FRMST 03 1361433

TYPE Review
PUBLISHED 29 February 2024

DOI 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
Recent advances of
OPEN ACCESS membrane-based hybrid
EDITED BY
Mohammad Mahdi A. Shirazi,
Aalborg University, Denmark
membrane bioreactors for
REVIEWED BY
Hang Liu,
wastewater reclamation
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), China
Nuwan Asanka Weerasekara,
University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka
Jeonghwan Kim 1*, Bing Wu 2, Sanghyun Jeong 3,
S. Saeid Hosseini, Seongpil Jeong 4,5 and Minseok Kim 1
University of South Africa, South Africa
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Program of Environmental and Polymer Engineering, Inha
*CORRESPONDENCE
University, Incheon, Republic of Korea, 2Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Jeonghwan Kim,
Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, 3Department of Environmental Engineering, Pusan National University,
jeonghwankim@inha.ac.kr
Busan, Republic of Korea, 4Center for Water Cycle Research, Korea Institute of Science and Technology,
RECEIVED 26 December 2023 Seoul, Republic of Korea, 5Division of Energy & Environmental Technology, KIST School, University of
ACCEPTED 15 February 2024 Science and Technology (UST), Seoul, Republic of Korea
PUBLISHED 29 February 2024
CITATION
Kim J, Wu B, Jeong S, Jeong S and Kim M
(2024), Recent advances of membrane-based
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is an advanced wastewater treatment technology,
hybrid membrane bioreactors for
wastewater reclamation. which has been established for more than 3 decades. In MBRs, membrane
Front. Membr. Sci. Technol. 3:1361433. separation allows not only rejecting microorganisms/greater-sized molecules
doi: 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
but decoupling hydraulic retention time (HRT) and solid retention time (SRT).
COPYRIGHT Low-pressure driven, porous membranes have been widely used in MBRs, but
© 2024 Kim, Wu, Jeong, Jeong and Kim. This is
their performances are mainly limited for wastewater reuse applications.
an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Recently, many attempts have been made to combine desalination
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or technologies to advance hybrid MBR processes for wastewater reclamation.
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) have been applied with the MBRs
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the to improve effluent quality, and their advantages and challenges have been well
original publication in this journal is cited, in reported in terms of rejection efficiency, operational energy, fouling control and
accordance with accepted academic practice.
recovery of retentate stream. Alternatively, the direct introduction of non-
No use, distribution or reproduction is
permitted which does not comply with these pressurized desalination technologies such as forward osmosis (FO) and
terms. membrane distillation (MD) into MBR processes for wastewater reclamation or
probably for microbial activity have been considered substantially due to their low
energy consumption and excellent rejection efficiency of solid materials.
However, several technical limitations still need to be resolved to
commercialize hybrid FO- or MD-MBR processes. This paper reviews recent
advances of MBR technology integrated with desalination technologies for
wastewater reclamation and suggests perspectives to optimize membrane-
based hybrid MBR process.
KEYWORDS
membrane bioreactor, desalination, wastewater reclamation, fouling, wastewater reuse
1 Introduction
Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is a well-developed membrane-based wastewater
process by combining biodegradation and separation to remove organic/inorganic
contaminants from wastewater (Xue et al., 2010). The MBR has great advantages in
terms of separating hydraulic retention time (HRT) and solid retention time (SRT) while
producing excellent effluent (permeate) quality for discharge (Skouteris et al., 2012; Smith
et al., 2012). Needs to incorporate reuse of wastewater effluents by consequences of
Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 01 frontiersin.org

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
population growth, rapid urbanization and water shortage are 2 Conventional MBR combined with
growing rapidly for sustainable wastewater management NF/RO membrane system
planning (Van de Walle et al., 2023). However, due to strict
wastewater reuse standards, the MBR permeate may not meet 2.1 Overview
such requirements, thus requiring additional treatments (Tibi
et al., 2019; Kwon et al., 2021). Generally, MBRs displayed excellent removal efficiency for
Value of reclaimed water can be enhanced further by organics and nutrients via biodegradation and membrane
developing membrane based hybrid MBR processes (Liu et al., rejection, but showed limited rejection of smaller-sized, dissolved
2010; Krzeminski et al., 2012). Desalination technologies such as substances (such as humic-like substances, low molecule weight
reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF), forward osmosis (FO) organics, heavy metals, micropollutants, etc.) that readily pass
and membrane distillation (MD) have been established mostly in through the porous membranes (Judd, 2010). Towards achieving
seawater desalination (Aliyu et al., 2018; Ray et al., 2018; Qasim wastewater reclamation, further membrane separation processes,
et al., 2019; Wafi et al., 2019). Here, membrane-based hybrid MBR such as NF or RO, have been employed to further purify the MBR
is classified into conventional MBR integrated with desalination permeate. Many research studies listed in Table 1 have proven that
membrane such as NF or RO as post-treatment and a novel hybrid the MBR + NF/RO hybrid processes could achieve high efficiency
MBR where NF, FO or MD membrane is introduced directly into and stable performance, which allows them as the most promising
bioreactor. However, there are many attempts how to combine technologies for wastewater reclamation.
and tailor desalination technologies with MBRs to provide Compared to RO processes, the NF processes are capable to
synergistic impacts for wastewater reuse purposes. Membrane- provide a higher permeate flux or higher recovery ratio with lower
based hybrid MBR processes offer great benefits because they can operating pressure and cost (Sert et al., 2016). The NF membrane
produce superior water quality criteria at small footprint and may be suitable to remove low salinity wastewater where high ion
excellent rejection efficiency (Rodríguez-Hernández et al., 2014; selectivity is not required, inducing monovalent-divalent ion
Tang et al., 2022). Additionally, combining the MBRs with selectivity (Nativ et al., 2021). The NF membranes can provide
desalination membranes can intensify the MBR centered very high removal of macromolecules that include those associated
process for wastewater reclamation (Krzeminski et al., 2012; with EPS, SMP and NOM. However, the RO membrane can remove
Wang et al., 2015b; Burman and Sinha, 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). all inorganic chemicals and low-molecular weight organic chemicals
Nevertheless, the effluent produced by MBR still contains variety that would pass through the NF membrane. Thus, the MF/UF-MBR
of pollutants mostly caused by microbial activities, inorganic + NF process is considered as an alternative approach for wastewater
species and non-biodegradable fractions (Stoquart et al., 2012; reclamation that can compromise between permeability and
Yan et al., 2018). Therefore, additional treatments for fit-for- selectivity. As indicated in Table 1, the MF/UF-MBR + NF
purpose should be required to reuse secondary effluent for various process has been successfully applied to treat municipal
reuse purposes. For indirect potable reuse, the existence of wastewater (Jacob et al., 2010; Chon et al., 2011; Chon et al.,
refractory (or non-biodegradable) natural organic matter 2013; Kappel et al., 2014; Chon et al., 2015; Woo et al., 2016;
(NOM) which would not be rejected effectively by MF or Arola et al., 2017; Hacıfazlıoğlu et al., 2019; Arola et al., 2021;
ultrafiltration (UF) in the MBR needs post-treatment or direct Yacouba et al., 2021) and various types of industrial wastewater
usage of the membranes having much high rejection capability in (Wintgens et al., 2002; Dialynas and Diamadopoulos, 2009; Andrade
bioreactor. Organics of potential concern, particularly for indirect et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015a; Hosseini et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016;
potable reuse applications, include pesticides, pharmaceutically- Reis et al., 2017; Sert et al., 2017; Lan et al., 2018; Moser et al., 2018;
active chemicals and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. For Cinperi et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020a; Reis et al., 2020). In most of the
anaerobic MBR (AnMBR), anaerobic effluent (permeate) studies, the treated water quality could meet the standards of
contains high load of nutrients such as nitrogen and dissolved reclaimed water quality for different uses, such as for urban uses,
methane. Depending upon qualities in MBR permeate, for industrial uses, for groundwater recharge, and for farmland
desalination technologies are reliable options and thus needs to irrigation (WHO, 2006).
be tailored to improve not only effluent qualities but also Towards further improving the treated water quality (e.g.,
microbial activities (Pearce, 2008; Falizi et al., 2018; Liu producing ultrapure water as fresh water source), a combination
et al., 2023). of MBR and RO was adopted, which could exhibit superior organic
The MBR requires additional treatment although there is removals compared to MBR + NF systems. The total nitrogen (TN)
currently no agreement on the best among the current options; in the permeates of MBR + RO and MBR + NF were different,
NF, RO, FO and MD technology. Mostly, the MBR uses MF or UF possibly due to different rejection efficiencies of nitrogen species, for
membranes for removal of particles, macromolecules and larger example, 71.7% for NF90% and 86.2% for BW30 membrane by both
microbes. However, there are existences of non-biodegradable NF and RO membranes (Cinperi et al., 2019; Hacıfazlıoğlu et al.,
organics, effluent organic matter or colloidal fraction consisting 2019). It was also reported that the MBR + RO rejected TN about
of microbial by-products. Macromolecules associated with 10% higher than MBR + NF (Cinperi et al., 2019). Also, there was
microbial product such as extracellular polymeric substance only 3% higher in TN removal efficiency by MBR + RO than MBR +
(EPS), soluble microbial product (SMP) or NOM, low- NF process operated at same transmembrane pressure (TMP)
molecular weight organic chemicals and inorganic chemicals (Hacıfazlıoğlu et al., 2019). Thus, the conventional biological
present in the MBR should also be multiple barriers to indirect processes such as anaerobic and/or anoxic reactors are generally
potable reuse. implemented with an aerobic MBR for elimination of both organics

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
TABLE 1 Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.
Wastewater MBR NF/RO Permeate References

process quality
Configuration Membrane Permeate
quality
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged MF NF (220-250 Da, COD: <1.8 mg/L Arola et al. (2017)
wastewater (PVDF, 0.2 μm) recovery ratio
at 84%)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged MF COD: 22 mg/L; TP: Two-stage NF (220- COD: 2.6 mg/L; TP: Arola et al. (2021)
wastewater (PVDF, 0.2 μm) 4.4 mg/L; TN: 250 Da, recovery 0.7 mg/L; TN: 22 mg/L
23 mg/L ratio at 83% and
98% for first- and
second-stage,
respectively)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow DOC: 6.01 mg/L NF (350 and DOC: 0.4-0.7 mg/L Chon et al. (2015)
wastewater fibre MF (PVDF, 210 Da)
0.1 μm)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow DOC: 6.07 mg/L; TN: NF (350 and DOC: 0.4-0.7 mg/L; TN: Chon et al. (2013)
wastewater fibre MF (PVDF, 32.99 mg/L 210 Da) 9.7-31.1 mg/L
0.1 μm)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow DOC: 8.16 mg/L; TN: NF (210 Da) DOC: 2.8 mg/L; TN: Chon et al. (2011)
wastewater fibre MF (PVDF, 48.06 mg/L 11.4 mg/L
0.1 μm)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow NF (~150 Da) or MBR + NF: TOC: Hacıfazlıoğlu et al.
wastewater fiber MF (PVDF, RO (recovery ratio 1.46 mg/L; TN: 1.44 mg/ (2019)
0.1 μm) at 50%) L MBR + RO: TOC:
0.91 mg/L; TN:
1.25 mg/L
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow TOC: 6.0-8.0 mg/L NF (~150 Da) or MBR + NF: TOC: 0.54- Jacob et al. (2010)
wastewater fibre UF (PVDF, RO (recovery ratio 0.72 mg/L; MBR + RO:
200 kDa) at 10%-70%) TOC: 0.24-0.3 mg/L
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet TOC: 17 mg/L NF (recovery ratio TOC: 0.5 mg/L Kappel et al. (2014)
wastewater MF (PVDF, 0.4 μm) at 85%)
Municipal Aerobic MBR (with and Submerged flat sheet MBR: COD: NF (300-400 Da, MBR + NF: COD: Woo et al. (2016)
wastewater without PAC) MF (PVDF, 0.08 μm) 158.83 mg/L; TN: recovery ratio 15 mg/L; TN: 2.68 mg/L
(Synthetic) 24.50 mg/L PAC- at 82.5%) PAC-MBR + NF: COD:
MBR: COD: 9.88 mg/L; TN:
133.49 mg/L; TN: 1.89 mg/L
24.47 mg/L
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet Ozonation + NF - Yacouba et al.

wastewater MF (PE, 0.2 μm) (~150 Da, recovery (2021)
ratio at 80%)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow DOC: 2.12-10.21 mg/ RO (recovery ratio DOC: 1.04–4.1 mg/L; Dialynas and
wastewater fibre MF (0.04 μm) L; TN: 47-83 mg/L at 50%) TN: 17-21 mg/L Diamadopoulos
(2009)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow DOC: 3.6-5.9 mg/L RO (recovery ratio DOC: 0.1–0.39 mg/L Farias et al. (2014)
wastewater fibre MF (0.05 μm) at 62%-70%)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow RO - Li et al. (2020b)

wastewater fibre MF (PVDF,
0.1 μm)
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet COD: 21 mg/L; RO (recovery ratio COD: <4 mg/L; Malamis et al.
wastewater MF (PVDF, 0.04 μm) Ammonium-N: <0.5- at 40%) Ammonium-N: 0.5- (2012)
24.0 mg/L; Nitrate-N: 1.1 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
17-48 mg/L 2.2-3.8 mg/L
Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet RO - Wu et al. (2013)

wastewater MF (PVDF, 0.08 μm)
(Synthetic)
Municipal Aerobic moving bed External hollow fibre RO (recovery ratio - Tay et al. (2018)
wastewater biofilm MBR NF (200-300 Da) at 0% and 90%)
(Continued on following page)

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
TABLE 1 (Continued) Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.

process quality
quality
Municipal Aerobic moving bed External hollow fibre RO (recovery ratio - Tay et al. (2020)
wastewater biofilm MBR NF (200-300 Da) at 90%)
Municipal Aerobic moving bed Submerged tubular COD: 7.2-7.4 mg/L; RO COD: 0.24-0.44 mg/L Wang et al. (2019)
wastewater biofilm MBR MF (Ceramic, TN: 19.6-25.94 mg/L TN: 0.98-1.15 mg/L
(Synthetic) 0.02 μm)
Municipal Aerobic moving bed Submerged tubular TOC: 3.1 mg/L; RO TOC: 0.093 mg/L; Sun et al. (2021)
wastewater biofilm MBR MF (Ceramic, 0.2 μm) Nitrate-N: 1.83 mg/L Ammonium-N: N.D.
(Synthetic) Nitrate-N: 0.110 mg/L
Municipal Anaerobic MBR Submerged hollow TOC: 3.60 mg/L; RO + ion exchange MBR + RO: TOC: Gu et al. (2019)
wastewater fibre MF (PVDF, Ammonium-N: 0.13 mg/L; Ammonium-
(Synthetic) 0.02 μm) 41.9 mg/L N: 2.1 mg/L; MBR + RO
+ ion exchange: TOC:
0.13 mg/L; Ammonium-
N: <1 mg/L
Municipal Anaerobic fluidized- Submerged hollow Zeolite column - Li et al. (2020b)

wastewater bed MBR fibre MF (PVDF, + RO
0.1 μm)
Antibiotic processing Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet TOC: 126.24 mg/L NF (150-300 Da, TOC: 2 mg/L Li et al. (2016)
wastewater MF (PVDF, 0.1 μm) recovery ratio at
40%-90%)
Antibiotic processing Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet TOC: 79 mg/L; NF (~150 Da, TOC: 5.52 mg/L; Wang et al. (2015a)
wastewater MF (PVDF, 0.1 μm) Ammonium-N: recovery ratio Ammonium-N:
9.4 mg/L at 92%) 0.68 mg/L
Dairy wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow COD: 57.3 mg/L; TS: NF (~150 Da, COD: 4 mg/L; TS: Andrade et al.
fibre MF (PEI,0.5 μm) 1.647 mg/L recovery ratio 233 mg/L (2014)
at 45%)
Fruit processing Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet RO Pesticides >95.4% de Almeida Lopes
wastewater UF (PES) et al. (2020)
Hospital wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow NF (250 Da, - Lan et al. (2017)
fibre MF (PS, 0.2 μm) recovery ratio
at 80%)
Hospital wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow TOC: 8.40-31.40 mg/L NF (250 Da, TOC: 0.5-15.5 mg/L Lan et al. (2018)
fibre MF (PS, 0.2 μm) recovery ratio
at 80%)
Industrial wastewater - - COD: 21.5 mg/L; RO (recovery ratio MBR + RO: COD: 5 mg/ Parlar et al. (2019)
TN: 45.5 at 68.6%) or NF + L; TN: 3.8 mg/L MBR +
RO (recovery ratio NF + RO: COD: 5 mg/L;
at 67.7% and 69.1% TN: 2.8 mg/L
respectively)
Industrial wastewater - - NF (~200 Da, MBR + NF: TOC: Sert et al. (2016)
recovery ratio at 2.15 mg/L; Ammonium-
35%-52.5%) or RO N: 0.14 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
(recovery ratio at 6.21 mg/L MBR + RO:
35%-44.5%) TOC: 1.95 mg/L;
Ammonium-N:
0.10 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
3.56 mg/L
Leachate wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow COD: 1,445-3374 mg/ NF (200-400 Da, COD: 77-457 mg/L; TN: Reis et al. (2017)
fibre MF (PEI, 0.5 μm) L; TN: 888-1,508 mg/L recovery ratio 230-699 mg/L
at 60%)
Leachate wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow COD: 3374 mg/L; TN: NF (200-400 Da) COD: 457 mg/L; TN: Reis et al. (2020)
fibre MF (PEI, 1750 mg/L 699 mg/L
0.45 μm)
(Continued on following page)

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
TABLE 1 (Continued) Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.

process quality
quality
Leachate wastewater Aerobic MBR External UF Activated carbon Nonylphenol and Wintgens et al.
+ NF bisphenol: 70%-100% (2002)
Petroleum refinery Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow TOC: 12.70 mg/L; NF (100 Da) or MBR + NF: TOC: Moser et al. (2018)
wastewater fibre MF (PVDF, Ammonium-N: UV/H2O2 +NF 0.58 mg/L Ammonium-
0.04 μm) 1.6 mg/L; Nitrate-N: (100 Da) N: 0.4 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
169 mg/L 6.52 mg/L MBR + UV/
H2O2 +NF: TOC:
0.96 mg/L; Ammonium-
N: 0.3 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
5.82 mg/L
Textile wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow COD: 132.8 mg/L; TN: NF (220-250 Da) MBR + NF: COD: 3- Cinperi et al. (2019)
fibre MF (0.02 μm) 34.2 mg/L or RO 5 mg/L; TN: 17.7-
18.4 mg/L MBR + RO:
COD: <1 mg/L; TN:
14.4-16.5 mg/L
Textile wastewater Aerobic MBR Submerged flat sheet NF (200-400 Da, COD: 13.94 mg/L; Li et al. (2020a)
UF (PVDF, ≤100 Da) recovery ratio at Ammonium-N:
39%-90%) 3.54 mg/L; Nitrate-N:
75.79 mg/L
COD, chemical oxygen demand; PE, polyethylene; PEI, polyetherimide; PS, polysulfone; PVDF, polyvinylidene fluoride; TOC, total organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen.
and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) before the MBR permeate approach via integrating a bioreactor with an external porous NF
is fed into the RO system (Li et al., 2020b). Alternatively, a biofilm membrane (i.e., NF-MBR) has been attempted as pretreatment of
MBR is adopted for simultaneous removals of organic and nitrogen wastewater for the RO process (Tay et al., 2018; Tay et al., 2020).
and its permeate is further purified by a RO membrane, which shows Apparently, compared to MF/UF-MBR, the NF-MBR produced the
several advantages such as low energy consumption, small footprint, permeate with lower organic/inorganic substances, accordingly, the
and limited sludge production (Wang et al., 2019). Whether the RO subsequent RO membrane receiving the NF-MBR permeate
membranes would experience more fouling potential than the NF displayed better performance. Importantly, under the comparable
membranes in the MBR + NF/RO systems are still under debate. energy consumption scenario, the NF-MBR-RO system could
Some research work highlighted that the RO membrane displayed achieve a water recovery ratio up to 90%, higher than that of the
excellent rejection of both cations and anions, which could be MF/UF-MBR-RO system (recovery ratio of 75%).
responsible for more inorganic fouling of RO membranes In this decade, AnMBRs have received great attention due to
(Hacıfazlıoğlu et al., 2019). While other studies pointed out the their high-quality effluent, limited sludge production, and energy
low molecular weight organic molecules in the MBR permeate could production (i.e., methane) (Wu and Kim, 2020). A combination of
potentially contribute to internal pore blocking of NF membranes, anaerobic MBR with RO process have been explored to produce
which led to more serious NF membrane fouling, especially at lower high-grade reclaimed water for both non-potable and potable use
water recovery ratios and for more tight NF membranes (Jacob (Gu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020b). As stand-alone AnMBRs are
et al., 2010). ineffective for removing nutrients (e.g., ammonium and phosphate)
Effluent quality from the MBR is critical in biofouling on NF/RO and RO membranes have limited ammonium rejection efficiency,
membranes (Al-Amoudi and Lovitt, 2007; Jiang et al., 2017; Matin integration of an additional polishing process with AnMBR + RO for
et al., 2021). Nevertheless, studies to make direct comparison of ammonium removal is suggested. For example, an ion exchange
fouling behaviors between NF and RO membrane are still very process was supplemented to purify AnMBR + RO permeate (Gu
limited. Effect of surface roughness on biofouling was more et al., 2019); a zeolite adsorption process was employed to treat an
pronounced than operational conditions for both NF and RO AnMBR permeate water before its feeding to a RO process (Li
membrane (Alturki et al., 2010). Given its relatively high et al., 2020b).
rejection efficiency, biofouling would be formed more
preferentially by RO than NF membrane from MBR permeate
(Kimura et al., 2009). Moreover, when RO and NF membranes 2.2 The factors that influencing MBR + NF/
were exposed to the same biofouling condition with Pseudomonas RO performance
aeruginosa, final cell concentration on RO membrane was lower
than NF membrane in the presence of pharmaceutically active 2.2.1 Effect of NF/RO membrane property
compounds (Yang et al., 2018). Although NF/RO membranes show great rejection of organics/
Nevertheless, improving the quality of MBR permeate (i.e., RO inorganics derived from the MBR permeate due to their dense
feed water) is crucial in alleviating RO membrane fouling. A feasible membrane natures, the MBR + NF/RO permeate quality could be

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
impacted by the NF/RO membrane property (such as pore size of such effects could be accelerated when the recovery ratio is above
NF membrane, surface charge, hydrophobicity, etc.). It has been well certain threshold level which is about 45% (Andrade et al., 2014).
illustrated that size-exclusion performed a crucial role in rejection of Towards superior NF/RO permeate quality, the NF recovery ratio at
organic substances by NF membranes, i.e., with decreasing NF 50%-85% and RO recovery ratio at 50%-75% were generally adopted
membrane pore size, more organic substances (such as humic- in the reported studies (Table 1). Thus, high volume of NF/RO
like substances) could be retained by NF membranes, improving concentrate with diluted nature is produced. Further post-treatment
MBR + NF permeate quality (Chon et al., 2013; Chon et al., 2015). of NF/RO brines that contain great amounts of nutrients, refractory
While, in terms of micropollutants, size exclusion, hydrophobic/ organic compounds, and inorganic salts is necessary as an efficient
hydrophilic interactions, and electrostatic interactions performed membrane concentrate management strategy. To increase water
major roles in rejection of micropollutants in NF/RO processes, and recovery ratio in the MBR + NF system, one solution was to employ
the dominance of these mechanisms is associated with the second-stage rotational NF process with high turbulent force by
characteristics of NF/RO membranes and micropollutants. For rotating blade on membrane surface to concentrate the first-stage
example, the molecular weight cut-off of NF membranes NF brine, which allowed simultaneously improving water
governed the removal efficiencies of N-nitrosamines, heavy production, allowing 300 times NF brine volume reduction, and
metals, and metalloids compared to adsorption and formation of recovering phosphorus to 86% via spontaneous crystallization of
membrane fouling on the NF membranes (Chon et al., 2013; Chon calcium phosphate (Arola et al., 2021).
et al., 2015). In a study on MBR + NF for leachate wastewater In the real operation of MBR + NF, the NF concentrate is
treatment (Wintgens et al., 2002), it was found that the generally recycled back to the preceding MBR in order to enhance
hydrophobicity of the NF membrane could influence the wastewater recycling efficiency and reduced the discharge of NF
retention of nonylphenol (NP), but did not determine the brine wastewater. While, the recirculation of RO concentrate to the
retention of bisphenol A. With solution-diffusion transport of NP MBR is not practical due to their relatively higher salinity, which
through NF membrane, the transport of NP is constant through the generally requires post-treatment before discharge. It is noted that
membrane while the water flux increases in more hydrophilic recirculating NF brine back to the bioreactor caused the
conditions, so that the NP retention increases (Wintgens et al., accumulation of organics, nitrogen, phosphorus and divalent ions
2004). In contrast, the MBR + RO displayed excellent mitigation of in the MBRs, which could potentially affect the system performance
organics (Jacob et al., 2010; Hacıfazlıoğlu et al., 2019), and pollutant mitigation (Kappel et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015a).
micropollutants, such as pesticides (de Almeida Lopes et al., First, increasing NF brine recirculation ratio could lead to a
2020), heavy metals (Dialynas and Diamadopoulos, 2009). It decreased of biomass amount, which was attributed to the negative
should be realized that in certain conditions, the micropollutant effects of accumulated toxic and refractory organics/inorganics
removal ratios in the MBR + RO still slightly lower than that in the (especially causing increased salinity) on the sludge production in
MBR + activated carbon system (e.g., >95.4% of 2,4-D, atrazine, the MBR. Nevertheless, no significant change of microbial
carbendazim, and diuron removal in MBR + RO vs >98.6% in MBR community in the MBR was noticed with the recycling of the NF
+ activated carbon), implying the importance of RO membrane concentrate. Meanwhile, once the microbial community adopted to
property in micropollutant mitigation (de Almeida Lopes such operation conditions, the sludge was able to maintain at a
et al., 2020). relatively constant level (Kappel et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015a; Li
Furthermore, the NF/RO membrane characteristics also et al., 2020a).
influence NF/RO fouling potential. Compared to the NF Second, recirculating NF brine back to the MBR may influence
membrane with relatively larger pore size, the NF membrane the permeate quality of both MBR and MBR + NF. In several
with fine pore size had more significant flux decline when they documented studies, it was observed that the presence of the
received the same MBR permeate (Jacob et al., 2010; Chon et al., recirculation of NF retentate could cause decreasing removal
2013). Similarly, the permeability decline of the RO membrane ratios of organics and ammonia in the MBR. Generally, the
decreased more significantly than the NF membrane, especially at a predominant organics in the MBR permeate are proteins,
higher recovery ratio (Jacob et al., 2010; Hacıfazlıoğlu et al., 2019). polysaccharides, and humic-like substances, which can be almost
However, at a lower recovery ratio, the flux decline of the RO completely rejected by NF membranes (Li et al., 2016). Accordingly,
membrane was slower than that of the NF membrane because the the organic contents in the MBR + NF permeate was negligibly
low molecular weight molecules in the MBR permeate could cause impacted by the NF brine recirculation ratio, showing steady
serious pore blocking of the NF membrane (Jacob et al., 2010). performance of NF membranes. However, it was noticed that
recirculating NF brine back to the MBR significantly aggregated
2.2.2 Effect of recovery ratio and brine the accumulation of nitrate in both the MBR and NF units, leading
recirculation ratio to more nitrate present in the MBR + NF permeate (Wang et al.,
In the MBR + NF/RO processes, water recovery ratio of NF/RO 2015a; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020a). Furthermore, recirculating NF
process is an important parameter in determining productivity of retentate increases concentration-polarization layer on membrane
reclaimed water. Increasing recovery ratio in the NF/RO process due to the concentration of organics in MBR effluent, and this can
benefits improving water production, but more hydraulic driving reduce rejection efficiency by NF membrane. In terms of inorganics,
force is needed due to increased osmotic pressure and fouling (cause especially monovalent ions that are not readily completely rejected
by gel layer or adsorption) (Andrade et al., 2014; Arola et al., 2021). by the NF membranes, their levels in the MBR + NF permeate could
As a result, increased driving force could facilitate the retained significantly increase with elevating the recirculation ratio of the NF
molecules passing through the NF/RO membranes. In particular, retentate back to the MBR (Kappel et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016).

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
Third, the presence of NF brine recirculation back to the MBR permeate could be strongly dependent upon the feed wastewater
aggregated both MBR and NF membrane fouling. Several studies conditions and operation conditions of MBRs, which potentially
have highlighted that divalent ions and SMPs brought by NF influence the subsequent NF/RO performance (Wu et al., 2013;
concentrate are the dominant factors causing the severe Farias et al., 2014).
membrane fouling in MBRs. In addition, the organic fouling and For example, Farias et al. (2014) found that increasing the
inorganic scaling on the NF membrane appeared to increase due to SRT from 2 to 20 days facilitated alleviating membrane fouling
relatively high levels of organics/inorganics in the MBR permeate and enhanced organic removal in the MF-MBRs, but increased
(Kappel et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020a). However, the fouling potential of the subsequent RO membranes. While, Wu
dominant NF membrane fouling mechanisms in the reported MBR et al. (2013) noticed that the MF-MBR operated at a high F/M
+ NF systems were dissimilar, possibly relating to the different ratio (0.50 g/g day−1, i.e., SRT at 7 days) had a more serious MF
operation conditions and wastewater properties. For example, in the membrane fouling and produced the MBR permeate with greater
MBR + NF system for municipal wastewater reclamation, the amounts of organic substances, accordingly, causing a higher RO
predominance of NF membrane fouling was inorganic scaling, fouling rate compared to the low F/M ratio (0.17 g/g day−1,
which could be alleviated by regulating the pH level of NF feed i.e., SRT at 45 days). In a recent study on NF-MBR + RO
water (Kappel et al., 2014). While, in another study focusing on process (Tay et al., 2020), the NF-MBR at a longer SRT
MBR + NF for antibiotic processing wastewater treatment, the (60 days) had greater accumulation of divalent salts in the
soluble organic substances (especially fulvic acid-like and humic bioreactors compared to that at a shorter SRT (30 days),
acid-like compounds) accumulated on the NF membrane leading to more severe inorganic fouling on the NF
determined the NF fouling potential (Li et al., 2016). Under these membrane. As both NF-MBRs displayed similar microbial
scenarios, more frequent membrane cleaning was therefore adopted viability and biodegradation efficiency in terms of organic
in order to maintain constant permeate productivity, which led to carbon and ammonia, comparable permeate qualities were
increased operation cost and capital cost (due to shortening NF achieved in both NF-MBRs. However, a higher RO fouling
membrane lifespan). However, the high recovery of reclaimed water rate was observed when the RO membrane was fed with the
brought considerable potential economic benefits, thus, the permeate produced by NF-MBR at a higher SRT, implying the
applicability and feasibility of various MBR + NF operation effect of organic composites (such as assimilable organic carbon)
configurations should be optimized with regards to both in the NF-MBR permeate on the RO performance. Notably, the
operation performance and overall economic benefits (Li conclusions relating to the influence of SRT on the consequent
et al., 2020a). NF/RO performance were not always in a consistent pattern in
these reported studies, possibly due to dissimilar wastewater and
2.2.3 Effect of MBR operation conditions membrane nature, reactor configuration, and operating
It has been well illustrated that (1) variable feed wastewater philosophy. Nevertheless, operational parameters of HRT and
characteristics and operation conditions in the MBRs could SRT should influence membrane fouling because they should be
influence on the membrane performance and permeate quality of involved critically for substrate utilization and cell growth.
MBRs (such as organics, nutrients, inorganics) (Wu and Fane, 2012; Additionally, the dissolved oxygen (DO) level in the MBRs has
Meng et al., 2017; Wu and Kim, 2020); (2) The feed water quality of also been reported to impact the subsequent NF/RO membrane
MBRs is a critical factor in determining organic fouling, scaling and performance. It was found that decreasing the DO level in a moving
biofouling of NF/RO membranes (Al-Amoudi and Lovitt, 2007; bed biofilm MBR from 4.0, to 2.5, and to 1.0 mg/L, the fouling rate of
Jiang et al., 2017; Matin et al., 2021). Not surprisingly, the MBR the RO membrane fed with the MBR permeate increased from 0.015,
operation conditions could have potential impact on the overall to 0.023, and to 0.055 bar/d (Wang et al., 2019). The biopolymers in
MBR + NF/RO performance. the MBR permeate was further identified to be correspondent with
As expected, several studies have revealed that a higher level the RO fouling potential, i.e., the MBR at a higher DO level produced
of organic substances in the MBR permeate reduced NF/RO the permeate with less amounts of biopolymers. Similarly, although
performance. For example, Reis et al. (2017) pointed out that a the aerobic MBR and AnMBR-zeolite column produced the
yeast-based MBR treating landfill leachate wastewater could permeate with comparable organic and nitrogen concentrations,
benefit producing the permeate with less organics compared the performance of the RO membrane fed with the aerobic MBR
to a conventional MBR. As a result, the permeate of the yeast- permeate was better than that with the AnMBR-zeolite column
based MBR + NF was superior than the conventional MBR + NF. effluent. It appears that the divalent ions released from the zeolite
Woo et al. (2016) found that the presence of activated carbon column could interact with phosphate to accelerate inorganic
(1 g/L) in the MBR could produce the permeate with less colloidal fouling on the RO membranes (Li et al., 2020b).
organics, allowing the subsequent NF membrane operated at Such observations highlighted that (1) besides organic amounts,
a higher flux compared to that without powdered activated the organic/inorganic compositions in the MBR permeate could
carbon (PAC). Meanwhile, better permeate quality was have a significant influence on the performance of following NF/RO
achieved in the PAC-MBR + NF. processes, which should be given more attention in future research;
Despite of this fact, the MBRs generally show excellent organic (2) during optimization of MBR + NF/RO for wastewater
removals from wastewater and produced superior permeate reclamation, the combined effects of the operation conditions of
quality. However, the detailed organic compositions (such as MBRs on both MBR and NF/RO performance need be carefully
hydrophobicity, aromaticity, biopolymer fraction, or evaluated in terms of membrane fouling control and
carboxylate/acid/base nature of the organics) in the MBR economic benefits.

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
2.2.4 Effect of feed pretreatment on NF/RO 3 Hybrid MBR systems

As discussed above, the MBR permeate quality could influence
NF/RO membrane performance. Thus, an additional physical/ 3.1 Hybrid NF-MBR
chemical process is suggested to be employed for post-treatment
of the MBR permeate before it is fed to NF/RO systems, aiming to Generally, porous membranes such as MF or UF, are employed
remove the substances that could be potential foulants of NF/RO in MBRs to retain active biomass effectively. To obtain high
membranes. For example, in the MBR + RO system, installation of permeate quality for wastewater reclamation, feasibility of NF
cartridge filters (~5 μm) in the RO feed line and recycled RO membrane is also explored by directly combining NF membrane
concentrate line significantly mitigated RO fouling from 1.65 to with bioreactor. Since physicochemical separation employed by the
0.30 bar/day, which was majorly attributed to reduced accumulation NF membrane is dominated by both size exclusion and solution-
of organic substances on the RO membranes by reducing its dry diffusion mechanisms, various contaminants such as colloidal and
weight to 128.6 from 282 mg/m2. day (Wu et al., 2013). In addition, a organic compounds can be rejected effectively (Choi et al., 2002).
NF process was suggested to treat MBR permeate before it was fed However, monovalent ions or nanoscale- organics present in
into the RO process in a study on industrial wastewater treatment. wastewater are difficult to be retained by NF membrane,
The results confirmed that with NF pretreatment of MBR permeate accordingly, they may not be accumulated easily in bioreactors.
(significantly rejecting organics and divalent ions), the RO This enables the NF-MBR to be operated under relatively lower
membrane could be operated at a relatively higher flux, 97 and suction pressures (than RO membranes), while preventing the
86 L/m2. hr (LMH) for NF and MBR, respectively. Meanwhile, MBR inhibition against microbial growth and activity (Choi et al.,
+ NF + RO could produce the superior permeate quality than the 2002). Additionally, the NF membrane in the MBR process did
MBR + RO compared to single MBR in terms of total dissolved not provide any adverse impact on biological conversion of NH4-N
(17.1 vs 29.6 mg/L as total dissolved solids (TDS)) and TN (2.8 vs (Cao et al., 2022).
3.8 mg/L) (Parlar et al., 2019). However, NF-MBRs suffer low permeability nature, e.g.,
Furthermore, in a hybrid MBR + NF process in treating ~0.01 to 0.04 LMH of permeate flux was reported in the
municipal wastewater, additional ozonation of MBR permeate submerged NF-MBR with commercial NF membrane (Cao et al.,
before its feeding into the NF process could alleviate 40% of NF 2022). To enhance membrane permeability, novel NF membranes
membrane fouling. This was attributed to the oxidation of the with tailored properties have been adopted in the NF-MBR. For
protein-like, fulvic and humic-like substances in the MBR example, the loosely structured hollow-fiber membrane was applied
permeate via decomposing their carbon-carbon double bonds in the NF-MBR, allowing to be operated at ~2 LMH with more than
and aromatic rings, which formed more hydrophilic nature 95% COD removal efficiency (Cao et al., 2022). In a moving bed
compounds with less propensity to induce irreversible fouling biofilm reactor with a side-streamed NF membrane module (using
(Yacouba et al., 2021). Alternatively, employing UV/H2O2 to layer-by-layer polyethersulfone NF membrane) under ~22 h of
treat MBR permeate benefited for mineralization of organics in HRT, about 10 LMH of set-point flux was achieved (Tay et al.,
the MBR permeate. Accordingly, when the MBR-UV/H2O2 2018). The new NF membrane with high permeability and selectivity
effluent was fed into the NF process, less NF membrane should be developed for MBR. With the side-stream membrane
fouling and superior NF permeate quality were observed configuration, generation of the concentrate stream from the NF
compared to that fed with the MBR permeate. Importantly, membrane that returns into bioreactor is not avoidable, requiring
the integration of H2O2/UV with the MBR-NF process saved additional treatment unit such as chemical oxidation or
20% of capital and operation cost respectively due to reduced NF electrodialysis to mitigate the concentrate load and protect
membrane cleaning frequency and prolonging NF membrane microbial activity (Kappel et al., 2014). Research works need to
lifespan (Moser et al., 2018). be directed into the NF-MBR to maintain desired cell concentration
Nevertheless, long-term addition of oxidant in MBR permeate as in MBR without wash-out and potential inhibitory effect caused by
pretreatment may reduce membrane performances depending upon transportation of monovalent ions or nano-scaled organic
ozone dose and membrane materials. In the MBR-ozonation hybrid compounds on microbial activity.
process, the target ozone dose needed to be maintained below
5.0 mg/L to prevent membrane damage (Sun et al., 2018). When
the polyethersulfone (PES)-based membrane such as NP10 and 3.2 Hybrid FO-MBR
polyamide (PA)-based membrane such as NF90and
NF270 membrane were exposed to 10 mg/L of dissolved ozone at Despite the advances in NF or RO that promise to increase MBR
pH 7 for 1 h, there was no significant degradation observed with permeate quality, it consumes high operational energy. In recent
NP10 membrane while PA-based NF membranes were damaged years, combining a FO membrane process with a bioreactor, termed
severely (Ouali et al., 2021). as FO-MBR or osmotic MBR has been emerging as a result of
In case of the MBR coupled with UV/H2O2 process, the recognition of FO to provide excellent permeate (effluent) qualities
limitation of the H2O2 concentration recirculated to the MBR and reduction in operational cost over traditional high-pressure
step was reported as 3–7 mg/L to prevent not only microbial driven membrane processes (Holloway et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
activity but also membrane damage (Laera et al., 2012). As PA- 2016; Pathak et al., 2021; Moktadir et al., 2023). The FO filtration
TFC composite NF membrane was exposed to 4 mg/L of H2O2 uses a semipermeable membrane and is driven by natural osmotic
during 24 h, the rejection of micropollutants were reduced slightly pressure generated by draw solution to produce permeate from feed
due to membrane damage (Lin et al., 2021). solutions (Ndiaye et al., 2021). Since the FO filtration relies on the

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
osmotic pressure caused by concentration gradient through also water quality as well as microbial activities. Especially, the
membrane materials, an energy demand required for TMP to reverse salt transport may increase the amount of salt in bulk
operate the system is very low. As filtration progresses with time, suspension of MBRs, which would provide adverse effects on
however, the draw solution becomes diluted, so that both feed and microbial community and bacterial growth (Nawaz et al., 2013;
bulk solution in the MBR should be concentrated subsequently. The Nawaz et al., 2016). Subsequently, the salt concentration in the MBR
waste product concentrated by FO membrane is easy to be disposed increased by the FO membrane varies depending upon the growth
or reused downstream as useful energy and resource source. Since rate of biomass, particle size distribution and sludge filterability
the wastewater is transported from a feed side toward draw solution, (Nguyen et al., 2015; Adnan et al., 2019). Therefore, more studies are
it can be recovered for the production of high quality of permeate needed to understand effect of draw solution concentrated by FO
given that draw solution regeneration step is integrated, for example, membrane in bioreactor performance, such as microbial activities.
a double-barrier membrane (Holloway et al., 2014; Lutchmiah et al., Also, proper selection of draw solution should be suggested to
2014; Im et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the purity of the permeate confirm operational energy.
depends on the rejection features of FO membranes and the Like other membrane processes, the membrane fouling
separation effectiveness of permeate water from draw solution observed with FO membrane is a necessary phenomenon
strongly. Depending upon the characteristics of the effluent because biofouling can be formed particularly on the surface of
stream and the effectiveness of the entire treatment train, the FO membrane (Qin et al., 2010; Bao et al., 2019). In fact, the FO
extracted permeate can also be reused for various purposes such membrane can be fouled more easily than other types of high
as cooling, rinsing or even irrigation and drinking water. In pressure-driven membrane due to relatively lower crossflow
particular, this unique characteristics in FO membrane process is velocity on membrane surface. Furthermore, the fouling rate on
also beneficial for Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) waste disposal FO membrane can be severe as it is combined with bioreactor
system because it leaves much less water to be removed by because both organic/inorganic loadings increase gradually by FO
evaporators, so that energy demand can be further reduced filtration (Parida and Ng, 2013; Aftab et al., 2017). High organic
significantly. Here, the product water extracted by a FO loading can increase microbial by-products such as EPS while
membrane can be reused for other purposes such as process reducing sludge dewaterability (Aftab et al., 2015). A recent study
water for industrial manufactures (Im et al., 2018). The FO-MBR (Olives et al., 2023) on granular sludge based AnMBR proved that
shows acceptable permeate flux and superior removal efficiency of fouling occurred less frequently than MF. It was also confirmed
organic contaminants as well as other emerging contaminants that the change in salinity within the MBR caused the draw
without applying external pressure (Zhu and Li, 2013; Jang et al., solution’s reverse salt flux. The use of FO resulted in complete
2018; Sivodia and Sinha, 2023). Therefore, the FO-MBR should have and very high purity in effluent, but the presence of MF was
a great potential to replace the conventional MBR processes for necessary for the removal of salts. A method combining thermal
wastewater reclamation conditioning that sources suitable for draw osmotic backwashing and air scouring and osmotic backwashing
solution, i.e., seawater can be obtained easily nearby the MBR plants were evaluated as non-chemical methods to remove biological
(Arnaldos et al., 2023). contamination of FO-MBR (Satterfield et al., 2021). Considering
For the FO-MBR process, there are two functions designated by energy efficiency, optimization of backwashing period and
FO membranes such as wastewater concentration and water frequency was found to be the most economically efficient way
recovery or extraction (Wu et al., 2021). The wastewater to remove FO-MBR fouling.
concentrated by the FO process should be particularly helpful in
anaerobic MBR systems because it can retain anaerobes completely
in anaerobic bioreactor (Chen et al., 2014; Anjum et al., 2021). 3.3 Hybrid MD-MBR
Additionally, the FO membrane process has been employed for the
treatment of AnMBR effluents containing high nutrient loadings MD is the thermally driven hybrid membrane process. The
such as ammonia nitrogen as they are applied as post-treatment MD process could concentrate the non-volatile impurities in the
(Kwon et al., 2020). Although biodegradation and/or feed solution and transport volatile matters to the permeate
biotransformation is the main mechanism for trace organic solution though the hydrophobic pores of membranes. The
contaminants removal by both aerobic MBR (AeMBR) and schematic diagram of the MD process for wastewater treatment
AnMBR, the removal of some specific materials can be different is presented in Figure 1. Due to the relatively lower fouling
since the microbial community differs between the two (Liu et al., potential than that of pressurized-driven membrane process, the
2020). While there is no significant difference in permeate qualities MD process is combined with a bioreactor has been applied as
produced by desalination technologies with AnMBR, some portion main or side streams for various wastewater treatment and water
of methane produced can be dissolved in permeate particularly reuse (Julian et al., 2022; Kharraz et al., 2022), treatment of
AnMBR treats domestic sewage. In terms of water extraction, the FO industrial wastewaters (petrochemical (Santos et al., 2020), flue
membranes can be applied to separate the water from MBR effluents gas (Li et al., 2021), desulfurization (Zheng et al., 2022), coking
or directly from bioreactor. Nevertheless, the regeneration step for (Guo et al., 2022), textile (Elcik et al., 2021), seawater brine (Kim
the recovery of draw solution should be required, and this will be the et al., 2019) and radioactive (Jia et al., 2021)) as well as resource
bottleneck to be overcome for FO-MBR processes (Qiu et al., 2016; recovery (Julian et al., 2022; Kharraz et al., 2022). In the MD-MBR,
Song et al., 2020). the MD process could be used as final barrier in the water
The selection of draw solution acts as an important role in FO- treatment process because it allows the transports for the
MBR processes because it can determine not only permeate flux but volatile matters such as water. However, feed solution

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
FIGURE 1
Schematic diagram of the membrane distillation process during the wastewater treatment.
containing volatile impurities such as nitrogen (ammonia) fabricate a flat-sheet or hollow fiber type MD membranes,
sometimes required a pH control to regulate ammonia which have been used in various MD module configurations
transport through membrane (Tun et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2021b). such as direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD), air-gap
As mentioned, the main purpose of MBR process is to separate membrane distillation (AGMD), solar driven membrane
biomass and improve permeate quality by controlling HRT and distillation (SGMD), and vacuum membrane distillation (VMD)
SRT independently. When the MD process is combined with MBR (Tibi et al., 2020; Julian et al., 2022; Kharraz et al., 2022).
in municipal wastewater treatment, the deionized water could be Specifically, the aramid layer was suggested to be coated on the
produced by municipal wastewater (Tun et al., 2016; Song et al., PVDF membrane to enhance chemical resistances (e.g., harsh
2018; Lee et al., 2021a; Simoni et al., 2021; Dow et al., 2022). Like pH conditions) (Ji et al., 2021). Moreover, the MD membrane
pressure-driven membrane process, the MD membrane can be modified for anti-wetting (Madalosso et al., 2022), self-
experiences severe fouling caused by particulates (Choudhury cleaning efficiency (Yan et al., 2022), and photothermal property
et al., 2019), organic compounds (Guo et al., 2019; Elcik et al., (Lee et al., 2022) to achieve its high sustainability for hybrid MD-
2021; Jeong et al., 2021), inorganic compounds (Kim et al., 2019; MBR processes. Nevertheless, the techno-economic analysis
Kim et al., 2022), and microorganisms (Zheng et al., 2022). should be conducted for hybrid MD-MBRs to accelerate
Additionally, the fouling rate can be accelerated by the commercialization. Operational energy required for MD
membrane wetting (Choudhury et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; processes may be still high due to maintaining required
Madalosso et al., 2022) during long-term operation of MD temperature driving force, but if the renewable energy or waste
membrane. To improve the membrane permeability of MD heat is available from anaerobic bioreactor, for example, the energy
membrane or antifouling capability, the modified MD demand to operate the MD-MBRs can decrease significantly. As
membrane materials have been adopted (Günay et al., 2023). reported in a recent study of pilot-scale MD-MBR (treating 10 m3/
The performance of MD membrane could be enhanced by day wastewater) using single-solar power panel without and with
fabricating the membranes with proper membrane pore size the heat pump, the costs were expected to be 56.5 and 87.3 $/m3
and thickness to prevent membrane wetting or heat loss across produced water respectively, considering the gain output ratio
the membrane (Tibi et al., 2020; Julian et al., 2022; Kharraz et al., (GOR) of 0.5–0.8 (Choi et al., 2022). It has been well documented,
2022). It is reported that higher hydrophobicity and porosity of the for the multi-staged MD system, the water production cost was
MD membrane results in higher rejection with organic and from 6.1 to 7.4 $/m3 with reduction of GOR from 4.6 to 4.4 as the
inorganic species (Tibi et al., 2020; Julian et al., 2022; Kharraz number of stages increased from 8 to 16 (Dudchenko et al., 2021).
et al., 2022). The PVDF, polypropylene (PP), and Both evaporation efficiencies (48%-69%) and the GOR (2.0-3.4) of
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) polymers have been used to the multi-stage MD system could be increased with increasing

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
wind speed (8-11 m/s). Moreover, waste heat can be produced by Author contributions
the wind turbine, which is available for energy source to operate
MD system (Memon et al., 2022). As a result, it is worthwhile to JK: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing–original
develop MD-MBR processes to simultaneously capture renewable draft, Writing–review and editing. BW: Writing–original draft,
energy and perform wastewater reclamation. Writing–review and editing. SaJ: Writing–original draft. SeJ:
Writing–original draft. MK: Resources, Writing–review and editing.
4 Conclusion
Funding
This review describes the state-of-art of the MBR integrated
with desalination technologies to improve effluent quality and The author(s) declare financial support was received for the
membrane performance as well as optimize it for wastewater reuse research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study
applications. Applications of RO, NF, FO and MD to improve was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
MBR based process for wastewater reclamation were reviewed grant funded by the Korean Government (Ministry of Science and
critically. Although NF/RO can provide high permeate quality, this ICT) (2022R1A4A3029607, 2022R1A2C2010993).
should be impacted by membrane materials strongly. Increasing
the ratio of water recovery in NF/RO process enhances
productivity of reclaimed water. However, membrane fouling is Conflict of interest
necessary phenomena and thus it needs to be controlled.
Recirculating NF/RO residual to bioreactor may provide adverse The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
effect on both MBR permeability and NF or RO permeability, so absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
that recovery ratio needs to be optimized. Both HRT and SRT are construed as a potential conflict of interest.
important operational parameters to determine both MBR The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board
performance and desalination performance. Nevertheless, the member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no
effectiveness to desalination membrane varies strongly impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
depending upon wastewater characteristics, membrane materials
and reactor configurations. The FO membrane has a great
potential because it can reduce energy demand in hybrid MBR Publisher’s note
process significantly. However, increasing salt content in bulk
solution of MBR due to dilution of draw solution may reduce All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
microbial activity. The use of MD membrane has great potential to and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
enhance the value of reclaimed water in hybrid MBR because it can organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
use any potential waste heat source available. Nevertheless, the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
long-term performance of MD membrane in bioreactor needs to claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
be evaluated. endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adnan, M., Khan, S. J., Manzoor, K., and Hankins, N. P. (2019). Performance on process efficiency and membrane fouling. Environ. Technol. Innovation 21, 101204.
evaluation of fertilizer draw solutions for forward osmosis membrane bioreactor doi:10.1016/j.eti.2020.101204
treating domestic wastewater. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 127, 133–140. doi:10.1016/
Arnaldos, M., Torre, T., Rodriguez, C., and Malfeito, J. (2023). “Feasibility evaluation
j.psep.2019.05.006
of the FO-MBR process for wastewater reclamation,” in IDA world congress on
Aftab, B., Khan, S. J., Maqbool, T., and Hankins, N. P. (2015). High strength domestic desalination and water reuse (San Diego CA: Society of Petroleum Engineers).
wastewater treatment with submerged forward osmosis membrane bioreactor. Water
Arola, K., Hatakka, H., Mänttäri, M., and Kallioinen, M. (2017). Novel process
Sci. Technol. 72 (1), 141–149. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.195
concept alternatives for improved removal of micropollutants in wastewater treatment.
Aftab, B., Khan, S. J., Maqbool, T., and Hankins, N. P. (2017). Heavy metals removal Sep. Purif. Technol. 186, 333–341. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2017.06.019
by osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) and their effect on sludge properties.
Arola, K., Mänttäri, M., and Kallioinen, M. (2021). Two-stage nanofiltration for
Desalination 403, 117–127. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.003
purification of membrane bioreactor treated municipal wastewater–minimization of
Al-Amoudi, A., and Lovitt, R. W. (2007). Fouling strategies and the cleaning system of concentrate volume and simultaneous recovery of phosphorus. Sep. Purif. Technol. 256,
NF membranes and factors affecting cleaning efficiency. J. Membr. Sci. 303 (1-2), 4–28. 117255. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117255
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2007.06.002
Bao, X., Wu, Q., Tian, J., Shi, W., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., et al. (2019). Fouling
Aliyu, U. M., Rathilal, S., and Isa, Y. M. (2018). Membrane desalination technologies mechanism of forward osmosis membrane in domestic wastewater concentration: role
in water treatment: a review. Water Pract. Technol. 13 (4), 738–752. doi:10.2166/wpt. of substrate structures. Chem. Eng. J. 370, 262–273. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.03.174
2018.084
Burman, I., and Sinha, A. (2020). Anaerobic hybrid membrane bioreactor for
Alturki, A. A., Tadkaew, N., McDonald, J. A., Khan, S. J., Price, W. E., and Nghiem, L. treatment of synthetic leachate: impact of organic loading rate and sludge fractions
D. (2010). Combining MBR and NF/RO membrane filtration for the removal of trace on membrane fouling. Waste Manag. 108, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.031
organics in indirect potable water reuse applications. J. Membr. Sci. 365 (1-2), 206–215.
Cao, L., Zhang, Y., Ni, L., and Feng, X. (2022). A novel loosely structured
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2010.09.008
nanofiltration membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: process performance
Andrade, L., Mendes, F., Espindola, J., and Amaral, M. (2014). Nanofiltration as and membrane fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 644, 120128. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2021.120128
tertiary treatment for the reuse of dairy wastewater treated by membrane bioreactor.
Chen, L., Gu, Y., Cao, C., Zhang, J., Ng, J.-W., and Tang, C. (2014). Performance of a
Sep. Purif. Technol. 126, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2014.01.056
submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor with forward osmosis membrane for low-
Anjum, F., Khan, I. M., Kim, J., Aslam, M., Blandin, G., Heran, M., et al. (2021). strength wastewater treatment. Water Res. 50, 114–123. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.
Trends and progress in AnMBR for domestic wastewater treatment and their impacts 12.009

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
Choi, J., Cho, J., Shin, J., Cha, H., Jung, J., and Song, K. G. (2022). Performance and membranes and materials for metal plating wastewater treatment: a review. J. Water
economic analysis of a solar membrane distillation pilot plant under various operating Process Eng. 9, 78–110. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.11.005
conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 268, 115991. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115991
Im, S.-J., Jeong, G., Jeong, S., Cho, J., and Jang, A. (2020). Fouling and transport of
Choi, J.-H., Dockko, S., Fukushi, K., and Yamamoto, K. (2002). A novel application of organic matter in cellulose triacetate forward-osmosis membrane for wastewater reuse
a submerged nanofiltration membrane bioreactor (NF MBR) for wastewater treatment. and seawater desalination. Chem. Eng. J. 384, 123341. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.123341
Desalination 146 (1-3), 413–420. doi:10.1016/s0011-9164(02)00524-6
Im, S.-J., Rho, H., Jeong, S., and Jang, A. (2018). Organic fouling characterization of a
Chon, K., Cho, J., and Shon, H. K. (2013). Fouling characteristics of a membrane CTA-based spiral-wound forward osmosis (SWFO) membrane used in wastewater
bioreactor and nanofiltration hybrid system for municipal wastewater reclamation. reuse and seawater desalination. Chem. Eng. J. 336, 141–151. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.
Bioresour. Technol. 130, 239–247. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.007 11.008
Chon, K., Kim, S. H., and Cho, J. (2015). Removal of N-nitrosamines in a membrane Jacob, M., Guigui, C., Cabassud, C., Darras, H., Lavison, G., and Moulin, L. (2010).
bioreactor and nanofiltration hybrid system for municipal wastewater reclamation: Performances of RO and NF processes for wastewater reuse: tertiary treatment after a
process efficiency and mechanisms. Bioresour. Technol. 190, 499–507. doi:10.1016/j. conventional activated sludge or a membrane bioreactor. Desalination 250 (2), 833–839.
biortech.2015.02.080 doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.052
Chon, K., Sarp, S., Lee, S., Lee, J.-H., Lopez-Ramirez, J., and Cho, J. (2011). Evaluation Jang, D., Jeong, S., Jang, A., and Kang, S. (2018). Relating solute properties of
of a membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration for municipal wastewater reclamation: contaminants of emerging concern and their rejection by forward osmosis membrane.
trace contaminant control and fouling mitigation. Desalination 272 (1-3), 128–134. Sci. Total Environ. 639, 673–678. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.078
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.002
Jeong, S., Song, K. G., Kim, J., Shin, J., Maeng, S. K., and Park, J. (2021). Feasibility of
Choudhury, M. R., Anwar, N., Jassby, D., and Rahaman, M. S. (2019). Fouling and membrane distillation process for potable water reuse: a barrier for dissolved organic
wetting in the membrane distillation driven wastewater reclamation process–A review. matters and pharmaceuticals. J. Hazard. Mater. 409, 124499. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.
Adv. colloid interface Sci. 269, 370–399. doi:10.1016/j.cis.2019.04.008 2020.124499
Cinperi, N. C., Ozturk, E., Yigit, N. O., and Kitis, M. (2019). Treatment of woolen Ji, H., Zhang, G., Teng, L., Xing, J., Jia, X., Luo, H., et al. (2021). Fabrication of aramid-
textile wastewater using membrane bioreactor, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for coated asymmetric PVDF membranes towards acidic and alkaline solutions
reuse in production processes. J. Clean. Prod. 223, 837–848. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. concentration via direct contact membrane distillation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 562, 150185.
03.166 doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.150185
de Almeida Lopes, T. S., Hessler, R., Bohner, C., Junior, G. B. A., and de Sena, R. F. Jia, X., Lan, L., Zhang, X., Wang, T., Wang, Y., Ye, C., et al. (2021). Pilot-scale vacuum
(2020). Pesticides removal from industrial wastewater by a membrane bioreactor and membrane distillation for decontamination of simulated radioactive wastewater: system
post-treatment with either activated carbon, reverse osmosis or ozonation. J. Environ. design and performance evaluation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 275, 119129. doi:10.1016/j.
Chem. Eng. 8 (6), 104538. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2020.104538 seppur.2021.119129
Dialynas, E., and Diamadopoulos, E. (2009). Integration of a membrane bioreactor Jiang, S., Li, Y., and Ladewig, B. P. (2017). A review of reverse osmosis membrane
coupled with reverse osmosis for advanced treatment of municipal wastewater. fouling and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 595, 567–583. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.
Desalination 238 (1-3), 302–311. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.01.046 2017.03.235
Dow, N., Saldin, T. F., Duke, M., and Yang, X. (2022). Pilot demonstration of nitrogen Judd, S. (2010). The MBR book: principles and applications of membrane bioreactors
removal from municipal wastewater by vacuum membrane distillation. J. Water Process for water and wastewater treatment. Germany: Elsevier.
Eng. 47, 102726. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102726
Julian, H., Nurgirisia, N., Qiu, G., Ting, Y.-P., and Wenten, I. G. (2022). Membrane
Dudchenko, A. V., Bartholomew, T. V., and Mauter, M. S. (2021). High-impact distillation for wastewater treatment: current trends, challenges and prospects of dense
innovations for high-salinity membrane desalination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (37), membrane distillation. J. Water Process Eng. 46, 102615. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.
e2022196118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2022196118 102615
Elcik, H., Fortunato, L., Vrouwenvelder, J. S., and Ghaffour, N. (2021). Real-time Kappel, C., Kemperman, A. J. B., Temmink, H., Zwijnenburg, A., Rijnaarts, H. H. M.,
membrane fouling analysis for the assessment of reclamation potential of textile and Nijmeijer, K. (2014). Impacts of NF concentrate recirculation on membrane
wastewater processed by membrane distillation. J. Water Process Eng. 43, 102296. performance in an integrated MBR and NF membrane process for wastewater
doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102296 treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 453, 359–368. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2013.11.023
Falizi, N. J., Hacıfazlıoğlu, M. C., Parlar, İ., Kabay, N., Pek, T. Ö., and Yüksel, M. Kharraz, J. A., Khanzada, N. K., Farid, M. U., Kim, J., Jeong, S., and An, A. K. (2022).
(2018). Evaluation of MBR treated industrial wastewater quality before and after Membrane distillation bioreactor (MDBR) for wastewater treatment, water reuse, and
desalination by NF and RO processes for agricultural reuse. J. water process Eng. 22, resource recovery: a review. J. Water Process Eng. 47, 102687. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.
103–108. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.01.015 102687
Farias, E. L., Howe, K. J., and Thomson, B. M. (2014). Effect of membrane bioreactor Kim, H.-W., Yun, T., Kang, P. K., Hong, S., Jeong, S., and Lee, S. (2019). Evaluation of
solids retention time on reverse osmosis membrane fouling for wastewater reuse. Water a real-time visualization system for scaling detection during DCMD, and its correlation
Res. 49, 53–61. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.006 with wetting. Desalination 454, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2018.12.014
Gu, J., Liu, H., Wang, S., Zhang, M., and Liu, Y. (2019). An innovative anaerobic Kim, J., Kim, H.-W., Tijing, L. D., Shon, H. K., and Hong, S. (2022). Elucidation of
MBR-reverse osmosis-ion exchange process for energy-efficient reclamation of physicochemical scaling mechanisms in membrane distillation (MD): implication to the
municipal wastewater to NEWater-like product water. J. Clean. Prod. 230, control of inorganic fouling. Desalination 527, 115573. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2022.115573
1287–1293. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.198
Kimura, K., Iwase, T., Kita, S., and Watanabe, Y. (2009). Influence of residual organic
Günay, M. G., Kemerli, U., Karaman, C., Karaman, O., Güngör, A., and Karimi- macromolecules produced in biological wastewater treatment processes on removal of
Maleh, H. (2023). Review of functionalized nano porous membranes for desalination pharmaceuticals by NF/RO membranes. Water Res. 43 (15), 3751–3758. doi:10.1016/j.
and water purification: MD simulations perspective. Environ. Res. 217, 114785. doi:10. watres.2009.05.042
1016/j.envres.2022.114785
Krzeminski, P., Langhorst, W., Schyns, P., De Vente, D., Van den Broeck, R., Smets, I.,
Guo, J., Deka, B. J., Kim, K.-J., and An, A. K. (2019). Regeneration of et al. (2012). The optimal MBR configuration: hybrid versus stand-alone—comparison
superhydrophobic TiO2 electrospun membranes in seawater desalination by water between three full-scale MBRs treating municipal wastewater. Desalination 284,
flushing in membrane distillation. Desalination 468, 114054. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019. 341–348. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.038
06.020
Kwon, D., Bae, W., and Kim, J. (2021). Hybrid forward osmosis/membrane distillation
Guo, S., Li, J., Ren, J., Zhao, H., and Cheng, F. (2022). Membrane fouling of raw coking integrated with anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor for advanced wastewater treatment.
wastewater in membrane distillation: identification of fouling potential of hydrophilic J. Hazard. Mater. 404, 124160. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124160
and hydrophobic components. Desalination 539, 115936. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2022.
Kwon, D., Kwon, S. J., Kim, J., and Lee, J.-H. (2020). Feasibility of the highly-
115936
permselective forward osmosis membrane process for the post-treatment of the
Hacıfazlıoğlu, M. C., Parlar, İ., Pek, T. Ö., and Kabay, N. (2019). Evaluation of anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor effluent. Desalination 485, 114451. doi:10.1016/j.
chemical cleaning to control fouling on nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes desal.2020.114451
after desalination of MBR effluent. Desalination 466, 44–51. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.
Laera, G., Cassano, D., Lopez, A., Pinto, A., Pollice, A., Ricco, G., et al. (2012).
05.003
Removal of organics and degradation products from industrial wastewater by a
Holloway, R. W., Achilli, A., and Cath, T. Y. (2015). The osmotic membrane membrane bioreactor integrated with ozone or UV/H₂O₂ treatment. Environ. Sci.
bioreactor: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1 (5), 581–605. doi:10. Technol. 46 (2), 1010–1018. doi:10.1021/es202707w
1039/c5ew00103j
Lan, Y., Groenen-Serrano, K., Coetsier, C., and Causserand, C. (2017). Fouling control
Holloway, R. W., Regnery, J., Nghiem, L. D., and Cath, T. Y. (2014). Removal of trace using critical, threshold and limiting fluxes concepts for cross-flow NF of a complex
organic chemicals and performance of a novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane matrix: membrane BioReactor effluent. J. Membr. Sci. 524, 288–298. doi:10.1016/j.
bioreactor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (18), 10859–10868. doi:10.1021/es501051b memsci.2016.11.001
Hosseini, S. S., Bringas, E., Tan, N. R., Ortiz, I., Ghahramani, M., and Shahmirzadi, M. Lan, Y., Groenen-Serrano, K., Coetsier, C., and Causserand, C. (2018). Nanofiltration
A. A. (2016). Recent progress in development of high performance polymeric performances after membrane bioreactor for hospital wastewater treatment: fouling

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
mechanisms and the quantitative link between stable fluxes and the water matrix. Water regenerated draw in the FO-MBR using a micellar draw solution. Desalination 391,
Res. 146, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.09.004 105–111. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.023
Lee, G., Kim, H.-W., Boo, C., Beak, Y., Kwak, R., Kim, C., et al. (2021a). Bibliometric Ndiaye, I., Vaudreuil, S., and Bounahmidi, T. (2021). Forward osmosis process: state-
analysis of twenty-year research trend in desalination technologies during 2000-2020. of-the-art of membranes. Sep. Purif. Rev. 50 (1), 53–73. doi:10.1080/15422119.2019.
J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 35 (1), 39–52. doi:10.11001/jksww.2021.35.1.039 1622133
Lee, S., Bayarkhuu, B., Han, Y., Kim, H.-W., Jeong, S., Boo, C., et al. (2022). Nguyen, N. C., Chen, S.-S., Nguyen, H. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Hao, C. W., et al.
Multifunctional photo-Fenton-active membrane for solar-driven water purification. (2015). Applicability of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor using a specific draw
J. Membr. Sci. 660, 120832. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2022.120832 solution in wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 518-519, 586–594. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.03.011
Lee, W., An, S., and Choi, Y. (2021b). Ammonia harvesting via membrane gas
extraction at moderately alkaline pH: a step toward net-profitable nitrogen recovery Olives, P., Sanchez, L., Lesage, G., Héran, M., Rodriguez-Roda, I., and Blandin, G.
from domestic wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 405, 126662. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126662 (2023). Impact of integration of FO membranes into a granular biomass AnMBR for
water reuse. Membranes 13 (3), 265. doi:10.3390/membranes13030265
Li, B., Yun, Y., Liu, G., Li, C., Li, X., Hilal, M., et al. (2021). Direct contact membrane
distillation with softening Pre-treatment for effective reclaiming flue gas desulfurization Ouali, S., Loulergue, P., Biard, P.-F., Nasrallah, N., and Szymczyk, A. (2021). Ozone
wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 277, 119637. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119637 compatibility with polymer nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 618, 118656.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118656
Li, K., Cheng, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, J., Liu, J., Yu, D., et al. (2016). Effects of returning
NF concentrate on the MBR-NF process treating antibiotic production wastewater. Parida, V., and Ng, H. Y. (2013). Forward osmosis organic fouling: effects of organic
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23, 13114–13127. doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6467-x loading, calcium and membrane orientation. Desalination 312, 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.
desal.2012.04.029
Li, K., Liu, Q., Fang, F., Wu, X., Xin, J., Sun, S., et al. (2020a). Influence of
nanofiltration concentrate recirculation on performance and economic feasibility of Parlar, I., Hacıfazlıoğlu, M., Kabay, N., Pek, T. Ö., and Yüksel, M. (2019). Performance
a pilot-scale membrane bioreactor-nanofiltration hybrid process for textile wastewater comparison of reverse osmosis (RO) with integrated nanofiltration (NF) and reverse
treatment with high water recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121067. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro. osmosis process for desalination of MBR effluent. J. Water Process Eng. 29, 100640.
2020.121067 doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2018.06.002
Li, Y., Sim, L. N., Ho, J. S., Chong, T. H., Wu, B., and Liu, Y. (2020b). Integration of an Pathak, N., Shon, H., and Vigneswaran, S. (2021). Advanced membrane bioreactor
anaerobic fluidized-bed membrane bioreactor (MBR) with zeolite adsorption and hybrid systems. Sustain. Technol. Water Wastewater Treat., 317–342. doi:10.1201/
reverse osmosis (RO) for municipal wastewater reclamation: comparison with an 9781003052234-22
anoxic-aerobic MBR coupled with RO. Chemosphere 245, 125569. doi:10.1016/j.
Pearce, G. K. (2008). UF/MF pre-treatment to RO in seawater and wastewater reuse
chemosphere.2019.125569
applications: a comparison of energy costs. Desalination 222 (1-3), 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.
Lin, Y.-L., Zheng, N.-Y., and Chen, Y.-S. (2021). Enhancing H2O2 tolerance and desal.2007.05.029
separation performance through the modification of the polyamide layer of a thin-film
Qasim, M., Badrelzaman, M., Darwish, N. N., Darwish, N. A., and Hilal, N. (2019).
composite nanofiltration membrane by using graphene oxide. Membranes 11 (8), 592.
Reverse osmosis desalination: a state-of-the-art review. Desalination 459, 59–104.
doi:10.3390/membranes11080592
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.02.008
Liu, Q., Wang, X. C., Liu, Y., Yuan, H., and Du, Y. (2010). Performance of a hybrid
Qin, J.-J., Kekre, K. A., Oo, M. H., Tao, G., Lay, C. L., Lew, C. H., et al. (2010).
membrane bioreactor in municipal wastewater treatment. Desalination 258 (1-3),
Preliminary study of osmotic membrane bioreactor: effects of draw solution on water
143–147. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.03.024
flux and air scouring on fouling. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (6), 1353–1360. doi:10.2166/wst.
Liu, W., Song, X., Huda, N., Xie, M., Li, G., and Luo, W. (2020). Comparison between 2010.426
aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactors for trace organic contaminant removal in
Qiu, G., Zhang, S., Srinivasa Raghavan, D. S., Das, S., and Ting, Y.-P. (2016). The
wastewater treatment. Environ. Technol. Innovation 17, 100564. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2019.
potential of hybrid forward osmosis membrane bioreactor (FOMBR) processes in
100564
achieving high throughput treatment of municipal wastewater with enhanced
Liu, X., Li, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, H., Wang, S., Tang, Z., et al. (2023). Recent progress of phosphorus recovery. Water Res. 105, 370–382. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.017
COFs membranes: design, synthesis and application in water treatment. USA: Eco-
Ray, S. S., Chen, S.-S., Sangeetha, D., Chang, H.-M., Thanh, C. N. D., Le, Q. H., et al.
Environment and Health.
(2018). Developments in forward osmosis and membrane distillation for desalination of
Lutchmiah, K., Verliefde, A. R. D., Roest, K., Rietveld, L. C., and Cornelissen, E. R. waters. Environ. Chem. Lett. 16, 1247–1265. doi:10.1007/s10311-018-0750-7
(2014). Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res.
Reis, B. G., Silveira, A. L., Lebron, Y. A. R., Moreira, V. R., Teixeira, L. P. T., Okuma, A.
58, 179–197. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.045
A., et al. (2020). Comprehensive investigation of landfill leachate treatment by
Madalosso, H. B., Silva, R. d.S., Machado, R. A. F., and Marangoni, C. (2022). integrated Fenton/microfiltration and aerobic membrane bioreactor with
Superhydrophobic PA membrane for robust anti-wetting membrane distillation to nanofiltration. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 143, 121–128. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.06.037
water reclamation from textile wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 49, 103162. doi:10.
Reis, B. G., Silveira, A. L., Tostes Teixeira, L. P., Okuma, A. A., Lange, L. C., and
1016/j.jwpe.2022.103162
Amaral, M. C. S. (2017). Organic compounds removal and toxicity reduction of landfill
Malamis, S., Katsou, E., Takopoulos, K., Demetriou, P., and Loizidou, M. (2012). leachate by commercial bakers’ yeast and conventional bacteria based membrane
Assessment of metal removal, biomass activity and RO concentrate treatment in an bioreactor integrated with nanofiltration. Waste Manag. 70, 170–180. doi:10.1016/j.
MBR–RO system. J. Hazard. Mater. 209-210, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.10.085 wasman.2017.09.030
Matin, A., Laoui, T., Falath, W., and Farooque, M. (2021). Fouling control in reverse Rodríguez-Hernández, L., Esteban-García, A., and Tejero, I. (2014). Comparison
osmosis for water desalination and reuse: current practices and emerging environment- between a fixed bed hybrid membrane bioreactor and a conventional membrane
friendly technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 765, 142721. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142721 bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: a pilot-scale study. Bioresour.
Technol. 152, 212–219. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.081
Memon, S., Lee, H.-S., Kim, W.-S., and Kim, Y.-D. (2022). Parametric investigation of
modular configuration of multi-stage direct contact membrane distillation powered by Santos, P. G., Scherer, C. M., Fisch, A. G., and Rodrigues, M. A. S. (2020).
waste heat of wind turbine. Desalination 533, 115770. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2022.115770 Petrochemical wastewater treatment: water recovery using membrane distillation.
J. Clean. Prod. 267, 121985. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121985
Meng, F., Zhang, S., Oh, Y., Zhou, Z., Shin, H.-S., and Chae, S.-R. (2017). Fouling in
membrane bioreactors: an updated review. Water Res. 114, 151–180. doi:10.1016/j. Satterfield, D. J., Griffin, J. C., George, T., and Hiibel, S. R. (2021). Biological fouling
watres.2017.02.006 mitigation in a forward-osmosis membrane bioreactor. J. Environ. Eng. 147 (8),
04021025. doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0001894
Moktadir, M. A., Maliha, M., Munmun, S. A., Alam, S., Islam, M. A., Rahman, M. M.,
et al. (2023). Treatment of tannery wastewater by different membrane bioreactors: a Sert, G., Bunani, S., Kabay, N., Egemen, Ö., Arda, M., Pek, T. Ö., et al. (2016).
critical review. Environ. Adv. 15, 100478. doi:10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100478 Investigation of mini pilot scale MBR-NF and MBR-RO integrated systems
performance—preliminary field tests. J. Water Process Eng. 12, 72–77. doi:10.1016/j.
Moser, P. B., Ricci, B. C., Reis, B. G., Neta, L. S. F., Cerqueira, A. C., and Amaral, M. C.
jwpe.2016.06.008
S. (2018). Effect of MBR-H2O2/UV Hybrid pre-treatment on nanofiltration
performance for the treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. Sert, G., Bunani, S., Yörükoğlu, E., Kabay, N., Egemen, Ö., Arda, M., et al. (2017).
192, 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2017.09.070 Performances of some NF and RO membranes for desalination of MBR treated
wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 16, 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.11.009
Nativ, P., Leifman, O., Lahav, O., and Epsztein, R. (2021). Desalinated brackish water
with improved mineral composition using monovalent-selective nanofiltration followed Simoni, G., Kirkebæk, B. S., Quist-Jensen, C. A., Christensen, M. L., and Ali, A. (2021).
by reverse osmosis. Desalination 520, 115364. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2021.115364 A comparison of vacuum and direct contact membrane distillation for phosphorus and
ammonia recovery from wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 44, 102350. doi:10.1016/j.
Nawaz, M. S., Gadelha, G., Khan, S. J., and Hankins, N. (2013). Microbial toxicity
jwpe.2021.102350
effects of reverse transported draw solute in the forward osmosis membrane bioreactor
(FO-MBR). J. Membr. Sci. 429, 323–329. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.057 Sivodia, C., and Sinha, A. (2023). “Advanced treatment methods for the emerging
contaminants: an insight into the removal of anticancer drugs,” in Persistent pollutants
Nawaz, M. S., Parveen, F., Gadelha, G., Khan, S. J., Wang, R., and Hankins, N. P.
in water and advanced treatment technology (Germany: Springer), 197–211.
(2016). Reverse solute transport, microbial toxicity, membrane cleaning and flux of

Kim et al. 10.3389/frmst.2024.1361433
Skouteris, G., Hermosilla, D., López, P., Negro, C., and Blanco, Á. (2012). Anaerobic and prospects for the future. J. Membr. Sci. 504, 113–132. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2016.
membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 198, 138–148. 01.010
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.070
Wang, Y.-K., Pan, X.-R., Sheng, G.-P., Li, W.-W., Shi, B.-J., and Yu, H.-Q. (2015b).
Smith, A. L., Stadler, L. B., Love, N. G., Skerlos, S. J., and Raskin, L. (2012). Development of an energy-saving anaerobic hybrid membrane bioreactors for 2-
Perspectives on anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater: a chlorophenol-contained wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 140, 79–84. doi:10.
critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 122, 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.055 1016/j.chemosphere.2014.04.101
Song, W., Xie, B., Huang, S., Zhao, F., and Shi, X. (2020). “6 - aerobic membrane WHO (2006). Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and grey water use in
bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment,” in Current developments in agriculture. Switzerland: Geneva.
biotechnology and bioengineering. Editors H. Y. Ng, T. C. A. Ng, H. H. Ngo,
Wintgens, T., Gallenkemper, M., and Melin, T. (2002). Endocrine disrupter removal
G. Mannina, and A. Pandey (Germany: Elsevier), 129–145.
from wastewater using membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration technology.
Song, X., Luo, W., McDonald, J., Khan, S. J., Hai, F. I., Price, W. E., et al. (2018). An Desalination 146 (1), 387–391. doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00519-2
anaerobic membrane bioreactor – membrane distillation hybrid system for energy recovery
Wintgens, T., Gallenkemper, M., and Melin, T. (2004). Removal of endocrine
and water reuse: removal performance of organic carbon, nutrients, and trace organic
disrupting compounds with membrane processes in wastewater treatment and
contaminants. Sci. Total Environ. 628, 358–365. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.057
reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 50 (5), 1–8. doi:10.2166/wst.2004.0301
Stoquart, C., Servais, P., Bérubé, P. R., and Barbeau, B. (2012). Hybrid membrane
Woo, Y. C., Lee, J. J., Shim, W.-G., Shon, H. K., Tijing, L. D., Yao, M., et al. (2016).
processes using activated carbon treatment for drinking water: a review. J. Membr. Sci.
Effect of powdered activated carbon on integrated submerged membrane
411, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2012.04.012
bioreactor–nanofiltration process for wastewater reclamation. Bioresour. Technol.
Sun, H., Liu, H., Han, J., Zhang, X., Cheng, F., and Liu, Y. (2018). Chemical cleaning- 210, 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.023
associated generation of dissolved organic matter and halogenated byproducts in
Wu, B., and Fane, A. G. (2012). Microbial relevant fouling in membrane bioreactors:
ceramic MBR: ozone versus hypochlorite. Water Res. 140, 243–250. doi:10.1016/j.
influencing factors, characterization, and fouling control. Membranes 2 (3), 565–584.
watres.2018.04.050
doi:10.3390/membranes2030565
Sun, H., Liu, H., Zhang, M., and Liu, Y. (2021). A novel single-stage ceramic
Wu, B., and Kim, J. (2020). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for nonpotable water
membrane moving bed biofilm reactor coupled with reverse osmosis for
reuse and energy recovery. J. Environ. Eng. 146 (2), 03119002. doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.
reclamation of municipal wastewater to NEWater-like product water. Chemosphere
1943-7870.0001637
268, 128836. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128836
Wu, B., Kitade, T., Chong, T. H., Uemura, T., and Fane, A. G. (2013). Impact of
Tang, K., Xie, J., Pan, Y., Zou, X., Sun, F., Yu, Y., et al. (2022). The optimization and
membrane bioreactor operating conditions on fouling behavior of reverse osmosis
regulation of energy consumption for MBR process: a critical review. J. Environ. Chem.
membranes in MBR–RO processes. Desalination 311, 37–45. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2012.
Eng. 10, 108406. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.108406
11.020
Tay, M. F., Lee, S., Xu, H., Jeong, K., Liu, C., Cornelissen, E. R., et al. (2020). Impact of
Wu, X., Lau, C. H., Pramanik, B. K., Zhang, J., and Xie, Z. (2021). State-of-the-art and
salt accumulation in the bioreactor on the performance of nanofiltration membrane
opportunities for forward osmosis in sewage concentration and wastewater treatment.
bioreactor (NF-MBR)+Reverse osmosis (RO) process for water reclamation. Water Res.
Membranes 11 (5), 305. doi:10.3390/membranes11050305
170, 115352. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2019.115352
Xue, W., Wu, C., Xiao, K., Huang, X., Zhou, H., Tsuno, H., et al. (2010). Elimination
Tay, M. F., Liu, C., Cornelissen, E. R., Wu, B., and Chong, T. H. (2018). The feasibility
and fate of selected micro-organic pollutants in a full-scale anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic
of nanofiltration membrane bioreactor (NF-MBR)+reverse osmosis (RO) process for
process combined with membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater reclamation.
water reclamation: comparison with ultrafiltration membrane bioreactor (UF-
Water Res. 44 (20), 5999–6010. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.052
MBR)+RO process. Water Res. 129, 180–189. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.013
Yacouba, Z. A., Mendret, J., Lesage, G., Zaviska, F., and Brosillon, S. (2021). Removal
Tibi, F., Charfi, A., Cho, J., and Kim, J. (2020). Fabrication of polymeric membranes
of organic micropollutants from domestic wastewater: the effect of ozone-based
for membrane distillation process and application for wastewater treatment: critical
advanced oxidation process on nanofiltration. J. Water Process Eng. 39, 101869.
review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 141, 190–201. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.026
doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101869
Tibi, F., Guo, J., Ahmad, R., Lim, M., Kim, M., and Kim, J. (2019). Membrane
Yan, T., Ye, Y., Ma, H., Zhang, Y., Guo, W., Du, B., et al. (2018). A critical review on
distillation as post-treatment for anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for
membrane hybrid system for nutrient recovery from wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 348,
organic and nitrogen removal. Chemosphere 234, 756–762. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.
143–156. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2018.04.166
2019.06.043
Yan, Z., Chen, X., Bao, S., Chang, H., Liu, H., Fan, G., et al. (2022). Integration of in
Tun, L. L., Jeong, D., Jeong, S., Cho, K., Lee, S., and Bae, H. (2016). Dewatering of
situ Fenton-like self-cleaning and photothermal membrane distillation for wastewater
source-separated human urine for nitrogen recovery by membrane distillation.
treatment via Co-MoS2/CNT catalytic membrane. Sep. Purif. Technol. 303, 122207.
J. Membr. Sci. 512, 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2016.04.004
doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122207
Van de Walle, A., Kim, M., Alam, M. K., Wang, X., Wu, D., Dash, S. R., et al. (2023).
Yang, Y., Li, C., and Hou, L.-a. (2018). Impact of dead cells on biofouling and
Greywater reuse as a key enabler for improving urban wastewater management.
pharmaceutically active compounds retention by NF/RO membranes. Chem. Eng. J.
Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 16, 100277. doi:10.1016/j.ese.2023.100277
337, 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.12.081
Wafi, M. K., Hussain, N., El-Sharief Abdalla, O., Al-Far, M. D., Al-Hajaj, N. A., and
Zheng, L., Zhang, C., Kang, S., Li, C., Hou, D., Wu, S., et al. (2022). Insight into the
Alzonnikah, K. F. (2019). Nanofiltration as a cost-saving desalination process. SN Appl.
microbial distribution and succession and biofouling mechanism in membrane
Sci. 1, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s42452-019-0775-y
distillation for desulfurization wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 428, 131097.
Wang, J., Li, K., Wei, Y., Cheng, Y., Wei, D., and Li, M. (2015a). Performance and fate of doi:10.1016/j.cej.2021.131097
organics in a pilot MBR–NF for treating antibiotic production wastewater with recycling
Zhu, H., and Li, W. (2013). Bisphenol A removal from synthetic municipal
NF concentrate. Chemosphere 121, 92–100. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.11.034
wastewater by a bioreactor coupled with either a forward osmotic membrane or a
Wang, S., Liu, H., Gu, J., Sun, H., Zhang, M., and Liu, Y. (2019). Technology feasibility microfiltration membrane unit. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 7, 294–300. doi:10.1007/
and economic viability of an innovative integrated ceramic membrane bioreactor and s11783-013-0486-3
reverse osmosis process for producing ultrapure water from municipal wastewater.
Zhu, J., You, H., Ng, H. Y., Li, Z., Xie, B., Chen, H., et al. (2022). Impacts of bio-carriers
Chem. Eng. J. 375, 122078. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.122078
on the characteristics of cake layer and membrane fouling in a novel hybrid membrane
Wang, X., Chang, V. W. C., and Tang, C. Y. (2016). Osmotic membrane bioreactor bioreactor for treating mariculture wastewater. Chemosphere 300, 134593. doi:10.1016/j.
(OMBR) technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: advances, challenges, chemosphere.2022.134593

FRMST 03 1361433

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRMST 03 1361433

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRMST 03 1361433

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPE Review

PUBLISHED 29 February 2024

membrane bioreactor, desalination, wastewater reclamation, fouling, wastewater reuse

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 01 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 02 frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.

Wastewater MBR NF/RO Permeate References

Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged ﬂat sheet Ozonation + NF - Yacouba et al.

Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged hollow RO - Li et al. (2020b)

Municipal Aerobic MBR Submerged ﬂat sheet RO - Wu et al. (2013)

(Continued on following page)

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 03 frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 (Continued) Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.

Wastewater MBR NF/RO Permeate References

Municipal Anaerobic ﬂuidized- Submerged hollow Zeolite column - Li et al. (2020b)

(Continued on following page)

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 04 frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 (Continued) Summary of pressure-driven MBR + NF/RO for wastewater reclamation.

Wastewater MBR NF/RO Permeate References

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 05 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 06 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 07 frontiersin.org

2.2.4 Effect of feed pretreatment on NF/RO 3 Hybrid MBR systems

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 08 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 09 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 10 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 11 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 12 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 13 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Membrane Science and Technology 14 frontiersin.org

You might also like