See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312538510

Membrane Fouling - A Mini Review

Article · April 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 1,565

1 author:

Blossom Nzeribe
GSI Environmental
6 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Blossom Nzeribe on 19 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2016

Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

CE 681
BLOSSOM NZERIBE NWEDO
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

1.0 INTRODUCTION
“Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink” this was a famous line from Coleridge’s
Rime of the Ancient Mariner; a situation depicting a stranded sailor at sea surrounded by saline
water. Inaccessibility to clean and safe water is an abstract concept to many and a glaring reality
for others. Its occurrence is mostly influenced by innumerable political, economic, environmental
and social forces.
The United Nation estimates that 1.8 billion people will be residents of areas plagued by water
shortage, while two-thirds of the world's population will probably live under water stressed
conditions by 2025 (UN 2013).
A growing fresh water scarcity has compelled the use of desalination and membrane technology
for the purification of sea and ocean water.
The 21st century has seen the increased use of membranes not only for desalination but as one of
the most promising water and wastewater treatment technology. Membranes are efficient in
reducing contaminant concentration levels in water and wastewater. The use of membranes in
water and wastewater treatment has grown in popularity when compared to other conventional
water treatment technologies. This comparative advantage stern from membranes low space
requirement, no chemical use, ease of operation, reduced operation units and selective separation.
However, the major limitation to the efficient use of membranes is its inability to maintain filtration
flux for a long period of time as a result of membrane fouling. This situation creates a challenge
as it results in increased salt passage and decreased water flux across membranes, thereby
hindering its development and application.

What are Membranes?

Membranes are a thin layer of semi-permeable materials that separates substances upon application
of a driven force across the membrane. Their performance is mostly dependent on the
physicochemical properties of the membrane material such as surface chemistry, hydrophobicity,
surface charge, thickness, chemical, biological and thermal stability, cost, chlorine tolerance,
durability, porosity and surface roughness.3 Membranes are generally classified based on their pore
size, molecular weight (MW), applied pressure and water affinity (hydrophobicity and
hydrophilicity). Figure 1 shows the hierarchy of pressure driven membrane processes.

1
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

Figure 1: Hierarchy of pressure driven membrane processes3

2.0 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF MEMBRANES (MEMBRANE

FOULING AND FACTORS AFFECTING FOULING).
Membrane fouling is a major limiting factor in membrane technology and can occur on the surface
or in the pores of the membranes. It is the blockage of membrane pores during filtration by the
combination of sieving and adsorption of solutes (NOM, colloids, salts and microorganisms) on
the membrane surface or within the membrane pores. It usually occurs via 3 mechanisms, cake
formation, pore blocking and constriction4.

Membrane fouling can be characterized as reversible or irreversible fouling based on the strength
of materials being attached to the membrane surface. Reversible fouling occurs when there is no
permanent permeate flux loss and fouling can be removed by backwashing or a strong shear force.
Irreversible fouling is caused by permanent permeate flux loss and fouling is removed by chemical
cleaning3.
Fouling can also be characterized based on the type and nature of material removed as5;
Colloidal fouling: Colloids such as clay, silica, aluminum, and iron are common in natural waters.
They range in different sizes (µm to nm) and mostly carry a negative surface charge. They can
deposit and accumulate within the pores and surface of membranes causing an adverse effect on
membrane performance and water quality.
Organic fouling: This is the adsorption of NOM or DOM to membrane surfaces. Several factors
such as hydrophobicity, molecular weight, ionic strength, calcium concentration and electrostatic
charge have been suggested to contribute to organic fouling in membranes.

2
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

Scaling fouling: This is the precipitation of salts, hydroxides and oxides from solutions and is
dependent on the concentration and temperature, they include ions such as calcium, magnesium,
bicarbonate, sulfate, silica, iron and barium.
Biofouling: This is the loss of membrane performance as a result of interactions between
membrane material, feed water and microorganisms leading to formation of biofilms.

The reason for characterization of membrane fouling is because each type of fouling and foulants
has its effect on membrane performance and also has its own distinct mitigation/cleanup approach.

3.0 MEMBRANE FOULING IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEMBRANE

This section will discuss fouling seen in different types of membranes as reported in literature
based on foulants characteristics and fouling mechanism. Studies have reported that fouling and
foulants characteristics are determined by feedwater composition, concentration of water
constituents (colloids, organic matter), water chemistry (ionic strength, pH, and divalent cations),
membrane properties, hydrodynamic conditions (cross-flow velocity and initial permeate flux) and
temperature.

3.1 Fouling in Reverse Osmosis (RO)

In reverse osmosis, effluent organic matter (EfOM) has been assumed as a chief cause of fouling
in wastewater treatment6. EfOM are a wide array of compounds with high and low molecular
weights often measured as dissolved organic compound (DOC) such as amino sugars, humic acids
(HA), fulvic acids (FA), proteins and polysaccharides.7 Lee at al.6 in their study on the effect of
alginate, an acidic polysaccharide produced by algae and bacteria on the fouling of a reverse
osmosis membrane. They observed that at a low solution pH 3 there was significant decline of flux
while at higher pH levels of 6 and 9 there was negligible flux decline. They attributed this to the
fact that at low pH, there are no electrostatic repulsion amongst and between the alginate
macromolecules and surface of the membrane, thus molecules are neutrally charged which
promotes accumulation and deposition of alginates on membrane surfaces resulting in fouling.
Also, they discovered that as ionic strength increased, fouling became more evident because,
alginate and membrane charges reduced and as such led to decreased electrostatic repulsion
between the membranes and alginate macromolecules resulting in deposition of alginate on
membrane surface. There was also a dramatic decrease in permeate flux in the presence of Ca2+
due to its ability to form ionic bridges as a result of foulant to foulant interaction while this was

3
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

absent in the presence of Mg2+. The effect of initial flux and crossflow velocity on fouling was
also observed, as initial flux increased, fouling was enhanced, while an increase in crossflow
velocity led to a reduction in fouling. These effects were also seen evident in Li et al.8 study where
fouling by sodium alginate (SA) was seen to be more severe than bovine serum albumin (BSA) as
a result of formation of calcium alginate gel on membrane surface8. Also, membrane surface
morphology was seen to play an important role in fouling, as rough surface membrane led to
increased fouling.
With BSA, it was observed that increasing ionic strength, decreasing pH and the presence of Ca2+
led to a decline in permeate flux.9 However, there was a small decline in flux in the presence of
Mg2+ which was attributed to salting out effect as Mg+ exhibits greater salting effect than Ca2+ as
a result of its higher charge density. It was also observed that as temperature increased, flux
decreased, which might be a result of BSA denaturation and exposure to the surrounding, this
increased its adsorption to membrane surface thus increasing the rate of fouling.9

3.2 Fouling in Nanofiltration (NF)

Inorganic salts of Ca2+ or Mg2+ have been assumed as major foulants in NF membranes.10 There
was an increased retention in feedwater with alkaline pH than acidic pH due to changes in charge
density of the membranes and dissociation of the carboxyl functional group of the membrane.10
In a NF-270 membrane, no relationship was observed between organic fouling and increased ionic
strength as a low fouling rate was seen when two different ionic strengths in the feed solution were
compared.11 However, there was a relationship between Ca2+ and Mg2+ and fouling, for Mg2+ there
was a 16% decline in permeate flux at the end of 300min whereas for Ca2+ there was a 49% decline
within 256 min which was attributed to intermolecular bridging by Ca2+ and determined that the
fouling mechanism was by surface fouling11. This suggests that the fouling process is governed
by interactions between foulant, fouled and clean membrane surfaces.
In organic fouling of NF membranes, the effect of initial flux has been reported in studies12-15 that
at high initial flux conditions (increased applied pressure) severe flux decline occurs while at low
initial flux concentrations there is a stable flux as a result of increased drag force and enhanced
concentration polarization leading to severe flux decline.16 A rapid flux decline in humic acid
(HA) and SA was observed when compared with BSA which was a result of cake formation of a
dense SA/HA fouling.15 It was also observed that SA and HA fouled membranes had higher
surface precipitation tendency than BSA fouled membranes because HA and SA macromolecules

4
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

acts as centers for precipitation. Similar trends with organic fouling in NF membranes have also
been reported.17,18
It has been stipulated that water affinity of membranes should not be the sole factor for determining
fouling in NF membrane but rather its surface chemistry.19 A study on native (TiO2) and grafted
ceramic NF membranes, in fouling by HA without Ca2+ showed that very hydrophilic membranes
(native membrane) exhibited severe fouling while hydrophobic membranes (grafted membranes)
showed little or no fouling.19 Degree of fouling was dependent on surface chemistry of membranes
rather than Ca2+ ions, as native membranes showed decrease in fouling with the presence of
Ca2+ ions while grafted ceramics showed increase in fouling.19 Same trend was observed with and
without fulvic acid which was attributed to the interactions between the functional groups of DOM
(COOH and OH) and OH groups of the native membranes unlike the grafted membranes which
had different functional groups (aromatic and –CH3).19 Figure 2 shows the changes in foulant-
membrane interactions with and without Ca2+, arrow thickness signifies the strength of potential
interactions.

Figure 2: Foulant-Membrane interactions with and without Ca2+.19

A three-way mechanism; increased resistance of the mixed fouling layer, hindered back diffusion,
and organic foulant adsorption contributing to combined fouling which was dependent on the
foulant was proposed for a study on the effect of combined foulants (silica, BSA, humic acid,
dextran and sodium alginate) on NF membranes.20 All combined foulants exhibited a synergistic
effect, BSA exhibited the greatest synergistic effect as it adsorbed on silica and membrane surface
reducing the repulsive interaction between membranes and foulants. In another study on the
influence of inorganic scalants and NOM on fouling in NF membrane21, a greater decline in
permeate flux for Ca2+ and less for Na+ and Mg2+ was observed which could be as due to higher
concentration of calcium precipitate species based on pH and log concentration diagram21.

5
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

Fouling for feedwater with high ionic strength was represented by cake formation due to reduced
charge repulsion between positively and negatively charged natural organic matter (NOM), while
for feedwater with inorganic scalants (CO32−, SO42−, and PO43−) was via pore blocking as a result
of precipitation on membrane surface and pores.

3.3 Fouling in Microfiltration (MF)

An enhanced decline in flux as ionic strength was increased from 10 mM to 100 mM (40.9% to
53.8%) was observed due to increased attractive interaction energy and upon addition of Ca2+ and
Mg2+ (Ca2+>Mg2+) which also led to membrane surface roughness.22 In addition to charge
screening, charge neutralization and ionic bridge formation by Ca2 + led to a decrease in
electrostatic repulsion and an increase in attractive energies amongst BSA molecules.22
A comparison was made amongst fouling in MF membranes made from three different
materials, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mixed cellulose ester (MCE), and polycarbonate
(PC)23, it was observed that dextran molecules adsorbed more on the surfaces of PVDF and MCE
due to their rough surface and both membranes exhibited higher internal fouling membrane due to
their twisted network structures whilst BSA molecules deposited more on the surface of PC
membranes signifying pore blocking. For all membranes, filtration flux increased with increasing
transmembrane pressure and cross-flow velocity.23 A three fouling mechanisms was seen in the
development of a model in protein fouling (BSA)24, where internal pore sizes were reduced (pore
constriction) followed by blockage of the pores on the membrane surface (pore blocking) and cake
formation of the foulants (cake filtration). In another study, very low polymer concentrations were
seen to cause severe fouling in MF membranes25, suggesting that positively charged residual
polymers with high molecular weight from coagulation and flocculation tank can significantly
contribute to fouling and pore blockage was seen as the major fouling mechanism. There was little
impact on fouling when changes were made to pH or concentration, however it was stipulated that
both operating conditions can also mediate foulant-membrane or foulant-foulant interactions.

3.4 Fouling in Ultrafiltration (UF)

Severe fouling have been seen to occur on larger molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) membrane
than smaller MWCO membrane which was attributed to internal fouling on the pores of the
membrane as a result of adsorption/deposition of foulants (humic substances, NOM and oleic
acid).26-28 Also, a decline in fouling was also observed when pH rose from 3.18 to 9.9528 which

6
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

might be as a result of acid dissociation. However, this is in contrast with another study29 where
fouling was seen to occur in both acidic and alkaline solutions, where acidic pH promoted gel layer
formation and alkaline pH promoted pore blockage with humic foulants.29 Increased Ca2+ and
pressure enhanced fouling and fouling was said to occur via three mechanisms internal pore
adsorption, pore blockage and cake formation.29

4.0 DISCUSSION
Membrane fouling is common to all types of membrane and its mostly dependent on the membrane
properties, feedwater properties and concentration, operating conditions and solution chemistry of
feed water. foulants are seen to differ and have varying effects across different types of
membranes. For example, in NF and RO, biofouling and inorganic (scaling) are said to be the
dominant form of fouling occurring in these processes due to precipitation occurring on membrane
surface because of hydrolysis and oxidation of foulants where salts are seen exceeding their
solubility. However, Mustafa et al.19 observed a decline in fouling upon addition of Ca2+ to native
NF membranes when compared to grafted membranes showing the case where fouling was
dependent on the surface chemistry of the membrane rather than the foulant. This varying effect
was also seen in Li et al.17 where increased ionic strength had no effect on fouling while
studies8,9,16,22,30 observed enhanced fouling with increased pH, ionic strength and initial flux.
In MF and UF, there are no salt concentration in the reject stream so inorganic fouling are less
dominant, rather organic fouling by NOM and its different components are mostly responsible for
fouling in these two processes. Duclos-Orsello et al.24 observed negligible fouling when changes
were made to pH and concentration and foulants were found to adsorb differently on membranes
made from different materials (membrane morphology) while Mohammad et al.28 observed a
decline in fouling with increasing pH. Ca2+ was also seen to increase fouling.

Based on the above, it is seen that there are no important or specific foulants for all membrane
type, rather it is a function of the foulants characteristics, membrane properties, solution chemistry,
operating conditions and understanding the fouling process and phenomena.

5.0 MITIGATION OF MEMBRANE FOULING

Different approaches have been incorporated to mitigate fouling in membranes, they include;
modification of membranes31-33, pretreatment of feedwater34,35, membrane cleaning36-38,

7
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

optimization of operating conditions.39-41 Pretreatment of feed water could include centrifugation

or prefiltration or to remove suspended solids or pH adjustment to avoid charge neutralization,
also divalent cations can be removed via ion-exchange to avoid formation of precipitates on the
membranes. coagulation and flocculation could also be used as pretreatment, as studies have
reported an increase in flux and reduced cleaning requirement when coagulation/flocculation was
used.42-45
Membrane cleaning is based on reversible and irreversible fouling. Reversible fouling is mostly
cleaned by physical processes such as hydraulic cleaning, pneumatic cleaning and ultrasonication.
Hydraulic cleaning which is the most common method mostly involves flushing and backwashing,
pneumatic cleaning involves air scouring, sparging, lifting and bubbling, air lifting, air scouring,
and air bubbling. Mechanical cleaning (use of sponge ball) is also another an effective physical
cleaning process. Studies have reported the effectiveness of backwashing and flushing in the
alleviation of fouling in membranes.46-50 Reduced fouling has been seen in RO membranes by
deposition of polyelectrolytes by Layer-by-Layer assembly on membranes, which led to
antifouling properties (high ion rejection, water permeability and surface smoothness).38 Air
bubbles, microbubbles and air sparging has also been reported to reduce fouling in UF
membranes.2,51-53

Chemical cleaning is used for irreversible fouling and restoration of permeability in membranes
and includes processes such as hydrolysis, solubilisation, and chelation. The most applied chemical
cleaning processes in water treatment plants are cleaning in place (CIP) which is conducted less
frequently and incorporates the use of sodium hypochlorite and citric acid for removal of organic
matter and inorganic substances respectively and chemically enhanced backwash (CEB) which is
conducted frequently by the use of oxidants such as chlorine and ozone.54,55 However, consistent
chemical cleaning can reduce the life span of membranes leading to membrane replacement which
means more cost.56 The effectiveness of membrane cleaning can be influenced by temperature in
that temperature can lead to change in chemical reaction equilibrium, reaction kinetics and
solubility of foulants57.
BSA fouled UF membranes have been effectively cleaned 58 with NaCl, NaNO3, NH4Cl and KCl
salts and it was observed that higher temperature yielded higher cleaning efficiency. Another study
also achieved effective cleaning with HCl, NaOH, and HOCl.59 CaSO4 a scalant was effectively

8
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

cleaned using EDTA-4Na, KCOOH , citric acid, NaOH and NaCl , an order of efficiency was
obtained EDTA-4Na > NaCl > citric acid > NaOH > KCOOH which might be because EDTA
forms a chelate with CaSO4 which is highly soluble in water therefore making it easy to be
cleaned.60
However, even though cleaning has been achieved with these processes, there are also limitations
associated with them. Pretreatment (coagulation/flocculation) removes or changes the
physicochemical properties of potential foulants thereby improving membrane rejection, excess
coagulants has also seen to be potential foulants.61
Some cleaning methods are dependent on the membrane configuration, sponge balls are assumed
to be only effective for tubular membranes in the absence of internal obstructions62 while several
studies63-65 have reported that air sparging is more effective in membranes with loose modules and
they are cost intensive due to energy cost. Air bubbling can sometimes prove ineffective as there
have been cases where bubbles adsorbed on membrane surface and the internal pores leading to a
decline in flux.66 Hwang et al.67 reported that air sparging reduced deposition of particle on
membrane surface but did not show any effect on the internal fouling.
Shear force and transmembrane pressure can cause algal cell lysis resulting in highly degradable
and increased soluble proteins, sugars, neutral and negatively charged polysaccharides68 which
facilitates foulant attachment on membranes thereby aggravating fouling.
Backwashing reduces internal and surface fouling and allows longer operation of plant before shut
down for chemical cleaning.69,70 However, backwash may pave way for infiltration of
macromolecules into membrane pores due to its loosening and detaching of cake layer.71
Backwash efficiency is dependent on the duration and frequency of the backwash cycle as there is
need for temporary shutdown of filtration process and some permeate consumption.70 Studies72,73
have reported that air assisted backwash shortens the backwash cycle and improves foulant
removal, this is however in contrast with a study by Metzger et al.74 who reported that air assisted
backwash encourages irreversible fouling
Anti-scalants used in membrane cleaning are mostly phosphate based and these may aggravate
fouling. Phosphates are essential plant nutrients and promotes algae growth, also when in contact
with natural waters can lead to eutrophication so dosage applied should be monitored in order to
avoid the occurrence of such incidents.

9
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

Oxidants such as ozone and chlorine can lead to degradation of NOM producing polar disinfection
byproducts (DBP) which may act as foulants. Some chemicals are able to restore permeate flux
however, they may cause a reduction in rejection of particles by membranes.75 Oxidants can also
lead to reduced mechanical strength of membranes76, and ageing of membranes resulting in
changes to pore sizes of membranes and a reduction in their hydrophobicity and hydraulic
resistance.77 Frequent chemical cleaning is also associated with waste production and shut down
of the membrane process reducing the plant capacity.

The issue of foulant mitigation by different processes is a complex one as it may be that membrane
materials, cleaners, and foulants chemistry are not the main factors for determining membrane
cleaning efficiency as fouling most times do not occur via a sole mechanism or material but via
combination of different mechanisms and materials. Thus much importance should be attached to
the understanding of the mechanism of combined fouling.

6.0 SUMMARY
This paper has given a review on membrane fouling based on fouling mechanism, fouling
characteristics, and common foulants as well as measures taken to mitigate fouling. A major
conclusion can be drawn at the end of this review, membrane fouling is consistent in all membrane
types. It is seen that fouling is specific to different operating conditions. As far as the issue of
fouling exists, it is important that all fouling phenomena and processes are adequately understood
and are taken into account before and during operation in order to reduce flux decline because
most membrane fouling’s that have occurred during membrane application are as a result of
inadequate understanding of processes, operating conditions and phenomena. Designing and
developing membranes with enhanced modified membrane surfaces, improved water affinity and
improved pore sizes and distribution should be considered. Feedwater conditions can also be
optimized, pre-treatment before filtration should not also be left out as it was seen that pre-
treatment of feedwater helped reduce fouling. The development of green and sustainable
techniques (less or no chemical) for cleaning membranes is also something that should/needs to
be addressed in membrane fouling.
However, an important research question that needs to be addressed in membrane fouling is “Is
there a complete understanding of fouling process and phenomena?” until this is addressed, fouling
would continue to occur in membrane application.

10
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

References

1. Sonune, A.; Ghate, R. Developments in wastewater treatment methods. Desalination 2004, 167,
55-63.

2. Watabe, T.; Matsuyama, K.; Takahashi, T.; Matsuyama, H. Use of microbubbles to reduce
membrane fouling during water filtration. Desalination and Water Treatment 2014, 1-7.

3. Crittenden, J. C.; Trussell, R. R.; Hand, D. W.; Howe, K. J.; Tchobanoglous, G. MWH's Water
Treatment: Principles and Design; John Wiley & Sons: 2012; .

4. Williams, C.; Wakeman, R. Membrane fouling and alternative techniques for its alleviation.
Membrane technology 2000, 2000, 4-10.

5. Franken, A. Prevention and control of membrane fouling: Practical implications and examining
recent innovations. Membraan Applicatie Centrum Twente bv by assignment from DSTI 2009.

6. Lee, S.; Ang, W. S.; Elimelech, M. Fouling of reverse osmosis membranes by hydrophilic
organic matter: implications for water reuse. Desalination 2006, 187, 313-321.

7. Amy, G. Fundamental understanding of organic matter fouling of membranes. Desalination

2008, 231, 44-51.

8. Li, Q.; Xu, Z.; Pinnau, I. Fouling of reverse osmosis membranes by biopolymers in wastewater
secondary effluent: Role of membrane surface properties and initial permeate flux. J. Membr.
Sci. 2007, 290, 173-181.

9. Mo, H.; Tay, K. G.; Ng, H. Y. Fouling of reverse osmosis membrane by protein (BSA): effects
of pH, calcium, magnesium, ionic strength and temperature. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 315, 28-35.

10. Nanda, D.; Tung, K.; Li, Y.; Lin, N.; Chuang, C. Effect of pH on membrane morphology,
fouling potential, and filtration performance of nanofiltration membrane for water softening.
J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 349, 411-420.

11. Li, Q.; Elimelech, M. Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes:
measurements and mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4683-4693.

12. She, Q.; Tang, C. Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z. The role of hydrodynamic conditions and solution
chemistry on protein fouling during ultrafiltration. Desalination 2009, 249, 1079-1087.

13. Shim, Y.; Lee, H.; Lee, S.; Moon, S.; Cho, J. Effects of natural organic matter and ionic species
on membrane surface charge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3864-3871.

14. Tang, C. Y.; Leckie, J. O. Membrane independent limiting flux for RO and NF membranes
fouled by humic acid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 4767-4773.

11
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

15. Wang, J.; Wang, L.; Miao, R.; Lv, Y.; Wang, X.; Meng, X.; Yang, R.; Zhang, X. Enhanced
gypsum scaling by organic fouling layer on nanofiltration membrane: Characteristics and
mechanisms. Water Res. 2016.

16. Goosen, M.; Sablani, S.; Al‐Hinai, H.; Al‐Obeidani, S.; Al‐Belushi, R.; Jackson, D. Fouling of
reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes: a critical review. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39,
2261-2297.

17. Li, Q.; Elimelech, M. Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes:
measurements and mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4683-4693.

18. Seidel, A.; Elimelech, M. Coupling between chemical and physical interactions in natural
organic matter (NOM) fouling of nanofiltration membranes: implications for fouling control.
J. Membr. Sci. 2002, 203, 245-255.

19. Mustafa, G.; Wyns, K.; Buekenhoudt, A.; Meynen, V. New insights into the fouling
mechanism of dissolved organic matter applying nanofiltration membranes with a variety of
surface chemistries. Water Res. 2016, 93, 195-204.

20. Contreras, A. E.; Kim, A.; Li, Q. Combined fouling of nanofiltration membranes: mechanisms
and effect of organic matter. J. Membr. Sci. 2009, 327, 87-95.

21. Jarusutthirak, C.; Mattaraj, S.; Jiraratananon, R. Influence of inorganic scalants and natural
organic matter on nanofiltration membrane fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 287, 138-145.

22. Ding, Y.; Tian, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, L. Microfiltration (MF) membrane fouling potential
evaluation of protein with different ion strengths and divalent cations based on extended
DLVO theory. Desalination 2013, 331, 62-68.

23. Hwang, K.; Chiang, Y. Comparisons of membrane fouling and separation efficiency in
protein/polysaccharide cross-flow microfiltration using membranes with different
morphologies. Separation and Purification Technology 2014, 125, 74-82.

24. Duclos-Orsello, C.; Li, W.; Ho, C. A three mechanism model to describe fouling of
microfiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 280, 856-866.

25. Wang, S.; Liu, C.; Li, Q. Fouling of microfiltration membranes by organic polymer coagulants
and flocculants: Controlling factors and mechanisms. Water Res. 2011, 45, 357-365.

26. Dong, B.; Yan, C.; Gao, N.; Fan, J. Effect of coagulation pretreatment on the fouling of
ultrafiltration membrane. Journal of Environmental Sciences 2007, 19, 278-283.

27. Li, C.; Chen, Y. Fouling of UF membrane by humic substance: effects of molecular weight
and powder-activated carbon (PAC) pre-treatment. Desalination 2004, 170, 59-67.

12
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

28. Mohammad, A. W.; Amin, Indok Nurul Hasyimah Mohd Fouling of ultrafiltration membrane
during adsorption of long chain fatty acid in glycerine solutions. 2013.

29. Na, J.; Yonggang, Z. The effect of humic acid on ultrafiltration membrane fouling. Energy
Procedia 2011, 4821-4829.

30. Lee, S.; Ang, W. S.; Elimelech, M. Fouling of reverse osmosis membranes by hydrophilic
organic matter: implications for water reuse. Desalination 2006, 187, 313-321.

31. Liu, F.; Hashim, N. A.; Liu, Y.; Abed, M. M.; Li, K. Progress in the production and
modification of PVDF membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 375, 1-27.

32. Nabe, A.; Staude, E.; Belfort, G. Surface modification of polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes
and fouling by BSA solutions. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 133, 57-72.

33. Zou, L.; Vidalis, I.; Steele, D.; Michelmore, A.; Low, S.; Verberk, J. Surface hydrophilic
modification of RO membranes by plasma polymerization for low organic fouling. J. Membr.
Sci. 2011, 369, 420-428.

34. Heng, L.; Yanling, Y.; Weijia, G.; Xing, L.; Guibai, L. Effect of pretreatment by
permanganate/chlorine on algae fouling control for ultrafiltration (UF) membrane system.
Desalination 2008, 222, 74-80.

35. Kim, E.; Liu, Y.; Gamal El-Din, M. Evaluation of membrane fouling for in-line filtration of
oil sands process-affected water: the effects of pretreatment conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2012, 46, 2877-2884.

36. Chesters, S. P.; Armstrong, M. W.; Fazel, M. Microbubble RO membrane cleaning reduces
fouling on WWRO plant. Desalination and Water Treatment 2015, 55, 2900-2908.

37. Watabe, T.; Matsuyama, K.; Takahashi, T.; Matsuyama, H. Use of microbubbles to reduce
membrane fouling during water filtration. Desalination and Water Treatment 2014, 1-7.

38. Ishigami, T.; Amano, K.; Fujii, A.; Ohmukai, Y.; Kamio, E.; Maruyama, T.; Matsuyama, H.
Fouling reduction of reverse osmosis membrane by surface modification via layer-by-layer
assembly. Separation and purification technology 2012, 99, 1-7.

39. Gönder, Z. B.; Kaya, Y.; Vergili, I.; Barlas, H. Optimization of filtration conditions for CIP
wastewater treatment by nanofiltration process using Taguchi approach. Separation and
purification technology 2010, 70, 265-273.

40. Gönder, Z. B.; Arayici, S.; Barlas, H. Advanced treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater
by nanofiltration process: Effects of operating conditions on membrane fouling. Separation
and purification technology 2011, 76, 292-302.

13
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

41. Shahabadi, S. M. S.; Reyhani, A. Optimization of operating conditions in ultrafiltration process

for produced water treatment via the full factorial design methodology. Separation and
Purification Technology 2014, 132, 50-61.

42. Babel, S.; Takizawa, S. Chemical pretreatment for reduction of membrane fouling caused by
algae. Desalination 2011, 274, 171-176.

43. Rojas, J.; Pérez, J.; Garralón, G.; Plaza, F.; Moreno, B.; Gómez, M. Humic acids removal by
aerated spiral-wound ultrafiltration membrane combined with coagulation–hydraulic
flocculation. Desalination 2011, 266, 128-133.

44. Iversen, V.; Mehrez, R.; Horng, R.; Chen, C.; Meng, F.; Drews, A.; Lesjean, B.; Ernst, M.;
Jekel, M.; Kraume, M. Fouling mitigation through flocculants and adsorbents addition in
membrane bioreactors: comparing lab and pilot studies. J. Membr. Sci. 2009, 345, 21-30.

45. Zhang, H.; Gao, Z.; Zhang, L.; Song, L. Performance enhancement and fouling mitigation by
organic flocculant addition in membrane bioreactor at high salt shock. Bioresour. Technol.
2014, 164, 34-40.

46. Katsoufidou, K.; Yiantsios, S.; Karabelas, A. A study of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by
humic acids and flux recovery by backwashing: experiments and modeling. J. Membr. Sci.
2005, 266, 40-50.

47. Sagiv, A.; Semiat, R. Backwash of RO spiral wound membranes. Desalination 2005, 179, 1-
9.

48. Smith, P. J.; Vigneswaran, S.; Ngo, H. H.; Ben-Aim, R.; Nguyen, H. A new approach to
backwash initiation in membrane systems. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 278, 381-389.

49. Vargas, A.; Moreno-Andrade, I.; Buitrón, G. Controlled backwashing in a membrane

sequencing batch reactor used for toxic wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 320, 185-
190.

50. Wu, J.; Le-Clech, P.; Stuetz, R. M.; Fane, A. G.; Chen, V. Effects of relaxation and
backwashing conditions on fouling in membrane bioreactor. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 324, 26-32.

51. Chan, C.; Bérubé, P.; Hall, E. Relationship between types of surface shear stress profiles and
membrane fouling. Water Res. 2011, 45, 6403-6416.

52. Wray, H. E.; Andrews, R. C.; Bérubé, P. R. Surface shear stress and membrane fouling when
considering natural water matrices. Desalination 2013, 330, 22-27.

53. Tian, J.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Nan, J.; Li, G. Air bubbling for alleviating membrane fouling of
immersed hollow-fiber membrane for ultrafiltration of river water. Desalination 2010, 260,
225-230.

14
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

54. Woo, Y. C.; Lee, J. J.; Oh, J. S.; Jang, H. J.; Kim, H. S. Effect of chemical cleaning conditions
on the flux recovery of fouled membrane. Desalination and Water Treatment 2013, 51, 5268-
5274.

55. Porcelli, N.; Judd, S. Chemical cleaning of potable water membranes: a review. Separation
and Purification Technology 2010, 71, 137-143.

56. Regula, C.; Carretier, E.; Wyart, Y.; Sergent, M.; Gésan-Guiziou, G.; Ferry, D.; Vincent, A.;
Boudot, D.; Moulin, P. Ageing of ultrafiltration membranes in contact with sodium
hypochlorite and commercial oxidant: experimental designs as a new ageing protocol.
Separation and Purification Technology 2013, 103, 119-138.

57. Liu, C.; Caothien, S.; Hayes, J.; Caothuy, T.; Otoyo, T.; Ogawa, T. Membrane chemical
cleaning: from art to science. Pall Corporation, Port Washington, NY 2001, 11050.

58. Corbatón-Báguena, M.; Álvarez-Blanco, S.; Vincent-Vela, M. Cleaning of ultrafiltration

membranes fouled with BSA by means of saline solutions. Separation and Purification
Technology 2014, 125, 1-10.

59. Kuzmenko, D.; Arkhangelsky, E.; Belfer, S.; Freger, V.; Gitis, V. Chemical cleaning of UF
membranes fouled by BSA. Desalination 2005, 179, 323-333.

60. Peng, Y.; Ge, J.; Li, Z.; Wang, S. Effects of anti-scaling and cleaning chemicals on membrane
scale in direct contact membrane distillation process for RO brine concentrate. Separation
and Purification Technology 2015, 154, 22-26.

61. Cheng, Y.; Wong, R.; Lin, J. C.; Huang, C.; Lee, D.; Lai, J. Pre-treatment of natural organic
matters containing raw water using coagulation. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 911-919.

62. Mulder, M. Polarisation phenomena and membrane fouling. In Basic Principles of Membrane
TechnologySpringer: 1996; pp 416-464.

63. Bérubé, P.; Lei, E. The effect of hydrodynamic conditions and system configurations on the
permeate flux in a submerged hollow fiber membrane system. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 271, 29-
37.

64. Chan, C.; Bérubé, P.; Hall, E. Shear profiles inside gas sparged submerged hollow fiber
membrane modules. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 297, 104-120.

65. Yeo, A. P.; Law, A. W.; Fane, A. T. The relationship between performance of submerged
hollow fibers and bubble-induced phenomena examined by particle image velocimetry. J.
Membr. Sci. 2007, 304, 125-137.

66. Ding, Z.; Liu, L.; Liu, Z.; Ma, R. The use of intermittent gas bubbling to control membrane
fouling in concentrating TCM extract by membrane distillation. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 372,
172-181.

15
 Membrane Fouling – A Mini Review

67. Hwang, K.; Wu, Y. Flux enhancement and cake formation in air-sparged cross-flow
microfiltration. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 139, 296-303.

68. Edzwald, J. K.; Haarhoff, J. Seawater pretreatment for reverse osmosis: Chemistry,
contaminants, and coagulation. Water Res. 2011, 45, 5428-5440.

69. Hwang, K.; Chan, C.; Tung, K. Effect of backwash on the performance of submerged
membrane filtration. J. Membr. Sci. 2009, 330, 349-356.

70. Smith, P. J.; Vigneswaran, S.; Ngo, H. H.; Ben-Aim, R.; Nguyen, H. A new approach to
backwash initiation in membrane systems. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 278, 381-389.

71. Ye, Y.; Chen, V.; Le-Clech, P. Evolution of fouling deposition and removal on hollow fibre
membrane during filtration with periodical backwash. Desalination 2011, 283, 198-205.

72. Bessiere, Y.; Jefferson, B.; Goslan, E.; Bacchin, P. Effect of hydrophilic/hydrophobic fractions
of natural organic matter on irreversible fouling of membranes. Desalination 2009, 249, 182-
187.

73. Remize, P.; Guigui, C.; Cabassud, C. Evaluation of backwash efficiency, definition of
remaining fouling and characterisation of its contribution in irreversible fouling: Case of
drinking water production by air-assisted ultra-filtration. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 355, 104-111.

74. Metzger, U.; Le-Clech, P.; Stuetz, R. M.; Frimmel, F. H.; Chen, V. Characterisation of
polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of different filtration modes. J.
Membr. Sci. 2007, 301, 180-189.

75. Al-Amoudi, A.; Lovitt, R. W. Fouling strategies and the cleaning system of NF membranes
and factors affecting cleaning efficiency. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 303, 4-28.

76. Arkhangelsky, E.; Kuzmenko, D.; Gitis, V. Impact of chemical cleaning on properties and
functioning of polyethersulfone membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 305, 176-184.

77. Puspitasari, V.; Granville, A.; Le-Clech, P.; Chen, V. Cleaning and ageing effect of sodium
hypochlorite on polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane. Separation and Purification
Technology 2010, 72, 301-308.

16

View publication stats