Environmental Chemistry Letters https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-017-0693-4

REVIEW

Membrane filtration of wastewater from gas and oil production Mashallah Rezakazemi1   · Afsaneh Khajeh2 · Mohammad Mesbah3 Received: 12 September 2017 / Accepted: 12 December 2017 © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Abstract More than 88 billion barrels of wastewater are produced yearly in the world from gas and oil production. Given the rising demand for drinkable water, there is a need for advanced purification processes. Here we review membrane filtration processes used in the gas and oil production for wastewater treatment, with focus on microfiltration, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, forward osmosis, membrane distillation, and electrodialysis. Keywords  Coal seam gas · Water · Membrane · Natural gas · Separation · Treatment

Introduction One of the most important sources of energy in many countries is coal seam gas. Coal seam gas also called “coal bed methane,” or “coal bed natural gas” comprising generally 95–97% methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and inert gases in saline water or existing freely inside the natural cracks and openings of the coal has appeared as an essential unconventional natural gas source and cleaner energy substitute than conventional fossil fuels (Azizi et al. 2017; Birol 2011; Cook 2013; Hamawand et al. 2013; Jackson and Reddy 2007; Mesbah et al. 2017; Plumlee et al. 2014; Soroush et al. 2017). Methane is compressed within the coals inside cracks and fractures. Within the cleats, the gas is absorbed by the outside of the coal and firmly tight in position by the water gravity in the coal seam (Connell 2009). Figure 1 shows a schematic of gas within a coal fracture.

* Mashallah Rezakazemi [email protected]; [email protected] Mohammad Mesbah [email protected]; [email protected] 1



Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

2



School of Chemical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846‑13114, Iran

3

Young Researchers and Elites Club, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran



Releasing adsorbed methane is achieved by dropping reservoir pressure, commonly through the removal of water and reducing hydrostatic pressure on the coal bed. Thus, coal seam gas extraction usually consists of producing unwanted an enormous capacity of water, known as a coal seam gas produced water well supplied with bicarbonate, chloride, and sodium (Nghiem et al. 2011). Features of typical oily produced water are reported in Table 1. Since the coal seam gas produced water has impurities, it has to be treated before released into the environment. Due to a large amount of this water, the requirement for a cost-effective and sustainable management in coal seam gas industry is inevitable. There are various techniques of pulling out natural gas from coal fractures, such as vertical drilling and horizontal or directional drilling. Hydraulic fracturing is occasionally employed to discharge gas from a coal fracture. Figure 2 shows the coal seam gas extraction process. The liquid which is characteristically a blend of water and sand, as well as some additives that enlarge fissures in the seam to build a route for water to move back to the surface, is driven under compression into the coal seam to enlarge fractures and fissures. The process depressurizes the coal seam, permitting the gas in the openings of the coal to become free and move outward. A pipe wrapped with layers of metal or concrete, practically in order to prevent leaking into aquifers, is exploited to carry gas and fluid from coal seam to the surface (Batley and Kookana 2012; Fakhru’l-Razi et al. 2009). As illustrated in Fig. 3, capacities of formed groundwater are usually huge in the initial periods of coal seam gas creation; on the contrary, the capacities of gas discharged are slight. But, in advanced stages that might be numerous

13

Vol.:(0123456789)



Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 1  Schematic of gas within a coal seam (Williams et  al. 2013). Coal seam gas is trapped in pores and micropores, in the form of free or adsorbed gas. By reducing the hydraulic pressure, which is exerted via water and overlying aquifers to the seam, the gas is extracted through drilled wells. The gas is collected at the top of the well and is transferred to the treatment plant at low pressure. Then it will be sent to a transmission pipeline with high pressure

years in length, the created water declines whereas C ­ H4 increases. It seems that need fracking may produce a smaller amount of water than other seams (Schinteie et al. 2015). The water extracted from coal seam gas contains some mineral materials like metals, salts, oil droplets, various gases, radioactive materials, or chemicals used in well

construction or hydraulic fracturing liquids (Sajjad et al. 2015). The concentration of the constituents in the coal bed methane water varies a little caused by the site basin and location (Dahm et al. 2011; Plumlee et al. 2014). The quantity and quality of coal bed methane produced water in the USA, Canada, and Australia are summarized in Table 2. The estimation of coal seam gas produced water and total coal seam gas production in some countries is also reported in Table 3. Figure 4 also displays offshore and onshore co-produced water since 1990. pH is almost in elevation, and they have reasonably great alkalinity that is about 7–300 mmol/L as ­CaCO3. The density of calcium and magnesium are quite small, reported around 0.015–1.350 and 0.05–1.3 mmol/L, respectively, and sulfate stages are very small in particular locations, 0.005–0.850 mmol/L. In addition, the maximum densities of sodium and chlorine are 10.5–300.0 and 4–100  mmol/L, correspondingly. There is a substantial variance in magnitude between major ions such as sodium, chloride, and bicarbonate, and minor ones such as magnesium, calcium, and sulfate. For instance, the concentration of sodium is around 222 times larger than that of calcium, and the concentration of chloride is about 117 times larger than that of sulfate (Biggs 2011; Kinnon et al. 2010; Orem et al. 2007). Generally, demineralization and de-oiling are common stages in the direction of a valuable procedure. Oil and grease could be removed by adsorption, centrifugation, hydroclones, membrane filtration, and advanced oxidation. Different nanomaterials have been also used for water

Table 1  Ionic composition and other characteristics of coal seam gas water (Nghiem et al. 2011) Parameter

Surat basin, Australia Surat basin, Aus(basin-wide) tralia (Tipton)

pH TDS (mg/L) SAR, meq-0.5 Sodium (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Bicarbonate (as ­CaCO3) (mg/L) Iron (mg/L) Manganese (mg/L) Silica (mg/L) Fluoride (mg/L) Boron (mg/L)

8–9 1200–4300 107–116 300–1700

7.6–8.9 4500–6000

370–1940

1840–3461

130–800

590–1900 5–10 580–950

2060 2 1030

5.9–57 6.3–6.4 0–12 290–2320

0.07–4.50 0.07–0.10 0.77–1.00

PRB, USA (47 samples)

PRB, USA (Mitchell draw)

Walsenburg, USA

Walsenburg, South Africa

8.2 3460 25 880 35.2 14.6 28.0 28.4 1.0 2416

8.41 588–722

7.8 5125 85.4 2023 16.5 10.4 25.1 287.1 418 4712

12 1.0 0.2

TDS total dissolved solids, SAR sodium adsorption ratio, PRB permeable reactive barrier

13

250–314 1.2–1.3 0.01 1.7–2.4

0.99 0.3

0.21–0.26

4

Environmental Chemistry Letters Fig. 2  Coal seam gas extraction process (Sajjad et al. 2015). To enlarge fractures and fissures, the compressed liquid, which is a blend of water, sand, and some additives, is driven into the coal seam. The coal seam depressurizes by the process, which permits the trapped gas to become free

Fig. 3  Representative variations in the amounts of water and gas production from a coal seam gas well (Meng et al. 2014). In contrast to the slightly discharged gas capacities, in the initial periods of coal seam gas production, capacities of formed groundwater are usually huge. Nevertheless, as the years go by and reaching advanced stages, the produced water decreases, while methane increases

treatment (Baruah et al. 2016; Bibi et al. 2016; Chatterjee et al. 2016; Dasgupta et al. 2017; Hebbar et al. 2017; Xue et al. 2016). Moreover, biological actions like reed beds and wetlands have been engaged to additional degrade suspended solids, residual organics, and metals from produced water. In terms of demineralization, the favorable methods used for eliminating salts from produced water are mechanical vapor

compression and reverse osmosis methods. The introduction of ultra-low-pressure reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes with an extraordinary capability of salt elimination offer a practical alternative for produced water treatment as they can be as operative as reverse osmosis in taking away particular solutes from water when necessitating noticeably a lesser amount of feed pressure.

13



Environmental Chemistry Letters

Table 2  Quantity and quality of coal bed methane produced water (Meng et al. 2014) Location

USA

Basins (locations) Stratigraphic units

USA

USA

USA

Canada

Canada

Australia

Australia

Powder river Raton

Uinta

San juan

Alberta

Alberta

Bowen

Surat

Fort union

Raton

Ferron

Fruitland

Moranbah, baralaba

Wallon

Water production L/well/ day No. of wells Total dissolved solids (mg/L) Water types

63,592

42,289

34,181

3975

Mannville Horseshoe canyon, belly river < 1000 14,000– 24,000

20,000– 200,000

10,000– 400,000

> 11,000 250–3000

> 1100 900–30,000

> 580 6350–42,700

> 17,000 100–18,000

~ 4000 2650–8090

~ 4000 950–12,894

Na–HCO3

> 3600 10,000– 170,000 Na–HCO3–Cl Na–HCO3–Cl Na–HCO3–Cl

Na–HCO3–Cl

Na–HCO3–Cl

pH

6.9–9.2

6.9–9.3

7.5–8.2

7.8–8.5

–

5.4–9.3

Table 3  Estimation of coal seam gas produced water and total coal seam gas production in some countries (Abousnina et al. 2015) Country

Production in billion ­(m3)

Coal seam gas total produced (GL/year)

USA Australia China Canada India Europe Total

52 6.2 1.4 0.85 0.056 4.6 + 65.1

1355–4066 162–485 36–109 22–66 1.5–4.4 110–330 1696–5090

> 17,000 31,113– 88,956 Na–HCO3–Cl, Na–HCO3–Cl, Na–Cl Na–Cl 6.8–11.2 6.3–7.5

Lucrative usage of produced water has become an striking explanation to controlling produced water by offering extra and consistent water sources for purposes such as agricultural use, irrigation of crops, commercial use during coal seam gas production including hydraulic fracking, dust control, drilling water, and fire protection, potable use, and off-site industrial use (Millar et al. 2016; Mondal and Wickramasinghe 2008; Nghiem et al. 2011; Xu et al. 2008).

Issues related to wastewater from coal seam gas extraction The rapid spread of commercial coal seam gas extraction in latest years creates environmental issues related to produced water more serious (Abousnina et al. 2015; Duong

Fig. 4  Estimation of coal seam gas produced water on offshore and onshore plants since 1990 and estimate in 2015 (Fakhru’lRazi et al. 2009). bbl barrel

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters

et al. 2015a; Mondal and Wickramasinghe 2008). Major components of produced water including salt, heavy metals, and organic and radioactive components cause various problems such as sodicity, salinity, turbidity, and toxicity which can have detrimental effects on human health through direct and indirect contact. Discharging produced water in drinking water count as a direct contact and bio-accumulated of produced water in crops and taken into human bodies count as an indirect one (Monckton 2016; Veil et al. 2004). It is necessary to recognize the mechanisms of using and releasing coal seam gas water to manage the pathways that coal seam gas water can expose to environment and human. The coal seam gas extraction has various challenges with both advantageous usages and discarding pathways of the produced water even though it is recognized that these pathways will differ regarding to their locations (DNRME 2004; Karakurt et al. 2011). Pathways that can classify into surface discharges, underground discharges, and impoundment and advantageous usages may or may not necessitate treatment (ATSDR 2012).

Freshwater environments When the beneficial use of coal seam gas produced water, due to procedural, operational, financial, or ecological limitations is not possible, its disposal is necessary (Swayne 2012). Surface waters in the area are applied for agricultural uses and as drinking water resources for human or animals (Johnston et al. 2008; Téllez et al. 2009). The release of co-produced water to natural waterways may affect physically on different temporary or permanent waterways such as channel erosion, morphology, and sediment distribution (Davies and Gore 2013). This water may damage the overall ecosystem, for instance, having negative effects on fishery resources due to the exceeding amount of salinity, metals and trace elements (Davis et al. 2010). The sodicsalty produced water from coal seam gas extraction is a key participant in salinity and alkalinity of the environment in some cases (Biggs 2011). In permanent rivers, released coal seam gas water will be weakened slightly to somewhat the impact of the released water on in-stream circumstances can be declined. Conversely, for the period of so small stream stages and in temporary watercourses without any stream of water, it is rational to consider that coal seam gas water releases will not be weakened and remains in its natural concentrated status. Alterations to the mentioned hydrological features via continuing great bulk discharges of coal seam gas produced water would change natural reactions in aquatic ecosystems suited to the circumstances (Adriano et al. 1980). Disposal of coal seam gas water management requires investigation the vulnerability-dependent ecosystems to a change in flow regime, studying the salinity tolerance of aquatic species, and considering important factors of

disposal affecting flow regimes including length of period, timing, variations, predictability, greatness, and level of rise and fall to determine whether release to the environment is an appropriate management option (Boulton and Jenkins 1998; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Clunie et al. 2002).

Terrestrial environments Both disposal of produced water by infiltration or evaporation and beneficial reuse of that might be carried out in the terrestrial environment, especially in arid areas where the produced water is regarded as the main resource for irrigation. The quality and composition of coal seam waters is varied and is affected by location which is extracted from. Awareness of created water feature is essential to considerate what controlling system alterations are required for continuing efficiency. Salinity, sodicity, and alkalinity are the three most important criteria of created water, which should be adjusted before applying (Bern et al. 2013). Salinity hazard The major prominent water feature parameter on harvest yield is the water salinity threat as evaluated by electrical conductivity (Hart et al. 1991). The main result of elevated amounts of electrical conductivity water on harvest yield is the incapability of the plant to contest with ions in the soil solution for water and reducing the yield potential. Minor to moderate influences to irrigation may spread on at total dissolved solids > 0.5 g/L and more drastic influences at total dissolved solids > 2 g/L. Sodium hazard Even though crop development is mostly restricted by the salinity level of the irrigation water, the use of water with a sodium inequality can supplementary lessen yield in some soil circumstances. Elevated sodium amounts in the soil can lead to a weakening of the physical circumstance of the soil, for example, through waterlogging, the establishment of layers, and diminished soil penetrability. In drastic conditions, the penetration rate would be critically declined, avoiding plants or crops from getting into the adequate water for their growth (Beltrán 1999). Declines in water penetration could happen once irrigation water comprises of large sodium compared to the magnesium and calcium subjects (Veil et al. 2004). This situation characterized “sodicity,” is derived from too much soil buildup of sodium. Soil sodicity shows the aggregation of sodium in the soil configurations and makes swelling (Van der Zee et al. 2010). Soil sodicity has a significant effect on soil clays dispersion, pore plugging, and surface crusting. This situation hinders infiltration and enhances runoff. Sodicity reduces the water motion

13



Environmental Chemistry Letters

to and across the soil. This also causes actively growing plants roots do not receive sufficient water in spite of pooling water on the soil surface. To determine the sodicity in soil and water, sodium adsorption ratio must be determined (Foroutan et al. 2017). Sodium adsorption ratio states sodicity as a function of sodium concentration in compare with the total concentration of magnesium and calcium ions. SAR measures the potential for infiltration harms resulting from a sodium imbalance in irrigation water. Sodium adsorption ratio is mathematically written below:

SAR = √

Human health concerns Human exposure to coal seam gas produced water used in different pathways from beneficial uses in drinking water, irrigation, livestock watering, aquaculture, site operation, to surface releases and underground releases would affect the health due to the existence of particular substances in contaminated water (Navi et al. 2015). There have been reported various risks and harms to plants, animals, and human’s health. Leukemia (WHO 2003; Wilbur 2007), dental and skeletal fluorosis (Fawell and Bailey 2006), nerve system influences, heart disease, damaging consequences on pregnancy (WHO 2011) and adverse effects on intelligence and brain function (ATSDR 2007; Hu et al. 2010) related to the presence of benzene, fluoride, and lead are some known health effects of coal seam gas water compounds. Organic and inorganic arsenic compounds are the other hazardous components in produced water which are the most significant chemical contaminant, highly toxic and are confirmed carcinogen. Several studies have also revealed adverse health effects of arsenic exposure such as developmental effects, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, negative pregnancy outcomes, and infant mortality as well as harmful impacts on intelligence and memory of children (Quansah et al. 2015; Rocha-Amador et al. 2007). Boron is the other element dissolved in coal seam gas produced water that is responsible for particular health risk problems. Many experiments have demonstrated reproduction effects on male laboratory animals; however, similar studies did not show same outcomes on humans (Ezechi et al. 2014).

Na+ meq∕L (1)

(Ca++ meq∕L)+(Mg++ meq∕L) 2

where all concentrations are based on meq/L. When the sodium adsorption ratio is > 3, the water is sodic. For created water extracted from different locations, various ranges of SAR have been reported; King et al. reported 5–70, Vance et al. reported 17–57 for Powder River Basin region, and Rocky Mountain region of the USA had SAR values from 0.2 to 452.8 (Dahm et al. 2011; King et al. 2005; Vance et al. 2008). A more precise estimation of the permeability hazard involves applying the electrical conductivity together with the sodium adsorption ratio (Industries 2004). Alkalinity hazard Regarding high concentrations of sodium, the anionic species on the produced waters are generally dominated by carbonate ­(CO32−) and bicarbonate ­(HCO3−) ions. The carbonate and bicarbonate ions are considered as alkalinity, usually determined as mg/L of ­CaCO3 equivalent (Kawamura 2000). The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to 8.4. High carbonates cause C ­ a+2 and M ­ g+2 ions to form insoluble + minerals leaving ­Na as the dominant ion in solution. This alkaline water could intensify the impact of high sodium adsorption ratio water on sodic soil conditions. Excessive bicarbonate concentrates can also be problematic for drip or microspray irrigation systems when calcite or scale builds up causing reduced flow rates through orifices or emitters. In these situations, correction by injecting sulfuric or other acidic materials into the system may be required (Davies et al. 2015).

Removing organic compounds from wastewater Coal is an organic network of many potentially harmful compounds such as heterocyclic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, biphenyls, and aromatic amines. As expected, these organic chemicals may be leached from coals and diffused to the produced water adjacent to the coals (Orem et al. 2007). Table 4 summarizes the common components in produced water.

Table 4  Common components in production water (Mondal and Wickramasinghe 2008) Organic compounds Aliphatics, aromatics, polar compounds, e.g., fatty acids, oil, grease, benzene, phenol

13

Inorganic compounds +

2+

2+

+

Production −

2−

2−

Na , ­Mg , ­Ca , ­K , ­Cl , ­SO4 , ­CO3 , silicates ­(H4SiO2), borates

Emulsion breakers to improve separation of water, corrosion inhabitors

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Hydrocarbons There is a variety of methods for removing oil elements based on the oil droplets size. Procedures such as skimming, gravity separators, and corrugated plates are used for larger particles with a diameter higher than 40 µm, while by filters, meshes, hydrocyclones, and gas including air flotation are the ones manipulated for withdrawal smaller particles with a range of 3–25 µm in their diameters. Membrane filters and centrifuges are applied for removing finer particles in the range of 0.01–2 µm in diameter (Biesinger et al. 1974; Cheryan and Rajagopalan 1998; Gardner 1972; Sajjad et al. 2015).

Dissolved organic compounds Solvable organics can be eliminated from produced water by “sorption” procedures onto media such as activated carbon and zeolites held in columns (Liu et al. 2008). Furthermore, membrane bioreactors are applied for complicated combination and circumstances. A schematic diagram of a hollowfiber bioreactor is shown in Fig. 5. In these procedures, the sort of organic comprised in the created water, the rate at which columns become saturated, and the amount of produced water that can be passed through the columns are the effective agents on consideration sorption process and choice of the media. For example, a bench-scale submerged hollow-fiber membrane bioreactor removed 99% of whole petroleum hydrocarbons from salty, oily produced water from Turkey within 245 days. The influent water consisted of 2210 mg/L

hydrocarbons ranging from n-C9 to n-C40. A comparison of chromatograms showed that all of the light hydrocarbons were degraded, with substantial reductions up to n-C40, including a reduction in the unresolved complex mixture (Kose et al. 2012).

Removing inorganic compounds Suspended solids In general, suspended solids are eliminated by a centrifuge or filtration system. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration are operative at eliminating suspended substance, consisting of hydrocarbon droplets and inorganics. Additional treatment processes are required since microfiltration and ultrafiltration cannot remove salts. Nanofiltration is also an effective filtration method; however, in order to enhance the efficiency of nanofiltration technique, ultrafiltration or microfiltration is exploited as a pretreatment procedure (Sajjad et al. 2015).

Dissolved solids Evaporation, distillation, and membrane filtration procedures have been proved for eliminating dissolved solids. Reverse osmosis works effectively for total dissolved solids concentrations equal to 20,000 mg/L. Where the concentration of total dissolved solids is low, ion exchange can work efficiently in order to remove ­Na+ ions selectively from produced water. A benefit of ion-exchange resins is that they can be engineered to be very specific for the ions

Fig. 5  Schematic diagram of a hollow-fiber bioreactor (Kose et al. 2012). In these procedures, the effective variables on considering sorption process and choice of the media are the nature of organic substance in the produced water, the rate of column saturation, and the volume of created water that can be passed through the columns. PLC programmable logic controller for controlling the blower speed, ORP oxidation–reduction potential

13



of concern. For example, arsenic and mercury can be successfully eliminated from produced water by means of ionexchange resins. Water softening can occur via the selective removal of magnesium and calcium ions, typically using ion-exchange resins which can be restored efficiently and easily which is considered profitable. For upper concentrations, in the range of 40,000–100,000 mg/L, evaporation and thermal distillation are operational. In addition, electrodialysis reversal technique is also a verified technique for eliminating dissolved solids including ­Na+, ­Ca2+, ­Mg2+, ­K+, ­SO42−, ­HCO3−, ­Cl−. The disposal of brine generated by reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and ion exchange stays a matter of importance because of its extraordinary concentration of salts and further chemical compounds, particularly where high volumes of produced water are generated in wet coal fields.

Alkalinity Produced water is characteristically alkaline, and several procedures are employed like neutralization with adding of acids.

Disinfection Ultraviolet radiation, ozonation, and employing other composites such as hydrogen peroxide as an oxidant to degrade organic compounds are practical techniques for eliminating bacteria and algae within the produced water.

Degasification In water treatment, degasification is an effective technique for removing dissolved gasses from via different methods including a decline in pressure, increasing the temperature, or using ultrafiltration process.

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Membrane technology for produced water treatment Coal seam gas produced water treatment has employed different types of solid–liquid separation methods including physical treatment such as sand filters, evaporation, dissolved air precipitation; chemical treatment such as chemical oxidation, chemical precipitation, photocatalytic treatment, and biological treatment (Fakhru’l-Razi et al. 2009). Moreover, emerging membrane technology in two past decades has become the booming method of capturing greenhouse gases (Fasihi et al. 2012; Razavi et al. 2016; Rezakazemi et al. 2011a, 2014a, 2017b, 2018a; Sadrzadeh et al. 2018; Shirazian et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2017c), water (Baheri et al. 2014; Muhammad et al. 2017; Raoufi et al. 2017; Rezakazemi et al. 2011b, c, 2014b, 2018b; Shahverdi et  al. 2013) and wastewater (Azimi et al. 2017; Rezakazemi et al. 2012c, 2013a; Shirazian et al. 2012b) treatment as well other separation processes (Farno et al. 2014; Hashemi et al. 2012; Rezakazemi et al. 2012a, b, 2013b, 2015, 2016, 2017a, c, d; Rezakazemi and Mohammadi 2013; Rostamizadeh et al. 2013; Shirazian et al. 2012a, c). Such development is due to having advantages in operational cost, feasible installation, small space requirement, high quality of permeate, not using toxic chemicals and not producing extra pollution, and the probability of overall recycle water systems (Rezakazemi et al. 2014a, 2018a). Based on the beneficial reuse or disposal of created water, a particular or combination of strategies would be utilized subsequent to a pretreatment technique such as flocculation, dissolved air flotation, or electrocoagulation. Figure 6 shows the classification of membrane separation processes which can be used for produced water treatment.

Fig. 6  Classification of membrane separation processes that can be used for produced water treatment

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Microfiltration

Ultrafiltration

Among practical membranes used in water purification, microfiltration membranes including polymeric or ceramic ones have got the largest size of pores ranging from 50 to 500 nm, so they would be used for pretreatment in order to increase the efficiency of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processes. According to their pore size, they are capable of segregation suspended solids and bacteria by the mechanism of convective pore flow conforming Darcy’s law. A graphic representation of microfiltration membrane is displayed in Fig. 7. Several reports have studied the use of microfiltration membranes for treatment created water. Mueller et  al. (1997) used both ceramic and polyacrylonitrile microfiltration membranes for treatment artificial created water prepared by heavy crude oil. In a different effort, Campos et al. (2002) used 0.1 µ mixed cellulose esters microfiltration membrane for treatment of offshore oilfield wastewater and removing chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, oil, and grease. Abbasi et al. (2010) produced mullite and mullite–alumina microfiltration symmetric membranes from kaolin clay and α-alumina powder and employed them for separating oil from real and artificial oily wastewaters. An innovative microfiltration hollow fiber (Zhang et al. 2014) was prepared from polyvinylidene fluoride displaying hydrophilic and oleophobic properties and was used for separation of real oily wastewater from a palm oil in Malaysia and synthetic oily wastewater prepared from crude oil emulsions. Abadi et al. (2011) reported performance of a cylindrical ceramic microfiltration (α-Al2O3) system for separation of a real oily wastewater collected from Tehran Refinery and investigated factors including total organic carbon removal efficiency, fouling resistance, transmembrane, cross-flow velocity, and temperature on separating operation.

Ultrafiltration membrane is another type of membrane used in water purification. The ultrafiltration pore size is smaller than microfiltration pore size ranging from 2 to 50  nm. Ultrafiltration membrane also can be used as pretreatment to increase the efficiency of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processes (Igunnu and Chen 2012). They can be applied in the separation of aroma, viruses, color, and colloidal organic substance (Hu et al. 2010; Igunnu and Chen 2012). The most effective traditional separation method for separating oil from water is ultrafiltration (He and Jiang 2008). Lee et al. (2001) examined the capability of cross-flow ultrafiltration to remove TiO photocatalysts from cured water in the treatment of drinking water using the photocatalytic technique. Reyhani et al. (2013) used ultrafiltration process to water treatment. They studied the effect of temperature, pressure, and velocity on the flux rate of drop affected by fouling in a polymer film. Their results showed that the size of elements lessened from the range of 200–800 to 1.5–3 nm. Chew et al. (2015) presented the operational issues and common design of the ultrafiltration membrane water treatment plant. They assessed the ultrafiltration membrane arrangement of dead-end polyethersulfone for purifying drinking water. Xia et al. (2004) explored the performance of ultrafiltration membranes. Based on their result, membrane resistance and accumulated permeate water have a linear relation. It is also reported that the ultrafiltration membrane is capable of separating all coliform bacteria. Giagnorio et al. (2017) worked on the treatment of wastewater and reuse the surfactant-rich permeate stream in laundry facilities by using ultrafiltration. Their results showed that ultrafiltration system is suitable for recovery water and surfactants. The recovery of reusable surfactants obtained by using polymeric and ceramic membranes was 43 and 39%, respectively.

Fig. 7  Schematic representation of microfiltration membrane. With respect to their pore size, they are able to segregate suspended bacteria and solids via the convective pore flow mechanism, compliant with Darcy’s law

13



Environmental Chemistry Letters

Nanofiltration

Reverse osmosis

Nanofiltration is another type of membrane separation technique that used in water purification. The pore size of this type of membrane is about or less than 2 nm (Pabby et al. 2015). As it was previously mentioned, the microfiltration and ultrafiltration can be used as a pretreatment to grow the effectiveness of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis procedures. In fact, the nanofiltration is a transitional separation procedure in the middle of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration (Le and Nunes 2016). In nanofiltration membranes, both size and charge of particle have a significant role in rejection mechanism because it shows properties between those of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration (Shon et al. 2013). While nanofiltration has been referred to as a charged ultrafiltration system (Simpson et al. 1987), it has been described as low-pressure reverse osmosis system (Shon et al. 2013). Nevertheless, in comparison with the reverse osmosis, nanofiltration has the advantage of lower operating pressure, and in comparison with ultrafiltration, it has higher organic rejection. Mondal et  al. (2008) examined the performance of nanofiltration process and low-pressure reverse osmosis membranes to treat coal bed methane produced water. They proposed that this produced water can be considered as an important and precious source of water. Their results show that the permeate could be diverted for advantageous usages like water for animal operations. However, for a practical process, the minimization of membrane fouling is necessary. Mondal et al. (Mondal and Wickramasinghe 2008) used one low-pressure reverse osmosis and two nanofiltrations to treat produced waters from Colorado, USA, with different concentration of contaminants. Surface roughness and hydrophilicity of the three membranes were compared by them. Based on the feature of the water, which is produced and the water feature conditions for the favorable consumptions being considered, nanofiltration could be contemplated as a practicable method for produced water treatment.

Reverse osmosis is a membrane separation technique similar to nanofiltration, where reverse osmosis membranes are characterized by smaller pore sizes varied in the range of 0.3 and 0.6 nm. Similar to microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and nanofiltration, reverse osmosis also is a pressure-driven process. In reverse osmosis, the saline water under the pressure is enforced against a semi-permeable membrane. The water molecules pass across the semi-permeable membrane and leave behind the larger molecules like salt, in a higher concentration (Malaeb and Ayoub 2011). When reverse osmosis is considered for produced water treatment, severe pretreatment and process integration are needed. Moreover, in reverse osmosis process, cleaning agents or inhibitors, pH adjustment or mineralization is also needed. Reverse osmosis needs the high total cost of produced water treatment (Drioli et al. 2016). Blair et al. (2017) utilized a dual-stage reverse osmosis arrangement to obtain large water-regaining rate. They used an intermediate nanofiltration stage to eliminate fouling effects by silica and aluminosilicates on the performance of second reverse osmosis stage. These experimental results also validated by PHREEQC software. They also suggested that the combining a transitional nanofiltration step with a coagulation stage helps to concentrate coal seam brines. The uses of advanced pressure-driven membrane filtration systems are summarized in Table 5, and a schematic representation of pressure-driven membrane filtration is shown in Fig. 8.

Forward osmosis In reverse osmosis processes in order to reduce pressure drop and energy costs, as well as to increase flux and the durability of the membrane against the fouling phenomenon, considering pretreatment of feed water such as chemical coagulation and precipitation, fine filtration, ultrafiltration or microfiltration, water softening and lime neutralization is compulsory (Chian et al. 2007; Van Der Bruggen et al. 2003). Forward osmosis is a growing technology for water

Table 5  Uses of advanced pressure-driven membrane filtration systems (Arthur et al. 2005) Membrane type

Pore size (nm) Separation specifications

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

50–500 2–50

Nanofiltration

< 2

Reverse osmosis 0.3–0.6

Applications/removal

> 100,000 D, 10–0.1 μm 10,000–100,000 D, 0.05–0.005 μm

Viruses, bacteria, and suspended solids, etc Starch, viruses, proteins, colloid silica, dyes, organics, fats, and paint solids, etc 1000–100,000 D, 0.005–0.0005 μm Sugar, starch, herbicides, pesticides, organics, divalent ions, BOD, COD, and detergents, etc Salts and lower MWCO 0.0005–0.00005 μm Acids, metal ions, sugars dyes, aqueous salts, BOD, natural resins, COD, and ions, etc

D Daltons, BOD biological oxygen demand, COD chemical oxygen demand, MWCO molecular weight cutoff

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Fig. 8  Schematic representation of pressure-driven membrane filtration based on the principle that species, which have a size higher than the pore size of the membrane under pressure, are rejected

desalination and has become a popular method of separation because of its advantages such as low energy requirements and a lower tendency for membrane fouling. In forward osmosis, the driving force for passage of water through the selectively permeable membrane is the osmotic pressure difference through the membrane, and the direction of flux is from low concentrated solution to high concentrated solution (Pankaj et al. 2016). Altaee et al. (2014) investigated the combination of forward osmosis and reverse osmosis for seawater desalination. The results indicated that the power consumption in the forward osmosis process was only 2–4% of the total power consumption in the forward osmosis—reverse osmosis process. Among numerous studies of forward osmosis system in water desalination, the research and application in coal mining industries are scarce. Salih et al. (2015) applied forward osmosis technology in their research to study the potential for dewatering of coal tailings slurry. Most significantly, the membrane was simply washed by use of a water rinse. In another work, Thiruvenkatachari et al. (2016) demonstrated that the combination of forward osmosis with reverse osmosis provided a superior performance than particular forward osmosis or reverse osmosis in treating coal mine wastewater. The forward osmosis unit functioned as a practical pretreatment method before reverse osmosis, and the combined forward osmosis—reverse osmosis system has a great capability to effectively exclude routine pretreatment procedures for reverse osmosis.

Membrane distillation Today, the most frequently applied technique in the chloralkali trade for sodium hydroxide manufacture is the membrane electrolysis (Melián-Martel et al. 2011; Savari et al. 2008). The feedstock for this process is coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine (Simon et al. 2014). Because of the less energy consumption and low environmental risk in compared with mercury and diaphragm cell processes, the membrane electrolysis has been used in most NaOH production unit (Melián-Martel et al. 2011; Savari et al. 2008). Consequently, this usage might be considered as the important application of coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine (Simon et al. 2014). The concentrated seawater, rock salt, and concentrated salt lake brine are the most widely used source of feedstock for industrial NaOH manufacture plant by membrane electrolysis (Melián-Martel et al. 2011; Simon et al. 2014). Aside from the viability of applying reverse osmosis brine from both seawater and coal seam gas produced water in the manufacture of NaOH through membrane electrolysis which has been investigated in latest trainings (Melián-Martel et al. 2011; Simon et al. 2014), using the coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine as feed for manufacturing NaOH is an innovative approach for achieving zero liquid discharge treatment of coal seam gas produced water. Increasing the concentration of coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine to a relative saturation circumstance (Melián-Martel et al. 2011, 2013) may be

13



utilized using thermal distillation process, e.g., membrane distillation (Duong et al. 2015a, b) or multi-effect distillation (Melián-Martel et al. 2013; Nghiem et al. 2015) which favored by this approach (Melián-Martel et al. 2011, 2013). Membrane distillation is a thermal membrane separation method due to a porous hydrophobic membrane and phase-change thermal distillation (Alkhudhiri et al. 2012; Drioli et al. 2015). Membrane distillation entirely preserves affirmative features of a membrane procedure such as process efficiency, compactness, and modulation (Alkhudhiri et al. 2012; Drioli et al. 2015). The driving force of this procedure is the gradient of partial water vapor pressure gradient through the membrane that is generated due to the temperature changes between the distillate and feed streams. The vapor pressure can be predicted by group contribution methods (Marjani et al. 2011; Rezakazemi et al. 2013c). However, as the membrane distillation is a thermally driven process, the membrane distillation is not remarkably influenced by the feed solution osmotic pressure, unlike the reverse osmosis. Since in this process, only water is in vapor form can be transferred to the membrane, membrane distillation is an ideal process for the hypersaline solutions treatment such as coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine and (Duong et al. 2015a, b; Shaffer et al. 2013), seawater reverse osmosis brine (Mericq et al. 2010) and draws solution for forward osmosis treatment (Li et al. 2014; Xie et al. 2013). In recent years, prior to a mineral recovery procedure, any membrane distillation hybrid systems for brine composition have been suggested (Chen et al. 2014; Ghaffour et al. 2015; Hickenbottom and Cath 2014). Chen et al. (2014) used membrane distillation to concentrate NaCl brine (26.7%) before crystallization. Their results effectively confirmed the recovery of high-quality distillate with a conductivity of less than 10 μS/cm) and solid NaCl products. Duong et al. (2015a) examined the use of air gap membrane distillation in coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine treatment. A water recovery of 95% was achieved during a sustained period. Cho et al. (2016) examined the influence of different concentrations of sodium bicarbonate in synthetic CSM produced water and temperature on flux and fouling of the membrane. Nghiem et al. (2015) examined combined system ultrafiltration–reverse osmosis–multi-effect distillation for coal seam gas water treatment. They found that ultrafiltration pretreatment reduced the coal seam gas produced water turbidity from 32 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) to less than 0.5 NTU. But ultrafiltration has no influence on mineral removal. They also found that it does not influence on TOC removal. Water recoveries for multi-effect distillation and reverse osmosis were obtained 80 and 76% respectively. A water recovery of 95% was obtained during a sustained period.

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Electrodialysis membrane Electrodialysis is a membrane process that separates ions across ion-selective membranes under an electric field. This method appeared as a strong alternative for reverse osmosis and nanofiltration methods in the production of drinking water purposes from brackish waters. When the silica level is high, electrodialysis is preferable to reverse osmosis because high silica content does not impact performance and water recovery. However, if the inlet concentration is greater than 2000 mg/L of total dissolved solids reverse osmosis is more economically than electrodialysis and the reverse osmosis preferable to electrodialysis. Electrodialysis metathesis is a novel modification of conventional electrodialysis which utilizes a special arrangement in the membrane stack. This novel arrangement can overcome the problem of treating waters when the calcium sulfate content is high. This feature gives a unique advantage to electrodialysis metathesis in zero liquid discharge in which the recovered calcium sulfate is a commercial product. An electrodialysis unit in operation is shown in Fig. 9. Duong et al. (2016) tested the operation of the combination of membrane distillation and membrane electrolysis for extraction of water and sodium hydroxide production from reverse osmosis brine that derived from coal seam gas produced water treatment. Experimental results revealed that the membrane distillation process has a good potential for simultaneous concentrating coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine and water production relative to membrane electrolysis process. Based on their works, using the combination of membrane distillation and membrane electrolysis decreased thermal energy requirement significantly. Membrane distillation, without scaling, recovered 90% water and concentrated coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine by 10 times. A singlepass ME system produced a NaOH solution of 1.15 M and desalinated 75 g/L of salts at current density of 900 A/m2.

Electrodialysis reversal process The performances of electrodialysis reversal and a standard electrodialysis are broadly similar; the only difference is in the equality of product and brine channels. As a change in polarity of the electrodes in periods of 1 h, the flows of water product and brine channels shift at the same time. Accordingly, the ions conduct the reversed direction through the membrane stack. The process of flow and polarity reversal continues up until adequate amount of water product is accumulated so that the lines and stacks flush out in about 1 or 2 min, and ultimately the anticipated quality of water is returned. Flushing diminishes the fouling of membrane since it causes the unit to perform by using a smaller amount of pretreatment chemicals (Arthur et al. 2005).

Environmental Chemistry Letters Fig. 9  Electrodialysis unit in operation (Arthur et al. 2005). The ion-exchange membrane and feed spacer are placed between oppositely charged electrodes. The ions with negative charge migrate to the anode and the ions with positive charge migrate to the cathode. During migration, the charged ion-exchange membranes reject the ions with a similar charge. Consequently, water in the alternate section becomes concentrated and leave desalted water in the next section of the electrodialysis unit. The desalted and concentrated water are removed continuously

The advantages of electrodialysis over reverse osmosis include (Arthur et al. 2005): 1. More tolerant toward high temperature, so that the lower viscosity and greater conductivity and minor resistance are benefits born out of upper temperature of produced water (140 °F). 2. The need for pretreatment processes in electrodialysis is lower than reverse osmosis, as a result of higher acceptable values of silt density index which is 12, higher than the silt density index of 3 for reverse osmosis. 3. Recoverable property of electrodialysis membranes. Weak acid could be employed to treat and regenerate the membranes. 4. The grate layout of electrodialysis plate and frame provides more convenient processes for cleaning and maintenance.

Electrodeionization Electrodeionization is a continuous technique of eliminating ionizable species from feed water by means of DC power by combination anion and/or anion-exchange resins (Hu et al. 2016). It comes to aid for removing ionizable species like ­CO2, boron, and ammonia which their processes are more challenging. The water at the surface of beads separate to negative and positive ions and change to deionized water, which is considered as a regenerant for resins, so some points of resins are in the recovered state. The ion-exchange resins catch dissolved ions in the feed water at the upper

Fig. 10  Schematic representation of an electrodeionization cell (Arthur et al. 2005) illustrating the ion removal while water is traveling through an electrodeionization (EDI) cell. First, the highly ionized species are eliminated in the flow path and then as the water moves down the path the low ionized species are eliminated

surface of the cell. Electric current used through the unit attracts the ions across the ion-selective membrane in the direction of the electrodes. Cations are attracted through the cation-porous membrane headed for the cathode, and anions through the anion-selective membrane in the direction of the anode (Arthur et al. 2005). Figure 10 illustrates schematic of ion removal passing through an electrodeionization cell. Strongly ionized species including monovalent ions such ­ O4, Mg, Ca, and as Cl, Na, H ­ CO3, and divalent ions such as S weakly ionized species such as ­CO2, ­SiO2 have need of a variety driving force for motion and treatment. Powerfully ionized species need a lesser amount of current and their separation take place first in the flow path, and it has almost 99% done

13

13

Evaporation pond

Electrodialysis reversal distillation Freeze–thaw/evaporation

Ion exchange

Electrodialysis

Nanofiltration

Reverse osmosis

Ultrafiltration

Microfiltration

Gas flotation

Adsorption

Stripping

Maintenance and operation Cost effect with regard to the cost is 18% of the total cost chemical and calibration and pumps maintenance, a metering device is needed Not suited to the small area due – to a large stripping equipment is needed, and high investment cost Less requirement High efficiency, decrease BTEX, Longer retention time, less efficient at a high inlet comTOC, metals and oil contents position in the produced water, and low cost Energy needed Solid disposal is needed and 100% complete recovery of inefficient at a high water produced water, and runtemperature ning without a post-treatment process High recovery of freshwater, and Less efficiency when removing – compact equipment divalent ions, viruses etc., and high energy needed High recovery of freshwater, and Membrane fouling issues, and – compact equipment high energy required 0.46–0.67 kWh/bbl (seawater) Effective when removing mono- High pressure is needed for valent, and low cost contaminations separation from water Around 0.08 kWh/bbl Able to separate divalent salts at Efficiency with small solids content water a small pressure in comparison with reverse osmosis Without chemical incorporation, Inefficient at high contents, and 0.14–0.2 kWh/bbl high energy is needed possible mobile treatment, and less pretreatment Good performance in removal High cost in the large-scale 0.07 kWh/bbl of salts applications

Good performance in removal of High cost owing to extra chemi- 0.14–0.2 kWh/bbl salts from solutions cal additives – Inefficient at a high content of Zero liquid discharge is methanol, efficient below the achieved, and no high profesfreezing temperature, and sional observers required a secondary treatment Low capital investment and cost Worries about leakage of saline Using pumps to pump water into the ponds water into soils, and rivers situated nearby

Small-size equipment, 100% complete recovery, without produced waste and running pre- or post-treatment process Removal of volatile components from oily wastewater, and low capital

Energy consumption

Oxidation

Drawbacks

Advantages

Treatment

Scurtu (2009)

–

Nghiem et al. (2011) Arthur et al. (2005) Arthur et al. (2005)

3–7 year 3–7 years 4–5 years

Tuwati et al. (2011) Tuwati et al. (2011)

Tuwati et al. (2011)

Anion resin is 4–8 years; cation resins is 10–15 years 4–5 years 20 years

Long lifespan

Tuwati et al. (2011)

Igunnu and Chen (2014)

Igunnu and Chen (2014)

Minimum 7–10 years Minimum 7–10 years

Igunnu and Chen (2014)

–

According to the media type Igunnu and Chen (2014)

Igunnu and Chen (2014)

References

10 years

Life cycle

Table 6  Advantages, drawbacks, energy consumption, and life cycle of various coal seam gas produced water and oily produced treatment methods (Abousnina et al. 2015)

Environmental Chemistry Letters

well, whereas weakly ionized impurities require more current and their removal occur when water comes down (Arthur et al. 2005). Produced water and oily produced treatment technologies were compared and the findings are summarized in Table 6.

Fouling‑resistant membranes Fouling-resistant membranes are fabricated to decrease the volume of foulants which may form clogging. These types of membranes can decrease energy demands since fouling can enhance pressure during membrane separation process. When this occurs, foulants can become clogged on the membrane surface. The chemistry of fouling-resistant membranes can control charge, hydrophilicity, and roughness. They may characterize by hydrophilic, biocidal, surface chemistry, and smooth topographies which avoid foulant attachment. The fouling-resistant membrane was designed to reduce biological fouling without compromising the organic fouling resistance (Kang and Cao 2012; Rana and Matsuura 2010).

Membrane bioreactor

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, TOC total organic carbon, bbl barrel

According to the media type Fakhru’l-Razi et al. (2009), Igunnu and Chen (2014) Required minimal energy 90% efficiency when following Inefficient in removal of small the suitable pretreatment stages oil droplets below 10 μm Media filtration (sand filter)

Table 6  (continued)

Drawbacks Advantages Treatment

References Life cycle Energy consumption

Environmental Chemistry Letters

Membrane bioreactor is defined as a physical membrane process like microfiltration or ultrafiltration integrated with a biological wastewater treatment process like conventional activated sludge treatment (Mohammadi et al. 2017). The producing effluent in membrane bioreactor has a higher standard than those produced in conventional activated sludge treatment (Hai et al. 2013). In fact, the conventional activated sludge treatment improved by replacing the traditional settling basin in a conventional system with membrane filtration and in this way the settling problems in the conventional system is solved. Mixed liquor suspended solids concentrations in a conventional wastewater treatment are typically between 1500 and 5000 mg/L, where in a membrane bioreactor system lie between 10,000 and 12,000 mg/L (Bernal et al. 2002). The larger mixed liquor suspended solids loading rate and concentration leads to smaller reactor volume and footprint (Melin et al. 2006). Decreasing production of sludge, better quality of effluent, and less sensitive to peaks corresponding to contaminants are the other advantage of membrane bioreactor technology (Melin et al. 2006). The major deficiency of membrane bioreactors is costly installation and operation, the need for repeated maintaining and monitoring, and the restrictions of temperature, pressure, and pH which is required for meeting membrane tolerances (Melin et al. 2006).

13



Challenges facing membranes Membrane filtration technology is faced with two major challenges: membrane lifetime and membrane fouling. The lifetime of a polymeric membrane is directly connected to the characteristic of backbone material. The polymer is the key material employed to synthesize the polymeric membrane. To preserve the membrane performance during long time operation, cleaning methods are required. Owing to the essential cleaning methods such as backward flush, air flush, and chemical cleaning to preserve the membrane performance, the basic characteristic of polymer backbone material is necessary for a lifetime of filtration membranes. A superior backbone polymer material must have an outstanding physical characteristic such as mechanical and thermal stability and chemical characteristic such as base and acids resistance. In the membrane filtration processes, membrane fouling as major challenge occurs due to the accumulation of microorganisms, colloids, and natural organic matter during the filtration process. As fouling builds up in the membrane, the pressure drop enhances and flux reduces. Further repetitious chemical and/or physical cleaning process is required when the membrane fouls simply, and this finally reduces the lifetime of the membrane. Hence, numerous studies have been performed to develop the fouling resistance of membranes. Those researchers who have investigated membrane fouling found that it is mostly affected by the inherent hydrophobicity of the polymer backbone. The fouling resistance of membranes can be enhanced by enhancing the hydrophilicity of polymers (Kang and Cao 2012; Rana and Matsuura 2010). Numerous approaches have been presented to increase the hydrophilicity of polymers such as surface grafting, surface coating, interfacial polymerization, and polymer blending (An et al. 2011; Belfer et al. 1998; Freger et al. 2002; Geng et al. 2017; Hatakeyama et al. 2009; Kim and Lee 2006; La et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2007; Louie et al. 2006, 2011; Oh et al. 2009; Rana et al. 2011; Sarkar et al. 2010; Tarboush et al. 2008; Wei et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2017a, b; Zhao et al. 2007, 2009; Zhu et al. 2014; Zou et al. 2010, 2011). However, these approaches have numerous disadvantages. For example, in surface grafting approach, the surface of the membrane is functionalized with functional groups requiring a further stage, including redox initiation, UV photoinitiation, plasma initiation, or gamma ray initiation, which makes this method unsuitable in large-scale commercial membrane fabricating. In surface-coating approach, a skin layer of water-soluble polymers or surfactants is coated on the surface of the membrane where physical adsorption occurs. This skincoated layer is not commonly stable and can be washed

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters

away during the filtration process. Interfacial polymerization is usually performed under extremely dangerous circumstances. In the polymer-blending approach, during membrane fabrication, a second polymer such as amphiphilic polymer hydrophilic polymer and zwitterionic polymer are introduced in the polymer casting solution. In comparison with another modification approach, the polymerblending approach is easy and appropriate for large-scale commercial membrane fabricating. In polymer-blending approach, copolymers are commonly used to enhance the hydrophilicity of membranes. Numerous investigations have shown that introducing copolymers into the polymer casting solutions intensely enhances the fouling resistance and hydrophilicity of membranes fabricated by the phase inversion method. In the polymer-blending approach, amphiphilic copolymers are commonly used since the hydrophobic parts of the amphiphilic copolymer can physically attach to the polymer backbone, while the hydrophilic parts extend on the surface of the membrane to enhance the hydrophilicity of the membrane. Self-assembly is the next generation of filtration membrane preparation since it can make defect-free polymeric membranes with a uniform pore distribution and high pore density. Such membranes have outstanding molecular weight cutoffs. Both amphiphilic graft copolymer and amphiphilic block copolymer have been widely employed to enhance membranes hydrophilicity. Block copolymers dissolved in a specific amount of solvents may make micelles or other self-assembled superstructures based on: (1) composition of the block copolymer, (2) concentration, (3) the ratio of block lengths, (4) block–solvent and block–block interactions, (5) solvent selectivity and solvent composition, (6) molecular weight of the copolymer, (7) solvent evaporation time, and (8) evaporation rate. A self-assembling filtration membrane can be synthesized through the rational control of these factors. Numerous amphiphilic graft copolymers have been widely used in the membrane preparation to increase the hydrophilicity of the membrane. For example, the polyacrylonitrile–graft–polyethylene oxide can be synthesized using free radical polymerization method and used as an additive in the preparation of polyacrylonitrile/polyacrylonitrile–graft–polyethylene oxide ultrafiltration membrane (Kang et al. 2007).

Conclusion Membrane technologies for produced water treatment are overviewed in this paper and explore their advantages, disadvantages, ranges of field applicability, resulting waste

Environmental Chemistry Letters

stream and applications to coal seam gas extraction water treatment. The conventional technologies used today would be less proper in future owing to the enhancing request for water/wastewater treatment fit with the strategies of process intensification. Membrane separation processes including membrane distillation, microfiltration, nanofiltration, electrodialysis, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis reversal, and electrodeionization are already effectively competing with the other technologies and revealing promising potential in answering all the issues associated with the produced water purification. Furthermore, some other membrane separation processes including membrane reactor, membrane bioreactor and could successfully contribute to reducing environmental issues, to make the most of the probable water reuse in an enhanced water oilfield or in various industrial processes. Researches for fabricating advanced membranes for industrial applications especially in membrane distillation are in progress. The main challenge to membrane separation processes is the membrane fouling. The fouling-resistant membranes are being fabricated to solve this problem in common membranes; this know-how can be used for the treatment of the produced water.

References Abadi SRH, Sebzari MR, Hemati M, Rekabdar F, Mohammadi T (2011) Ceramic membrane performance in microfiltration of oily wastewater. Desalination 265:222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2010.07.055 Abbasi M, Mirfendereski M, Nikbakht M, Golshenas M, Mohammadi T (2010) Performance study of mullite and mullite–alumina ceramic MF membranes for oily wastewaters treatment. Desalination 259:169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.04.013 Abousnina RM, Nghiem LD, Bundschuh J (2015) Comparison between oily and coal seam gas produced water with respect to quantity, characteristics and treatment technologies: a review. Desalin Water Treat 54:1793–1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994. 2014.893541 Adriano D, Page A, Elseewi A, Chang A, Straughan I (1980) Utilization and disposal of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: a review. J Environ Qual 9:333–344. https://doi. org/10.2134/jeq1980.00472425000900030001x Alkhudhiri A, Darwish N, Hilal N (2012) Membrane distillation: a comprehensive review. Desalination 287:2–18. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.027 Altaee A, Zaragoza G, van Tonningen HR (2014) Comparison between forward osmosis-reverse osmosis and reverse osmosis processes for seawater desalination. Desalination 336:50–57. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.01.002 An Q, Li F, Ji Y, Chen H (2011) Influence of polyvinyl alcohol on the surface morphology, separation and anti-fouling performance of the composite polyamide nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 367:158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.10.060 Arthur JD, Langhus BG, Patel C (2005) Technical summary of oil and gas produced water treatment technologies. All Consulting, LLC, Tulsa ATSDR (2012) Toxic substances portal. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta

ATSDR, U. (2007) Toxicological profile for lead (Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Public Health Service). US EPA (2006) Air quality criteria for lead Azimi A, Azari A, Rezakazemi M, Ansarpour M (2017) Removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters: a review. ChemBioEng Rev 4:37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/cben.201600010 Azizi N, Rezakazemi M, Zarei MM (2017) An intelligent approach to predict gas compressibility factor using neural network model. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00521-017-2979-7 Baheri B, Shahverdi M, Rezakazemi M, Motaee E, Mohammadi T (2014) Performance of PVA/NaA mixed matrix membrane for removal of water from ethylene glycol solutions by pervaporation. Chem Eng Commun 202:316–321. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00986445.2013.841149 Baruah S, Najam Khan M, Dutta J (2016) Perspectives and applications of nanotechnology in water treatment. Environ Chem Lett 14:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-015-0542-2 Batley GE, Kookana RS (2012) Environmental issues associated with coal seam gas recovery: managing the fracking boom. Environ Chem 9:425–428. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN12136 Belfer S, Purinson Y, Kedem O (1998) Surface modification of commercial polyamide reverse osmosis membranes by radical grafting: an ATR-FTIR study. Acta Polym 49:574–582. https://doi. org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4044(199810)49:10/11<574:AIDAPOL574>3.0.CO;2-0 Beltrán JMN (1999) Irrigation with saline water: benefits and environmental impact. Agric Water Manag 40:183–194. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0378-3774(98)00120-6 Bern CR, Breit GN, Healy RW, Zupancic JW (2013) Deep subsurface drip irrigation using coal-bed sodic water: part II. Geochemistry. Agric Water Manag 118:135–149. https://doi. org/10.2175/193864702784246658 Bernal R, von Gottberg A, Mack B (2002) Using membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment for small communities. Proc Water Environ Fed 2002:515–524. https://doi. org/10.2175/193864702784246658 Bibi S, Kamran MA, Sultana J, Farooqi A (2016) Occurrence and methods to remove arsenic and fluoride contamination in water. Environ Chem Lett 15:125–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10311-016-0590-2 Biesinger M, Vining I, Shell G (1974) Industrial experience with dissolved-air flotation. In: Proceedings of the industrial waste conference (United States) Biggs AJ (2011) Groundwater salt accessions to land in the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeol J 19:719–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0714-5 Birol F (2011) World energy outlook 2011: are we entering a golden age of gas? (special report). International Energy Agency Blair D, Alexander DT, Couperthwaite SJ, Darestani M, Millar GJ (2017) Enhanced water recovery in the coal seam gas industry using a dual reverse osmosis system. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 3:278–292. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00266H Boulton AJ, Jenkins KM (1998) Flood regimes and invertebrate communities in floodplain wetlands. In: Williams WD (ed) Wetlands in a dry land: understanding for management, Australian Capital Territory: Environment Australia, Canberra, pp 137–148 Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0 Campos JC, Borges RMH, Oliveira Filho AM, Nobrega R, Sant’Anna GL Jr (2002) Oilfield wastewater treatment by combined microfiltration and biological processes. Water Res 36:95–104 Chatterjee P, Ghangrekar MM, Rao S (2016) Low efficiency of sewage treatment plants due to unskilled operations in India.

13

Environ Chem Lett 14:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10311-016-0551-9 Chen G, Lu Y, Krantz WB, Wang R, Fane AG (2014) Optimization of operating conditions for a continuous membrane distillation crystallization process with zero salty water discharge. J Membr Sci 450:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.08.034 Cheryan M, Rajagopalan N (1998) Membrane processing of oily streams. Wastewater treatment and waste reduction. J Membr Sci 151:13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00190-2 Chew CM, Aroua M, Hussain M, Ismail WW (2015) Practical performance analysis of an industrial-scale ultrafiltration membrane water treatment plant. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 46:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2014.09.013 Chian ESK, Chen JP, Sheng P-X, Ting Y-P, Wang LK (2007) Reverse osmosis technology for desalination. In: Wang LK, Hung Y-T, Shammas NK (eds) Advanced physicochemical treatment technologies. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 329–366. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-59745-173-4_6 Cho D-W, Song H, Yoon K, Kim S, Han J, Cho J (2016) Treatment of simulated coalbed methane produced water using direct contact membrane distillation. Water 8:194 Clunie P, Ryan T, James K, Cant B (2002) Implications for rivers from salinity hazards: scoping study: report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment Connell LD (2009) Coupled flow and geomechanical processes during gas production from coal seams. Int J Coal Geol 79:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2009.03.008 Cook P (2013) Life cycle of coal seam gas projects: technologies and potential impacts. Report commissioned for the independent review of coal seam gas activities in NSW by the NSW Chief Scientist: PJC International Pty Ltd Dahm KG, Guerra KL, Xu P, Drewes JRE (2011) Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region. Environ Sci Technol 45:7655–7663. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201021n Dasgupta N, Ranjan S, Ramalingam C (2017) Applications of nanotechnology in agriculture and water quality management. Environ Chem Lett 15:591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10311-017-0648-9 Davies P, Gore D (2013) Background paper on produced water and solids in relation to coal seam gas production. Prepared for the NSW office of the Chief Scientist and Engineer, Department of Environment and Geography. Macquarie University, Sydney Davies PJ, Gore DB, Khan SJ (2015) Managing produced water from coal seam gas projects: implications for an emerging industry in Australia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:10981–11000. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-015-4254-8 Davis WN, Bramblett RG, Zale AV (2010) Effects of coalbed natural gas development on fish assemblages in tributary streams of the Powder and Tongue rivers. Freshw Biol 55:2612–2625. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02480.x DNRME (2004) Coal seam gas water management study. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Brisbane Drioli E, Ali A, Macedonio F (2015) Membrane distillation: recent developments and perspectives. Desalination 356:56–84. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.028 Drioli E, Ali A, Lee YM, Al-Sharif SF, Al-Beirutty M, Macedonio F (2016) Membrane operations for produced water treatment. Desalin Water Treat 57:14317–14335. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19443994.2015.1072585 Duong HC, Chivas AR, Nelemans B, Duke M, Gray S, Cath TY, Nghiem LD (2015a) Treatment of RO brine from CSG produced water by spiral-wound air gap membrane distillation—a pilot study. Desalination 366:121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2014.10.026

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters Duong HC, Gray S, Duke M, Cath TY, Nghiem LD (2015b) Scaling control during membrane distillation of coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine. J Membr Sci 493:673–682. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.038 Duong HC, Duke M, Gray S, Nelemans B, Nghiem LD (2016) Membrane distillation and membrane electrolysis of coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine for clean water extraction and NaOH production. Desalination 397:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2016.06.024 Ezechi EH, Isa MH, Kutty SRM, Yaqub A (2014) Boron removal from produced water using electrocoagulation. Process Saf Environ Prot 92:509–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.08.003 Fakhru’l-Razi A, Pendashteh A, Abdullah LC, Biak DRA, Madaeni SS, Abidin ZZ (2009) Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. J Hazard Mater 170:530–551. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.044 Farno E, Rezakazemi M, Mohammadi T, Kasiri N (2014) Ternary gas permeation through synthesized pdms membranes: experimental and CFD simulation basedon sorption-dependent system using neural network model. Polym Eng Sci 54:215–226. https://doi. org/10.1002/pen.23555 Fasihi M, Shirazian S, Marjani A, Rezakazemi M (2012) Computational fluid dynamics simulation of transport phenomena in ceramic membranes for ­SO2 separation. Math Comput Model 56:278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2012.01.010 Fawell JK, Bailey K (2006) Fluoride in drinking-water. World Health Organization, Geneva Foroutan R, Esmaeili H, Abbasi M, Rezakazemi M, Mesbah M (2017) Adsorption behavior of Cu(II) and Co(II) using chemically modified marine algae. Environ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/09 593330.2017.1365946 Freger V, Gilron J, Belfer S (2002) TFC polyamide membranes modified by grafting of hydrophilic polymers: an FT-IR/AFM/TEM study. J Membr Sci 209:283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0376-7388(02)00356-3 Gardner N (1972) Flotation techniques applied to the treatment of effluents. Effl Water Treat J 12:82–85 Geng Z, Yang X, Boo C, Zhu S, Lu Y, Fan W, Huo M, Elimelech M, Yang X (2017) Self-cleaning anti-fouling hybrid ultrafiltration membranes via side chain grafting of poly (aryl ether sulfone) and titanium dioxide. J Membr Sci 529:1–10. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.01.043 Ghaffour N, Bundschuh J, Mahmoudi H, Goosen MFA (2015) Renewable energy-driven desalination technologies: a comprehensive review on challenges and potential applications of integrated systems. Desalination 356:94–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2014.10.024 Giagnorio M, Søtoft LF, Tiraferri A, Grüttner H (2017) Ultrafiltration to reuse laundering wash water: evaluation of membranes and permeate flux. Desalin Water Treat 62:22–30. https://doi. org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20133 Hai FI, Yamamoto K, Lee C-H (2013) Membrane biological reactors. Iwa Publishing, London Hamawand I, Yusaf T, Hamawand SG (2013) Coal seam gas and associated water: a review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 22:550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.030 Hart BT, Bailey P, Edwards R, Hortle K, James K, McMahon A, Meredith C, Swadling K (1991) A review of the salt sensitivity of the Australian freshwater biota. Hydrobiologia 210:105–144. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00014327 Hashemi F, Rowshanzamir S, Rezakazemi M (2012) CFD simulation of PEM fuel cell performance: effect of straight and serpentine flow fields. Math Comput Model 55:1540–1557. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.10.047 Hatakeyama ES, Ju H, Gabriel CJ, Lohr JL, Bara JE, Noble RD, Freeman BD, Gin DL (2009) New protein-resistant coatings for

Environmental Chemistry Letters water filtration membranes based on quaternary ammonium and phosphonium polymers. J Membr Sci 330:104–116. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.12.049 He Y, Jiang Z-W (2008) Technology review: treating oilfield wastewater. Filtr Sep 45:14–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0015-1882(08)70174-5 Hebbar RS, Isloor AM, Inamuddin, Asiri AMI (2017) Carbon nanotube- and graphene-based advanced membrane materials for desalination. Environ Chem Lett 15:643–671. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10311-017-0653-z Hickenbottom KL, Cath TY (2014) Sustainable operation of membrane distillation for enhancement of mineral recovery from hypersaline solutions. J Membr Sci 454:426–435. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.12.043 Hu J, Ma Y, Zhang L, Gan F, Ho Y-S (2010) A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on lead in drinking water field from 1991 to 2007. Sci Total Environ 408:1738–1744. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.038 Hu J, Chen Y, Zhu L, Qian Z, Chen X (2016) Production of high purity water using membrane-free electrodeionization with improved resin layer structure. Sep Purif Technol 164:89–96. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.03.027 Igunnu ET, Chen GZ (2012) Produced water treatment technologies. Int J Low Carbon Technol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts049 (cts049) Igunnu ET, Chen GZ (2014) Produced water treatment technologies. Int J Low Carbon Technol 9:157–177 Industries, N.D.o.P. (2004) Interpreting water quality test results. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange Jackson RE, Reddy K (2007) Geochemistry of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) produced water in Powder River Basin, Wyoming: salinity and sodicity. Water Air Soil Pollut 184:49–61. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9398-9 Johnston CR, Vance GF, Ganjegunte GK (2008) Irrigation with coalbed natural gas co-produced water. Agric Water Manag 95:1243– 1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.04.015 Kang G-D, Cao Y-M (2012) Development of antifouling reverse osmosis membranes for water treatment: a review. Water Res 46:584– 600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.041 Kang S, Asatekin A, Mayes AM, Elimelech M (2007) Protein antifouling mechanisms of PAN UF membranes incorporating PAN-gPEO additive. J Membr Sci 296:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2007.03.012 Karakurt I, Aydin G, Aydiner K (2011) Mine ventilation air methane as a sustainable energy source. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.030 Kawamura S (2000) Integrated design and operation of water treatment facilities. Wiley, New York Kim I-C, Lee K-H (2006) Dyeing process wastewater treatment using fouling resistant nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 192:246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2005.05.030 King L, Vance G, Ganjegunte G (2005) Saline-sodic water impacts to soils and vegetation, nd national American society of mining and reclamation symposium annual meetings, Breckenridge, CO. In: Barnhisel R (ed) Raising reclamation to new heights. Citeseer, Lexington, pp 623–625 Kinnon E, Golding S, Boreham C, Baublys K, Esterle J (2010) Stable isotope and water quality analysis of coal bed methane production waters and gases from the Bowen Basin, Australia. Int J Coal Geol 82:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2009.10.014 Kose B, Ozgun H, Ersahin ME, Dizge N, Koseoglu-Imer DY, Atay B, Kaya R, Altınbas M, Sayılı S, Hoshan P (2012) Performance evaluation of a submerged membrane bioreactor for the treatment of brackish oil and natural gas field produced water. Desalination 285:295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.016

La Y-H, McCloskey BD, Sooriyakumaran R, Vora A, Freeman B, Nassar M, Hedrick J, Nelson A, Allen R (2011) Bifunctional hydrogel coatings for water purification membranes: improved fouling resistance and antimicrobial activity. J Membr Sci 372:285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.02.005 Le NL, Nunes SP (2016) Materials and membrane technologies for water and energy sustainability. Sustain Mater Technol 7:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2016.02.001 Lee S-A, Choo K-H, Lee C-H, Lee H-I, Hyeon T, Choi W, Kwon H-H (2001) Use of ultrafiltration membranes for the separation of ­TiO2 photocatalysts in drinking water treatment. Ind Eng Chem Res 40:1712–1719. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie000738p Li X-M, Zhao B, Wang Z, Xie M, Song J, Nghiem LD, He T, Yang C, Li C, Chen G (2014) Water reclamation from shale gas drilling flow-back fluid using a novel forward osmosis–vacuum membrane distillation hybrid system. Water Sci Technol 69:1036– 1044. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.003 Liu F, Du C-H, Zhu B-K, Xu Y-Y (2007) Surface immobilization of polymer brushes onto porous poly (vinylidene fluoride) membrane by electron beam to improve the hydrophilicity and fouling resistance. Polymer 48:2910–2918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polymer.2007.03.033 Liu N, Li L, McPherson B, Lee R (2008) Removal of organics from produced water by reverse osmosis using MFI-type zeolite membranes. J Membr Sci 325:357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2008.07.056 Louie JS, Pinnau I, Ciobanu I, Ishida KP, Ng A, Reinhard M (2006) Effects of polyether–polyamide block copolymer coating on performance and fouling of reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 280:762–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.02.041 Louie JS, Pinnau I, Reinhard M (2011) Effects of surface coating process conditions on the water permeation and salt rejection properties of composite polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 367:249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2010.10.067 Malaeb L, Ayoub GM (2011) Reverse osmosis technology for water treatment: state of the art review. Desalination 267:1–8. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.09.001 Marjani A, Rezakazemi M, Shirazian S (2011) Vapor pressure prediction using group contribution method. Orient J Chem 27:1331–1335 Melián-Martel N, Sadhwani JJ, Báez SOP (2011) Saline waste disposal reuse for desalination plants for the chlor-alkali industry: the particular case of pozo izquierdo SWRO desalination plant. Desalination 281:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.07.040 Melián-Martel N, Alonso JJS, Báez SOP (2013) Reuse and management of brine in sustainable SWRO desalination plants. Desalin Water Treat 51:560–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.20 12.713567 Melin T, Jefferson B, Bixio D, Thoeye C, De Wilde W, De Koning J, van der Graaf J, Wintgens T (2006) Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and reuse. Desalination 187:271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.086 Meng Y, Tang D, Xu H, Li Y, Gao L (2014) Coalbed methane produced water in China: status and environmental issues. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:6964–6974. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-014-2675-4 Mericq J-P, Laborie S, Cabassud C (2010) Vacuum membrane distillation of seawater reverse osmosis brines. Water Res 44:5260– 5273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.052 Mesbah M, Soroush E, Rezakazemi M (2017) Development of a least squares support vector machine model for prediction of natural gas hydrate formation temperature. Chin J Chem Eng 25:1238– 1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2016.09.007 Millar GJ, Couperthwaite SJ, Moodliar CD (2016) Strategies for the management and treatment of coal seam gas associated

13

water. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 57:669–691. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.087 Mohammadi T, Maghami M, Rezakazemi M (2017) High loaded synthetic hazardous wastewater treatment using lab-scale submerged ceramic membrane bioreactor. Period Polytech Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPch.11459.10.3311/PPch.11459 Monckton DC (2016) Beneficial use of coal seam water and enterprise transition for case study farms, Chinchilla District. University of Queensland, Brisbane. https://doi.org/10.14264/ uql.2017.358 Mondal S, Wickramasinghe SR (2008) Produced water treatment by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 322:162–170. ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.039 Mondal S, Hsiao CL, Ranil Wickramasinghe S (2008) Nanofiltration/ reverse osmosis for treatment of coproduced waters. Environ Prog 27:173–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10271 Mueller J, Cen Y, Davis RH (1997) Crossflow microfiltration of oily water. J Membr Sci 129:221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0376-7388(96)00344-4 Muhammad A, Younas M, Rezakazemi M (2017) Quasi-dynamic modeling of dispersion-free extraction of aroma compounds using hollow fiber membrane contactor. Chem Eng Res Des 127:52– 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2017.09.007 Navi M, Skelly C, Taulis M, Nasiri S (2015) Coal seam gas water: potential hazards and exposure pathways in Queensland. Int J Environ Health Res 25:162–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960 3123.2014.915018 Nghiem LD, Ren T, Aziz N, Porter I, Regmi G (2011) Treatment of coal seam gas produced water for beneficial use in Australia: a review of best practices. Desalin Water Treat 32:316–323. https:// doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2716 Nghiem LD, Elters C, Simon A, Tatsuya T, Price W (2015) Coal seam gas produced water treatment by ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and multi-effect distillation: a pilot study. Sep Purif Technol 146:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.03.022 Oh SJ, Kim N, Lee YT (2009) Preparation and characterization of PVDF/TiO 2 organic–inorganic composite membranes for fouling resistance improvement. J Membr Sci 345:13–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.08.003 Orem WH, Tatu CA, Lerch HE, Rice CA, Bartos TT, Bates AL, Tewalt S, Corum MD (2007) Organic compounds in produced waters from coalbed natural gas wells in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA. Appl Geochem 22:2240–2256. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.04.010 Pabby AK, Rizvi SS, Requena AMS (2015) Handbook of membrane separations: chemical, pharmaceutical, food, and biotechnological applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton Pankaj S, Sajikumar N, Kaimal R (2016) Simulation of forward osmosis using CFD. Procedia Technol 24:70–76. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.011 Plumlee MH, Debroux J-F, Taffler D, Graydon JW, Mayer X, Dahm KG, Hancock NT, Guerra KL, Xu P, Drewes JE (2014) Coalbed methane produced water screening tool for treatment technology and beneficial use. J Unconv Oil Gas Resour 5:22–34. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.juogr.2013.12.002 Quansah R, Armah FA, Essumang DK, Luginaah I, Clarke E, Marfoh K, Cobbina SJ, Nketiah-Amponsah E, Namujju PB, Obiri S, Dzodzomenyo M (2015) Association of arsenic with adverse pregnancy outcomes/infant mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 123:412–421. https://doi. org/10.1289/ehp.1307894 Rana D, Matsuura T (2010) Surface modifications for antifouling membranes. Chem Rev 110:2448–2471. https://doi.org/10.1021/ cr800208y Rana D, Kim Y, Matsuura T, Arafat HA (2011) Development of antifouling thin-film-composite membranes for

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters seawater desalination. J Membr Sci 367:110–118. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.10.050 Raoufi N, Asadollahzadeh M, Rezakazemi M, Shirazian S (2017) Investigations on ethanol purification using polymeric membranes by pervaporation process. Chem Eng Technol. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201700303 Razavi SMR, Rezakazemi M, Albadarin AB, Shirazian S (2016) Simulation of CO 2 absorption by solution of ammonium ionic liquid in hollow-fiber contactors. Chem Eng Process 108:27–34. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2016.07.001 Reyhani A, Rekabdar F, Hemmati M, SafeKordi AA, Ahmadi M (2013) Optimization of conditions in ultrafiltration treatment of produced water by polymeric membrane using Taguchi approach. Desalin Water Treat 51:7499–7508. https://doi.org/10.1080/194 43994.2013.776505 Rezakazemi M, Mohammadi T (2013) Gas sorption in H ­ 2-selective mixed matrix membranes: experimental and neural network modeling. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:14035–14041. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.08.062 Rezakazemi M, Niazi Z, Mirfendereski M, Shirazian S, Mohammadi T, Pak A (2011a) CFD simulation of natural gas sweetening in a gas–liquid hollow-fiber membrane contactor. Chem Eng J 168:1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.02.019 Rezakazemi M, Razavi S, Mohammadi T, Nazari AG (2011b) Simulation and determination of optimum conditions of pervaporative dehydration of isopropanol process using synthesized PVA– APTEOS/TEOS nanocomposite membranes by means of expert systems. J Membr Sci 379:224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2011.05.070 Rezakazemi M, Shahverdi M, Shirazian S, Mohammadi T, Pak A (2011c) CFD simulation of water removal from water/ethylene glycol mixtures by pervaporation. Chem Eng J 168:60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.12.034 Rezakazemi M, Shahidi K, Mohammadi T (2012a) Hydrogen separation and purification using crosslinkable PDMS/zeolite A nanoparticles mixed matrix membranes. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:14576–14589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.06.104 Rezakazemi M, Shahidi K, Mohammadi T (2012b) Sorption properties of hydrogen-selective PDMS/zeolite 4A mixed matrix membrane. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:17275–17284. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.109 Rezakazemi M, Shirazian S, Ashrafizadeh SN (2012c) Simulation of ammonia removal from industrial wastewater streams by means of a hollow-fiber membrane contactor. Desalination 285:383– 392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.030 Rezakazemi M, Ghafarinazari A, Shirazian S, Khoshsima A (2013a) Numerical modeling and optimization of wastewater treatment using porous polymeric membranes. Polym Eng Sci 53:1272– 1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.23375 Rezakazemi M, Iravaninia M, Shirazian S, Mohammadi T (2013b) Transient computational fluid dynamics modeling of pervaporation separation of aromatic/aliphatic hydrocarbon mixtures using polymer composite membrane. Polym Eng Sci 53:1494–1501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.23410 Rezakazemi M, Marjani A, Shirazian S (2013c) Development of a group contribution method based on UNIFAC groups for the estimation of vapor pressures of pure hydrocarbon compounds. Chem Eng Technol 36:483–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ceat.201200422 Rezakazemi M, Ebadi Amooghin A, Montazer-Rahmati MM, Ismail AF, Matsuura T (2014a) State-of-the-art membrane based C ­ O2 separation using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): an overview on current status and future directions. Prog Polym Sci 39:817–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.01.003 Rezakazemi M, Shahidi K, Mohammadi T (2014b) Synthetic PDMS composite membranes for pervaporation dehydration of ethanol.

Environmental Chemistry Letters Desalin Water Treat 54:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994. 2014.887036 Rezakazemi M, Vatani A, Mohammadi T (2015) Synergistic interactions between POSS and fumed silica and their effect on the properties of crosslinked PDMS nanocomposite membranes. RSC Adv 5:82460–82470. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra13609a Rezakazemi M, Vatani A, Mohammadi T (2016) Synthesis and gas transport properties of crosslinked poly(dimethylsiloxane) nanocomposite membranes using octatrimethylsiloxy POSS nanoparticles. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 30:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jngse.2016.01.033 Rezakazemi M, Dashti A, Asghari M, Shirazian S (2017a) H 2 -selective mixed matrix membranes modeling using ANFIS, PSOANFIS, GA-ANFIS. Int J Hydrog Energy 42:15211–15225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.04.044 Rezakazemi M, Heydari I, Zhang Z (2017b) Hybrid systems: combining membrane and absorption technologies leads to more efficient acid gases (CO 2 and H 2 S) removal from natural gas. J CO2 Util 18:362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2017.02.006 Rezakazemi M, Mirzaei S, Asghari M, Ivakpour J (2017c) Aluminum oxide nanoparticles for highly efficient asphaltene separation from crude oil using ceramic membrane technology. Oil Gas Sci Technol Rev IFP Energies Nouv 72:34. https://doi.org/10.2516/ ogst/2017031 Rezakazemi M, Sadrzadeh M, Mohammadi T, Matsuura T (2017d) Methods for the preparation of organic–inorganic nanocomposite polymer electrolyte membranes for fuel cells. In: Inamuddin D, Mohammad A, Asiri AM (eds) Organic–inorganic composite polymer electrolyte membranes. Springer, Cham, pp 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52739-0_11 Rezakazemi M, Sadrzadeh M, Matsuura T (2018a) Thermally stable polymers for advanced high-performance gas separation membranes. Prog Energy Combust Sci 66:1–41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017.11.002 Rezakazemi M, Sadrzadeh M, Mohammadi T (2018b) Separation via pervaporation techniques through polymeric membranes. In: Wilson R, Thomas S, Kumar A, George SC (eds) Transport properties of polymeric membranes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809884-4.00013-6 Rocha-Amador D, Navarro ME, Carrizales L, Morales R, Calderon J (2007) Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de saude publica 23(Suppl 4):S579–S587 Rostamizadeh M, Rezakazemi M, Shahidi K, Mohammadi T (2013) Gas permeation through ­H2-selective mixed matrix membranes: experimental and neural network modeling. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.069 Sadrzadeh M, Rezakazemi M, Mohammadi T (2018) Fundamentals and measurement techniques for gas transport in polymers. In: Wilson R, Thomas S, Kumar A, George SC (eds) Transport properties of polymeric membranes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 391–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809884-4.00019-7 Sajjad M, Rasul MG, Amir MSII (2015) A case study on management of coal seam gas by-product water. Int J Chem Mol Nucl Mater Metall Eng Turk World Acad Sci Eng Technol 9:274–278 Salih HH, Wang L, Patel V, Namboodiri V, Rajagopalan K (2015) The utilization of forward osmosis for coal tailings dewatering. Miner Eng 81:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2015.07.024 Sarkar A, Carver PI, Zhang T, Merrington A, Bruza KJ, Rousseau JL, Keinath SE, Dvornic PR (2010) Dendrimer-based coatings for surface modification of polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 349:421–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2009.12.005 Savari S, Sachdeva S, Kumar A (2008) Electrolysis of sodium chloride using composite poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene) cation

exchange membranes. J Membr Sci 310:246–261. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.10.049 Schinteie R, Pinetown K, Douglas G, Sestak S (2015) Literature review of dissolved hydrocarbons in groundwater with emphasis on the Australian Surat and Bowen basins,  A report to: GISERA – Gas Industry Social & Environmental Research Alliance. https:// gisera.csiro.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/GISERA-Hydrocarbons-Lit-Review-2015.pdf Scurtu CT (2009) Treatment of produced water: targeting dissolved compounds to meet a zero harmful discharge in oil and gas production. Doctoral thesis in hydraulic and environmental engineering at NTNU, ​Permanent Link: http://hdl.handle. net/11250/242090 Shaffer DL, Arias Chavez LH, Ben-Sasson M, Romero-Vargas Castrillón S, Yip NY, Elimelech M (2013) Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environ Sci Technol 47:9569–9583. https://doi. org/10.1021/es401966e Shahverdi M, Baheri B, Rezakazemi M, Motaee E, Mohammadi T (2013) Pervaporation study of ethylene glycol dehydration through synthesized (PVA-4A)/polypropylene mixed matrix composite membranes. Polym Eng Sci 53:1487–1493. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pen.23406 Shirazian S, Marjani A, Rezakazemi M (2011) Separation of CO2 by single and mixed aqueous amine solvents in membrane contactors: fluid flow and mass transfer modeling. Eng Comput 28:189– 198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-011-0237-7 Shirazian S, Pishnamazi M, Rezakazemi M, Nouri A, Jafari M, Noroozi S, Marjani A (2012a) Implementation of the finite element method for simulation of mass transfer in membrane contactors. Chem Eng Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201100397 Shirazian S, Rezakazemi M, Marjani A, Moradi S (2012b) Hydrodynamics and mass transfer simulation of wastewater treatment in membrane reactors. Desalination 286:290–295. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.11.039 Shirazian S, Rezakazemi M, Marjani A, Rafivahid MS (2012c) Development of a mass transfer model for simulation of sulfur dioxide removal in ceramic membrane contactors. Asia Pac J Chem Eng 7:828–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.641 Shon H, Phuntsho S, Chaudhary D, Vigneswaran S, Cho J (2013) Nanofiltration for water and wastewater treatment-a mini review. Drink Water Eng Sci 6:47–53. https://doi.org/10.5194/ dwes-6-47-2013 Simon A, Fujioka T, Price WE, Nghiem LD (2014) Sodium hydroxide production from sodium carbonate and bicarbonate solutions using membrane electrolysis: a feasibility study. Sep Purif Technol 127:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2014.02.020 Simpson A, Kerr C, Buckley C (1987) The effect of pH on the nanofiltration of the carbonate system in solution. Desalination 64:305– 319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(87)90104-4 Soroush E, Shahsavari S, Mesbah M, Rezakazemi M, Zhang Z (2017) A robust predictive tool for estimating CO 2 solubility in potassium based amino acid salt solutions. Chin J Chem Eng. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.10.002 Swayne N (2012) Regulating coal seam gas in Queensland: lessons in an adaptive environmental management approach? Environ Plan Law J 29:163–185 Tarboush BJA, Rana D, Matsuura T, Arafat H, Narbaitz R (2008) Preparation of thin-film-composite polyamide membranes for desalination using novel hydrophilic surface modifying macromolecules. J Membr Sci 325:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2008.07.037 Téllez D, Lom H, Chargoy P, Rosas L, Mendoza M, Coatl M, Macías N, Reyes R (2009) Evaluation of technologies for a desalination operation and disposal in the Tularosa Basin, New

13

Mexico. Desalination 249:983–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2009.06.057 Thiruvenkatachari R, Francis M, Cunnington M, Su S (2016) Application of integrated forward and reverse osmosis for coal mine wastewater desalination. Sep Purif Technol 163:181–188. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.02.034 Tuwati AMA, Fan M, Bentley MA (2011) Reaction kinetic model for a recent co-produced water treatment technology. J Environ Sci 23:360–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60463-9 Van Der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C, Van Gestel T, Doyen W, Leysen R (2003) A review of pressure-driven membrane processes in wastewater treatment and drinking water production. Environ Prog 22:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670220116 Van der Zee S, Shah S, Van Uffelen C, Raats PA, Dal Ferro N (2010) Soil sodicity as a result of periodical drought. Agric Water Manag 97:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.009 Vance GF, King LA, Ganjegunte GK (2008) Soil and plant responses from land application of saline–sodic waters: implications of management. J Environ Qual 37:S-139–S-148. https://doi. org/10.2134/jeq2007.0442 Veil JA, Puder MG, Elcock D, Redweik RJ Jr (2004) A white paper describing produced water from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Argonne National Lab., Lemont Wei X, Wang Z, Zhang Z, Wang J, Wang S (2010) Surface modification of commercial aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes by graft polymerization of 3-allyl-5, 5-dimethylhydantoin. J Membr Sci 351:222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. memsci.2010.01.054 WHO (2003) Benzene in drinking-water. World Health Organisation, Geneva WHO (2011) Lead in drinking-water. World Health Organization, Geneva Wilbur S, Keith S, Obaid F, Wohlers D, Stickney J, Diamond G, Quiñones-Rivera A (2007) Toxicological profile for benzene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Williams J, Milligan A, Stubbs T (2013) Coal seam gas production: challenges and opportunities. http://wentworthgroup.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/BREE_Coal-seam-gas-production_ WILLIAMS-etal-.pdf Xia S, Nan J, Liu R, Li G (2004) Study of drinking water treatment by ultrafiltration of surface water and its application to China. Desalination 170:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.03.014 Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2013) A forward osmosis-membrane distillation hybrid process for direct sewer mining: system performance and limitations. Environ Sci Technol 47:13486–13493. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404056e Xu P, Drewes JE, Heil D (2008) Beneficial use of co-produced water through membrane treatment: technical-economic

13

Environmental Chemistry Letters assessment. Desalination 225:139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. desal.2007.04.093 Xue X-Y, Cheng R, Shi L, Ma Z, Zheng X (2016) Nanomaterials for water pollution monitoring and remediation. Environ Chem Lett 15:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-016-0595-x Yu S, Lü Z, Chen Z, Liu X, Liu M, Gao C (2011) Surface modification of thin-film composite polyamide reverse osmosis membranes by coating N-isopropylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid copolymers for improved membrane properties. J Membr Sci 371:293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.01.059 Zhang ZE, Yan YF, Zhang L, Ju SX (2014) Hollow fiber membrane contactor absorption of CO2 from the flue gas: review and perspective. Glob NEST J 16:354–373 Zhang Y, Wan Y, Pan G, Shi H, Yan H, Xu J, Guo M, Wang Z, Liu Y (2017a) Surface modification of polyamide reverse osmosis membrane with sulfonated polyvinyl alcohol for antifouling. Appl Surf Sci 419:177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsusc.2017.05.047 Zhang Y, Wan Y, Pan G, Yan H, Yao X, Shi H, Tang Y, Wei X, Liu Y (2017b) Surface modification of polyamide reverse osmosis membrane with organic-inorganic hybrid material for antifouling. Appl Surf Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.10.043 Zhang Z, Chen F, Rezakazemi M, Zhang W, Lu C, Chang H, Quan X (2017c) Modeling of a CO2-piperazine-membrane absorption system. Chem Eng Res Des. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cherd.2017.11.024 Zhao Y-H, Zhu B-K, Kong L, Xu Y-Y (2007) Improving hydrophilicity and protein resistance of poly (vinylidene fluoride) membranes by blending with amphiphilic hyperbranched-star polymer. Langmuir 23:5779–5786. https://doi.org/10.1021/la070139o Zhou Y, Yu S, Gao C, Feng X (2009) Surface modification of thin film composite polyamide membranes by electrostatic self deposition of polycations for improved fouling resistance. Sep Purif Technol 66:287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2008.12.021 Zhu L-J, Zhu L-P, Jiang J-H, Yi Z, Zhao Y-F, Zhu B-K, Xu Y-Y (2014) Hydrophilic and anti-fouling polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes with poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) grafted silica nanoparticles as additive. J Membr Sci 451:157–168. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.053 Zou H, Jin Y, Yang J, Dai H, Yu X, Xu J (2010) Synthesis and characterization of thin film composite reverse osmosis membranes via novel interfacial polymerization approach. Sep Purif Technol 72:256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2010.01.019 Zou L, Vidalis I, Steele D, Michelmore A, Low S, Verberk J (2011) Surface hydrophilic modification of RO membranes by plasma polymerization for low organic fouling. J Membr Sci 369:420– 428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.12.023