Next Article in Journal
A Degradable Difunctional Initiator for ATRP That Responds to Hydrogen Peroxide
Next Article in Special Issue
Functionalization of PEG-AgNPs Hybrid Material to Alleviate Biofouling Tendency of Polyethersulfone Membrane
Previous Article in Journal
Large-Scale Robot-Based Polymer and Composite Additive Manufacturing: Failure Modes and Thermal Simulation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/polym14091732
polymers-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

Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane for Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review

by
Sivasubramani Divya
* and
Tae Hwan Oh
*
School of Chemical Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 712-749, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2022, 14(9), 1732; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091732
Submission received: 11 April 2022 / Accepted: 21 April 2022 / Published: 24 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Polymeric Blend/Composites and Functional Membranes)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With regard to global concerns, such as water scarcity and aquatic pollution from industries and domestic activities, membrane-based filtration for wastewater treatment has shown promising results in terms of water purification. Filtration by polymeric membranes is highly efficient in separating contaminants; however, such membranes have limited applications. Nanocomposite membranes, which are formed by adding nanofillers to polymeric membrane matrices, can enhance the filtration process. Considerable attention has been given to nanofillers, which include carbon-based nanoparticles and metal/metal oxide nanoparticles. In this review, we first examined the current status of membrane technologies for water filtration, polymeric nanocomposite membranes, and their applications. Additionally, we highlight the challenges faced in water treatment in developing countries.

1. Introduction

Water is the most precious resource for living organisms on Earth. In recent years, water contamination has become a global environmental concern. The primary reason is that population growth, industrialization, and climate change affect drinking water resources, such as rivers and lakes [1,2,3,4]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), unsafe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene are responsible for 10 million deaths annually, mainly caused by infectious diarrhea [5]. To address this challenge, it is important to reclaim water resources using wastewater treatment and water separation technologies. In this context, several methods have been developed to serve different wastewater technologies, such as conventional filtration, coagulation-flocculation, and biological treatment [6].
Membrane technology holds great potential for wastewater treatment because of its small size, low energy consumption, and low initial cost. A membrane is a barrier that selectively allows desired materials to pass through, with undesired materials retained on the membrane surface [6], such as polymeric and inorganic membranes. Metal- or ceramic-based inorganic membranes provide high structural, mechanical, and thermal resistance. Although they are highly selective, their low permeability makes them unsuitable for a variety of applications. Contrarily, polymer membranes present good flexibility, chemical stability, mechanical strength, easy fabrication, and are inexpensive materials. The chemical species were selectively transferred. Materials used for the fabrication of polymeric membranes include polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyether sulfone (PES), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyamide (PI), polyethylene (PE), polyamide (PA), and chitosan [7,8,9].
Several studies have investigated wastewater treatment using polymer membrane technology. Nasreen et al., 2013 [10], studied PVDF and hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) membranes with improved flux and antifouling properties for micro water filtration. Li et al. [11] designed PVA and polypropylene (PP) electrospun membranes for microfiltration. The electrospun membrane exhibited a permeate flux of 32,346 L/m2 h and a pressure of 0.24 bar. Elele et al. (2019) [12] observed microfiltration membranes of PES and PVDF and tested the mechanical properties of stress, strain, amplitude oscillation, and bubble point pressure. Ong et al., 2021 [13], discussed a polycarbonate membrane with enhanced solvent resistance for microfiltration applications. Yan et al. [14] studied the use of PVDF for ultrafiltration membranes and achieved improved surface roughness, permeability, and antifouling properties. Orooji et al. [15] investigated tetraphenylethylene with polyether sulfone for wastewater purification via ultrafiltration. The superior luminescence properties of composite membranes make them an ideal choice for non-destructive and biofouling monitoring. Johari et al. [16] studied PES blended with an iron-based metal-organic framework for ultrafiltration membranes, which was suitable for industrial wastewater treatment; this hybrid membrane showed remarkable rejection and high permeation flux above 98.5% and 165.68 L/m2 h. Li et al. [17] examined nanofiltration membranes for fouling and chemical cleaning using water quality control. Zhang et al. [18] studied polyamide membrane for nanofiltration applications. A maximum selectivity of 246 for sodium sulfate with sodium chloride, and 51 for magnesium chloride with sodium chloride, indicated its excellent ability for solute-solute separation. Tang et al. [19] investigated the removal of toxic substances from wastewater mixed with perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) using reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) processes. The removal efficiency of RO membranes was above 99% and that of nanofiltration was up to 99%. Tain et al. [20] studied the treatment of brackish groundwater using a mixture of RO and reverse osmosis technologies. Their results addressed flux, salt rejection, and energy consumption. Elazhar et al., 2021 [21], removed and reduced the chloride and fouling rejection rates through the NF-RO system.
Overall, this review article discusses a comprehensive collection of polymer nanocomposite membranes and their application in wastewater treatment. Moreover, our review also focuses on water treatment in different countries.

2. Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane

Blend- and film-based nanocomposites are two types of polymer nanocomposite membranes. Nanoparticles-encapsulated membranes or nanoparticles-mixed membranes are terms used to refer to nanocomposite membranes. Nanoparticles and polymers are dispersed in casting solutions in blended nanocomposite membranes, and their applications are listed in Table 1. Behboudi et al. [22] prepared a blend membrane of PVC with PC using a non-solvent-induced phase separation method. The pore radii of the blended membranes ranged from 2 to 4 nm. The wettability test of the blend membranes confirmed the hydrophilic nature of the membranes, and the water flux of the 70 wt.% PC membrane was 1260 kg/m2 h (Figure 1). In addition, abrasion and stability tests confirmed the stability and elongation of the blend membranes. Furthermore, the antifouling properties of the membranes were obtained using fouling parameters, such as the total fouling ratio, reversible fouling ratio, irreversible fouling ratio, and flux recovery [23]. Chen et al. [24] studied biocomposite polymers made with rice husk fiber by melt extrusion or compression molding, which was also treated with gamma radiation (25–150 kGy). The effect of gamma radiation changed the tensile properties at different weight loadings. After irradiation, an increase in the modulus and a decrease in the elongation at the break of the composite membrane were observed (Figure 2).
In recent years, polymer thin-film nanocomposite membranes have attracted attention for water purification because of their hydrophilicity, thermal stability, selectivity, permeability, and thermal resistance. Generally, nanofillers-based thin-film composite membranes are metal-, metal oxide-, and carbon-based materials, and their applications are listed in Table 2. Zhao et al. [35] synthesized a zeolitic imidazole framework-8 (ZIF-8) incorporated in a polymer nanocomposite membrane for the desalination of brackish and seawater. In terms of water permeation, imperfections in the ZIF-8 could prevent water molecules from transporting resistance while they pass through the nanoparticles (pictorial representation in Figure 3a). The separation performance with respect to the time is shown in Figure 3b. The water flux value of the composite membrane is higher than that of the pure thin-film composite membrane (TFN). Therefore, TFN membranes containing dZIF-8 can be used for long-term RO desalination without significantly degrading their performance. Liu et al. [36] substituted Zr into a polyamide membrane for water desalination applications. Ramokgopa et al. [37] investigated the permeate flux and rejection ratio of carbon nanotubes in polymer nanocomposite films, which aid the removal of heavy metal ions during acid drainage.
Rafiei et al. [38] studied the mechanical, thermal, and fouling properties of PVDF nanocomposite films via polymerization reactions. The figure shows that the addition of metal oxide to PVDF increases the flux rate and improves the surface roughness and thermal stability [39,40]. Lim et al. [41] studied the application of polyethylene terephthalate nanocomposite films in the food industry and discussed the structural, water vapor permeability, and oxygen permeability of the films. The results showed that the addition of montmorillonite improved the barrier properties of the film (Figure 4). Therefore, PET nanocomposite films can potentially be used in food packaging with good gas barrier abilities for oxygen-sensitive foods [42,43,44].

3. Application of Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane

Application for wastewater management is classified into two types: (1) qualitative data and (2) quantitative data, such as flow diagrams, water consumption, water contaminants, and effective solutions for wastewater treatment. This section reviews water usage in industries and proposes water-consumable management, sustainable production, and environmental protection. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the application of the water treatment.

3.1. Automotive Industry

With the development of modern science and technology, the automobile industry has become an important sector that enhances productivity and high-quality vehicles to fulfill people’s requirements. However, hazardous compounds are produced during the manufacturing process, which has detrimental effects on the environment and human health. Additionally, this sector consumes a large amount of water (nearly 182,000 L) [57,59,60]. The automobile manufacturing process is a complex process, as shown in Figure 6. High-quality water is needed for all stages in the manufacturing process as it is used to mix chemicals and cleaners, and must fulfill the manufacturer’s specifications to ensure that the product quality does not suffer. The following stages of the automotive manufacturing process consume the most water, as listed in Table 3.
The recycling of water has been working in some countries; for example, Belgium consumes 0.3% of the several million liters used widely in the carwash industry; Germany and Austria utilize 80% of the water produced by the recycling process, and European countries consume an average of 70 L per car [61]. Researchers have focused on water consumption and wastewater management in the automobile industry using physical, chemical, and biological methods, such as filtration, coagulation, flocculation, ozonation, and aerobic and anaerobic processes. Table 4 summarizes the methods and removal efficiency in the automobile industry.

3.2. Food Industry

The meat processing industry is one of the largest industries with an annual production of 690 million chickens in the commercial boiler sector [68]. The global production of chicken and sheep meat is expected to expand in lockstep with animal numbers, although the output of pig meat, beef, veal, and milk will grow at a faster rate than the animal population. In particular, poultry output in China and Latin America is expected to reach nearly 40% of worldwide poultry meat expansion. In Europe, the rate of increase in poultry meat production per animal has decreased in recent years, and production is likely to remain stable in the following years. By 2028, beef and veal production is predicted to increase by 9 MT. Latin America and the United States, the world’s two largest producing regions, will account for more than half of the worldwide increase of such outputs [69]. The meat industry uses a large quantity of water for cleaning and processing purposes, and a schematic representation of meat processing is shown in Figure 7. In the meat industry, the lairage, slaughter, and bleeding sections, as well as the dressing area, paunch handling area, rendering unit, and processing and cleaning sections collectively produce waste. In slaughterhouse plants, water consumption reaches 2.5–40 MT of meat produced. A large percentage of the consumed water is discharged as wastewater that is severely polluted with chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total phosphorous (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and total organic carbon (TOC) [70]. Table 5 shows wastewater treatment in the meat production industry. There are numerous methods to preserve water during the meat manufacturing process, including: (1) physicochemical treatment, such as dissolved air flotation, coagulation, flocculation, and electrocoagulation, which are efficient in removing total suspended solids (TSS); (2) for slaughter wastewater treatment, membrane technology is another method used for slaughter wastewater treatment; RO, NF, UF, and MF processes remove particles, colloids, and macromolecules depending on the membrane pore size; and finally, (3) biological treatment and aerobic and anerobic methods for the removal of soluble organic compounds.

3.3. Beverage Industry

In the twentieth century, a major revolution was observed in brewery industries due to increased consumer demand. The beverage industry is divided into two categories: (1) alcoholic (wine and beer) and (2) non-alcoholic (fruit juices, tea, coffee, carbonated soft drinks, and bottled water). Both types of beverages are widely consumed worldwide. America dominates the world’s soft drink market with the next leading countries being China, Mexico, Asia, Mexico, and Brazil [78,79]. A large amount of water is used in beverage industries for rinsing, soaking, cleaning, and washing, and nearly half of the wastewater is discharged [80]. Hence, this has led to the depletion of natural water resources.
Tea is one of the most consumed beverages in the world. Turkey, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Morocco are the world’s largest tea drinkers, each consuming over 10 kg of tea per capita annually [81]. Tea manufacturing processes vary depending on the type of tea being produced, such as green, yellow, oolong, black, and dark tea. A schematic representation of the six types of tea production is shown in Figure 8. The water pollutants from tea factories include turbidity, COD, BOD, TSS, TOC, and pH. Table 6 summarizes recent research work focused on wastewater treatment.

3.4. Pharmaceutical Industry

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), medical waste is generated from hospitals, research, and laboratory centers. Such wastes include drugs, paper wipes, gloves, masks, syringes, needles, bandages, and dressing cloths (Figure 9). Inadequate disposal of infectious hospital waste and wastewater can endanger public health and the environment [91,92]. The rapidly growing population is the primary factor driving the increasing usage of medical products in the developed world, and higher usage is causing a corresponding increase in medical waste production. America alone produces nearly 3.5 million tons of medical waste per year [93,94,95]. Pharmaceutical wastewater contains BOD, COD, organic contaminants, nitrogen, and suspended solids. In the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, water is an important requirement for container sterilization, medical devices, and injections. Wastewater is generated by different pharmaceutical units, including manufacturing, extraction, processing, purification, and packaging. However, pharmaceutical waste is not the only contaminant in the environment. Aquatic and terrestrial species are also exposed to pesticides, biocides, and waste from chemicals industries [96]. Table 7 lists the pharmaceutical wastewater treatments reported in the literature.

3.5. Wastewater Treatment

Contamination of water bodies occurs due to waste from industrial sectors, such as organic pollutants (food, dyes, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, and pharmaceuticals), inorganic pollutants (heavy metal ions and rare earth elements), and other pollutants (oil, spill, grease, radioactive waste, etc.) [106,107,108]. As shown in Figure 10, different technologies are used to remove contaminants present in wastewater. These techniques are efficient for removing effluent from wastewater, while membrane-based techniques separate the floating and dispersed solids, exhibiting high efficiency and low energy requirements [109,110]. Membrane bioreactors are sustainable water and wastewater treatment technologies that unite biological reactors with filtration to overcome the disadvantages of traditional membrane systems. However, membrane fouling is the major limitation that prevents them from being used on a larger basis in the application of bioreactors [111]. Antifouling or self-cleaning or novel materials are one of the most common techniques for dealing with membrane fouling. Recent studies on polymer nanocomposite membranes have focused on enhancing their antifouling properties. Shahkaramipour studied the antifouling performance of zwitterions modified with polydopamine and sulfobetaine methacrylate using an ultrafiltration membrane. The results showed that the flux efficiency was higher than that of an uncoated membrane [112]. Incorporation of a hydrophobic epoxy polymer into a hydrophilic poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) polymer coated with silver nanoparticles enhances the antifouling properties [113]. Moreover, the coated samples were tested in a marine field for 45 days (Figure 11A), and the temperature, oxygen, and pH level of seawater were maintained (Figure 11B). Iron oxide nanoparticles were added to poly(2-dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate and meso-2, 3-dimercaptosuccinic acid with a poly(methacrylic acid) nanocomposite membrane by the phase separation method. The results indicated that hydrophobic and hydrophilic membranes enhanced the permeate flux by applying a magnetic field and fouling properties without a magnetic field [114]. Phin et al. [115] fabricated zinc oxide and carbon nanotubes coated with polysulfone nanocomposite membranes using the phase-inversion method. The results showed that the antifouling strength improved with the addition of nanoparticles. The fouling ratio (Rir) indicates the irreversibility of foulants that are strongly attached to the membrane surface and inside the membrane pore. Heidari et al. [116] synthesized polyethersulfone (PES), sulfonated PES (SPES), and phosphotungstic acid with cesium hydrogen salt (CsPW/SPES) of a hybrid membrane using a phase-inversion method for nanofiltration applications. The results revealed a high filtrate volume of CsPW/SPES of 0.035 m3/m2 compared to pure PES and SPES. The permeability rate increased with the addition of nanoparticles compared to that of pure PES. Hydrophilicity influences the membrane permeation rate through the contact between water molecules and membrane pore walls. Castro et al. [117] coated graphene oxide on a polymer using a phase-inversion method for the removal of phytopathogenic fungi in water. Zhang et al. [118] reported the removal of dye with the inclusion of graphene oxide in polyacrylonitrile by interfacial polymerization (Figure 11C). The results show that the water flux of the nanocomposite membrane increases at 0.2 MPa in the range of 15–23 L/m2h greater than the bare membrane, and dye rejection was achieved [118].

4. Water Treatment in Different Countries

4.1. Technology Used for Wastewater Treatment

Due to their high population, many developing countries are struggling to provide clean water to their populations. With limited government resources, ensuring that all areas in developing countries have access to clean water is a difficult undertaking [119,120]. To meet their daily freshwater demand, rural villagers in economically developing countries, such as Kenya, have turned to alternative rainwater harvesting systems [121]. However, in South Africa, borehole water has been found to have significant levels of nitrate-nitrogen and pH, making it unsafe to drink [122]. A conventional water treatment system is still cost-effective, but water resources are heavily contaminated by industrial wastewater [123]. Other dangerous dissolved contaminants could not be eliminated using these techniques. Membrane filtration systems have higher removal efficiencies, particularly when UF and RO membranes are combined. For instance, membrane systems have even been utilized in developed countries, such as Singapore, to recycle sewage water into high-grade treated water from industrial wastewater [124] and for the past few decades, China’s rapid industrialization has proposed research and development (R&D) on massive UF membrane water treatment plants [125]. Detailed information on the water treatment in different countries is listed in Table 8. To date, commercial-level membrane technology has been used to produce drinkable water from brackish water or seawater. Pretreatment methods are recommended in most studies to ensure that the feed water remains suitable for the membrane system. This method helps to improve membrane efficiency and life duration by reducing fouling.

4.2. Reuse of Wastewater in Irrigation

Generally, all effluents of wastewater are from households, institutions, hospitals, industries, and other sources, such as surface runoff, urban runoff, agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, and cattle breeding. Pathogens, heavy metals, residual medications, organic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and health care items are among the contaminants found in many types of wastewater [140,141,142]. Therefore, it is important to treat wastewater before use. Different technologies, techniques, and preparations for wastewater treatment are discussed in the previous section. Treated wastewater (TWW) has been used for agricultural, industrial, and alternative activities in the developed world. Below are some examples of how other countries have used treated wastewater for irrigation. Tunisia has recently begun to use TWW for irrigation. Mahjoub et al. discussed reusing TWW in the agricultural sector in Tunisia [143]. In 1965, wastewater was used to irrigate 1200 ha of orchards. In the years from 1965 to 1989, the reuse of TWW in the agriculture sector was supported by government sectors [144,145]. During this period, intense research has been conducted on the reuse of TWW in the agricultural sector as a result of its environmental impact. By 2020, half of the wastewater had been targeted for irrigation. In many regions of Lebanon, most wastewater is used for irrigation. The domestic and industrial sectors produce approximately 310 million m3 of wastewater, of which approximately 4 million m3 was processed and used to irrigate farm fields in 2006 [146]. The massive increase in Kuwait’s population, along with increasing industrialization and water demand for agriculture, has led to a sharp decline in surface and groundwater. Considering the water shortage, the Kuwait government developed more than one wastewater treatment plant that produces 76 gallons of treated effluents per day [147]. Some Syrian cities, such as Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, and Salamiyeh, have treated wastewater used for irrigation using enhanced surface irrigation systems [148]. Due to natural and technological limitations, Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is one of the Middle East’s most water-scarce countries. Poor sanitation, insufficient wastewater treatment, unsafe disposal of untreated or partially treated water, and the use of untreated wastewater to irrigate edible crops characterize the wastewater sector in the West Bank and Gaza (WBG). The occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) now contains eight main urban WWTPs, with around 300 on-site treatment units [149]. Previously, wastewater and effluent were dumped in rural areas, river beds, and small towns, as well as in the Arabian Sea. To meet water demand, the Saudi Arabia government has planned to treat 100% of wastewaters by 2025 [150,151]. Saudi Arabia has already surpassed the United States and China as the world’s third-largest water reuse market [152]. Riyadh has successfully irrigated nearly 9000 hectares of date palms and forage crops. In Oman, wastewater treatment includes more than 400 plants. Municipalities use most TWW for landscape irrigation. All wastewater networks and treatment plants across the country have received a USD 2.8 billion investment for creation, management, operation, and maintenance [153,154].

5. Conclusions and Outlook

This review focuses on the use of membrane technologies to address the challenges of water purification. Improvements in the properties of the membrane, such as hydrophilicity, thermal stability, selectivity, and permeability, have been achieved in recent decades, and may be further taken forward by fabricating polymer nanocomposite membranes. Even though impressive progress has been made in the filtration process, more research is still needed to overcome existing challenges. The inclusion of nanomaterials in the polymer matrix has been demonstrated to enhance the chemical, mechanical, and thermal properties. However, they may be the cause of some drawbacks, such as: (1) the water flow pathway may be blocked by the addition of nanomaterials; (2) defects and non-selective porosity may form as a result of inadequate interaction between the polymer and nanoparticles, lowering selectivity and decreasing the polymer chain packing; and (3) poor filler dispersion in the polymer matrix may increase the risk of nanoparticle aggregation and agglomeration on the membrane surface or inner membrane surface, resulting in poor separation performance. To overcome these problems, proper pore tuning to obtain adequate pore size distributions at the membrane surface and other factors should be optimized to improve the chemical stability, mechanical stability, and long-term stability. This study intends to demonstrate the resumption of industrial wastewater in developing countries. Wastewater treatment is a major concern in many countries because high levels of unwanted or unidentified pollution are extremely hazardous to humans and the environment. Countries such as Tunisia, Lebanon, Palestine, Kuwait, Syria, and Saudi Arabia use wastewater treatment in the agricultural sector. It helps ensure the long-term viability of water supplies, the environment, agriculture, and human existence around the world.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D.; formal analysis, S.D.; Investigation, S.D. and T.H.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.D. and T.H.O.; writing—review and editing, S.D. and T.H.O.; supervision, T.H.O.; project administration, T.H.O.; funding acquisition, T.H.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1A2C1005959) and by the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (project number:20008490).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2022R1A2C1004283) and the authors thank the Core Research Support Center for Natural Products and Medical Materials (CRCNM) in Yeungnam University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elimelech, M. The global challenge for adequate and safe water. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.—AQUA 2006, 55, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Werber, J.R.; Osuji, C.O.; Elimelech, M. Materials for next-generation desalination and water purification membranes. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rashid, R.; Shafiq, I.; Akhter, P.; Iqbal, M.J.; Hussain, M. A state-of-the-art review on wastewater treatment techniques: The effectiveness of adsorption method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 9050–9066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sarkar, S.; Chakraborty, S. Nanocomposite polymeric membrane a new trend of water and wastewater treatment: A short review. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 12, 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cumings, J.N. Biochemical Aspects; Proc. R. Soc. Med.; University of Kansas Medical Center: Kansas City, MO, USA, 1962; Volume 55, ISBN 9789241549950. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sales, C.M.; Lee, P.K.H. Resource recovery from wastewater: Application of meta-omics to phosphorus and carbon management. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Spoială, A.; Ilie, C.I.; Ficai, D.; Ficai, A.; Andronescu, E. Chitosan-based nanocomposite polymeric membranes for water purification—A review. Materials 2021, 14, 2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Y.; Ye, L.; Zhao, W.; Chen, L.; Zhang, M.; Yang, G.; Zhang, H. Antifouling mechanism of the additive-free β-PVDF membrane in water purification process: Relating the surface electron donor monopolarity to membrane-foulant interactions. J. Memb. Sci. 2020, 601, 117873–117883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tan, Z.; Chen, S.; Peng, X.; Zhang, L.; Gao, C. Polyamide membranes with nanoscale Turing structures for water purification. Science 2018, 360, 518–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Nasreen, S.A.A.N.; Sundarrajan, S.; Syed Nizar, S.A.; Balamurugan, R.; Ramakrishna, S. In situ polymerization of PVDF-HEMA polymers: Electrospun membranes with improved flux and antifouling properties for water filtration. Polym. J. 2014, 46, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, X.; Yang, W.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Bubakir, M.M.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, Y. Water filtration properties of novel composite membranes combining solution electrospinning and needleless melt electrospinning methods. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015, 132, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Elele, E.; Shen, Y.; Tang, J.; Lei, Q.; Khusid, B.; Tkacik, G.; Carbrello, C. Mechanical properties of polymeric microfiltration membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2019, 591, 117351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ong, C.S.; Lay, H.T.; Tamilselvam, N.R.; Chew, J.W. Cross-Linked Polycarbonate Microfiltration Membranes with Improved Solvent Resistance. Langmuir 2021, 37, 4025–4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yan, L.; Li, Y.S.; Xiang, C.B.; Xianda, S. Effect of nano-sized Al2O3-particle addition on PVDF ultrafiltration membrane performance. J. Memb. Sci. 2006, 276, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Orooji, Y.; Movahedi, A.; Liu, Z.; Asadnia, M.; Ghasali, E.; Ganjkhanlou, Y.; Razmjou, A.; Karimi-Maleh, H.; Kiadeh, N.T.H. Luminescent film: Biofouling investigation of tetraphenylethylene blended polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane. Chemosphere 2021, 267, 128871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Johari, N.A.; Yusof, N.; Lau, W.J.; Abdullah, N.; Salleh, W.N.W.; Jaafar, J.; Aziz, F.; Ismail, A.F. Polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane incorporated with ferric-based metal-organic framework for textile wastewater treatment. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 270, 118819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, Q.; Elimelech, M. Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes: Measurements and mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4683–4693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, L.; Zhang, R.; Ji, M.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Jin, J. Polyamide nanofiltration membrane with high mono/divalent salt selectivity via pre-diffusion interfacial polymerization. J. Memb. Sci. 2021, 636, 119478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tang, C.Y.; Fu, Q.S.; Criddle, C.S.; Leckie, J.O. Effect of flux (transmembrane pressure) and membrane properties on fouling and rejection of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes treating perfluorooctane sulfonate containing wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 2008–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Srivastava, A.; Nair, A.; Ram, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ali, J.; Singh, R.; Garg, M.C. Response surface methodology and artificial neural network modelling for the performance evaluation of pilot-scale hybrid nanofiltration (NF) & reverse osmosis (RO) membrane system for the treatment of brackish ground water. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 278, 111497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elazhar, F.; Elazhar, M.; El Filali, N.; Belhamidi, S.; Elmidaoui, A.; Taky, M. Potential of hybrid NF-RO system to enhance chloride removal and reduce membrane fouling during surface water desalination. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 261, 118299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Behboudi, A.; Jafarzadeh, Y.; Yegani, R. Polyvinyl chloride/polycarbonate blend ultrafiltration membranes for water treatment. J. Memb. Sci. 2017, 534, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jafarzadeh, Y.; Yegani, R.; Sedaghat, M. Preparation, characterization and fouling analysis of ZnO/polyethylene hybrid membranes for collagen separation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2015, 94, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, R.S.; Ab Ghani, M.H.; Ahmad, S.; Tarawneh, M.A.; Gan, S. Tensile, thermal degradation and water diffusion behaviour of gamma-radiation induced recycled polymer blend/rice husk composites: Experimental and statistical analysis. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2021, 207, 108748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Etemadi, H.; Afsharkia, S.; Zinatloo-Ajabshir, S.; Shokri, E. Effect of alumina nanoparticles on the antifouling properties of polycarbonate-polyurethane blend ultrafiltration membrane for water treatment. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2021, 61, 2364–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vatanpour, V.; Mousavi Khadem, S.S.; Dehqan, A.; Al-Naqshabandi, M.A.; Ganjali, M.R.; Sadegh Hassani, S.; Rashid, M.R.; Saeb, M.R.; Dizge, N. Efficient removal of dyes and proteins by nitrogen-doped porous graphene blended polyethersulfone nanocomposite membranes. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 127892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mahmoudian, M.; Kochameshki, M.G. The performance of polyethersulfone nanocomposite membrane in the removal of industrial dyes. Polymer 2021, 224, 123693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ghorbani, M.; Hassan Vakili, M.; Ameri, E. Fabrication and evaluation of a biopolymer-based nanocomposite membrane for oily wastewater treatment. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 28, 102560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, X.; Wang, R.; Jiao, T.; Zou, G.; Zhan, F.; Yin, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, J.; Peng, Q. Facile Preparation of Hierarchical AgNP-Loaded MXene/Fe3O4 Polymer Nanocomposites by Electrospinning with Enhanced Catalytic Performance for Wastewater Treatment. ACS Omega 2019, 4, 1897–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Amiri, S.; Asghari, A.; Vatanpour, V.; Rajabi, M. Fabrication and characterization of a novel polyvinyl alcohol-graphene oxide-sodium alginate nanocomposite hydrogel blended PES nanofiltration membrane for improved water purification. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 250, 117216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Irani, E.; Amoli-Diva, M. Hybrid adsorption–photocatalysis properties of quaternary magneto-plasmonic ZnO/MWCNTs nanocomposite for applying synergistic photocatalytic removal and membrane filtration in industrial wastewater treatment. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2020, 391, 112359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Okoli, C.P.; Ofomaja, A.E. Development of sustainable magnetic polyurethane polymer nanocomposite for abatement of tetracycline antibiotics aqueous pollution: Response surface methodology and adsorption dynamics. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Javadi, M.; Jafarzadeh, Y.; Yegani, R.; Kazemi, S. PVDF membranes embedded with PVP functionalized nanodiamond for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2018, 140, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hosseini, S.A.; Vossoughi, M.; Mahmoodi, N.M.; Sadrzadeh, M. Clay-based electrospun nanofibrous membranes for colored wastewater treatment. Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 168, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhao, Q.; Zhao, D.L.; Chung, T.S. Thin-film nanocomposite membranes incorporated with defective ZIF-8 nanoparticles for brackish water and seawater desalination. J. Memb. Sci. 2021, 625, 119158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, G.; Zhang, X.; Di Yuan, Y.; Yuan, H.; Li, N.; Ying, Y.; Peh, S.B.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Cai, Y.; et al. Thin-Film Nanocomposite Membranes Containing Water-Stable Zirconium Metal-Organic Cages for Desalination. ACS Mater. Lett. 2021, 3, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ramokgopa, S.K.; Sikhwivhilu, K.; Moutloali, R.M.; Moothi, K. Process optimisation through Response Surface Methodology for treatment of acid mine drainage using carbon nanotubes-infused thin film nanocomposite membranes. Phys. Chem. Earth 2021, 124, 103008–103020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rafiei, H.; Abbasian, M.; Yegani, R. Polyvinylidene fluoride as a neat and the synthesized novel membranes based on PVDF/polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymer grafted with TiO2 nanoparticles through RAFT method for water purification. Iran. Polym. J. 2021, 30, 769–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tran, B.N.; Thickett, S.C.; Agarwal, V.; Zetterlund, P.B. Influence of Polymer Matrix on Polymer/Graphene Oxide Nanocomposite Intrinsic Properties. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2021, 3, 5145–5154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Song, N.; Wang, Q.; Jiao, D.; Pan, H.; Shi, L.; Ding, P. Highly thermally conductive SiO2-coated NFC/BNNS hybrid films with water resistance. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2021, 143, 106261–106271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lim, J.W.; Lim, W.S.; Lee, M.H.; Park, H.J. Barrier and structural properties of polyethylene terephthalate film coated with poly(acrylic acid)/montmorillonite nanocomposites. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2021, 34, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Song, X.C.; Canellas, E.; Wrona, M.; Becerril, R.; Nerin, C. Comparison of two antioxidant packaging based on rosemary oleoresin and green tea extract coated on polyethylene terephthalate for extending the shelf life of minced pork meat. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 26, 100588–100597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Masmoudi, F.; Alix, S.; Buet, S.; Mehri, A.; Bessadok, A.; Jaziri, M.; Ammar, E. Design and Characterization of a New Food Packaging Material by Recycling Blends Virgin and Recovered polyethylene terephthalate. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2020, 60, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pardo-Figuerez, M.; López-Córdoba, A.; Torres-Giner, S.; Lagaron, J.M. Superhydrophobic Bio-Coating made by co-continuous electrospinning and electrospraying polyethylene terephthalate films proposed as easy emptying transparent food packaging. Coatings 2018, 8, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Nambikkattu, J.; Kaleekkal, N.J.; Jacob, J.P. Metal ferrite incorporated polysulfone thin-film nanocomposite membranes for wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 11915–11927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, P.; Li, Y.X.; Wu, Y.Z.; Xu, Z.L.; Zhang, H.Z.; Gao, P.; Xu, S.J. Thin-film nanocomposite NF membrane with GO on macroporous hollow fiber ceramic substrate for efficient heavy metals removal. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111040–111052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dai, R.; Zhang, X.; Liu, M.; Wu, Z.; Wang, Z. Porous metal organic framework CuBDC nanosheet incorporated thin-film nanocomposite membrane for high-performance forward osmosis. J. Memb. Sci. 2019, 573, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mousavi, S.R.; Asghari, M.; Mahmoodi, N.M. Chitosan-wrapped multiwalled carbon nanotube as filler within PEBA thin film nanocomposite (TFN) membrane to improve dye removal. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 237, 116128–116139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. He, M.; Wang, L.; Lv, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, T. Novel polydopamine/metal organic framework thin film nanocomposite forward osmosis membrane for salt rejection and heavy metal removal. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 389, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wen, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wu, Z.; Liu, M.; Wang, Z. Thin-film nanocomposite membranes incorporated with water stable metal-organic framework CuBTTri for mitigating biofouling. J. Memb. Sci. 2019, 582, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhao, P.; Li, R.; Wu, W.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y. In-situ growth of polyvinylpyrrolidone modified Zr-MOFs thin-film nanocomposite (TFN) for efficient dyes removal. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 176, 107208–107218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yang, J.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, S.; Li, Y.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, X. 2D Material Based Thin-Film Nanocomposite Membranes for Water Treatment. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2021, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Soo, K.W.; Wong, K.C.; Goh, P.S.; Ismail, A.F.; Othman, N. Efficient heavy metal removal by thin film nanocomposite forward osmosis membrane modified with geometrically different bimetallic oxide. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101591–101604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ang, M.B.M.Y.; Trilles, C.A.; De Guzman, M.R.; Pereira, J.M.; Aquino, R.R.; Huang, S.H.; Hu, C.C.; Lee, K.R.; Lai, J.Y. Improved performance of thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes as induced by embedded polydopamine-coated silica nanoparticles. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 224, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qiu, M.; He, C. Novel zwitterion-silver nanocomposite modified thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane with simultaneous improved water flux and biofouling resistance property. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 455, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wei, S.; Chen, Y.; Hu, X.; Wang, C.; Huang, X.; Liu, D.; Zhang, Y. Monovalent/Divalent salts separation via thin film nanocomposite nanofiltration membrane containing aminated TiO2 nanoparticles. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2020, 112, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khorshidi, B.; Biswas, I.; Ghosh, T.; Thundat, T.; Sadrzadeh, M. Robust fabrication of thin film polyamide-TiO2 nanocomposite membranes with enhanced thermal stability and anti-biofouling propensity. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cheshomi, N.; Pakizeh, M.; Namvar-Mahboub, M. Preparation and characterization of TiO2/Pebax/(PSf-PES) thin film nanocomposite membrane for humic acid removal from water. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2018, 29, 1303–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Thakur, C. Unification electrocoagulation-adsorption treatment for removal of COD and surfactant from automobile wastewater. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2021, 19, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cüce, H.; Aydın Temel, F. Classical-Fenton and Photo-Fenton oxidation of wastewater arising from cosmetic automobile care products. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2021, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Boussu, K.; Van Baelen, G.; Colen, W.; Eelen, D.; Vanassche, S.; Vandecasteele, C.; Van Der Bruggen, B. Technical and economical evaluation of water recycling in the carwash industry with membrane processes. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 1131–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pinto, A.C.S.; de Barros Grossi, L.; de Melo, R.A.C.; de Assis, T.M.; Ribeiro, V.M.; Amaral, M.C.S.; de Souza Figueiredo, K.C. Carwash wastewater treatment by micro and ultrafiltration membranes: Effects of geometry, pore size, pressure difference and feed flow rate in transport properties. J. Water Process Eng. 2017, 17, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rodriguez Boluarte, I.A.; Andersen, M.; Pramanik, B.K.; Chang, C.Y.; Bagshaw, S.; Farago, L.; Jegatheesan, V.; Shu, L. Reuse of car wash wastewater by chemical coagulation and membrane bioreactor treatment processes. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 113, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gönder, Z.B.; Balcıoğlu, G.; Kaya, Y.; Vergili, I. Treatment of carwash wastewater by electrocoagulation using Ti electrode: Optimization of the operating parameters. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 8041–8052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gönder, Z.B.; Balcıoğlu, G.; Vergili, I.; Kaya, Y. Electrochemical treatment of carwash wastewater using Fe and Al electrode: Techno-economic analysis and sludge characterization. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 200, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Gomes, A.J.; Das, K.K.; Jame, S.A.; Cocke, D.L. Treatment of truck wash water using electrocoagulation. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 25991–26002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Uçar, D. Membrane processes for the reuse of car washing wastewater. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 2018, 8, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. FAO. Africa Sustainable Livestock 2050; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; Volume 48. [Google Scholar]
  69. OECD; FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook; OECD: Paris, France; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9789264083752. [Google Scholar]
  70. Aziz, A.; Basheer, F.; Sengar, A.; Irfanullah; Khan, S.U.; Farooqi, I.H. Biological wastewater treatment (anaerobic-aerobic) technologies for safe discharge of treated slaughterhouse and meat processing wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 681–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. de Sena, R.F.; Tambosi, J.L.; Genena, A.K.; Moreira, R.; Moreira, F.P.M.; Schröder, H.F.; José, H.J. Treatment of meat industry wastewater using dissolved air flotation and advanced oxidation processes monitored by GC-MS and LC-MS. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 152, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tenca, A.; Cusick, R.D.; Schievano, A.; Oberti, R.; Logan, B.E. Evaluation of low cost cathode materials for treatment of industrial and food processing wastewater using microbial electrolysis cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013, 38, 1859–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Morales-Rivera, J.; Sulbarán-Rangel, B.; Gurubel-Tun, K.J.; del Real-Olvera, J.; Zúñiga-Grajeda, V. Modeling and optimization of COD removal from cold meat industry wastewater by electrocoagulation using computational techniques. Processes 2020, 8, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, W.; Jia, M.X.; Deng, J.; Wang, J.H.; Lin, Q.L.; Liu, C.; Wang, S.S.; Tang, J.X.; Zeng, X.X.; Ma, L.; et al. Isolation, genetic identification and degradation characteristics of COD-degrading bacterial strain in slaughter wastewater. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 1800–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Del Real-Olvera, J.; Morales-Rivera, J.; González-López, A.P.; Sulbarán-Rangel, B.; Zúñiga-Grajeda, V. Adsorption of organic pollutants from cold meat industry wastewater by electrochemical coagulation: Application of artificial neural networks. Water 2020, 12, 3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aghababai Beni, A.; Esmaeili, A.; Behjat, Y. Invent of a simultaneous adsorption and separation process based on dynamic membrane for treatment Zn(II), Ni(II) and, Co(II) industrial wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2021, 14, 103231–103241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Diez, V.; Cámara, J.M.; Ruiz, M.O.; Martínez, R.; Ramos, C. A novel jet-loop anaerobic filter membrane bioreactor treating raw slaughterhouse wastewater: Biological and filtration processes. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 408, 127288–127300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kotsanopoulos, K.V.; Arvanitoyannis, I.S. Membrane Processing Technology in the Food Industry: Food Processing, Wastewater Treatment, and Effects on Physical, Microbiological, Organoleptic, and Nutritional Properties of Foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 1147–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Singh, G.M.; Micha, R.; Khatibzadeh, S.; Shi, P.; Lim, S.; Andrews, K.G.; Engell, R.E.; Ezzati, M.; Mozaffarian, D.; Global Burden of Diseases Nutrition and Chronic Diseases Expert Group. Global, Regional, and National Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Fruit Juices, and Milk: A Systematic Assessment of Beverage Intake in 187 Countries. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 0124845–0124855. [Google Scholar]
  80. Muhamad Ng, S.N.; Idrus, S.; Ahsan, A.; Tuan Mohd Marzuki, T.N.; Mahat, S.B. Treatment of wastewater from a food and beverage industry using conventional wastewater treatment integrated with membrane bioreactor system: A pilot-scale case study. Membranes 2021, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. FAO. FAO Processor Driven Integration of Small-Scale Farmers into Value Chains in Turkey; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  82. Amuda, O.S.; Amoo, I.A. Coagulation/flocculation process and sludge conditioning in beverage industrial wastewater treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 141, 778–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Amuda, O.S.; Amoo, I.A.; Ajayi, O.O. Performance optimization of coagulant/flocculant in the treatment of wastewater from a beverage industry. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 129, 69–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Saha, S.; Boro, R.; Das, C. Treatment of tea industry wastewater using coagulation-spinning basket membrane ultrafiltration hybrid system. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gundogdu, A.; Duran, C.; Senturk, H.B.; Soylak, M.; Ozdes, D.; Serencam, H.; Imamoglu, M. Adsorption of phenol from aqueous solution on a low-cost activated carbon produced from tea industry waste: Equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic study. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2012, 57, 2733–2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chen, B.; Xiong, X.; Yao, Z.; Yin, N.; Low, Z.X.; Zhong, Z. Integrated membrane process for wastewater treatment from production of instant tea powders. Desalination 2015, 355, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mehdipour, S.; Vatanpour, V.; Kariminia, H.R. Influence of ion interaction on lead removal by a polyamide nanofiltration membrane. Desalination 2015, 362, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fan, S.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Tang, J.; Tang, J.; Li, X. Cadmium removal from aqueous solution by biochar obtained by co-pyrolysis of sewage sludge with tea waste. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2018, 44, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fan, S.; Zhang, L. Production and characterization of tea waste–based biochar and its application in treatment of Cd-containing wastewater. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2021, 11, 1719–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Peng, C.; Xi, J.; Chen, G.; Feng, Z.; Ke, F.; Ning, J.; Li, D.; Ho, C.T.; Cai, H.; Wan, X. Highly selective defluoridation of brick tea infusion by tea waste supported aluminum oxides. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 1509–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Verlicchi, P.; Galletti, A.; Petrovic, M.; BarcelÓ, D. Hospital effluents as a source of emerging pollutants: An overview of micropollutants and sustainable treatment options. J. Hydrol. 2010, 389, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gadipelly, C.; Pérez-González, A.; Yadav, G.D.; Ortiz, I.; Ibáñez, R.; Rathod, V.K.; Marathe, K.V. Pharmaceutical industry wastewater: Review of the technologies for water treatment and reuse. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 11571–11592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bucătaru, C.; Săvescu, D.; Repanovici, A.; Blaga, L.; Coman, E.; Cocuz, M.E. The implications and effects of medical waste on development of sustainable society—A brief review of the literature. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cai, X.; Du, C. Thermal Plasma Treatment of Medical Waste. Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 2021, 41, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Thind, P.S.; Sareen, A.; Singh, D.D.; Singh, S.; John, S. Compromising situation of India’s bio-medical waste incineration units during pandemic outbreak of COVID-19: Associated environmental-health impacts and mitigation measures. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116621–116629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. O’Flynn, D.; Lawler, J.; Yusuf, A.; Parle-Mcdermott, A.; Harold, D.; Mc Cloughlin, T.; Holland, L.; Regan, F.; White, B. A review of pharmaceutical occurrence and pathways in the aquatic environment in the context of a changing climate and the COVID-19 pandemic. Anal. Methods 2021, 13, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Chen, Z.; Ren, N.; Wang, A.; Zhang, Z.P.; Shi, Y. A novel application of TPAD-MBR system to the pilot treatment of chemical synthesis-based pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Res. 2008, 42, 3385–3392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Mascolo, G.; Balest, L.; Cassano, D.; Laera, G.; Lopez, A.; Pollice, A.; Salerno, C. Biodegradability of pharmaceutical industrial wastewater and formation of recalcitrant organic compounds during aerobic biological treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 2585–2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Cetecioglu, Z.; Ince, B.; Gros, M.; Rodriguez-Mozaz, S.; Barceló, D.; Ince, O.; Orhon, D. Biodegradation and reversible inhibitory impact of sulfamethoxazole on the utilization of volatile fatty acids during anaerobic treatment of pharmaceutical industry wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 667–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Kaya, Y.; Bacaksiz, A.M.; Bayrak, H.; Gönder, Z.B.; Vergili, I.; Hasar, H.; Yilmaz, G. Treatment of chemical synthesis-based pharmaceutical wastewater in an ozonation-anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) system. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 322, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ma, K.; Qin, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, C.; Liang, S. Toxicity evaluation of wastewater collected at different treatment stages from a pharmaceutical industrial park wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere 2016, 158, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ng, K.K.; Shi, X.; Tang, M.K.Y.; Ng, H.Y. A novel application of anaerobic bio-entrapped membrane reactor for the treatment of chemical synthesis-based pharmaceutical wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 132, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Aydin, S. Enhanced biodegradation of antibiotic combinations via the sequential treatment of the sludge resulting from pharmaceutical wastewater treatment using white-rot fungi Trametes versicolor and Bjerkandera adusta. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 6491–6499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hu, H.; Jiang, C.; Ma, H.; Ding, L.; Geng, J.; Xu, K.; Huang, H.; Ren, H. Removal characteristics of DON in pharmaceutical wastewater and its influence on the N-nitrosodimethylamine formation potential and acute toxicity of DOM. Water Res. 2017, 109, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Ng, K.K.; Shi, X.; Ong, S.L.; Ng, H.Y. Pyrosequencing reveals microbial community profile in anaerobic bio-entrapped membrane reactor for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 1076–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Najafi, H.; Farajfaed, S.; Zolgharnian, S.; Mosavi Mirak, S.H.; Asasian-Kolur, N.; Sharifian, S. A comprehensive study on modified-pillared clays as an adsorbent in wastewater treatment processes. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 147, 8–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hariharan, A.; Harini, V.; Sandhya, S.; Rangabhashiyam, S. Waste Musa acuminata residue as a potential biosorbent for the removal of hexavalent chromium from synthetic wastewater. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mustapha, S.; Ndamitso, M.M.; Abdulkareem, A.S.; Tijani, J.O.; Mohammed, A.K.; Shuaib, D.T. Potential of using kaolin as a natural adsorbent for the removal of pollutants from tannery wastewater. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02923–e02940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ezugbe, E.O.; Rathilal, S. Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: A review. Membranes 2020, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Abdel-Fatah, M.A. Nanofiltration systems and applications in wastewater treatment: Review article. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018, 9, 3077–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bagheri, M.; Mirbagheri, S.A. Critical review of fouling mitigation strategies in membrane bioreactors treating water and wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 258, 318–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Shahkaramipour, N.; Ramanan, S.N.; Fister, D.; Park, E.; Venna, S.R.; Sun, H.; Cheng, C.; Lin, H. Facile Grafting of Zwitterions onto the Membrane Surface to Enhance Antifouling Properties for Wastewater Reuse. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 9202–9212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lu, G.; Tian, S.; Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Liu, S.; Pu, J. Fabrication of bio-based amphiphilic hydrogel coating with excellent antifouling and mechanical properties. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 409, 128134–128148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Upadhyaya, L.; Semsarilar, M.; Quemener, D.; Fernández-Pacheco, R.; Martinez, G.; Coelhoso, I.M.; Nunes, S.P.; Crespo, J.G.; Mallada, R.; Portugal, C.A.M. Article block copolymer-based magnetic mixed matrix membranes-effect of magnetic field on protein permeation and membrane fouling. Membranes 2021, 11, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Phin, H.Y.; Sin, J.C.; Tan, S.H.; Chew, T.L.; Ong, Y.T. Fabrication of asymmetric zinc oxide/carbon nanotubes coated polysulfone photocatalytic nanocomposite membrane for fouling mitigation. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2021, 138, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Heidari, S.; Amirinejad, M.; Mirzadeh, S.S.; Wood, D.A. Insights into colloidal membrane fouling mechanisms for nanofiltration of surface water using single and hybrid membrane processes. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2021, 32, 2517–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gontarek-Castro, E.; Rybarczyk, M.K.; Castro-Muñoz, R.; Morales-Jiménez, M.; Barragán-Huerta, B.; Lieder, M. Characterization of PVDF/graphene nanocomposite membranes for water desalination with enhanced antifungal activity. Water 2021, 13, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, C.; Wei, K.; Zhang, W.; Bai, Y.; Sun, Y.; Gu, J. Graphene Oxide Quantum Dots Incorporated into a Thin Film Nanocomposite Membrane with High Flux and Antifouling Properties for Low-Pressure Nanofiltration. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 11082–11094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Klemes, J.J. Industrial water recycle/reuse. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2012, 1, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Xia, S.J.; Liu, Y.N.; Li, X.; Yao, J. Drinking water production by ultrafiltration of Songhuajiang River with PAC adsorption. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 19, 536–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Muriu-Ng’ang’a, F.W.; Mucheru-Muna, M.; Waswa, F.; Mairura, F.S. Socio-economic factors influencing utilisation of rain water harvesting and saving technologies in Tharaka South, Eastern Kenya. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 194, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Adewumi, J.R.; Ilemobade, A.A.; Van Zyl, J.E. Treated wastewater reuse in South Africa: Overview, potential and challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 55, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gallego-Schmid, A.; Tarpani, R.R.Z. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in developing countries: A review. Water Res. 2019, 153, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Bai, Y.; Shan, F.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, J.; Wu, Y.; Luo, X.; Wu, Y.; Hu, H.Y.; Zhang, B. Long-term performance and economic evaluation of full-scale MF and RO process—A case study of the changi NEWater Project Phase 2 in Singapore. Water Cycle 2020, 1, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wang, X.N.; Ma, M.Y.; Pan, X.H.; Hao, J.; Zhang, C.N. Quality of product water by three full-scale seawater reverse osmosis desalination in China. Desalin. Water Treat. 2020, 174, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nghiem, L.D.; Elters, C.; Simon, A.; Tatsuya, T.; Price, W. Coal seam gas produced water treatment by ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and multi-effect distillation: A pilot study. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2015, 146, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Brião, V.B.; Magoga, J.; Hemkemeier, M.; Brião, E.B.; Girardelli, L.; Sbeghen, L.; Favaretto, D.P.C. Reverse osmosis for desalination of water from the Guarani Aquifer System to produce drinking water in southern Brazil. Desalination 2014, 344, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yu, H.; Li, X.; Chang, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Li, G.; Ji, H.; Cai, C.; Liang, H. Performance of hollow fiber ultrafiltration membrane in a full-scale drinking water treatment plant in China: A systematic evaluation during 7-year operation. J. Memb. Sci. 2020, 613, 118469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Abdel-Shafy, H.I.; Abdel-Shafy, S.H. Membrane technology for water and wastewater management and application in Egypt. Egypt. J. Chem. 2017, 60, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Marrot, B.; Barrios-Martinez, A.; Moulin, P.; Roche, N. Industrial wastewater treatment in a membrane bioreactor: A review. Environ. Prog. 2004, 23, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Sarkar, B.; Venkateshwarlu, N.; Nageswara Rao, R.; Bhattacharjee, C.; Kale, V. Potable water production from pesticide contaminated surface water-A membrane based approach. Desalination 2007, 204, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Harisha, R.S.; Hosamani, K.M.; Keri, R.S.; Nataraj, S.K.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Arsenic removal from drinking water using thin film composite nanofiltration membrane. Desalination 2010, 252, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ab Razak, N.H.; Praveena, S.M.; Aris, A.Z.; Hashim, Z. Drinking water studies: A review on heavy metal, application of biomarker and health risk assessment (a special focus in Malaysia). J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2015, 5, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Van Der Graaf, J.H.J.M.; Kramer, J.F.; Pluim, J.; De Koning, J.; Weijs, M. Experiments on membrane filtration of effluent at wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Molelekwa, G.F.; Mukhola, M.S.; Van Der Bruggen, B.; Luis, P. Preliminary studies on membrane filtration for the production of potable water: A case of Tshaanda rural village in South Africa. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, 105057–105067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Cooray, T.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, L.; Zhong, H.; Weragoda, S.K.; Weerasooriya, R. Drinking-Water supply for CKDu affected areas of Sri Lanka, using nanofiltration membrane technology: From laboratory to practice. Water 2019, 11, 2512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Sartor, M.; Schlichter, B.; Gatjal, H.; Mavrov, V. Demonstration of a new hybrid process for the decentralised drinking and service water production from surface water in Thailand. Desalination 2008, 222, 528–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kaya, C.; Sert, G.; Kabay, N.; Arda, M.; Yüksel, M.; Egemen, Ö. Pre-treatment with nanofiltration (NF) in seawater desalination-Preliminary integrated membrane tests in Urla, Turkey. Desalination 2015, 369, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Duong, H.C.; Tran, L.T.T.; Truong, H.T.; Nelemans, B. Seawater membrane distillation desalination for potable water provision on remote islands—A case study in Vietnam. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2021, 4, 100110–100116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. WHO; UNEP. Safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater guidelines. In Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 4, p. 204. [Google Scholar]
  141. Libutti, A.; Gatta, G.; Gagliardi, A.; Vergine, P.; Pollice, A.; Beneduce, L.; Disciglio, G.; Tarantino, E. Agro-industrial wastewater reuse for irrigation of a vegetable crop succession under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 196, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tran, N.H.; Reinhard, M.; Khan, E.; Chen, H.; Nguyen, V.T.; Li, Y.; Goh, S.G.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Saeidi, N.; Gin, K.Y.H. Emerging contaminants in wastewater, stormwater runoff, and surface water: Application as chemical markers for diffuse sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 676, 252–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hettiarachchi, H.; Ardakanian, R. Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture: From Concept to Implementation; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; ISBN 9783319742687. [Google Scholar]
  144. Bahri, A. Fertilizing value and polluting load of reclaimed water in Tunisia. Water Res. 1998, 32, 3484–3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sabbahi, S.; Ayed, L.B.; Trad, M.; Berndtsson, R.; Karanis, P. Parasitological Assessment of Sewage Sludge Samples for Potential Agricultural Reuse in Tunisia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Dib, H.; Issa, S.; Amara, T. Safety of fresh produce: Bacterial risk assessment of irrigation water. Leban. Sci. J. 2003, 4, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  147. Yousef, K.; Al-Mutairy, S.; Haitham, F. Management, Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater (Sewage) Plan at Kuwait Oil Company (KOC). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015, 6, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Kostianoy, A.G.; De Boer, J.; Garrigues, P.; Gu, J.; Jones, K.C.; Knepper, T.; Newton, A.; Sparks, D.L. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2010; Volume 22, ISBN 9783642182808. [Google Scholar]
  149. Samhan, S.; Al-Sa’ed, R.; Assaf, K.; Friese, K.; Afferden, M.; Muller, R.; Tumpling, W.; Ghanem, M.; Ali, W.; Zimmo, O. Wastewater Management Overview in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 229–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Alahdal, H.M.; AlYahya, S.; Ameen, F.; Sonbol, H.; Alomary, M.N. A review on Saudi Arabian wastewater treatment facilities and available disinfection methods: Implications to SARS-CoV-2 control. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101574–101592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Ouda, O.K.M. Treated wastewater use in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and initiatives. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2016, 32, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Shomar, B.; Dare, A. Ten key research issues for integrated and sustainable wastewater reuse in the Middle East. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 5699–5710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Baawain, M.S.; Al-Futaisi, A.M.; Al-Omairi, A.; Al-Jabri, M. Investigating municipal wastewater treatment in the sultanate of Oman. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 145, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Jaffar Abdul Khaliq, S.; Ahmed, M.; Al-Wardy, M.; Al-Busaidi, A.; Choudri, B.S. Wastewater and sludge management and research in Oman: An overview. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 14 01732 g001 550
Figure 1. Water flux of polymer blend membranes (reproduced with permission from [22] copyright 2017, Elsevier).
Figure 1. Water flux of polymer blend membranes (reproduced with permission from [22] copyright 2017, Elsevier).
Polymers 14 01732 g001
Polymers 14 01732 g002 550
Figure 2. Tensile properties with applied gamma radiation. The symbols for gamma radiation * and # denotes 40 and 60 wt.% of rice husk fibers, for gamma radiation doses as compared to unirradiated, 25 and 50 kGy are are denoted by @, ◆ and ● (reproduced with permission from [24] copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Figure 2. Tensile properties with applied gamma radiation. The symbols for gamma radiation * and # denotes 40 and 60 wt.% of rice husk fibers, for gamma radiation doses as compared to unirradiated, 25 and 50 kGy are are denoted by @, ◆ and ● (reproduced with permission from [24] copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Polymers 14 01732 g002
Polymers 14 01732 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Illustration of water permeance, (b) membrane desalination studies with dZIF-8 concentrations in seawater (reproduced with permission from [35] copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Figure 3. (a) Illustration of water permeance, (b) membrane desalination studies with dZIF-8 concentrations in seawater (reproduced with permission from [35] copyright 2021, Elsevier).
Polymers 14 01732 g003
Polymers 14 01732 g004 550
Figure 4. Barrier properties of water vapor (a) and oxygen permeability of polymer nanocomposite. (A) the polyacrylic acid (PAA)/montmorillonite (MMT) and (B) the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films coated with PAA/MMT nanocomposites (reproduced with permission from [41] copyright 2021, Wiley).
Figure 4. Barrier properties of water vapor (a) and oxygen permeability of polymer nanocomposite. (A) the polyacrylic acid (PAA)/montmorillonite (MMT) and (B) the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) films coated with PAA/MMT nanocomposites (reproduced with permission from [41] copyright 2021, Wiley).
Polymers 14 01732 g004
Polymers 14 01732 g005 550
Figure 5. Schematic illustration of water treatment application.
Figure 5. Schematic illustration of water treatment application.
Polymers 14 01732 g005
Polymers 14 01732 g006 550
Figure 6. Representation of automobile production process.
Figure 6. Representation of automobile production process.
Polymers 14 01732 g006
Polymers 14 01732 g007 550
Figure 7. Schematic representation of the meat processing industry.
Figure 7. Schematic representation of the meat processing industry.
Polymers 14 01732 g007
Polymers 14 01732 g008 550
Figure 8. Tea manufacturing process.
Figure 8. Tea manufacturing process.
Polymers 14 01732 g008
Polymers 14 01732 g009 550
Figure 9. Pharmaceutical waste and wastewater disposal in the environment.
Figure 9. Pharmaceutical waste and wastewater disposal in the environment.
Polymers 14 01732 g009
Polymers 14 01732 g010 550
Figure 10. Industrial wastewater treatment.
Figure 10. Industrial wastewater treatment.
Polymers 14 01732 g010
Polymers 14 01732 g011 550
Figure 11. (A) Picture of samples submerged in seawater till 45 days; (B) temperature, oxygen, and pH level of seawater (reproduced with permission from [113] copyright 2021, Elsevier); (C) preparation (a) and mechanism (b) of graphene oxide nanocomposite membrane (reproduced with permission from [118] copyright 2021, ACS).
Figure 11. (A) Picture of samples submerged in seawater till 45 days; (B) temperature, oxygen, and pH level of seawater (reproduced with permission from [113] copyright 2021, Elsevier); (C) preparation (a) and mechanism (b) of graphene oxide nanocomposite membrane (reproduced with permission from [118] copyright 2021, ACS).
Polymers 14 01732 g011
Table
Table 1. Application of blended polymer nanocomposite.
Table 1. Application of blended polymer nanocomposite.
NanomaterialsBlended PolymersMethodApplicationReference
AluminaPolycarbonate/
Polyurethane		Phase separationUltra-filtration [25]
Nitrogen doped porous graphene oxidePolyethersulfoneNon-solvent-induced phase separation Waste water treatment (removal of dyes)[26]
Graphene oxidePolyethersulfonePhase separation Waste water treatment (removal of industrial dyes)[27]
SilicaPolylactic acid/Polybutylene/Polypropylene carbonate/PolyhydroxybutyratePhase separation Waste water treatment (removal of oil)[28]
Silver/Fe3O4Poly(vinyl alcohol)/Poly(acrylic acid)/ElectrospinningWaste water treatment[29]
Graphene oxide-sodium alginatePolyethersulfone/polyvinyl alcoholPhase inversion induced by immersion precipitationWaste water
treatment		[30]
Ag-doped ZnO@Fe3O4/MWCNTsPoly acrylic acid (PAA)-modified polyamide (PA)Chemical co-precipitationPharmaceutical Waste water (removal of Amoxicillin)[31]
Magnetic starchPolyurethane/4,4-methylene diphenyl diisocyanateIn situ co-precipitationWastewater treatment[32]
Nano diamondPVDF/PVPPhase inversionPharmaceutical wastewater treatment
(removal of chemical oxygen demand)		[33]
Aluminum silicateChitosan/PVAElectrospinningWastewater treatment (removal of dye)[34]
Table
Table 2. Application of thin-film polymer nanocomposite.
Table 2. Application of thin-film polymer nanocomposite.
NanomaterialsThin Film PolymersMethodApplicationReference
MgFe2O4 and ZnFe2O4PolysulfoneSol-gelWastewater treatment[45]
Graphene oxidePolyamideInterfacial polymerizationNanofiltration (removal of heavy metals)[46]
Copper 1,4-benzenedicarboxylatePolyamideLayered diffusion-mediatedForward osmosis[47]
Chitosan-wrapped multiwalled carbon nanotubesPolyethersulfoneFacile pouringNanofiltration (removal of dye)[48]
MOF-801PolyacrylonitrileSolvothermalUltrafiltration (heavy metal removal)[49]
CopperPolyamideInterfacial polymerizationReverse osmosis[50]
Zr-MOFsPolyvinylpyrrolidoneAssisted in-situ growthWastewater treatment (removal of dye)[51]
Graphene oxide/MoS2PolyamideInterfacial polymerizationWastewater treatment[52]
Titania nanotubes and magnetite oxidePolysulfoneCoprecipitationForward osmosis (removal of heavy metals)[53]
SilicaPolydopamineStoberNanofiltration [54]
Zwitterion-silverPolyethersulfoneNon-solvent
induced phase separation		Forward osmosis[55]
TiO2Polyamide/PolyethersulfoneInterfacial polymerizationNanofiltration[56]
TiO2PolyamideBiphasic
solvothermal		Reverse osmosis[57]
TiO2Polyethersulfone/PolysulfoneImmersion
precipitation		Wastewater treatment (removal of humic acid)[58]
Table
Table 3. Water usage in the manufacturing process.
Table 3. Water usage in the manufacturing process.
StageWater Quantity (Liters)Operation
Anticorrosion60,000Degreasing: Immersing the entire frame in a tub with detergent to remove any remaining oil, organic and inorganic chemicals from the stamping and jointing process. It is known as alkaline wash.
Zinc phosphate:
Frame is immersed in a chemical tub to cover a coating of zinc phosphate.
Rinsing: To remove unwanted elements
Priming and Top coatLarge quantitiesWater based paints requires large quantities of water to dilute the paint and
FinishingLarge quantitiesAfter the topcoat, the frame will be washed again with water to remove any remaining paint and debris.
Machine shopLarge quantitiesTo remove grease
Table
Table 4. Wastewater treatment in the automobile industry.
Table 4. Wastewater treatment in the automobile industry.
MethodMaterialOperating
Parameters		Removal EfficiencyReference
Physical method-micro and ultrafiltration membranePolyetherimideFlux, turbidity, organic and inorganic carbonFlux—40 L/m2 h; turbidity—98%; organic—2.7 mg/L and inorganic carbon—35.4 mg/L[62]
Chemical method-coagulation and ozonationPolyethersulfonepH, suspended solid, turbidity, chemical oxygen demand, phosphatepH—8.5; SS—4200 µg/L; turbidity—1000 NTU; COD—433 mg/L; NH4+—2.2 mg/L; [63]
Chemical method-electrocoagulationTi electrodepH, chemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, chloride, oil greasepH—8; COD—500 mg/L; SS—320 mg/L; chloride—70 mg/L; oil-grease—120 mg/L[64]
Chemical method-electrocoagulationFe and Al-electrodepH, chemical oxygen demand, suspended solid and oil greasepH—8; COD—560 mg/L; oil-grease—125 mg/L; SS—2300 mg/L[65]
Chemical method-electrocoagulationFe–Fe, Al–Fe, and Al–Alchemical oxygen demandCOD—79%[66]
Physical method-membrane filtrationPolyethersulfone/polyamidepH, COD, total solidspH—7; COD—314 mg/L; SS—1054 mg/L[67]
Table
Table 5. Wastewater treatment in meat production industries.
Table 5. Wastewater treatment in meat production industries.
MethodParameterRemoval Efficacy (%)Reference
Physicochemical treatmentBOD
COD		70.3%
80.3%		[71]
Aerobic treatmentCOD
BOD		2.8 kg/m3
1.8 m3		[72]
Electrochemical coagulationCOD92.91%[73]
IsolationCOD11.8%[74]
Electrochemical coagulationCOD93.22%[75]
Dynamic membrane filtrationCOD14.5%[76]
Anaerobic filter membrane bioreactorCOD
BOD		97%
82%		[77]
Table
Table 6. Research work focused on wastewater treatment.
Table 6. Research work focused on wastewater treatment.
MethodMaterialRemoval Efficacy (%)Reference
Coagulation/flocculationFerric chloride and polyelectrolyte97%—TSS;TP—99%; COD—91%[82]
Coagulation/flocculationPolyelectrolyte78%—COD; 74%—TSS;75%—TP[83]
Membrane bioreactorPolyelectrolyte95%—COD and TSS[80]
Membrane ultrafiltrationPolyethersulfone96—COD[84]
Membrane filtrationActivated carbonPhenol[85]
Membrane ultrafiltrationPolyaluminum ferric chloride99%—COD/TOC[86]
Membrane nanofiltrationPolyamide9%-lead[87]
Co-pyrolysisTea waste30%—cadmium[88]
MembraneTea waste7.2 mg/g cadmium[89]
Chemical co-precipitationGreen tea extract52%—fluoride[90]
Table
Table 7. Wastewater treatment in the pharmaceutical industry.
Table 7. Wastewater treatment in the pharmaceutical industry.
TreatmentPharmaceutical Waste WaterEfficiency (%)Reference
Membrane bioreactorChemical oxygen demand (COD), pHCOD—5789 (mg/L); pH—7[97]
Pharmaceutical industrial Wastewater treatmentDissolved organic carbon, total nitrogen (TN), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total phosphorous (TP)Not reported[98]
Anaerobic treatmentSulfamethoxazole (SMX)SMX—40 (mg/L)[99]
Membrane bioreactorTotal chemical oxygen demand (TCOD)COD—90%[100]
Pharmaceutical
industrial park wastewater treatment plant		pH, total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia (NH3) and total phosphorus (TP)pH—7; TSS—120 (mg/L); TN—84 (mg/L); COD—328 (mg/L); NH3— 37 (mg/L);[101]
Membrane bioreactorTotal dissolved solid (TDS), total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD)TDS—25,925 (mg/L); TCOD—20%[102]
Solid-phase bioremediationErythromycin, sulfamethoxazole (SMX), tetracycline (TET) ERY—1.2 (mg/L); SMX—11.5 (mg/L); TET—1.5 (mg/L)[103]
Membrane bioreactorDissolved organic nitrogen (DON)DON—68%; [104]
Membrane bioreactorChemical oxygen demand, EtodolacCOD—90%; Etodolac—99%[105]
Table
Table 8. Water treatment usage in different countries.
Table 8. Water treatment usage in different countries.
CountryWater sourceWater TreatmentResultReference
AustraliaGround waterUF and RORemoval of TC, TOC[126]
BrazilBrackish waterRO-desalinationRemoval of sulfate, total suspended solids and fluoride[127]
ChinaReservoirHollow fiber UFRemoval of metals, coliform bacteria[128]
ChinaSonghuajiang riverUltrafiltrationRemoval of COD, DOC[120]
EgyptBlack waterMFRemoval of TSS, BOD, COD[129]
GermanyIndustryMBRRemoval of COD[130]
IndiaPesticide contaminated surface waterNF and RORemoval of microbial content[131]
IndonesiaArsenic contaminated surface waterNFRemoval of TDS and arsenate ions[132]
MalaysiaSurface water and ground waterUFRemoval of heavy metals such as chromium, cadmium, zinc, copper, nickel and lead[133]
NetherlandSurface waterUF and MFRemoval of suspended solids, COD and bacteria[134]
South AfricaGround waterGravity driven UFRemoval of E.coli[135]
Sri LankaGround waterNFRemoval of DOC, TDS[136]
ThailandFreshwaterNFRemoval of divalent cations, DOC, TDS[137]
TurkeySea waterRO and NF-desalinationRemoval of coliform[138]
VietnamSea waterAir gap membrane distillationRemoval of TDS, TOC, arsenic, mercury[139]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Divya, S.; Oh, T.H. Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane for Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091732

AMA Style

Divya S, Oh TH. Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane for Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review. Polymers. 2022; 14(9):1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Divya, Sivasubramani, and Tae Hwan Oh. 2022. "Polymer Nanocomposite Membrane for Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review" Polymers 14, no. 9: 1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091732

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