REVIEW ON THE FACTORS AFFECTING ULTRAFILTRATION HOLLOW

FIBER MEMBRANE OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN WATER TREATMENT

Rosdianah Ramli1, Nurmin Bolong1*, Abu Zahrim Yasser2
1

Nano Engineering and Materials Research Group (NEMs),

School Of Engineering and Information Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah. MALAYSIA
2
Chemical Engineering Programme,
School Of Engineering and Information Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah. MALAYSIA
email: nurmin@ums.edu.my; rdeana2002@gmail.com

ABSTRACT. Ultrafiltration has been applied in the water treatment system since the last twenty
years. Among the membrane modules available, compact and self-supporting hollow fiber membrane
has been widely used as ultrafiltration membrane configuration. In this paper, the factors that have
influence on ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane are reviewed. The highlight is on the operational
performance of the membrane. The factors are primarily membrane material, backwashing and pretreatment, as well as transmembrane pressure (TMP) and permeate flux. These factors are important
as points of reference when evaluating the operational performance of the ultrafiltration hollow fiber
membrane. Thus, enable appropriate and better judgement in selecting water treatment system.
Keywords- Water treatment, membrane processes, Ultrafiltration (UF), Hollow fiber membrane

INTRODUCTION
In membrane processes, the success of any separation system involving membrane depends on the
quality and suitability of the membrane incorporated in the system. Conventionally, water has been
treated primarily using physical-chemical treatment such as sand filtration, disinfection i.e.
chlorination and coagulation-flocculation via sedimentation process. Not only these conventional
methods required large area of operations that would require high operational cost, but may also be
incapable to treat several persistence pollutants (Kuch and Ballschmiter, 2001, Bolong et al, 2009a).
Membrane processes are becoming more popular in water treatment because the processes can
disinfect water without chemical additions and avoid the formation of toxic disinfection by-products
(Rana et al., 2005). Not only that, membrane technology has received more interest in recent years
due to stringent standard for water supply and effluent discharge. With its advantages such as small
operation area, high filtration efficiency as well as direct operational handling, membrane emerged as
a favourable filter media for water treatment system. However, the limitation such as membrane

fouling and operational life would be other factors to be considered. Further explanations of the
disadvantages were also discussed in the latter section of this paper.
The main configurations of polymeric membranes can be group as flat, spiral wound, tubular and
hollow fiber. Hollow fiber membrane configuration has the advantage of compact design with very
high membrane surface areas (Baker, 2004). Furthermore, hollow fiber configuration in water
treatment and reuse is favourable due to its large membrane area per unit volume of membrane
module. Hence, resulting in higher productivity, mechanically self-support which can be backwash for
liquid separation to provide good flexibility as well as easy handling during module fabrication and in
the operation (Chung et al., 2001). Many studies investigate on how to improve the filtration
behaviour of hollow fiber membranes to optimize its filtration performance. From many studies
conducted, it was found that the general filtration behaviour of hollow fiber membranes is
characterized by treatment operational such as time-dependent non-uniform distribution of
transmembrane pressure, flux, and filtration resistance along the fiber due to lumen-side pressure drop
induced by permeate flow (Chang et al., 2008). In choosing the right configuration for a water
treatment system, the module may be tested and evaluated first. For example, Groendijk and de Vries
(2009) tested three types of membrane configurations by evaluating the fouling behaviour of each
membrane before selecting the suitable membrane for their water treatment system.
It is understood that the membrane configuration would be the main important factors in most of these
work. However membrane performance in a complete water treatment system is also affected on the
operational and system design to achieve optimum operating condition. The optimal design
configuration of both affecting factors said at suitable operation is required to be evaluated as well,
which relies on the effective treatment (aiming for the required water quality/ contaminant removal)
and at the lowest overall cost. The issue of the ability in providing a system that moveable water
treatment which can be easily transported and relocated for off-site water treatment operation or
during water emergencies and may be extended for water reuse application especially at rural or
island users would be beneficial to be explored.
In spite of other type of membrane processes, this paper focuses on ultrafiltration membrane process.
Ultrafiltration has been recognized as one of the most applied process in water treatment system due

to its low pressure process thus requiring less energy and has less economic cost. Therefore, to
identify filtration performance from this process concentrating on the hollow fiber membrane
application, it is best to understand and analyse the factors that may affect the performance of the
ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane; which is reviewed in this paper.
MEMBRANE PROCESSES
Membrane processes are categorized based on the driving force such as pressure (Drioli and
Macedonio, 2012), temperature and osmotic differences across the membrane (Mukiibi and Feathers,
2009; Fane et al., 2011; Peter-Varbanets et al., 2009). In the water treatment especially for drinking
water purposes, pressure-driven membranes are used (Bruggen et al., 2003). The pressure-driven
membranes are categorized into four classes according to the separation process, namely,
microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO). The two
former are low pressure processes (Guo et al., 2010) while the latters are high pressure processes.
Table 1 below summarized (Ozaki, 2004, Bruggen et al., 2003; Baker, 2004; Fane et al., 2008).).
Table 1 Classification of membrane processes in water separations
Particulars
Pore size
Retain
particulates
(MW)
Applied pressure
Main
applications

Microfiltration
(MF)
10nm~1m
>300,000

Ultrafiltration
(UF)
3~10nm
1,000~300,000

0.005~0.2 MPa
Removal of
particles and
bacteria, pretreatment for RO
and UF

0.01~0.3 MPa
Drinking water
production, fruit
juice clarification,
home water
purifiers

Nanofiltration
(NF)
2~5nm
>150
0.3~1.5 MPa
Removal of
micropollutants,
desalination of
brackish water,
concentration of
chemicals

Reverse Osmosis
(RO)
Not detectable
<350
1~10MPa
Desalination of
brackish and
seawater.
Production of
ultrapure water.

Based on its contaminant removal efficiency, Mierzwa et al. (2008) had proven that UF membrane
has a high potential drinking water. This is statement has been supported by Guo et al. (2010) and
Peter-Varbanets et al. (2010).

ADVANTAGES & LIMITATIONS OF MEMBRANE PROCESSES

As mentioned previously, there are many advantages that favours membrane processes over the
conventional methods. The tabulated advantages and disadvantages of membrane processes are given
in Table 2.
Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Membrane Process
Membrane process application
Advantages
Superior and consistent high quality permeate water
Capable of removing wider range of substances
Easy automation (operation) and maintenance
Less or no usage of chemicals
Much compacted system (33% less space occupied)
Low energy requirements (microfiltration and
ultrafiltration)
Disadvantages Membrane fouling
Membrane integrity failure
chemical corrosion such as oxidation
faulty installation and maintenance
membrane stress and strain from operating
conditions, such as backwashing or excessive
movement due to vigorous bubbling
Damage by sharp objects not removed by pretreatment.

Reference
Nakatsuka et al., 1996;
Bodzek and Konieczny,
1998a; Rahman et al.,
2008;
Guo et al., 2009;
Rahman et al., 2012
Nakatsuka et al., 1996;
Lenntech, 2011
Childress et al., (2005)
Guo et al. (2010)

The utmost limitation for membrane is fouling (Nakatsuka et al., 1996; Lenntech,2011). From the
Water and Wastewater Engineering book by Davis (2010), fouling is defined as the gradual decrease
in permeate water flux at constant pressure. While fouling is a problem for membrane processes
because it lessens the performance, thus the productivity of the membrane (Nicolaisen, 2002). Vos at
al. (1998) stated that fouling such as rapid fouling has causes unstable flux of the membrane to the
point that the water recovery to be less than 80%. Peter-Varbanets et al. (2010) mentioned how
fouling can occur; due to membrane adsorption (membrane hydrophobicity), pore blocking, cake
layer formation (Nicolaisen, 2002) and precipitation or biofilm formation (bio fouling). Nicolaisen
(2002) added particles in raw water as the fouling source.
Other limitation of membrane is membrane integrity failure. This is crucial for hollow fiber
membranes that are self-supporting. Childress et al. (2005) has given an example; when high pressure
is applied to a hollow fiber membrane with low modulus of elasticity, the fiber may break because it
is unable to withstand the pressure. All the advantages and disadvantages mentioned and discussed

above may also be dependent on the type of membrane configuration used in the system as shown in
Table 3 (Bolong, (2009b).
Table 3 Polymeric membrane configurations (advantages and disadvantages)
Configuration
(Area: Volume)
(m2 : m3)
Plate and frame (also
known as flat sheet)
(400 600)
Spiral wound
(800 1,000)

Packing Density

Advantages

Disadvantages

Moderate

Can be dismantled for

cleaning

High

Tubular
(20 30)

Low

Hollow fiber
(5,000 40,000)

Very high

Low energy cost,

robust and compact,
low cost fabrication
Easily mechanically
cleaned, good solid
handling, tolerant of
high suspended solid
Can be backwashed,
compact design,
tolerant to high
colloidal levels

Complicated design
Cannot be backwash
and high cost
Not easily cleaned
cannot be backwashed,
poor handling solids
High capital and
membrane replacement
cost
Sensitive to pressure
shocks

APPLICATION OF ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANE IN MOVABLE WATER

TREATMENT SYSTEM
As mentioned in earlier section, ultrafiltration is has been recognized as one of the most applied
process in water treatment system. It provides an absolute barrier to particles, bacteria, high molecular
weight organic molecules, emulsified oils and colloids. Removal of chlorine-resistant pathogens and
their spores, such as Cryptosporidium from water supply is also possible (Kajitvichyanukul et al.,
2011).
Since the focus of this paper is primarily on ultrafiltration process, specifically on easily-transport
water treatment system; Table 4 simplifies several examples of applications of ultrafiltration
membrane in water treatment in the past years. Included is an inorganic (non-polymeric) membrane
which is ceramic. From the table, it can be seen that the efficiency of membrane ultrafiltration is very
good. From water treatment plant to portable water treatment device, the membrane filtration system
works properly and has high contaminants removal efficiency. Commercial portable water filters that
apply membrane as its filtering media are also included. These commercial portable water filters
(Katadyn Mini Ceramic, Sawyer PointONE Filterand LifeStraw) have been regularly used and

received many good reviews from its users (eartheasy, 2011; thebackpacker.com, 2011; HikeLighter,
2012).
Table 4 Membrane application in water treatment (movable and easily transport) system
Types of water
Membrane used
treatment system
UF membrane filtration Cellulose acetate Hollow
fiber membrane
(MWCO >150kDa)
Katadyn Mini Ceramica 0.2 m ceramic
Ag-impregnated
Sawyer PointONE
U-shaped 0.1 Micron
a
Filter
Absolute Micron Hollow
Fiber Membrane
Mobile water maker
40 nm Ceramic Tubular

Direct drinking water

Thin Film Spiral wound

(MWCO 3.5 kDa)

AQUAPOT

Polyethersulfone (PES)
hollow fiber (MWCO
150 kDa),
Polysulfone (PS) spiral
wound (MWCO 100
kDa)
20 nm UF hollow fiber
membrane

LifeStrawa

Transportable UF
system
Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment
UF for surface water

4 modules (18 m2) of

UF hollow fiber
(MWCO 100 kDa)
Three 8 40 hollow
fiber membrane UF
modules
Polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) hollow fiber
membrane
(MWCO 80 kDa)

Removal efficiency

Reference

Turbidity: 100%
TOC: 100%
E. Coli: 100%
Fe: 98.9%
Mn: 77.8%
1.7 4.9 LRV*

(Oe et al., 1996)

(Katadyn, 2011; Loo

et al., 2012)
parasites: (Sawyer, 2005)

Protozoan
>99.99%
Bacteria: >99.99%
Turbidity: >99.8%
TOC: 31.5%
E. Coli: >99.8%
Fe: >99.3%
Mn: >99.3%
Turbidity: 94.96%
TOC: 85.27%
E. Coli: 100%
Fe: 50%
Mn: 50%
Turbidity: 53.6%
Total Coliforms: 100%
Thermotolerants
Coliforms: 100%
Colour(average): 39.5%

(Groendijk and
Vries, 2009)

de

(Mierzwa et al., 2008)

(Arnal et al., 2001);

(Arnal et al., 2008);
(Arnal et al., 2010)

Turbidity: 53.6%
E. Coli: 7.3 LRV
Cryptosporidium:
3.9 LRV
N/A

(VestergaardFrandsen,
2010)

Turbidity: ~99.9%
Iron: ~99.9%
Phosphate: 66.7%

(Hofman et al., 1998)

Turbidity: 100%
Bacteria: 100%
Coliform: 100%
Natural Organic Matter:
20 40 %
a
refers to commercial portable water filters that are available in the market.
LRV is log removal value
N/A: information not available

(Barbot et al., 2009)

(Guo et al., 2009)

For UF water treatment application, hollow fiber is the most commonly used membrane configuration
(Kennedy et al., 2008) and it is also shown from Table 4. Furthermore, Mierzwa et al. (2008) found
that the required pressure for maintaining a certain flux for hollow fiber membrane is much lower
than that for spiral wound membrane.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF HOLLOW FIBER MEMBRANE IN
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
The performance of hollow fiber membrane as the filter media in water treatment system can be
influenced by several factors. Generally, the factors may be classified as shown in Figure 1 (Bolong,
(2009b)).

Factors influencing pollutants

separation in membrane process

Physical-chemical
properties of the
compound

Membrane properties

Membrane operating
conditions

Molecular size

Permeability

Flux

Solubility

Pore size

Diffusivity

Hydrophobicity

Transmembrane
pressure

Polarity

Surface charge

Hydrophobicity

Compound

Rejections/recover
y
Raw water quality

Figure 1 Factors influencing in membrane separation performance (adapted from: Bolong

2009a)
However in this paper, factors such as membrane material (polymer), permeate flux and
transmembrane pressure, pre-treatment of raw water before membrane filtration, backwashing and
chemical cleaning; were highlighted in this paper as they are the operating conditions that can be set
before the operation of membrane filtration system.

Membrane material (polymer)

Hollow fiber membranes mostly are made of polymeric materials due to ease of fabrication. UF
membranes are usually prepared by phase-inversion process and have an asymmetric porous structure
(Fane et al., 2008). Most common polymers used are cellulose acetate (CA), polysulfone (PS),
polyether sulfone (PES), polyvinylidenedifluoride (PVDF) and polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (Wagner,
2001; Fane et al., 2008). Choosing the right material is essential and dependent on the applications
and the operating conditions of the hollow fiber membrane. During the first decades of membrane,
CA was the main membrane material. But having low chemical and thermal stabilities as well as
narrow pH tolerance range had it substituted with other polymers (or sometimes polymer blends) to
produce UF membranes (Fane et al., 2008). These polymers such as PS and PVDF have wider range
of pH and resistant to temperature and chlorine attack.
Guo et al. (2009) used polyvinylchloride (PVC) as the polymer for the hollow fiber membrane that
was used in surface water treatment (as shown in Table 1). An advantage of PVC membrane is its
resistant to free chlorine compared to the common polysulfone membrane. This advantage is
important in terms of chemical cleaning because it can reduce membrane biofouling phenomena.
Nakatsuka et al. (1996) had shown in their study the comparison between two hollow fiber
membranes, same configuration but with different polymer. The study resulted on the CA membrane
had higher fouling resistance that PES membrane, thus making it easier to be backwashed. This was
due to the hydrophilic characteristic of CA membrane while PES membrane is hydrophobic.
Therefore, Nakatsuka et al. (1996) concluded that UF hollow fiber membrane water treatment
performance is strongly depending on the membrane polymer. This is supported by Bodzek and
Konieczny (1998b) that found that the removal efficiency of a membrane is depending on the
membranes polymer. This is because the hydrophobicity characteristic of the polymer will affect the
water contact between the membrane and the raw water. The higher the hydrophobicity of membrane,
the higher will the fouling tendency of the membrane is.

Therefore, membrane material (polymer or polymer blends) is important to determine the membrane
resistant to fouling. The membrane material will also determine whether the membrane can be
chemically clean by its range of chemical resistant characteristic or not.
Permeate flux and Transmembrane Pressure
According to Kennedy et al. (2008), membrane filtration system for water treatment can be operated
either in:
(a) constant permeate flux with varying pressure or
(b) constant transmembrane pressure with varying flux.
Permeate flux is the permeate flow rate per unit membrane area. While transmembrane pressure
(TMP) is the driving force for the flux.
In discussing the close relationship between permeate flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP), Xia et
al., (2004) stated that the permeate flux increases linearly with TMP when the TMP is less than
0.12MPa and up until the permeate flux is approximately 145 L/m2h. It is Darcys law region in which
the membrane permeability limits the permeate flux. The study found that the deviation from the
linear relationship is the UF region, where permeate flux did not depend on membrane resistance but
limited by the mass transfer condition in the boundary layer.
Since permeate flux is linear with TMP, the case can be vice versa as long as both are in the Darcys
law region. This is proven by a study conducted by Guo et al. (2009) where two constant permeate
fluxes which are 60 L/m2h and 100 L/m2h were compared. The study shown that when the permeate
flux increases, TMP also increases. This is true, based on permeate flux-TMP relationship stated by
Xia et al. (2004) previously since the fluxes (60 L/m2h and 100 L/m2h) are still in the Darcys law
region. However, there is an obvious difference in the increase of the TMP for both fluxes as observed
by Guo et al. (2009) in their study, where TMP for lower permeate flux (60 L/m2h) is much more
stable compared to that of the higher flux (100 L/m2h). The increase of TMP is not a very good
condition since it indicates increase of membrane fouling (Crozes et al., 1997; Guo et al., 2009).
Therefore Guo et al. (2009) concluded that the operation of higher constant permeate flux is less
stable compared to the lower one.

Permeate flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP) are correlated to each other. Either the membrane
filtration system is operated in constant permeate flux or constant TMP, it is recommended to keep
both in the Darcys law region i.e. permeate flux below 145 L/m2h or TMP below 0.12MPa. This is to
avoid membrane fouling, especially when the TMP is high.
Pre-treatment
In a membrane system, pre-treatment is recommended to control fouling (Guo et al., 2009). Pretreatment is optional to be added in any membrane filtration system since membrane processes are
able to treat water within a single operation (Bodzek and Konieczny, 1998). For the case of hollow
fiber membrane that can be automatically backwashed with permeate water, extensive pre-treatment
requirement reduces (Kennedy et al., 2008). However, it does not mean that pre-treatment is
absolutely not required in the membrane filtration system. Nicolaisen (2002) and Kennedy et al.
(2008) suggested that adequate pre-treatment of the raw water is mandatory for a well-functioning
membrane plant.
The effectiveness and necessity of the pre-treatment depends on the raw water quality. Most of the
time, pre-treatment as simple as sand filter is added to the water treatment system to filter large
particles and suspended solids. This action can actually help lengthening the membrane life because
large particles can cause damage to the membrane.
For UF membranes, it is good to have pre-treatment especially when the raw water contains
contaminant such as manganese. For example, Vos et al. (1998) reported that manganese in the raw
water could not be filtered by the UF hollow fiber membrane at first because it would change into its
ionic form, thus passing through UF. Then, Vos et al. (1998) modified their water treatment system
by adding pre-treatment before the UF unit. The pre-treatment chosen was oxidation by potassium
permanganate (KMnO4) where the manganese ions were oxidized. This pre-oxidation process
increases the manganese removal in the raw water by approximately 73%.
Guo et al.(2009) had shown the effects of pre-treatment to the hollow fiber membrane performance in
water treatment indicating that between the two membrane filtration systems performed; first with Ystyle filter (of 500 m pore size) only and second with Y-style filter plus coagulation agents and bag-

style filter. The former only sieve contaminants particles that were larger than its pore size. However,
over the time, the retained particles form a cake layer thus causes clogging that reduces the permeate
flux. Furthermore, filtered particles (especially natural organic matter) can adhere to the internal
surfaces of the membrane which causes irreversible fouling. This is responded by sharp increase of
transmembrane pressure from 0.7 to 1.0 bar. On the other hand, when combined pre-treatment were
used, coagulation agents helped to combine those fine particles before entering the membrane and
then making it easier for the UF membrane to retain it.
Pre-treatment may be optional but it is still a big help to the membrane filtration system, especially
when the raw water contains large particles that could cause damage to the membrane.
Backwashing
It is been known that fouling is the major limitation for membrane. In order to overcome this
limitation, membrane will be backwash or clean between intervals during the filtration process
(Pervov et al., 1996; Hofman et al., 1998; Davis, 2010). The backwashing pressure will usually be
twice (Nakatsuka et al., 1996) or thrice (Hofman et al., 1998) the permeate flux. Backwash for hollow
fiber membrane can be carried out by changing the permeate water flow direction (Kennedy et al.,
2008). By that, the reverse flow washes out the foulants that formed cake layer on the membrane
surface during the filtration process.
The backwash interval between two filtration processes plays role in limiting the effect of fouling
during membrane filtration operation. In the study of drinking water treatment using ultrafiltration
hollow fiber membrane (Nakatsuka et al., 1996; Kennedy et al., 2008), it was found that the longer the
backwash interval, the more severe is the fouling. If consistently disregarded, the fouling can be
irreversible which would be much difficult to be removed.
The backwash frequency also plays an important role during the operation of membrane filtration
system in water treatment. Crozes et al. (1997) made a comparison of two backwash frequency on
membrane resistance to fouling. It was deduced that as the backwash frequency increases, TMP
increase can be reduced. As mentioned earlier, increase of TMP indicates the increase of fouling. So,
by reducing the increase of TMP in the filtration process, the membrane fouling can be reduced.

Backwash should not be rigid. It has to be adaptable to the raw water composition especially in the
period of rainfall (Hofman et al., 1998) when there will be rapid variations of contaminants. This is
because the concentration of contaminants in the raw water can affect the backwash efficiency.
Backwashing is essential for any membrane filtration system to avoid membrane fouling turning into
an irreversible fouling. In deciding the optimal conditions for backwashing, it is important to note the
backwash interval, backwash frequency and the raw water quality throughout the operation of the
membrane filtration system in the water treatment system.
Chemical cleaning
Backwash alone is not sufficient to remove fouling particles on the surface of the membrane.
Therefore, cleaning using chemicals that is more rigorous may be required (Davis, 2010). Chemical
cleaning can be applied to restore the membranes initial performance (Shengji et al., 2008; Chen et
al., 2008) and the increase of the reducing flux (due to fouling) after the cleaning indicates the
cleaning efficiency.
Oe et al. (1996) found that transmembrane pressure returned to its initial value and remained
unchanged after chemical cleaning of 5% citric acid solution circulated through the membrane module.
The chemicals used for the cleaning process depends on the raw water compositions. This is because
the chemical cleaning process must be able to remove the contaminants sticking on the membrane
surface that causes fouling. As mentioned in earlier section about membrane materials, it is important
to note the type of polymer that is used for the membrane. This is to avoid chemical attack such as
corrosion if the membrane polymer is not resistant enough to chemical.
Just like pre-treatment, chemical cleaning might be optional. But it is still a better option to have it
especially when the raw water quality is very low and backwashing is not sufficient to return
permeate flux or TMP.
CONCLUSIONS
The application of membrane processes in water treatment system particularly for easy-movable
system are getting more attention due to its advantages over conventional methods and is more
suitable for off-site water treatment operation or during water emergencies. It may also be extended

for water reuse application especially for rural or island users. For water treatment system such as
drinking water treatment, ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane is a very good choice to be applied in
the water treatment. To get the most from the membrane operation, it is important to look into factors
that have influence on the membranes performance. As discussed in this review paper, membrane
material, permeate flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP) and backwashing are factors that can
affect the performance of ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane in water treatment application. Pretreatment and chemical cleaning though optional can still be a great help to increase the filtration
performance of the membrane. The review is hoped to be beneficial in deciding the optimal
conditions for ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane in water treatment system.
REFERENCES
Arnal, J. M. A., Fernindez, M. S., Verdti, G. M., & Garcia, J. L. 2001. Design of a membrane facility
for water potabilization and its application to Third World countries. Desalination, 137, 6369.
Arnal, J. M. M., Garcia-Fayos, B., Verdu, G., Lora, J., & Sancho, M. 2008. AQUAPOT: Study of the
causes in reduction of permeate flow in spiral wound UF membrane . Simulation of a nonrigorous cleaning protocol in a drinkable water treatment facility. Desalination, 222(1-3), 513
518.
Arnal, J. M. M., Sancho, M., Verd, G., Lora, J., & Garca-Fayos, B. 2010. Design and installation of
a decentralized drinking water system based on ultrafiltration in Mozambique. Desalination,
250(2), 613617.
Baker, R.W. (2004). Membrane Technology and Applications (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
England.
Barbot, E., Carretier, E., Wyart, Y., Marrot, B., & Moulin, P. 2009. Transportable membrane process
to produce drinking water. Desalination, 248(1-3), 5863.
Bodzek, M., & Konieczny, K. 1998. Comparison of various membrane types and module
configurations in the treatment of natural water by means of low-pressure membrane methods.
Separation and Purification Technology, 14(1-3), 6978.
Bolong, N., Ismail A.F, Salim M.R. and Matsuura T., 2009a.A Review of the Effects of Emerging
Contaminants in Wastewater and Options for their Removal.Desalination.239: 229.
Bolong N., 2009b. Charged Surface Modifying Macromolecules Hollow Fiber Nanofiltration
Membrane for the Removal of Bisphenol-A In Domestic Wastewater, PhD thesis, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Bruggen, B. Van Der, Vandecasteele, C., Gestel, T. Van, Doyen, W., & Leysen, R. 2003. Review of
Pressure-Driven Membrane Processes. Environmental Progress, 22(1), 46 56.

Chang S., Fane A.G., Waite T.D., Yeo A. 2008. Unstable filtration behaviour with submerged hollow
fiber membranes, Journal of Membrane Science 308:107 114.
Chen, J.P., Mou, H., Wang, L.K., Matsuura, T., & Wei, Y. 2008. Membrane Separation: Basics and
Applications. In L. K. Wang, J. P. Chen, Y.-T. Hung, & N. K. Shammas (Eds.), Handbook of
Environmental Engineering: Membrane and Desalination Technologies (Vol. 13, pp. 145).
Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
Childress, A. E., Le-clech, P., Daugherty, J. L., Chen, C., & Leslie, G. L. 2005. Mechanical analysis
of hollow fiber membrane integrity in water reuse applications. Desalination, 80, 514.
Chung, T.S, Qin J.J, Gu J, 2001. Effect of Shear Rate Within the Spinneret on Morphology,
Separation Performance and Mechanical Properties of Ultrafiltration Polyethersulfone Hollow
Fiber Membranes. Chem. Engineering Science 56:58 69.
Crozes, G. F., Jacangelo, J. G., Anselme, C., & La, J. M. 1997. Impact of ultrafiltration operating
conditions on membrane irreversible fouling, 124, 6376.
Davis, M. L. (2010). Water and Wastewater Engineering - Design Principles and Practice. The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
eartheasy, 2011. A Backpackers Review of the LifeStraw Personal Water Filter. Retrieved on 12
November 2012 from: http://eartheasy.com/blog/2011/09/a-backpackers-review-of-thelifestraw-personal-water-filter/
Fane, A. G. T., Wang, R., & Jia, Y. 2008. Membrane Technology: Past, Present and Future. In L. K.
Wang, J. P. Chen, Y.-T. Hung, & N. K. Shammas (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental
Engineering: Membrane and Desalination Technologies (Vol. 13, pp. 145). Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press.
Groendijk, L., & de Vries, H. E. 2009. Development of a mobile water maker, a sustainable way to
produce safe drinking water in developing countries. Desalination, 248(1-3), 106113.
Guo, H., Wyart, Y., Perot, J., Nauleau, F., & Moulin, P. 2010. Low-pressure membrane integrity tests
for drinking water treatment: A review. Water research, 44(1), 4157.
Guo, X., Zhang, Z., Fang, L., & Su, L. 2009. Study on ultrafiltration for surface water by a
polyvinylchloride hollow fiber membrane. Desalination, 238(1-3), 183191.
HikeLighter, 2012. Sawyer PointOne Squeeze Water Filter System. Retrieved on 12 November 2012
from: http://hikelighter.com/2012/03/06/sawyer-pointone-squeeze-water-filter-system/
Hofman, J. A. M. H., Beumer, M. M., Baars, E. T., van der Hoek, J. P., & Koppers, H. M. M. 1998.
Enhanced surface water treatment by ultrafiltration. Desalination, 119(1-3), 113125.
Kajitvichyanukul, P., Shammas, N.K., Hung, Y., Wang, L.K. & Ananpattarachai, J. 2011.Potable
Water Biotechnology, Membrane Filtration and Biofiltration. In L. K. Wang, J. P. Chen, Y.-T.
Hung, & N. K. Shammas (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Engineering: Membrane and
Desalination Technologies (Vol. 13, pp. 145). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
Kennedy, M. ., Kamanyi, J., Salinas Rodriguez, S. ., Lee, N. ., Schippers, J. ., & Amy, G. 2008. Water
Treatment by Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration. In N. N. Li, A. G. Fane, W. . Winston Ho, & T.
Mastuura (Eds.), Advanced Membrane Technology and Applications (pp. 131 170). John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kuch, H.M., K. Ballschmiter. 2001. Determination of Endocrine Disrupting Phenolic Compounds and
Estrogens in Surface and Drinking Water by HRGC-(NCI)-MS in the Pictogram Per Liter Range.
Environmental Science &Techol.35(15):3201.
Lenntech B.V., 2011. Membrane Fouling. Retrieved on 10 October 2012 from:
http://www.lenntech.com/membrane-fouling.htm
Loo, S.-L., Fane, A. G., Krantz, W. B., & Lim, T.-T. 2012. Emergency water supply: A review of
potential technologies and selection criteria. Water research, 46, 31253151.
Mierzwa, J. C., Hespanhol, I., da Silva, M. C. C., Rodrigues, L. D. B., & Giorgi, C. F. 2008. Direct
drinking water treatment by spiral-wound ultrafiltration membranes. Desalination, 230(1-3), 41
50.
Mukiibi, M., Feathers, R., & Mukiibi, B. M. 2009. Membrane Technology: A Breakthrough in Water
Treatment. Water Conditioning & Purification.
Nakatsuka, S., Nakate, I., & Miyano, T. 1996. Drinking water treatment by using ultrafiltration
hollow fiber membranes. Desalination, 106(1-3), 5561.
Nicolaisen, B. 2002. Developments in membrane technology for water treatment. Desalination, 153,
355360.
Oe, T., Koide, H., Hirokawa, H., & Okukawa, K. 1996. Performance of membrane filtration system
used for water treatment. Desalination, 106, 107113.
Ozaki, H, 2004. Rejection of Micropollutants by Membrane Filtration, presented in the International
Symposium on Membrane Technology, Puteri Pan Pacific Hotel Johor Bharu, 15-16 April 2004.
Pervov, A. G., Reztsov, Y. V., Milovanov, S. B., & Koptev, V. S. 1996. Treatment of natural water by
membranes. Desalination, 105(1-2), 3339.
Peter-Varbanets, M., Hammes, F., Vital, M., & Pronk, W. 2010. Stabilization of flux during dead-end
ultra-low pressure ultrafiltration. Water research, 44(12), 360716.
Peter-Varbanets, M., Zurbrgg, C., Swartz, C., & Pronk, W. 2009. Decentralized systems for potable
water and the potential of membrane technology. Water research, 43(2), 24565.
Rana, D., T. Matsuura, R.M. Narbaitz, C. Feng, 2005. Development and Characterization of Novel
Hydrophilic Surface Modifying Macromolecule for Polymeric Membranes, J. Membrane Science
249:103.
Sawyer Products, 2005. Microbiological Testing of the Sawyer 7/6B Filter. Retrieved on 12
November 2012 from: http://www.sawyer.com/documents/field-micro.pdf
Shengji, X., Xing, L., Ji, Y., Bingzhi, D., & Juanjuan, Y. 2008. Application of membrane techniques
to produce drinking water in China. Desalination, 222(1-3), 497501.
thebackpacker.com, 2011.Sawyer PointOne Squeeze Water Filter System. Retrieved on 12 November
2012 from: http://www.thebackpacker.com/gear/water_filters/katadyn_mini_ceramic.php

VestergaardFrandsen, 2010.LifeStraw Functioning and Efficiency Report. Retrieved on 12 June

2012 from: http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/external/lifestraw-functioning-and-efficacyreport.pdf
Vos, G., Brekvoort, Y., Oosterom, H. A., & Nederlot, M. M. 1998. Treatment of canal water with
ultrafiltration to produce industrial and household water. Desalination, 118, 297303.
Wagner J. 2001. Membrane Filtration Handbook Practical Tips and Hints 2nd Edition. Minneapolis:
Osmonic Inc.
Xia, S., Li, X., Liu, R., & Li, G. 2004. Study of reservoir water treatment by ultrafiltration for
drinking water production. Desalination, 167, 2326.