Removal of fluorinated surfactants by reverse osmosis – Role of surfactants in membrane fouling

Aquatic hazard, bioaccumulation and screening risk assessment for 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

“…Future studies are needed to elucidate the biotic and abiotic fate of commercial AFFF surfactants in the environment. Finally, efforts should continue to develop commercial systems that can be used in the field that enable AFFF capture after deployment for either destruction or reuse (Baudequin et al, 2014).…”

The performance of forward osmosis process in treating the surfactant wastewater: The rejection of surfactant, water flux and physical cleaning effectiveness

“…The SDBS was efficiently removed by the TFC-FO membrane with rejection higher than 99.77%. It had been reported that the surfactant removal efficiency was less than 80% for the UF membrane, but higher than 99.75% for the RO membrane by the previous papers [5,6]. It indicated that the both FO and RO processes had much higher SDBS rejection than the UF process.…”

“…However, many traditional membrane processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF) and ultrafiltration (UF), suffer from high energy consumption and severe membrane fouling. These factors significantly shorten the membrane life, increase the maintenance cost and energy consumption of membrane operation, and thus hinder the efficient application [4][5][6].…”

Influence of bulk concentration on the organisation of molecules at a membrane surface and flux decline during reverse osmosis of an anionic surfactant

“…Membrane technology stands out as being environment-friendly and easy to operate, and requiring no added chemicals. The best retention of surfactants has been achieved by the RO process [4,5], although surfactant adsorption on the active layer of the membranes led to folding and thus penetration (i.e. partitions) inside the membrane of this, as other trace organics, and some weak leakage [6].…”