Research and Control Brighton; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  22. Le-Clech, P. Membrane bioreactors and their uses in wastewater treatments. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 88, 1253–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Judd, S.J. The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with membrane bioreactor technology. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 305, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Xiao, K.; Liang, S.; Wang, X.; Chen, C.; Huang, X. Current state and challenges of full-scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 271, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wenten, I.G.; Friatnasary, D.L.; Khoiruddin, K.; Setiadi, T.; Boopathy, R. Extractive membrane bioreactor (EMBR): Recent advances and applications. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 297, 122424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sagle, A.; Freeman, B. Fundamentals of membranes for water treatment. Future Desalin. Tex. 2004, 2, 137. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dickhout, J.M.; Moreno, J.; Biesheuvel, P.; Boels, L.; Lammertink, R.; De Vos, W. Produced water treatment by membranes: A review from a colloidal perspective. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 487, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mutamim, N.S.A.; Noor, Z.Z.; Hassan, M.A.A.; Yuniarto, A.; Olsson, G. Membrane bioreactor: Applications and limitations in treating high strength industrial wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 225, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shahid, M.K.; Kashif, A.; Rout, P.R.; Aslam, M.; Fuwad, A.; Choi, Y.; Park, J.H.; Kumar, G. A brief review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors emphasizing recent advancements, fouling issues and future perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nguyen, Q.; Babanezhad, M.; Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Rezakazemi, M.; Shirazian, S. Prediction of thermal distribution and fluid flow in the domain with multi-solid structures using Cubic-Interpolated Pseudo-Particle model. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Babanezhad, M.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Rezakazemi, M.; Shirazian, S. Evaluation of product of two sigmoidal membership functions (psigmf) as an ANFIS membership function for prediction of nanofluid temperature. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 22337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sutton, P.M. Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment: Applicability and selection of optimal system configuration. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2006, 2006, 3233–3248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Le-Clech, P.; Chen, V.; Fane, T.A. Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 284, 17–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Widjaja, T.; Soeprijanto, A.A. Effect of powdered activated carbon addition on a submerged membrane adsorption hybrid bioreactor with shock loading of a toxic compound. J. Math. Technol. 2010, 3, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chang, J.-S.; Chang, C.-Y.; Chen, A.-C.; Erdei, L.; Vigneswaran, S. Long-term operation of submerged membrane bioreactor for the treatment of high strength acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) wastewater: Effect of hydraulic retention time. Desalination 2006, 191, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sohn, W.; Guo, W.; Ngo, H.H.; Deng, L.; Cheng, D.; Zhang, X. A review on membrane fouling control in anaerobic membrane bioreactors by adding performance enhancers. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Babanezhad, M.; Behroyan, I.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Rezakazemi, M.; Shirazian, S. High-performance hybrid modeling chemical reactors using differential evolution based fuzzy inference system. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Radjenović, J.; Matošić, M.; Mijatović, I.; Petrović, M.; Barceló, D. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) as an advanced wastewater treatment technology. In Emerging Contaminants from Industrial and Municipal Waste; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 37–101. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hu, Y.; Cheng, H.; Ji, J.; Li, Y.-Y. A review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment with a focus on multicomponent biogas and membrane fouling control. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 2641–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nakhjiri, A.T.; Roudsari, M.H. Modeling and simulation of natural convection heat transfer process in porous and non-porous media. Appl. Res. J. 2016, 2, 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hansen, S.H.; Nierychlo, M.; Christensen, M.L.; Nielsen, P.H.; Jørgensen, M.K. Fouling of membranes in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: Planktonic bacteria can have a significant contribution. Water Environ. Res. 2021, 93, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ni, L.; Shi, Q.; Wu, M.; Ma, J.; Wang, Y. Fouling behavior and mechanism of hydrophilic modified membrane in anammox membrane bioreactor: Role of gel layer. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 620, 118988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Damayanti, A.; Ujang, Z.; Salim, M. The influenced of PAC, zeolite, and Moringa oleifera as biofouling reducer (BFR) on hybrid membrane bioreactor of palm oil mill effluent (POME). Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 4341–4346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Babanezhad, M.; Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Rezakazemi, M.; Shirazian, S. Developing intelligent algorithm as a machine learning overview over the big data generated by Euler–Euler method to simulate bubble column reactor hydrodynamics. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 20558–20566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wang, Y.-K.; Sheng, G.-P.; Shi, B.-J.; Li, W.-W.; Yu, H.-Q. A novel electrochemical membrane bioreactor as a potential net energy producer for sustainable wastewater treatment. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Vulliet, E.; Cren-Olivé, C. Screening of pharmaceuticals and hormones at the regional scale, in surface and groundwaters intended to human consumption. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2929–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ogawa, N.; Kimura, K.; Watanabe, Y. Membrane fouling in nanofiltration/reverse osmosis membranes coupled with a membrane bioreactor used for municipal wastewater treatment. Desalin. Water Treat. 2010, 18, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Caracciolo, A.B. Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gil, J.L. Micropollutants in wastewater irrigation systems: Impacts and perspectives. Ann. Adv. Chem. 2019, 3, 11–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Goswami, L.; Manikandan, N.A.; Pakshirajan, K.; Pugazhenthi, G. Simultaneous heavy metal removal and anthracene biodegradation by the oleaginous bacteria Rhodococcus opacus. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abdul, K.S.M.; Jayasinghe, S.S.; Chandana, E.P.; Jayasumana, C.; De Silva, P.M.C. Arsenic and human health effects: A review. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2015, 40, 828–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ozturk, M.; Metin, M.; Altay, V.; Bhat, R.A.; Ejaz, M.; Gul, A.; Unal, B.T.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Nibir, L.; Nahar, K. Arsenic and human health: Genotoxicity, epigenomic effects, and cancer signaling. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2021, 200, 988–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ha, E.; Basu, N.; Bose-O’Reilly, S.; Dórea, J.G.; McSorley, E.; Sakamoto, M.; Chan, H.M. Current progress on understanding the impact of mercury on human health. Environ. Res. 2017, 152, 419–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Mergler, D. Ecosystem approaches to mercury and human health: A way toward the future. Ambio 2021, 50, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ward, M.H.; Jones, R.R.; Brender, J.D.; De Kok, T.M.; Weyer, P.J.; Nolan, B.T.; Villanueva, C.M.; Van Breda, S.G. Drinking water nitrate and human health: An updated review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Egbi, C.D.; Anornu, G.K.; Ganyaglo, S.Y.; Appiah-Adjei, E.K.; Li, S.-L.; Dampare, S.B. Nitrate contamination of groundwater in the Lower Volta River Basin of Ghana: Sources and related human health risks. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 191, 110227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Boink, A.; Speijers, G. Health effects of nitrates and nitrites, a review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Problems Associated with Nitrogen Fertilisation of Field Grown Vegetable Crops 563, Potsdam, Germany, 30 August–1 September 1999; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  58. Villanueva, C.M.; Cordier, S.; Font-Ribera, L.; Salas, L.A.; Levallois, P. Overview of disinfection by-products and associated health effects. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Richardson, S.D. Tackling unknown disinfection by-products: Lessons learned. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 2021, 2, 100041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, X.-F.; Mitch, W.A. Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) and Human Health Effects: Multidisciplinary Challenges and Opportunities; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dehghani, M.H.; Zarei, A.; Yousefi, M.; Asghari, F.B.; Haghighat, G.A. Fluoride contamination in groundwater resources in the southern Iran and its related human health risks. Desalin. Water Treat. 2019, 153, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parnell, C.; Whelton, H.; O’mullane, D. Water fluoridation. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2009, 10, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Peckham, S.; Awofeso, N. Water fluoridation: A critical review of the physiological effects of ingested fluoride as a public health intervention. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 293019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Gilden, R.C.; Huffling, K.; Sattler, B. Pesticides and health risks. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2010, 39, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bencko, V.; Foong, F.Y.L. The history of arsenical pesticides and health risks related to the use of Agent Blue. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2017, 24, 312–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fucic, A.; Duca, R.C.; Galea, K.S.; Maric, T.; Garcia, K.; Bloom, M.S.; Andersen, H.R.; Vena, J.E. Reproductive health risks associated with occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Syafrudin, M.; Kristanti, R.A.; Yuniarto, A.; Hadibarata, T.; Rhee, J.; Al-Onazi, W.A.; Algarni, T.S.; Almarri, A.H.; Al-Mohaimeed, A.M. Pesticides in drinking water—A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Patel, M.; Kumar, R.; Kishor, K.; Mlsna, T.; Pittman Jr, C.U.; Mohan, D. Pharmaceuticals of emerging concern in aquatic systems: Chemistry, occurrence, effects, and removal methods. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 3510–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Keerthanan, S.; Jayasinghe, C.; Biswas, J.K.; Vithanage, M. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in the environment: Plant uptake, translocation, bioaccumulation, and human health risks. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 51, 1221–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fallah, Z.; Zare, E.N.; Ghomi, M.; Ahmadijokani, F.; Amini, M.; Tajbakhsh, M.; Arjmand, M.; Sharma, G.; Ali, H.; Ahmad, A. Toxicity and remediation of pharmaceuticals and pesticides using metal oxides and carbon nanomaterials. Chemosphere 2021, 275, 130055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chopra, S.; Kumar, D. Ibuprofen as an emerging organic contaminant in environment, distribution and remediation. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dusaucy, J.; Gateuille, D.; Perrette, Y.; Naffrechoux, E. Microplastic pollution of worldwide lakes. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yang, S.; Zhou, M.; Chen, X.; Hu, L.; Xu, Y.; Fu, W.; Li, C. A comparative review of microplastics in lake systems from different countries and regions. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Carpenter, E.J.; Smith Jr, K. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea surface. Science 1972, 175, 1240–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svendsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Iannilli, V.; Corami, F.; Grasso, P.; Lecce, F.; Buttinelli, M.; Setini, A. Plastic abundance and seasonal variation on the shorelines of three volcanic lakes in Central Italy: Can amphipods help detect contamination? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 14711–14722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sher, F.; Hanif, K.; Rafey, A.; Khalid, U.; Zafar, A.; Ameen, M.; Lima, E.C. Removal of micropollutants from municipal wastewater using different types of activated carbons. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 278, 111302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Acero, J.L.; Benitez, F.J.; Real, F.J.; Teva, F. Micropollutants removal from retentates generated in ultrafiltration and nanofiltration treatments of municipal secondary effluents by means of coagulation, oxidation, and adsorption processes. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 289, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Guillossou, R.; Le Roux, J.; Mailler, R.; Vulliet, E.; Morlay, C.; Nauleau, F.; Gasperi, J.; Rocher, V. Organic micropollutants in a large wastewater treatment plant: What are the benefits of an advanced treatment by activated carbon adsorption in comparison to conventional treatment? Chemosphere 2019, 218, 1050–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Babanezhad, M.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Shirazian, S. Pattern recognition of the fluid flow in a 3D domain by combination of Lattice Boltzmann and ANFIS methods. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ma, J.; Dai, R.; Chen, M.; Khan, S.J.; Wang, Z. Applications of membrane bioreactors for water reclamation: Micropollutant removal, mechanisms and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 269, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Marjani, A.; Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Adimi, M.; Fathinejad Jirandehi, H.; Shirazian, S. Modification of polyethersulfone membrane using MWCNT-NH2 nanoparticles and its application in the separation of azeotropic solutions by means of pervaporation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ashraf, A.; Ramamurthy, R. Progress in the removal of organic microcontaminants from wastewater using high retention membrane bioreactors: A critical review. Environ. Res. 2021, 110930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Liu, R.; Li, S.; Tu, Y.; Hao, X. Capabilities and mechanisms of microalgae on removing micropollutants from wastewater: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 285, 112149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lei, Y.; Langenhoff, A.; Bruning, H.; Rijnaarts, H. Sorption of micropollutants on selected constructed wetland support matrices. Chemosphere 2021, 275, 130050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hartl, M.; García-Galán, M.J.; Matamoros, V.; Fernández-Gatell, M.; Rousseau, D.P.; Du Laing, G.; Garfí, M.; Puigagut, J. Constructed wetlands operated as bioelectrochemical systems for the removal of organic micropollutants. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Katsigiannis, A.; Noutsopoulos, C.; Mantziaras, J.; Gioldasi, M. Removal of emerging pollutants through granular activated carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 280, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Delgado, N.; Capparelli, A.; Navarro, A.; Marino, D. Pharmaceutical emerging pollutants removal from water using powdered activated carbon: Study of kinetics and adsorption equilibrium. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vyrides, I.; Conteras, P.; Stuckey, D. Post-treatment of a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) saline effluent using powdered activated carbon (PAC). J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 836–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Babanezhad, M.; Masoumian, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Shirazian, S. Influence of number of membership functions on prediction of membrane systems using adaptive network based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Available online: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/446192/What-is-activated-carbon-or-activated-charcoal (accessed on 23 May 2021).
  93. Das, S.; Ray, N.M.; Wan, J.; Khan, A.; Chakraborty, T.; Ray, M.B. Micropollutants in wastewater: Fate and removal processes. Phys. -Chem. Wastewater Treat. Resour. Recovery 2017, 3, 75–117. [Google Scholar]
  94. López-Vinent, N.; Cruz-Alcalde, A.; Ganiyu, S.O.; Sable, S.; Messele, S.A.; Lillico, D.; Stafford, J.; Sans, C.; Giménez, J.; Esplugas, S. Coagulation-flocculation followed by catalytic ozonation processes for enhanced primary treatment during wet weather conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 283, 111975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Huang, X.; Wan, Y.; Shi, B.; Shi, J. Effects of powdered activated carbon on the coagulation-flocculation process in humic acid and humic acid-kaolin water treatment. Chemosphere 2020, 238, 124637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Farooq, R.; Ahmad, Z. Physico-Chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery; BoD–Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  97. Babanezhad, M.; Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Rezakazemi, M.; Marjani, A.; Shirazian, S. Functional input and membership characteristics in the accuracy of machine learning approach for estimation of multiphase flow. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. He, J.; Yang, P.; Zhang, W.; Cao, B.; Xia, H.; Luo, X.; Wang, D. Characterization of changes in floc morphology, extracellular polymeric substances and heavy metals speciation of anaerobically digested biosolid under treatment with a novel chelated-Fe2+ catalyzed Fenton process. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 243, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Ahmed, M.B.; Zhou, J.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Xu, J. Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant removal from wastewater: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 323, 274–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Suarez, S.; Lema, J.M.; Omil, F. Pre-treatment of hospital wastewater by coagulation–flocculation and flotation. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2138–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Asakura, H.; Matsuto, T. Experimental study of behavior of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in leachate treatment process and evaluation of removal efficiency. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1852–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Thuy, P.T.; Moons, K.; Van Dijk, J.; Viet Anh, N.; Van der Bruggen, B. To what extent are pesticides removed from surface water during coagulation–flocculation? Water Environ. J. 2008, 22, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Westerhoff, P.; Yoon, Y.; Snyder, S.; Wert, E. Fate of endocrine-disruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 6649–6663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vieno, N.M.; Tuhkanen, T.; Kronberg, L. Seasonal variation in the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in effluents from a sewage treatment plant and in the recipient water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 8220–8226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rodríguez-Chueca, J.; Laski, E.; García-Cañibano, C.; De Vidales, M.M.; Encinas, Á.; Kuch, B.; Marugán, J. Micropollutants removal by full-scale UV-C/sulfate radical based advanced oxidation processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 1216–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Neta, P.; Huie, R.E.; Ross, A.B. Rate constants for reactions of inorganic radicals in aqueous solution. JPCRD 1988, 17, 1027–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Babuponnusami, A.; Muthukumar, K. A review on Fenton and improvements to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 557–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Chen, J.; Liu, Y.-S.; Deng, W.-J.; Ying, G.-G. Removal of steroid hormones and biocides from rural wastewater by an integrated constructed wetland. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Vivant, A.-L.; Boutin, C.; Prost-Boucle, S.; Papias, S.; Hartmann, A.; Depret, G.; Ziebal, C.; Le Roux, S.; Pourcher, A.-M. Free water surface constructed wetlands limit the dissemination of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli in the natural environment. Water Res. 2016, 104, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Wu, S.; Carvalho, P.N.; Müller, J.A.; Manoj, V.R.; Dong, R. Sanitation in constructed wetlands: A review on the removal of human pathogens and fecal indicators. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 541, 8–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Li, Y.-D.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L.; Yao, L.; Pan, X.-M.; Lee, D.-J. Pollution tolerant protozoa in polluted wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 240, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chen, Y.; Wen, Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, L.; Cai, Y.; Zhou, Q. Removal processes of disinfection byproducts in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands treating secondary effluent. Water Res. 2014, 51, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wu, H.; Lin, L.; Zhang, J.; Guo, W.; Liang, S.; Liu, H. Purification ability and carbon dioxide flux from surface flow constructed wetlands treating sewage treatment plant effluent. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 768–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Babanezhad, M.; Behroyan, I.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Shirazian, S. Computational modeling of transport in porous media using an adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 30826–30835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gruchlik, Y.; Linge, K.; Joll, C. Removal of organic micropollutants in waste stabilisation ponds: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ramakrishnan, A.; Surampalli, R.Y. Performance of anaerobic hybrid reactors for the treatment of complex phenolic wastewaters with biogas recirculation. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kondor, A.C.; Jakab, G.; Vancsik, A.; Filep, T.; Szeberényi, J.; Szabó, L.; Maász, G.; Ferincz, Á.; Dobosy, P.; Szalai, Z. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the Danube and drinking water wells: Efficiency of riverbank filtration. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Van Driezum, I.H.; Derx, J.; Oudega, T.J.; Zessner, M.; Naus, F.L.; Saracevic, E.; Kirschner, A.K.; Sommer, R.; Farnleitner, A.H.; Blaschke, A.P. Spatiotemporal resolved sampling for the interpretation of micropollutant removal during riverbank filtration. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Alobaidi, R.A.K.; Ulucan-Altuntas, K.; Mhemid, R.K.S.; Manav-Demir, N.; Cinar, O. Biodegradation of Emerging Pharmaceuticals from Domestic Wastewater by Membrane Bioreactor: The Effect of Solid Retention Time. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Marszałek, A.; Bohdziewicz, J.; Puszczało, E. Co-treatment of municipal landfill leachate with dairy wastewater in membrane bioreactor. Ecol. Chem. Eng. 2020, 27, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Corpuz, M.V.A.; Borea, L.; Senatore, V.; Castrogiovanni, F.; Buonerba, A.; Oliva, G.; Ballesteros Jr, F.; Zarra, T.; Belgiorno, V.; Choo, K.-H. Wastewater treatment and fouling control in an electro algae-activated sludge membrane bioreactor. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Taheran, M.; Brar, S.K.; Verma, M.; Surampalli, R.Y.; Zhang, T.C.; Valéro, J.R. Membrane processes for removal of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) from water and wastewaters. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 60–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Radjenovic, J.; Petrović, M.; Barceló, D. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. Water Res. 2009, 43, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Tadkaew, N.; Hai, F.I.; McDonald, J.A.; Khan, S.J.; Nghiem, L.D. Removal of trace organics by MBR treatment: The role of molecular properties. Water Res. 2011, 45, 2439–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Tadkaew, N.; Sivakumar, M.; Khan, S.J.; McDonald, J.; Nghiem, L.D. Effect of mixed liquor pH on the removal of trace organic contaminants in a membrane bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1494–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Quintana, J.B.; Weiss, S.; Reemtsma, T. Pathways and metabolites of microbial degradation of selected acidic pharmaceutical and their occurrence in municipal wastewater treated by a membrane bioreactor. Water Res. 2005, 39, 2654–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hassanzadeganroudsari, M.; Soltani, M.; Heydarinasab, A.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Hossain, M.K.; Khiyavi, A.A. Mathematical modeling and simulation of molecular mass transfer across blood brain barrier in brain capillary. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 310, 113254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bernhard, M.; Müller, J.; Knepper, T.P. Biodegradation of persistent polar pollutants in wastewater: Comparison of an optimised lab-scale membrane bioreactor and activated sludge treatment. Water Res. 2006, 40, 3419–3428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Lee, J.; Lee, B.C.; Ra, J.S.; Cho, J.; Kim, I.S.; Chang, N.I.; Kim, H.K.; Kim, S.D. Comparison of the removal efficiency of endocrine disrupting compounds in pilot scale sewage treatment processes. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 1582–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Cases, V.; Alonso, V.; Argandoña, V.; Rodriguez, M.; Prats, D. Endocrine disrupting compounds: A comparison of removal between conventional activated sludge and membrane bioreactors. Desalination 2011, 272, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kumar, A.; Namdeo, M.; Mehta, R.; Agrawala, V. Effect of arsenic contamination in potable water and its removal techniques. Int. J. Water Wastewater Treat 2015, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Prakash, N.; Sockan, V.; Jayakaran, P. Waste water treatment by coagulation and flocculation. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Innov. Technol. 2014, 3, 479–484. [Google Scholar]
  133. Lapointe, M.; Farner, J.M.; Hernandez, L.M.; Tufenkji, N. Understanding and improving microplastic removal during water treatment: Impact of coagulation and flocculation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 8719–8727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Taghvaie Nakhjiri, A.; Sanaeepur, H.; Ebadi Amooghin, A.; Shirazi, M.M.A. Recovery of precious metals from industrial wastewater towards resource recovery and environmental sustainability: A critical review. Desalination 2022, 527, 115510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sadegh, H.; Ali, G.A. Potential applications of nanomaterials in wastewater treatment: Nanoadsorbents performance. In Research Anthology on Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications of Nanomaterials; IGI Global: Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, 2021; pp. 1230–1240. [Google Scholar]
  136. Cao, Y.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Ghadiri, M. Numerical investigation of ibuprofen removal from pharmaceutical wastewater using adsorption process. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 24478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Da’na, E. Amine-Modified SBA-15 (Prepared by Co-Condensation) for Adsorption of Copper from Aqueous Solutions; University of Ottawa: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  138. Lofrano, G.; Meric, S. A comprehensive approach to winery wastewater treatment: A review of the state-of the-art. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 3011–3028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Barrera-Díaz, C.; Canizares, P.; Fernández, F.; Natividad, R.; Rodrigo, M.A. Electrochemical advanced oxidation processes: An overview of the current applications to actual industrial effluents. J. Mex. Chem. Soc. 2014, 58, 256–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Petre, C.F.; Piché, S.; Normandin, A.; Larachi, F. Advances in chemical oxidation of total reduced sulfur from kraft mills atmospheric effluents. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2007, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Dordio, A.; Carvalho, A.J.P.; Pinto, A.P.H. Wetlands: Water “living filters”? In Wetlands: Ecology, Conservation and Restoration; Russo, R.E., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 15–71. [Google Scholar]
  142. Almasi, A.; Dargahi, A.; Ahagh, M.; Janjani, H.; Mohammadi, M.; Tabandeh, L. Efficiency of a constructed wetland in controlling organic pollutants, nitrogen, and heavy metals from sewage. J. Chem. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 9, 2924–2928. [Google Scholar]
  143. Gizińska-Górna, M.; Czekała, W.; Jóźwiakowski, K.; Lewicki, A.; Dach, J.; Marzec, M.; Pytka, A.; Janczak, D.; Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Listosz, A. The possibility of using plants from hybrid constructed wetland wastewater treatment plant for energy purposes. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 534–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ahmed, M.; Arora, M. Suitability of Grey Water Recycling as decentralized alternative water supply option for Integrated Urban Water Management. IOSR J. Eng. 2012, 2, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Tassew, F.A.; Bergland, W.H.; Dinamarca, C.; Kommedal, R.; Bakke, R. Granular sludge bed processes in anaerobic digestion of particle-rich substrates. Energies 2019, 12, 2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Mahmoud, M.; Tawfik, A.; Samhan, F.; El-Gohary, F. Sewage treatment using an integrated system consisting of anaerobic hybrid reactor (AHR) and downflow hanging sponge (DHS). Desalin. Water Treat. 2009, 4, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Zhang, J.; Peng, Y.; Li, X.; Du, R. Feasibility of partial-denitrification/anammox for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment in a hybrid biofilm reactor. Water Res. 2022, 208, 117856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Babanezhad, M.; Behroyan, I.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Marjani, A.; Shirazian, S. Performance and application analysis of ANFIS artificial intelligence for pressure prediction of nanofluid convective flow in a heated pipe. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Guo, W.; Ngo, H.-H.; Li, J. A mini-review on membrane fouling. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 122, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Qiu, H.; Feng, K.; Gapeeva, A.; Meurisch, K.; Kaps, S.; Li, X.; Yu, L.; Mishra, Y.K.; Adelung, R.; Baum, M. Functional Polymer Materials for Modern Marine Biofouling Control. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2022, 127, 101516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bixler, G.D.; Bhushan, B. Biofouling: Lessons from nature. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2012, 370, 2381–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Meng, F.; Zhang, S.; Oh, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Shin, H.-S.; Chae, S.-R. Fouling in membrane bioreactors: An updated review. Water Res. 2017, 114, 151–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Chang, I.-S.; Le Clech, P.; Jefferson, B.; Judd, S. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Eng. 2002, 128, 1018–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Burman, I.; Sinha, A. A review on membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors: Control and mitigation. In Environmental Contaminants; Gupta, T., Agarwal, A.K., Agarwal, R.A., Labhesetwar, N.K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 281–315. [Google Scholar]
  155. Wang, Z.; Ma, J.; Tang, C.Y.; Kimura, K.; Wang, Q.; Han, X. Membrane cleaning in membrane bioreactors: A review. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 468, 276–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tijing, L.D.; Woo, Y.C.; Choi, J.-S.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.-H.; Shon, H.K. Fouling and its control in membrane distillation—A review. J. Membr. Sci. 2015, 475, 215–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Ennaceri, H.; Fischer, K.; Schulze, A.; Moheimani, N.R. Membrane fouling control for sustainable microalgal biodiesel production: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ruigómez, I.; González, E.; Rodríguez-Gómez, L.; Vera, L. Fouling control strategies for direct membrane ultrafiltration: Physical cleanings assisted by membrane rotational movement. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 436, 135161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Beyer, M.; Lohrengel, B.; Nghiem, L.D. Membrane fouling and chemical cleaning in water recycling applications. Desalination 2010, 250, 977–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Yigit, N.; Uzal, N.; Koseoglu, H.; Harman, I.; Yukseler, H.; Yetis, U.; Civelekoglu, G.; Kitis, M. Treatment of a denim producing textile industry wastewater using pilot-scale membrane bioreactor. Desalination 2009, 240, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Lina, C.; Xiuhua, L.; Zhijian, M.; Zhang, Z. Startup and operation of anaerobic EGSB reactor treating palm oil mill effluent. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Katayon, S.; Noor, M.M.M.; Ahmad, J.; Ghani, L.A.; Nagaoka, H.; Aya, H. Effects of mixed liquor suspended solid concentrations on membrane bioreactor efficiency for treatment of food industry wastewater. Desalination 2004, 167, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Yuniarto, A.; Ujang, Z.; Noor, Z.Z. Performance of bio-fouling reducers in aerobic submerged membrane bioreactor for palm oil mill effluent treatment. Desalination 2008, 316, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Arhin, S.G.; Banadda, N.; Komakech, A.J.; Kabenge, I.; Wanyama, J. Membrane fouling control in low pressure membranes: A review on pretreatment techniques for fouling abatement. Environ. Eng. Res. 2016, 21, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Membranes 12 00429 g001 550
Figure 1. Principal sources of micro-contaminants in aquatic environments.
Figure 1. Principal sources of micro-contaminants in aquatic environments.
Membranes 12 00429 g001
Membranes 12 00429 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of micro-contaminant removal using an extractive membrane bioreactor (EMBR). Reprinted from Ref. [25], Copyright (2020), with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of micro-contaminant removal using an extractive membrane bioreactor (EMBR). Reprinted from Ref. [25], Copyright (2020), with permission from Elsevier.
Membranes 12 00429 g002
Membranes 12 00429 g003 550
Figure 3. Representation of (a) granular, (b) pelletized and (c) powdered types of activated carbons. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [92].
Figure 3. Representation of (a) granular, (b) pelletized and (c) powdered types of activated carbons. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [92].
Membranes 12 00429 g003
Membranes 12 00429 g004 550
Figure 4. Schematic depiction of an anaerobic HRS. Reprinted from Ref. [116], Copyright (2013), with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 4. Schematic depiction of an anaerobic HRS. Reprinted from Ref. [116], Copyright (2013), with permission from Elsevier.
Membranes 12 00429 g004
Table
Table 1. Detailed information of the most common micro-contaminants in wastewater/surface water sources. Data were provided from the references [6,9,38,39].
Table 1. Detailed information of the most common micro-contaminants in wastewater/surface water sources. Data were provided from the references [6,9,38,39].
ClassificationMicro-ContaminantAverage Concentration in Surface Water (ng L−1)Average Concentration in Wastewater (ng L−1)
PesticidesCarbaryl---1.6
Dimethoate22---
Diethyltoluamide (DEET)135593
Diazinon15173
Hormone active
substances		Estradiol23
Estrone215
Nonylphenol441267
Pharmaceuticals (NSAID, over the counter (OTC) drugs and veterinary drugsDiclofenac65647
Erythromycin2542
Ethinylestradiol52
Ibuprofen35394
Mefenamic acids7870
Metformin713 10,347
Naproxen37462
Penicillin V---28.7
Codeine---70.6
Citalopram---33.8
Azithromycin12175
Atenolol205843
Detergents and personal care/food productsGadolinium---115
Buprenorphine---3.9
Maprotiline---0.4
Duloxetine---0.1
Chlorpromazine---0.1
Acesulfame401022,500
Sucralose5404600
Table
Table 2. The potential detriments of micro-contaminants on the environment.
Table 2. The potential detriments of micro-contaminants on the environment.
Micro-Contaminant Health DetrimentsRef.
Arsenic
  • Toxicity for nervous system
  • Muscular cramps
  • Hepatic failure
  • Deficiency of immune system
[51,52]
Mercury
  • Emotional changes (i.e., irritability)
  • Insomnia
  • Stomach/kidney failure
  • Respiratory toxicity
[53,54]
Nitrate
  • Methemoglobinemia
  • Brain damage
  • Thyroid disease
  • Neural tube defects
[55,56,57]
Disinfection by-products
  • Increased risk of bladder cancer
  • Respiratory ailments
[58,59,60]
Fluoride
  • Skeletal fluorosis
  • Joint stiffness
[61,62,63]
Pesticides
  • Stinging eyes
  • Rashes
  • Blisters
  • Nausea
  • Dizziness
[64,65,66,67]
Pharmaceutical drugs
  • Increased risk of various cancers
[68,69,70,71]
Table
Table 3. Comprehensive data about the removal process of disparate micro-contaminants from various types of water/wastewater sources applying the G-F technique.
Table 3. Comprehensive data about the removal process of disparate micro-contaminants from various types of water/wastewater sources applying the G-F technique.
Coagulant/FlocculentMicro-ContaminantSourceRemoval (%)Ref.
Ferric chloride/Aluminium sulfateIbuprofenHospital wastewater 12   ±   4.8[100]
Diclofenac 21.6   ±   19.4
Naproxen 31.8   ±   10.2
Carbamazepine 6.3   ±   15.9
Sulfamethoxazole 6   ±   9.5
Tonalide 83.4   ±   14.3
Galaxolide 79.2   ±   9.9
Ferric chlorideBisphenol ALandfill leachate20[101]
Nonylphenol90
Aluminium sulfateAldrinSurface water46[102]
Bentazon15
Aluminium sulfateEstradiolDrinking water treatment pant2[103]
Estrone5
Progesterone6
Fluoxetine15
Hydrocodone24
Chlordane25
Erythromycin33
DDT36
Ferric sulfateDiclofenacLake water with dissolved humic acid77[104]
Ibuprofen50
Bezafibrate36
CarbamazepineLess than 10
SulfamethoxazoleLess than 10
Table
Table 4. The removal performance of various pharmaceutical micro-contaminants from aquatic environments using the MBR system [123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130].
Table 4. The removal performance of various pharmaceutical micro-contaminants from aquatic environments using the MBR system [123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130].
ClassificationMicro–ContaminantRemoval Efficiency (%)
Non–steroidal anti–inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)Ibuprofen73–99.8
Ketoprofen 3.7–91.9
Naproxen 40.1–99.3
Diclofenac 15–87.4
Anti–epileptics/anti–depressantAcetaminophen 95.1–99.9
Carbamazepine 42–51
Diazepam 67
Hormones and EDCsEstrone 76.9–99.4
17β–estradiol Higher than 99.4
17α–Ethinylestradiol 0–93.5
Bisphenol A88.2–97
AntibioticsSulfamethoxazole 20–91.9
Erythromycin 25.2–90.4
Beta blockersAtenolol 5–96.9
Metoprolol 29.5–58.7
Lipid regulator/cholesterol lowering drugsBezafibrate 88.2–95.8
Clofibric acid 25–71
Gemfibrozil 32.5–85
Table
Table 5. Advantages/disadvantages of commonly applied techniques for micro-contaminant removal.
Table 5. Advantages/disadvantages of commonly applied techniques for micro-contaminant removal.
Micro-Contaminants
Removal Approach 		Positive PointsDrawbacksRef.
Coagulation/flocculation
  • Simplicity of chemicals manufacturing
  • Low cost
  • Decrement in the overall detention time
  • Toxic sludge disposal
  • The need for skilled operators
[131,132,133,134]
ACA
  • Simplicity of operation
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Application in extensive range of pH
  • Good efficiency
  • Expensive regeneration
  • Lack of regeneration
[135,136,137]
AOP
  • Fast reaction rate
  • No sludge production
  • High capital and operating costs
  • Complex chemistry tailored to specific pollutants
[138,139,140]
CW
  • Low cost
  • Simplicity of operation
  • Efficacious separation of organic components/heavy metals
  • Limited income potential
  • The need for big surface area of land
  • Risk of ecological exposure
[141,142,143,144]
HRS
  • High surface area
  • Cheap operation/maintenance
  • Efficacious for handling variable wastewater loading
  • Hard to scale-up
  • High cost
[145,146,147]
MBRs
  • Better control of hydrolysates molecular weight
  • Excellent adsorption capacity
  • Great sludge biodegradation
  • Enzymes’ leakage/deactivation
  • Fouling
  • Concentration polarization
[121,122,140]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, M.-L.; Nakhjiri, A.T.; Kamal, M.; Mohamed, A.; Algarni, M.; Yu, S.T.; Wang, F.-M.; Su, C.-H. State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Membrane Bioreactors for Molecular Micro-Contaminant Removal from Aquatic Environment. Membranes 2022, 12, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12040429

AMA Style

Nguyen M-L, Nakhjiri AT, Kamal M, Mohamed A, Algarni M, Yu ST, Wang F-M, Su C-H. State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Membrane Bioreactors for Molecular Micro-Contaminant Removal from Aquatic Environment. Membranes. 2022; 12(4):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12040429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, My-Linh, Ali Taghvaie Nakhjiri, Mehnaz Kamal, Abdullah Mohamed, Mohammed Algarni, Subbotina Tatyana Yu, Fu-Ming Wang, and Chia-Hung Su. 2022. "State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Membrane Bioreactors for Molecular Micro-Contaminant Removal from Aquatic Environment" Membranes 12, no. 4: 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12040429

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop