Osmotic Membrane Bioreactor and Its Hybrid Systems for Wastewater Reuse and Resource Recovery: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions

Water Pollution (G Toor and L Nghiem, Section Editors)
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Water Pollution

Abstract

Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR), which integrates forward osmosis (FO) with biological treatment process, has been recently developed to advance wastewater treatment and reuse. During OMBR operation, driven by osmotic pressure gradient, biologically treated water transports from the mixed liquor, through a semi-permeable FO membrane, into a highly concentrated draw solution. Compared to conventional MBR, OMBR has several advantages, including better product water quality, lower fouling propensity, and higher fouling reversibility. OMBR can be operated in the osmotic dilution mode when the draw solution, such as liquid fertilizers or seawater, can be reused or discharged directly. In most cases, OMBR is integrated with an additional process, commonly including reverse osmosis, membrane distillation, and electrodialysis, to form hybrid systems for sustainably reconcentrating draw solutions and producing clean water for reuse. In addition, several membrane processes, such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and electrodialysis, are combined with OMBR to address its inherent issue, salinity build-up in the bioreactor, and achieve resource (e.g., nutrients and energy) recovery. This review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding on the performance of OMBR and its hybrid systems in wastewater reuse and resource recovery. OMBR analogs and their performance are also systematically introduced. Key technical challenges and their potential solutions to the further development of OMBR and its hybrid systems are highlighted. This review sheds light on future research for the further development of OMBR and its hybrid systems.

Keywords

Osmotic membrane bioreactor Forward osmosis Salinity build-up Wastewater reuse Resource recovery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project 51708547).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

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

  1. 1.
    Judd S. The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends Biotechnol. 2008;26(2):109–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hai FI, Yamamoto K, Lee CH. Membrane biological reactors: theory, modeling, design, management and applications to wastewater reuse. London: IWA Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besha AT, Gebreyohannes AY, Tufa RA, Bekele DN, Curcio E, Giorno L. Removal of emerging micropollutants by activated sludge process and membrane bioreactors and the effects of micropollutants on membrane fouling: a review. J Environ Chem Eng. 2017;5(3):2395–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.04.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holloway RW, Achilli A, Cath TY. The osmotic membrane bioreactor: a critical review. Environ Sci: Water Res Technol. 2015;1(5):581–605.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang X, Chang VWC, Tang CY. Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: advances, challenges, and prospects for the future. J Membr Sci. 2016;504:113–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo W, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Water extraction from mixed liquor of an aerobic bioreactor by forward osmosis: membrane fouling and biomass characteristics assessment. Sep Purif Technol. 2015;145:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.02.044.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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.02.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mi B, Elimelech M. Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: fouling reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents. J Membr Sci. 2010;348(1–2):337–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim Y, Chekli L, Shim WG, Phuntsho S, Li S, Ghaffour N, et al. Selection of suitable fertilizer draw solute for a novel fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis-anaerobic membrane bioreactor hybrid system. Bioresour Technol. 2016;210:26–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ansari AJ, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Phosphorus recovery from digested sludge centrate using seawater-driven forward osmosis. Sep Purif Technol. 2016;163:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.02.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Wang XH, Yuan B, Chen Y, Li XF, Ren YP. Integration of micro-filtration into osmotic membrane bioreactors to prevent salinity build-up. Bioresour Technol. 2014;167:116–23. This study, for the first time, integrated microfiltration membrane with osmotic membrane bioreactor to control salinity build-up in the bioreactor and thus improve the system performance. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holloway RW, Wait AS, Fernandes da Silva A, Herron J, Schutter MD, Lampi K, et al. Long-term pilot scale investigation of novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactors. Desalination. 2015;363:64–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Lu Y, He Z. Mitigation of salinity buildup and recovery of wasted salts in a hybrid osmotic membrane bioreactor-electrodialysis system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015;49(17):10529–35. This study, for the first time, investigated the performance of electrodialysis for mitigating salinity build-up in the bioreactor during the operation of osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR). The extracted salts were sucessfully reused as the draw solutes for OMBR.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Luo W, Hai FI, Price WE, Guo W, Ngo HH, Yamamoto K, et al. Phosphorus and water recovery by a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor-reverse osmosis system. Bioresour Technol. 2016;200:297–304. In this study, an osmotic membrane bioreactor - reverse osmosis hybrid system integrated with peridic microfiltration extraction was evaluated with the aim to simultaneously recover phosphorus and clean water from raw sewage. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lay WC, Liu Y, Fane AG. Impacts of salinity on the performance of high retention membrane bioreactors for water reclamation: a review. Water Res. 2010;44(1):21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.09.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luo W, Hai FI, Price WE, Guo W, Ngo HH, Yamamoto K, et al. High retention membrane bioreactors: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol. 2014;167:539–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qiu G, Zhang S, Srinivasa Raghavan DS, Das S, Ting YP. The potential of hybrid forward osmosis membrane bioreactor (FOMBR) processes in achieving high throughput treatment of municipal wastewater with enhanced phosphorus recovery. Water Res. 2016;105:370–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hou D, Lu L, Ren ZJ. Microbial fuel cells and osmotic membrane bioreactors have mutual benefits for wastewater treatment and energy production. Water Res. 2016;98:183–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chekli L, Kim Y, Phuntsho S, Li S, Ghaffour N, Leiknes T, et al. Evaluation of fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis for sustainable agriculture and water reuse in arid regions. J Environ Manag. 2017;187:137–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang J, Pathak N, Chekli L, Phuntsho S, Kim Y, Li D, et al. Performance of a novel fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis aerobic membrane bioreactor (FDFO-MBR): mitigating salinity build-up by integrating microfiltration. Water. 2017;9(1):21–34.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w9010021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo W, Hai FI, Price WE, Elimelech M, Nghiem LD. Evaluating ionic organic draw solutes in osmotic membrane bioreactors for water reuse. J Membr Sci. 2016;514:636–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.05.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shahzad MA, Khan SJ, Siddique MS. Draw solution recovery using direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) from osmotic membrane bioreactor (Os-MBR). J Water Process Eng. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.08.022.
  23. 23.
    Chen L, Gu Y, Cao C, Zhang J, Ng JW, Tang C. Performance of a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor with forward osmosis membrane for low-strength wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2014;50:114–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gu Y, Chen L, Ng JW, Lee C, Chang VWC, Tang CY. Development of anaerobic osmotic membrane bioreactor for low-strength wastewater treatment at mesophilic condition. J Membr Sci. 2015;490:197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.04.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang X, Wang C, Tang CY, Hu T, Li X, Ren Y. Development of a novel anaerobic membrane bioreactor simultaneously integrating microfiltration and forward osmosis membranes for low-strength wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci. 2017;527:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu Y, Wang X, Tay MQX, Oh S, Yang L, Tang C, et al. Metagenomic insights into the influence of salinity and cytostatic drugs on the composition and functional genes of microbial community in forward osmosis anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Chem Eng J. 2017;326:462–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.05.172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu T, Wang X, Wang C, Li X, Ren Y. Impacts of inorganic draw solutes on the performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane in a microfiltration assisted anaerobic osmotic membrane bioreactor. RSC Adv. 2017;7(26):16057–63.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01524K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen NC, Chen SS, Nguyen HT, Ngo HH, Guo W, Hao CW, et al. Applicability of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor using a specific draw solution in wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ. 2015;518-519:586–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nguyen NC, Nguyen HT, Chen SS, Ngo HH, Guo W, Chan WH, et al. A novel osmosis membrane bioreactor-membrane distillation hybrid system for wastewater treatment and reuse. Bioresour Technol. 2016;209:8–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Linares RV, Li Z, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Q, Vrouwenvelder JS, Amy GL, et al. Hybrid SBR–FO system for wastewater treatment and reuse: operation, fouling and cleaning. Desalination. 2016;393:31–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo W, Hai FI, Kang J, Price WE, Nghiem LD, Elimelech M. The role of forward osmosis and microfiltration in an integrated osmotic-microfiltration membrane bioreactor system. Chemosphere. 2015;136:125–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Buer T, Cumin J. MBR module design and operation. Desalination. 2010;250(3):1073–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shi L, Chou SR, Wang R, Fang WX, Tang CY, Fane AG. Effect of substrate structure on the performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes. J Membr Sci. 2011;382(1–2):116–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.07.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang X, Zhao Y, Li X, Ren Y. Performance evaluation of a microfiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactor (MF-OMBR) during removing silver nanoparticles from simulated wastewater. Chem Eng J. 2017;313:171–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Holloway RW, Regnery J, Cath TY, Nghiem LD. Removal of trace organic chemicals and performance of a novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactor. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(18):10859–68. In this study, a pilot-scale ultrafiltration - osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) was invesigated for the removal of nutrients and trace organic contaminants from real municipal wastewater. This study shows the potential to scale up OMBR hybrid system for avdanced wastewater treatment and reuse.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es501051b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu J, Wang X, Wang Z, Lu Y, Li X, Ren Y. Integrating microbial fuel cells with anaerobic acidification and forward osmosis membrane for enhancing bio-electricity and water recovery from low-strength wastewater. Water Res. 2017;110:74–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oehmen A, Lemos PC, Carvalho G, Yuan Z, Keller J, Blackall LL, et al. Advances in enhanced biological phosphorus removal: from micro to macro scale. Water Res. 2007;41(11):2271–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.02.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Holloway RW, Childress AE, Dennett KE, Cath TY. Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester centrate. Water Res. 2007;41(17):4005–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nguyen NC, Chen SS, Nguyen HT, Ray SS, Ngo HH, Guo W, et al. Innovative sponge-based moving bed-osmotic membrane bioreactor hybrid system using a new class of draw solution for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2016;91:305–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K, Hofstetter TB, Johnson CA, von Gunten U, et al. The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science. 2006;313(5790):1072–7.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Luo Y, Guo W, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Zhang J, et al. A review on the occurrence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment and their fate and removal during wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ. 2014;473-474:619–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Luo W, Phan HV, Xie M, Hai FI, Price WE, Elimelech M, et al. Osmotic versus conventional membrane bioreactors integrated with reverse osmosis for water reuse: biological stability, membrane fouling, and contaminant removal. Water Res. 2017;109:122–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qiu G, Ting YP. Direct phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater via osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) for wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol. 2014;170:221–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qiu G, Law Y, Das S, Ting Y. Direct and complete phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater using a hybrid microfiltration-forward osmosis membrane bioreactor process with seawater brine as draw solution. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(10):6156–63.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es504554f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Siles JA, Brekelmans J, Martin MA, Chica AF, Martin A. Impact of ammonia and sulphate concentration on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101(23):9040–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hou D, Lu L, Sun D, Ge Z, Huang X, Cath TY, et al. Microbial electrochemical nutrient recovery in anaerobic osmotic membrane bioreactors. Water Res. 2017;114:181–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Qiu G, Ting YP. Osmotic membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment and the effect of salt accumulation on system performance and microbial community dynamics. Bioresour Technol. 2013;150:287–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Luo W, Phan HV, Li G, Hai FI, Price WE, Elimelech M, et al. An osmotic membrane bioreactor-membrane distillation system for simultaneous wastewater reuse and seawater desalination: performance and implications. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;51:14311–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Choi JH, Fukushi K, Yamamoto K. Comparison of treatment efficiency of submerged nanofiltration membrane bioreactors using cellulose triacetate and polyamide membrane. Water Sci Technol. 2005;51(6–7):305–12.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yamano N, Nakayama A, Kawasaki N, Yamamoto N, Aiba S. Mechanism and characterization of polyamide 4 degradation by pseudomonas sp. J Polym Environ. 2008;16(2):141–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-008-0090-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Luo W, Xie M, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Biodegradation of cellulose triacetate and polyamide forward osmosis membranes in an activated sludge bioreactor: observations and implications. J Membr Sci. 2016;510:284–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang Q, Jie YW, Loong WL, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mazlan NM, Marchetti P, Maples HA, Gu B, Karan S, Bismarck A, et al. Organic fouling behaviour of structurally and chemically different forward osmosis membranes: a study of cellulose triacetate and thin film composite membranes. J Membr Sci. 2016;520:247–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.07.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    • Holloway RW, Miller-Robbie L, Patel M, Stokes JR, Munakata-Marr J, Dadakis J, et al. Life-cycle assessment of two potable water reuse technologies: MF/RO/UV–AOP treatment and hybrid osmotic membrane bioreactors. J Membr Sci. 2016;507:165–78. This study compared the ultrafiltration - osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) with reverse osmosis (RO) for draw solution recovery and clean water production with conventional technology in potable water reuse. Results from this study guide the future studies to make the OMBR hybrid system economically viable by developing highly permeable forward osmosis membranes and utilizing energy recovery device for RO. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Liu C, Fang W, Chou S, Shi L, Fane AG, Wang R. Fabrication of layer-by-layer assembled FO hollow fiber membranes and their performances using low concentration draw solutions. Desalination. 2013;308:147–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Xiao P, Nghiem LD, Yin Y, Li XM, Zhang M, Chen G, et al. A sacrificial-layer approach to fabricate polysulfone support for forward osmosis thin-film composite membranes with reduced internal concentration polarisation. J Membr Sci. 2015;481:106–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.01.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jensen MO, Mouritsen OG. Single-channel water permeabilities of Escherichia Coli aquaporins AqpZ and GlpF. Biophys J. 2006;90(7):2270–84.  https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.073965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Luo W, Xie M, Song X, Guo W, Ngo HH, Zhou J, et al. Biomimetic aquaporin membranes for osmotic membrane bioreactors: membrane performance and contaminant removal. Bioresour Technol. 2018;249:62–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alturki A, McDonald J, Khan SJ, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD. Performance of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) system: flux stability and removal of trace organics. Bioresour Technol. 2012;113:201–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M. A forward osmosis-membrane distillation hybrid process for direct sewer mining: system performance and limitations. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(23):13486–93.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es404056e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Altaee A, Zaragoza G, van Tonningen HR. Comparison between forward osmosis-reverse osmosis and reverse osmosis processes for seawater desalination. Desalination. 2014;336:50–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alkhudhiri A, Darwish N, Hilal N. Membrane distillation: a comprehensive review. Desalination. 2012;287:2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tijing LD, Woo YC, Choi J-S, Lee S, Kim S-H, Shon HK. Fouling and its control in membrane distillation: a review. J Membr Sci. 2015;475:215–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.09.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McCarty PL, Bae J, Kim J. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer--can this be achieved? Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(17):7100–6.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es2014264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Camacho L, Dumée L, Zhang J, Li J-d, Duke M, Gomez J, et al. Advances in membrane distillation for water desalination and purification applications. Water. 2013;5(1):94–196.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w5010094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Xu T, Huang C. Electrodialysis-based separation technologies: a critical review. AICHE J. 2008;54(12):3147–59.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhang Y, Pinoy L, Meesschaert B, Van der Bruggen B. A natural driven membrane process for brackish and wastewater treatment: photovoltaic powered ED and FO hybrid system. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(18):10548–55.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es402534m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ortiz J, Exposito E, Gallud F, Garciagarcia V, Montiel V, Aldaz A. Desalination of underground brackish waters using an electrodialysis system powered directly by photovoltaic energy. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells. 2008;92(12):1677–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2008.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wang XH, Chen Y, Yuan B, Li XF, Ren YP. Impacts of sludge retention time on sludge characteristics and membrane fouling in a submerged osmotic membrane bioreactor. Bioresour Technol. 2014;161(0):340–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tan J-M, Qiu G, Ting Y-P. Osmotic membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment and the effects of silver nanoparticles on system performance. J Clean Prod. 2015;88:146–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pathak N, Chekli L, Wang J, Kim Y, Phuntsho S, Li S, et al. Performance of a novel baffled osmotic membrane bioreactor-microfiltration hybrid system under continuous operation for simultaneous nutrient removal and mitigation of brine discharge. Bioresour Technol. 2017;240:50–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tadkaew N, Hai FI, McDonald JA, Khan SJ, Nghiem LD. Removal of trace organics by MBR treatment: the role of molecular properties. Water Res. 2011;45(8):2439–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.01.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wijekoon KC, Hai FI, Kang J, Price WE, Guo W, Ngo HH, et al. The fate of pharmaceuticals, steroid hormones, phytoestrogens, UV-filters and pesticides during MBR treatment. Bioresour Technol. 2013;144:247–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lay WCL, Zhang Q, Zhang J, McDougald D, Tang C, Wang R, et al. Effect of pharmaceuticals on the performance of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR). Sep Sci Technol. 2012;47(4):543–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2011.630249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zhang B, Song X, Nghiem LD, Li G, Luo W. Osmotic membrane bioreactors for wastewater reuse: performance comparison between cellulose triacetate and polyamide thin film composite membranes. J Membr Sci. 2017;539:383–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beijing Key Laboratory of Farmland Soil Pollution Prevention and Remediation, College of Resources and Environmental SciencesChina Agricultural UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural Resources and EnvironmentGuizhou Academy of Agricultural SciencesGuiyangChina

Personalised recommendations