Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Electrofiltration technique for water and wastewater treatment and

bio-products management: A review
Ali Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh, Mehdi Zolfaghari, Patrick Drogui ∗
Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS-Eau, Terre et Environnement), Université du Québec, 490 rue de la Couronne, Québec, QC, G1K 9A9,
Canada

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

Article history: Application of electric filed in filtration of water and wastewater has been reviewed in present study.
Received 21 June 2016 Filtration media is one of the basic techniques and is a part of almost all water and wastewater treatment
Received in revised form 6 October 2016 plants used for removal of suspended solids. Application of electrical field across the filtration media
Accepted 12 October 2016
upgrades the conventional process for removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in drinking water
Available online 22 November 2016
and wastewater treatment process. Moreover, combination of membrane filtration with electrical field
demonstrates improvement in liquid-solid separation, permeate flux, quality of filtrate, as well as foul-
Keywords:
ing control/removal. In this work, the removal of various pollutants, such as bioproduct and emerging
Electric field
Membrane
contaminants, physical and chemical properties of dissolved, collide and suspended particles, and the
Filter media effects of different parameters, like membrane properties, electrical field and water quality parameters
Filtration (dissolved organic and inorganic matter, ionic strength, pH) on the efficiency of filtration are reviewed.
Drinking water The industrial viability, future perspective, and advantages of this technology are also investigated.
Wastewater treatment © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. The principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1. In media filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2. In membrane filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. Effective factors on electrofiltration process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4. Application of electrofiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1. Filter-Bed electrofiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2. Membrane electrofiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.1. Separation of bio-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.2. Removal of emerging contaminants and trace organic molecules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2.3. Pharmaceutical compound removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2.4. Recent development in electrofiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5. Future perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1. The viability of industrial application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Abbreviations: COD, chemical oxygen demand; CEFS, critical electrical field strength; DC, direct current; DOC, dissolved organic compound; EC/EF, electrocoagula-
tion/electrofiltration; EFS, electrical field strength; EMF, electro-microfiltration; ESPs, electrostatic precipitators; EUF, electro-ultrafiltration; HRT, hydraulic retention time;
MBR, membrane bioreactor; MF, microfiltration; NF, nano-filtration; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; PCPs, personal care products; RO, reverse osmosis; SS, suspended
solids; TMP, transmembrane pressure; TOC, total organic carbon; TSS, total suspended solid; UF, ultra-filtration.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Drogui).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.10.003
2214-7144/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40 29

Nomenclature
εD Dielectric permittivity of water
A Filter surface area  Viscosity of water
a Constant partial radius ␬ Concentration factor
c Concentration in the dispersion ϕo Electric potential at the outer electrode
cv Volume concentration ϕi Electric potential at the inner electrode
cj∞ Bulk concentration
Solution conductivity
d Particle diameter
dp Particle size
e Elementary charge 1. Introduction
E Electric field strength
Ecr Critical electric field strength Water more or less contains excess chemical and biological com-
Et Total energy consumption for cross-flow electro- pounds, as well as pathogens, which must be eliminated; hence,
filtration the sequence of physical separations (sedimentation or flotation),
E0 Energy consumption without electric field coagulation by chemical additives such as iron or aluminum salts,
Ex Additional energy consumption for water electrol- flocculation by polymers, filtration, and adsorption are among the
ysis basic processes of each water treatment plant. Neutralization of
FE External electric field force ordinary negative charges enhances the efficiency of treatment
Fes Electrostatic force acting on a particle in coagulation/flocculation and filtration processes. However, uti-
Fep Electrostatic force acting on a particle lization of the chemical additives and backwashing the filters
Fvdw Van der waals force for a particle plate geometry produce considerable amount of solid residual or sludge discharged
Ix , I Applied current into landfills or wastewater collectors. Nowadays, advanced tech-
J Solution flux at a given transmembrane pressure nologies are seeking more provident and efficient treatment by
k Boltzmann constant minimizing the chemical additives, simplifying the process, and
Na Avogadro’s number reducing the amount of sludge. Many of those techniques exploit
q Particle surface charge additional driving forces such as, acoustic, magnetic, thermal and
r Variable radius electrical fields [1]. So, using this technology leads to minimiza-
R Radial coordinate tion of the chemical additives dosage and reduction in residuals
ro Radius of the outer electrode generation, and thereby, decrease in cost of chemicals and waste
ri Radius of the inner electrode disposal [2]. Application of electrical field for enhancement of effi-
rC Spec cake resistance ciency of filtration firstly proposed by Bechold in 1925 [3], later it
Rm Resistance of filter medium was used in non-aqueous media, such as separation of fine parti-
Ri Hydrated ionic radius cles from petroleum oil [4]. Introduction of high voltage electrical
t Time field was well established for removal of airborne particles in
T Absolute temperature processes such as electrostatic precipitators (ESPs); however, the
tf Filtration time technical improvement in operating conditions of filtration makes
T0 Retention time without electric field electro-filtration a promising method for water and wastewater
Tx Retention time with electric field treatment [2,5]. Strict regulation on the maximum concentration
up Electrophoretic mobility of the particles of micro-pollutants drives some studies to investigate electro-
VL Filtrate volume filtration reliability for removal of micro-pollutant like personal
Vm Migration velocity of a particle due to the electric care products (PCPs) [6] or titanium dioxide (TiO2 ) [7]. Increasing
field landfilling and cost of sludge treatment are the other driving fac-
Vx Applied voltage tors for installation of electric technology in conventional sludge
x Distance away from surface treatment and dewatering processes [8]. These reasons led to elec-
zi Valance trical field implementation in deep bed filtration, dead-end or joint
filtration with different membrane processes [9,10]. This review
Greek letters addresses application of electrical filed in water and wastewa-
pE Electroosmotic pressure ter treatment considering the characteristics and advantages of
pH Hydraulic pressure this method in media and membrane filtration techniques. Fig. 1a
␧ Porosity shows the general view of electrofiltration set up which can be
␩ Dynamic viscosity divided in two general categories (in media and membrane elec-
ε Permittivity of solution trofiltration), and Fig. 1b shows effective parameters, advantages
 Ion packing density and application areas of this technique. The following sections illus-
Potential trate the principle, operation, application, and effective factors of
ıFe/ıx Derivative of the free energy function at a separation electrofiltration.
distance x
 Dynamic viscosity 2. The principal
 Correction factor
 Electrophoretic mobility Electrofiltration is a process which is able to minimize mem-
pH Hydraulic pressure brane fouling by employing direct current (DC) electrical field
pE Electroosmotic pressure across the filtration system. Except ions, almost all colloids and sus-
˛˛ Specific filter cake resistance pended solids (SS), even microorganisms, have mainly negative or
L Dynamic viscosity positive electrical charge; therefore, in the presence of electrical
Jave Average value of the flux field, they deviated. Electrical field can be configured properly for
either attraction of undesired particles to media collectors, or ward
30 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

Fig. 1. a) Different modes and configurations, and b) applications of electro filtration, benefits, and effective parameters of electrofiltration of water and wastewater treatment.

them off from the surface of membrane. Depending on the type of

water/wastewater, concentration of total suspended solid (TSS) or
the charge of particles, different modification on the aquatic media
or electrical field can be used. Even though, this advanced technol-
ogy seems to be promising for some special wastewater, industrial
consideration, and optimization still need to be investigated. The
particles removal mechanisms in media filtration could be catego-
rized as gravity separation (sedimentation/flotation) and filtration.
In order to improvement the removal efficiency, chemical addi-
tives such as iron or aluminum salts, and polymers can be used to
remove the negative charges of particles. Like the impact of gravity
field, using an electrical field in the filter media enhances the possi-
bility of particles deposition on the collector surface by movement
velocity of the charged particles [2].
It is worth mentioning that apart from electrofiltration tech-
nology, electrocoagulation (using consumable electrodes to supply
ions in order to form agglomerates in suspended, emulsified or
dissolved contained flow), and electrochemical technology (pro-
moting the redox reactions in a solution by applying electric field
due to providing the driving force requirement) are also the other
aspects of electrical/potential applications in water and wastewater
treatment [11].

2.1. In media filtration

Fig. 2. Electrofiltration configuration in media filtration.

Repulsion force between negative charges of the waterborne
particles keep them in collide. The Van der Waals force, on the
other hand, helps particles to deposit on the surface of collec-
tor in the media. In conventional process, flocculation neutralizes
the charge of particles (removing the repulsion force) and leads
to enhancement in the interaction with collector. On contrary, surface of collectors, e.g., sand filter [2]. Electrofiltration can be
in the electrofiltration process, the primary mechanisms of par- used in the process of cake filtration, residuals dewatering, and
ticles deposition on collector surfaces governed by interception, particles removal in low ionic strength aqueous suspensions by
inertial impaction, and electrostatic attraction [12]. Therefore, the- electroosmotic process [13]. Fig. 2 demonstrates the configuration
oretically, the charges of particles affect their deposition on the of electrofiltartion in media filtration.
 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40 31

Table 1
Principal mathematical equations for electrofiltration calculationsa .

Mathematical model Application References

dVL
dt
=  E(p−H E+pE )A V  Principal equation of pressure Weber and Stahl [18],
 rc  cr ⁄Ecr L +Rm
E − E  A electrofiltration Hofmann and Posten
[10]
tf
L ˛av c cr ⁄Ecr
VL
= VL
2(pH +pE )A2
cv
K= 1−cv −ε
Concentration factor composed of the Weber and Stahl [18]
porosity of the bulk
Rm
pE = bA  ∞  zi e  Electroosmotic pressure
eNa zi c exp −
d2
 ci∞i   zi e b  
i k T
= − 1ε Potential profiles (Modified Dudchenko et al. [16]
dx2
1+ max exp − −1 Poisson–Boltzmann)
i c kb T
i

cimax =
 zi e (x) 
4 R3 N
3 a
i
c ∞ exp −
   b zi e (x)  
i k T
ci (x) = c∞
Individual ion concentration
1+ i exp − −1
max kb T
i c

c L   
i

ci (x)
F (c) = − kb TNa c∞
−1 dxdc Free energy between two parallel
plates
0 0
F = F (c) − F (c∞ )
Fes = Electrostatic force acting on a particle
r       
e
 r 2 ıF e
 r 2
2 − ıFıx x+a−a 1− a
+ ıx
x+a+a 1− a
rdr

0
Ftotal = Fes + Fvdw
Fep = 3 d␮E
Vx Ix
Ex = AJ For continuous mode, additional and Kim et al. [17]
ave  Tx  total energy requirements for
Et = E0 T0
+ Ex
cross-flow electro-filtration
J
Ecr = up
Critical electric force Yang and Li [47]
FE = qE External electric field force that a Li et al. [2]
particle experiences
q = 3 dp εD  The particle surface charge
FE
Vm = 3 ␮d The migration velocity of a particle due
p
to the electric field
E=  ro 
o− i
Electric field strength distributions Chiu and Garcia [22]
Rln ri between two concentric cylinders
I
E=
A
Applied electrical field strength Tsai et al. [46]
a
Nomenclatures are mentioned at the end of the text, before the reference section.

2.2. In membrane filtration microfiltration distracts the charged particles flow (Electrophore-
sis). Electroosmosis depends on interaction of surface charges of
Instead of interaction between particles and media, in the membrane and particles. The ion cloud may be partially removed,
membrane technology, avoiding the attraction between parti- thereby causing a movement of the liquid through the membrane.
cles and membrane surface is pivotal, since it decreases the Last but not the least, electrolysis is a formation of gas and new sub-
fouling phenomenon, and consequently reduces the energy con- stances on the surface of electrodes [6,9]. Modified Darcy’s law can
sumption. Till now, modification of materials of membranes be applied to calculate electrophoretic and electroosmotic effects.
(hydrophilic/hydrophobic properties) [6,7], changing the flow Moreover, modeling of electrostatic forces on particles in electro-
hydrodynamic conditions (dead-end or cross flow filtration), and filtration was fully developed by Dudchenko et al. [16] based on
application of external force like electrical field, have been investi- Modified Poisson–Boltzmann (MPB) equation. Weber et al. and Kim
gated [6,14,15]. Although, shear force in crossflow filtration helps et al. [17,18] presented useful equations for application in elec-
to minimize the cake layer, the controllability is not very effective, trofiltration. Table 1 shows principal mathematical equations for
since the shear force is so low near the surface of membrane and electrofiltration. In this table, the equations which are related to
is zero on the membrane’s wall. Not like shear forces that act only electrical force acting on filtration media/membrane and particles
on the bulk solution in conventional membrane separation pro- are shown, so the formulas related to the other forces, such as
cess, the electrical field affects directly each molecules; thus, this Van der Waals and gravity forces on the particles have not been
method discourages the formation of filtrate on the surface of the mentioned. Also, the formulas for overall particles removal per-
membrane, as well as improves the final solution concentrations formance, membrane permeate, Darcy’s law etc. have not been
(dehydration) [15]. The electrophoretic force generated by electri- declared.
cal field can surpass the hydrodynamic resistance force, so leads to Surface of membrane (usually inorganic membrane) can acts
migration of the charged particles from the membrane. In addition, as an electrode (usually as a cathode) which makes the system
the thickness of formed cake layer is a function of field strength, more efficient [14,19]. However, application of this configuration
particle zeta potential, as well as the fluid velocity of components for submerged membrane led to releasing the by-products into
which is tangential to the porous electrode surface [4,8]. During permeate. For instance, degradation of solutions of bovine serum
electrofiltration, three main mechanisms (electrophoresis, elec- albumin (BSA), ovalbumin and lactalbumin can block the mem-
troosmosis, and electrolysis) enhance the membrane performance brane. In this case, rinsing of electrode by ion exchange, or using
by reducing the fouling phenomenon. Electrical field in cross-flow dialysis membranes will be required [19].
32 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

tively affects relative flux for enzyme production [8,19]. Although,

cross flow velocity is a crucial factor in normal filtration, its fluctua-
tion makes rejection factor unchanged, since the fouling is affected
by the strength of electrical field [5].
The type of membrane is also an important factor in the
efficiency of electrofiltration. In ultrafiltration, hydrophobicity of
membrane restricts its application for heavy loaded collides [6].
According to the type of membrane, application of electrical field
differentiates by two ways; external electrical field in which usually
flat sheet membrane located in the middle of two electrodes, and
application of electric field between the membrane and another
electrode that is common in tubular and spirally wound modules
[23]. In latter, membrane acts as a cathode, while anode was mostly
made of TiO2 covered with platinum, so usually negatively charged
particle moved towards it (in this case the central wire), [8,23].
Fig. 4 shows two different configurations of electrofilteration com-
bining with membrane. In conventional method, the electrical filed
is applied to the membrane surface perpendicularly by electrodes
placed in both sides of the membrane. The more efficient method
is using conductive thin film which can be made of functionalized
multiwall carbon nanotubes CNTs, and poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVA)
as depicted in Fig. 4b.
The particle charge and zeta potential, are also among the
important parameters of electrofiltration efficiency, since they
Fig. 3. Membrane electrofiltration configuration in tubular module (the polarity determine the electrophoretic mobility [8,22].
of electrodes may change in accordance with charges of the particles). In some
Two other important parameters in designing and modeling of
configurations, membrane can play the role of electrodes.
an electrofiltration process are the concentration of particles, and
electrical field strength [8]. Initial concentration affects the solu-
Recently, Electro-microfiltration (EMF) and electro- tion conductivity which speeds up the mobility of compound, while
ultrafiltration (EUF) have been considered as controlling methods increase in feed concentration is limited by cake formation on the
against fouling of charged solutes that cause fouling on the surface of the membrane. For instance, for BSA separation, protein
membranes [20]. Although, ultrafiltration technology has some cake formation was began at the concentration of 1 g/L, and the per-
advantages, such as high permeate flow at low transmembrane meate flow rate was totally stopped at the concentration of 15 g/L
pressure (TMP) in water and wastewater treatment processes, [5]. Latter, mainly depends on the concentration gradient in the
fouling phenomenon has been known as the main drawback media [15]. In addition, the study conducted by Genc and Tosun [24]
of this technology. Electrostatic interactions cause repulsive showed that mesh configuration of electrode led to better removal
forces between membrane surface and charged organic matters, efficiency of particles than spot and foil configurations [24]. A study
so it leads to overall fouling inhibition [16]. Fig. 3 shows the showed that increasing the concentration of the amylase-F from
configuration of tubular electro-membrane filtration. 12 to 80 g/L, led to decline in flux rate from 31 to 8 L/m2 /h. On the
other hand, the electrical field strength was more effective factor
3. Effective factors on electrofiltration process since it improved the flux 3–7 times, especially for concentration
above 40 g/L [19]. For lactalbumin removal, the results showed that
The ultimate aim of electrofiltration, especially in membrane by increasing the concentration of protein, the flux of permeate
and dead-end filtration, is declining the amount of energy for per- decreased; however, further increase in concentration led to reduce
meate suction. The amount of energy used by suction pump, and in flux [5]. The applied potential largely affected the performance of
the efficiency of separation utterly depend on the TMP [21]. In electrofiltration, where the rejection percent increased from 56.7
order to reduce the TMP, specific electrical field intensity should be to 98.4% by application of 33 and 200 V/cm of potential gradient
used for removal of cake layer (prevention of fouling) on the mem- [5]. In Table 2, possible decisive factors on the electrofiltration are
brane surface. At the optimum condition and proper electrical field mentioned.
strength (EFS), the membrane flux can even increase tenfold [19], pH, more or less affects the electrical capacity of compound.
in comparison with 19% flux rate enhancement by electro-osmotic According to a study [25], EFS was recognized as the most impor-
process [8]. Electrical field power is restrained by the amount of tant factor for pH and oxidation-reduction potential control for
energy consumption. For highly conductive suspension (more than both streams of permeate. pH is supposed to increase the repulsion
2000 ␮S/cm), electrical power seems to be unlimited. On contrary, between membrane and suspended particles with negative zeta
in suspension with low conductivities (20–200 ␮S/cm), the specific potential, consequently, leading to increase in the interval of mem-
energy consumption highly depends on electrical field strength. brane fouling and critical flux. It also raises the zeta potential of
High suspension conductivity is often associated with lower elec- membrane. Electrophoretic mobility was increased not only by dis-
trophoretic mobility which leads to a substantial rise in the specific persing agent or sodium hydroxide [8], but also by pH. For instance,
energy consumption. Thus, electrofiltration can be considered as in sludge separation by microfiltration, the electrophoretic mobil-
the economically viable method for lower conductivity solutions ity increased from −0.7 to −1.7 (␮m/s)/(V/cm) in pH range from 7
[9,22]. and 8.5, respectively [22].
Electrical pulse can also be used for reduction of energy con- For compensation of fouling (decreasing the transparent mem-
sumption of electrical field. Likewise, it speeds up detachment of brane pressure and increasing the rate of filtration), the periods
filtrate cake by the fluctuation of particles inside the cake layer [9]. of backwashing were used in special interval of time. Short period
Nonetheless, this method depends on the characteristics of cake interval between two backwashes was firmly advised during elec-
and is not always efficient mechanism since electrical pulse nega- trofiltration. The study of Yang et al. [26] showed that if the
 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40 33

Fig. 4. Two configurations of electro-membrane filtration; (a) conventional setup (above electrode is anode and below electrode is cathode); (b) conductive thin film set up
(adopted from Dudchenko et al. [16]).

Table 2
The effect of different parameters on electrofiltration efficiency.

Factor Effect on flux rate and the other characteristics of electrofiltration

Applied electric field Positive effect due to filtrate migration [45]

strength Enhancement in permeate flux [32]
Increase in pure water permeability [30]
Increasing organic and inorganic foulants removal [20]
Positive effect on flux maintenance capacity and contamination resistance [20]
Decrease in operating pressure and increase in fouling inhibition [16]
Improvement in permeate flux (there is an optimum value) [27]
Positive effect on flux especially using micro-memnbrane as anode [28]
Positive effect on filtration flux and DOC rejection [46]
Positive effect on filtration rate [47].
Increase in permeate flux with increasing electric filed, while decrease in flux
as a function of time [29].
Filtration time Negative effect on flux because of fouling [45]
Transmembrane Pressure (TMP) Positive effect on flux by forcing the filtrate [45]
Negative effect on flux by surpassing the critical flux and block of membrane
pores by particle [26]
No effect for highly compressible substances [36] and microfiltration [42]
Crossflow velocity Grate positive effect on lower concentration and low filtration time [45]
Slightly positive on long filtration time, or small sized particles by removing
the flocs from the surface of membrane [26]
Positive effect on total scaling metal ions separation [20]
Type of material Slight effect on flux if they are not soluble, repulsion by membrane [50]
Negative effect on flux if they are soluble or adsorbed to membrane [36]
Colloid size Positive effect on flux [50]
Electrical Conductivity of permeate Negative effect on flux [4]
Zeta Potential Significant influence on flux due to electrostatic attraction [36,50] and
and pH electrophoretic mobility [8,22]
Viscosity Negative effect on flux due to raising the TMP [50]
Concentration of SS Negative effect on flux [23]
Pulsed electrical field Positive effect on flux due to cracking the filtration cake [9]
Negative effect on flux for small sized particles like mineral solution [5,9,26]
Internal electrode Positive effect on flux due to production of H2 and O2 [6,8]
Negative effect on production of byproduct [5,19]

membrane in cross flow electro-microfiltration subjects to back- iments) showed that under higher cross-flow velocity, total ion
wash for 5 min, after 2 h of operation, the filtration flow rate separation improved (by 47%). Also, it was found that Chelation
decreases significantly. In fact, increase in TMP is a result of adsorp- bond between Ca2+ and humic acid (as fouling factor) could be
tion of oxide-CMP particles (high concentration of submicron-size broken by implementation of electrical field.
particle) by membrane; as a result, frequent backwashing (1 min Poly (vinyl alcohol) and carboxylated multi-walled carbon
after 40 min filtration) could prevent further decrease in mem- nanotubes (PVA–CNT–COOH) modified membranes in the pres-
brane flow rate before the membrane pores are filled fully with ence of electrical field, was used in order to study the applied
fine particles. potential for fouling of alginic acid. The effect of applied potential
In a study by Wei et al. [20], the influence of operating param- showed that by implementation of −3 V and −5 V, operating pres-
eters on electro-microfiltration (EMF) has been investigated. In sure decreased from 33% to 51%, respectively. In addition, increase
membrane filtration process of drinking water, organic matters, in applied voltage resulted in significant fouling inhibition because
and scaling metal ions caused fouling on the membrane. It has been of electrostatic repulsion. Actually, the repulsive force prevented
proven that mentioned foulants could be removed by higher rate alginate from interacting the surface of membrane [16].
(using EMF), compared to microfiltration without applying elec- Contribution of electrophoresis demonstrated that it can be
trical field. Also, electrostatic force and TMP were recognized as considered as an effective way for oily wastewater treatment (by
important factors which could remove Ca2+ effectively. Moreover, filtration) through membrane fouling control. With increasing elec-
higher flux maintenance capacity (optimum stable flux was 2.86 trical field, the initial flux increased dramatically. Moreover, using
times higher than conventional microfiltration (MF)), and higher IrO2 nanorods modified membrane showed six times higher time-
contamination resistance could be achieved by applying 100 V as average permeate flux by application of electricity rather than
external voltage. Cross-flow velocity study (hydrodynamic exper- non-electrophoretic process. The permeate flux and antifouling
34 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

performance improved at 13 V/cm applied electrical field, but fur- view of electrofiltration process configuration which involves feed
ther increase in electrical field did not show more improvement. tank, pump, flowmeters, valves, pressure indicator, electrofiltration
Additionally, the utilized electrophoretic effect on the membrane set up, permeate vessel, concentrate, and bypass lines.
cleaning was investigated. It was observed that applying electrical
field led to recover 85% of initial flux [27]. 4.1. Filter-Bed electrofiltration
Regarding food industries, electro-microfiltration was per-
formed by sintered stainless steel (SSS) membranes, for separation The lab-scale study by Kulkarni et al. [33] showed consequential
of alumina, a calcium salt, and protein containing particles (in dairy increase in the removal efficiency of kaolin, polystyrene latex beads
processing). The results disclosed prompt improvement in perme- and Cryptosporidium oocysts by using direct current (DC) electri-
ate flux by around 20% by applying 180 V/cm electrical field, when cal field in cylindrical filter column. In a study, an acrylic filtration
SS was used as cathode. Surprisingly, the permeate flux increased column was replaced the conventional coagulation/flocculation
by 300% when SSS membrane was used as anode at the same con- process. The results showed that particles removal coefficient
dition [28] which showed the impact of material of membrane. (PC) increased by introduction of 12 V. Electrofiltration process
was proved to be more effective for removal of smaller particles
(<4 mm), the size range of many waterborne bacteria, by reducing
4. Application of electrofiltration the number of particles (2–4 ␮m) by applying 8 V of electrical force
[2]. In another study, electrodialysis plant was used for treatment
As mentioned earlier, the general application of electrofiltra- of water containing particles with the majority size of 2–6 ␮m. The
tion is divided into filter bed and membrane technologies. The quasi-stationary permeate rate after 20 h increased dramatically
latter seems to be more promising and majority of studies have from 120 L/m2 h for normal membrane to 1150 L/m2 h by an applied
been focused on separation of high concentrated biopolymers from electrical field of 150 V/cm. Additionally, a pulsed field led to a fur-
the downstream of biological process. Furthermore, decrease in ther increase in the permeate rate by applying voltage of 125 V/cm
fouling in electro-membrane bioreactor (MBR), and enhancement [9].
in separation of fine fragment from electronical and nanomate- Zhang, Tan [34], studied electrofiltration in lab-scale deep-bed
rial manufacturing wastewater have been newly observed. Also, filtration (Nylon powder, and polystyrene (PSt) granule) with EFS
recently, electrofiltration has been implemented in order to sep- 25 V/cm for removal of aqueous hydrosols polystyrene latex. Gen-
arate various types of pollutants in water and wastewater using erally, powder filtration showed greatest removal in comparison
different kind of filters and optimum applied voltages. Table 3 illus- with granular one, since the interaction between lower diame-
trates the recent advances in this field in brief. ter filtration materials improved the filtration performance. After
There can be several mechanisms of electrofiltration for differ- 30 min, the Cout /Cin ratio was 0.3 for Nylon powder, while it was
ent applications. The possible mechanisms of tubular membrane only 0.9 for PSt granular. Application of 25 V/cm of electrical field
coupled with simultaneous electrocoagulation and electrofiltra- increased the ratio to 0.1 and 0.6, for those conductive media.
tion (EC/EF) process in order to removal of emerging contaminants The results demonstrated that the zeta potential closely depended
could be size exclusion, electrostatic repulsion, carbon adsorption, on the pH of the solution. As the pH increased from 3 to 6, the
electrocoagulation, and electrofiltration [29]. For organic fouling zeta potential of Nylon6 powder and Nylon 6-ppy granule also
inhibition by ultrafiltration, an electrostatic repulsive force pro- decreased from +15 to −15, and +38 to −20, respectively, leading
vides partial surface roughness covering, preventing salt or ester of to obvious improvement in particles removal. The removal of latex
alginic acid from interrelating with the surface, led to decrease in particles by polypyrrole (PPy) powder escalated from 18 to 50%
fouling rates [16]. For membrane electrofiltration, the most impor- while pH increased from 3.5 to 5.
tant factors are membrane structure and performance (flux and
rejection). The performance of membranes could be examined by 4.2. Membrane electrofiltration
adopting proper pore spreading, pore configuration, and pore size.
In fact, atomic force microscope is an important factor of surface Membrane and filtration technology utilization has been well
membrane structure. For removal of ultraviolet, adoption of the established in pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industry [23],
chemicals on polymer membrane is known as the dominant mech- as well as wastewater treatment technology; consequently, its
anism, and at the later stage, the size exclusion has the main role modification by electrical field is the priority of researchers. The
for separation [30]. Furthermore, the mechanism of crossflow fil- following subsections review the application of electrical field in
tration intensely depends on the interaction between the electrical water and wastewater membrane filtration.
field with charged colloidal particles, which means high electro-
static field enhances the removal efficiency of particles [31]. Wei 4.2.1. Separation of bio-products
et al. [20] investigated the fouling mechanism of humic substances Downstream process of bio-products contains highly charged
and calcium in the presence and in the absence of electrical field. biopolymers (e.g. antibiotics, enzymes, albumin), with high
When the electrical field was not applied, adsorption onto the viscosity. Additionally, by production of large amount of bio-
membrane surface and in the pores by hydrophobic interactions macromolecules, their separation from the media have always
was the main mechanism, however, by applying electrical field, concerned the researchers [15,35,36]. Nevertheless, their capabil-
attraction by the anode and migration away from the membrane, ity of making high resistant filter cake radically reduced the use
coordinate bond breaks, and reducing in fouling were observed. of ultrafiltration/microfiltration [3]. Different technologies, such as
For simultaneous electrocoagulation and electrofiltration (EC/EF) high crossflow velocities, baffles feed channels, addition of bub-
process, the relevant separation mechanisms include size exclu- bles to the feed solution, in order to enhance the turbulence were
sion, electrophoresis and electrostatic exclusion, adsorption and developed for membrane cleaning. In comparison with hydrody-
coagulation [32]. In the process of electrochemical filtration, both namic force, utilization of electrofiltration is considered to be a
electrochemical reactions and electrophoresis are found as effec- better system in terms of time and operating cost, since it reduces
tive mechanisms for membrane fouling control during wastewater the thickness of the filter cake without using mechanical force
filtration, with the membrane as the anode [27]. Electrophoresis of [19,21,23]. The use of dead-end electrofiltration seems to be the
charged colloids/molecules and electroosmosis are two key mech- viable choice for sensitive biopolymers removal from wastewa-
anisms in crossflow electrofiltration [29]. Fig. 5 shows the overall ter. The impermeable and compressible filter cakes are partially or
Table 3
A list of recent progresses in electrofiltration of water and wastewater.

Filtration method Filter’s material Separated compounds Operating time and electric Electrode type Result and efficiency Reference
field strength range

Microfiltration Dead-end, double-sided, Adsorbed phenol (as a Time: up to 50 min; applied Stainless-steel and a Increasing the filtrate flow [44]
bench scale model organic voltage: 0,5, 12 V/cm titanium covered with an rate at 200 kPa 30-fold by

A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

filtration, Pall Supor-100 micropollutant) on cationic iridium oxide layer applying 5 V/cm.
membranes liposomes
Microfiltration Cross-flow membrane Alamin, a calcium salt and Time: 0–250 min; applied Sintered stainless steel Improvement of the [28]
module, Sintered Stainless protein containing voltage: 0–50 V (SSS) microfiltration permeate flux by about 20%
Steel (SSS) membrane particles membranes
Microfiltration Non-circular ceramic Suspended organic in Time: 45 min; electric Field Platinum electrodes Increase of up to 3 times [22]
membranes synthetic activated sludge strength: 0–45 V/cm flux and improvement in
effluent the TOC removals (up to
90%)
Microfiltration Tubular membrane Natural organic matter Time: 120 min; electric Platinum and titanium Flux enhancement 74%, [46]
(NOM) and inorganic Field strength: 0–73.3 V/cm 169%, and 216% depending
particles on chemicals
Ultrafiltration Polyvinylidene Ultraviolet (UV) filters Time: 140 min; Current: Titanium 100% rejection by applying [6]
fluoride (PVDF) membrane (benzophenone-3 (BP-3) 0–1 A current; and applied plates 1 A current.
voltage: 0–60 V.
Ultrafiltration Polyvinylidene fluoride 4-methylbenzylidene Time: 140 min; Current: Titanium Increase in 4-MBC rejection [30]
(PVDF) membrane camphor (4-MBC) (PCPs) 0–3 A current; and applied plates
voltage: 0–60 V.
Simultaneous Tubular carbon Phthalate esters and Time: 60 min; electric Field Aluminum or stainless 19–93% removal efficiency [32]
electrocoagulation and nanofiber/carbon/alumina pharmaceuticals present in strength: 10–30 V/cm steel (SS 316) depending on component
electrofiltration (EC/EF) composite membrane drinking water type
(TCCACM)
Ultrafiltration Cross-linked poly(vinyl Alginic acid (AA) Time: 100 min; Electrically conducting Reduction in operating [16]
alcohol) and carboxylated applied cell potentials membrane pressure up to 51%.
multi—alled carbon (3–5 V) and fields
nanotubes (9–15 V/cm).
(PVA–CNT–COOH)
Microfiltration Cross-flowmembrane Humic substances (HSs) Time: 180 min; applied Flat sheet, titanium base HSs and metal ion removal [20]
filtration module, and calcium sulfate voltage: 0–100 V. ruthenium rates increased to as
Polyvinylidene fluoride dioxide and stainless high as 97.56% and 72.5%.
(PVDF) MF membranes steel
Nanofiltration Multiwalled carbon Anti-inflammatory drug, T: 140 min; applied voltage Carbon nanotube At 3 V under acidic [49]
nanotube filter ibuprofen 0–3 V conditions, near 100%
removal of the target
molecule
Simultaneous Graphene-containing Phthalates and T: 60 min; electric Field Aluminum or stainless 32–97% removal efficiency [29]
electrocoagulation and ceramic composite tubular pharmaceuticals (as strength: 20–40 V/cm steel (SS 316) depending on component
electrofiltration (EC/EF) membrane (TGCCM) emerging contaminants) type

35
36 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

Fig. 5. Process flow diagram of electrofiltration process. Dashed lines are optional for improvement the process.

totally removed by electrical field. In electrofiltration, direct cur- The separation of cationic and bioactive peptides (a model of
rent is applied; however, introduction of alternating current (AC) charged component) by electro-membrane filtration (EMF) was
is also possible, especially for protein separation [37]. also studied and the results showed that this method can be effec-
Enzyme and proteins are obviously so sensitive to shear force tive for peptide separation and desalination of hydrolysate solution,
and heat. Thus, their purification, and isolation by conventional by integration of membrane filtration and electrophoresis [38–40].
membrane process and heating is easily denature their molecules. For separation of basic peptides, when the convective force was at
Electro-microfiltration and electrodialysis, not only dehydrated minimum value, electrical filed was more effective.
sensitive proteins and enzymes without denaturation [3], but also Straightforward electro-gel-filtration was studied by Atmeh,
decreased the amount of energy to almost 20 fold [15]. For instance, Massad [35] for a solution of Ovalbumin and BSA in the presence of
in a study the combination of electro-ultrafiltration (EUF) for sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as a denaturing agent. Proteins were
five different enzymes separation was investigated. Electrodialysis migrated by electrophoresis through the polyacrylamide gel sys-
module was used to prevent direct contact between the enzymes tem into isolated collection chamber, and then were separated by
and the electrodes. Electrical field with the power of 16 V/cm, cross- buffer. For such process, final separation was achieved at 40 V/cm
flow velocity of 0.07 m/s and TMP of 1500 kPa, improved the flux in 30 min. By this sequence, around 70% of recovery was observed
rate of 3.5, and 2.5 times for the 12 g/L amylase-F and amylase-S, by removal of 190 ␮g of proteins in one hour. Another attempt
respectively. The flux did not improve for the protease-A, because of viability of electrofiltration (fiber filter under 80 V of electrical
of its low mobility [19]. field) on buffered quartz suspensions (10% v/v, and particle diame-
Not only for enzymes, was electro-ultrafiltration also used for ter of 2 ␮m) showed that electrical field enhanced the filtration in
other biopolymers separation such as proteins. For instance, in the cathode by 215% while reduced the permeate in anode by 35% [1].
study by Wakeman [5], cross-flow microfiltration was used for sep- A submerged ultra-filtration (UF) flat sheet membrane made
aration of three negative charged proteins, such as lactalbumin of polyvinylidene fluoride equipped with titanium plates as elec-
(insoluble denatured milk protein), ovalbumin (dried egg white), trodes was used for treatment of water spiked by benzophenone-3
and bovine serum albumin (BSA) from water. Application of EFS (BP-3) and 2 mol/L of humic acid (HA). The main removal mecha-
333 V/cm for lactalbumin concentration of 0.2 g/L increased the flux nism was the adsorption onto membrane surface and pores. In the
rate from 300 to 4000 L/m2 h. A crossflow tubular conductive mem- presence of organic matter, such as humic acid (HA) removal rate
brane (formed by a layer of ZrO2 –TiO2 over a carbon support), with increased by adsorption of BP-3 into the HA instead of membrane.
a coaxial electrode was used for removal of bovine plasma pro- As HA contains negative charge and is repelled by hydrophobic
teins which was above the isoelectric point (negatively charged). membrane, it greatly enhanced the removal efficiency of BP-3 in
Low frequency pulse (50 Hz ac) not only simplified the process, the presence of external electrical field; hence, the percentage of
but also eliminated the fouling phenomenon by resonating of flocs BP-3 rejection increased from 60 to 70 by introduction of 0.1A of
deposited on the surface of membrane. By applying 15 V electric electrical current on electrode. Further increase in the current to
force on 0.1 wt% of bovine concentration, the permeate flux reached 1A, totally removed the adsorption resistance by electrophoretic
to the verge of 110 L/m2 h. Further increase in bovine concentra- migration of the negatively charged HAs–BP-3 complex colloids
tion to 5 wt% reduced the flux three times. The application of an toward the anodic surfaces forced chemical coagulation in the
electrical field restored the initial permeate flux as well [23]. vicinity of the anode. Furthermore, the production of hydrogen gas
bubbles at the cathode or oxygen at the anode initialized the flota-
 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40 37

tion process that may float some portion of the coagulated complex the further improvement of this process, removal of bubble gas
colloids to the surface. The bubble gas could break apart the foul- by peristaltic pump was used in order to modify the electric cur-
ing layer on the membrane [8]. As a result, production of oxidant rent [25]. Utilization of nanoscale TiO2 /Al2 O3 composite membrane
radical near electrode can even mineralize BP-3 [6]. was the next step for optimization of that process [42], since the
The purification of biodegradable polyester poly-(3- ordinary microfiltration was susceptible to fouling which made it
hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) by electrofiltration (4 V/mm applied less economical. The critical EFS decreased to the only 35 V/cm
voltage) showed that this technology can be applied as a down- which was one and the half times larger than EFS in microfiltra-
stream step successfully (up to 4 fold higher concentration factor) tion that made the process more economical. Also, the quality of
in PHB production process [41]. effluent was improved due to high-level recycled water (TS, TOC,
In biotechnology, conventional membrane fractionation is not COD, and dissolved Si removal efficiency were 86.5%, 67%, 74.2%
selective enough for the same size proteins. However, they might be and 90%, respectively). Although, in microfiltration, TMP was not
different in charges; accordingly, the membrane selectivity should decisive factor, however, in nanofiltration, increasing TMP from
be improved significantly by electrostatic mobility, like the separa- 98 to 490 kPa, led to increase in filtration rate from 30 cm/min
tion of bovine serum albumin (BSA) and lysozyme (LZ) in dead-end to 80 cm/min after 2 h [42]. This system was improved further by
filtration process. [5]. The study done by Cappler and Posten [36] flushing the electrodes and interrupting the contamination of the
depicted the best example of electrofiltration selectivity for two filter cake by electrolysis product.
proteins BSA and LZ. By introduction of 400 mV of electrical field Turbidity removal is one of the main aims of water and wastewa-
power, the LZ transition raised from 6 to 60%, while the transition ter treatment. Silica particles leads to high turbidity of wastewater.
of BSA was kept zero. Therefore, the selectivity rose up to even Silica nanoparticle-containing wastewater was treated by cross-
800. Rising in ionic strength led to decline in the zeta potential flow electrofiltration (two inside-out tubular TiO2 /Al2 O3 composite
and increase in the electrophoretic migration. In normal filtration, membranes was used) [47]. By increasing electrical filed (under
increase in zeta potential caused a dense filtrated made of agglom- constant velocity), the filtration rate increased, and the results
erated particles which hindered the flowrate. confirmed this method is suitable for treatment of wastewater
with a cut size of less than 46 nm. The final turbidity decreased
4.2.2. Removal of emerging contaminants and trace organic to under 0.75 NTU and 90% of silica and suspended solids
molecules particles were removed. Simultaneous crossflow electrocoagula-
Implementation of proper wastewater treatment plants for tion/electrofiltration (EC/EF) treatment of chemical mechanical
water reusing [42] of some industries, such as organic chemi- polishing (CMP) wastewaters including Cu-CMP wastewater and
cals, plastics, steel and petroleum, semiconductor plants [25,26,43] oxide-CMP wastewater was performed by Yang and Tsai [48]. The
which may contain high concentration of micro-pollutants and critical electrical filed strength was found to be 30 and 35 V/cm
nanoparticles (NPs) has concerned researchers. NPs are usually for optimum separation of oxide-CMP and Cu-CMP wastewaters,
failed to remove by traditional method coagulation/precipitation. respectively; while, the unit sludge yield and permeate turbid-
Also, the nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) are cate- ity were lower than conventional coagulation process. Another
gorized as high energy consuming processes for the low weight study investigated the viability of a simultaneous electrocoagula-
molecules removal from wastewater. Therefore, different meth- tion/electrofiltration (EC/EF) application for treatment of nanosized
ods, such as combination of electrocoagulation and electrofiltration TiO2 -containing wastewater. The sets of experiments were used
or two-step process of adsorption-ultrafiltration were used for to explore the optimum EFS (166.6 cm/cm), TMP (1 kgf /cm2 ), and
removal of recalcitrant compound [44,45]. crossflow velocity (0.22 cm/s) in which the permeate had the
In the study by Hakimhashem et al. [44], the same strategy was best quality in respect to chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
used for phenol removal from wastewater by means of two-steps organic compound (TOC), conductivity, and turbidity by means of
process: adsorption of phenol on dioctadecyl dimethyl ammonium polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) with a nominal pore size of 0.1 mm
chloride (DODAC) liposomes followed by dead-end ultrafiltration and FeSO4 as a coagulant [45].
equipped with an electrical field enhancement (stainless-steel
cathode and a titanium anode covered with an iridium oxide layer).
The results showed that application of 5 V/cm of electrical field 4.2.3. Pharmaceutical compound removal
raised filtration flux 30 times, and 57 fold by further increase in Recently, electrochemical filtration for removal of anti-
electrical field strength up to 12 V/cm. It is worth mentioning that inflammatory drug, ibuprofen, showed that at 2–3 V applied DC
by raising TMP from 200 to 800 kpa, filtrate flowrate raised only to voltage, ibuprofen can completely be removed by carboxylated
4.6 L/m2 h. multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs-COOH) from wastew-
A pilot-scale process was used for dewatering of negatively ater at the optimum operating conditions of applied voltage
charged xanthan polysaccharide. It included the electro-filter plate, (2 V) and 0.2 mL/min as the flowrate. Although, some toxic by-
equipped with a microfiltration membrane (pore size of 0.1 ␮m). products (4-isobutylbenzoic acid, 1-(4-isobutylphenyl)-1-ethanol,
In such a process, normal filtration time was 185 fold of the elec- and 2-(4-formylphenyl) propanoic acid) were observed during
trofiltration. The results also showed that in dead-end filtration, the experiments, by implementation of lower flowrate and more
the removal of xanthan was 100% [15]. Tsai et al. [46] studied carbon nanotubes (CNTs) surface loading (more residence time),
on humic acid (HA) and kaolin as a model compound of natural all by-products were removed consequently [49]. Removal of
organic matters (NOM), and inorganic particles in surface water phthalates, such as di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP), di(2-ethylhexyl)
using micro-electrofiltration technique. Application of electrical phthalate (DEHP), and pharmaceuticals, such as cephalexin (CLX),
field indicated enhancement in filtration flux and also DOC rejec- sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and caffeine (CAF), as emerging contam-
tion due to electrophoretic and electroosmotic effects. At critical inants, from wastewater using simultaneous electrocoagulation
electrical field (60.3 V/cm), the maximum efficiency was observed. and electrofiltration (by tubular membrane and applied voltage of
Electrically enhanced cross flow microfiltration system (0.1 ␮m) 20–40 V/cm) process have been studied by Yang et al. [29]. Higher
was also used for oxide- semiconductor industry (CMP) wastew- removal efficiency were achieved for phthalates (99%) than phar-
ater (5–10% of very fine particles). The authors concluded that maceuticals where wide ranges of removal efficiency (32–97%)
at 80 V/cm (after 1 h filtration), the filtration rate increased. Also, were observed, thus, they recommended more studies to overcome
the turbidity and total suspended solid (TSS) declined [26]. For this inadequacy.
38 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

Removal and monitoring the pharmaceutical compounds in which are cost effective because of their hydrophilic/hydrophobic,
drinking water was studied by Yang et al. [32] by use of charges, and bactericidal properties. Among different type of
tubular carbon nanofiber/carbon/alumina composite membrane polymeric membranes, such as (polypyrrole (PPy), polyacetylene,
(TCCACM). Electrocoagulation and electrofiltration (EC/EF) pro- polyaniline, and polythiophene), PPy has gained more attentions
cess were applied simultaneously to remove phthalate esters and due to its remarkable stability and conductivity.
pharmaceuticals. It was found that, the critical electrical field
strength (CEFS), around 20 V/cm played an important role in the
5. Future perspective
EC/EF treatment (best condition in terms of membrane flux and
quality). In fact, by applying electric filed lower or higher than
It seems that the application of electrical field on membrane
CEFS, suspended solids stability is destroyed and consequently, the
technology could be considered as a possible and viable choice, as
membrane fouling occurred. In general, at optimal operating con-
it enhances the flux rate up to ten times. Application of electri-
dition, treatment of potable water with combined TCCACM-EC/EF
cal field on mass filtration, enhances moderately the filter media
treatment module resulted in lower residual concentration. Sepa-
efficiency for removal of undesired particles. Furthermore, the effi-
ration of 4-methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC) (used in cosmetic
ciency of electrofiltration is closely related to the concentration of
industry) from water using electric filed across the polyvinylidene
dissolved organic matters, colloids, or suspended solids. Hence, for
fluoride (PVDF) membrane (ultrafiltration) was also studied by
the low contaminated water and wastewater (e.g. drinking water)
Chen and Deng [30]. The effect of applying electrical field resulted
application of electrical field is not economical. Other options, like
in reducing TMP, enhancing water permeability, increasing separa-
fine filtration or ultrafiltration in comparison with electrical field
tion rate of 4-MBC, and decreasing filtration resistance. In addition,
reduces the operation cost and increases the efficiency. On the
the hydrophilicity of the membrane surface was investigated by
other hand, for high concentrated wastewater or separation of
measuring the contact angle between membrane surface and ultra-
bio-products produced in biological process (enzyme and proteins
pure water. As a result, electric filed led to decrease in contact angle
separation), the energy usage of electrical field is less than conven-
which supported the more hydrophilicity of membrane.
tional membrane processes. This is the reason that the industrial
electrofiltration application can be established for bio-product sep-
4.2.4. Recent development in electrofiltration
aration in pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industry, as well
Membrane fouling is the biggest hindrance of membrane
as removal of high concentration of trace organic and inorganic
bioreactor (MBR) industrial utilization which mainly depends on
molecules with high charges from industrial wastewater. Opti-
membrane characteristics (e.g. pore size), operating conditions (e.g.
mization of electrical field, as well as altering the characteristic of
TMP), and sludge properties (extracellular polymeric substances
surface charges of suspended particles inside the media, are the
(EPS)), [22,50]. For investigation of electrofiltration viability in MBR,
recommended domains that the researchers should focus to put
the effects of TMP and sludge were examined in two industrial
electrofiltration on an industrial scale for the mentioned treatment
scale MBR and submerged electro-membrane bioreactor (SMBR),
and separation processes.
equipped by hollow fiber membrane (0.1 ␮m pore size). Solid reten-
Besides, the most promising and virginal section of this tech-
tion time (SRT) and hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 10 d and
nology lays in its application for the membrane bioreactor. In MBR,
11 h for treatment of municipal wastewater were applied, respec-
the most fundamental hindrance is membrane fouling, due to the
tively [50]. Electrolytic oxidation of the aluminum anode caused
high concentration of sludge and extracellular bio-polymers. Previ-
generating in-situ charged species of aluminum hydroxides, desta-
ous studies have been showed clearly that electrofiltration can kept
bilizing the charged particles in the colloidal suspension, and finally
away the high concentration of sludge from the membrane. There-
removing the pollutants from wastewater. Furthermore, the phos-
fore, this combined technology not only reduces the membrane
phor removal increased from 59 to 99% by deposition on the surface
fouling, but also results in decrease of TMPs which have the main
of the electrodes. COD removal efficiency also enhanced from 87 to
portion of operating cost in MBR process. More investigation in this
92%, and the fouling rate decreased dramatically.
field, may help further developed in MBR technology and make
In an innovative experiment by Chiu and Garcia [22], vertically
especially the external membrane bioreactor as the most viable
mounted star-shaped tubular ceramic microfiltration membrane
treatment process for municipal and specific industrial wastewa-
module, equipped with two platinum electrodes was used for acti-
ters. Undoubtedly, the feasibility studies and cost assessment must
vated sludge effluent treatment. This method could be used in MBR
be conducted by researchers before its application in industrial
for increasing energy efficiency. By use of outer mesh as the anode,
scale. Moreover, improvement in materials of electrodes, electrode
the negative charged sludge particles were kept away from mem-
types and arrangement, and more efficient designing of separator
brane by electrical field forces, consequently, enhancement in the
can lead to lower operating cost of electro-filtration.
propensity for fouling was observed. The critical flux obtained at
173.6 L/m2 h (by applying 44 V/cm field) which was twofold of nor-
mal flux. Under electrical field, TOC rejection of hypothetical MBR 5.1. The viability of industrial application
improved from 65% to 90% which generally amended the efficiency
of MBR. As discussed earlier, the electrofiltration has been the center of
Fouling prevention by electrically conductive polymeric mem- extensive attention as an advanced method for water and wastew-
brane in water treatment and desalination has been reviewed by ater treatment. However, its disadvantageous restrict the industrial
Ahmed et al. [51]. Various conductive polymeric membrane appli- application. Limitation of the process stream for relatively low con-
cations such as membrane distillation (MD), MF, UF, NF and RO have ductivity of feed stream, a high-energy requirement, substantial
been studied for wastewater treatment over the last decades. The heat production, and changes in the process feed due to reaction
main advantage of conductive membrane could be electrochem- at the electrode are among the main drawback of electrofiltration
ical fouling cleaning (by oxidation or bubble generation). Fouling [3]. Furthermore, the large size of excess equipment of crossflow
occurrence depends on material of membrane, porous structure, filtration, in comparison with conventional method makes it diffi-
and surface chemistry. The electrically conductive attitudes of cult for installation and increases the cost of process. Kappler and
membranes could lead to some benefits such as membrane reactiv- Posten [36] estimated that even without a power supply, electrofil-
ity, fouling prevention, and development of biofouling resistance. tration equipment was about 10 times larger than a corresponding
Besides, polymer-CNTs composites are multipurpose materials cartridge filter.
 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40 39

The power consumption (as an estimation value) rises as a membrane bioreactors, the excellent purity of effluent can be
square function of the applied voltage; therefore, energy cost and achieved which satisfies the future regulation on toxic compounds
filtration performance should take into consideration, while 8–12 V in the effluent. Generally, electrical field can be applied efficiently
is recommended as a cost-effective operating voltage range for for treatment of various type of water and wastewater, such as
electrofiltration [52]. According to study by Yang and Li [47], in oily wastewater, sanitary landfill leachate, wastewater contain-
order to achieve lower cost operation, TMP and electrical field ing organic matters, pharmaceutical pollutants, and bio-products,
strength are the more important factors. For membrane electro- water containing micro-pollutant and scaling metal ions, etc. by
filtration, the configuration and material of membrane, size and using micro/ultra-filtration membranes, however economic analy-
materials of electrodes could play important roles in order to sis cannot be neglected.
industrializing this process. Combination of electrofiltration with
electrocoagulation is also an alternative to become closer to plant
Acknowledgement
installation. Obtaining the optimum operating conditions espe-
cially considering operating time (for instance, shorter retention
The authors express their gratitude to INRS (as mentioned in
time and higher flux can compete with electricity consumption),
affiliation) for creating the great research environment for this
followed by scale-up experiment using real industrial and agri-
study. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
cultural wastewaters, and calculating electricity consumption (in
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
kWh/m3 ) are needed for future research. Mathematical modeling of
the process is the other choice to investigate the various parameters
to obtain the general and more exact view of the electrofiltration. References
All in all, techno-economic evaluation and feasibility study have to
be performed to commercialize this technology concerning applied [1] H. Saveyna, et al., Modelling two-sided electrofiltration of quartz
suspensions: importance of electrochemical reactions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 60
voltage cost and efficiency based on the type of pollutants in water
(2005) 6768–6779.
and wastewaters. [2] Y. Li, et al., Removal of waterborne particles by electrofiltration: pilot-scale
testing, Environ. Eng. Sci. 29 (19) (2009) 1795–1804.
[3] A. Permadi, G. Wenten, Enzyme Separation and Purification Using
Electrofiltration, in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Kimia, Kejuangan,
6. Conclusion (2010) 291–300.
[4] B.M. Verdegan, Crossflow electrofiltration of petroleum oils, Sep. Sci. Technol.
In the present review, different aspects of electrofiltration of 21 (1986) 603–623.
[5] R.J. Wakeman, Electrically enhanced microfiltration of albumin suspensions,
water and wastewater have been investigated. The application of Food Bioprod. Process. 76 (1) (1998) 53–59.
membrane filtration is restricted by fouling. As the known tech- [6] X. Chen, H. Deng, Effects of electric fields on the removal of ultraviolet filters
niques to diminish this phenomenon are not cost effective and by ultrafiltration membranes, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 393 (2013) 429–437.
[7] J. Jurado, B.J. Bellhouse, Application of electric fields and vortex mixing for
mainly time-consuming, filtration assisted by electrical field was enhanced ultrafiltration, Filtr. Sep. 31 (3) (1994) 273–368.
firstly introduced to deal with this issue. In a nutshell, by review- [8] H.M. Huotari, G. Trägårdh, I.H. Huisman, Crossflow membrane filtration
ing the electro-filtration method, it can be concluded that: (1) enhanced by an external DC electric field: a review, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 77
(5) (1999) 461–468.
both the theoretical and experimental studies indicated that the
[9] T. Weigert, J. Altmann, S. Ripperger, Cross flow electrofiltration in pilot scale,
conventional filtration process lacks the capability of effectively J. Membr. Sci. 159 (1-2) (1999) 253–262, 59p.
removing water born particles (especially with size less than 4 ␮m) [10] R. Hofmann, C. Posten, Improvement of dead-end filtration of biopolymers
with pressure electrofiltration, Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003) 3847–3858.
and pathogens from water sources; (2) The exorbitant amount of
[11] A. Fernandes, et al., Review on the electrochemical processes for the
energy used by suction pump in membrane technology discourages treatment of sanitary landfill leachates: present and future, Appl. Catal. B:
many industries for its application despite its countless benefit over Environ. 176–177 (2015) 183–200.
conventional treatment; (3) Fouling phenomena is considered to be [12] C. Tien, B.V. Ramarao, Granular Filtration of Aerosols and Hydrosols,
Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1989.
the most problematic aspect of membrane technology which can be [13] N.C. Lockhart, Electroosmotic dewatering of clays, III. Influence of clay type,
solved by electrofiltration; (4) Recent strict regulation on nanopar- exchangeable cations, and electrode materials, Colloids Surf. 6 (3) (1983)
ticle and toxic compound released into environment, gets lots of 253–269.
[14] A.K. Pabby, S.S.H. Rizvi, A.M.S. Requena, Handbook of Membrane Separations:
attention of researchers worldwide; (5) Increasing the number of Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Food, and Biotechnological Applications, CRC
biotechnological compound such as, proteins, enzymes, antibiotics, Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008, pp. 1074–1075.
and other drugs motivate the utilization of new technology to sep- [15] R. Hofmann, T. Kappler, C. Posten, Pilot-scale press electrofiltration of
biopolymers, Sep. Purif. Technol. 51 (2006) 303–309, 51p.
arate them from the media. [16] A.V. Dudchenko, et al., Organic fouling inhibition on electrically conducting
It was implied that electrofiltration is a potential alternative carbon nanotube–polyvinyl alcohol composite ultrafiltration membranes, J.
to overcome mentioned challenges. Also, it has been proved that Membr. Sci. 468 (2014) 1–10.
[17] D.-Y. Kim, et al., Harvesting Chlorella sp. KR-1 using cross-flow
application of electrical filed can improve the performance of
electro-filtration, Algal Res. 6 (2014) 170–174, Part B.
filter in terms of particle removal and turbidity reduction, reduc- [18] K. Weber, W. Stahl, Improvement of filtration kinetics by pressure
ing the operation cost of wastewater treatment by removing the electrofiltration, Sep. Purif. Technol. 26 (1) (2002) 69–80.
[19] A.D. Enevoldsen, E.B. Hansen, G. Jonsson, Electro-ultrafiltration of industrial
coagulation/flocculation process, increasing membrane selectivity,
enzyme solutions, J. Membr. Sci. 299 (2007) 28–37.
decreasing TMP, and enhancing the interval of backwashing. Apart [20] K. Wei, et al., Effects of operational parameters on electro-microfiltration
from enhancement in flux, applying electrical filed can improve process of NOM tailwater containing scaling metal ions, Desalination 369
the treated water quality in the case of using membrane with (2015) 115–124.
[21] G. Gozke, C. Posten, Electrofiltration of biopolymers, Food Eng. Rev. 2 (2010)
large pore size. Applied voltage and filter loading rates are the 131–146.
main parameters to optimize this technology for efficient filtra- [22] T.Y. Chiu, F.J. Garcia, Critical flux enhancement in electrically assisted
tion in future, considering the critical electrical field strength. microfiltration, Sep. Purif. Technol. 78 (2011) 62–68.
[23] C.C. Tarazaga, M.E. Campderros, A.P. Padilla, Physical cleaning by means of
Decrease in aromatic, functionalized aliphatic fractions, as well as electric field in the ultrafiltration of a biological solution, J. Membr. Sci. 278
nanoparticles in the filtrate, indicates that a combination of elec- (2006) 219–224.
tric force with filter media can increase organic matters rejection. [24] A. Genc, I. Tosun, Experimental studies on the effect of electrode
configuration in electrofiltration, Sep. Sci. Technol. 37 (13) (2002) 3053–3064.
In special case, the combination of electrical field with mem- [25] G.C.C. Yang, T.Y. Yang, Reclamation of high quality water from treating CMP
brane bioreactor for wastewater treatment seems to have bright wastewater by a novel crossflow electrofiltration/electrodialysis process, J.
future. By optimizing the operating conditions of external electro- Membr. Sci. 233 (2004) 151–159.
40 A. Khosravanipour Mostafazadeh et al. / Journal of Water Process Engineering 14 (2016) 28–40

[26] G.C.C. Yang, T.-Y. Yang, S.-H. Tsai, Crossflow electro-microfiltration of [40] J.-F. Lapointe, et al., Selective separation of cationic peptides from a tryptic
oxide-CMP wastewater, Water Res. 37 (4) (2003) 785–792. hydrolysate of ␤-lactoglobulin by electrofiltration, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 94 (2)
[27] B. Yang, P. Geng, G. Chen, One-dimensional structured IrO2 nanorods (2006) 223–233.
modified membrane for electrochemical anti-fouling in filtration of oily [41] G. Gözke, et al., Electrofiltration as a purification strategy for microbial
wastewater, Sep. Purif. Technol. 156 (2015) 931–941, Part 3. poly-(3-hydroxybutyrate), Bioresour. Technol. 123 (2012) 272–278.
[28] F.G.F. Qin, J. Mawson, X.A. Zeng, Experimental study of fouling and cleaning of [42] G.C.C. Yang, C.J. Li, Tubular TiO2/Al2O3 composite membranes: preparation,
sintered stainless steel membrane in electro-microfiltration of calcium salt characterization, and performance in electrofiltration of oxide-CMP
particles, Membranes 1 (2) (2011) 119–131. wastewater, Desalination 234 (2008) 354–361.
[29] G.C.C. Yang, et al., Performance and mechanisms for the removal of phthalates [43] G.C.C. Yang, C.J. Li, Preparation of tubular TiO2/Al2O3 composite membranes
and pharmaceuticals from aqueous solution by graphene-containing ceramic and their performance in electrofiltration of oxide-CMP wastewater,
composite tubular membrane coupled with the simultaneous Desalination 200 (2006) 74–76.
electrocoagulation and electrofiltration process, Chemosphere 155 (2016) [44] M. Hakimhashem, et al., Dead-end liposomal electro-filtration: phenol
274–282. removal by dioctadecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride as a case study, Chem.
[30] X. Chen, H. Deng, Removal of ultraviolet filter from water by Eng. Technol. 33 (8) (2010) 1321–1326.
electro-ultrafiltration, Desalination 311 (2013) 211–220. [45] G.C.C. Yang, C.C. Chuang, Treatment of nanosized TiO2-containing wastewater
[31] Y.-T. Lin, et al., Separation of nano-sized colloidal particles using cross-flow by simultaneous electrocoagulation/electrofiltration, Water Sci. Technol. 52
electro-filtration, Sep. Purif. Technol. 58 (1) (2007) 138–147. (10–11) (2005) 377–381.
[32] G.C.C. Yang, C.-H. Yen, C.-L. Wang, Monitoring and removal of residual [46] Y.-T. Tsai, et al., Electro-microfiltration treatment of water containing natural
phthalate esters and pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of Kaohsiung City, organic matter and inorganic particles, Desalination 267 (2–3) (2011)
Taiwan, J. Hazard. Mater. 277 (2014) 53–61. 133–138.
[33] P. Kulkarni, et al., Capture of water-borne colloids in granular beds using [47] G.C.C. Yang, C.-J. Li, Electrofiltration of silica nanoparticle-containing
external electric fields: improving removal of Cryptosporidium parvum, wastewater using tubular ceramic membranes, Sep. Purif. Technol. 58 (1)
Water Res. 39 (6) (2005) 1047–1060. (2007) 159–165.
[34] S. Zhang, et al., Electrofiltration of aqueous suspensions, J. Colloid Interface [48] G.C.C. Yang, C.-M. Tsai, Performance evaluation of a simultaneous
Sci. 228 (2000) 393–404. electrocoagulation and electrofiltration module for the treatment of Cu-CMP
[35] R.F. Atmeh, et al., Separation of biomacromolecules by electrofiltration and oxide-CMP wastewaters, J. Membr. Sci. 286 (1–2) (2006) 36–44.
through gel layers, Anal. Biochem. 373 (2008) 307–312. [49] A.R. Bakr, M.S. Rahaman, Electrochemical efficacy of a carboxylated
[36] T. Kappler, C. Posten, Fractionation of proteins with two-sided multiwalled carbon nanotube filter for the removal of ibuprofen from aqueous
electro-ultrafiltration, J. Biotechnol. 128 (2007) 895–907. solutions under acidic conditions, Chemosphere 153 (2016) 508–520.
[37] P.V. Zumbusch, W. Kulcke, G. Brunner, Use of alternating electrical fields as [50] S.W. Hasan, M. Elektorowicz, J.A. Oleszkiewicz, Correlations between
anti-fouling strategy in ultrafiltration of biological suspensions − trans-membrane pressure (TMP) and sludge properties in submerged
introduction of a new experimental procedure for crossflow filtration, J. membrane electro-bioreactor (SMEBR) and conventional membrane
Membr. Sci. 142 (1) (1998) 75–86. bioreactor (MBR), Bioresour. Technol. 120 (2012) 199–205.
[38] D. Agyei, et al., Bioprocess challenges to the isolation and purification of [51] F. Ahmed, et al., Electrically conductive polymeric membranes for fouling
bioactive peptides, Food Bioprod. Process. 98 (2016) 244–256. prevention and detection: a review, Desalination 391 (2016) 1–15.
[39] G. Bargeman, et al., The development of electro-membrane filtration for the [52] Y. Li, R. Ehrhard, P. Biswas, P. Kulkarni, P. Carns, K. Patterson, C. Krishnan, R.
isolation of bioactive peptides: the effect of membrane selection and Sinha, Removal of waterborne particles by electrofiltration: pilot-scale
operating parameters on the transport rate, Desalination 149 (1) (2002) testing, Environ. Eng. Sci. 29 (19) (2009) 1795–1804.
369–374.