From the Laboratory to Full-Scale Applications of Forward Osmosis: Research Challenges and Opportunities

  • Jamshed Ali Khan
  • Ho Kyong Shon
  • Long D. NghiemEmail author
Water Pollution (G Toor and L Nghiem, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Water Pollution


Forward osmosis (FO) has recently emerged as a new separation platform for a range of applications that are currently not possible for other membrane processes. This review paper covers key aspects of FO development with a specific emphasis on current technical challenges for practical applications. Main hurdles in the transition of FO from a lab-scale process to large scale applications include low-performance membranes, development of suitable draw solute, inherent transport phenomena (e.g. concentration polarization and reverse solute flux), membrane fouling and subsequent membrane cleaning. Several new FO membranes have been developed with some improved performances but no membrane has yet been found convincing in all of the key performance indicators. Draw solutes have been broadly investigated but mainly at the lab-scale. There have only been very few pilot-scale studies, most of them using inorganic salts as draw solutes. Development of thermo-responsive draw solutes and TFC membranes have been reported to be most effective in reducing reverse solute flux while altering the hydrodynamic conditions and the use of ultrasonication along with exploring other viable options have been suggested to tackle external and internal concentration polarization respectively. Although membrane fouling types and mitigation strategies have been extensively explored, this review also highlights the need for further research in biofouling for long-term FO operation.


Forward osmosis Concentration polarization Reverse solute flux Membrane fouling Draw solute 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Elimelech M, Phillip WA. The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology, and the environment. science. 2011;333(6043):712–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Misdan N, Lau W, Ismail A. Seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination by thin-film composite membrane—current development, challenges and future prospects. Desalination. 2012;287:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akther N, Sodiq A, Giwa A, Daer S, Arafat H, Hasan S. Recent advancements in forward osmosis desalination: a review. Chem Eng J. 2015;281:502–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li Z, Linares RV, Sarp S, Amy G. Direct and Indirect Seawater Desalination by Forward Osmosis. Membrane-Based Salinity Gradient Processes for Water Treatment and Power Generation: Elsevier; 2018. p. 245–272.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Achilli A, Cath TY, Childress AE. Power generation with pressure retarded osmosis: an experimental and theoretical investigation. J Membr Sci. 2009;343(1–2):42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garcia-Castello EM, McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M. Performance evaluation of sucrose concentration using forward osmosis. J Membr Sci. 2009;338(1–2):61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Achilli A, Cath TY, Marchand EA, Childress AE. The forward osmosis membrane bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes. Desalination. 2009;239(1–3):10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin Y-K, Ho H-O. Investigations on the drug releasing mechanism from an asymmetric membrane-coated capsule with an in situ formed delivery orifice. J Control Release. 2003;89(1):57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hickenbottom KL, Hancock NT, Hutchings NR, Appleton EW, Beaudry EG, Xu P, et al. Forward osmosis treatment of drilling mud and fracturing wastewater from oil and gas operations. Desalination. 2013;312:60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.•
    Vu MT, Ansari AJ, Hai FI, Nghiem LD. Performance of a seawater-driven forward osmosis process for pre-concentrating digested sludge centrate: organic enrichment and membrane fouling. Environmental science: Water Research & Technology. 2018;4(7):1047-56. This study demonstrated the potential use of seawater as draw solution in forward osmosis for enrichment of organic carbon in the digested sludge centrate.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao S, Zou L, Tang CY, Mulcahy D. Recent developments in forward osmosis: opportunities and challenges. J Membr Sci. 2012;396:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J Membr Sci. 2006;281(1–2):70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang C-Y, Ho H-O, Lin L-H, Lin Y-K, Sheu M-T. Asymmetric membrane capsules for delivery of poorly water-soluble drugs by osmotic effects. Int J Pharm. 2005;297(1–2):89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerstandt K, Peinemann K-V, Skilhagen SE, Thorsen T, Holt T. Membrane processes in energy supply for an osmotic power plant. Desalination. 2008;224(1–3):64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang KY, Ong RC, Chung T-S. Double-skinned forward osmosis membranes for reducing internal concentration polarization within the porous sublayer. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;49(10):4824–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang S, Wang KY, Chung T-S, Chen H, Jean Y, Amy G. Well-constructed cellulose acetate membranes for forward osmosis: minimized internal concentration polarization with an ultra-thin selective layer. J Membr Sci. 2010;360(1–2):522–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sairam M, Sereewatthanawut E, Li K, Bismarck A, Livingston A. Method for the preparation of cellulose acetate flat sheet composite membranes for forward osmosis—desalination using MgSO4 draw solution. Desalination. 2011;273(2–3):299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tiraferri A, Yip NY, Phillip WA, Schiffman JD, Elimelech M. Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes to support layer formation and structure. J Membr Sci. 2011;367(1–2):340–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Widjojo N, Chung T-S, Weber M, Maletzko C, Warzelhan V. The role of sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in the support layer for thin-film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes. J Membr Sci. 2011;383(1–2):214–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu Y, Seo S, Kim I-C, Lee S. Nanoporous polyethersulfone (PES) membrane with enhanced flux applied in forward osmosis process. J Membr Sci. 2011;375(1–2):63–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Song X, Liu Z, Sun DD. Nano gives the answer: breaking the bottleneck of internal concentration polarization with a nanofiber composite forward osmosis membrane for a high water production rate. Adv Mater. 2011;23(29):3256–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qiu C, Setiawan L, Wang R, Tang CY, Fane AG. High performance flat sheet forward osmosis membrane with an NF-like selective layer on a woven fabric embedded substrate. Desalination. 2012;287:266–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma N, Wei J, Qi S, Zhao Y, Gao Y, Tang CY. Nanocomposite substrates for controlling internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci. 2013;441:54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.••
    Li X, Loh CH, Wang R, Widjajanti W, Torres J. Fabrication of a robust high-performance FO membrane by optimizing substrate structure and incorporating aquaporin into selective layer. Journal of membrane science. 2017;525:257–68. In this paper, high water flux and low reverse solute flux were achieved by incorporating aquaporin into the polyamide active layer of a TFC FO membrane. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yanar N, Son M, Yang E, Kim Y, Park H, Nam S-E, et al. Investigation of the performance behavior of a forward osmosis membrane system using various feed spacer materials fabricated by 3D printing technique. Chemosphere. 2018;202:708–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Y-N, Wei J, She Q, Pacheco F, Tang CY. Microscopic characterization of FO/PRO membranes–a comparative study of CLSM, TEM and SEM. Environmental science & technology. 2012;46(18):9995–10003.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ong RC, Chung T-S, Helmer BJ, de Wit JS. Novel cellulose esters for forward osmosis membranes. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2012;51(49):16135–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yip NY, Tiraferri A, Phillip WA, Schiffman JD, Elimelech M. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environmental science & technology. 2010;44(10):3812–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang R, Shi L, Tang CY, Chou S, Qiu C, Fane AG. Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes. J Membr Sci. 2010;355(1–2):158–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Qasim M, Darwish NA, Sarp S, Hilal N. Water desalination by forward (direct) osmosis phenomenon: a comprehensive review. Desalination. 2015;374:47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.••
    Wang Y-N, Goh K, Li X, Setiawan L, Wang R. Membranes and processes for forward osmosis-based desalination: recent advances and future prospects. Desalination. 2018;434:81-99. This review comprehensively examined the latest progress in membrane fabrication for FO applications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zheng L, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Effects of fouling on separation performance by forward osmosis: the role of specific organic foulants. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018:1–12.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahebi S, Phuntsho S, Woo YC, Park MJ, Tijing LD, Hong S, et al. Effect of sulphonated polyethersulfone substrate for thin film composite forward osmosis membrane. Desalination. 2016;389:129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Amini M, Jahanshahi M, Rahimpour A. Synthesis of novel thin film nanocomposite (TFN) forward osmosis membranes using functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes. J Membr Sci. 2013;435:233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Emadzadeh D, Lau WJ, Matsuura T, Rahbari-Sisakht M, Ismail AF. A novel thin film composite forward osmosis membrane prepared from PSf–TiO2 nanocomposite substrate for water desalination. Chem Eng J. 2014;237:70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Setiawan L, Wang R, Li K, Fane AG. Fabrication of novel poly (amide–imide) forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with a positively charged nanofiltration-like selective layer. J Membr Sci. 2011;369(1–2):196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.••
    Balogun HA, Sulaiman R, Marzouk SS, Giwa A, Hasan SW. 3D printing and surface imprinting technologies for water treatment: A review. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2019;31:100786. This is a comprehensive review about the the recent advances and challenges to 3D printing techniques for membranes and module spacers fabrication. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fu F-J, Zhang S, Sun S-P, Wang K-Y, Chung T-S. POSS-containing delamination-free dual-layer hollow fiber membranes for forward osmosis and osmotic power generation. J Membr Sci. 2013;443:144–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu X, Ng HY. Fabrication of layered silica–polysulfone mixed matrix substrate membrane for enhancing performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. J Membr Sci. 2015;481:148–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Achilli A, Cath TY, Childress AE. Selection of inorganic-based draw solutions for forward osmosis applications. J Membr Sci. 2010;364(1–2):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ng HY, Tang W, Wong WS. Performance of forward (direct) osmosis process: membrane structure and transport phenomenon. Environmental science & technology. 2006;40(7):2408–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Su J, Chung T-S, Helmer BJ, de Wit JS. Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using sucrose as draw solute. J Membr Sci. 2012;396:92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bowden KS, Achilli A, Childress AE. Organic ionic salt draw solutions for osmotic membrane bioreactors. Bioresour Technol. 2012;122:207–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zou S, Gu Y, Xiao D, Tang CY. The role of physical and chemical parameters on forward osmosis membrane fouling during algae separation. J Membr Sci. 2011;366(1–2):356–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Phuntsho S, Shon HK, Hong S, Lee S, Vigneswaran S. A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: evaluating the performance of fertilizer draw solutions. J Membr Sci. 2011;375(1–2):172–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sato N, Sato Y, Yanase S. Forward osmosis using dimethyl ether as a draw solute. Desalination. 2014;349:102–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Inada A, Yumiya K, Takahashi T, Kumagai K, Hashizume Y, Matsuyama H. Development of thermoresponsive star oligomers with a glycerol backbone as the draw solute in forward osmosis process. J Membr Sci. 2019;574:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li D, Zhang X, Simon GP, Wang H. Forward osmosis desalination using polymer hydrogels as a draw agent: influence of draw agent, feed solution and membrane on process performance. Water Res. 2013;47(1):209–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ng HY, Tang W. Forward (direct) osmosis: a novel and prospective process for brine control. Proc Water Environ Fed. 2006;2006(8):4345–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nguyen NC, Nguyen HT, Ho S-T, Chen S-S, Ngo HH, Guo W, et al. Exploring high charge of phosphate as new draw solute in a forward osmosis–membrane distillation hybrid system for concentrating high-nutrient sludge. Sci Total Environ. 2016;557:44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Neff RA. Solvent extractor. Google Patents; 1964.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McGinnis RL, McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M. A novel ammonia–carbon dioxide osmotic heat engine for power generation. J Membr Sci. 2007;305(1–2):13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.•
    Chen Q, Xu W, Ge Q. Synthetic draw solutes for forward osmosis: status and future. Reviews in chemical engineering. 2017. This review highlighted the potential and key challenges of thermo-responsive draw solutes application in forward osmosis.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhao D, Wang P, Zhao Q, Chen N, Lu X. Thermoresponsive copolymer-based draw solution for seawater desalination in a combined process of forward osmosis and membrane distillation. Desalination. 2014;348:26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    J-j K. Kang H, Choi Y-S, Yu YA, Lee J-C. thermo-responsive oligomeric poly (tetrabutylphosphonium styrenesulfonate) s as draw solutes for forward osmosis (FO) applications. Desalination. 2016;381:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    McGinnis RL, Hancock NT, Nowosielski-Slepowron MS, McGurgan GD. Pilot demonstration of the NH3/CO2 forward osmosis desalination process on high salinity brines. Desalination. 2013;312:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Phuntsho S, Kim JE, Johir MA, Hong S, Li Z, Ghaffour N, et al. Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis process: pilot-scale desalination of mine impaired water for fertigation. J Membr Sci. 2016;508:22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Corzo B, de la Torre T, Sans C, Ferrero E, Malfeito JJ. Evaluation of draw solutions and commercially available forward osmosis membrane modules for wastewater reclamation at pilot scale. Chem Eng J. 2017;326:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kim Y, Lee JH, Kim YC, Lee KH, Park IS, Park S-J. Operation and simulation of pilot-scale forward osmosis desalination with ammonium bicarbonate. Chem Eng Res Des. 2015;94:390–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang Z, Zheng J, Tang J, Wang X, Wu Z. A pilot-scale forward osmosis membrane system for concentrating low-strength municipal wastewater: performance and implications. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hancock NT, Xu P, Heil DM, Bellona C, Cath TY. Comprehensive bench-and pilot-scale investigation of trace organic compounds rejection by forward osmosis. Environmental science & technology. 2011;45(19):8483–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhao S, Zou L. Relating solution physicochemical properties to internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci. 2011;379(1–2):459–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hancock NT, Cath TY. Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environmental science & technology. 2009;43(17):6769–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Suh C, Lee S. Modeling reverse draw solute flux in forward osmosis with external concentration polarization in both sides of the draw and feed solution. J Membr Sci. 2013;427:365–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Coday BD, Xu P, Beaudry EG, Herron J, Lampi K, Hancock NT, et al. The sweet spot of forward osmosis: treatment of produced water, drilling wastewater, and other complex and difficult liquid streams. Desalination. 2014;333(1):23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lutchmiah K, Verliefde A, Roest K, Rietveld LC, Cornelissen ER. Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res. 2014;58:179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ansari AJ, Hai FI, Price WE, Drewes JE, Nghiem LD. Forward osmosis as a platform for resource recovery from municipal wastewater-a critical assessment of the literature. J Membr Sci. 2017;529:195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.•
    Zou S, Qin M, He Z. Tackle reverse solute flux in forward osmosis towards sustainable water recovery: reduction and perspectives. Water research. 2018. This review discussed the various control strategies including the selection of suitable draw solutes and development of advanced membranes and modifications to reduce reverse solute flux.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Huang L, Bui N-N, Meyering MT, Hamlin TJ, McCutcheon JR. Novel hydrophilic nylon 6, 6 microfiltration membrane supported thin film composite membranes for engineered osmosis. J Membr Sci. 2013;437:141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zou S, Smith ED, Lin S, Martin SM, He Z. Mitigation of bidirectional solute flux in forward osmosis via membrane surface coating of zwitterion functionalized carbon nanotubes. Environ Int. 2019;131:104970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gray GT, McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M. Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation. Desalination. 2006;197(1–3):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.•
    Choi Y, Hwang T-M, Jeong S, Lee S. The use of ultrasound to reduce internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis. Ultrasonics sonochemistry. 2018;41:475-83. This study demonstrated the potential of ultrasonication to reduce internal concentration polarization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shaffer DL, Werber JR, Jaramillo H, Lin S, Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: where are we now? Desalination. 2015;356:271–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Guo W, Ngo H-H, Li J. A mini-review on membrane fouling. Bioresour Technol. 2012;122:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Khan MMT, Stewart PS, Moll DJ, Mickols WE, Burr MD, Nelson SE, et al. Assessing biofouling on polyamide reverse osmosis (RO) membrane surfaces in a laboratory system. J Membr Sci. 2010;349(1–2):429–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Alzahrani S, Mohammad AW. Challenges and trends in membrane technology implementation for produced water treatment: a review. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2014;4:107–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Flemming H-C, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(9):623–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chen D. Ultrasonic control of ceramic membrane fouling caused by silica particles and dissolved organic matter: the Ohio State University; 2005.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S. Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). J Membr Sci. 2010;365(1–2):34–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mi B, Elimelech M. Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: measurements and mechanisms. Environmental science & technology. 2010;44(6):2022–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Linares RV, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Z, Amy G. Rejection of micropollutants by clean and fouled forward osmosis membrane. Water Res. 2011;45(20):6737–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chun Y, Zaviska F, Cornelissen E, Zou L. A case study of fouling development and flux reversibility of treating actual lake water by forward osmosis process. Desalination. 2015;357:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.•
    Chun Y, Mulcahy D, Zou L, Kim IS. A short review of membrane fouling in forward osmosis processes. Membranes. 2017;7(2):30. This article reviewed different types of membrane fouling and corresponding fouling mitigation strategies.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nguyen NC, Nguyen HT, Chen S-S, Nguyen NT, Li C-W. Application of forward osmosis (FO) under ultrasonication on sludge thickening of waste activated sludge. Water Sci Technol. 2015;72(8):1301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kim C, Lee S, Hong S. Application of osmotic backwashing in forward osmosis: mechanisms and factors involved. Desalin Water Treat. 2012;43(1–3):314–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Blandin G, Verliefde AR, Comas J, Rodriguez-Roda I, Le-Clech P. Efficiently combining water reuse and desalination through forward osmosis—reverse osmosis (FO-RO) hybrids: a critical review. Membranes. 2016;6(3):37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Li J, Sanderson R, Jacobs E. Ultrasonic cleaning of nylon microfiltration membranes fouled by Kraft paper mill effluent. J Membr Sci. 2002;205(1–2):247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhang Q, Jie YW, Loong WLC, Zhang J, Fane AG, Kjelleberg S, et al. Characterization of biofouling in a lab-scale forward osmosis membrane bioreactor (FOMBR). Water Res. 2014;58:141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chun Y, Kim S-J, Millar GJ, Mulcahy D, Kim IS, Zou L. Forward osmosis as a pre-treatment for treating coal seam gas associated water: flux and fouling behaviour. Desalination. 2017;403:144–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Oviedo C, Rodríguez J. EDTA: the chelating agent under environmental scrutiny. Quim Nova. 2003;26(6):901–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Li Q, Elimelech M. Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes: measurements and mechanisms. Environmental science & technology. 2004;38(17):4683–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Majeed T, Phuntsho S, Chekli L, Lee S-H, Kim K, Shon HK. Role of various physical and chemical techniques for hollow fibre forward osmosis membrane cleaning. Desalin Water Treat. 2016;57(17):7742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Yoon H, Baek Y, Yu J, Yoon J. Biofouling occurrence process and its control in the forward osmosis. Desalination. 2013;325:30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wang X, Hu T, Wang Z, Li X, Ren Y. Permeability recovery of fouled forward osmosis membranes by chemical cleaning during a long-term operation of anaerobic osmotic membrane bioreactors treating low-strength wastewater. Water Res. 2017;123:505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Guillen-Burrieza E, Ruiz-Aguirre A, Zaragoza G, Arafat HA. Membrane fouling and cleaning in long term plant-scale membrane distillation operations. J Membr Sci. 2014;468:360–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Saleh TA, Gupta VK. Nanomaterial and polymer membranes: synthesis, characterization, and applications: Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Madaeni SS, Sharifnia S, Moradi G. Chemical cleaning of microfiltration membranes fouled by whey. J Chin Chem Soc. 2001;48(2):179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lee J, Johir M, Chinu K, Shon H, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, et al. Hybrid filtration method for pre-treatment of seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO). Desalination. 2009;247(1–3):15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Liu Y. Fouling in forward osmosis membrane processes: Chracterization, mechanisms, and mitigation [dissertation]: University of Maryland; 2013.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Park C, Lee YH, Lee S, Hong S. Effect of cake layer structure on colloidal fouling in reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination. 2008;220(1–3):335–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nguyen T, Roddick FA, Fan L. Biofouling of water treatment membranes: a review of the underlying causes, monitoring techniques and control measures. Membranes. 2012;2(4):804–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Gogate PR. Application of cavitational reactors for water disinfection: current status and path forward. J Environ Manag. 2007;85(4):801–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Nguyen TPN, Jun B-M, Kwon Y-N. The chlorination mechanism of integrally asymmetric cellulose triacetate (CTA)-based and thin film composite polyamide-based forward osmosis membrane. J Membr Sci. 2017;523:111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Polanska M, Huysman K, Van Keer C. Investigation of assimilable organic carbon (AOC) in flemish drinking water. Water Res. 2005;39(11):2259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Hammes F, Meylan S, Salhi E, Köster O, Egli T, Von Gunten U. Formation of assimilable organic carbon (AOC) and specific natural organic matter (NOM) fractions during ozonation of phytoplankton. Water Res. 2007;41(7):1447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Lehtola MJ, Miettinen IT, Vartiainen T, Rantakokko P, Hirvonen A, Martikainen PJ. Impact of UV disinfection on microbially available phosphorus, organic carbon, and microbial growth in drinking water. Water Res. 2003;37(5):1064–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ali S, Rimassa SM. Auzerais FM. Li L. Method for treating fracturing water. Google Patents: Boney CL; 2013.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Ye Y, Ngo HH, Guo W, Liu Y, Li J, Liu Y, et al. Insight into chemical phosphate recovery from municipal wastewater. Sci Total Environ. 2017;576:159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Schmidt JJ, Gagnon GA, Jamieson RC. Microalgae growth and phosphorus uptake in wastewater under simulated cold region conditions. Ecol Eng. 2016;95:588–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Jacobs JF, Hasan MN, Paik KH, Hagen WR, van Loosdrecht MC. Development of a bionanotechnological phosphate removal system with thermostable ferritin. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2010;105(5):918–23.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Peng L, Dai H, Wu Y, Peng Y, Lu X. A comprehensive review of phosphorus recovery from wastewater by crystallization processes. Chemosphere. 2018;197:768–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Karaca S, Gürses A, Ejder M, Açıkyıldız M. Adsorptive removal of phosphate from aqueous solutions using raw and calcinated dolomite. J Hazard Mater. 2006;128(2–3):273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Vasudevan S, Sozhan G, Ravichandran S, Jayaraj J, Lakshmi J, Sheela M. Studies on the removal of phosphate from drinking water by electrocoagulation process. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2008;47(6):2018–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    González JE, Keshavan ND. Messing with bacterial quorum sensing. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2006;70(4):859–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kim S, Lee S, Hong S, Oh Y, Kweon J, Kim T. Biofouling of reverse osmosis membranes: microbial quorum sensing and fouling propensity. Desalination. 2009;247(1–3):303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Ponnusamy K, Paul D, Kim YS, Kweon JH. 2 (5H)-Furanone: a prospective strategy for biofouling-control in membrane biofilm bacteria by quorum sensing inhibition. Braz J Microbiol. 2010;41(1):227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kappachery S, Paul D, Yoon J, Kweon JH. Vanillin, a potential agent to prevent biofouling of reverse osmosis membrane. Biofouling. 2010;26(6):667–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yeon K-M, Cheong W-S, Oh H-S, Lee W-N, Hwang B-K, Lee C-H, et al. Quorum sensing: a new biofouling control paradigm in a membrane bioreactor for advanced wastewater treatment. Environmental science & technology. 2008;43(2):380–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Mc Grath S, van Sinderen D. Bacteriophage: genetics and molecular biology: horizon scientific press; 2007.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Barraud N, Storey MV, Moore ZP, Webb JS, Rice SA, Kjelleberg S. Nitric oxide-mediated dispersal in single-and multi-species biofilms of clinically and industrially relevant microorganisms. Microb Biotechnol. 2009;2(3):370–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    He L, Dumée LF, Feng C, Velleman L, Reis R, She F, et al. Promoted water transport across graphene oxide–poly (amide) thin film composite membranes and their antibacterial activity. Desalination. 2015;365:126–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Van der Bruggen B. Chemical modification of polyethersulfone nanofiltration membranes: a review. J Appl Polym Sci. 2009;114(1):630–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Bae T-H, Tak T-M. Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on fouling mitigation of ultrafiltration membranes for activated sludge filtration. J Membr Sci. 2005;249(1–2):1–8.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Liu P-S, Chen Q, Wu S-S, Shen J, Lin S-C. Surface modification of cellulose membranes with zwitterionic polymers for resistance to protein adsorption and platelet adhesion. J Membr Sci. 2010;350(1–2):387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Church M. Forward Water demonstration plant begins operations 2019, August 23 [Available from:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Technology in Water and WastewaterUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  2. 2.NTT Institute of Hi-TechnologyNguyen Tat Thanh UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations