Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Membrane processes for environmental remediation of nanomaterials:

Potentials and challenges
⁎ ⁎⁎
Khaled Elsaid a, A.G. Olabi b,c, , Ahmed Abdel-Wahab a, , Ali Elkamel d, Abdul Hai Alami b, Abrar Inayat b,
⁎⁎⁎ ⁎
Kyu-Jung Chae e,f, , Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem b,g,
a
Chemical Engineering Program, Texas A&M University at Qatar, P.O. Box 23874, Doha, Qatar
b
Sustainable Energy & Power Systems Research Centre, RISE, University of Sharjah, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates
c
Mechanical Engineering and Design, Aston University, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
d
Chemical Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
e
Department of Environmental Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727 Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49112, Republic of Korea
f
Interdisciplinary Major of Ocean Renewable Energy Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727 Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49112, South Korea
g
Chemical Engineering Department, Minia University, Elminia, Egypt

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Nanomaterials are present in the environ-

ment elements of air, water, and soil.
• Environmental remediation of nanomate-
rials became essential due to health and
environmental risks.
• Microfiltration is very effective for the re-
moval of wide size range of nanomateri-
als.
• Microfiltration found to be the most cost
effective for removal of nanomaterials.
• Backwash and retentate waste streams
from membrane filtration have to be prop-
erly managed.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Qilin Wang Nanomaterials have gained huge attention with their wide range of applications. This is mainly driven by their unique
properties. Nanomaterials include nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanofibers, and many other nanoscale structures have
Keywords: been widely assessed for improving the performance in different applications. However, with the wide implementation
Membrane
and utilization of nanomaterials, another challenge is being present when these materials end up in the environment,
Filtration
i.e. air, water, and soil. Environmental remediation of nanomaterials has recently gained attention and is concerned
Nanomaterials
Nanoparticles
with removing nanomaterials from the environment. Membrane filtration processes have been widely considered a
Environmental remediation very efficient tool for the environmental remediation of different pollutants. Membranes with their different op-
erating principles from size exclusions as in microfiltration, to ionic exclusion as in reverse osmosis, provide an
effective tool for the removal of different types of nanomaterials. This work comprehends, summarizes, and crit-
ically discusses the different approaches for the environmental remediation of engineered nanomaterials using
membrane filtration processes. Microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), and nanofiltration (NF) have been
shown to effectively remove nanomaterials from the air and aqueous environments. In MF, the adsorption of
nanomaterials to membrane material was found to be the main removal mechanism. While in UF and NF, the

⁎ Corresponding authors at: Sustainable Energy & Power Systems Research Centre, RISE, University of Sharjah, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates.
⁎⁎ Corresponding author at: Chemical Engineering Program, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, 23874, Qatar.
⁎⁎⁎ Correspondence to: K.-J. Chae, Department of Environmental Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, 727 Taejong-ro, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 49112, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.A. Abdelkareem).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162569
Received 25 November 2022; Received in revised form 26 February 2023; Accepted 26 February 2023
Available online 3 March 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

main mechanism was size exclusion. Membrane fouling, hence requiring proper cleaning or replacement was
found to be the major challenge for UF and NF processes. While limited adsorption capacity of nanomaterial
along with desorption was found to be the main challenges for MF.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Engineered nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Presence of engineered nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Risks and hazards of engineered nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Membrane filtration processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Filtration modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Membrane filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Membrane filtration modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Membrane materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Membrane processes for separation of nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Microfiltration for removal of nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Ultrafiltration for removal of nanomaterials: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Nanofiltration for removal of nanomaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Challenges and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CRediT authorship contribution statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Data availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction Membrane filtration is widely considered a very effective tool for solid/
fluid (gas, vapor, and liquid) separation as in air pollution control and water
Nanomaterials are defined as material with a distinct unit, i.e. particle, and wastewater treatment (Hoslett et al., 2018; Pronk et al., 2019; Russo
size in the range of 1–100 nm regardless of its shape (Amen et al., 2021). et al., 2022). Accordingly, the separation of nanomaterials (as solid parti-
This includes nanoparticles, nanofibers, nanotubes, nanorods, and many cles) from fluid (as air or water) can be realized efficiently using membrane
other structures. Nanomaterials can be classified into natural, incidental, filtration. Membrane filtration processes include microfiltration (MF), ul-
and engineered. The developments in nanoscience and nanotechnologies trafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO). These pro-
have been greatly associated with the synthesis and production of a wide cesses mainly differ with regard to the size of retained particles ranging
range of nanomaterials, with huge developments since the 1980s. Nano- from micron-scale particles in MF to ions in RO (Wang et al., 2020).
technology involving the application of a wide range of nanomaterials Membrane filtration offers a wide range of benefits of low membrane,
has been widely utilized in all modern life aspects, this includes water energy, and installation costs, hence lower overall cost, as well as high
treatment (Santhosh et al., 2016), wastewater treatment (Sayyed capacity flexibility due to the modular nature of such processes, and
et al., 2021; Thines et al., 2017), environmental remediation (Bhavya most importantly higher filtrate product quality (Karanjikar et al.,
et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022a) of different heavy metals (Wu et al., 2022).
2019), and organics (Mazarji et al., 2021). Additionally, nanomaterials Recently there has been an interest in utilizing membrane filtration for
have been found to be very promising for different energy applications the environmental remediation of engineered or man-made nanomaterials.
such as energy storage (Abdelkareem et al., 2022; İnada et al., 2022), Accordingly, this work explores, discusses, and comprehends the recent ap-
hydrogen production (Epelle et al., 2022), and many other electrochem- plication of various membrane processes for the removal of engineered
ical processes as efficient electrocatalysts (Abdelkareem et al., 2021; nanomaterials present in the environment. The work first discusses the
Paul et al., 2021; Wilberforce et al., 2022). nanomaterials with their specific features and types, and then discusses
Earlier reports have indicated a market size of $900 million by 2005 at the different membrane filtration processes of MF, UF, and NF with a
an annual growth rate of 12.8 %, with silica, alumina, metals, and titania of focus on their application for this purpose. The work critically discusses
about 44, 18.5, 15, and 6.2 % (Nanomaterials, 2003). The market has the limitations and challenges associated with the utilization of membrane
grown, reaching a remarkable size that is expected to evolve from filtration processes for the removal of nanomaterials such as blinding,
$10.3 billion in 2020 to $38.2 billion by 2029 with an annual growth blockage, and fouling with recommendations for minimizing it to endure
rate of 18 % (Research EM, 2021), with a $3.2 billion share market for the performance of membrane filters.
smart nanomaterials by 2025 (Research EM, 2019). Titanium dioxide,
i.e. titania, nanomaterials market alone, as common nanomaterial 2. Nanomaterials
used for cosmetics, is expected to evolve from $1.71 billion in 2022 to
about $3.6 billion in 2032, with North America accounting for about Nanomaterial is defined according to the International Standardization
35.7 % of the market (Markets Ra, 2021). This huge expansion in pro- Organization (ISO) under ISO/TS80004–1:2015 Nanotechnologies as “Ma-
duction and application of nanomaterials has raised massive attention terial with any external dimension in the nanoscale (length range approxi-
toward their end of life presence in the environment, and potential en- mately 1–100 nm), or having internal structure or surface structure in the
vironmental remediation approaches to mitigate the environmental nanoscale” (ISO, 2015). The European Commission adopts a similar defini-
and health impacts of nanomaterials present in the air, water, and soil tion of nanomaterials as “chemical substances or materials consisting of
(Vineeth Kumar et al., 2022). very small particles of different shapes and sizes no larger than hundred

2
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

nanometers, or about one thousand times less than the thickness of a industrial processes with some efforts to minimize it. Engineered nano-
human hair” (European Commission E, 2022). Nanomaterials can be gener- materials ENMs, on the other hand, are intentionally produced for cer-
ally classified into natural, incidental, and engineered or manufactured. tain application with end of life disposal and management should have
Fig. 1 summarizes the different types, sources, and applications of nanoma- been properly planned. However, many publications have shown the
terials. Natural nanomaterials are those naturally present in the environ- presence of many ENMs in the environment.
ment such as viruses, macromolecules of proteins such as biopolymers, Bäuerlein et al. have explored the presence of ENMs in the Dutch envi-
and wax crystals, among many others (Guo et al., 2018; Mokhtarzadeh ronment, mainly in air, wastewater influent and effluent, and sludge from
et al., 2016). Incidental nanomaterials are those produced or generated un- sewage treatment plants (STPs) (Bäuerlein et al., 2017). Ag NPS were
intentionally as byproducts or waste of biotechnological or manufacturing found at a concentration of 0.04–0.14 ng/m3 in air, 1 μg/L and 0.3 mg/
processes such as grinding, which may result in nanoparticles (Kim et al., Kg in the effluent and sludge from STP, respectively, with only C60 fullerene
2015; Waris et al., 2021). Engineered or manufactured nanomaterials detected at 2–19 ng/L in wastewater influent. Similarly, Peters et al. has
(ENMs or MNMs) are the type of nanomaterials that are intentionally or explored and confirmed the presence of ENMS in the Dutch surface
purposely synthesized or produced for a specific application or function water (Peters et al., 2018). Ag NPs were found at concentrations of
(De Marchi et al., 2019; Salieri et al., 2018). 0.3–2.5 ng/L and an average size of 15 nm, similarly CeO2 NPs was
found at concentrations of 0.4–5.2 ng/L with average size of 19 nm.
2.1. Engineered nanomaterials Malakar et al. have compiled literature reports confirming the presence
of wide range of NMs, including ENMs in all elements of the environ-
ENMs of 0D such as nanoparticles (NPs), 1D such as nanotubes, nanofi- ment air, water, and soil/sediment (Malakar et al., 2021). Sousa and
bers, nanowires, nanorods, and nanofilaments, 2D such as graphene and Teixeira have complied reports on the presences of ENMs in surface
silicene, and 3D such as nanocrystals have been successfully synthesized and tap water as well as the influent and effluent confirming the pres-
(Barhoum et al., 2022). ENMs have evolved over years and gaining more at- ence of Ag, TiO2, SiO2, ZnO, CeO2, AlOx NPs (Sousa and Ribau, 2020).
tention with the synthesis of new nanomaterials and successful applications
in many areas. However, with the widespread of ENMs, their interaction 2.3. Risks and hazards of engineered nanomaterials
with the environment and the endpoint for such materials have been criti-
cally questioned and analyzed (Farré et al., 2011; Salieri et al., 2018). ENMs The risks associated with the presence of ENMs as an emerging material
have been found to end up in all elements of the ecosphere, i.e. air, water, in the environment and their impact and health effects, and more impor-
sediment, and soil either directly or indirectly through the technosphere as tantly their toxic effects have received huge attention (Asmatulu et al.,
illustrated in Fig. 2 (Malakar et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2014). 2022; Savolainen et al., 2010). The World Health Organization (WHO)
has published recently specific guidelines to protect workers from poten-
2.2. Presence of engineered nanomaterials tial hazards and risks from exposure to ENMs (WHO, 2017). Although of
being released recently in 2017, it was indicated that there are long-
The presence of natural nanomaterial in the environment is well ex- term adverse health effects observed on a human subject, and the guide-
pected being present inherently in the nature. While the presence of in- lines are based on limited in vitro, animal, and human inhalation stud-
cidental nanomaterials is hard to control being byproduct of some ies, which have been performed exploring a few types of ENMs. The

Fig. 1. Types, sources, and applications of nanomaterials (Malakar et al., 2021).

3
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Production of ENMs
Various Production /
Plant / Soil / Mountains ...
Manufacturing Processes
Production of ENMs-products

Use of ENMs-products

Engineered Nanomaterials ENMs Incidental Nanomaterials Natural Nanomaterials

Technosphere (wastewater treatment, waste

incineration, landfill, leachate...)

Ecosphere

Water Soil/ Sediment Air

Fig. 2. Interactions of engineered nanomaterials ENMs with the technosphere and ecosphere.

United States – Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) has already TSCA”, while those present in drinking water are regulated under the
placed nanomaterials on the list of emerging contaminants (US-EPA). “Safe Drinking Water Act SDWA”, which currently does not set a maxi-
Many of the ENMs have been classified under their respective chemical mum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), nor maximum contaminant
substance, hence regulated through “Toxic Substance Control Act level goals (MCLs).

Fig. 3. Left: Transformation of graphene ENMs in the nature, Right: Toxicity of transformed graphene ENMs in the nature (Ding et al., 2022; Research EM, 2019).

4
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Li et al. have reviewed the research efforts on environmental and health multimedia filtration have been widely used for feed pretreatment in MF
impacts of ENMs (Li et al., 2022b). The work has indicated that due to the (Sąkol and Konieczny, 2004). Interestingly, each membrane process can
high interaction of multiple environmental factors along with the high bio- work as pretreatment to the subsequent processes given the order of
diversity of exposed subjects in the ecosphere, the health and environmen- staged size exclusion. In other words, MF is widely used as pretreatment
tal impacts observed at lab scale are likely to differ from actual cases. Furxhi for UF (Peng et al., 2005; Poletto et al., 2015) and NF (Sari and Chellam,
has reviewed the data available on health and environment safety of nano- 2013), UF as pretreatment for NF (Rosberg, 1997), and UF and NF as
materials indicating that literature is wealthy of data ready to be utilized by pretreatment for RO (Galloway and Mahoney, 2004; Labban et al.,
means of machine learning to be more useful for environmental studied 2018; van Hoof et al., 1999).
(Furxhi, 2022). Ding et al. have reviewed the potential release pathways,
transformation, health risks and environmental fate of graphene nanomate- 3.1. Filtration modes
rial as a typical representative of ENMs as shown in Fig. 3 (Ding et al.,
2022). The work has indicated that graphene ENMs undergo complex evo- Filtration can be performed in two modes, either as dead-end filtration,
lution including alteration in microstructure and surface properties, which in which the feed flow is perpendicular to the membrane medium, with par-
changes its biohazard potential. In order to protect the environment from ticulates retained at the surface, forming a cake layer, and clear fluid passes
different nanomaterials, environmental remediation, i.e., removal of nano- through as filtrate (Li and Li, 2015b). The other mode is cross-flow filtra-
materials has received huge attention (Gottschalk et al., 2013; Vineeth tion, in which the feed flows parallel to the filter medium with filtrate per-
Kumar et al., 2022). Due to their very low size and high activity, the envi- meating through the membrane (El Rayess et al., 2011; Li and Li, 2015a).
ronmental remediation of nanomaterials is very challenging and few pro- The main advantage of cross-flow over dead-end filtration is the minimiza-
cesses have proved to be efficient. Among these processes is coagulation, tion of cake formation on the filter surface, which results in flux reduction
which aims to increase the size of nanomaterials to an easily separable and increases the pressure drop across the filter as illustrated in Fig. 4,
level so they can be removed by conventional solid/fluid techniques which requires the filter to be down for backwash to restore initial flux. A
(Popowich et al., 2015). Membrane processes using different filtration tech- major distinction is that in dead-end filtration there is one output stream,
niques such as MF, UF, and certainly NF, and to very less extent RO have i.e. filtrate, while in cross-flow filtration there are two outlet streams, i.e. fil-
been found to be very effective for the removal of different nanomaterials trate and retentate with the latter containing most of the solid particulates
(Nichola Kinsinger et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2012). present in the feed. Cross-flow mode is the mode used in most filtration pro-
cesses due to its higher throughput, ease operation and maintenance, lower
3. Membrane filtration processes cost, and lower footprint.

Filtration is a simple physical separation process separating solids from 3.2. Membrane filtration
fluids, i.e. gas or liquid, using a filter medium with a specific structure that
permeates the fluid and retains solids of a particular size depending on the Depending on the size of particulates retained, i.e. size exclusion, mem-
pore size of such medium (McCabe et al., 1993). The filter media can be sur- brane filtration can be divided into MF, UF, NF, and RO (Bowen and Jenner,
face filters using sieves, depth filters employing a bed of granular medium, 1995; Kyllönen et al., 2005). Membrane filtration processes according to
or membrane filters that incorporate material sheets (Reynolds, 1982). Fil- particle exclusion size and accordingly the required applied pressure or
tration is a pressure-driven process either through pressure applied to the transmembrane pressure, i.e., the pressure difference between feed/
feed side or vacuum applied to the filtrate side. Pretreatment of feed to retentate side and permeate side of the membrane as illustrated in Fig. 5.
the membrane filters is crucial as it minimizes the fouling propensity and MF has an exclusion size in the range of 0.1–10 μm, which is suitable for
improve the operability of membrane. Coagulation and conventional the removal of clay, most bacteria, algae, E. coli, and Mycoplasma and

Feed Retentate
Feed
Filter cake

Membrane

Filtrate Filtrate
Cake thickness
Cake thickness

Filtrate flux
Filtrate flux

Time Time

Dead-End Filtration Cross-Flow Filtration

Fig. 4. Filtration modes of dead-end and cross-flow.

5
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Fig. 5. Membrane processes according to particle size exclusion, applied pressure, molecular weight cutoff, and nature with respect to different rejected particles (Marchetti
et al., 2014).

requires a pressure of about 1 to 4 bar (Anis et al., 2019). UF in the range of 3.3. Membrane filtration modules
0.002–0.1 μm or MWCO of about 10–100 kDa, which is suitable for the re-
moval of humic acids, natural organic matter, proteins, and some viruses Membrane filtration can be present in three main module types, namely
and requires a pressure of 2–7 bar (Al Aani et al., 2020). NF has an exclu- hollow-fiber, spiral-wound, and envelope as shown in Fig. 6 (Abetz et al.,
sion size of about 0.001 μm or 1 nm with MWCO of 300–500 Da, which 2021). These modules work according to the cross-flow mode for improved
suits the removal of carbohydrates such as sugars, synthetic dyes, heavy operability, lower down time for cleaning, increased productivity, high
metals, and multivalent ions, and requires a pressure of 6–10 bar (Li area per unit volume hence compact design, i.e., lower footprint, and
et al., 2022a; Mohammad et al., 2015). While RO is usually represented many other features (Belfort, 1988). Hollow-fiber modules have been pat-
by a range of 0.0001–0.001 μm, although it does not have a distinct pore ented by Dow in 1966 (Mahon, 1966) and DuPont in 1967 (Mahon,
size, and can almost reject all constituents other than water being made 1966). Hollow-fiber modules resemble the shell and tube heat exchanger
of semipermeable membranes which permeate water only (Khoo et al., design in which bundles of fibers (i.e., tubes) are placed in a shell structure,
2022). RO requires much higher pressure as compared to other mem- in which the feed is directed in the fibers and permeates to the shell (Mat
brane processes, which can reach up to 70–80 bar as in seawater desali- et al., 2014).Spiral-wound modules have been developed in 1970 with a
nation applications (Qasim et al., 2019). simple but compact design for membrane placed on spacer, hence

Fig. 6. Main module types of membrane filters: a) Hollow-fiber, b) Spiral-wound, and c) Envelope type (Abetz et al., 2021).

6
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

providing a very high surface area per unit volume (Larson, 1970). Enve- mater such as sand and antarthrite used to remove suspended solids or tur-
lope modules are very similar to spiral-wound modules with membranes bidity, i.e. visible particles or colloids, as the sensitivity of human naked eye
stacked in a circular form in desks arrangement on perforated tube with can reach down to 10 μm. Membrane filtration has been widely applied in
centric hole. water and wastewater treatment processes (Asif and Zhang, 2021;
Hubadillah et al., 2022; Zuo et al., 2021), and control of air pollution
3.4. Membrane materials (Deng et al., 2021; Russo et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2019). With nanomate-
rials defined as having a unit size in the range of 1–100 nm, it seems that
Membrane materials can be generally classified into organic and NF membrane process is the most suitable one with a size exclusion of
inorganic. Organic membrane materials are generally polymers, >1 nm. However, NF operation requires the application of higher hydraulic
i.e., polymeric material with wide range of polymers such as cellulose pressure as compared to MF and UF, hence higher treatment cost (Costa
acetate CA, poly(ethersulfone) PES, polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE, and de Pinho, 2006). The energy requirements and cost of membrane
polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF, polyethylene glycol PEG, polyamide separation processes increases with the decrease in the particle exclu-
PA, polyimide PI, polyacrylonitrile PAN, polyaniline PA, polyether sion size with RO as the most energy consuming and MF as the least in
ether ketone PEEK, and many others (Abetz et al., 2021; Naziri the order of RO > NF > UF > MF. This section discusses the application
Mehrabani et al., 2022; Warsinger et al., 2018). Polymeric membranes of membrane processes for the separation of nanomaterials from the
can be generally sub divided to two types with respect to fabrication, lower cost to the highest, i.e., MF, UF, and NF.
thin film composite (TFC) and integrally skinned asymmetric (ISA) RO process is the most expensive and has been widely used for the sep-
membranes, with the former being the most used type (Marchetti aration of ionic species, i.e. small ions such as Na+ and Cl- as in water de-
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021a; Zhang et al., 2023). The main difference salination, given that RO membranes are highly selective permeating
between these two types are the top thin film coated on the top of the almost pure water (Kim et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2021; Qasim et al.,
support layer in case of TFC, which is made of different material than 2019). Accordingly, RO has not been utilized for the separation of nano-
that of support, while in ISA, the skin layer is of the same material of materials, which are already separable at lower energy and cost using
the support but made denser, hence lower pore size. other membrane processes of MF, UF, and NF, hence it is not considered
Inorganic membranes can be made of carbon, metals, ceramics, zeolite, for discussion in this work.
and many oxides such as alumina and silica (Goh and Ismail, 2018; Verweij,
2012). Inorganic membranes can be further classified into porous or non- 4.1. Microfiltration for removal of nanomaterials
porous, symmetric or asymmetric, as well as amorphous or crystalline
membrane. Carbon membrane are used as molecular sieve in gas separation Microfiltration is usually used to remove particulates in the range of
processes, while other carbon-based material such as carbon nanotubes 0.1–10 μm, i.e., 100–10,000 nm, depending on the specific pore size of
CNT and graphene are used for membrane in wide range of applications the membrane. This can indicate that MF could have a limited potential
(Ali et al., 2019; Januário et al., 2021). Metallic membranes are made of for the removal of nanomaterials given its size exclusion limit of 100 nm.
metals such as palladium and its alloys, which are very dense that it can be However, MF has been proven to efficiently remove nanomaterials, al-
used for gas separation applications such as hydrogen purification (Liguori though with such constrain (Iritani et al., 2019). MF requires less pressure,
et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021b). Ceramic membranes are made from silica, hence less energy requirements as compared to other membrane filtration
alumina, or titania and many other oxides which are formed to produce processes. Additionally, the MF membranes can be easily fabricated from
porous structures of specific particle size exclusion (Hubadillah et al., 2022; a wide range of precursor polymers which is reflected by much lower cost
Wang et al., 2022b). Zeolite membranes are made of microporous crystalline as compared to UF, NF, and RO membranes. Accordingly, MF membranes
alumina-silicate with specific pore size, and can be used as molecular sieves have been widely implemented for various air, water, and wastewater treat-
for gas separation. Table 1 below summarizes the advantages and disadvan- ment processes for the removal of a wide range of contaminants (Anis et al.,
tages of different membrane materials. 2019; Behroozi and Ataabadi, 2021).
The removal of nanomaterials in MF could be explained by different
4. Membrane processes for separation of nanomaterials mechanisms that take place during filtration. The first mechanism is
the retention of nanomaterials particles within the pores of the MF
Membrane processes have been used in a variety of applications for the membrane, mainly due to tortuosity, i.e. random paths of pores, and
removal of different particulates. Multimedia filers made of suspended nonuniform pore size in MF membranes, hence retaining nanomaterials
within the pores of the MF membrane, rather than being retained at the
membrane surface in an approach similar to that of depth filter using fil-
Table 1
tration bed, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
Advantages and disadvantages of membrane materials.
The second mechanism which has been recently explored is the adsorp-
Advantages Disadvantages
tion of nanomaterials to the active surface of membrane fibers by means of
Polymeric ✓ Low cost ❖ Thermal sensitivity chemisorption or physisorption as illustrated in Fig. 7 (Han et al., 2012; Sun
✓ Ease of fabrication ❖ Chemical sensitivity
et al., 2022). In adsorption the nanomaterials are simply attracted to the
✓ High membrane surface ❖ Material reactivity
area per module ❖ No catalytic activity surface of the membrane material either through electrostatic forces due
✓ High permeability at rea- to the partially carried charge, or through sort of weak chemical bonding
sonable selectivity named physisorption and chemisorption, respectively. The work of Le
Metallic ✓ High selectivity ❖ High cost et al. have studied the interaction between different charged NPs of ZnO
✓ High thermal stability ❖ Fabrication difficulty
(positive), TiO2 (neutral), and SiO2 (negative) with ceramic MF membrane
✓ Moderate chemical resis- ❖ Sensitivity to oxidizing environ-
tant ment made of alumina Al2O3 (positive) and titania TiO2 (neutral) (Le et al.,
❖ Low permeability or flux 2019). The results obtained have shown that neutral NPs and neutral mem-
Ceramic / ✓ Highly inert and chemical ❖ Failure in membrane sealing at brane had the lowest interaction as proved by lowest membrane fouling,
Zeolites stable high temperature
i.e. lowest removals of particles, due to the absence of repulsive or attrac-
✓ High thermal stability ❖ High sensitivity to thermal gra-
✓ Ease of cleaning dient tive force between the membrane and the NPs. While opposite charged
❖ Thermal expansion NPs and membrane had the most interaction showing highest membrane
❖ Insensitivity to reducing envi- fouling, i.e., higest removals of particles. The work of Jiang et al. has con-
ronment firmed the adsorption of different NPs on PVDF micropore membrane fol-
❖ Low permeability or flux
lowing pseudo-second-order which was well fitted to the Langmuir

7
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Feed Feed

Micro Particles

MF Membrane

Nanoparticles

Filtrate Filtrate

Particle retention Particle adsorption

Fig. 7. Mechanisms of Nanomaterial removals in microfiltration.

isotherm model (Jiang et al., 2020). Membrane made of surface modified Fig. 8, with particles rejection approximated by logistic equation (Iritani
PVA nanofibers with size of 300–500 nm, have shown to be very effective et al., 2019).
for separation of Ag and Au NPs from water by means of adsorption In the particle retention mechanism, the pore size and distribution of
(Mahanta and Valiyaveettil, 2011). The adsorption capacity was evaluated the MF membrane play an essential role. Different membrane materials
at 79–84, and 56 mg/g for Au and Ag NPs, respectively. and processing conditions can result in different pore sizes and distribu-
The third mechanism is through the retention of smaller size particles tion. Fig. 9 shows the scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of
within the filter cake formed at the membrane surface as illustrated in polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), nylon, mixed cellulose ester (MCE),
Fig. 8, which is generally encountered in dead-end filtration mode. Iritani and polyethersulfone (PES) illustrating the different pore size and distri-
et al. have studied the removal of particles of two different sizes of 0.522 bution for each membrane material (Jiang et al., 2020). In a recent
and 0.091 μm (i.e., 522 and 91 nm) through mixed cellulose ester MF mem- study by Liu et al. polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyacrylonitrile (PAN)
brane of 0.3 μm nominal pore size (Iritani et al., 2014a). The work reveled nanofibrous composite membranes were synthesized as MF membranes
that smaller size particles have been captured within the matrix of the and tested for the removal of 300 and 500 nm NPs, which shows a rejec-
larger particles cake, hence reducing the filtration flux. Iritani et al. have tion up to 30 % and 100 %, respectively (Liu et al., 2020). Gui et al. have
further confirmed that explaining that the initially formed cake of larger produced a metallic alloy-based microfilter by the deposition of zinc
particles, followed by entrapment of smaller particles, as illustrated in nanoparticles Zn NPs on the walls of microscale pores of Ti-40Al-

Fig. 8. Particles retention: (a) Cake of large particle, (b) Retention of smaller particles within the filter cake (Iritani et al., 2019).

8
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Fig. 9. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of (a) polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), (b) nylon, (c) mixed cellulose ester (MCE), and (d) polyethersulfone (PES)
(Jiang et al., 2020).

10Nb-10Cr porous alloy (Gui et al., 2021). The developed microfilter Microfilters made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)/Gluten hybrid nanofibers
has achieved a separation efficiency of about 99.9 % relative to about have been tested for removal of 35 ± 2 nm AuNPs and 25 ± 2 nm AgNPs
67 % for the base alloy toward 225–243 nm SiO2 NPs, with high stability by Dhandayuthapani et al. (Dhandayuthapani et al., 2014). The developed
over 200 filtration cycles. membranes were found to have an adsorption capacity of about 36.5 and
Xi and Geissen have studied the separation of ~21 nm titanium dioxide 32 mg/g toward AuNPs and AgNPs, respectively, with adsorption kinetics
nanoparticles TiO2 NPs using 0.2 μm polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene best represented by the Langmuir isotherm model. The adsorption of dif-
(PE) MF membranes (Xi and Geissen, 2001). PP membrane have achieved a ferent NPs to nanofibers, as those composing MF membranes has been
flux of about 1200 L/m2h with 0.1–0.135 vol% TiO2 NPs at 100 kPa pres- confirmed by the work of (Mahanta et al. 2012). In this work the
sure with high flux stability over 240 h. Schäfer et al. have studied the immersed cellulose-based chitosan-coated nanofibers has shown an
removal of hematite Fe 2O 3 NPs on 0.22 μm MF membranes (Schäfer adsorption capacity of up to 18 mg/g toward capped AuNPs. Several re-
et al., 2000). NPs rejection of 99, 93, and 93 % were obtained for the ports have reported the removal of metallic NPs on cellulosic nanofi-
75, 250, and 500 nm NPs at pH of 3, with rejection of 75 nm NPs bers, PAN and PVA (Liu et al., 2020), and polyvinyl alcohol PVA/
dropped to 85 % at pH of 12. MF membrane has been tested by Pan gluten nanofibers (Dhandayuthapani et al., 2014) by means of adsorp-
et al. for the removal of silica nanoparticles SiO2 NPs with a size range tion as summarized in Table 2.
of 70–250 nm using 0.1 μm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) MF mem-
branes under 65 kPa vacuum (Pan et al., 2005a). However, the authors 4.2. Ultrafiltration for removal of nanomaterials:
have reported a severe decline in flux due to membrane blockage and
dense cake layer formation, with only a recovery of 27 % of pure Ultrafiltration membrane can generally retain particulates in the range
water flux after backwash due to blocked membrane pores. It was re- of 0.002–0.1 μm, i.e. 2–100 nm, which makes it very suitable for the re-
ported as well that the use of coagulants such as poly aluminum chloride moval of a wide size range of nanomaterials (Al Aani et al., 2020). UF has
PAC and polyacrylic amide PAA have increased the average particle size been widely applied for the removal of many biological compounds such
to 0.2–100 and 297 μm, respectively. as proteins (Rohani and Zydney, 2010; Tanudjaja et al., 2022), viruses
Jiang et al. have studied the adsorption mechanism of wide range of (Gentile et al., 2018; Jacquet et al., 2021), and many dyes (Derouich
nanoparticles (gold AuNPs, silver AgNPs, zirconium oxide ZrO2-NPs, zinc et al., 2020; Sarkar, 2022). However, that requires higher applied pressure,
oxide ZnO-NPs, iron oxide Fe2O3-NPs, and nickel oxide NiO-NPs.) over dif- hence higher energy requirements, and more complex membrane mate-
ferent MF membranes of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), nylon, mixed cel- rials and synthesis, hence higher membrane cost as compared to MF
lulose ester (MCE), and polyethersulfone (PES) (Jiang et al., 2020). membranes. Additionally, MF membranes have been found to success-
Fig. 10 below shows the adsorption kinetics of AuNPs and AgNPs on dif- fully remove nanomaterials to a large extent as discussed in the previous
ferent MF membranes showing an adsorption capacity of up to 45 mg/g section. Accordingly, little work has been performed on the utilization
and 24 mg/g, respectively within 2–3 h on PVDF membrane which has of UF membranes for the separation of nanomaterials. Lohwacharin
the highest adsorption capacity. The study has also shown an optimum and Takizawa have reported the effect of carbon black NPs with a size
pH in the range of 5–7 with a removal range of 95–99 %. range of 70–200 nm on the UF performance using 100, 3, and 0.5 kDa

9
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Fig. 10. Adsorption kinetics of (a) gold nanoparticles AuNPs, (b) silver nanoparticles AgNPs (at 50 and 30 mg/l respectively and pH 7.0); SEM images of (c) AuNPs and
(d) AgNPs on the surface of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Jiang et al., 2020).

UF membranes, at pressures of 1, 2, and 4 bars, respectively during the were adsorbed on the membrane rather than being retained in the pore
treatment of surface water (Lohwacharin and Takizawa, 2009). The by size exclusion. After filtration for 4 h, the mean particles size in the
authors have indicated the increased fouling due to pore blockage of retentate increased from 93.3 ± 2.5 nm initially to 124.0 ± 0.7 nm, with
membrane by NPs present being retained within the pores of the UF a drop up to 95 % in 10–55 nm particles, while mean particle size in the per-
membrane. meates remained 41 ± 2 nm over 24 h, which agrees with nominal UF pore
UF cellulose membranes with MWCO of 10 and 100 kDa were tested for size of 55 nm. The fouling of the UF membrane was mainly attributed to the
the removal of 0.14 wt% 78 nm SiO2 NPs by Springer et al. (Springer et al., complete pore blockages mechanism. Similarly, Iritani et al. have studied
2013). UF membranes of 10 and 100 kDa were found to achieve a separa- the properties of cake formed during the dead-end UF of 4.8, 13.3, and
tion efficiency of >99.6 over the pressure range of 0.4–0.8 bar, which was 99.7 nm silica nano-colloids on asymmetric regenerated cellulose mem-
maintained for the 10 kDa UF membrane up to a pressure of 2 bar, but branes with a nominal molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) of 1 kDa (Iritani
dropped to 98.3 % for the 100 kDa UF membrane. Similarly, Zou et al. uti- et al., 2014b). The results obtained have confirmed that the cake formed
lized a polyether sulfone (PES) UF membrane with a molecular weight cut- plays a significant role in removing the small nanoparticles being entrapped
off of 100 kDa under 0.8 bar pressure for the removal of 30–60 nm AgNPs within the cake.
attaining a separation efficiency of 80 % (Zou et al., 2021). The separation
efficiency increased to 89 % upon adding PAC as a coagulant, then in- 4.3. Nanofiltration for removal of nanomaterials
creased further to 95 % with the addition of laminarin as a coagulant aid.
The increased removal efficiency has been mainly attributed to the in- NF has been successfully used for separation of divalent ions such as
creased particulate size due to coagulation as illustrated in Fig. 11. Ca2+, Mg2+, and SO2− 4 as in water softening (Costa and de Pinho, 2006;
Enfrin et al. have studied the kinetics and mechanistic of separation of Labban et al., 2018), groundwater desalination (Song et al., 2016; Walha
polyethylene PE micro and nano plastic particles, 13–690 nm in size, utiliz- et al., 2007), and as pretreatment for RO desalination to reduce scaling po-
ing a 30 kDa poly(sulfone) (PSF) UF membrane with equivalent 55 nm tential (Labban et al., 2018; Mohammad et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2015). NF
nominal pore diameter (Enfrin et al., 2020). The study has shown less par- has been used as well for the separation of wide range of heavy metals such
ticles in the retentate as compared to the feed, with particles being much as Rare Earth elements (Kose Mutlu et al., 2018). As the name reflects NF
less in the filtrate, hence indicating particles being adsorbed and retained reject particles, ions, and compounds with size >1 nm, hence seems to be
within the membrane. The study has indicated that >25 % of the particles the adequate choice for separation of ENMs. However, given that fact that

10
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Table 2
Summary of microfiltration application for removal of nanomaterials.
Nanomaterials Membrane material Remarks Ref.

• 11.9 ± 3.6 nm Ag, • Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ➣ 0.45 μm nominal pore size (Jiang et al., 2020)
• 11.2 ± 1.2 nm Au, • Nnylon, ➣ PVDF membranes show the highest adsorption capacity of 64.9
• 30 nm NiO, • Mixed cellulose ester (MCE), and and 26.5 mg/g for Au and Ag, respectively.
• ZnO, Fe2O3, and • Polyethersulfone (PES) ➣ Adsorption capacity was in the order of PVDF > Nylon > MCE > PES
ZrO2 NPs ➣ Highest adsorption capacity achieved at pH range of 5–7
➣ PES adsorption capacity was independent of pH
➣ Removal of 94.8–99.5 % by filtration (not adsorption).
225–243 nm SiO2 NPs Ti–40Al–10Nb–10Cr porous alloy ➣ High corrosion and oxidation resistant alloy (Gui et al., 2021)
with 0.5 mm Zn coating ➣ Removal of up to 99.99 % by filtration
➣ Stable separation efficiency over 200 filtration cycles
21 nm TiO2 • Polypropylene (PP) ➣ 0.2 μm nominal pore size for PP (Xi and Geissen,
• Polyethylene (PE) ➣ 1 μm nominal pore size for PP 2001)
➣ Flux up to 1250 L/m2h
➣ Optimum pH of 6–8
75, 250, and 500 nm Modified polyvinylidene fluoride ➣ 0.22 μm nominal pore size for hydrophilic (GVWP) and hydrophobic (GVHP) membranes (Schäfer et al.,
α-Fe2O3 PVDF ➣ Rejection decreases with the increase of applied pressure 2000)
➣ Rejection up to 94 % at 50 kPa
➣ Presence of natural organic matter NOM and such as humic and fulvic acids lead to flux
decline.
70–250 nm SiO2 Polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE over ➣ 0.5 μm nominal pore size (Pan et al., 2005b)
polypropylene PP support ➣ Addition of polyaluminum chloride (PACl) and cationic poly-acrylamide improved flux stability
➣ Optimum pH of 6–7
➣ The major fouling mechanism is cake formation
• 40–900 nm Polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE ➣ 0.1, 0.2, 0.45, and 1.0 μm nominal pore size (Ullmann et al.,
Polystyrene ➣ Microfiltration reduced the number of passing particles by retaining large number of particles 2019)
• 104 nm monomodal ➣ MF can be used to obtain a clear particle size measurement with focused particle size distribution
silica
• 21 nm TiO2 Asymmetric tubular ceramic ➣ Dead-end filtration mode (Le et al., 2019)
• 35 nm ZnO membranes with Al2O3 and ➣ 0.2 μm nominal pore size
• 25 nm SiO2 TiO2 surfaces ➣ TiO2 membrane has a better fouling resistance
➣ 25 nm SiO2 result in severe fouling due to the negative charge
50–100 nm Fe2O3 • Electrospun polyvinylidene fluo- ➣ Removal of up to 99 % was achieved on all membrane (Gopakumar et al.,
ride PVDF ➣ The top surface of the membrane was covered by clusters of NPs, while the bottom surface 2017)
• Modified cellulose nanofibers was free of such clusters

a wide range of ENMs have been successfully removed by the lower cost MF heavy metals, and multivalent ions (Akthakul et al., 2005). However, the
to a large extent, and even almost complete separation down to 4.3 nm work presented here explored and demonstrated the successful utilization
using low cost UF, NF has found to be not necessarily used for separation of MF and UF membranes efficiently for the removal of nanomaterials.
of ENMs. Literature has been extensively surveyed for application of NF MF membranes specifically have been widely tested and successfully ap-
for the separation of ENMs, which was not successful. Accordingly, NF plied for the removal of nanomaterials. This was mainly driven by their
can be suggested for very challenging low particle size ENMs in the range lower energy requirements, easy of manufacturing and operation, hence
of 1–5 nm, which has not been successfully separated by MF nor UF. lower cost. Still some work is required to comprehensively compare the per-
formance of MF, UF, and NF membranes for the removal of nanomaterials
5. Challenges and recommendations in more detailed approach.
The work summarized here has shown huge effort for exploring the en-
Membrane filtration for the environmental remediation to remove vironmental remediation of nanoparticles specifically, among other nano-
nanomaterials from air, water, and soil has been proved promising. De- materials. This could be due to the fact that nanoparticles are the most
pending on their size range of 1–100 nm, nanomaterials are believed to challenging structure for removal as compared to other nanostructures.
be efficiently removed only by NF, which to retain particles of size >1 nm However, the performance of different membrane filtration processes is
as already used for rejection of wide range of natural organic matter, expected to be different, hence it worth exploring and assessment.

Fig. 11. Coagulation of silver nanoparticles AgNPs using poly aluminum chloride (PAC) as coagulant and laminarin (LA) as coagulant aid (Zou et al., 2021).

11
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Additionally, most of the nanomaterials studied were mainly inorganic drop, hence increasing the pressure and energy requirements. Accord-
nanoparticles, i.e. metallic and non-metallic nanoparticles, with very ingly, deep and extensive cleaning is required during backwash with
less studies for the removal of organic nanoparticles, which requires fur- specific chemical additives to weaken the nanoparticle-membrane
ther attention. fiber attachment to ease cleaning.
The explored work has shown that most of the studies have explored the
separation of nanomaterials from aqueous medium, i.e. water. Although 6. Conclusions
nanomaterials have been found in all the environment elements of air,
water, and soil, only water received most of the environmental remediation Membrane filtration processes, more specifically MF, UF, and NF have
efforts. This can be attributed in part to the fact that most of nanomaterials shown to be very effective for environmental remediation of nanomaterials,
present in air will end up to water and soil by means of precipitation, as particularly nanoparticles as the most challenging nanostructure to remove.
with rains, and that nanomaterials present in soil are easily transported Removal of nanoparticles from aqueous media was the most studied rela-
to water, i.e., that nanomaterials end up in water. The work performed tive to removal from air and soil, which can be due to the fact that nanoma-
for removal of nanoparticles from air was found mainly to consider terials in air and water will end up in water. Still, it is recommended to
aerosol nanoparticles rather than organic and inorganic nanomaterials explore removal from air for air pollution control. MF is the most studied
(Bulejko et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2011; Saleem et al., 2022). Accordingly, membrane filtration process, mainly due to its lower energy requirements
further work exploring the removal of nanomaterials from air for air and cost as compared to UF and NF. Although of the larger size exclusion
pollution control is required. range of 0.1–5 μm, MF have been effective for the removal of nanoparticles
Most of the work explored in this review has indicated that inorganic with size <100 nm, which was mainly attributed to the two mechanisms of
ENMs have received most of the attention and research efforts, with less nanoparticle entrapment within the pores due to tortuosity and particles ag-
work on organic ENMS such as graphene, carbon nanoparticles and nanofi- glomeration. The second mechanism is the adsorption of nanoparticles to
bers, which are receiving huge attention with recent developments in wide membrane internal surface within the filter pores, which is due to high sur-
range of applications. Organic ENMs are to behave differently from inor- face reactivity of nanoparticles along with high surface area of filter inter-
ganic ENMs with respect to interactions with the environment and dif- nal pores. Although of their effectiveness for removal of nanomaterials,
ferent transformation routes, as well as toxicity effects. This in return membrane filtration faces the common problem of blockage and cake for-
requires careful study of their use and fate in the environment. mation which requires extensive backwash and proper disposal of retentate
Membrane filtration processes for separation of nanomaterials have and backwash waste streams. More effective washing procedures specific
some challenges to achieve optimum performance. Some of these chal- for nanoparticles filtration should be explored.
lenges are inherent with membrane filtration as filtration process which
can be pointed as follow: CRediT authorship contribution statement
• Filter blockage i.e. membrane fouling,
• Cake formation on membrane surface, All authors are equally contributed in the current work.
• Declining flux and increased pressure drop,
Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

These challenges can be solved by performing deep cleaning and back-
wash along with some chemical additives such as surfactants, which ease
Declaration of competing interest
the release of NPs from the membrane surface by weakening the particle-
membrane interaction forces. This in return could restore initial filtration
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter-
flux to some extent depending on the success extent of cleaning procedures.
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the
However, the waste stream from backwash has to be handled properly as it
work reported in this paper.
will contain all the solids retained by the membrane, i.e., nanomaterials
(Jiang et al., 2017; Men et al., 2023). Additionally, developing membrane
References
with anti-fouling properties has been of huge interest within the commu-
nity of membrane science and technology. Anti-fouling membrane reduces
Abdelkareem, M.A., Wilberforce, T., Elsaid, K., Sayed, E.T., Abdelghani, E.A.M., Olabi,
operational cost associated with cleaning chemicals as well as improve op- A.G., 2021. Transition metal carbides and nitrides as oxygen reduction reaction cat-
erability due to the reduced downtime (Guo et al., 2020; Jhaveri and alyst or catalyst support in proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). Int.
Murthy, 2016). J. Hydrog. Energy 46, 23529–23547.
Abdelkareem, M.A., Abbas, Q., Mouselly, M., Alawadhi, H., Olabi, A.G., 2022. High-
Membrane filtration mode present another challenge as well. In case of performance effective metal–organic frameworks for electrochemical applications. J.Sci.
dead-end filtration, the waste stream from backwash containing all the Adv.Mater.Devices 7, 100465.
solids retained has to be properly disposed of. Similarly, in case of cross- Abetz, V., Brinkmann, T., Sözbilir, M., 2021. Fabrication and function of polymer membranes.
Chem.Teacher Int. 3, 141–154.
flow filtration the retentate or reject stream containing the solids particu- Akthakul, A., Hochbaum, A.I., Stellacci, F., Mayes, A.M., 2005. Size fractionation of metal
lates, i.e., nanomaterials at much higher concentration relative to feed nanoparticles by membrane filtration. Adv. Mater. 17, 532–535.
stream, has to be properly disposed of. In both cases the waste disposal of Al Aani, S., Mustafa, T.N., Hilal, N., 2020. Ultrafiltration membranes for wastewater and
water process engineering: a comprehensive statistical review over the past decade. J.
nanomaterial-containing stream has to be very carefully performed to en- Water Process Eng. 35, 101241.
sure not to present additional environmental challenges. Ali, S., Rehman, S.A.U., Luan, H.-Y., Farid, M.U., Huang, H., 2019. Challenges and opportuni-
Some other challenges are associated with the nature of nanomateri- ties in functional carbon nanotubes for membrane-based water treatment and desalina-
tion. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 1126–1139.
als being separated, including the very small size, i.e. nanosized, along Amen, R., Mukhtar, A., Saqib, S., Ullah, S., Al-Sehemi, A.G., Mehdi, S.E.H., et al., 2021.
with the chemical and physical aspects of material being separated, Chapter 1 - history and development of nanomaterials. In: Tahir, M.B., Sagir, M.,
i.e., organic, inorganic, metallic, non-metallic…etc. Due to their very Asiri, A.M. (Eds.), Nanomaterials: Synthesis, Characterization, Hazards and Safety.
Elsevier, pp. 1–14.
low size, which is smaller than the nominal pore size of MF and UF mem-
Anis, S.F., Hashaikeh, R., Hilal, N., 2019. Microfiltration membrane processes: a review of re-
branes, nanomaterials are usually trapped within the pores of the mem- search trends over the past decade. J.Water Process Eng. 32, 100941.
brane filter rather than the surface of the membrane. This also can be Asif, M.B., Zhang, Z., 2021. Ceramic membrane technology for water and wastewater treat-
due to the high reactivity of nanomaterials due to their surface proper- ment: a critical review of performance, full-scale applications, membrane fouling and
prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 418, 129481.
ties and high surface-to-volume ration. This in return block the mem- Asmatulu, E., Andalib, M.N., Subeshan, B., Abedin, F., 2022. Impact of nanomaterials on
brane pores, reducing the permeation flux and increase the pressure human health: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 20, 2509–2529.

12
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Barhoum, A., García-Betancourt, M.L., Jeevanandam, J., Hussien, E.A., Mekkawy, S.A., Iritani, E., Katagiri, N., Ishikawa, Y., Cao, D.-Q., 2014a. Cake formation and particle rejection
Mostafa, M., et al., 2022. Review on natural, incidental, bioinspired, and engineered in microfiltration of binary mixtures of particles with two different sizes. Sep. Purif.
nanomaterials: history, definitions, classifications, synthesis, properties, market, toxic- Technol. 123, 214–220.
ities, risks, and regulations. Nanomaterials 12, 177. Iritani, E., Katagiri, N., Tsukamoto, M., Hwang, K.-J., 2014b. Determination of cake properties
Bäuerlein, P.S., Emke, E., Tromp, P., Hofman, J.A.M.H., Carboni, A., Schooneman, F., et al., in ultrafiltration of nano-colloids based on single step-up pressure filtration test. AIChE
2017. Is there evidence for man-made nanoparticles in the Dutch environment? Sci. Journal 60, 289–299.
Total Environ. 576, 273–283. Iritani, E., Katagiri, N., Yamaoka, Y., 2019. Filtration behaviors of suspension of dual-sized
Behroozi, A.H., Ataabadi, M.R., 2021. Improvement in microfiltration process of oily waste- submicron particles through semi-permeable microfiltration membrane. J. Taiwan Inst.
water: a comprehensive review over two decades. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 104981. Chem. Eng. 94, 62–69.
Belfort, G., 1988. Membrane modules: comparison of different configurations using fluid me- ISO, .. ISO/TS 80004-1:2015(en) Nanotechnologies — Vocabulary — Part 1: Core terms
chanics. J. Membr. Sci. 35, 245–270. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:80004:-1:ed-2:v1:en.
Bhavya, G., Belorkar, S.A., Mythili, R., Geetha, N., Shetty, H.S., Udikeri, S.S., et al., 2021. Re- Jacquet, N., Wurtzer, S., Darracq, G., Wyart, Y., Moulin, L., Moulin, P., 2021. Effect of concen-
mediation of emerging environmental pollutants: a review based on advances in the uses tration on virus removal for ultrafiltration membrane in drinking water production.
of eco-friendly biofabricated nanomaterials. Chemosphere 275, 129975. J. Membr. Sci. 634, 119417.
Bowen, W.R., Jenner, F., 1995. Theoretical descriptions of membrane filtration of colloids and Januário, E.F.D., Vidovix, T.B., Beluci, Nd.C.L., Paixão, R.M., Silva, L.H.B.Rd., Homem, N.C.,
fine particles: an assessment and review. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci. 56, 141–200. et al., 2021. Advanced graphene oxide-based membranes as a potential alternative for
Bulejko, P., Dohnal, M., Pospíšil, J., Svěrák, T., 2018. Air filtration performance of symmetric dyes removal: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 789, 147957.
polypropylene hollow-fibre membranes for nanoparticle removal. Sep. Purif. Technol. Jhaveri, J.H., Murthy, Z.V.P., 2016. A comprehensive review on anti-fouling nanocomposite
197, 122–128. membranes for pressure driven membrane separation processes. Desalination 379,
European Commission E, 2022. Nanomaterials. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ 137–154.
chemicals/nanotech/. Jiang, L., He, S., Wang, D., Li, C., Zhou, X., Yan, B., 2020. Polyvinylidene fluoride micropore
Costa, A.R., de Pinho, M.N., 2006. Performance and cost estimation of nanofiltration for sur- membrane for removal of the released nanoparticles during the application of
face water treatment in drinking water production. Desalination 196, 55–65. nanoparticle-loaded water treatment materials. J. Clean. Prod. 261, 121246.
De Marchi, L., Coppola, F., Soares, A.M.V.M., Pretti, C., Monserrat, J.M., Torre, Cd., et al., Jiang, S., Li, Y., Ladewig, B.P., 2017. A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and
2019. Engineered nanomaterials: from their properties and applications, to their toxicity control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 595, 567–583.
towards marine bivalves in a changing environment. Environ. Res. 178, 108683. Karanjikar, S.R., Singh Sena, A., Manekar, P., Mudagi, S., Singh, Juneja A., 2022. Utilization of
Deng, Y., Lu, T., Cui, J., Keshari Samal, S., Xiong, R., Huang, C., 2021. Bio-based electrospun graphene and its derivatives for air & water filtration: a review. Mater.Today: Proc. 50,
nanofiber as building blocks for a novel eco-friendly air filtration membrane: a review. 2007–2017.
Sep. Purif. Technol. 277, 119623. Khoo, Y.S., Goh, P.S., Lau, W.J., Ismail, A.F., Abdullah, M.S., Mohd Ghazali, N.H., et al.,
Derouich, G., Alami Younssi, S., Bennazha, J., Cody, J.A., Ouammou, M., El Rhazi, M., 2022. Removal of emerging organic micropollutants via modified-reverse osmosis/
2020. Development of low-cost polypyrrole/sintered pozzolan ultrafiltration mem- nanofiltration membranes: a review. Chemosphere 305, 135151.
brane and its highly efficient performance for congo red dye removal. J. Environ. Kim, J., Park, K., Yang, D.R., Hong, S., 2019. A comprehensive review of energy consumption
Chem. Eng. 8, 103809. of seawater reverse osmosis desalination plants. Appl. Energy 254, 113652.
Dhandayuthapani, B., Mallampati, R., Sriramulu, D., Dsouza, R.F., Valiyaveettil, S., 2014. Kim, K.H., Kim, J.B., Ji, J.H., Lee, S.B., Bae, G.N., 2015. Nanoparticle formation in a chemical
PVA/gluten hybrid nanofibers for removal of nanoparticles from water. ACS Sustain. storage room as a new incidental nanoaerosol source at a nanomaterial workplace.
Chem. Eng. 2, 1014–1021. J. Hazard. Mater. 298, 36–45.
Ding, X., Pu, Y., Tang, M., Zhang, T., 2022. Environmental and health effects of graphene- Kose Mutlu, B., Cantoni, B., Turolla, A., Antonelli, M., Hsu-Kim, H., Wiesner, M.R., 2018. Ap-
family nanomaterials: potential release pathways, transformation, environmental fate plication of nanofiltration for rare earth elements recovery from coal fly ash leachate: per-
and health risks. Nano Today 42, 101379. formance and cost evaluation. Chem. Eng. J. 349, 309–317.
El Rayess, Y., Albasi, C., Bacchin, P., Taillandier, P., Raynal, J., Mietton-Peuchot, M., et al., Kyllönen, H.M., Pirkonen, P., Nyström, M., 2005. Membrane filtration enhanced by ultra-
2011. Cross-flow microfiltration applied to oenology: a review. J. Membr. Sci. 382, 1–19. sound: a review. Desalination 181, 319–335.
Enfrin, M., Lee, J., Le-Clech, P., Dumée, L.F., 2020. Kinetic and mechanistic aspects of ultrafil- Labban, O., Chong, T.H., Lienhard, J.H., 2018. Design and modeling of novel low-pressure
tration membrane fouling by nano- and microplastics. J. Membr. Sci. 601, 117890. nanofiltration hollow fiber modules for water softening and desalination pretreatment.
US-EPA, A. The United States - Environmental Protection Agency, Emerging Contaminant – Desalination 439, 58–72.
Nanomaterials https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/emerging-contaminant-nanomaterials. Larson, T.J., 1970. Reverse osmosis pilot plant operation: a spiral module concept. Desalina-
Epelle, E.I., Desongu, K.S., Obande, W., Adeleke, A.A., Ikubanni, P.P., Okolie, J.A., et al., 2022. tion 7, 187–199.
A comprehensive review of hydrogen production and storage: a focus on the role of nano- Le, M.H., Kim, K.-J., Jeong, S., Jang, A., 2019. Effect of charged nano-particles on ceramic
materials. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47, 20398–20431. microfiltration membrane fouling. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 72, 125–132.
Farré, M., Sanchís, J., Barceló, D., 2011. The fate and the behavior of nanomaterials in the en- Li, S., Wang, X., Guo, Y., Hu, J., Lin, S., Tu, Y., et al., 2022a. Recent advances on cellulose-
vironment, analysis and assessment of the occurrence. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 30, based nanofiltration membranes and their applications in drinking water purification: a
517–527. review. J. Clean. Prod. 333, 130171.
Furxhi, I., 2022. Health and environmental safety of nanomaterials: o data, where art thou? Li, X., Li, J., 2015a. Cross-flow filtration. In: Drioli, E., Giorno, L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mem-
NanoImpact 25, 100378. branes. SpringerBerlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–2.
Galloway, M., Mahoney, J., 2004. Ultrafiltration for seawater reverse osmosis pretreatment. Li, X., Li, J., 2015b. Dead-end filtration. In: Drioli, E., Giorno, L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mem-
Membr. Technol. 2004, 5–8. branes. SpringerBerlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–3.
Gentile, G.J., Cruz, M.C., Rajal, V.B., Fidalgo de Cortalezzi, M.M., 2018. Electrostatic interac- Li, X., He, F., Wang, Z., Xing, B., 2022b. Roadmap of environmental health research on emerg-
tions in virus removal by ultrafiltration membranes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 6, ing contaminants: inspiration from the studies on engineered nanomaterials. Eco-Envi-
1314–1321. ron.Health 1, 181–197.
Goh, P.S., Ismail, A.F., 2018. A review on inorganic membranes for desalination and wastewa- Liguori, S., Kian, K., Buggy, N., Anzelmo, B.H., Wilcox, J., 2020. Opportunities and challenges
ter treatment. Desalination 434, 60–80. of low-carbon hydrogen via metallic membranes. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 80, 100851.
Gopakumar, D.A., Pasquini, D., Henrique, M.A., de Morais, L.C., Grohens, Y., Thomas, S., Lim, Y.J., Goh, K., Kurihara, M., Wang, R., 2021. Seawater desalination by reverse osmo-
2017. Meldrum's acid modified cellulose nanofiber-based polyvinylidene fluoride sis: current development and future challenges in membrane fabrication – a review.
microfiltration membrane for dye water treatment and nanoparticle removal. ACS J. Membr. Sci. 629, 119292.
Sustain. Chem. Eng. 5, 2026–2033. Liu, J., Pui, D.Y., Wang, J., 2011. Removal of airborne nanoparticles by membrane coated fil-
Gottschalk, F., Sun, T., Nowack, B., 2013. Environmental concentrations of engineered nano- ters. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 4868–4874.
materials: review of modeling and analytical studies. Environ. Pollut. 181, 287–300. Liu, X., Jiang, B., Yin, X., Ma, H., Hsiao, B.S., 2020. Highly permeable nanofibrous composite
Gui, W., Liu, J., Song, X., Zhang, H., Lin, J., Luan, B., 2021. A new microfiltration membrane microfiltration membranes for removal of nanoparticles and heavy metal ions. Sep. Purif.
with three-dimensional reticular architecture for nano-pollutants removal from wastewa- Technol. 233, 115976.
ter. Prog.Nat.Sci.Mater.Int. 31, 414–419. Lohwacharin, J., Takizawa, S., 2009. Effects of nanoparticles on the ultrafiltration of surface
Guo, C., Shi, H., Wang, W., Pei, X., Teng, K., Hu, Y., et al., 2020. Improvement of PVDF water. J. Membr. Sci. 326, 354–362.
nanofiltration membrane potential, separation and anti-fouling performance by electret Mahanta, N., Valiyaveettil, S., 2011. Surface modified electrospun poly(vinyl alcohol) mem-
treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137816. branes for extracting nanoparticles from water. Nanoscale 3, 4625–4631.
Guo, Z., Cui, K., Zeng, G., Wang, J., Guo, X., 2018. Silver nanomaterials in the natural environ- Mahanta, N., Leong, W.Y., Valiyaveettil, S., 2012. Isolation and characterization of cellulose-
ment: an overview of their biosynthesis and kinetic behavior. Sci. Total Environ. 643, based nanofibers for nanoparticle extraction from an aqueous environment. J. Mater.
1325–1336. Chem. 22, 1985–1993.
Han, J., Qiu, W., Hu, J., Gao, W., 2012. Chemisorption of estrone in nylon microfiltration Mahon, H.I., 1966. Permeability separatory apparatus, permeability separatory membrane el-
membranes: adsorption mechanism and potential use for estrone removal from water. ement, method of making the same and process utilizing the same. https://patents.
Water Res. 46, 873–881. google.com/patent/US3339341A/en Google Patents.
Hoslett, J., Massara, T.M., Malamis, S., Ahmad, D., van den Boogaert, I., Katsou, E., et al., Malakar, A., Kanel, S.R., Ray, C., Snow, D.D., Nadagouda, M.N., 2021. Nanomaterials in the
2018. Surface water filtration using granular media and membranes: a review. Sci. environment, human exposure pathway, and health effects: a review. Sci. Total Environ.
Total Environ. 639, 1268–1282. 759, 143470.
Hubadillah, S.K., Jamalludin, M.R., Dzarfan Othman, M.H., Iwamoto, Y., 2022. Recent prog- Marchetti, P., Jimenez Solomon, M.F., Szekely, G., Livingston, A.G., 2014. Molecular separa-
ress on low-cost ceramic membrane for water and wastewater treatment. Ceram. Int. 48, tion with organic solvent nanofiltration: a critical review. Chem. Rev. 114, 10735–10806.
24157–24191. Markets Ra, 2021. Outlook on the titanium dioxide nanomaterials global market to 2026 – by
İnada, A.A., Arman, S., Safaei, B., 2022. A novel review on the efficiency of nanomaterials for type, application and region , p. 2 Focus on Catalysts 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solar energy storage systems. J.Energy Storage 55, 105661. focat.2021.11.005.

13
K. Elsaid et al. Science of the Total Environment 879 (2023) 162569

Mat, N.C., Lou, Y., Lipscomb, G.G., 2014. Hollow fiber membrane modules. Curr.Opin.Chem. Schäfer, A.I., Schwicker, U., Fischer, M.M., Fane, A.G., Waite, T.D., 2000. Microfiltration of
Eng. 4, 18–24. colloids and natural organic matter. J. Membr. Sci. 171, 151–172.
Mazarji, M., Minkina, T., Sushkova, S., Mandzhieva, S., Bidhendi, G.N., Barakhov, A., et al., Song, Y., Li, T., Zhou, J., Li, Z., Gao, C., 2016. Analysis of nanofiltration membrane perfor-
2021. Effect of nanomaterials on remediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons- mance during softening process of simulated brackish groundwater. Desalination 399,
contaminated soils: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 284, 112023. 159–164.
McCabe, W.L., Smith, J.C., Harriott, P., 1993. Unit Operations of Chemical EngineeringVol 5. Sousa, V.S., Ribau, Teixeira M., 2020. Metal-based engineered nanoparticles in the drinking
McGraw-hill, New York. water treatment systems: a critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 707, 136077.
Men, Y., Li, Z., Zhu, L., Wang, X., Cheng, S., Lyu, Y., 2023. New insights into membrane foul- Springer, F., Laborie, S., Guigui, C., 2013. Removal of SiO2 nanoparticles from industry waste-
ing during direct membrane filtration of municipal wastewater and fouling control with waters and subsurface waters by ultrafiltration: investigation of process efficiency, de-
mechanical strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 869, 161775. posit properties and fouling mechanism. Sep. Purif. Technol. 108, 6–14.
Mohammad, A.W., Hilal, N., Al-Zoubib, H., Darwish, N.A., Ali, N., 2007. Modelling the effects Sun, J., Chen, Z., Liu, S., Kang, J., Wang, B., Shen, J., et al., 2022. Powdered activated carbon
of nanofiltration membrane properties on system cost assessment for desalination appli- doping improves the mechanical and adsorption properties of cementitious
cations. Desalination 206, 215–225. microfiltration membrane. Chemosphere 287, 132260.
Mohammad, A.W., Teow, Y.H., Ang, W.L., Chung, Y.T., Oatley-Radcliffe, D.L., Hilal, N., 2015. Sun, T.Y., Gottschalk, F., Hungerbühler, K., Nowack, B., 2014. Comprehensive probabilistic
Nanofiltration membranes review: recent advances and future prospects. Desalination modelling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Pollut.
356, 226–254. 185, 69–76.
Mokhtarzadeh, A., Alibakhshi, A., Hejazi, M., Omidi, Y., Ezzati Nazhad Dolatabadi, J., 2016. Tanudjaja, H.J., Anantharaman, A., Ng, A.Q.Q., Ma, Y., Tanis-Kanbur, M.B., Zydney, A.L., et
Bacterial-derived biopolymers: advanced natural nanomaterials for drug delivery and tis- al., 2022. A review of membrane fouling by proteins in ultrafiltration and microfiltration.
sue engineering. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 82, 367–384. J.Water Process Eng. 50, 103294.
Naziri Mehrabani, S.A., Vatanpour, V., Koyuncu, I., 2022. Green solvents in polymeric mem- Thines, R.K., Mubarak, N.M., Nizamuddin, S., Sahu, J.N., Abdullah, E.C., Ganesan, P., 2017.
brane fabrication: a review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 298, 121691. Application potential of carbon nanomaterials in water and wastewater treatment: a re-
Nichola Kinsinger, R.H., Keene, Valerie, Walker, Sharon L., 2015. Titanium dioxide nanopar- view. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 72, 116–133.
ticle removal in primary prefiltration stages of water treatment: role of coating, natural Tsai, C.S.J., Echevarría-Vega, M.E., Sotiriou, G.A., Santeufemio, C., Schmidt, D., Demokritou,
organic matter, source water, and solution chemistry. Environ. Eng. Sci. 32, 292–300. P., et al., 2012. Evaluation of environmental filtration control of engineered nanoparticles
Organization WH, 2017. WHO guidelines on protecting workers from potential risks of man- using the Harvard Versatile Engineered Nanomaterial Generation System (VENGES).
ufactured nanomaterials. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ J. Nanopart. Res. 14, 812.
publications/i/item/9789241550048. Ullmann, C., Babick, F., Stintz, M., 2019. Microfiltration of submicron-sized and nano-
Pan, J.R., Huang, C., Jiang, W., Chen, C., 2005a. Treatment of wastewater containing sized suspensions for particle size determination by dynamic light scattering. Nano-
nano-scale silica particles by dead-end microfiltration: evaluation of pretreatment materials 9, 829.
methods. Desalination 179, 31–40. van Hoof, S.C.J.M., Hashim, A., Kordes, A.J., 1999. The effect of ultrafiltration as pretreat-
Pan, J.R., Huang, C., Jiang, W., Chen, C., 2005b. Treatment of wastewater containing ment to reverse osmosis in wastewater reuse and seawater desalination applications. De-
nano-scale silica particles by dead-end microfiltration: evaluation of pretreatment salination 124, 231–242.
methods. Desalination 179, 31–40. Verweij, H., 2012. Inorganic membranes. Curr.Opin.Chem.Eng. 1, 156–162.
Paul, S.C., Dey, S.C., Molla, M.A.I., Islam, M.S., Debnath, S., Miah, M.Y., et al., 2021. Nanoma- Vineeth Kumar, C.M., Karthick, V., Kumar, V.G., Inbakandan, D., Rene, E.R., Suganya, K.S.U.,
terials as electrocatalyst for hydrogen and oxygen evolution reaction: exploitation of chal- et al., 2022. The impact of engineered nanomaterials on the environment: release mech-
lenges and current progressions. Polyhedron 193, 114871. anism, toxicity, transformation, and remediation. Environ. Res. 212, 113202.
Peng, H., Tremblay, A.Y., Veinot, D.E., 2005. The use of backflushed coalescing Walha, K., Amar, R.B., Firdaous, L., Quéméneur, F., Jaouen, P., 2007. Brackish groundwater
microfiltration as a pretreatment for the ultrafiltration of bilge water. Desalination treatment by nanofiltration, reverse osmosis and electrodialysis in Tunisia: performance
181, 109–120. and cost comparison. Desalination 207, 95–106.
Peters, R.J.B., van Bemmel, G., Milani, N.B.L., den Hertog, G.C.T., Undas, A.K., van der Lee, Wang, D., Li, S., Li, F., Li, J., Li, N., Wang, Z., 2021a. Thin film nanocomposite membrane with
M., et al., 2018. Detection of nanoparticles in dutch surface waters. Sci. Total Environ. triple-layer structure for enhanced water flux and antibacterial capacity. Sci. Total Envi-
621, 210–218. ron. 770, 145370.
Poletto, P., da Rocha, Renosto D., Baldasso, C., Zeni, M., da Silveira, M.M., 2015. Activated Wang, J., Cahyadi, A., Wu, B., Pee, W., Fane, A.G., Chew, J.W., 2020. The roles of particles in
charcoal and microfiltration as pretreatment before ultrafiltration of pectinases produced enhancing membrane filtration: a review. J. Membr. Sci. 595, 117570.
by Aspergillus niger in solid-state cultivation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 151, 102–107. Wang, J.-t., Ge, Y.-y., He, Y., Xu, M.-x., Cui, X.-m., 2019. A porous gradient geopolymer-
Popowich, A., Zhang, Q., Le, X.C., 2015. Removal of nanoparticles by coagulation. J. Environ. based tube membrane with high PM removal rate for air pollution. J. Clean. Prod.
Sci. 38, 168–171. 217, 335–343.
Pronk, W., Ding, A., Morgenroth, E., Derlon, N., Desmond, P., Burkhardt, M., et al., 2019. Wang, M., Tan, X., Motuzas, J., Li, J., Liu, S., 2021b. Hydrogen production by methane steam
Gravity-driven membrane filtration for water and wastewater treatment: a review. reforming using metallic nickel hollow fiber membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 620, 118909.
Water Res. 149, 553–565. Wang, Q., Liu, S., Liu, J., Sun, J., Zhang, Z., Zhu, Q., 2022a. Sustainable cellulose nanomate-
Qasim, M., Badrelzaman, M., Darwish, N.N., Darwish, N.A., Hilal, N., 2019. Reverse osmosis rials for environmental remediation - achieving clean air, water, and energy: a review.
desalination: a state-of-the-art review. Desalination 459, 59–104. Carbohydr. Polym. 285, 119251.
Research EM, 2019. Global smart nanomaterials market to see CAGR of 67% during Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Chen, Z., Liu, Y., Guo, J., Zhang, W., et al., 2022b. Recent progress in the
2019–2025 , p. 3 Focus on Catalysts 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focat.2019.07.010. pore size control of silicon carbide ceramic membranes. Ceram. Int. 48, 8960–8971.
Research EM, 2021. Global nanomaterials market (2021 to 2029) - featuring BASF. Bayer and Waris, A.A., Athar, T., Fatima, H., Nisar, M., 2021. Chapter 6 - nanotoxicology-toxicology of
Chasm Technologies , p. 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focat.2021.06.007 Focus on Cata- nanomaterials and incidental nanomaterials. In: Tahir, M.B., Sagir, M., Asiri, A.M.
lysts 2021 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1351418021002610? (Eds.), Nanomaterials: Synthesis, Characterization, Hazards and Safety. Elsevier,
via%3Dihub. pp. 123–143.
Reynolds, T.D., 1982. Unit Operations and Processes in Environmental Engineering. PWS Pub- Warsinger, D.M., Chakraborty, S., Tow, E.W., Plumlee, M.H., Bellona, C., Loutatidou, S., et al.,
lishers. 2018. A review of polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse. Prog.
Rohani, M.M., Zydney, A.L., 2010. Role of electrostatic interactions during protein ultrafiltra- Polym. Sci. 81, 209–237.
tion. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci. 160, 40–48. Wilberforce, T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Elsaid, K., Olabi, A.G., Sayed, E.T., 2022. Role of carbon-
Rosberg, R., 1997. Ultrafiltration (new technology), a viable cost-saving pretreatment for re- based nanomaterials in improving the performance of microbial fuel cells. Energy 240,
verse osmosis and nanofiltration — a new approach to reduce costs. Desalination 110, 122478.
107–113. Wood, A., Scott, Alex, 2003. Nanomaterials: a big market potential. Focus. Catal. 2003, 2.
Russo, F., Castro-Muñoz, R., Santoro, S., Galiano, F., Figoli, A., 2022. A review on electrospun Wu, Y., Pang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, S., Fu, D., et al., 2019. Environmental remediation of
membranes for potential air filtration application. J.Environ.Chem.Eng. 10, 108452. heavy metal ions by novel-nanomaterials: a review. Environ. Pollut. 246, 608–620.
Sąkol, D., Konieczny, K., 2004. Application of coagulation and conventional filtration in raw Xi, W., Geissen, S.-u., 2001. Separation of titanium dioxide from photocatalytically treated
water pretreatment before microfiltration membranes. Desalination 162, 61–73. water by cross-flow microfiltration. Water Res. 35, 1256–1262.
Saleem, H., Zaidi, S.J., Ismail, A.F., Goh, P.S., 2022. Advances of nanomaterials for air pollu- Zhang, Z., Fan, K., Liu, Y., Xia, S., 2023. A review on polyester and polyester-amide thin film
tion remediation and their impacts on the environment. Chemosphere 287, 132083. composite nanofiltration membranes: synthesis, characteristics and applications. Sci.
Salieri, B., Turner, D.A., Nowack, B., Hischier, R., 2018. Life cycle assessment of manufactured Total Environ. 858, 159922.
nanomaterials: where are we? NanoImpact 10, 108–120. Zhou, D., Zhu, L., Fu, Y., Zhu, M., Xue, L., 2015. Development of lower cost seawater desali-
Santhosh, C., Velmurugan, V., Jacob, G., Jeong, S.K., Grace, A.N., Bhatnagar, A., 2016. Role of nation processes using nanofiltration technologies — a review. Desalination 376,
nanomaterials in water treatment applications: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 306, 1116–1137. 109–116.
Sari, M.A., Chellam, S., 2013. Surface water nanofiltration incorporating (electro) Zou, Z., Gu, Y., Yang, W., Liu, M., Han, J., Zhao, S., 2021. A modified coagulation-
coagulation–microfiltration pretreatment: fouling control and membrane characteriza- ultrafiltration process for silver nanoparticles removal and membrane fouling mitigation:
tion. J. Membr. Sci. 437, 249–256. the role of laminarin. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 172, 241–249.
Sarkar, B., 2022. Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration in the treatment of dye wastewater: funda- Zuo, K., Wang, K., DuChanois, R.M., Fang, Q., Deemer, E.M., Huang, X., et al., 2021. Selective
mentals, state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 17, 100730. membranes in water and wastewater treatment: role of advanced materials. Mater. Today
Savolainen, K., Alenius, H., Norppa, H., Pylkkänen, L., Tuomi, T., Kasper, G., 2010. Risk as- 50, 516–532.
sessment of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnologies—a review. Toxicology
269, 92–104.
Sayyed, A.J., Pinjari, D.V., Sonawane, S.H., Bhanvase, B.A., Sheikh, J., Sillanpää, M., 2021.
Cellulose-based nanomaterials for water and wastewater treatments: a review. J.Envi-
ron.Chem.Eng. 9, 106626.

14