
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12905-2
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36874
e36874
Review Article
Nanostructure-manipulated filtration performance in nanocomposite membranes: A comprehensive investigation for water and wastewater treatment
Tahmasebi Sefiddashti Fateme
Homayoonfal Maryam m.homayoonfal@eng.ui.ac.ir
⁎
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Isfahan, P.O. Box 81746-73441, Isfahan, Iran
⁎ Corresponding author. m.homayoonfal@eng.ui.ac.ir
26 8 2024
15 9 2024
26 8 2024
10 17 e368742 2 2024
20 8 2024
23 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The main objective of this article is to examine one of the most important challenges facing researchers in the field of nanocomposite membranes: what is the most suitable arrangement (unmodified, functionalized, coated, or composite) and the most suitable loading site for the nanostructure? In the review articles published on nanocomposite membranes in recent years, the focus has been either on a specific application area (such as nanofiltration or desalination), or on a specific type of polymeric materials (such as polyamide), or on a specific feature of the membrane (such as antibacterial, antimicrobial, or antifouling). However, none of them have targeted the aforementioned objectives on the efficacy of improving filtration performance (IFP). Through IFP calculation, the results will be repeatable and generalizable in this field. The novelty of the current research lies in examining and assessing the impact of the loading site and the type of nanostructure modification on enhancing IFP. Based on the performed review results, for the researchers who tend to use nanocomposite membranes for treatment of organic, textile, brine and pharmaceutical wastewaters as well as membrane bioreactors, the PESNH2‐PDA‐Fe3O4M, PANFe3O4/ZrO2M, PVDFCMC‐ZnOM, AAAA‐CuSPSfM and PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4M with IFP equal to 132.27, 15, 423.6, 16.025 and 5, were proposed, respectively.

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Highlights

• The best site for nanoparticles is both sub and top layer, simultaneously.

• TiO2 is the most useable nanoparticle in fabrication of nanocomposite membranes.

• Functionalization is the most useable method in nanoparticles modification of.

• The highest IFP value is for membranes achieved by modified nanoparticles.

Keywords

Nanocomposite membranes
Functionalized nanostructure
Coated nanostructure
Composite nanostructure
Wastewater treatment
==== Body
pmc Abbreviations

Acrylic acid	AA	
Atomic force microscopy	AFM	
Cellulose acetate	CA	
Cyanuric chloride	CC	
Carboxymethylchitosan	CMC	
Carbon nanosphere	CNS	
Carbon nanotube	CNT	
Cephalexin	CEX	
Ceftriaxone	CTX	
Emulsion poly vinyl chloride	EPVC	
Flux recovery ratio	FRR	
Graphene oxide	GO	
High-density polyethylene	HDPE	
1, 6-hexamethylene diisocyanate	HMDA	
Halloysite nanotube	HNT	
Hydraulic retention time	HRT	
Improvement in the filtration performance	IFP	
Melamine-based dendrimer amine	MDA	
Mixed liquor suspended solid	MLSS	
Mix matrix membrane	MMM	
Multiwalled carbon nanotube	MWCNT	
Nanodiamond	ND	
Nanolayered double hydroxide	NLDH	
Naringin	Nar	
O-carboxymethyl chitosan	OCMCS	
Perfluorosulfonic acid	PFSA	
Polyamide	PA	
Polyacrylonitrile	PAN	
Polyaniline	PANI	
Polydopamine	PDA	
Poly ethylene glycol	PEG	
Polyethyleneimine	PEI	
Poly ether sulfone	PES	
Polyamide	PI	
Poly m-phenylene isophthalamide	PMIA	
Porous nano-hydroxyapatites	PNHAs	
Polystyrene	PS	
Polysulfone	PSF	
Polyvinyl alcohol	PVA	
Poly vinyl chloride	PVC	
Polyvinylidene fluoride	PVDF	
Polyvinylpyrrolidone	PVP	
Polypyrrole	PPY	
Reduced graphene oxide	rGO	
Sodium alginate	SA	
Scanning electron microscopy	SEM	
Silicon carbide	SiC	
Sulfonated polysulfone	SPSF	
Solid retention time	SRT	
Transmission electron microscopy	TEM	
Vibrating sample magnetometer	VSM	

1 Introduction

Since deficit of clean water has changed into a progressive global crisis, treatment and recovery of wastewater have turned into a proper alternative for resolving this problem [1]. In recent years, membrane technology has attracted massive attention because of high separation performance, easy operation, and being economical [2]. Improving the flux alongside enhancing the separation efficiency has been the aim of many studies on membrane processes in recent years [3,4]. Since the filtration behavior of the membrane is a function of its surface and structural properties, thus much focus of the mentioned studies has been directed to surface modification [5] or improvement of the structural properties [6] of membranes. From among surface and structural methods, preparation of nanocomposite structures for improving the efficiency of membranes in filtration processes has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years [7].

Nanocomposites are multiphasic compounds, where at least one of the constituent materials of phases has a dimension smaller than 100 nm [8]. The advantage of nanocomposites is related to their surface's multiple activities and the possibility of creating an extraordinary combination of properties, which are impossible in conventional cases [9]. Nanocomposite membranes result from combining nanostructures such as metal nanoparticles [7,10] and metal oxide, clay [11], carbon nanotubes [12], multi-walled carbon nanotubes [13], nanosheets such as graphene oxide [14,15], and graphitic carbon nitride [16], zeolites [17,18], and nanofiber [19,20] with the membrane polymer. From among the different types of the mentioned nanostructures, usage of metal nanoparticles and metal oxide has witnessed greater developments in the fabrication of nanocomposite membranes thanks to their features including simple synthesis, inexpensiveness, diversity of properties, and blending with polymer structures [21]. The metal oxide nanoparticles widely used in the fabrication of nanocomposite membranes include TiO2 [22,23], CuS [24], SiO2 [25,26], Fe3O4 [27,28], ZnO [29,30], and ZrO2 [31] nanoparticles.

Studies suggest that although the presence of metal oxide nanoparticles has a considerable impact on the membrane filtration parameters such as improving separation, enhancing flux, and reducing fouling. However, events such as aggregation (especially at high loading values [32]), unsuitable distribution within the membrane structure (especially in dense polymeric structures [33]), and separation from the membrane structure during filtration (especially in surface deposition methods [34]), would limit the effectiveness of nanoparticles. Investigations reveal that the extent of effectiveness of nanoparticles on the membrane structure and performance, rather than being related to the intrinsic properties of these particles, is a function of the manner of distribution and their site of loading within the membrane structure [35]. Considering the site of loading in the membrane structure, nanoparticles can be incorporated either as coating on the membrane surface or blended with the polymer matrix [36]. Presence of nanoparticles across the membrane surface has a greater impact on the filtration properties of the membrane. Also, there is possibility of eliminating the embedded nanoparticles during filtration [34]. On the other hand, although blending of nanoparticles with the membrane matrix has less influence on the filtration behavior of the membrane, nanoparticles show greater durability within its structure [37]. Rajaeian et al. [38] employed TiO2 nanoparticles for modifying the top layer of the PVATiO2PVDF M. The obtained results indicated that the extent of separation of the PVATiO2PVDFM increased by 40 %, while showing 62.5 % decline in the flux. Dong et al. [39] utilized zeolite nanostructures for modifying the PAPSfZeolite M sublayer. They found that the flux rose by 195 %, while showing 3 % reduction in separation. Thus, it seems that some strategies should be investigated to concurrently benefit from the advantages of both loading methods (surface and structural) and resolving the defects of these methods.

Considering the manner of distribution of nanostructures in the membrane, studies reveal that the manner of distribution is mostly a function of the superficial properties of these particles and the way they interact with the polymer matrix [35]. Thus, adopting strategies that can disperse nanoparticles in the best way across the membrane structure seems necessary, which can offer the best interaction with the polymer matrix and hence the maximum efficiency in improving the membrane performance. One of the most important solutions for suitable distribution of nanoparticles within the membrane structure is modifying the structure of nanoparticles via methods such as donating suitable functional group [40], creating an appropriate coating [41], or combining nanoparticles with desired nanoparticles [42] in order to achieve the best effectiveness in the membrane performance. Ayyaru and Ahn [43], by donating sulfate functional group to the TiO2 nanoparticles, synthesized PESS‐TiO2 M, which presented 102.4 % greater flux compared to raw PES membrane, while PESTiO2 M indicated only 62.6 % increase of flux in comparison to the raw PES membrane. Abadikhah et al. [44] by donating amine functional group to the SiO2 nanoparticles, synthesized the TFN membrane named PANH2‐SiO2PES/Si3N4M, which revealed 119 % greater flux compared to PAPES/Si3N4M, while PASiO2PES/Si3N4M indicated only 57 % increase of flux as compared to PAPES/Si3N4M. Elsewhere, Puerari et al. [45] synthesized the TFN membrane named PDA/PEINH2‐SiO2PSFM for salt separation which indicated 28 % greater MgCl2 rejection compared to PDA/PEIPSFM, while PDA/PEISiO2PSFM showed only 7 % MgCl2 rejection enhancement compared to PDA/PEIPSFM. In another research, by coating polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) to Fe3O4 nanoparticles, Hosseini et al. [46] synthesized PESPVP‐Fe3O4 M, which indicated 106.25 % greater flux compared to the raw PES membrane, while PESFe3O4 M showed only 34.37 % flux augmentation compared to the raw PES membrane. Kallem et al. [47] synthesized the TFN membrane named PAPESPDA‐TiO2M, which indicated 97 % greater flux compared to PAPESM, while PAPESTiO2M showed only 36 % elevation of flux compared to PAPESM. By coating tannic acid to TiO2 nanoparticles, Li et al. [48] synthesized the TFN membrane named PolyesterTA‐TiO2PESM for salt separation, where the Na2SO4 rejection increased by 14.6 % compared to PolyesterPESM. Noormohamadi et al. [49] by compositing Fe3O4 and ZrO2 nanoparticles synthesized PANZrO2/Fe3O4 M, which indicated 34.29 % larger flux compared to PANZrO2 M. Safarnia et al. [50] by compositing TiO2 and SiO2 synthesized the TFN membrane named PDASiO2/TiO2PVDFM which indicated 133 % larger flux compared to PDASiO2PVDFM.

Note that in the interpretation and quantitative analysis of studies conducted in this field, issues such as the site of loading (top layer or sublayer) and the structure of nanostructures (composite, coated, and functionalized) have not been involved. In the review articles published in the field of nanocomposite membranes in recent years, the focus of studies has been either on a specific application area (such as nanofiltration [51], desalination [52], or the removal of toxic substances [53]), or on a specific type of polymeric materials (such as polyamide [54]), or on a specific feature of the membrane (such as antibacterial [55], antimicrobial [56], or antifouling [7]). The aforementioned studies have been limited to presenting reports and comparisons among the published studies in that particular area, and none of them have quantitatively compared the filtration performance of all nanocomposite membranes in that area with each other. The novelty of this research is quantitative examination of the effect of the loading site and the method of nanostructure modification (composite, coated, and functionalized) on the performance of membrane filtration (in the form of the IFP parameter). Obviously, when various studies conducted in different area of filtration are examined under a unique parameter (especially IFP in this research), a more accurate judgment will be obtained about the impact of nanostructures on filtration performance, results will be replicable, and the research path for future researchers will be clarified.

Accordingly, in the present review study, first with the aim of resolving the challenge of site of incorporation of nanostructures within the membranous structure and in response to the question of whether to load nanostructures on the membrane surface or matrix, studies were collected, reviewed, and categorized in three fields of nanocomposite membranes with a nanostructure in the surface (P1N1M and P1N1P2M), in the matrix (P1P2N2M), and in both surface and matrix layers (P1N1P2N2M). Then, the best suggestion will be presented for incorporating nanostructures in the membrane matrix. In the second step, in order to resolve the challenge of the manner of distribution of nanoparticles within the membrane structure and in response to the question of the solution for suitable distribution of nanostructures within the membrane structure, practical strategies by the researchers of this field will be studied. In this regard, the most important strategies including functionalizing nanoparticles (F-N), coating nanoparticles (C-N), and compositing nanoparticles (N1-N2) will be scrutinized and compared. Then, the extent of effectiveness of each of these methods will be compared and presented quantitatively. Finally, the most suitable solutions for the proper distribution of nanostructures within the membranous structure will be described. In the third step, to examine the effectiveness of each of the abovementioned solutions in enhancing the membrane performance in different membrane filtration processes, the performance of nanocomposite membranes will be examined in separation of organic pollutants from wastewater, filtration of textile wastewater, separation of pharmaceutical contaminants from wastewater, separation of salts from wastewater, and treatment of wastewater with membrane bioreactors and compared further. The results are presented in the form of performance comparison of raw, nanocomposite (P1P2N2M,P1N1P2M,P1N1P2N2M), and modified nanocomposite (P1P2m‐N2M,P1m‐N1P2M,P1m‐N1P2m‐N2M) membranes. Indeed, the extent of effectiveness of each of the modification strategies in every practical field will be calculated and presented, and the most suitable strategy for each practical field will be explained and suggested. Ultimately, the challenges ahead of each of the strategies are noted and some solutions will be presented for improving these challenges. Therefore, the reason for writing a review article in this field and the most important distinguishing feature of this review article from similar ones published in recent years [7,51,53] is the effort to answer these three questions: 1) Where is the best site for loading nanostructures in the membrane? 2) What is the most suitable nanostructure and the best method for its modification? 3)Which nanocomposite membrane is the most appropriate (considering the type of nanostructure, the method of modifying the loading site) for each of the application areas of the membrane (filtration of organic materials, pharmaceuticals, textiles, desalination, and membrane bioreactor)? Obviously, answering each of the aforementioned questions, while providing new research opportunities for future researchers in this field and providing insight for future development, prepares them to tackle more significant challenges.

2 Methodology

In this research, firstly for examining the best site for incorporating nanoparticles within the membrane structure (top layer or sublayer), numerous studies (n = 22) were reviewed. The results of review of the studies have been presented in the form of advantages and disadvantages of loading nanostructures in each layer and introducing the most effective site of loading. In the second part, for exploring the effect of type of nanostructures on improving the membrane performance, extensive studies (n = 256) were examined. The results of investigations and comparisons will cover the pros and cons as well as the extent of effectiveness of each nanostructure on the membrane performance. In the third section, applications of modified nanoparticles including functionalized nanoparticles (N-F), coated nanoparticles (N-C), and composited nanoparticles (N1/N2) to improve the effectiveness of nanoparticles have been discussed (n = 14 studies). The results of this section have been presented in the form of the effect of modification applied on the surface and structural properties of the membrane as well as comparing the performance of membrane containing modified nanostructure with a membrane containing a raw nanostructure. In the fourth section, the effect of presence of different nanostructures (including both modified and unmodified) at different layers of the membrane (including the top layer and sublayer) was inspected on the filtration performance of the resulting nanocomposite membrane. This investigation has dealt with different fields of applying membrane processes including separation of organic pollutants from wastewater (n = 36 studies), filtration of textile wastewater (n = 16), separation of pharmaceutical pollutants from wastewater (n = 16), separation of salts from wastewater (n = 13), and improving the membrane performance in membrane bioreactors (n = 13). The extent of effectiveness of presence of nanostructures in each field has been calculated precisely and presented further.

Note that in this research, P1N1P2N2M symbol has been used for introducing thin-film nanocomposite membranes. Where, P2 represents the sublayer polymer, P1 shows the top layer polymer, N1 indicates the nanostructure employed in the top layer, and N2 denotes the nanostructure employed in the sublayer. For introducing the thin-film nanocomposite membranes containing nanostructure only in the top layer or sublayer, P1N1P2M (for presence of nanostructure in the top layer) and P1P2N2M (for presence of nanostructure in the sublayer) symbols have been used. Also, P1N1M symbol has been utilized for introducing membranes modified via blending method. The results of different studies were concluded from five different fields of separation of organic pollutants, textile wastewater, improving the membrane performance in membrane bioreactors, brine wastewater, and pharmaceutical pollutants. To compare the effect of the presence of nanostructure in different layers, parameters including rejection enhancement and flux enhancement were calculated by Relations 1 and 2 (the calculated data are presented in Table 1). In order to conclude the results presented in each research, depending on the effective parameters in that research field, including nanoparticle concentration (optimal concentration reported by the researcher in that reference), pressure, flux, and pollutant concentration; the parameter of improvement in filtration performance (IFP) was calculated. Use of this comprehensive parameter (instead of flux or rejection) leads to reproducibility of the results and their generalization to research in this field. Considering that the modified membrane flux can be lower than the raw membrane flux, the IFP parameter can also be negative. Relation 3 was presented to explore the effect of the presence of raw and modified nanostructures on the membrane performance (calculated data are presented in Table 2) and organic pollutant separation (with data presented in Table 3). Relations 4, 5, 6, and 7 were presented for dye separation (with data presented in Table 4), MBR (with data presented in Table 5), salt separation (with data presented in Table 6), and drug separation (with data presented in Table 7) respectively.(1) Rejectionenhancement=Modifiedmembranerejection‐Rawmembranerejection

(2) Fluxenhancement=Modifiedmembraneflux‐RawmembranefluxRawmembraneflux×100

(3) ImprovementinFiltrationPerformance(IFP)=FluxenhancementConsumednanoparticle×100

(4) IFPfordyeseparation=Flux×DyeConcΔP×ConsumedNanoparticle

(5) IFPforApplicationinMBR=Flux×MLSSΔP×ConsumedNanoparticle

(6) IFPforsaltseparation=Flux×SaltConcΔP×ConsumedNanoparticle

(7) IFPfordrugseparation=Flux×DrugConcΔP×ConsumedNanoparticle

Where in Equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)), the employed parameters are: flux (in LMH), ΔP (in bar), consumed nanoparticle (in wt%), dye concentration (in g/L), MLSS (in kg/L), salt concentration (in g/L), and drug concentration (in g/L).

3 Results and discussion

In this research, in order to clarify the questions that will be propounded further, studies conducted on nanocomposite membranes were collected, categorized, reviewed, and concluded.- Where is the best site for loading nanostructure within the membrane structure?

- What is the most practical type of nanostructure and the best method of modification of nanostructures?

- What is the extent of improvement of the membrane performance resulting from presence of nanostructure in separating pollutants from organic, textile, biological, brine, and pharmaceutical wastewater?

3.1 Locating nanostructure within the membrane structure: where is the best site for loading nanostructure within the membrane structure?

Studies suggest that in addition to the type of nanostructure used, the site of loading of nanostructure within the membrane matrix also considerably affects the filtration performance and structural properties of the membrane [62]. Nanostructures can be blended to the polymer matrix of the sublayer or added to the top layer. As observed in Fig. 1, for loading of nanostructures within the top layer, vacuum filtration [162], interfacial polymerization [163], photo polymerization [164], dip coating [165], and spin coating [166] methods are used. Also, for placing the nanostructure within the sublayer, electrospinning [167] and phase inversion [168] methods can be employed.Fig. 1 A: Methods of incorporating nanostructure within the membrane; B: Electrospinning (adapted from Ref. [167]), C: Phase inversion (adapted from Ref. [168]), D: Dip coating (adapted from Ref. [165]), E: Interfacial polymerization (adapted from Ref. [163]), F: Spin coating (adapted from Ref. [166]), G: Photo polymerization (adapted from Ref. [164]), H: and Vacuum filtration (adapted from Ref. [162]).

Fig. 1

Fig. 2 (A) displays the nanostructure placement within the sublayer, top layer, and both layers as well as its impact on the membrane filtration performance. Based on studies [6,38], and as indicated schematically in Fig. 2 (A), modification of the sublayer results in improvement of the membrane flux, while modification of the top layer would cause enhanced membrane rejection or flux. It seems that modification of the sublayer through adjusting the porosity [62] and enhancing hydrophilicity [39] results in flux enhancement. Modification of the top layer through reducing the size of surface pores [62] has led to augmented rejection [38] or through enhanced surface hydrophilicity [5] it can contribute to elevation of flux [57]. The main advantage of incorporating nanostructure within the sublayer and top layer is uniform distribution of nanoparticles and less consumption of nanostructure respectively. Non-considerable impact on rejection is one of the downsides of loading nanoparticles in the sublayer, while the minimal impact on the general structure is the main disadvantage of loading nanostructure in the top layer. According to studies [70], incorporation of nanostructure in both the top layer and sublayer, in addition to boosting flux through adjustment of porosity would also lead to increased rejection via surface modification (see Fig. 2 (A)). The detailed data of the reviewed studies (about flux and rejection enhancement) are outlined in Fig. 2 (B). Also, in Table 1 and Fig. 2 (B) a comparison has been made between the placement of nanostructure in the top layer, sublayer, and both layers of membrane.Fig. 2 Placement of nanostructure in the sublayer, top layer, and both layers as well as the effect of their presence on the membrane performance, and B: Investigating the effect of site of placement of nanostructure on the flux and rejection enhancement of nanocomposite membranes (More details about the presented data, have been provided in Table 1).

Fig. 2

Table 1 Investigating the effect of site of placement of nanostructure on the performance of nanocomposite membranes.

Table 1Category	Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	Improvement in filtration performance	Reference	
Membrane name	NS Conc. (wt.%)	Type Pollutant	Pollutant Conc. (ppm)	Flux (LMH)	Flux Recovery (%)	Rejection	Flux Enhancement (%)	Rejection Enhancement (%)	
1:Top-layer embedding	1	PAZeolitePESM	0.2	NaCl	2000	29.76	–	60	271	−36	[57]	
2	PVATiO2PVDFM	1	MgSO4	1000	75	94	76.44	−62.5	42.3	[38]	
3	PAFe(0)PSfM	2	NaCl	2000	17.01	–	90.12	26	1.3	[5]	
4	PAAgPSfM	0.5	NaCl	2000	22.5	–	10	350	−55	[58]	
5	PArGO_TiO2PSfMa	0.02	NaCl	2000	51.3	–	99.45	49.5	2	[59]	
6	PANH2‐TiO2PESM	0.3	Na2SO4	1000	52	93.4	90	253	1	[60]	
7	PAFluorinatedsilicaPESM	0.12	NaCl	2000	38.75	–	98.6	−6	2.7	[61]	
8	PAFe3O4/ZrO2PANM	0.15	Cephalexin	50	60.35	75.3	75.6	12.8	22.4	[62]	
9	PAAg/ZnOPESM	0.3	NaCl	1000	27.4	94.4	59.49	−23.7	20.02	[63]	
2:Sub-layer embedding	10	PAPSfZeolite M	1	MgSO4	500	65	–	91	195	−3	[39]	
11	PAPANFe3O4 M	1.5	cephalexin	50	33.46	84.4	41.2	−37.4	17.1	[62]	
12	PAPANZrO2M	1.5	cephalexin	50	40.62	82.1	41.5	−24	17.8	
13	PAPESTiO2M	1	NaCl	58440	6.63	–	93.1	36	−2.1	[47]	
14	PAPSfPNHAsM	0.75	NaCl	58440	18.5	–	93.6	158.4	−3.07	[64]	
15	PAPESZnOM	1	NaCl	1000	32	–	77.94	107.8	−6.17	[65]	
16	PAPSfHNTM	0.5	NaCl	584.4	5	–	93.5	78.6	−1.5	[66]	
17	PAPSfFe3O4M	0.5	Cadmium	10	2.37	–	98.74	45.4	0.48	[67]	
18	PAPESZeoliteM	0.4	NaCl	1168.8	2.74	–	94.7	42	−1.5	[68]	
3: Top&Sub-layer embedding	19	PAGOPSfGOMb	0.761	NaCl	2000	15.9	–	98.8	−69	7	[69]	
20	PAZeolitePSfZeoliteM	0.20.2	NaCl	584.4	–	–	93	68	8	[70]	
21	PAFe3O4/ZnOPESFe3O4/ZnOM	0.020.2	NaCl	584.4	27.2	–	97.93	87.6	1	[71]	
22	PAFe3O4/ZrO2PANZrO2 M	0.150.15	cephalexin	50	49.9	99. 7	95.8	−6.6	44.6	[62]	
23	PAg−C3N4PSfHNTM	0.050.5	NaCl	1168.8	5.425	98	93	178.2	2	[72]	
24	PAZnOPESTiO2M	0.32	NaCl	2000	91.7	–	74.48	365	17.48	[73]	
25	PAZIF−8PANZIF−67M	0.130.18	doxorubicin	25	21.89	97	99	329	10	[74]	
a rGO: Reduced graphene oxide.

b GO: Graphene oxide.

Investigation of the details of studies listed in Table 1 indicated that addition of nanoparticles to the top layer generally leads to enhanced surface hydrophilicity [5] and thus boosted flux [57], or higher rejection [38] through reducing the size of surface pores [62]. Rajaeian et al. [38] synthesized PVATiO2PVDFM and although they reported 42.3 % increase in separation, they observed 62.5 % reduction in flux compared to the PVAPVDFM membrane. Mollahosseini and Rahimpour [58] synthesized PAAgPSfM and in spite of reporting 350 % increase in flux, they witnessed 55 % reduction in rejection compared to the PAPSfM membrane. However, in some studies, the increase of both parameters has been observed [62], though the increase in flux [62] or rejection [60] has been very small. In the research by Karimi et al. [62], around 12 % increase in flux and 22 % growth in rejection were observed for the PAFe3O4/ZrO2PANM. The main reason behind this behavior was lack of aggregation of nanoparticles and thus use of modified nanoparticles (composited) in the membrane top layer. Meanwhile, addition of nanoparticles to the sublayer usually causes enhanced hydrophilicity and porosity. Thus, it would considerably augment the membrane flux, though it results in partial increase [6] or even reduction of membrane separation [39]. For example, Dong et al. [39] synthesized PAPSfZeoliteM, and found that the flux grew by 195 %, but it showed 3 % reduction of separation compared with the PAPSfM. It seems that to concurrently boost the flux and rejection, modified nanostructures in both layers can mostly provide better results as reported in the studies [74]. Thus, it seems that presence of unmodified nanoparticles in a single layer of membrane cannot guarantee considerable increase of flux and separation concurrently (see Fig. 2 (B)).

Nevertheless, simultaneous use of nanostructures in both top layer and sublayer can establish a synergetic effect on improving the structure, surface properties, and filtration behavior of membranes. Although some studies in this regard have still not reported concurrent increase of flux and rejection [62,69], in some other studies, simultaneous enhancement of these two parameters in the presence of unmodified nanostructures has been reported. For example, PAZeolitePSFZeoliteM found 68 % increase in flux and 8 % growth in salt separation compared to the PAPSFM [70]. Thus, since various aims are considered for modifying the top layer and sublayer, it seems that use of nanostructure in both membrane layers can be more effective on achieving a desirable membrane structure, which contributes to elevated flux and rejection concurrently. Accordingly, in case of applying unmodified nanostructure, concurrent presence of nanostructures in both membrane layers is the only way to guaranteeing simultaneous increase of flux and rejection. Ultimately, to explore the effect of presence of nanostructure in the top layer, sublayer, and both layers, the mean increase in rejection was calculated in all three groups, which were obtained as 0.08, −2.23, and 12.87, respectively. Based on the calculations, presence of nanostructure in both top layer and sublayer as well as top layer would lead to a considerable growth in rejection.

3.2 Selection of nanostructure: what is the most practical type of nanostructure and best method of nanostructure modification?

Review of 256 studies published during the years 2010–2023 (see further details in Table S1), in which different nanostructures have been used for improving the membrane performance, indicated that TiO2 with 29 % (includes 74 studies), SiO2 with 24 % (62 studies), and Fe3O4 nanoparticles with 16 % (40 studies), had the greatest application in fabrication of nanocomposite membranes (see Fig. 3 (A)). Also, use of unmodified and modified nanostructures (through functionalization, coating, and compositing methods) (see more detailed information in Table S2) was examined in membrane fabrication. The results indicated that around 61 % (including 157 studies) of nanostructures has been employed as modified within the membrane structure, whereby functionalization has attracted more attention compared to the other two methods.Fig. 3 A: Different types of nanostructures used in the membrane structure and B: different types of structural modifications done on nanostructures based on studies published during the years 2010–2023.

Fig. 3

Investigations also revealed that regarding the different types of functional groups used for modification of nanoparticles, based on studies published during the years 2010–2023 (see more information in Table S3), the majority included carboxylic [169,79], sulfate [43], and amine [106,170] functional groups (see Fig. 4(A)). Also, the most widely used coatings included polymer coatings such as polyaniline (PANI) [80], PVP [46], and polydopamine (PDA) [114] (see Fig. 4 (B) and more information in Table S4). Different types of composite structures of nanoparticles also included core shell composites of nanoparticles such as TiO2/Fe3O4 [171] and Fe3O4/ZrO2 [49] or hybrid composites such as TiO2/Ag [84],TiO2/Al2O3 [83] (see more information in Table S5). Finally, the statistical data related to the share of application of each of the modifiers has been presented in Fig. 4 (C).Fig. 4 A: Different types of functional groups, B: composite structures, and C: different coatings of nanoparticles based on studies published during the years 2010–2023.

Fig. 4

As observed in Figs. 4 and 42 % (including 28 studies) of reported literature has used amine functional groups followed by 19 % (13 studies) applying carboxyl groups for functionalizing nanoparticles. Also, for compositing nanoparticles, 76 % (44 studies) have used hybrid and 24 % (14 studies) have employed core shell method for synthesizing composite nanoparticles. Regarding coating of nanoparticles, usage of PDA with 25 % (8 studies) and PEI with 16 % (5 studies) has been the highest (see more information in Table S4).

To explore the effect of modification of nanoparticles in the membrane performance, Table 2 compares use of unmodified and modified nanoparticles. Considering the diversity of studies regarding the type and concentration of nanoparticles, no definite judgment can be presented regarding membrane performance. Accordingly, the parameter of improvement in filtration performance has been defined by Relation (3). Higher values of this parameter indicate better membrane efficiency and greater impact of modification. In the functionalized nanoparticles group, in a study by Koulivand et al. [75] the IFP value for PESFe3O4M membrane was calculated 15. On the other hand, using PESMDA‐Fe3O4M, IFP was found 62.5. In another study by Monsef et al. [78] using PSfZrO2M, the IFP was calculated 9.5, and through functionalization with carboxylic acid and sulfate functional groups, the values of this parameter for PSfCOOH‐ZrO2M and PSfSO4‐ZrO2M were achieved as 40 and 40.5, respectively. In the group of coating nanoparticles for PESFe3O4M synthesized by Daraei et al. [80] the IFP was calculated −8.3, while by coating nanoparticles in the PESPANI‐Fe3O4M, this parameter reached 45.45. In another research for PSfSiO2M and PSfCe‐SiO2M, the IFP was calculated as 8 and 13 respectively [81]. In the group of compositing nanoparticles, Noormohamadi et al. [49] using PANFe3O4M reached an IFP of 17.1. On the other hand, employing PANFe3O4/ZrO2M , the IFP was obtained 42.8. In another research, the IFP for CATiO2M and CATiO2/Al2O3M was calculated 5.1 and 8.3 respectively [83]. Further details about the comparison of modified and unmodified nanoparticles are presented in Table 2.Table 2 Comparison of performance of nanocomposite membranes in the presence of raw and modified nanoparticles.

Table 2Category	Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	Flux Enhancement/Nanoparticle Loading	Reference	
Membrane name	Modifier	NS/Polymer Conc. (wt.%)	Type Pollutant	Pollutant Conc. (ppm)	Flux (LMH)	Effectiveness of NP modification	
Functionalized Nanoparticles (F–N)	1	PESMDA−Fe3O4M	MDA	2.38	dye	200	185.7	-CA
+FRR
+Flow	62.5	[75]	
PESFe3O4M	˟	100.9	15	
2	PESS−TiO2M	sulfonated	6.67	BSA	500	650	+Porosity
+Rej
-CA	16	[43]	
PESTiO2M	˟	520	9.52	
3	CANH2−ND Ma	amino	2.85	COD	6750	52	-CA
+Flux
+FRR	86	[76]	
CAND M	˟	32	35	
4	PESSiO2−TiO2M	sulfated	11.1	BSA	1000	107	-CA
+Flux
-Rough
+Rej	7	[77]	
PESTiO2M	˟	70	1.6	
5	PSfCOOH−ZrO2M	Carboxylic Acid	2	Dye	100	1015	-CA
+Rej	40	[78]	
PSfSO4−ZrO2M	Sulfate	1085	40.5	
PSfZrO2M	˟	714	9.5	
Coated Nanoparticles (C–N)	6	GOPAA−NH2−UiO−66M	PAA	1	Congo red	20	150	+Rej
+Rough
-CA	1158	[79]	
GONH2−UiO−66M	˟	79	680	
7	PESPANI−Fe3o4M	PANI	0.55	–	–	45	+Flux
-CA
+FRR	45.45	[80]	
PESFe3o4M	˟	33	−8.3	
8	PESPVP−Fe3o4M	PVP	0.55	Na2SO4	1000	6.6	+Rej
+FRR	193	[46]	
PESFe3o4M	˟	4.3	62	
9	PSfCe_SiO2M	Ce	10	Oil	65	80	-CA
+Rej
+Flux	13	[81]	
PSfSiO2M	˟	60	8	
Composited Nanoparticles(N1/N2)	10	PVDFYxFeyZr1−x−yO2/TiO2M	YxFeyZr1-x-yO2	2	oil	23.06	400	-CA
+Flux	21.6	[82]	
PVDFTiO2M	˟	335	9.1	
11	PANFe3O4/ZrO2M	ZrO2	1	dye	100	499	+ Flux
-CA
+ Rej.
-Fouling	42.8	[49]	
PANFe3O4M	˟	409	17.1	
12	CATiO2/Al2o3M	Al2O3	6.1	NaCl	58440	24.3	-CA
+Porosity
+Rej
+Flux	8.3	[83]	
CATiO2M	˟	21.17	5.1	
13	PAPSfTiO2/AgM	Ag	1.15	NaCl	58440	78	+Flux
-CA
+Rej.	24.63	[84]	
PAPSfTiO2/AgM	˟	65	17.78	
14	PVDFSnO2/GOM	GO	6.25	BSA	1000	363.2	+FRR
+Flux
+Rej
-CA	12.9	[85]	
PVDFSnO2M	˟	300	7.85	
a ND: Nanodiamond.

Overall, it can be stated that the average value of IFP for the three groups of functionalized, coated, and composite nanoparticles in Table 2 were equal to 197, 90, and 93, respectively. Based on the obtained results, the efficiency of various nanoparticle modification methods contributes to observation of maximum efficiency and alteration in the membrane structure by applying the minimum concentration of a nanoparticle.

3.2.1 Role of functionalized nanostructure in enhancing membrane performance

When nanoparticles are separated in the membrane matrix, with partial presence on the membrane surface, they somehow affect the surface properties of the membrane, and by manipulating the phase inversion process rate, they influence its structural properties. Usage of a method that provides the possibility of presence of nanoparticles across the membrane surface can boost the effect of nanoparticles on improving the membrane surface properties. Alteration of surface properties of nanoparticles along enhancing hydrophilicity can lead to higher tendency of nanoparticles to be present in coagulation bath along phase inversion and their entrapment within the top layers of the membrane. Depositing hydrophilic functional groups on the surface of nanoparticles to boost their presence in the top layer of membrane can both preserve the effect of nanoparticles on altering the membrane structure and highlight their role as a membrane surface modifier. Now, if the modification created on the surface of nanoparticles, in addition to increasing hydrophilicity, is also associated with augmented antibacterial properties and reduced fouling, this can favor improvements in the anti-fouling properties of the membrane. Fig. 5 (A) displays membrane modification with raw nanoparticles and modified nanoparticles via functionalization method along with the effect of this modification on flux.Fig. 5 A: Modification of the surface and matrix of membrane with raw and functionalized nanoparticles as well as the effect of this modification on the membrane flux, B: Changing the flux of TFN membrane by adding functionalized nanoparticles to the surface layer (adapted from Ref. [60]), C: Changing the flux of MMM by adding functionalized nanoparticles to the membrane matrix (adapted from Ref. [43]).

Fig. 5

As indicated in Fig. 5 (A), nanoparticles can be added to the membrane surface or matrix. Functionalization of nanoparticles leads to uniform distribution of these particles across the membrane surface or matrix. Also, by improving the intrinsic properties of nanoparticles such as hydrophilicity, it contributes to enhancing the membrane flux. The flux passing across membranes containing functionalized nanoparticles is greater than in membranes with unmodified and raw nanoparticles [43,75,78,172]. Using TiO2 functionalized nanoparticles, Wei et al. [60] were able to boost water flux in PANH2‐TiO2PESM by 253 % and 167 % compared to PAPESM and PATiO2PESM, respectively (see Fig. 5 (B)), while the rejection of membrane PANH2‐TiO2PESM increased by only 1 % compared to the raw membrane and reached 95 %. Ayyaru and Ahn [43] synthesized PESSulfonated−TiO2M for separating BSA. According to the results, the flux of PESSulfonated−TiO2M, PESTiO2M, and PES membrane was reported 650, 522, and 321 LMH respectively (Fig. 5 (C)). Rajaeian et al. [173] synthesized PAAAPTS‐TiO2PESM for separating NaCl. The results indicated that functionalization of nanoparticles led to 142 % increase in water flux for PAAAPTS‐TiO2PESM compared to the PATiO2PESM. The flux of PAPESM, PATiO2PESM, and PAAAPTS‐TiO2PESM was reported 10.7, 11.2, and 27.1 LMH respectively.

Monsef et al. [78] employed ZrO2 nanoparticles for reducing the fouling of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane in treating textile wastewater. For boosting the role of ZrO2 nanoparticles in improving the superficial properties of the membrane, they deposited carboxylic acid functional groups on the surface of ZrO2 nanoparticles. As observed in Fig. 6(C and D), the functionalized zirconia nanoparticles after dispersion in the polymer matrix have a narrower size distribution and smaller size compared to the unmodified nanoparticles. It seems that the presence of a functional group on the surface of nanoparticles would prevent accumulation of nanoparticles in the membrane due to the interactions created with the polymer matrix (according to Fig. 6(A and B)) and enhances their effectiveness on the membrane structure properties. Further, based on AFM images (Fig. 6(E and F)), PSfCOOH‐ZrO2M has greater roughness due to the higher tendency of nanoparticles with functional groups to move towards the water bath, which is expected to elevate the water flux. Based on the SEM images (Fig. 6(G and H)), PSfZrO2M has a shorter finger pore length and thus the lowest porosity. In contrast, PSfCOOH‐ZrO2M has the maximum length of finger pores and the lowest amount of spongy structure as well as maximum porosity due to the hydrophilic nature of the carboxylic acid group, which augments the rate of exchange between water and solvent in the non-solvent bath. Their filtration results indicated that surface functionalization led to 16 % increase in dye separation along with 10 % increment in water flux. The fluxes of PSfZrO2M and PSfCOOH‐ZrO2M were found 500 and 550 LMH respectively [72].Fig. 6 Results of the presence of functionalized nanostructures (COOH-ZrO2) on the morphological and topological characteristics of the PSfCOOH−ZrO2M: A: the distribution of ZrO2, and B: COOH-ZrO2 in the polysulfone matrix (SEM image), C: size distribution of ZrO2, and D: COOH-ZrO2 in the membrane matrix, as well as AFM images of E: PSfZrO2M, F: PSfCOOH−ZrO2M, SEM cross sectional images of G: PSfZrO2M, and H: PSfCOOH−ZrO2M (adapted from Ref. [78]).

Fig. 6

3.2.2 Role of coated nanostructure in improving the membrane performance

Coated nanoparticles (mostly with polymers) are synthesized for more suitable distribution of nanoparticles within the matrix (and layers close to the surface) or in the top layer of membrane. As observed in Fig. 7 (A), coated nanoparticles can be added to the membrane matrix or top layer. Coating of nanoparticles leads to uniform distribution of these particles across the membrane surface or matrix, thereby improving the properties of nanoparticles. The outcome of this more uniform distribution will be enhanced membrane performance as well as increased rejection and flux [33,114,174].Fig. 7 A: Modification of surface and matrix of membrane with raw and coated nanoparticles along with the impact of this modification on the membrane rejection, B: Alteration of the rejection of MMM upon adding coated nanoparticles to the membrane matrix (adapted from Ref. [174]), and C: Changes in the rejection of TFN membrane by adding coated nanoparticles to the surface layer (adapted from Ref. [33]).

Fig. 7

Sokhandan et al. [175] synthesized PANSA−ZnOM to be used in membrane bioreactors. The employed nanoparticles had antibacterial properties, and SA coating led to enhanced membrane hydrophilicity. They observed that the COD removal percentage for PANZnOM and PANSA−ZnOM was 88 and 90 % respectively. Tripathi et al. [174] synthesized PANPDA−TiO2M through coating PDA on TiO2 nanoparticles for BSA separation, where the rejections of PANPDA−TiO2M, PANTiO2M, and PAN membrane were reported, 98 %, 95 %, and 93.75 %, respectively (see Fig. 7 (B)). Zabihi and Homayoonfal [33] synthesized AAAA‐CuSPSf M for separating metronidazole. The results indicated that the extent of separation for AAPSfM, AACuSPSfM, and AAAA‐CuSPSfM was 86.3, 87.5, and 98.3 % respectively, confirming the effect of presence of coated nanoparticles on enhancing metronidazole separation (see Fig. 7 (C)). In this membrane, acrylic acid coating was deposited on the surface of nanoparticles for better distribution of nanoparticles in the top layer. Fig. 8 (A, B) indicates the raw and coated CuS nanoparticles in which the chains on the surface of the coated nanoparticles (indicated by red arrows) prove the presence of acrylic acid. As observed in Fig. 8(C and D), AA-CuS nanoparticles are smaller and have a narrower size distribution compared to CuS nanoparticles. The smaller size of AA-CuS nanoparticles and the presence of acrylic acid coating on their surface leads to better dispersion in the monomer solution and better dispersion on the surface of the acrylic layer. As a result, as displayed in Fig. 8(G and H), the number of AA-CuS particles is greater compared to CuS nanoparticles on the surface of the membrane. Accordingly, it can be expected that AA-CuS nanoparticles will be more effective on improving the surface properties of the membrane due to their greater number on the surface. On the other hand, according to Fig. 8(E and F), the roughness of AAAA−CuSPSfM drops due to the smaller size and better distribution of AA-CuS nanoparticles, which is expected to reduce the surface roughness, leading to a decline in membrane fouling.Fig. 8 Results of the presence of coated nanostructures (AA-CuS) on the morphological and topological characteristics of AAAA−CuSPSfM: the SEM image of A: CuS, and B: AA-CuS nanoparticles, diagram of size distribution of C: CuS, and D: AA-CuS nanoparticles, AFM analysis of E: AACuSPSfM, and F: AAAA−CuSPSfM, SEM analysis of G: AACuSPSfM, and H: AAAA−CuSPSfM (adapted from Ref. [33]).

Fig. 8

3.2.3 Role of composited nanostructure in improving the membrane performance

The modification methods of functionalization and coating result in enhanced performance of raw nanoparticles, while blending of two nanoparticles would confer new features to nanoparticles. Thus, usage of composite nanoparticles seems facilitate for benefiting from the positive features of both nanoparticles for the membrane. Indeed, nanoparticles have distinctive features such as antibacterial, hydrophilic, and magnetic properties. By employing composite nanoparticles within the membrane structure, the features of both nanoparticles can be harnessed concurrently, thereby improving the membrane performance in comparison to raw membrane or containing only one type of nanoparticles. Fig. 9 presents membrane modification with raw nanoparticles and modified nanoparticles via compositing method as well as the effect of this modification on the fouling and flux [50,[93], [133], [176]].Fig. 9 Modification of membrane with raw and composite nanoparticles: A: effect of surface modification on membrane fouling, B: impact of matrix modification on the membrane flux, C: Alteration of the filtration resistances of TFN membrane by adding composite nanoparticles to the surface layer (adapted from Ref. [177]), and D: Changes in the flux of MMM upon adding composite nanoparticles to the membrane matrix (adapted from Ref. [135]).

Fig. 9

As observed in Fig. 9 (A), upon adding hydrophilic nanoparticles to the membrane surface, the membrane water contact angle falls, and usage of antibacterial nanoparticles leads to elimination of bacteria from the membrane surface. Ultimately, usage of both nanoparticles can contribute to reduced fouling of the membrane. Further, use of nanoparticles within the membrane structure results in enhanced membrane flux by augmenting hydrophilicity and porosity (Fig. 9 (B)). Fekete et al. [177] synthesized TiO2/CNTPVDFM for separating oil in water emulsion. The results of this research indicated that the total filtration resistance for TiO2/CNTPVDFM, TiO2PVDFM, and PVDF membrane was found 0.75 × 1011, 1.95 × 1012, and 2.75 × 1012,respectively (Fig. 9 (C)). Elsewhere, for achieving high flux and enhancing cephalexin rejection from wastewater concurrently, Karimi et al. [62] employed iron oxide nanoparticles as porosity adjuster and zirconium oxide nanoparticles as an agent for improving hydrophilicity in the sublayer, plus zirconium and iron oxide nanoparticles (as core shell nanoparticles) in the top layer of membrane. PAPANM, PAPANFe3O4M, PAPANZrO2M, PAFe3O4/ZrO2PANFe3O4M, and PAFe3O4/ZrO2PANZrO2M showed contact angles of 37, 28, 21, 21, and 18°, as well as fluxes of 53.49, 33.46, 40.62, 36, and 49.9 LMH, respectively. All indicate the positive effect of composite nanoparticles on the membrane structure and performance.

Noormohamadi et al. [135] synthesized PANFe3O4/ZrO2M. For modifying the membrane structure, they applied iron oxide nanoparticles, because of magnetic properties, and zirconium oxide nanoparticles given their hydrophilic properties and lack of considerable increase in surface roughness. The filtration performance results indicated that the flux for PANFe3O4/ZrO2M, PANFe3O4M, PANZrO2M, and PAN membrane was found 30.9, 26.1, 24.5, and 15 LMH (Fig. 9 (D)), while the filtration resistance for the mentioned membranes was found 10, 22, 15, and 55 % respectively.

The TEM image (Fig. 10 (A)) demonstrates that the synthesized composite nanoparticles have a core-shell structure. The results related to VSM analysis reveal the magnetic properties of Fe3O4 and ZrO2/Fe3O4 nanoparticles as well as PANFe3O4M and PANFe3O4/ZrO2M (Fig. 10 (B)). VSM results indicated that the membrane containing composite nanoparticles (PANFe3O4/ZrO2M) has had a lower magnetic saturation than PANFe3O4M, which can be due to the presence of zirconium oxide shell. As observed in the SEM images of nanocomposite membranes (Fig. 10 (C, D, E)), the membrane containing zirconium oxide nanoparticles has minimal porosity, while the porosity grows with the presence of iron oxide in the core-shell nanoparticles. According to AFM images (Fig. 10 (F, G, H)), the presence of zirconium shell in Fe3O4/ZrO2 nanoparticles makes the surface roughness of PANFe3O4/ZrO2M lower than that of PANFe3O4M.Fig. 10 Results of the presence of composited nanostructures (ZrO2/Fe3O4) on the morphological and topological characteristics of PANFe3O4/ZrO2M: A: TEM analysis of Fe3O4/ZrO2 nanoparticles, B: VSM analysis of Fe3O4 and Fe3O4/ZrO2 along with PANFe3O4M and PANFe3O4/ZrO2M , SEM images of C: PANFe3O4M, D: PANZrO2M, and E: PANFe3O4/ZrO2M, AFM analysis of F: PANFe3O4M, G: PANZrO2M, H: and PANFe3O4/ZrO2M (adapted from Ref. [135]).

Fig. 10

3.3 Efficiency of presence of nanostructures: what is the extent of improvement of membrane performance resulting from presence of nanostructure in separating pollutants from wastewater?

To investigate further details of application of these nanostructures regarding various fields of membrane processes, presence of modified nanostructures has been examined in separation of organic pollutants from wastewater, filtration of textile wastewater, separation of pharmaceutical pollutants from wastewater, separation of salt from wastewater, and improving the membrane performance in membrane bioreactors.

3.3.1 The efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance in separating organic pollutants from wastewater

Extensive studies have been done on use of nanoparticles within the membrane structure. In these studies, different polymers and various nanostructures have been added to the membrane structure. The synthesized membranes have been used for removal of different pollutants with different concentrations. According to results, presence of nanostructures affects the flux and extent of removal of pollutants. Vatanpour et al. [178] synthesized PSfg−C3N4/ZnOM for separating organic compounds. According to Fig. 11 (A), PSfg−C3N4/ZnOM containing g-C3N4/ZnO composite nanostructure had a lower contact angle than PSfg−C3N4M containing g-C3N4 nanostructure, due to higher hydrophilicity g-C3N4/ZnO resulting from the presence of –OH groups within the ZnO structure. Also, according to Fig. 11 (B), the separation percentage for all membranes is higher than 98 % and at the optimal concentration (0.5 wt%), PSfg−C3N4/ZnOM has the highest flux. Meanwhile, according to Fig. 11 (C), the antifouling performance of PSfg−C3N4/ZnOM is higher than that of the raw membrane and PSfg−C3N4M.Fig. 11 Performance results of a structurally modified membrane with composite nanoparticles (PSfg−C3N4/ZnOM) in the separation of organic pollutants: A: porosity, contact angle and mean pore size analysis; B: BSA solution flux and rejection; and C: Flux recovery ratio (FRR) (adapted from Ref. [178]).

Fig. 11

Zhou et al. [87] employed PVDF/PFSASiO2 M containing unmodified nanoparticles for separating bovine serum albumin (BSA). They found that, due to the reduction in contact angle from 93.7 to 63.5, presence of unmodified nanoparticles improved the pure water flux by 1.8 % and BSA separation by 1.5 %. Also, with the reduction of roughness, the flux decline ratio reached 17.4 %. Yu et al. [100] employed PVDFSiO2M containing SiO2 unmodified nanoparticles for BSA. They found that presence of SiO2 improved pure water flux by 150 % and lowered rejection by 3 % due to the reduction in contact angle from 82.9 to 53.4 and the increase in porosity from 52.5 to 84.2. Through functionalized nanoparticles in PSfNH2‐SiO2M for BSA separation, the resulting membrane could enhance the pure water flux by 700 %, and improve the separation by 10 % [87]. Considering the diversity of studies, employed particles, and their concentrations, it is not possible to offer an absolute judgment about the efficiency of membranes. Accordingly, IFP parameter was calculated based on Relation (3), with its results presented in Table 3. Higher values of this parameter indicate greater membrane efficiency and greater influence of the modification applied.Table 3 Examining the influence of presence of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in separation of organic pollutants from wastewater.

Table 3Row	Nanocomposite Membrane Composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	IFP for organic pollutant separationn	Reference	
Membrane name	NS/Polymer Conc. (wt.%)	Pollutant Type	Pollutant Conc.	Rejection Enhancement	Pure Water Flux Enhancement	PWFenhancementConsumedNP	
1	PVDFTiO2M	2.5	BSA	1000	+18	−16.7	−6.7	[86]	
2	PVDF/PFSASiO2Ma	16.8	BSA	1000	+1.5	+1.8	0.1	[87]	
3	PVDFTiO2M	62	BSA	–	0	+26	0.41	[88]	
4	PESTiO2M	37	Protein	–	+2	+20	0.54	[37]	
5	PSfSiO2M	10	Oil	65	+0.3	+8	0.8	[81]	
PSfCe_SiO2M	Oil	65	+0.6	+13	1.3	
6	PESTiO2M	26.7	N/A	–	–	+29.3	1.1	[89]	
7	PSTiO2Mb	51	BSA	100	+72	+100	1.9	[90]	
8	PVASiO2M	14	Dye	60	+19	+40	2.85	[91]	
9	PESSiO2−AgM	11	BSA	1000	0	+32	2.9	[92]	
10	PVDFTiO2/ZrO2M	15	N/A	–	–	+49	3.2	[93]	
PVDFSiO2M	+15	1	
11	PVDFSiO2M	30	Dextran-40	1000	−28.5	+100	3.3	[94]	
12	PVDFTiO2M	20	BSA	1000	+23	+100	5	[95]	
13	CATiO2M	19	BSA	1000	+15	+104	5.4	[96]	
14	PSfZrO2M	5	N/A	–	–	+35	7	[97]	
15	EPVCTiO2Mc	13.4	BSA	500	+8	+100	7.46	[98]	
16	PVDFMg−AlM	3.3	BSA	100	+8.5	+25	7.57	[99]	
17	PESTiO2M	11.1	BSA	1000	+2.6	+18	1.6	[77]	
PESSulfate−TiO2M	BSA	+2.9	+78	7	
18	PVDFSiO2M	16	BSA	300	−3	+150	9.3	[100]	
19	PVDFZnOM	6.7	N/A	–	–	+63	9.4	[101]	
20	CATiO2M	57	BSA	800	+3	+550	9.6	[102]	
21	PESZrO2M	5	PEO	–	0	+55	11	[103]	
22	PVCSiO2Md	1.5	PEO	–	0	+17	11.33	[104]	
23	PVDFpolyhexanide−CuOM	20.6	BSA	1000	+177	237	11.5	[105]	
24	CANH2−SiCMe	5.5	Oil	25000	+22.6	+69	12.58	[106]	
25	PVDFSnO2/GOM	6.25	BSA	1000	+52	+80.5	12.88	[85]	
26	PESAPTES−TiO2Mf	12.5	Dextran	–	−4	+28.5	14.8	[107]	
27	PESSulfonate−TiO2M	6.7	BSA	500	+10.7	100	14.9	[43]	
28	PESZnFe2O4/SiO2M	2.5	N/A	–	–	+38	15.2	[108]	
29	PESPVP−SiO2M	1	BSA	1000	−4	+18	18	[109]	
30	PVCFe3O4/O−MWCNTM	4.16	BSA	1000	+117	+80	19.23	[110]	
31	PSfNH2−SiO2M	33	BSA	500	+10	+700	21.2	[111]	
32	PESCOOOH−Fe3O4/SiO2M	2.5	BSA	200	0	+76.6	31.42	[112]	
33	PESCuO/ZnOM	1.1	N/A	–	–	+33	30	[113]	
34	PESPDA−ZnFe2O4M	4	Oil	500	+92	+188	47	[114]	
35	PSfCOOH−CNTM	0.77	Oil	1000	+16.28	+43.5	56.47	[115]	
36	PESNH2−PDA−Fe3O4M	0.5	BSA	1000	+28	+66.13	132.27	[116]	
PESSulf−PDA−Fe3O4M	+22.9	+57.23	114.48	
a SPSF: Sulfonated polysulfone.

b PS: Polystyrene.

c EPVC: Emulsion poly (vinyl chloride).

d PVC: Poly (vinyl chloride).

e SiC: Silicon carbide.

f APTES: 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane.

Regarding use of modified nanoparticles, for BSA separation, Guo and Kim [77] utilized PESTiO2M and PESSulfate‐TiO2M, whereby the extent of flux augmentation compared to the raw membrane was found 18 and 78 % respectively. In another research, Zhou et al. [87] used PSfNH2‐SiO2M for BSA separation, whereby IFP was found 21.2. In another research for oil separation, Kallem et al. [114]. employed PESPDA‐Fe3O4M, whereby the IFP parameter was found as 47. As observed in Table 3, IFP parameter has been lower than 11.5 in studies in which unmodified nanoparticles have been used, while with modification of nanoparticles, the value of this parameter has grown to 132.27 for PESNH2‐PDA‐Fe3O4M [116].

3.3.2 Efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance in separating dyes from wastewater

Newly emerging dye pollutants are considered a major threat for the environment, since many textile industries generate a large volume of such heavily contaminated wastes. Without the proper treatment, discharge of textile wastes causes major concerns for the environment [119]. One of the commonly used methods for dye separation is nanocomposite membranes. Extensive studies have been performed on use of nanostructures within the membrane structure for removing dyes. In these studies, different polymers and nanostructures have been added to the membrane structure. The synthesized membranes have been employed for removal of different dyes at different concentrations. The results have shown that presence of nanostructures affects the flux and extent of dye removal. For instance, Vatanpour et al. [125] synthesized PSfPEI−SiO2M for dye separation from textile wastewater. According to Fig. 12 (A), adding SiO2 nanoparticle to the raw PSf membrane has resulted in a decline in the contact angle, and upon coating the nanoparticle, the extent of hydrophilicity has increased. So that PSfPEI−SiO2M with a contact angle of 50.9° has been more hydrophilic than PSfSiO2M with a contact angle of 54.3°. According to Fig. 12 (B), the separation of RG19 dye through all membranes is about 100 %. Due to the increase in hydrophilicity and porosity because of the presence of PEI-SiO2 coated nanoparticles, the flux rose from about 92 LMH for the raw membrane to about 195 LMH for PSfPEI−SiO2M; The flux of the solution containing the pollutant has grown by about 65 % and the antifouling performance has also improved as a result of reducing the adhesion of organic pollutants such as protein and dyes to the surface (according to Fig. 12 (C)).Fig. 12 Performance results of a structurally modified membrane with coated nanoparticles (PSfPEI−SiO2M) in separating dyes from textile wastewater: A: Porosity, water contact angle, and mean pore size; B: Reactive Green 19 dye solution flux and rejection; and C: FRR (adapted from Ref. [125]). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 12

Zinadini et al. [117] utilized PESGOM for separation of Red 16 dye. They found that the resulting membrane could remove 96 % of dye from wastewater due to a decrease in the contact angle from 65.2 to 53.2. Also, the flux of the synthesized membrane was observed as 20.4 LMH, showing 148.7 % increase compared to the raw membrane. Akbari and Homayoonfal [22] employed PSfTiO2M for separating the Yellow 12 dye. They observed that the resulting membranes could separate 97 % of the dye from wastewater, indicating 4.2 % enhancement compared to the raw membrane, and the flux of the synthesized membrane was achieved 34 LMH. In another study by Yang et al. [121], PMIAGOM was utilized for separating Red, Red x-GTL, and Yellow dyes. The results revealed that the obtained membrane through a reduction in the contact angle from 76 to 56 could eliminate 95, 98, and 94 % of the mentioned dyes from wastewater, and the flux and FRR of the synthesized membrane reached 125.2 LMH and 98.7, revealing 159 % flux increase compared to the raw membrane. Considering the diversity of the examined results, IFP parameter was calculated according to Relation (4) for more precise investigation of studies. The results with further details are reported in Table 4.Table 4 Investigating the effect of presence of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in separating dyes from textile wastewater.

Table 4Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	IFP for dye separation	Reference	
Membrane name	NS/Polymer Conc. (wt.%)	Dye name	Dye Conc. (g/L)	Water flux (LMH)	Dye removal (%)	Flux×DyeConcΔP×ConsumedNP	
1	PESGOM	2.5	Red16	0.03	20.4	96	0.061	[117]	
2	PESFeONM	26.66	Congo red	0.2	66	89.8	0.179	[118]	
3	PESCeO2M	10	Congo red	0.1	131	9936	0.262	[119]	
4	PESPABFNPM	1.25	red 16	0.03	64.2	99	0.385	[120]	
5	PSfTiO2M	2	Yellow 12	0.1	34	97	0.425	[22]	
6	PMIAGOM	1.5	Red x-GTL	0.05	125.2	98	0.522	[121]	
Red	0.05	125.2	95	
Yellow	0.05	125.2	94	
7	PESZnO/MWCNTM	2.5	Red16	0.5	16.7	94	0.8.35	[122]	
8	PESF−carbondotsM	2.38	Red 198	0.1	76.5	98.9	1.071	[123]	
9	PESHMDI−TiO2Ma	4	Congo red	0.024	52	97.4	1.585	[124]	
10	GOPAA−NH2−UiO−66M	2	Congo red	0.02	150	98	1.667	[79]	
11	PESMDA−Fe3O4M	2.38	Green 19	0.1	185.7	98	2.601	[75]	
12	PSfPEI−SiO2M	2	RG19	0.1	195	100	3.25	[125]	
13	PDAPEI−TiO2_AgPANM	–	black 5	0.2	81.2	99.5	-	[126]	
14	PAGO_TiO2PSfM	0.1	Green19	0.1	61	99.4	6.1	[127]	
0.1	Yellow12	0.1	61	95.4	
0.1	Blue 21	0.1	61	81.4	
15	PSfZrO2M	2	Yellow 4GNL	0.1	500	98	8.333	[31]	
PSfCOOH−ZrO2M	2	0.1	520	97	8.667	
PSfSO4−ZrO2 M	2	0.1	550	98	9.167	
16	PANFe3O4/ZrO2M	1	Yellow 4GNL	0.1	450	90	15	[49]	
a HMDI: 1, 6-hexamethylene diisocyanate.

In PSfTiO2M [22], PESHMDI‐TiO2M [124], and PDAPEI‐TiO2/AgPANM [126] membranes, TiO2 nanoparticles have been used as raw, modified via functionalization, and modified through coating and compositing methods respectively, and the flux of the mentioned membranes has been reported 34, 52, and 81.2 LMH respectively, indicating the positive effect of nanoparticles modification. Koulivand et al. [123] synthesized PESF-carbon dots M by functionalizing carbon dots nanostructure with using sulfone, -SO2OH, and COOH groups and by adding it to the membrane structure for separating Red 198 dye, IFP was calculated as 1.071. In another research, Safarpour et al. [127] utilized PAGO‐TiO2PSfM, where IFP was calculated 6.1. As observed in Table 4, with modification of nanoparticles, the IFP parameter increased; in the examined studies, this parameter has had a value of lower than 0.6 for unmodified nanostructures, while soaring to 15 with the nanoparticle modification for PANFe3O4/ZrO2M [49].

3.3.3 Efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance in membrane bioreactors

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is widely used as a water treatment process in treating household and industrial wastewater such as petrochemical wastewater, treating disinfectants-containing wastewater, leachate treatment, etc. Nevertheless, the membrane fouling which leads to shortening of the lifespan and high energy consumption of MBR is considered as the main stumbling block in development of MBR [179]. From among all methods of modification in membrane preparation, nanocomposite membranes have shown a promising performance, offering intrinsic properties of polymer membranes plus nanostructure, and presenting interesting advantages including anti-fouling and good separation performance as well as excellent compatibility with tough operational conditions [180]. Many studies have been performed on addition of nanostructures to the membrane structure of membrane bioreactors. Various studies were investigated in terms type of polymer, type of nanostructure, nanostructures concentration, and method of adding nanostructure to the membrane structure. In these studies, the conditions of membrane bioreactors including solid retention time (SRT), hydraulic retention time (HRT) and MLSS were compared as well as the membrane performance indicators including COD removal, filtration resistance, flux recovery ratio, and flux. The conclusion of the results is presented in Table 5. Based on investigations, Ghalamchi et al. [134] synthesized PESg−C3N4M, PESAg3PO4M, PESNH2−Ag3PO4M, PESNH2−Ag3PO4/g−C3N4M, PESAg3PO4/NLDHM, and PESLDHM membranes to be applied in MBR. As observed in Fig. 13 (B), the hydrophilicity of the nanocomposite membranes was improved by adding inorganic, organic, and nanocomposite materials compared to the raw membrane. Modifying nanoparticles with amine groups and enhancing hydrophilicity caused the water flux of PESNH2−Ag3PO4M to be 9 % higher than that of PESAg3PO4M (Fig. 13 (A)). Hydrophilic nanosheets within the polymer matrix facilitate the creation of hydrogen bonds with water molecules and by developing a thin layer of water molecules on the membranes, they prevent the absorption of BSA molecules on the surface of the membranes. Thus, the high values of FRR belong to the membranes containing nanosheets reaching 70.7 and 75.8 % for PESg−C3N4M and PESNLDHM, respectively (Fig. 13 (B)). The critical flux of the raw membrane in MBR was 43 LMH, which suddenly dropped due to faster and severe membrane fouling while the antibacterial and hydrophilic properties of the PESNH2−Ag3PO4/g−C3N4M led to a reduction in the interaction between the foulant and the membrane surface, thus improving the critical flux (see Fig. 13 (C)).Fig. 13 Performance results of a structurally modified membrane with modified nanoparticles (PESNH2−Ag3PO4/g−C3N4M) in membrane bioreactor: A: Water flux, BSA flux, and second water flux after protein filtration; B: Flux recovery ratios and the contact angle; C: The critical flux of raw and nanocomposite membrane in MBR (adapted from Ref. [134]).

Fig. 13

Homayoonfal et al. [130] synthesized PSFAl2O3M. They found that the flux was 12 LMH, showing 200 % increase compared to raw membrane due to a decline in the contact angle from 72 to 51. Amini et al. [132] synthesized HDPESiO2 M, reporting that due to a reduction in the contact angle from 116.2 to 97.2 and an increase in porosity from 61 to 69, COD removal, flux recovery, and membrane flux reached 96 %, 63 %, and 18 LMH respectively. Specifically, it showed 80 % increase in flux compared to the raw membrane. Also, in another research by Hashemi et al. [131], due to a reduction in the contact angle from 57 to 46 and an increase in porosity from 39 to 49, the removal percentage of COD and flux of the PANAl2O3M synthesized membrane were reported 97 and 20 LMH respectively, indicating 300 % increase of flux compared to the raw membrane. Given the variety of the concentration of employed nanostructures and the varying operational conditions of membrane bioreactors, IFP parameter was defined and calculated according to Relation (5). The results have been presented in Table 5. Higher values of this parameter would indicate better efficiency of the membrane and greater impact of modification.Table 5 Exploring the effect of presence of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in membrane bioreactor.

Table 5Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	IFP for MBR separation	Reference	
Membrane Name	NS/Polymer Conc. (wt.%)	MLSS (Kg/L)	HRT (h)	SRT (day)	Pressure (bar)	Flux (LMH)	Flux
Recovery (%)	Filtration
Resistance (%)	COD
Removal (%)	Flux×MLSSΔP×ConsumedNP	
1	PESGOM	3.3	10	6	∞	3	21	92.8	26.2	94.7	0.024	[128]	
2	PVDFTiO2M	5	2.5	12	25	0.4	35.28	–	39	–	0.044	[129]	
3	PSFAl2O3M	3	12	–	∞	0.4	12	–	87	90.28	0.12	[130]	
4	PANAl2O3M	2	8.5	–	–	0.3	20	91	57	88.71	0.283	[131]	
5	HDPESiO2M	0.5	8	24	20	0.4	20	89.92	52.5	96.7	0.8	[132]	
6	PVDFAg/SiO2M	3.5	7	12	20	0.2	–	75	–	94.5	-	[133]	
7	PESNH2−Ag3PO4M	3.125	6	–	–	0.5	242	55	–	–	0.929	[134]	
8	PANFe3O4M	1	10	8	∞	0.3	43	80	22	91	1.433	[135]	
PANZrO2M	1	10	0.3	35	70	15	90	1.167	
PANFe3O4/ZrO2 M	1	10	0.3	47	92	10	94	1.567	
9	PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4Ma	0.36	10	26	∞	2	125.8	95	–	97	1.747	[136]	
10	PESPVP−DDT−Ag Mb	2	7.32	24	20	0.1	50	94.26	10.84	98.4	1.83	[137]	
11	CANH2−ND M	2.85	6.75	24	25	0.1	77.8	95	83	91	1.843	[76]	
12	PSfS−NDM	1	8	24	25	0.1	40	58.94	–	–	3.2	[138]	
13	PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4M	0.05	1	–	∞	1	250	95	72	–	5	[139]	
a OCMCS: O-carboxymethyl chitosan.

b DDT: 1-dodecanthiol.

Regarding use of modified nanostructure within the structure of membrane of MBRs, Etemadi et al. [76] used functionalized nanoparticles in CANH2‐NDM, whereby the IFP value was found 1.873. In another research, Tizchang et al. [138] utilized PSfS‐NDM in membrane bioreactor, with IFP found as 3.2. As observed in Table 5, across all of the examined studies, when raw nanostructures were used, the value of this parameter has been lower than 1.5, and modification on the nanostructure would lead to enhancement of this parameter. For example, for the PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4M, this parameter was calculated 5 [139].

3.3.4 Efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance in separating salts from the wastewater

The general water crisis especially freshwater has been one of the most serious challenges of recent decades. Today desalination process is finding a great status against such challenges [143]. Membrane separation method can play a vital role in treating drinking water, desalination of brine wastewater as well as seawater thanks to their numerous advantages such as low cost, low process temperature, lack of byproducts, and high separation efficiency [140]. Usage of nanostructures within the membrane structure would enhance its performance. Numerous studies have been done on addition of nanostructures within the membrane structure for salt separation. Various studies have been reviewed and investigated regarding the composition of the composite membrane including type of polymer, type of nanostructure, and concentration of nanostructure, with Table 6 summarizing the results. The results show that presence of nanostructure affects the flux and extent of salt removal. Abadikhah et al. [149] synthesized PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M for desalination. Based on the results presented in Fig. 14 (A), the PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M shows a 70 % increase in water flux compared to PAPES/Si3N4M. This observation is due to the addition of nanostructures in the surface layer of PA, which can create additional pathways at the interface of nanoparticles and polymer matrix as well as facilitate water penetration. Also, PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M presented a 48 % increase in water flux compared to PAGOPES/Si3N4M, which can be explained by the addition of rGO/TiO2/Ag hydrophilic composite nanostructures in the surface layer of PA. The increase in the normalized flux values in PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M indicates that the addition of nanocomposite nanostructures has improved the antifouling properties. According to Fig. 14 (B), the best desalination performance is related to PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M at the optimal concentration of composite nanostructure (0.2 wt%). As observed in Fig. 14 (C), by modifying the GO nanosheet with TiO2 and Ag nanoparticles, the antibacterial performance of the membranes has also improved.Fig. 14 Performance results of a surface modified membrane with composite nanoparticles (PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M) in the separation of salt from wastewater: A: flux, normalized flux, and salt rejection; B: salt rejection with CaCl2, Na2SO4, and NaCl feed solutions; C: antibacterial properties of the membranes (adapted from Ref. [149]).

Fig. 14

Emadzadeh et al. [141] employed PAPSfTiO2M for NaCl separation. The findings revealed that the resulting membranes could separate 93 % of salt from wastewater through the decrease in the contact angle from 71 to 64 and the increase of porosity from 71 to 75, where the flux of the synthesized membrane was found 4.9 LMH, indicating 64.7 % increase compared to the PAPSF membrane. Agbaje et al. [142] utilized PVDFFe3O4M for separating NaCl salt. The results indicated that the obtained membranes could separate 99.5 % of salt from wastewater, and the flux of the synthesized membrane was observed 15 LMH, being 15 % greater compared to the raw membrane flux. In another study by Lakhotia et al. [140], PAFeOPESM was utilized for separating MgCl2 salt. They found that the resulting membrane could separate 98.92 % of salt from wastewater with a decline in the contact angle from 76.1 to 49.6, and the flux of the synthesized membrane was observed 23.88 LMH, showing 36 % increase compared to raw membrane. Given the diversity of the examined results, the IFP parameter, obtained by Relation (6), was calculated for more precise investigation of studies. The results with greater details are provided in Table 6.Table 6 Examining the effect of presence of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in separating salt from wastewater.

Table 6Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	IFP for salt separation	Reference	
Membrane name	NS/Polymer Conc. (wt.%)	Salt name	Salt Conc. (g/L)	Water flux (LMH)	Salt removal (%)	Flux×SaltConcΔP×ConsumedNP	
1	PAFeOPESM	10	MgCl2	2	23.88	98.92	0.46	[140]	
2	PAPSfTiO2M	2.855	NaCl	1.1688	4.9	73	0.8	[141]	
3	PVDFFe3O4M	10	NaCl	1	15	99.5	0.75	[142]	
4	CAZnO M	3.57	NaCl	1	26.57	99	1.24	[143]	
5	PASiO2PSfM	5	NaCl	0.5844	36.5	78	1.42	[144]	
6	PESPVP−Fe3O4M	0.55	Na2SO4	1	6.6	90	2.4	[46]	
7	PAFe3O4/ZnOPSEFe3O4/ZnOM	1.42	NaCl	1.1688	16.5	96.5	5.43	[71]	
8	PESNH2‐Fe3O4/SiO2M	2.5	Na2SO4	1	65	99	6.5	[145]	
9	PDATiO2/ZnOPAM	1	MgSO4	1	28.4	99	7.1	[146]	
10	PAGO‐SiO2PSFM	0.5	Na2SO4	2	43	93.2	24.57	[147]	
11	PAPESNH2‐ZnOM	0.3	NaCl	2.33	10.225	93.08	31.77	[148]	
12	PArGO/TiO2/AgPES/Si3N4M	0.2	MgSO4	1	52	95	37.1	[149]	
13	PVDFCMC−ZnOMa	0.33	Na2SO4	1	139.788	95.01	423.6	[150]	
a CMC: Carboxymethyl chitosan.

In PVDFFe3O4M [142], PESPVP‐Fe3O4M [46], PAFe3O4/ZnOPSEFe3O4/ZnOM [71], and PESNH2‐Fe3O4/SiO2M [145] membranes, Fe3O4 nanoparticles have been used as raw, modified via coating method, modified through compositing method, and use in top layer and sublayer, as well as modified through compositing and functionalization methods, respectively. The IFP parameter of the mentioned membranes has been reported 0.75, 2.4, 5.43, and 6.5 respectively, indicating the positive effect of nanoparticle modification. In another research, Darabi et al. [148] used amine groups for functionalizing ZnO nanoparticles in PAPESNH2‐ZnOM, whereby the IFP was achieved as 31.77. As reported in Table 6, with modification of nanoparticles, the IFP parameter shows growth, such that in the examined studies, this parameter has been below 2 for unmodified of particles, while increasing up to 423.6 for PVDFCMC‐ZnOM upon modification of nanoparticles [150].

3.3.5 Efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance in separating pharmaceutical pollutants from the wastewater

Elevation of the level of pharmaceutical compounds in water environments has become a major concern in recent years. Although drugs including antibiotics are usually detected at low concentrations, they may have harmful physiological consequences for humans and other living creatures. Thus, it is essential to recycle antibiotics and pharmaceutical compounds from the wastewater of industrial factories [181]. The conventional methods of biological treatment of wastewater are not efficient enough in removal of antibiotics. Membrane processes have advantages such as higher efficiency, reducing operational costs, decreasing energy consumption, and being environmentally friendly.

Extensive studies have been performed on addition of nanostructures to the membrane structure for separation of pharmaceutical pollutants. Various studies have been reviewed and further examined regarding the composition of the composite membrane including type of polymer, type of nanostructure, and concentration of nanostructure. Synthesized membranes have been used for removal of pharmaceutical pollutants. The results indicated that presence of nanostructure influences the flux and extent of removal. Moradi et al. [160] synthesized CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM for drug separation from wastewater. According to Fig. 15 (A), CCPVDFM has a higher water flux than PVDF membrane due to greater porosity and hydrophilicity. Due to the reduction of roughness and contact angle because of the presence of γ-AlOOH@Nar functionalized nanoparticles, the highest flux (according to Fig. 15 (A)) and the highest FRR (about 95.4 % according to Fig. 15 (B)) were related to CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM. According to Fig. 15 (C), the CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM membranes show not only the highest flux but also the greatest rejection for both tested drug compounds (CTX and CEX).Fig. 15 Performance results of a surface modified nanocomposite membrane sample with functionalized nanoparticles (CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM) in the separation of pharmaceutical pollutants: A:water contact angle and pure water flux; B: fouling parameters; and C: rejection of the single solute (CTX or CEX) (adapted from Ref. [160]).

Fig. 15

Paseta et al. [151] employed PAZIF‐93PIM for separating diclofenac. The results indicated that the resulting membrane could separate 99 % of the drug from wastewater, and the flux of the synthesized membrane was found 242 LMH, indicating 255.8 % increase compared to the raw membrane. This increment in flux is related to the porosity of the MOF, higher hydrophilicity of the membrane, and higher surface roughness. Bojnourd and Pakizeh [152] utilized PVAPSfM for separating cephalexin. The results indicated that the resulting membranes could separate 99 % of the drug from wastewater, and the flux of membrane was achieved 14 LMH, revealing 58.8 % increase compared to the raw membrane. Considering the diversity of the examined results and for more precise investigation of studies, the IFP parameter was calculated according to Relation (7). The results with further details are outlined in Table 7.Table 7 Inspection the effect of presence of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in separating pharmaceutical pollutants from the wastewater.

Table 7Row	Nanocomposite membrane composition	Filtration condition	Filtration performance	IFP for drug separation	Reference	
Membrane name	NS/thin film conc.	Process	
Pollutant Type	Drug Conc. (g/L)	Rejection (%)	Flux (LMH)	Flux×DrugConcΔP×ConsumedNP	
1	PAZIF−93PIMa	20	NF	Diclofenac	0.001	99	242	0.0012	[151]	
Naproxen	0.001	99.3	
2	PAzeolitePSfM	0.75	NF	Carbamazepine	0.0002	85	58.916	0.0015	[39]	
Metoprolol	0.0002	82	
Ranitidine	0.0002	84	
Chloramphenicol	0.0002	84	
3	PVAPSfM	1	NF	Cephalexin	0.050	99	14	0.0875	[152]	
Amoxicillin	0.050	97.7	
IBU	0.050	74	
PVP-I	0.050	93.8	
4	CNTPVCM	_	UF	AAP	1	78	283.6	-	[4]	
CAF	0.5	90	
TCS	0.5	90	
CBD	0.5	94	
5	CNTPVDFM	_	MF	TCS	0.001	93	_	-	[153]	
IBU	0.001	34	
AAP	0.001	29	
CBZ	0.001	70	
ATAP	0.001	67	
CAF	0.001	42	
PTN	0.001	71	
CBD	0.001	65	
6	PVAClayPSfM	0.6	NF	Cephalexin	–	98.16	10.8	-	[154]	
Amoxicillin	–	95.4	
IBU	–	83.37	
7	PAZIF−8PSfM	1.21	NF	AAP	0.1	46	16	0.331	[3]	
8	CNTPVDFM	_	MF	AAP	0.001	77	_	-	[155]	
CAF	0.001	90	
TCS	0.001	90	
CBD	0.001	92	
9	PAPDAPEG@ZIF−8PESMb	0.3	UF	VB12	0.01	98	46.8	0.39	[156]	
OTC	0.01	90	
10	PDATiO2polysulfonateM	1.26	FO	TCS	0.0005	99	_	-	[157]	
MTP	0.0005	90	
SMX	0.0005	99	
11	rGOCNTPVDFM	1	NF	AAP	1	62	0.4454	4.454	[158]	
12	PANH2−UiO−66PIM	0.75	NF	tetracycline	0.2	99	200	5.33	[159]	
13	PAZrO2/Fe3O4PANM	0.17	NF	Cephalexin	0.05	78	105	7.72	[62]	
14	CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM	0.4	NF	Cephalexin	0.03	99.8	53.6	10.05	[160]	
15	PAMIL−53PSFM	0.2	FO	doxycycline	1	98.5	11.27	11.27	[161]	
16	AAAA−CuSPSfM	0.2	NF	Metronidazole	0.025	98.3	512.8	16.025	[33]	
a PI: Polyamide.

b PEG: Poly (Ethylene Glycol).

For separating cephalexin drug in the examined studies, PVAPSfM [152], PAZrO2/Fe3O4PANM [62], and CCAlOOH@NARPVDFM [160] membranes were used, where IFP was reported 0.0875, 7.72, and 10.05 respectively, indicating the positive effect of presence of nanoparticles on the membrane performance. In another research, Guo et al. [159] utilized amine groups for functionalizing UiO-66 nanoparticles within the PANH2‐UiO‐66PIM structure where the IFP was calculated to be 5.33. As observed in Table 7, the IFP parameter for the membranes without modified nanoparticles has been lower than 5, while growing up to 16.025 in case of nanoparticle modification for AAAA‐CuSPSfM [24]. Based on the IFP parameter calculated for the reviewed studies, the performance comparison of membrane containing modified and unmodified nanoparticle has been presented in Fig. 16. In the presented figure, the best nanoparticle modification approach in each category is presented already.Fig. 16 Investigating the effect of the presence and surface/structural modification of nanoparticles on the performance of nanocomposite membranes in separation of A: organic pollutants, B: filtration of textile wastewater, C: separation of salts, D: membrane bioreactors, and E: separation of pharmaceutical pollutants (More details about the presented data, have been provided in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7).

Fig. 16

Based on Fig. 16, the use of modified nanoparticle compared to unmodified nanoparticle has improved the performance of the membrane and enhanced the value of IFP plus water flux. In the field of organic wastewater filtration (Fig. 16 (A)), the functionalization of nanoparticles resulted in the highest value of IFP (equal to 132.27) for the membrane. In the field of textile wastewater filtration (Fig. 16 (B)), the composite of nanoparticles resulted in the highest value of IFP (equal to 15) for the membrane containing modified nanoparticles. By examining the application of nanocomposite membranes in improving the filtration performance of brine wastewater (Fig. 16 (C)), it seems that the use of functionalized nanoparticles leads to a very significant increase in IFP and flux compared to unmodified nanoparticles. Application of nanocomposite membranes in improving the filtration performance of the membrane bioreactor (Fig. 16 (D)) would result in the highest IFP (equal to 5) and the highest flux for coated nanoparticles, showing a significant improvement compared to the membrane containing unmodified nanoparticles. Finally, nanoparticle coating has offered the best efficiency in improving membrane performance in pharmaceutical wastewater filtration (Fig. 16 (E)), so that the resulting IFP membrane has had a far higher flux than other types of membranes.

4 Challenges and future approaches/developments

Although recent review articles in the field of nanocomposite membranes have done valuable research in different fields such as the specific type of polymeric materials (such as polyamide [54]), or on a specific feature of the membrane (such as antibacterial [55], antimicrobial [56], or antifouling [7]), or specific application area (such as nanofiltration [51], desalination [52], or the removal of toxic substances [53]), no research has been done in the field of the site of loading (top layer or sublayer) and the structure of nanostructures (composite, coated, and functionalized). Since in this article, a unique parameter (IFP) was defined based on which the data of published articles in this field were reviewed and compared, so the results are comprehensive, generalizable, and replicable.

In this section, for practical usage by future researchers, the most widely used nanoparticle as well as its modification method and the best modified nanoparticle in five different fields of wastewater treatment are summarized. As a general conclusion, it can be stated that TiO2 has claimed the largest share (29 %) among nanoparticles for modification of nanocomposite membranes, followed by SiO2, Fe3O4, and ZnO with usage share of 24, 16, and 7 % respectively. Among the nanoparticle modification methods, functionalization with a usage share of 26 % of has attracted more attention compared to coating and compositing. Indeed, this high share of application is not surprising, since after functionalization of nanoparticles, the IFP has improved by 197 % on average, compared to usage of raw nanoparticles. Meanwhile, coating and compositing methods have been associated with 90 and 93 % improvement on average. In the modification method through functionalization, amine groups with 42 % were found to be used more than other functional groups. Indeed, application of this functional group caused the CANH2−ND membrane to have IFP = 86. However, for PESMDA‐Fe3O4M, PESS‐TiO2M, PESSiO2‐TiO2M, PSfCCOOH‐ZrO2M, and PSfSiO4‐ZrO2M, the IFP parameter was calculated 62.5, 16, 7, 40, and 40.5 respectively.

The efficiency of presence of nanostructures in improving the membrane performance was examined for separation of organic pollutants from wastewater, filtration of textile wastewater, separation of pharmaceutical pollutants from wastewater, salt separation from wastewater, and improving membrane performance in membrane bioreactors. In the groups of separation of organic pollutants, filtration of textile wastewater, membrane bioreactors, separation of salts, and separation of pharmaceutical pollutants, IFP parameter has been lower than 11.5, 0.6, 14, 2, and 7.63 in studies in which unmodified nanoparticles have been used. However, the value of this parameter with modification of nanoparticles via functionalization methods has grown to 132.27 for the group of organic pollutants, to 15 for the groups of textile wastewater through compositing, to 5 for membrane bioreactors by coating, to 423.6 for brine wastewater through functionalization, and to 16.025 for pharmaceutical pollutants via coating method. Thus, investigations confirm presence of nanoparticles as well as modification of their structure on improving the performance of membrane filtration in different applications.

Regarding separation of organic wastewater, although TiO2 and SiO2 nanoparticles have been used more than other nanoparticles, the highest IFP was calculated for PESNH2‐PDA‐Fe3O4M as 132.27. Thus, it is recommended that researchers interested in treatment of organic wastewater employ Fe3O4 nanoparticles as modified. In separation of textile dyes, although TiO2 has had greatest application, the largest IFP has been found for ZrO2. This parameter was calculated 6.1 and 15 for TiO2-containing of PAGO_TiO2PSfM and TiO2-containing PANFe3O4/ZrO2M, respectively. Thus, researchers interested in removal of textile wastewater are proposed to use ZrO2 nanoparticles composited with iron oxide within the membrane matrix. In membrane bioreactors, Fe3O4 nanoparticles revealed the greatest application and highest IFP. This parameter was calculated 5 for the PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4M. Thus, usage of Fe3O4 seems to be better than other nanoparticles in membrane bioreactors. Also, in separation of salts, ZnO indicated the highest application and IFP value. The value of this parameter for the PVDFCMC‐ZnOM was calculated 423.6. Thus, researchers dealing with separation of salts are suggested to utilize this nanoparticle. When separating pharmaceutical pollutants, ZIFs indicated the greatest application. Nevertheless, the highest IFP was related to AAAA‐CuSPSfM, found as 16.025. Thus, CuS nanoparticles as modified in the top layer of membrane seem to offer the best performance.

5 Conclusion

Examination of 118 studies performed on application of nanocomposite membranes in the filtration of different types of wastewater, while emphasizing the effectiveness of nanoparticles on the membrane performance, revealed that the site of loading of nanoparticles and structural modification of nanoparticles (coating, compositing, and functionalization) determine the magnitude of effectiveness of nanoparticles. The investigations revealed that loading of nanoparticles in one layer, for PAZeolitePESM and PAPSfZeoliteM was associated with −36 and −3% changes in the parameter of rejection enhancement. On the other hand, PAFe3O4/ZnOPANZnOM and PAZeolitePSfZeoliteM (containing nanoparticles in both membrane layers) showed 44.6 % and 8 % rejection enhancement. Investigation of different types of modifications applied onto the structure of nanoparticles also revealed that modification of Fe3O4 nanoparticles with MDA functional group led to IPF = 62.5, while this value for compositing this nanoparticle with ZrO2 as well as coated with PANI was found 42.8 and 45.45, respectively. Overall, a general comparison indicated that although incorporation of TiO2 nanostructure in the PESTiO2M matrix caused 9.52 % enhancement in IFP parameter compared to the raw membrane, which is an acceptable value, modification of the nanostructure with Ag and its incorporation in the PAPSfTiO2/AgM sublayer was associated with 24.63 % improvement compared to the raw membrane. Thus, in addition to the selection of the suitable type of nanostructures for each application, its loading site, as well as the surface modification performed on it also heavily determine the extent of effectiveness of presence of nanoparticles.

Examination of application of nanocomposite membranes in enhancing the organic wastewater filtration performance confirmed that the best IFP was achieved through incorporating Fe3O4 nanostructure modified with amine groups and PDA in the PESNH2‐PDA‐Fe3O4M structure. Thus, regarding filtration of organic wastewater, functionalization of nanoparticles seems to improve the filtration performance. Investigation of the application of nanocomposite membranes in enhancing the textile wastewater filtration performance confirmed that the best IFP was obtained through incorporating Fe3O4 nanostructure composited with ZrO2 within the PANFe3O4/ZrO2M structure. Examination of application of nanocomposite membranes in boosting the filtration performance of membrane bioreactor confirmed that the best IFP was achieved through incorporating Fe3O4 nanostructure modified with OCMCS (PVDFOCMCS/Fe3O4M). Thus, it seems that coating iron oxide nanoparticles is the best solution for enhancing the membrane performance in membrane bioreactors. Investigation of use of nanocomposite membranes in augmenting the brine wastewater filtration performance confirmed that the best IFP was obtained by incorporating ZnO nanostructure modified with CMC within the PVDFCMC/ZnOM structure. Thus, use of coated ZnO nanostructure seems to function better in the filtration of brine wastewater. Exploration of the use of nanocomposite membranes in boosting the pharmaceutical wastewater filtration performance confirmed that the best IFP was achieved through incorporating CuS nanostructure modified with AA in the top layer (AAAA‐CuSPSfM). Therefore, coating nanoparticles and their incorporation in the top layer seem to offer the best efficiency in boosting the membrane performance in pharmaceutical wastewater filtration.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Fateme Tahmasebi Sefiddashti: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Maryam Homayoonfal: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ms. Fateme Tahmasebi Sefiddashti is a researcher in the membrane field, she has got her bachelor's degree in chemical engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Iran. and she got her master's degree in chemical engineering from the Isfahan University of Technology, her master research was focused on modeling and classification reservoir rock. She is doing her Ph.D now at Isfahan University. She was a distinguished student in all three educational stage. Her research interests are; oil and water separation by janus membrane, polymeric material, nanocomposite membranes for wastewater treatment.

Dr. Maryam Homayoonfal currently holds the position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering within the College of Engineering at the University of Isfahan, located in Isfahan, Iran. She completed her BSc in Petrochemical Engineering at Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnique) in Tehran, Iran in 2005, achieving a GPA of 16.13. She then pursued her MSc in Chemical Engineering with a focus on Nanotechnology at the University of Kashan, where she secured an impressive GPA of 19.43, earning the top rank, in 2008. Her educational journey continued with a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, also with a specialization in Nanotechnology, at the University of Tehran, Iran, which she completed in 2014 with a remarkable GPA of 18.81.

Both her MSc and Ph.D. research centered on the synthesis and application of nanocomposite membranes for wastewater treatment. Dr. Homayoonfal boasts over a decade of teaching experience, specifically in the realm of chemical engineering with a focus on environmental aspects. Her outstanding educational achievements include being selected as the exemplary instructor within the Chemical Engineering Department in April 2019 and, more recently, as the exemplary university of isfahan instructor in April 2022. During her academic career, she has supervised a remarkable 21 bachelor's theses and mentored 13 master's theses, in addition to guiding two PhD thesis. Dr. Homayoonfal's research endeavors are predominantly concentrated on the specialized field of synthesizing and applying polymer membranes to separate specific pollutants and address environmental challenges. As a testament to her research excellence, she has authored 41 ISI-indexed articles and one ISC-indexed article in Persian. She has also presented 10 papers at international conferences and been actively involved in the execution of three industrial research projects. Furthermore, her innovative work has led to the successful acquisition of a domestic patent.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36874.
==== Refs
References

1 Moradi G. Zinadini S. Dabirian F. Rajabi L. Polycitrate-para-aminobenzoate alumoxane nanoparticles as a novel nanofiller for enhancement performance of electrospun PAN membranes Separ. Purif. Technol. 213 2019 224 234
2 Ji Y. Recent developments in nanofiltration membranes based on nanomaterials Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 25 11 2017 1639 1652
3 Basu S. Balakrishnan M. Polyamide thin film composite membranes containing ZIF-8 for the separation of pharmaceutical compounds from aqueous streams Separ. Purif. Technol. 179 2017 118 125
4 Wang Y. Huang H. Wei X. Influence of wastewater precoagulation on adsorptive filtration of pharmaceutical and personal care products by carbon nanotube membranes Chem. Eng. J. 333 2018 66 75
5 Khajouei M. Jahanshahi M. Peyravi M. Hoseinpour H. Rad A.S. Anti-bacterial assay of doped membrane by zero valent Fe nanoparticle via in-situ and ex-situ aspect Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 117 2017 287 300
6 Mollahosseini A. Rahimpour A. Interfacially polymerized thin film nanofiltration membranes on TiO2 coated polysulfone substrate J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20 4 2014 1261 1268
7 Jhaveri J.H. Murthy Z.J.D. A Comprehensive Review on Anti-fouling Nanocomposite Membranes for Pressure Driven Membrane Separation Processes vol. 379 2016 137 154
8 Okpala C.C. Nanocomposites–an overview Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev. 8 11 2013 17 23
9 Thostenson E.T. Li C. Chou T.-W. Nanocomposites in context Compos. Sci. Technol. 65 3–4 2005 491 516
10 Chukwuati C.N. Moutloali R.M. Antibacterial studies of Ag@HPEI@GO nanocomposites and their effects on fouling and dye rejection in PES UF membranes Heliyon 8 11 2022/11/01/2022 e11825 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11825
11 Pramono E. The enhancement of dye filtration performance and antifouling properties in amino-functionalized bentonite/polyvinylidene fluoride mixed matrix membranes Heliyon 9 1 2023/01/01/2023 e12823 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12823
12 Ko K. Yu Y. Kim M.-J. Kweon J. Chung H.J.S. Technology P. Improvement in Fouling Resistance of Silver-Graphene Oxide Coated Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane Prepared by Pressurized Filtration vol. 194 2018 161 169
13 Patil M. Enhanced O2/N2 separation by QuaternizedMatrimid/Multiwalled carbon nanotube mixed-matrix membrane Heliyon 9 11 2023/11/01/2023 e21992 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21992
14 Jafari A. Mortaheb H.R. Gallucci F. Performance of octadecylamine-functionalized graphene oxide nanosheets in polydimethylsiloxane mixed matrix membranes for removal of toluene from water by pervaporation J. Water Proc. Eng. 45 2022 102497
15 Abdul Wahab M.S. Abd Rahman S. Abu Samah R. Flux model development and synthesis optimization for an enhanced GO embedded nanocomposite membrane through FFD and RSM approach Heliyon 6 11 2020/11/01/2020 e05610 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05610
16 Nadig A.R. Naik N.S. Padaki M. Pai R.K. Déon S. Impact of graphitic carbon nitride nanosheets in mixed-matrix membranes for removal of heavy metals from water J. Water Proc. Eng. 41 2021 102026
17 Junaidi M. Leo C. Kamal S. Ahmad A.J. W.s. and technology Fouling mitigation in humic acid ultrafiltration using polysulfone/SAPO-34 mixed matrix membrane 67 9 2013 2102 2109
18 Darmayanti R.F. Performance of modified hollow fiber membrane silver nanoparticles-zeolites Na–Y/PVDF composite used in membrane bioreactor for industrial wastewater treatment Heliyon 9 11 2023/11/01/2023 e21350 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21350
19 Nhu-Ngoc Bui, Jeffrey R. McCutcheon, Nanoparticle-embedded Nanofibers in Highly Permselective Thin-Film Nanocomposite Membranes for Forward Osmosis vol. 518 2016 338 346
20 Rashid A.B. Haque M. Islam S.M.M. Uddin Labib K.M.R. Nanotechnology-enhanced fiber-reinforced polymer composites: recent advancements on processing techniques and applications Heliyon 10 2 2024/01/30/2024 e24692 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24692
21 Ng L.Y. Mohammad A.W. Leo C.P. Hilal N.J.D. Polymeric Membranes Incorporated with Metal/metal Oxide Nanoparticles: A Comprehensive Review vol. 308 2013 15 33
22 Akbari A. Homayoonfal M. Sulfonation and mixing with TiO 2 nanoparticles as two simultaneous solutions for reducing fouling of polysulfone loose nanofiltration membrane Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 33 2016 2439 2452
23 Benkhaya S. Investigating the effects of polypropylene-TiO2 loading on the performance of polysulfone/polyetherimide ultrafiltration membranes for azo dye removal: experimental and molecular dynamics simulation J. Water Proc. Eng. 56 2023 104317
24 Zabihi Z. Homayoonfal M. Davar F.J. J.o.P. Chemistry P.A. Application of UV Irradiation Enhanced by CuS Photosensitive Nanoparticles to Mitigate Polysulfone Membrane Fouling vol. 390 2020 112304
25 Ebrahimi F. Nabavi S.R. Omrani A. Fabrication of hydrophilic special sandwich structure of PAN/GO/SiO2 electrospun membrane decorated with SiO2 nanoparticles for oil/water separation J. Water Proc. Eng. 48 2022 102926
26 Mahdavi H. Zeinalipour N. Kerachian M.A. Heidari A.A. Preparation of high-performance PVDF mixed matrix membranes incorporated with PVDF-g-PMMA copolymer and GO@ SiO2 nanoparticles for dye rejection applications J. Water Proc. Eng. 46 2022 102560
27 Mehrnia M.R. Homayoonfal M. Fouling mitigation behavior of magnetic responsive nanocomposite membranes in a magnetic membrane bioreactor J. Membr. Sci. 520 2016/12/15/2016 881 894 10.1016/j.memsci.2016.08.046
28 Chai P. Law J. Mahmoudi E. Mohammad A. Development of iron oxide decorated graphene oxide (Fe3O4/GO) PSf mixed-matrix membrane for enhanced antifouling behavior J. Water Proc. Eng. 38 2020 101673
29 Kusworo T.D. Dalanta F. Aryanti N. Othman N.H. Intensifying separation and antifouling performance of PSf membrane incorporated by GO and ZnO nanoparticles for petroleum refinery wastewater treatment J. Water Proc. Eng. 41 2021 102030
30 Wenten I. Khoiruddin K. Wardani A. Aryanti P. Astuti D. Komaladewi A. Preparation of antifouling polypropylene/ZnO composite hollow fiber membrane by dip-coating method for peat water treatment J. Water Proc. Eng. 34 2020 101158
31 Monsef K. Homayoonfal M. Davar F. Coating carboxylic and sulfate functional groups on ZrO2 nanoparticles: antifouling enhancement of nanocomposite membranes during water treatment React. Funct. Polym. 131 2018 299 314
32 Mehrnia M.R. Mojtahedi Y.M. Homayoonfal M. What is the concentration threshold of nanoparticles within the membrane structure? A case study of Al2O3/PSf nanocomposite membrane Desalination 372 2015 75 88
33 Zabihi Z. Homayoonfal M. Strategies to modify the structure of thin‐film composite membranes for advanced separation of metronidazole antibiotic from wastewater Polym. Adv. Technol. 32 12 2021 4765 4786
34 Homayoonfal M. Mehrnia M.R. Shariaty-Niassar M. Akbari A. Ismail A.F. Matsuura T. A comparison between blending and surface deposition methods for the preparation of iron oxide/polysulfone nanocomposite membranes Desalination 354 2014 125 142
35 Homayoonfal M. Mehrnia M.R. Mojtahedi Y.M. Ismail A.F. Effect of metal and metal oxide nanoparticle impregnation route on structure and liquid filtration performance of polymeric nanocomposite membranes: a comprehensive review Desalination Water Treat. 51 16–18 2013 3295 3316
36 Saleh T. Gupta V. Saleh T. Gupta V.J.N.P.M. Synthesis of Nanomaterial–Polymer Membranes by Polymerization Methods 2016 135 160
37 Rahimpour A. Madaeni S. Taheri A. Mansourpanah Y. Coupling TiO2 nanoparticles with UV irradiation for modification of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes J. Membr. Sci. 313 1–2 2008 158 169
38 Rajaeian B. Heitz A. Tade M.O. Liu S. Improved separation and antifouling performance of PVA thin film nanocomposite membranes incorporated with carboxylated TiO2 nanoparticles J. Membr. Sci. 485 2015 48 59
39 Dong L.-x. Huang X.-c. Wang Z. Yang Z. Wang X.-m. Tang C.Y. A thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration membrane prepared on a support with in situ embedded zeolite nanoparticles Separ. Purif. Technol. 166 2016 230 239
40 Heidari Y. Noroozian E. Maghsoudi S. Improvement of salt rejection efficiency of cellulose acetate membrane through modification by poly(amidoamine) dendrimer-functionalized graphene oxide Heliyon 9 9 2023/09/01/2023 e19171 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19171
41 Shabeeb K.M. Novel partially cross-linked nanoparticles graft co-polymer as pore former for polyethersulfone membranes for dyes removal Heliyon 9 11 2023/11/01/2023 e21958 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21958
42 Shami R. Sabir A. Iqbal S.S. Gull N. Zohra R. Khan S.M. Synergistic effect of GO/ZnO loading on the performance of cellulose acetate/chitosan blended reverse osmosis membranes for NOM rejection Heliyon 9 3 2023 e13736 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13736 2023/03/01/
43 Ayyaru S. Ahn Y.-H. Fabrication and separation performance of polyethersulfone/sulfonated TiO 2 (PES–STiO 2) ultrafiltration membranes for fouling mitigation J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 67 2018 199 209
44 Abadikhah H. Kalali E.N. Behzadi S. Khan S.A. Xu X. Agathopoulos S. Amino functionalized silica nanoparticles incorporated thin film nanocomposite membrane with suppressed aggregation and high desalination performance Polymer 154 2018 200 209
45 Puerari R.C. Gonçalves R.A. Justino N.M. Vicentini D.S. Matias W.G. The influence of amine-functionalized SiO2 nanostructures upon nanofiltration membranes Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 13 2020 100287
46 Hosseini S. Mixed matrix PES-based nanofiltration membrane decorated by (Fe3O4–polyvinylpyrrolidone) composite nanoparticles with intensified antifouling and separation characteristics Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 147 2019 390 398
47 Kallem P. Pandey R.P. Hegab H.M. Gaur R. Hasan S.W. Banat F. High-performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with hydrophilic PDA@ TiO2 nanocomposite substrate for the treatment of oily wastewater under PRO mode J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10 3 2022 107454
48 Li T. In-situ coating TiO2 surface by plant-inspired tannic acid for fabrication of thin film nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes toward enhanced separation and antibacterial performance J. Colloid Interface Sci. 572 2020 114 121 32234587
49 Noormohamadi A. Homayoonfal M. Mehrnia M.R. Davar F. Synergistic effect of concurrent presence of zirconium oxide and iron oxide in the form of core-shell nanoparticles on the performance of Fe3O4@ZrO2/PAN nanocomposite membrane Ceram. Int. 43 18 2017/12/15/2017 17174 17185 10.1016/j.ceramint.2017.09.142
50 Safarnia M. Pakizeh M. Namvar-Mahboub M. Assessment of structural and separation properties of a PVDF/PD composite membrane incorporated with TiO2 nanotubes and SiO2 particles Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60 1 2020 659 669
51 Johnson D.J. Hilal N. Nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes: state of play and recent advances Desalination 524 2022 115480
52 Saleem H. Zaidi S.J. Nanoparticles in reverse osmosis membranes for desalination: a state of the art review Desalination 475 2020 114171
53 Iqbal A. Cevik E. Mustafa A. Qahtan T.F. Zeeshan M. Bozkurt A. Emerging developments in polymeric nanocomposite membrane-based filtration for water purification: a concise overview of toxic metal removal Chem. Eng. J. 2024 148760
54 Xie T. Fabrication of novel thin-film nanocomposite polyamide membrane by the interlayer approach: a review Desalination 554 2023 116509
55 Seyedpour F. Advances and challenges in tailoring antibacterial polyamide thin film composite membranes for water treatment and desalination: a critical review Desalination 2024 117614
56 Zhu J. Polymeric antimicrobial membranes enabled by nanomaterials for water treatment J. Membr. Sci. 550 2018 173 197
57 Fathizadeh M. Aroujalian A. Raisi A. Effect of added NaX nano-zeolite into polyamide as a top thin layer of membrane on water flux and salt rejection in a reverse osmosis process J. Membr. Sci. 375 1–2 2011 88 95
58 Mollahosseini A. Rahimpour A. A new concept in polymeric thin-film composite nanofiltration membranes with antibacterial properties Biofouling 29 5 2013 537 548 23682668
59 Safarpour M. Khataee A. Vatanpour V. Thin film nanocomposite reverse osmosis membrane modified by reduced graphene oxide/TiO2 with improved desalination performance J. Membr. Sci. 489 2015 43 54
60 Wei S. Monovalent/Divalent salts separation via thin film nanocomposite nanofiltration membrane containing aminated TiO2 nanoparticles J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 112 2020 169 179
61 Pang R. Zhang K. Fabrication of hydrophobic fluorinated silica-polyamide thin film nanocomposite reverse osmosis membranes with dramatically improved salt rejection J. Colloid Interface Sci. 510 2018 127 132 28942162
62 Karimi R. Homayoonfal M. Davar F. Where is the best site for loading nanoparticles in a membrane? To achieve a high flux and cephalexin separation simultaneously J. Water Proc. Eng. 38 2020 101578
63 Huang X. Chen Y. Feng X. Hu X. Zhang Y. Liu L. Incorporation of oleic acid-modified Ag@ ZnO core-shell nanoparticles into thin film composite membranes for enhanced antifouling and antibacterial properties J. Membr. Sci. 602 2020 117956
64 Wang W. Guo Y. Liu M. Song X. Duan J. Porous nano-hydroxyapatites doped into substrate for thin film composite forward osmosis membrane to show high performance Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 37 2020 1573 1584
65 Rastgar M. Shakeri A. Bozorg A. Salehi H. Saadattalab V. Impact of nanoparticles surface characteristics on pore structure and performance of forward osmosis membranes Desalination 421 2017 179 189
66 Ghanbari M. Emadzadeh D. Lau W. Riazi H. Almasi D. Ismail A. Minimizing structural parameter of thin film composite forward osmosis membranes using polysulfone/halloysite nanotubes as membrane substrates Desalination 377 2016 152 162
67 Soo K.W. Wong K.C. Goh P.S. Ismail A.F. Othman N. Efficient heavy metal removal by thin film nanocomposite forward osmosis membrane modified with geometrically different bimetallic oxide J. Water Proc. Eng. 38 2020 101591
68 Salehi T.M. Peyravi M. Jahanshahi M. Lau W.-J. Rad A.S. Impacts of zeolite nanoparticles on substrate properties of thin film nanocomposite membranes for engineered osmosis J. Nanoparticle Res. 20 2018 1 15
69 Chae H.-R. Lee C.-H. Park P.-K. Kim I.-C. Kim J.-H. Synergetic effect of graphene oxide nanosheets embedded in the active and support layers on the performance of thin-film composite membranes J. Membr. Sci. 525 2017 99 106
70 Pendergast M.M. Ghosh A.K. Hoek E. Separation performance and interfacial properties of nanocomposite reverse osmosis membranes Desalination 308 2013 180 185
71 Darabi R.R. Jahanshahi M. Peyravi M. A support assisted by photocatalytic Fe3O4/ZnO nanocomposite for thin-film forward osmosis membrane Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 133 2018 11 25
72 Rezaei-DashtArzhandi M. Sarrafzadeh M. Goh P. Lau W. Ismail A. Mohamed M. Development of novel thin film nanocomposite forward osmosis membranes containing halloysite/graphitic carbon nitride nanoparticles towards enhanced desalination performance Desalination 447 2018 18 28
73 Ghalavand R. Mokhtary M. Shakeri A. Alizadeh O. ZnO@ PMMA incorporated PSf substrate for improving thin-film composite membrane performance in forward osmosis process Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 177 2022 594 603
74 Sadeghpour M. Homayoonfal M. Davar F. Synergistic effects of ZIF-8 and ZIF-67 in bilayer membranes on separation tuning of pH-sensitive antitumor drug Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 678 2023 132455
75 Koulivand H. Shahbazi A. Vatanpour V. Fabrication and characterization of a high-flux and antifouling polyethersulfone membrane for dye removal by embedding Fe3O4-MDA nanoparticles Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 145 2019 64 75
76 Etemadi H. Yegani R. Seyfollahi M. The effect of amino functionalized and polyethylene glycol grafted nanodiamond on anti-biofouling properties of cellulose acetate membrane in membrane bioreactor systems Separ. Purif. Technol. 177 2017/04/28/2017 350 362 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.01.013
77 Guo J. Kim J. Modifications of polyethersulfone membrane by doping sulfated-TiO 2 nanoparticles for improving anti-fouling property in wastewater treatment RSC Adv. 7 54 2017 33822 33828
78 Monsef K. Homayoonfal M. Davar F. Engineering arrangement of nanoparticles within nanocomposite membranes matrix: a suggested way to enhance water flux Polymer-Plastics Technology and Materials 59 7 2020 733 752
79 Zeng H. A novel strategy for enhancing the performance of membranes for dyes separation: embedding PAA@ UiO-66-NH2 between graphene oxide sheets Chem. Eng. J. 403 2021 126281
80 Daraei P. Madaeni S.S. Ghaemi N. Khadivi M.A. Astinchap B. Moradian R. Fouling resistant mixed matrix polyethersulfone membranes blended with magnetic nanoparticles: study of magnetic field induced casting Separ. Purif. Technol. 109 2013 111 121
81 Zhang Y. Shan L. Tu Z. Zhang Y. Preparation and characterization of novel Ce-doped nonstoichiometric nanosilica/polysulfone composite membranes Separ. Purif. Technol. 63 1 2008 207 212
82 Zhang Y. Cui M. Porous YxFeyZr1− x− yO2 coated TiO2 solid superacid particles/PVDF hybrid membranes with anti-fouling property Chem. Eng. J. 301 2016 342 352
83 Baniasadi J. Shabani Z. Mohammadi T. Sahebi S. Enhanced performance and fouling resistance of cellulose acetate forward osmosis membrane with the spatial distribution of TiO2 and Al2O3 nanoparticles J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 96 1 2021 147 162
84 Chen H. Enhancing rejection performance of tetracycline resistance genes by a TiO2/AgNPs-modified nanofiber forward osmosis membrane Chem. Eng. J. 382 2020 123052
85 Chen Z. Photocatalytic antifouling properties of novel PVDF membranes improved by incorporation of SnO2-GO nanocomposite for water treatment Separ. Purif. Technol. 259 2021 118184
86 Zhang J. Wang Z. Wang Q. Pan C. Wu Z. Comparison of antifouling behaviours of modified PVDF membranes by TiO2 sols with different nanoparticle size: implications of casting solution stability J. Membr. Sci. 525 2017 378 386
87 Zhou L. Constructing dual-defense mechanisms on membrane surfaces by synergy of PFSA and SiO2 nanoparticles for persistent antifouling performance Appl. Surf. Sci. 440 2018 113 124
88 Cao X. Ma J. Shi X. Ren Z. Effect of TiO2 nanoparticle size on the performance of PVDF membrane Appl. Surf. Sci. 253 4 2006 2003 2010
89 Li J.-F. Xu Z.-L. Yang H. Yu L.-Y. Liu M. Effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on the surface morphology and performance of microporous PES membrane Appl. Surf. Sci. 255 9 2009 4725 4732
90 Yang Y. Wang P. Preparation and characterizations of a new PS/TiO2 hybrid membranes by sol–gel process Polymer 47 8 2006 2683 2688
91 Hosseini S.A. Vossoughi M. Mahmoodi N.M. Sadrzadeh M. Efficient dye removal from aqueous solution by high-performance electrospun nanofibrous membranes through incorporation of SiO2 nanoparticles J. Clean. Prod. 183 2018 1197 1206
92 Huang J. Wang H. Zhang K. Modification of PES membrane with Ag–SiO2: reduction of biofouling and improvement of filtration performance Desalination 336 2014 8 17
93 Zhang Y. Wang L. Xu Y. Effect of doping porous ZrO2 solid superacid shell/void/TiO2 core nanoparticles (ZVT) on properties of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membranes Desalination 358 2015 84 93
94 Bottino A. Capannelli G. D'asti V. Piaggio P. Preparation and properties of novel organic–inorganic porous membranes Separ. Purif. Technol. 22 2001 269 275
95 Moghadam M.T. Improved antifouling properties of TiO2/PVDF nanocomposite membranes in UV‐coupled ultrafiltration J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 132 21 2015
96 Gebru K.A. Das C. Removal of bovine serum albumin from wastewater using fouling resistant ultrafiltration membranes based on the blends of cellulose acetate, and PVP-TiO2 nanoparticles J. Environ. Manag. 200 2017 283 294
97 Aerts P. Polysulfone−ZrO2 surface interactions. The influence on formation, morphology and properties of zirfon-membranes J. Phys. Chem. B 110 14 2006/04/01 2006 7425 7430 10.1021/jp053976c
98 Rabiee H. Farahani M.H.D.A. Vatanpour V. Preparation and characterization of emulsion poly (vinyl chloride)(EPVC)/TiO2 nanocomposite ultrafiltration membrane J. Membr. Sci. 472 2014 185 193
99 Abdollahi E. Heidari A. Mohammadi T. Asadi A.A. Tofighy M.A. Application of Mg-Al LDH nanoparticles to enhance flux, hydrophilicity and antifouling properties of PVDF ultrafiltration membrane: experimental and modeling studies Separ. Purif. Technol. 257 2021 117931
100 Yu L.-Y. Xu Z.-L. Shen H.-M. Yang H. Preparation and characterization of PVDF–SiO2 composite hollow fiber UF membrane by sol–gel method J. Membr. Sci. 337 1–2 2009 257 265
101 Liang S. Xiao K. Mo Y. Huang X. A novel ZnO nanoparticle blended polyvinylidene fluoride membrane for anti-irreversible fouling J. Membr. Sci. 394 2012 184 192
102 Neelapala S.D. Nair A.K. JagadeeshBabu P. Synthesis and characterisation of TiO2 nanofibre/cellulose acetate nanocomposite ultrafiltration membrane J. Exp. Nanosci. 12 1 2017 152 165
103 Maximous N. Nakhla G. Wan W. Wong K. Performance of a novel ZrO2/PES membrane for wastewater filtration J. Membr. Sci. 352 1–2 2010 222 230
104 Yu Z. Liu X. Zhao F. Liang X. Tian Y. Fabrication of a low‐cost nano‐SiO2/PVC composite ultrafiltration membrane and its antifouling performance J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 132 2 2015
105 Saraswathi M.S.S.A. Rana D. Divya K. Gowrishankar S. Nagendran A. Versatility of hydrophilic and antifouling PVDF ultrafiltration membranes tailored with polyhexanide coated copper oxide nanoparticles Polym. Test. 84 2020 106367
106 Bose J. Dasgupta J. Adhikari U. Sikder J. Tuning permeation characteristics of cellulose acetate membrane embedded with raw and amine-functionalized silicon carbide nanoparticle for oil-water separation J. Water Proc. Eng. 41 2021 102019
107 Razmjou A. Mansouri J. Chen V. The effects of mechanical and chemical modification of TiO2 nanoparticles on the surface chemistry, structure and fouling performance of PES ultrafiltration membranes J. Membr. Sci. 378 1–2 2011 73 84
108 Zinadini S. Zinatizadeh A. Rahimi M. Vatanpour V. Magnetic field-augmented coagulation bath during phase inversion for preparation of ZnFe2O4/SiO2/PES nanofiltration membrane: a novel method for flux enhancement and fouling resistance J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 46 2017 9 18
109 Sun M. Su Y. Mu C. Jiang Z. Improved antifouling property of PES ultrafiltration membranes using additive of silica− PVP nanocomposite Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 2 2009 790 796
110 Liu H. Wang C. Qin Y. Huang Y. Xiao C. Oriented structure design and evaluation of Fe3O4/o-MWCNTs/PVC composite membrane assisted by magnetic field J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 120 2021 278 290
111 Li X. Janke A. Formanek P. Fery A. Stamm M. Tripathi B.P. One pot preparation of polysulfone-amino functionalized SiO 2 nanoparticle ultrafiltration membranes for water purification J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 6 4 2018 4598 4604
112 Vatanpour V. Shahsavarifar S. Khorshidi S. Masteri‐Farahani M. A novel antifouling ultrafiltration membranes prepared from percarboxylic acid functionalized SiO2 bound Fe3O4 nanoparticle (SCMNP‐COOOH)/polyethersulfone nanocomposite for BSA separation and dye removal J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 94 4 2019 1341 1353
113 Nasrollahi N. Vatanpour V. Aber S. Mahmoodi N.M. Preparation and characterization of a novel polyethersulfone (PES) ultrafiltration membrane modified with a CuO/ZnO nanocomposite to improve permeability and antifouling properties Separ. Purif. Technol. 192 2018/02/09/2018 369 382 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.10.034
114 Kallem P. Othman I. Ouda M. Hasan S.W. AlNashef I. Banat F. Polyethersulfone hybrid ultrafiltration membranes fabricated with polydopamine modified ZnFe2O4 nanocomposites: applications in humic acid removal and oil/water emulsion separation Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 148 2021 813 824
115 Santosh V. Babu P.V. Gopinath J. Rao N.N.M. Sainath A.V.S. Reddy A. Development of hydroxyl and carboxylic acid functionalized CNTs–polysulphone nanocomposite fouling-resistant ultrafiltration membranes for oil–water separation Bull. Mater. Sci. 43 2020 1 12
116 Nawi N.S.M. Lau W.J. Yusof N. Said N. Ismail A.F. Enhancing water flux and antifouling properties of PES hollow fiber membranes via incorporation of surface‐functionalized Fe3O4 nanoparticles J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 97 4 2022 1006 1020
117 Zinadini S. Zinatizadeh A.A. Rahimi M. Vatanpour V. Zangeneh S. Preparation of a Novel Antifouling Mixed Matrix PES Membrane by Embedding Graphene Oxide Nanoplates vol. 453 2014 292 301
118 Krishnamoorthy R. Sagadevan V. Polyethylene glycol and iron oxide nanoparticles blended polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane for enhanced performance in dye removal studies E-Polymers 15 3 2015 151 159
119 Tavangar T. Karimi M. Rezakazemi M. Reddy K.R. Aminabhavi T.M. Textile waste, dyes/inorganic salts separation of cerium oxide-loaded loose nanofiltration polyethersulfone membranes Chem. Eng. J. 385 2020 123787
120 Moradi G. Zinadini S. Rajabi L. Development of high flux nanofiltration membrane using para-amino benzoate ferroxane nanoparticle for enhanced antifouling behavior and dye removal Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 144 2020 65 78
121 Yang M. Zhao C. Zhang S. Li P. Hou D.J.A.S.S. Preparation of Graphene Oxide Modified Poly (M-phenylene Isophthalamide) Nanofiltration Membrane with Improved Water Flux and Antifouling Property vol. 394 2017 149 159
122 Zinadini S. Rostami S. Vatanpour V. Jalilian S. Preparation of Antibiofouling Polyethersulfone Mixed Matrix NF Membrane Using Photocatalytic Activity of ZnO/MWCNTs Nanocomposite vol. 529 2017 133 141
123 Koulivand H. Shahbazi A. Vatanpour V. Rahmandoust M. Development of carbon dot-modified polyethersulfone membranes for enhancement of nanofiltration, permeation and antifouling performance Separ. Purif. Technol. 230 2020 115895
124 Zhang L. Guan H. Zhang N. Jiang B. Sun Y. Yang N. A loose NF membrane by grafting TiO2-HMDI nanoparticles on PES/β-CD substrate for dye/salt separation Separ. Purif. Technol. 218 2019 8 19
125 Vatanpour V. Hyperbranched polyethylenimine functionalized silica/polysulfone nanocomposite membranes for water purification Chemosphere 290 2022 133363
126 Li J. Yuan S. Zhu J. Van der Bruggen B. High-flux, antibacterial composite membranes via polydopamine-assisted PEI-TiO2/Ag modification for dye removal Chem. Eng. J. 373 2019 275 284
127 Safarpour M. Vatanpour V. Khataee A. Esmaeili M.J.S. Technology P. Development of a Novel High Flux and Fouling-Resistant Thin Film Composite Nanofiltration Membrane by Embedding Reduced Graphene oxide/TiO2 vol. 154 2015 96 107
128 Zinadini S. Vatanpour V. Zinatizadeh A.A. Rahimi M. Rahimi Z. Kian M. Preparation and characterization of antifouling graphene oxide/polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membrane: application in MBR for dairy wastewater treatment J. Water Proc. Eng. 7 2015 280 294
129 Hu W. Yin J. Deng B. Hu Z. Application of nano TiO2 modified hollow fiber membranes in algal membrane bioreactors for high-density algae cultivation and wastewater polishing Bioresour. Technol. 193 2015 135 141 26125613
130 Homayoonfal M. Mehrnia M.R. Rahmani S. Mojtahedi Y.M. Fabrication of alumina/polysulfone nanocomposite membranes with biofouling mitigation approach in membrane bioreactors J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 22 2015 357 367
131 Hashemi T. Mehrnia M.R. Ghezelgheshlaghi S. Influence of alumina nanoparticles on the performance of polyacrylonitrile membranes in MBR Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 20 1 2022 375 384 35669801
132 Amini M. Etemadi H. Akbarzadeh A. Yegani R. Preparation and performance evaluation of high-density polyethylene/silica nanocomposite membranes in membrane bioreactor system Biochem. Eng. J. 127 2017 196 205
133 Ahsani M. Hazrati H. Javadi M. Ulbricht M. Yegani R. Preparation of antibiofouling nanocomposite PVDF/Ag-SiO2 membrane and long-term performance evaluation in the MBR system fed by real pharmaceutical wastewater Separ. Purif. Technol. 249 2020 116938
134 Ghalamchi L. Aber S. Vatanpour V. Kian M. Comparison of NLDH and g-C3N4 nanoplates and formative Ag3PO4 nanoparticles in PES microfiltration membrane fouling: applications in MBR Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 147 2019 443 457
135 Noormohamadi A. Homayoonfal M. Mehrnia M.R. Davar F.J. E.t. Employing magnetism of Fe3O4 and hydrophilicity of ZrO2 to mitigate biofouling in magnetic MBR by Fe3O4-coated ZrO2/PAN nanocomposite membrane 41 20 2020 2683 2704
136 Rahimi Z. Zinatizadeh A.A. Zinadini S. Milk processing wastewater treatment in a bioreactor followed by an antifouling O-carboxymethyl chitosan modified Fe3O4/PVDF ultrafiltration membrane J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 38 2016/06/25/2016 103 112 10.1016/j.jiec.2016.04.011
137 Behboudi A. Mohammadi T. Ulbricht M. High performance antibiofouling hollow fiber polyethersulfone nanocomposite membranes incorporated with novel surface-modified silver nanoparticles suitable for membrane bioreactor application J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 119 2023 298 314
138 Tizchang A. Jafarzadeh Y. Yegani R. Khakpour S. The effects of pristine and silanized nanodiamond on the performance of polysulfone membranes for wastewater treatment by MBR system J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 7 6 2019 103447
139 Rahimi Z. Zinatizadeh A. Zinadini S.J. E.t. Membrane Bioreactors Troubleshooting through the Preparation of a High Antifouling PVDF Ultrafiltration Mixed-Matrix Membrane Blended with O-Carboxymethyl Chitosan-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles 2018
140 Lakhotia S.R. Mukhopadhyay M. Kumari P. Iron oxide (FeO) nanoparticles embedded thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration (NF) membrane for water treatment Separ. Purif. Technol. 211 2019 98 107
141 Emadzadeh D. Lau W.J. Matsuura T. Rahbari-Sisakht M. Ismail A.F. A novel thin film composite forward osmosis membrane prepared from PSf–TiO2 nanocomposite substrate for water desalination Chem. Eng. J. 237 2014 70 80
142 Agbaje T.A. Al-Gharabli S. Mavukkandy M.O. Kujawa J. Arafat H.A. PVDF/magnetite blend membranes for enhanced flux and salt rejection in membrane distillation Desalination 436 2018 69 80
143 El-Noss M. Isawi H. Shawky H.A. Gomaa M. Abdel-Mottaleb M. Improvement of cellulose acetate forward osmosis membrane performance using zinc oxide nanoparticles Desalination Water Treat. 193 2020 19 33
144 Niksefat N. Jahanshahi M. Rahimpour A. The effect of SiO2 nanoparticles on morphology and performance of thin film composite membranes for forward osmosis application Desalination 343 2014 140 146
145 Kamari S. Shahbazi A. Biocompatible Fe3O4@ SiO2-NH2 nanocomposite as a green nanofiller embedded in PES–nanofiltration membrane matrix for salts, heavy metal ion and dye removal: long–term operation and reusability tests Chemosphere 243 2020 125282
146 Soria R.B. Zhu J. Gonza I. Van der Bruggen B. Luis P. Effect of (TiO2: ZnO) ratio on the anti-fouling properties of bio-inspired nanofiltration membranes Separ. Purif. Technol. 251 2020 117280
147 Liu Y. Synthesis of novel high flux thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes containing GO–SiO2 via interfacial polymerization Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 49 2019 22324 22333
148 Darabi R.R. Peyravi M. Jahanshahi M. Modified forward osmosis membranes by two amino-functionalized ZnO nanoparticles: a comparative study Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 145 2019 85 98
149 Abadikhah H. Naderi Kalali E. Khodi S. Xu X. Agathopoulos S. Multifunctional thin-film nanofiltration membrane incorporated with reduced graphene oxide@ TiO2@ Ag nanocomposites for high desalination performance, dye retention, and antibacterial properties ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11 26 2019 23535 23545 31199614
150 Ekambaram K. Doraisamy M. Surface modification of PVDF nanofiltration membrane using Carboxymethylchitosan-Zinc oxide bionanocomposite for the removal of inorganic salts and humic acid Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 525 2017 49 63
151 Paseta L. Antoran D. Coronas J. Tellez C. 110th anniversary: polyamide/metal–organic framework bilayered thin film composite membranes for the removal of pharmaceutical compounds from water Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 10 2019 4222 4230
152 Bojnourd F.M. Pakizeh M. Preparation and characterization of a PVA/PSf thin film composite membrane after incorporation of PSSMA into a selective layer and its application for pharmaceutical removal Separ. Purif. Technol. 192 2018 5 14
153 Wang Y. Ma J. Zhu J. Ye N. Zhang X. Huang H. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes with selected properties for dynamic filtration of pharmaceuticals and personal care products Water Res. 92 2016 104 112 26845455
154 Bojnourd F.M. Pakizeh M. Preparation and characterization of a nanoclay/PVA/PSf nanocomposite membrane for removal of pharmaceuticals from water Appl. Clay Sci. 162 2018 326 338
155 Wang Y. Huang H. Carbon nanotube composite membranes for microfiltration of pharmaceuticals and personal care products Advanced Nanomaterials for Membrane Synthesis and its Applications 2019 Elsevier 183 202
156 Zhang L. Zhang M. Lu J. Tang A. Zhu L. Highly permeable thin-film nanocomposite membranes embedded with PDA/PEG nanocapsules as water transport channels J. Membr. Sci. 586 2019 115 121
157 Huang M. Chen Y. Huang C.-H. Sun P. Crittenden J. Rejection and adsorption of trace pharmaceuticals by coating a forward osmosis membrane with TiO2 Chem. Eng. J. 279 2015 904 911
158 Wang Y. Liu Y. Yu Y. Huang H. Influence of CNT-rGO composite structures on their permeability and selectivity for membrane water treatment J. Membr. Sci. 551 2018 326 332
159 Guo X. Liu D. Han T. Huang H. Yang Q. Zhong C. Preparation of thin film nanocomposite membranes with surface modified MOF for high flux organic solvent nanofiltration AIChE J. 63 4 2017 1303 1312
160 Moradi G. Zinadini S. Rahimi M. Designing of the green γ-AlOOH@ Naringin thin film composite PVDF based nanofiltration membrane and application for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 11 3 2023 109952
161 Samsami S. Sarrafzadeh M.-H. Ahmadi A. Surface modification of thin-film nanocomposite forward osmosis membrane with super-hydrophilic MIL-53 (Al) for doxycycline removal as an emerging contaminant and membrane antifouling property enhancement Chem. Eng. J. 431 2022 133469
162 Venkatesh K. Arthanareeswaran G. Bose A.C. Kumar P.S. Hydrophilic hierarchical carbon with TiO2 nanofiber membrane for high separation efficiency of dye and oil-water emulsion Separ. Purif. Technol. 241 2020 116709
163 Bagherzadeh M. Bayrami A. Shekari Z. Amini M. High-performance thin-film nanocomposite (TFN) forward osmosis (FO) membranes incorporated with porous hydrophobic-core/hydrophilic-shell nanoparticles Desalination 515 2021 115181
164 Pejman M. Effective strategy for UV-mediated grafting of biocidal Ag-MOFs on polymeric membranes aimed at enhanced water ultrafiltration Chem. Eng. J. 426 2021 130704
165 Sakarkar S. Muthukumaran S. Jegatheesan V. Evaluation of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) loading in the PVA/titanium dioxide (TiO2) thin film coating on polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane for the removal of textile dyes Chemosphere 257 2020 127144
166 Zhou G. Homogenization spin coating strategy for synthesizing IM-BTO photocatalytic membrane aims to tetracycline selectively degradation Chem. Eng. J. 2024 150163
167 Zhang L. Guo L. Wei G. Recent advances in the fabrication and environmental science applications of cellulose nanofibril-based functional materials Materials 14 18 2021 5390 34576613
168 Zahid M. Rashid A. Akram S. Rehan Z.A. Razzaq W. A comprehensive review on polymeric nano-composite membranes for water treatment J. Membr. Sci. Technol. 8 1 2018 1 20
169 Utomo D.P. Kusworo T.D. Kumoro A.C. Othman M.H.D. Developing a versatile and resilient PVDF/CeO2@ GO-COOH photocatalytic membrane for efficient treatment of antibiotic-contaminated wastewater J. Water Proc. Eng. 56 2023 104353
170 Berbar Y. Hammache Z.E. Bensaadi S. Soukeur R. Amara M. Van der Bruggen B. Effect of functionalized silica nanoparticles on sulfonated polyethersulfone ion exchange membrane for removal of lead and cadmium ions from aqueous solutions J. Water Proc. Eng. 32 2019 100953
171 Sun J. Li S. Ran Z. Xiang Y. Preparation of Fe3O4@ TiO2 blended PVDF membrane by magnetic coagulation bath and its permeability and pollution resistance J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 3 2020 4951 4967
172 Etemadi H. Yegani R. Babaeipour V. Performance evaluation and antifouling analyses of cellulose acetate/nanodiamond nanocomposite membranes in water treatment J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 134 21 2017
173 Rajaeian B. Rahimpour A. Tade M.O. Liu S. Fabrication and characterization of polyamide thin film nanocomposite (TFN) nanofiltration membrane impregnated with TiO2 nanoparticles Desalination 313 2013 176 188
174 Tripathi B.P. Dubey N.C. Subair R. Choudhury S. Stamm M. Enhanced hydrophilic and antifouling polyacrylonitrile membrane with polydopamine modified silica nanoparticles RSC Adv. 6 6 2016 4448 4457
175 Sokhandan F. Homayoonfal M. Davar F.J.B. Application of zinc oxide and sodium alginate for biofouling mitigation in a membrane bioreactor treating urban wastewater 36 6 2020 660 678
176 Zhu Z. Improving the hydrophilic and antifouling properties of polyvinylidene fluoride membrane by incorporation of novel nanohybrid GO@ SiO2 particles Chem. Eng. J. 314 2017 266 276
177 Fekete L. Outstanding separation performance of Oil-in-Water emulsions with TiO2/CNT nanocomposite-modified PVDF membranes Membranes 13 2 2023 209 36837714
178 Vatanpour V. Application of g-C3N4/ZnO nanocomposites for fabrication of anti-fouling polymer membranes with dye and protein rejection superiority J. Membr. Sci. 660 2022 120893
179 Chen Y. Novel strategy for membrane biofouling control in MBR with nano-MnO2 modified PVDF membrane by in-situ ozonation Sci. Total Environ. 808 2022 151996
180 Etemadi H. Fonouni M. Yegani R. Investigation of antifouling properties of polypropylene/TiO2 nanocomposite membrane under different aeration rate in membrane bioreactor system Biotechnology Reports 25 2020 e00414
181 Mahdavi H. Bagherifar R. Cellulose acetate/SiO 2-poly (2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid) hybrid nanofiltration membrane: application in removal of ceftriaxone sodium J. Iran. Chem. Soc. 15 2018 2839 2849
