Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

A mini-review on membrane fouling

Wenshan Guo a, Huu-Hao Ngo a,⇑, Jianxin Li b,c
a
Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
b
Laboratory for Membrane Materials and Separation Technology, Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201203, PR China
c
State Key Laboratory of Hollow Fiber Membrane Materials and Processes, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin 300160, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

" The cause, fouling phenomena and fouling mechanisms of membrane fouling are reviewed.
" Better understanding of fouling in membrane applications is provided.
" The predominant foulants in various membrane applications are reviewed.
" Different fouling mechanisms can provide a really complex matrix.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the last decades, the interest of using membrane technology has emerged in wastewater treat-
Available online 2 May 2012 ment as well as drinking water and process water production. However, the impediment of the mem-
brane technology is the fouling problem and consequently higher operating and membrane
Keywords: replacement cost. Hence, better understanding of membrane fouling is not only the key to solve the prob-
Membrane fouling lems, but also is one of the main factors driving membrane technology forward. This mini-review paper
Particulate/colloidal fouling identifies the major foulants and the principal membrane fouling mechanisms such as pore blocking, cake
Organic and inorganic fouling
formation, concentration polarization, organic adsorption, inorganic precipitation and biological fouling.
Biofouling
Fouling mechanisms
It also gives a holistic review about different fouling phenomena during the application of membrane
separation technologies in water and wastewater treatment, with specific references to various problems,
membranes, treatment processes and its practical applications.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Membrane based separations have gained increasing popularity
over the last three decades and become one of the most promising
technologies for the 21st century. As an advanced wastewater
treatment technology, membrane technology has been playing a
key role in lower pollutant levels in purifying and/or concentrating
a wide variety of fluids from water and wastewater to pharmaceu-
tical and chemical products. Membrane processes are of great
interest because they reduce the number of unit operations,
recycle process water, and recover valuable products for other
applications. They have also been considered as attractive alterna-
tives compared to conventional wastewater treatment processes
due to their inherent advantages such as selective separation, con-
tinuous and automatic operation, easy and well-arranged process
conduction, purification without the addition of chemicals, easy
scale-up and low space requirement (Sonune and Ghate, 2004).
Therefore, membrane techniques (e.g. microfiltration (MF), ultrafil-
tration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO)) in gen-
eral and membrane bioreactors (MBRs) in particular have been
widely applied to for advanced water and wastewater treatment.
However, as various factors govern the operating cost of a mem-
brane system, such as power requirements, costs of power, labor,
materials, membrane cleaning, scale inhibition and membrane life
and replacement, some limitations remain in using membranes for
water and wastewater treatment (Bennett, 2005). The major obsta-
cle for the application of membrane processes is the rapid decline
of the permeate flux over time as a result of membrane fouling.
That is to say, membrane efficiency and membrane fouling present
the significant challenges for RO, NF, UF and MF related technolo-
gies (Frost and Sullivan et al., 2007). Hence, the aims of this paper
are to addresses the major issues on fouling in various membrane
applications, as well as offer a comprehensive overview about dif-
ferent foulants and fouling mechanisms.
2. Membrane foulants, fouling type and mechanisms

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9514 1693; fax: +61 2 9514 2633. Membrane systems can be operated in either constant perme-
E-mail address: h.ngo@uts.edu.au (H.-H. Ngo). ate flux (flow rate per unit membrane area, L/m2 h) with variable

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.089
28 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34
transmembrane pressure (TMP) or constant TMP with variable
permeate flux. The former mode is the common one. Based on
the operating TMP, membranes for water treatment and reuse
can be broadly categorizes as low pressure membranes (LPMs)
and high pressure membranes (HPMs). LPMs include microfiltra-
tion (MF) and loose ultrafiltration (UF) membranes, which are
operated at relatively low TMPs, typically less than 100–200 kPa.
On the other hand, HPMs such as tight UF, nanofiltration (NF)
and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are operated at relatively
high TMPs (>200 kPa).
Membrane fouling occurs during an increase in TMP to main-
tain a particular flux or during a decrease in flux when the system
is operated at constant pressure. Membrane fouling can be classi-
fied as reversible fouling and irreversible fouling, of which the dis-
tinction is entirely dependent on the context in which membranes
are operated and cleaned. Reversible fouling (including backwash-
able and non-backwashable) occurs due to the cake layer or
concentration polarization of materials at the membrane rejection
surface. Membrane with backwashable reversible fouling can be
restored through appropriate physical washing protocol such as
backwashing or hydrodynamic scouring (surface washing), while
the non-backwashable reversible fouling only can be removed by
chemical cleaning. Irreversible fouling occurs by chemisorption
and pore plugging mechanisms. In case of irreversible fouling,
the loss in transmembrane flux cannot be recuperated hydro-
dynamically or chemically. This means that the membranes must
go through extensive chemical cleaning or be replaced.
Fouling of membranes is caused by complex physical and chem-
ical interactions between the various fouling constituents in the
feed and between these constituents and the membrane surface.
Mass transport can lead to the attachment, accumulation, or
adsorption of materials onto membrane surfaces and/or within
membrane pores. Previous studies have demonstrated that mem-
brane fouling and the characteristics of foulants are determined
by feed water composition, the concentration of the major constit-
uents, water chemistry (pH, ionic strength, and divalent cation
concentration), membrane properties (surface morphology, hydro-
phobicity, charge and molecular weight cut-off), temperature,
mode of operation and hydrodynamic conditions (initial permeate
flux and crossflow velocity) (Li and Elimelech, 2004). Hence, any
factors that could change the hydrodynamic characteristics of
membrane modules and the chemical characteristics of feed
waters would affect the overall membrane performance (Zhou
and Smith, 2002). Consequently, the combined physical and chem-
ical effects will control the degree of attachment, as well as will
determine how severe the fouling is and what strategies will be
effective in controlling it (Pearce, 2007). Normally, foulants can
be classified into the following four categories:
 Particulates: inorganic or organic particles/colloids act as fou-
lants which can physically blind the membrane surface and
block the pores, or hinder transport to the surface by the devel-
opment of a cake layer;
 Organic: dissolved components and colloids (e.g. humic
and fulvic acids, hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials
and proteins) which would attach to the membrane by
adsorption;
 Inorganic: dissolved components (e.g. iron, manganese and sil-
ica) which tend to precipitate onto the membrane surface due
to pH change (scaling) or due to oxidation (e.g. iron or manga-
nese oxides). Coagulant/flocculant residuals may also be pres-
ent as inorganic foulants; and
 Micro-biological organisms: the microbiological category cov-
ers vegetative matter such as algae, and microorganisms such
as bacteria which can adhere to the membranes and cause bio-
fouling (biofilm formation).
Raw waters contain a wide distribution of fine particles, dis-
solved organic compounds, colloids, less soluble salts and biologi-
cal growth that can cause membrane fouling. Fouling by different
foulants can be considered to occur by different mechanisms. Re-
cent research has identified six principal fouling mechanisms: (i)
pore blocking, (ii) cake formation, (iii) concentration polarization,
(iv) organic adsorption, (v) inorganic precipitation, and (vi) biolog-
ical fouling.
3. Particulate/colloidal fouling
Particulate matter in natural waters and wastewaters has been
classified by Rudolfs and Balmat (1952) in the following categories:
Settleable solids > 100 lm
Supra-Colloidal solids 1 lm to 100 lm
Colloidal solids 0.001 lm (10 Å) to 1 lm
Dissolved solids < 10 Å
Colloids cover a wide size range, from a few nanometers to a
few micrometers. Aquatic colloids comprise corrosion products,
silt and clay, precipitated crystals, colloidal silica and sulfur,
precipitated iron and aluminum compounds from incomplete
treatment. Some high molecular weight (MW) organic substances
(e.g. polysaccharide, peptidoglycans, proteins and humic aggre-
gates) and their clusters (e.g. cellular debris) are also characterized
(to a certain degree) as colloidal foulants since many features of
their behavior are common with those of inorganic colloidal parti-
cles (Yiantsios and Karabelas, 1998). Generally, membrane fouling
by particulates/colloids is attributed to initial pore blocking fol-
lowed by cake formation (Lim and Bai, 2003).
Colloids close to the size of membrane pores can cause pore
blocking while those much larger than membrane pores can lead
to cake formation that is more easily removed (Huang et al.,
2008). Convection, Brownian diffusion, shear-induced diffusion,
inertial lift, gravitational settling and lateral migration are the
main transport mechanisms of colloids and fine particles from
the bulk of the flowing suspension to the membrane surface, which
strongly depend on shear rate, particle size and the bulk concentra-
tion of particles in the feed solution (Belfort et al., 1994). The
mechanisms of particulate/colloidal fouling include pore blocking,
cake formation and concentration polarization (Kennedy et al.,
2003). Pore blocking is the initial phase of particulate fouling as
well as the most severe mode of fouling, which can be described
as three different types:
(1) Standard pore blocking: the constriction of the pore opening
due to deposition of particles around the pore entry;
(2) Complete pore blocking (pore sealing): the plugging of a
pore; and
(3) Intermediate pore blocking: a combination of the previous
two as the build up of deposited particles begins to bridge
the pre openings.
As additional particles continue to deposit on the initial layer, a
cake layer will be developed in the next stage. As soon as the cake
forms, the cake layer will control transport and removal, and effec-
tively takes over the role of the membrane. Cake permeability can
be affected by particle shape and size, particle deformability and
operating parameters such as TMP (Pearce, 2007). It was observed
that the rate of flux decay increased with increasing TMP, which
could be caused by the thickness and the compactness of the cake
layer. At high TMP, more particles accumulated on membrane sur-
face and there was a high drag force resulting in cake compression.
In addition, the cake layer on the membrane surface has been
found to be microstructure, including its surface and cross-section,
which consists of numerous irregular pores of different size
 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34
spanning several orders of magnitude in length scales (Meng et al.,
2005). Since microstructure of cake layer, such as volume fraction
of the pores, relative location of the pores, geometrical structure of
the pores, is a key factor determining membrane permeate flux,
analysis of the filter cake formation mechanism is an effective
approach to control membrane fouling.
During soft colloid microfiltration, Hwang and Hsueh (2003)
concluded that the formation of the cake layer is a dynamic process,
which can be divided into the three stages: (1) pore blocking at the
beginning of filtration, (2) cake formation, and (3) cake compres-
sion. In the first stage, the deposition and rearrangement of the col-
loidal particles on the membrane surface cause the overall filtration
resistance to increase. The average porosity and average specific fil-
tration resistance of the cake vary slightly during this period of
filtration. In the second stage, there is a rapid increase in filtration
resistance and a decrease in cake porosity due to cake compression
and colloid deformation. Then, a compact skin layer begins to be
formed next to the filter membrane. The skin thickness is about
10–20% of the entire cake but this layer exhibits about 90% of the
overall filtration resistance. The average cake porosity increases
gradually in the third stage due to the loose packing in the newly
formed cake. Shirazi et al. (2010) reviewed a resistance-in-series
model to evaluate the characteristics of membrane fouling by using
Darcy’s Law. The model can be expressed as follows:
J ¼ DPT =ðl  Rt Þ ð1Þ
Rt ¼ Rm þ Rc þ Rf ð2Þ
Where, J, permeation flux; DPT, transmembrane pressure; l, viscos-
ity of the permeate; Rt, total resistance of membrane filtration; Rm,
intrinsic membrane resistance caused by membrane itself and per-
manent resistance; Rc, cake resistance formed by cake layer depos-
ited over membrane surface; Rf, fouling resistance caused by pore
plugging and/or solute adsorption onto the membrane pore and
surface.
In Eq. (1) flux (J) is inversely proportional to total resistance (Rt).
Assuming constant TMP, less water is filtered with increasing resis-
tance to flow.
For activated sludge related biological treatment, the fractal
dimension of activated sludge has a significant impact on cake
layer permeability due to its fractal structure. In general, a low va-
lue of fractal dimension often reflects a loose structure of sludge
flocs formed through cluster–cluster aggregation, while compact
aggregates formed through particle–cluster mechanisms have high
fractal dimension value. Li et al. (2012) indicated that high fractal
dimension represented low inner porosity of sludge floc, leading to
higher membrane resistance. Lee et al. (2001) also reported that
membrane resistance, cake resistance, fouling resistance due to
irreversible adsorption and pore plugging contributed 12%, 80%,
and 8%, respectively to the total resistance of a submerged mem-
brane bioreactor (SMBR).
For non-porous membranes, particulate fouling is caused by the
accumulation of particles on the membrane surface, which results
in the formation of cake layer and creates a hydraulic resistance
to permeate flow through the membrane. For porous membranes,
pore plugging by particulate matter smaller than the membrane
pore size is a main mechanism for particulate fouling in addition
to cake formation (Zhu and Elimelech, 1997). Howe and Clark
(2002) indicated that particulate matter larger than 0.45 lm was
relatively unimportant in fouling as compared to dissolved matter
because particulate fouling accumulated during the filtration cycle
could be removed during the backwash cycle. Very small colloids,
ranging from 3 to 20 nm in diameter, appeared to be important
membrane foulants. They also mentioned that adsorption was
demonstrated to be an important mechanism for fouling by col-
loids. It was also noted in the review of Zhou and Smith (2002) that
29
the short-range interactions between particles such as adsorption,
van der Waals attraction and electrostatic double layer repulsion
could become particularly significant near the membrane wall,
where the presence of concentration polarization and the formation
of surface cake dramatically reduce the distances between particles.
The final stage of particulate fouling is concentration polariza-
tion (CP). CP is a phenomenon that the concentration of solutes
and/or particles in the vicinity of the membrane surface is higher
than that in the bulk solution, which results in back diffusion into
the bulk. As the effect of CP depends on water flux and the bound-
ary layer mass transfer, the phenomena of CP are inherent to all
membrane filtration processes (Song and Elimelech, 1995). CP
can cause elevated concentration of solutes and particles at the
membrane surface and increase their break through into the per-
meate stream. Thus, an increase of crossflow velocity, diffusion
coefficient of the solute/particle or temperature can reduce CP dur-
ing the filtration process. However, increased filtration pressure or
permeate flux increases CP because fouling and CP tend to be
mutually exacerbating. The larger the CP, the more intense would
be the fouling, because the constituents at higher concentration are
able to interact and deposit more strongly onto the membrane (Lay
et al., 2010; Shirazi et al., 2010). For inorganic constituents, CP is
typically <2, but for larger and less diffusive molecules, CP could
be >5 (Fane, 2005).
In case of RO and NF processes, CP not only increases the poten-
tial of fouling and deteriorate the quality of the permeate, but also
decreases the permeation rate as a result of increased osmotic
pressure (Matsuura, 1994). In other words, CP can be greatly aggra-
vated by the fouling cake due to the hindered back diffusion of
retained solutes from the fouled-membrane surface to the bulk
solution, which is known as cake enhanced concentration polariza-
tion (CECP) or cake enhanced osmotic pressure (CEOP) (Chong
et al., 2008; Hoek and Elimelech, 2003). Under CECP or CEOP con-
dition, the solutes need to diffuse through the tortuous paths with-
in the cake layer and are unable to be exposed to the shear by
tangential flow as experienced in a free flow channel. Eventually,
a drop in the effective back diffusion will greatly enhance the con-
centration and the osmotic pressure of solutes at the membrane
surface, leading to a loss in the effective TMP. For salt-rejecting
membrane, the physical mechanisms causing enhanced osmotic
pressure are a combination of hindered back-diffusion of salt ions
and altered crossflow hydrodynamics within colloidal deposit lay-
ers, which lead to an enhanced salt concentration polarization
layer. Hence, this effect coupled with the hydraulic resistance of
the cake layer both contribute towards the overall RO membrane
performance loss.
4. Organic and inorganic fouling
Membrane can be fouled by both dissolved inorganic and or-
ganic compounds. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is ubiquitous
in surface water and sewage, which can be classified into three dif-
ferent categories according to their origins: (1) refractory natural
organic matter (NOM) derived from drinking water sources, (2)
synthetic organic compounds (SOC) added by consumers and dis-
infection byproducts (DBPs) generated during disinfection pro-
cesses of water and wastewater treatment, and (3) soluble
microbial products (SMP) formed during the biological treatment
processes due to decomposition of organic compounds (Drewes
and Fox, 1999). In drinking water treatment by LPMs (MF/UF),
NOM has been identified as a major foulant of polymeric mem-
branes in drinking water applications (AWWA, 2005). Moreover,
as the major component of DOM is SMP, it can affect both kinetic
activity and flocculating properties of activated sludge during bio-
logical wastewater treatment. It has been reviewed that the
30 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34
relative contribution of DOM to membrane fouling in MBR was in
the range of 26–52% (Tang et al., 2010).
NOM is a complex heterogeneous mixture of compounds
formed as a result of decomposition of animal and plant materials
in the environment. Most NOM comprise of a range of compounds,
from small hydrophobic acids, proteins and amino-acids to larger
humic and fulvic acids. The major fraction of NOM is composed
of humic substances (HS), which comprise over 50% of the dis-
solved organic carbon (DOC) of NOM as well as have both aromatic
and aliphatic components containing three main functional
groups: carboxylic acids (COOH), phenolic alcohols (OH), and
methoxy carbonyls (C@O) (Kipton et al., 1992; Yuan and Zydney,
1999). These complex and heterogeneous compounds (MW range
from 1000–100,000 Da) can be divided into humic acids, fulvic
acids and humin according to their solubility in acidic (pH) solu-
tions. Humin is insoluble in water at any pH; humic acid is not sol-
uble under acidic conditions and precipitates at pH values below 2;
fulvic acid is soluble under all pH conditions. Some portions of
them are persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are non-bio-
degradable and hardly removed by biological secondary treatment
process. The non-humic fractions of NOM are composed of trans-
philic acids, proteins, amino acids and carbohydrates and account
for 20–40% of the DOC in waters and are less hydrophobic than
the humic fractions (Fan et al., 2001).
Although HS are often present in surface waters, it was shown
that they constitute a significant fraction of residual organics in
secondary effluents (Manka and Rebhun, 1982). The residual or-
ganic constituents in treated wastewater effluent are designated
as effluent organic matter (EfOM). EfOM represents a range of or-
ganic compounds measured as DOC or total organic carbon
(TOC), which have been characterized as high MW (molecular
weight) compounds (such as humic and fulvic acids, polysaccha-
rides), proteins, enzymes, structural components of cells and low
MW compounds (such as nucleic acids, organic acids, antibiotics
and steroids) (Drewes and Fox, 1999; Xu et al., 2010). Low MW
EfOM is prone to adsorb onto a membrane surface and initiate or-
ganic fouling and subsequent biofouling. In addition, the intrinsic
complexity and heterogeneity of EfOM, feed water chemistry (i.e.,
presence of silica and calcium, ionic strength, and solution pH)
can affect the interactions among constituents of EfOM and inten-
sify membrane fouling.
NOM in natural water significantly influences many aspects of
water treatment, including the performance of unit processes (i.e.
oxidation, flocculation and adsorption), application of disinfec-
tants, and biological stability. As a result of the reactions between
NOM and disinfectants such as chlorine, NOM can affect potable
water quality in the areas of DBPs formation (trihalomethanes
(THMs), 2,4-dibromophenol (2,4-DBP), haloacetic acids (HAAs)
and other halogenated by-products), biological regrowth in the
distribution system, color, tastes and odors (Owen et al., 1995).
In addition, it was NOM is often implicated as a major foulant of
membrane systems (Zhang et al., 2003).
Lin et al. (2000) observed that the hydrophilic fraction induced
the worst flux decline despite little rejection of DOC when studying
the effects of the characteristics of the fractionated humic acid on
the performance of a negatively charged hydrophobic UF mem-
brane. Meanwhile, the largest molecules (6.5–22.6 kDa) of both
hydrophobic and hydrophilic fractions caused the greater flux de-
cline. Clark and Heneghan (1991) found hydrophobic membrane
suffers more fouling than hydrophilic membrane. Kwon et al.
(2005) showed that highly aromatic hydrophobic acids are respon-
sible for significant flux declined through reversible fouling,
whereas irreversible fouling is caused by only a small portion of
NOM including high MW (>30 kDa) polysaccharides, colloidal
materials, low MW proteins and amino sugars. After testing a
range of flat sheet MF and UF membranes, Lee et al. (2008) also
concluded that the initiation of fouling can be caused by medium
to low MW component of NOM (300–1000 Da), where bulk of
the fouling observed is due to very high MW ‘colloidal’ NOM
(>50,000 Da). Thus, there are at least three fouling mechanisms be-
cause of NOM:
1) The NOM might adsorb in the membrane pores and narrow
or block the passageways available to the water;
2) It might block access to the pores by forming a separate gel
layer on the membrane surface; and
3) In cases both NOM and particles are present, it might bind
particles together to form a low permeability particle/NOM
layer on the membrane surface.
On the basis of comparable DOC concentration, the order of the
fouling potential of the fractionated NOM was consistently hydro-
philic neutral > hydrophobic acids > transphilic acids > hydrophilic
charged (Fan et al., 2001).
Inorganic compounds can cause fouling when precipitation oc-
curs on the membrane due to hydrolysis and oxidation during fil-
tration. The term ‘mineral scale’ is used to differentiate fouling
caused by inorganic salt deposits from organic fouling or biofoul-
ing. Two major mechanisms, namely crystallization and particulate
fouling, play important roles during scale formation on membrane
surface. During crystallization, deposition at the membrane surface
occurs due to precipitation of ions, whereas during particulate
fouling, deposition occurs due to convective transportation of col-
loidal particulate matter from the bulk solution to the membrane
surface. Both of crystallization and particulate fouling are direct re-
sults of inverse solubility of inorganic salts (Lee and Lee, 2000;
Sheikholeslami, 2000). Particularly, in NF and RO systems, the dis-
solved salts are normally concentrated by 4–10 times, and may
precipitate on the membrane surface as a result of exceeding their
solubility. Thus, when higher salt concentration is present in feed
water, greater inorganic scaling propensity and aggravated colloi-
dal fouling tend to occur.
Compounds commonly present in feed water and with a low
solubility are calcium carbonate (CaCO3), barium sulfate (BaSO4),
silica (SiO2) and calcium phosphate (CaSO4) (van de Lisdonk
et al., 2000). Potts et al. (1981) found that calcium, magnesium,
carbonate, sulfate, silica and iron are the main inorganic sub-
stances that cause fouling of the membrane. In river, groundwater,
rainfall, seawater and municipal wastewater, the main basic or
acidic inorganic species that are in equilibrium with precipitates
or potential scaling components consist of OH, F, CO2 2
3 , SO4 ,
ortho-phosphate, and silicic acids. Major cations that account for
most of the precipitates directly or indirectly in various types of
water include Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe3+, and Al3+ (El-Manharawy and Hafez,
2001). Xie et al. (2004) studied the possible formation of inorganic
scaling in a municipal wastewater reverse osmosis (MWRO) sys-
tem with MF membrane treated secondary effluent as feed water.
The results elucidated that in MWRO reclamation, phosphate and
carbonate salts are dominant precipitates when feed water is sec-
ondary effluent without nutrient removal, even though the degrees
of saturation of various sparingly soluble substances are much less
than those in the seawater RO (SWRO) process. Table 1 gives the
sparingly soluble compounds can be formed and contribute to
membrane scaling during reactions among the cations and anions.
Other studies also suggested that membrane fouling due to inor-
ganic salts is dependent on membrane properties (e.g. porosity,
roughness, etc.) on the crystallization of inorganic salts, module
geometry and membrane materials, feed solution characteristics
and operating conditions (e.g. shear rate and operating pressure)
(Shirazi et al., 2010). Van Hoof et al. (2002) reported the major
organic and inorganic foulants distribution worldwide and the
identified percentages were 50.2, 7.6, 13.5, 4.7, 3.6, 3.7, 2.6 and
 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34
Table 1
Inorganic compounds most likely to contribute to scaling in MWRO membrane
systems (Xie et al., 2004).
Cations Anions
F OH CO32 SO42 PO43
Al3+
AlF3 Al(OH)3 – – AlPO4
Ca2+ CaF2 Ca(OH)2 CaCO3 CaSO4 Ca3(PO4)2
Fe3+ FeF3 Fe(OH)3 – – FePO4
Mg2+ MgF2 Mg(OH)2 MgCO3 MgSO4 Mg3(PO4)2
14.1 for organic, Fe2O3, SiO2, Al2O3, CaPO4, CaCO3, CaSO4 and other
foulants.
5. Biofouling
One of the most serious operational problems in membrane
applications is biofouling. Biofouling is defined as undesirable
accumulation of microorganisms at a phase transition interface
(solid–liquid, gas–liquid or liquid–liquid), which may occur by
deposition, growth and metabolism of bacteria cells or flocs on
the membranes. Several sequential steps are generally considered
to be involved in the progression of biofilm formation, including:
(i) surface conditioning by formation of a conditioning film (mac-
romolecules, proteins, etc.); (ii) attachment of pioneer planktonic
cells onto surfaces; (iii) formation of microcolonies by primary bio-
adhesion; and (iv) subsequently development of mature biofilms
(Sadr Ghayeni et al., 1996; Watnick and Kolter, 2000). Biofilms
may or may not uniformly cover the substratum and minimally
consist of one, but usually multiple layers of living and dead micro-
organisms and their associated extracellular products. Bacteria
accumulate on membrane by two processes: attachment (bioadhe-
sion and bioadsorption) and growth (multiplication) (Ivnitsky
et al., 2005). The bioadhesion step will depend on the properties
of the microorganisms, the solution and the surface.
Nielsen and Jahn (1999) pointed out that the suggested compo-
nents in the biofilm are the cell biomass and the various extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS). In all biofilms, the EPS fraction was
found to be the largest fraction, accounted for 50–80% of the total or-
ganic matter and protein. EPS are the construction materials for
microbial aggregates such as biofilms, and activated sludge flocs.
The EPS in microbial aggregates have many charged groups (e.g. car-
boxyl, phosphoric, sulfhydryl, phenolic and hydroxyl groups) and
polar groups (e.g., aromatics, aliphatics in proteins and hydrophobic
regions in carbohydrates). Since the presence of hydrophilic and
hydrophobic groups in EPS molecules indicates that EPS are ampho-
teric, the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of EPS is likely to signifi-
cantly influence the hydrophobicity of microbial aggregates and
their formation in bioreactors. The formation of hydrophobic areas
in EPS could be beneficial for organic pollutant adsorption as well
as fouling reduction (Sheng et al., 2010).
EPS can also be subdivided into bound EPS and soluble EPS, both
of which include bacterially produced polymers, lysis products and
hydrolysis products. Bound EPS are dissolved/hydrolyzed by bacte-
rial hydrolysis, while soluble EPS are biodegradable and a product
of the dissolution of bound EPS. They consist of different classes of
organic macromolecules such as polysaccharides, proteins, humic
substances, nucleic acids, (phospho)lipids and other polymeric
compounds, and have been found at or outside the cell surface
and in the intercellular space of microbial aggregates. EPS can be
released from the microbial aggregates into the water phase and
are then named soluble microbial products (SMP) (Flemming and
Wingender, 2001; Rosenberger and Kraume, 2002). Normally,
polysaccharides (as carbohydrates) and proteins are assumed to
be the major fractions that contribute to fouling. Thus, the deter-
31
mination of EPS or SMP (including soluble polysaccharides and
soluble proteins) concentration relies almost exclusively on carbo-
hydrates and protein measurements. Generally, as proteins are
more hydrophobic than carbohydrates and carbohydrates in part
possess the hydrophilic nature, carbohydrate fractions of both
EPS and SMP contributed to higher fouling propensity over that
of protein fractions (Li et al., 2012; Yigit et al., 2008).
In NF and RO filtration applications, biofouling can influence
membrane performance by increasing in pressure drop across
membrane elements (feed-concentrate channel), decreasing mem-
brane permeability and sometimes increasing salt passage (Vrou-
wenvelder et al., 2010a). Vrouwenvelder and van der Kooij
(2001) studied the biofouling phenomena in 30 membrane ele-
ments (autopsy) for NF or RO collected from 13 plants. Biofouling
was observed at 12 of the 13 pilot plants, indicating that biofouling
is a serious operational problem in NF and RO membrane filtration
installations. Huertas et al. (2008) examined the performance of NF
and RO membranes in removing boron from a synthetic wastewa-
ter effluent. The adverse effects of biofilm growth on permeate flux
decline (down to less than 25% of its initial value) and substantial
decrease in boron rejection (declined by 45% and 34% for RO, 44%
and 13% for NF at the initial influent boron concentrations of 5.5
and 1.1 mg B/L, respectively) were attributed to both an increase
in hydraulic resistance to permeate flow due to bacterial EPS and
a biofilm-enhanced concentration polarization near the membrane
surface. Lee et al. (2009) analysed of organic matter of the biofilm
on the membrane surface. The results showed that macromolecu-
lar substances such as proteins and carbohydrates were the major
composites and contributed to the biofilm formation. Xu et al.
(2010) also indicated that membrane fouling was dominated by
biofouling in combination with organic fouling, colloidal fouling
and inorganic scaling during treatment of the nitrified/denitrified
effluent using NF and RO membranes.
Generally, biofouling of NF and RO can be prevented by (i)
reducing the concentration of microorganisms and/or reducing
the concentration of nutrients by pretreatment, and/or (ii) per-
forming preventive/curative cleanings. A combination of pretreat-
ment and cleaning may be the better way to prevent biofouling.
Vrouwenvelder and van der Kooij (2003) conducted autopsies in
45 NF and RO membrane elements obtained from 16 pilot plants,
including evaluation of pretreatment and chemical dosed (e.g.
scale inhibitor). They found that chemicals (flocculant, scale-inhib-
itor) dosed during pretreatment can pose a risk for biofouling.
However, pretreatment resulting in low values of AOC (assimilable
organic carbon) and BFR (biofilm formation rate) could lead to low
risks of biofouling. In a later study, Vrouwenvelder et al. (2010b)
reported phosphate limitation as a method to control biofouling
of spiral wound RO membranes for a full-scale installation. Under
orthophosphate limiting conditions, as antiscalant dosage could in-
crease both phosphate and substrate concentrations of the water,
dosing phosphonate based antiscalants could cause biofouling.
Membrane fouling simulator (MFS) studies showed that low phos-
phate concentrations (0.3 mg P/L) in the feed water restricted the
pressure drop increase and biomass accumulation, even in the
presence of high organic carbon concentrations. Therefore, acids
or phosphonate-free antiscalants selection may be a feasible ap-
proach to control biofouling.
In membrane assisted conventional activated sludge processes,
MF or UF membranes can be used either for direct sludge filtration
(MBR concept) or as a polishing step after the settler (effluent fil-
tration concept). In both applications, membrane fouling is a major
issue. Through six different case studies, Rosenberger et al. (2005)
demonstrated the importance of soluble and colloidal substances
in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent and the water
phase of activated sludge from MBR systems based on membrane
fouling. Mainly soluble polysaccharides, a part of the bacterial
32 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34

Table 2
Important factors related to biofouling of MBRs.

Fouling factors Effects on Biofouling References

MLSS As the MLSS concentration increases, concentration of both protein and carbohydrate fractions of EPS Yigit et al. (2008)
and SMP increases as well as the distribution of particle sizes shifts toward smaller particles and mean
particle size decreases.
OLR or F/M ratio High OLR or F/M ratio induces the generation of SMP and more bound EPS, resulting in decrease of Meng et al. (2007), Rosenberger and
sludge filterability and lower filtration index. Kraume (2002)
Dissolved oxygen Control aeration in MBR is essential. Low dissolved oxygen concentration leads to accumulation of high Fan and Zhou (2007), Jin et al. (2006)
concentration MW compounds in sludge suspension and a less porous biofilm with worse filterability, whereas too
high aeration leads to breakage of sludge flocs and production of SMP.
HRT Decreased HRT results in release of EPS from the bacterial cells, which is responsible for the rise in SMP Fallah et al. (2010), Meng et al. (2007),
and sludge deflocculation. Decreased HRT also causes over growth of filamentous bacteria and the Wang et al. (2009)
formation of large and irregular flocs. However, too high HRT also leads to an accumulation of foulants.
SRT Short SRT has negative impact on membrane due to high concentrations of SMP and bound EPS, Al-Halbouni et al. (2008), Keskes et al.
particularly polysaccharides in the supernatant. At shorter SRT, the concentrations of deposited EPS on (2012), Meng et al. (2009)
membrane are much higher than membrane at higher SRT. Although prolonged SRT is conducive to
sludge concentration and minimise excess biomass production, too long SRT accelerates fouling due to
large amount of foulants and high sludge viscosity. The optimum SRT of MBRs should be controlled at
20–50 days depending on HRT and feedwater quality.
Salinity Higher salt levels greatly affects the physical and biochemical properties of activated sludge, increasing Reid et al. (2006)
SMP and EPS concentrations, as well as decreasing membrane permeability.
Cations in Metal ions play a significant role in formation of fouling layers, which can bridge the deposited cells Arabi and Nakhla (2009), Kim and Jang
feedwater and biopolymers and then form a dense cake layer. Mg is beneficial in reducing membrane fouling due (2006), Meng et al. (2009)
to bridging of negatively charged biopolymers and enhancement of microbial aggregation. Thus, the
fouling rate is lower in the reactor with the higher Mg:Ca ratio. Mg also preferentially binds with
hydrophobic SMP (>100 kDa and <10 kDa) rather than hydrophilic. Rational Ca operation reduces
filamentous bacteria as a result of Ca bridges and increased hydrophobicity of EPS.
Temperature Temperature increase leads to biomass deterioration, increase in SMP and turbidity, and decreased Al-Halbouni et al. (2008)
protein in EPS. However, too low temperature correlates with an increased occurrence of filamentous
bacteria, which produce more SMP in the mixed liquor.
Nutrients Nitrogen deficiency increases the protein level in the EPS, associated with good settling (low SVI) and Sponza (2002)
high negatively charged floc surfaces. Phosphorous deficiency increases SVI values, decreases the
protein content of EPS and surface charge of flocs in activated sludge.

OLR, organic loading rate; SVI, Sludge volume index; HRT, hydraulic retention time; SRT, sludge retention time.

EPS, and organic colloids were found to be the main contributor to
membrane fouling and influence the membrane performance in
wastewater filtration applications. They also reviewed that with
an increasing mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) the fouling po-
tential would be reduced when at very low MLSS concentrations
(<6 g/L), no impact at medium MLSS concentrations (8–12 g/L),
and more fouling at very high MLSS concentrations (>15 g/L). Other
parameters linked to the particulate fraction that are reported to
influence membrane performance are particle size distribution,
sludge hydrophobicity or sludge viscosity.
Although there are various factors that affect membrane fouling
of MBR, such as membrane properties, biomass properties, feed-
water characteristics and operating conditions, membrane biofoul-
ing via microbial products plays a critical role in determining the
feasibility of utilizing MBR when comparing with other biological
processes. Bound EPS have been noticed as key foulants in MBR
systems. Ramesh et al. (2006, 2007) fractionated bound EPS into
tightly bound EPS and loosely bound EPS. They stated that the
tightly found EPS have the highest fouling potential and the loosely
bound EPS contribute most of the filtration resistances of the
sludge in MBR. Yamato et al. (2006) reported the bound EPS corre-
lated with membrane fouling as its concentration was higher than
10 mg/g SS. Metzger et al. (2007) performed a detailed study to
provide a unique insight into the composition (protein and
carbohydrate) and spatial distribution of the particulate and solu-
ble foulants on the membrane surface. The results showed three
distinguished fouling layers. The upper fouling layer consisted of
loosely bound biomass flocs and attached SMP, and was character-
ized by a low specific biopolymer resistance and a high permeabil-
ity. The intermediate layer was composed equally by SMP and
biomass aggregates, which had a higher concentration of carbohy-
drates and possibly played a significant in the formation of consec-
utive cake layer. The lower layer, representing the irreversible
fouling fraction and predominated by SMP, presented a relative
higher concentration of strongly bound proteins.
Table 2 gives some important factors related to biofouling of
MBRs. Overall, the development of more appropriate strategies to
control membrane biofouling requires a more thorough under-
standing of biofilm properties and behavior, especially the early
steps in biofilm formation (Zhang et al., 2006). Currently, control
measures for membrane biofouling include intermittent suction,
improving module configurations, improving aeration, reducing
the concentration of solids in the bioreactor, applying a tangential
surface shear force, backwashing the membrane module, and add-
ing exogenous antibacterial agents (Chang et al., 2002; Ramesh
et al., 2006).
6. Conclusions
At present, membrane fouling is still the biggest challenge and
the major obstacle for the widespread implementation of mem-
brane processes. During the treatment, different fouling mecha-
nisms can provide a really complex matrix. Once membrane
fouling occurs, it will reduce permeate flux, increase feed pressure,
reduce productivity, increase system downtime, increase mem-
brane maintenance and operation costs due to membrane cleaning,
and decrease the lifespan of the membrane modules. Therefore, the
better understanding of overall fouling picture is the prime objective
to develop proper pretreatment for process train and secure better
membrane treatability and producing acceptable effluent qualities.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Australian Research Council (ARC)
Industry Linkage Grant (LP0882089). The authors are also grateful
 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34 33

for the support of The Open Fund for State Key Laboratory of Hol- Kwon, B., Lee, S., Cho, J., Ahn, H., Lee, D., Shin, H.S., 2005. Biodegradability, DBP
formation and membrane fouling potential of natural organic matter:
low Fiber Membrane Materials and Processes, China and UTS Early
characterisation and controllability. Environmental Science and Technology
Career Researcher Grants. 39 (3), 732–739.
Lay, W.C.L., Liu, Y., Fane, A.G., 2010. Impacts of salinity on the performance of high
retention membrane bioreactors for water reclamation: a review. Water
Research 44, 21–40.
References Lee, S., Lee, C.H., 2000. Effect of operating conditions on CaSO4 scale formation
mechanism in nanofiltration for water softening. Water Research 34, 3854–
3866.
Al-Halbouni, D., Traber, J., Lyko, S., Wintgens, T., Melin, T., Tacke, D., Janot, A., Dott,
Lee, J., Ahn, W.Y., Lee, C.H., 2001. Comparison of the filtration characteristics
W., Hollender, J., 2008. Correlation of EPS content in activated sludge at
between attached and suspended growth microorganisms in submerged
different sludge retention times with membrane fouling phenomena. Water
membrane bioreactor. Water Research 35, 2435–2445.
Research 42, 1475–1488.
Lee, E.K., Chen, V., Fane, A.G., 2008. Natural organic matter (NOM) fouling in low
Arabi, S., Nakhla, G., 2009. Impact of magnesium on membrane fouling in
pressure membrane filtration – effect of membranes and operation modes.
membrane bioreactors. Separation and Purification Technology 67, 319–325.
Desalination 218, 257–270.
AWWA Membrane Technology Research Committee, 2005. Committee Report:
Lee, J., Jung, J.Y., Kim, S., Chang, I.S., Mitra, S.S., Kim, I.S., 2009. Selection of the most
Recent Advances and Research Needs in Membrane Fouling. American Water
problematic biofoulant in fouled RO membrane and the seawater intake to
Works Association Journal 97(8), 79–89.
develop biosensors for membrane biofouling. Desalination 247, 125–136.
Belfort, G., Davis, R.H., Zydney, A.L., 1994. The behavior of suspensions and
Li, Q., Elimelech, M., 2004. Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration
macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration. Journal of Membrane
membranes: measurements and mechanisms. Environmental Science and
Science 96, 1–58.
Technology 38 (17), 4683–4693.
Bennett, A., 2005. Membranes in industry: facilitating reuse of wastewater.
Li, J., Yang, F., Liu, Y., Song, H., Li, D., Cheng, F., 2012. Microbial community and
Filtration & Separation 42 (8), 28–30.
biomass characteristics associated severe membrane fouling during start-up of
Chang, I.S., Le-Clech, P., Jefferson, B., Judd, S., 2002. Membrane fouling in membrane
a hybrid anoxic–oxic membrane bioreactor. Bioresource Technology 103, 43–
bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Engineering
47.
128, 1018–1029.
Lim, A.L., Bai, R., 2003. Membrane fouling and cleaning in microfiltration of
Chong, T.H., Wong, F.S., Fane, A.G., 2008. Implications of critical flux and cake
activated sludge wastewater. Journal of Membrane Science 216, 279–290.
enhanced osmotic pressure (CEOP) on colloidal fouling in reverse osmosis:
Lin, C.F., Lin, T.Y., Hao, O.J., 2000. Effects of humic substance characteristics on UF
experimental observations. Journal of Membrane Science 314, 101–111.
performance. Water Research 34, 1097–1106.
Clark, M.M., Heneghan, K.S., 1991. Ultrafiltration of lake water for potable water
Manka, J., Rebhun, M., 1982. Organic groups and molecular weight distribution in
production. Desalination 80, 243–249.
tertiary effluent sand renovated waters. Water Research 16, 399–403.
Drewes, J.E., Fox, P., 1999. Fate of natural organic matter (NOM) during groundwater
Matsuura, T., 1994. Synthetic Membranes and Membrane Separation Processes. CRC
recharge using reclaimed water. Water Science and Technology 40 (9), 241–
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
248.
Meng, F.G., Zhang, H.M., Li, Y.S., Zhang, X.W., Yang, F.L., Xiao, J.N., 2005. Cake layer
El-Manharawy, S., Hafez, A., 2001. Molar ratios as a useful tool for prediction of
morphology in microfiltration of activated sludge wastewater based on fractal
scaling potential inside RO systems. Desalination 136, 243–254.
analysis. Separation and Purification Technology 44 (3), 250–257.
Fallah, N., Bonakdarpour, B., Nasernejad, B., Alavi Moghadam, M.R., 2010. Long-term
Meng, F., Shi, B., Yang, F., Zhang, H., 2007. Effect of hydraulic retention time on
operation of submerged membrane bioreactor (MBR) for the treatment of
membrane fouling and biomass characteristics in submerged membrane
synthetic wastewater containing styrene as volatile organic compound (VOC):
bioreactors. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 30 (5), 359–367.
effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT). Journal of Hazardous Materials 178,
Meng, F., Chae, S.R., Drews, A., Kraume, M., Shin, H.S., Yang, F., 2009. Recent
718–724.
advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane fouling and membrane
Fan, F.S., Zhou, H.D., 2007. Interrelated effects of aeration and mixed liquor fractions
material. Water Research 43, 1489–1512.
on membrane fouling for submerged membrane bioreactor process in
Metzger, U., Le-Clech, P., Stuetz, R.M., Frimmel, F.H., Chen, V., 2007. Characterisation
wastewater treatment. Environmental Science and Technology 41 (7), 2523–
of polymeric fouling in membrane bioreactors and the effect of different
2528.
filtration modes. Journal of Membrane Science 301, 180–189.
Fan, L., Harris, J.L., Roddick, F.A., Booker, N.A., 2001. Influence of the characteristics
Nielsen, P.H., Jahn, A., 1999. Extraction of EPS. In: Wingender, J., Neu, T.R.,
of natural organic matter on the fouling of microfiltration membranes. Water
Flemming, H.C. (Eds.), Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substances. Springer,
Research 35, 4455–4463.
Berlin, pp. 49–72.
Fane, A.G., 2005. Module design and operation. In: Schaefer, A.I., Fane, A.G., Waite,
Owen, D.M., Amy, G.L., Chowdhury, Z.K., Paode, R., McCoy, G., Viscosil, K., 1995.
T.D. (Eds.), Nanofiltration: Principles and Applications. Elsevier, pp. 67–88.
NOM characterization and treatability. American Water Works Association
Flemming, H.C., Wingender, J., 2001. Relevance of microbial extracellular polymeric
Journal 87 (1), 46–63.
substances (EPSs) – Part I: Structural and ecological aspects. Water Science and
Pearce, G., 2007. Introduction to membranes: fouling control. Filtration &
Technology 43 (6), 1–8.
Separation 44 (6), 30–32.
Frost SullivanFrost Sullivan EuropeSiemens Water Technologies, 2007. Membrane
Potts, D.E., Ahlert, R.C., Wang, S.S., 1981. A critical review of fouling of reverse
filtration technologies tackle water reuse and purification. Membrane
osmosis membranes. Desalination 36, 235–264.
Technology (1), 9–11.
Ramesh, A., Lee, D.J., Wang, M.L., Hsu, J.P., Juang, R.S., Hwang, K.J., Liu, J.C., Tseng, S.J.,
Hoek, E.M.V., Elimelech, M., 2003. Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new
2006. Biofouling in membrane bioreactor. Separation Science and Technology
fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environmental Science and
41 (7), 1345–1370.
Technology 37 (24), 5581–5588.
Ramesh, A., Lee, D.J., Lai, J.Y., 2007. Membrane biofouling by extracellular polymeric
Howe, K.J., Clark, M.M., 2002. Fouling of microfiltration and ultrafiltration
substances or soluble microbial products from membrane bioreactor sludge.
membranes by natural waters. Environmental Science & Technology 36 (16),
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 74 (3), 699–707.
3571–3576.
Reid, E., Liu, X., Judd, S.J., 2006. Effect of high salinity on activated sludge
Huang, H., Spinette, R., O’Melia, C.R., 2008. Direct-flow microfiltration of aquasols. I:
characteristics and membrane permeability in an immersed membrane
Impacts of particle stabilities and size. Journal of Membrane Science 314, 90–
bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science 283, 164–171.
100.
Rosenberger, S., Kraume, M., 2002. Filterability of activated sludge in membrane
Huertas, E., Herzberg, M., Oron, G., Elimelech, M., 2008. Influence of biofouling on
bioreactors. Desalination 146, 373–379.
boron removal by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of
Rosenberger, S., Evenblij, H., te Poele, S., Wintgens, T., Laabs, C., 2005. The
Membrane Science 318, 264–270.
importance of liquid phase analyses to understand fouling in membrane
Hwang, K.J., Hsueh, C.L., 2003. Dynamic analysis of cake properties in microfiltration
assisted activated sludge processes – six case studies of different European
of soft colloids. Journal of Membrane Science 214, 259–273.
research groups. Journal of Membrane Science 263, 113–126.
Ivnitsky, H., Katz, I., Minz, D., Shimoni, E., Chen, Y., Tarchitzky, J., Semiat, R.,
Rudolfs, W., Balmat, J.L., 1952. Colloids in sewage. I. Separation of sewage colloids
Dosoretz, C.G., 2005. Characterization of membrane biofouling in nanofiltration
with the aid of the electron microscope. Sewage and Industrial Waste 24, 247–
processes of wastewater treatment. Desalination 185, 255–268.
256.
Jin, Y.L., Lee, W.N., Lee, C.H., Chang, I.S., Huang, X., Swaminathan, T., 2006. Effect of
Sadr Ghayeni, S.B., Madaeni, S.S., Fane, A.G., Schneider, R.P., 1996. Aspects of
DO concentration on biofilm structure and membrane filterability in submerged
microfiltration and reverse osmosis in municipal wastewater reuse.
membrane bioreactor. Water Research 40, 2829–2836.
Desalination 106, 25–29.
Kennedy, M., Zhizhong, L., Febrina, E., van Hoof, S., Shippers, J., 2003. Effects of
Sheikholeslami, R., 2000. Calcium sulfate fouling – precipitation or particulate: a
coagulation on filtration mechanisms in dead-end ultrafiltration. Water Science
proposed composite model. Heat Transfer Engineering 21, 24–33.
and Technology: Water Supply 3 (5), 109–116.
Sheng, G.P., Yu, H.Q., Li, X.Y., 2010. Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) of
Keskes, S., Hmaied, F., Gannoun, H., Bouallagui, H., Godon, J.J., Hamdi, M., 2012.
microbial aggregates in biological wastewater treatment systems: a review.
Performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor for the aerobic treatment of
Biotechnology Advances 28 (6), 882–894.
abattoir wastewater. Bioresource Technology 103, 28–34.
Shirazi, S., Lin, C.J., Chen, D., 2010. Inorganic fouling of pressure-driven membrane
Kim, I.S., Jang, N., 2006. The effect of calcium on the membrane biofouling in the
processes – a critical review. Desalination 250, 236–248.
membrane bioreactor (MBR). Water Research 40, 2756–2764.
Song, L., Elimelech, M., 1995. Theory of concentration polarization in cross-flow
Kipton, H., Powell, J., Town, R.M., 1992. Solubility and fractionation of humic acids
filtration. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 91, 3389–3398.
effect of pH and ionic medium. Analytica Chimica Acta 267, 47–54.
34 W. Guo et al. / Bioresource Technology 122 (2012) 27–34
Sonune, A., Ghate, R., 2004. Developments in wastewater treatment methods.
Desalination 167, 55–63.
Sponza, D.T., 2002. Extracellular polymer substances and physicochemical
properties of flocs in steady and unsteady-state activated sludge systems.
Process Biochemistry 37, 983–998.
Tang, S., Wang, Z., Wu, Z., Zhou, Q., 2010. Role of dissolved organic matters (DOM) in
membrane fouling of membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater
treatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 178, 377–384.
Van de Lisdonk, C.A.C., van Paassen, J.A.M., Schippers, J.C., 2000. Monitoring scaling
in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane systems. Desalination 132,
101–108.
Van Hoof, S.C.J.M., Minnery, J.G., Mack, B., 2002. Performing a membrane autopsy.
The International Desalination and Water Reuse 11 (4), 40–46.
Vrouwenvelder, J.S., van der Kooij, D., 2001. Diagnosis, prediction and prevention of
biofouling of NF and RO membranes. Desalination 139, 65–71.
Vrouwenvelder, J.S., van der Kooij, D., 2003. Diagnosis of fouling problems of NF
and RO membrane installations by a quick scan. Desalination 153, 121–
124.
Vrouwenvelder, H., Kruithof, J., van Loosdrecht, M., 2010a. Biofouling of membrane
systems: a manageable problem? Water 21 October, 49–50, 53.
Vrouwenvelder, J.S., Beyer, F., Dahmani, K., Hasan, N., Galjaard, G., Kruithof, J.C., Van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2010b. Phosphate limitation to control biofouling. Water
Research 44, 3454–3466.
Wang, Z., Chu, J., Song, Y., Cui, Y., Zhang, H., Zhao, X., Li, Z., Yao, J., 2009. Influence of
operating conditions on the efficiency of domestic wastewater treatment in
membrane bioreactors. Desalination 245, 73–81.
Watnick, P., Kolter, R., 2000. Biofilm, city of microbes. Journal of Bacteriology 182,
2675–2679.
Xie, R.J., Gomez, M.J., Xing, Y.J., Klose, P.S., 2004. Fouling assessment in a municipal
water reclamation reverse osmosis system as related to concentration factor.
Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 3 (1), 61–72.
Xu, P., Bellona, C., Drewes, J.E., 2010. Fouling of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
membranes during municipal wastewater reclamation: membrane autopsy
results from pilot-scale investigations. Journal of Membrane Science 353, 111–
121.
Yamato, N., Kimura, K., Miyoshi, T., Watanabe, Y., 2006. Difference in membrane
fouling in membrane bioreactors (MBRs) caused by membrane polymer
materials. Journal of Membrane Science 280, 911–919.
Yiantsios, S.G., Karabelas, A.J., 1998. The effect of colloid stability on membrane
fouling. Desalination 118, 143–152.
Yigit, N.O., Harman, I., Civelekoglu, G., Koseoglu, H., Cicek, N., Kitis, M., 2008.
Membrane fouling in a pilot-scale submerged membrane bioreactor operated
under various conditions. Desalination 231, 124–132.
Yuan, W., Zydney, A.L., 1999. Humic acid fouling during microfiltration. Journal of
Membrane Science 157, 1–12.
Zhang, M.M., Li, C., Benjamin, M.M., Chang, Y.J., 2003. Fouling and natural organic
matter removal in adsorbent/membrane systems for drinking water treatment.
Environmental Science and Technology 37 (8), 1663–1669.
Zhang, K., Choi, H., Dionysiou, D.D., Sorial, G.A., Oerther, D.B., 2006. Identifying
pioneer bacterial species responsible for biofouling membrane bioreactors.
Environmental Microbiology 8 (3), 433–440.
Zhou, H., Smith, D.W., 2002. Advanced technologies in water and wastewater
treatment. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 1, 247–264.
Zhu, X., Elimelech, M., 1997. Colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis membranes:
measurements and fouling mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology
31 (12), 3654–3662.