processes

Review
Wastewater Treatment in the Dairy Industry from Classical
Treatment to Promising Technologies: An Overview
Aws N. Al-Tayawi 1,2 , Elias Jigar Sisay 3 , Sándor Beszédes 3 and Szabolcs Kertész 3, *

1 Doctoral School of Environmental Sciences, University of Szeged, Tisza Lajos krt. 103,
H-6725 Szeged, Hungary; [email protected]
2 Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Mosul, Al-Majmoa’a Street, Mosul 41002, Iraq
3 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Szeged, Moszkvai krt. 9,
H-6725 Szeged, Hungary; [email protected] (E.J.S.); [email protected] (S.B.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Water pollution caused by population growth and human activities is a critical problem
exacerbated by limited freshwater resources and increasing water demands. Various sectors con-
tribute to water pollution, with the dairy industry being a significant contributor due to the high
concentrations of harmful contaminants in dairy wastewater. Traditional treatment methods have
been employed, but they have limitations in terms of effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact.
In recent years, membrane separation technology (MST) has emerged as a promising alternative
for treating dairy wastewater. Membrane processes offer efficient separation, concentration, and
purification of dairy wastewater, with benefits such as reduced process steps, minimal impact on
product quality, operational flexibility, and lower energy consumption. However, membrane fouling
and concentration polarization present major challenges associated with this technique. Therefore,
strategies have been implemented to mitigate these phenomena, including pre-treatment prior to
MST, coagulation, and adsorption. Recently, 3D printing technology has gained prominence as
one of the latest and most notable advancements for addressing these issues. This comprehensive
review examines the drawbacks and benefits of conventional methods employed in dairy wastewater
Citation: Al-Tayawi, A.N.; Sisay, E.J.; treatment and explores the utilization of membrane technology as an alternative to these approaches.
Beszédes, S.; Kertész, S. Wastewater Additionally, the latest technologies implemented to mitigate or alleviate the limitations of membrane
Treatment in the Dairy Industry from technology are discussed.
Classical Treatment to Promising
Technologies: An Overview. Processes Keywords: dairy wastewater; conventional treatment; membrane filtration methods; membrane
2023, 11, 2133. https://doi.org/ fouling mitigation; coagulation; 3D-printed promoter/spacer
10.3390/pr11072133

Academic Editors: Amilton Botelho

Junior and Denise Crocce Romano
Espinosa 1. Introduction
Water is essential to all human activities [1]. Tons and tons of wastewater are produced
Received: 29 June 2023
Revised: 13 July 2023
daily as the human population grows in the domestic, industrial, and agricultural sectors [2,3].
Accepted: 14 July 2023
Therefore, water pollution has become a significant concern for the industrial world and a big
Published: 17 July 2023
cause of worry for societies and governments [4–6]. Even though the Earth’s surface is more
than 70% covered by water, only 3% of this percentage is fit for human consumption, with the
other 97% being salt water [7]. Despite these facts, the world’s freshwater supply has been
under stress recently due to rising water demands and pollution [8]. The water shortage is
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. anticipated to worsen in the upcoming years [9].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Direct discharge of wastewater into water bodies without any prior treatment is
This article is an open access article the primary cause of water pollution [10,11]. Several factors contribute to water pollu-
distributed under the terms and tion, including energy consumption, radioactive waste [12], the dye industry [13], urban
conditions of the Creative Commons growth [14], sewage and wastewater management [15], industrial waste, mining opera-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tions, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers [16,17]. Therefore, water pollution is inevitable
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Processes 2023, 11, 2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072133 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2023, 11, 2133 2 of 15

simply because it is utilized for many different purposes [18]. In contrast, industrial, house-
hold, and agricultural operations create wastewater containing harmful contaminants [19].
Therefore, water resources in this situation must be continuously protected [20,21].
Particularly in developed countries, regulating liquid industrial effluent is getting
stricter [20]. Moreover, it is required that all wastewater be treated before being discharged
into the environment [22]. The Water Framework Directive of 2000, which specifies stan-
dards for protecting surface water, subsurface water, and coastal water in Europe, is the
source of the current European water policy [23].
Usually, various contaminations rob us of our natural resources and compel us to
prepare to face a more challenging environment [24]. Numerous physical, chemical, and
biological procedures, including flotation, oxidation, precipitation, carbon adsorption,
solvent extraction, ion exchange, membrane filtration, biodegradation, phytoremediation,
and electrochemistry, have been documented over the past three decades [25].
This review aims to shed light on developing the technologies used in dairy factories
and the most prominent integrated technologies to achieve the highest efficiency in the
extraction processes of dairy derivatives and dairy wastewater treatment.

2. Food Wastewater
Annually, a sizable volume of untreated industrial effluent is released into the en-
vironment, leading to significant environmental and health problems [26,27]. The food
industry, especially dairy, is one of the greatest water users and producers of wastewater
overall [9]. Food wastewater has many nutrients, which can greatly impact the biological
load [28]. Where chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), high
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and other compounds like solvents and ions are
typically present in high concentrations in the wastewater produced by food processing
units, which is typically from non-process activities [29]. Additionally, these wastewaters
include substantial amounts of products or raw materials in organic loads, nutrients, and
suspended particles, which may be distinguished and recovered throughout the treatment
process [30].
Despite what has been mentioned, food waste is often regarded as the least pol-
luted water when discussing industrial operations due to the minimal number of harmful
compounds typically associated with the industry of metals or intermediate chemicals
(petroleum, plastics). However, these fluids have “issues” due to their high concentrations
of certain pollutants [31].

3. Dairy Wastewater Treatment

The environment is impacted by every step of the dairy industry [32], including the
production of milk products, product packaging and storage, effective marketing, and
distribution [33]. If the wastewater produced at these levels in the dairy industry is not
properly disposed of, it can cause several pollution issues [34]. Large amounts of effluents
comprising lactose, protein, ionic content, and fat are produced by the dairy sector (in
smaller amounts) [35]. Before entering the sewage system, a sizable volume of dairy
wastewater must be treated [36].
Furthermore, dairy industries have a significant impact on water pollution and water
quality [37]. Thus, suitable wastewater treatment methods are required to use effective
disposal methods because a large amount of water is used during dairy processing and the
production of milk-related products [38,39]. This large amount of water is no longer helpful
because it contains a high level of contaminants, rendering it non-recyclable [40]. The
benefits and shortcomings of the traditional treatment of dairy wastewater will be examined
in terms of the principles upon which these procedures are built, which prompted the
requirement for the creation of new technologies and their incorporation into the treatment
of dairy wastewater.
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 3 of 15

4. Conventional Treatment
Generally, traditional dairy wastewater treatment includes a variety of physical, chem-
ical, and/or biological methods and processes to reduce solids from effluents such as
colloids, organic matter, nutrients, and soluble pollutants (metals, organics, etc.) (Figure 1).
Many approaches can be applied, including traditional methods, proven recovery pro-
cesses, and developing removal technologies [41,42]. The advantages and disadvantages of
conventional methods are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of conventional treatment.

Process Main Characteristic(s) Advantages Disadvantages Reference

Consumption of chemicals (oxidants,
lime, H2 S, etc.).
pH amendment is prerequisite.
Simplicity, economics, and efficiency in
At low concentrations, metal ion
Pollutant uptake and working with high pollutant loads.
elimination is ineffective.
precipitation separation of the resulting Very effective in removing metals, [18,39,40]
If the metals are complex, an oxidation
products. phosphorus compounds, and fluorides.
step is required.
Significant decrease in COD.
Problems with sludge generation,
handling, and disposal (treatment,
management, cost).
Low capital expenditure.
Simplicity integrated.
Physicochemical methods.
A wide variety of chemicals are
Non-recyclable chemical addition
commercially accessible.
(coagulants, flocculants, aid chemicals) is
Pollutant uptake and Effective for colloidal and S.S particles.
Coagulation/ required.
separation of the resulting Perfect sludge settling and dewatering [43–46]
flocculation Effluent physicochemical monitoring.
products properties.
Sludge volume production has increased
Significant decrease in COD and BOD.
(cost management, treatment).
Bacterial inactivation potential
Insoluble pollutants (pigments, for
example) can be removed quickly and
efficiently.
Essential in terms of technology (simple
Investment is relatively high.
equipment) and adaptable to various
Materials costs, non-selective processes.
treatment modalities.
The kind of material influences
A wide selection of commercial items is
performance.
available.
Regeneration is costly and results in
A wide range of pollutants are being
material waste.
targeted (adsorption).
Chemical modification to enhance the
Adsorption is a very efficient technique
Adsorption/ Nondestructive method adsorption capacity.
with rapid kinetics. [20,47,48]
filtration Utilization of a solid material Adsorbents of various sorts are required.
The treated effluent is of exceptional quality.
Removal of the adsorbent (requires
Excellent separation capabilities for a broad
incineration, regeneration, or
spectrum of contaminants, particularly
replacement of the material).
refractory molecules.
Rapid reactor saturation and blockage
Highly effective treatment when combined
(regeneration costly).
with coagulation to eliminate suspended
Inefficient for certain types of dyestuffs
solids, chemical oxygen demand, and color.
and metals.
Finite use of chemicals.
Capacity to break down hazardous organic
contaminants.
Less energy is required.
May biodegrade organic contaminants via
microorganism metabolic activity
Because of their specific adaptability to the Because of inhibition, this process is
abiotic circumstances in which they sluggish and occurs only at low
Utilization of a originate, the use of microorganisms concentrations.
Biodegradation [42,45,49,50]
Microorganisms isolated from extreme habitats becomes A large area for development is Required.
advantageous. High energy for aerators is Required.
As a result of their resilience to pH, An additional remedy is required.
temperature, and salinity, they can aid in
biodegradation.
Depending on the nature of the pollutants,
it is possible to work in aerobic or anaerobic
conditions.
 4. Conventional Treatment
Generally, traditional dairy wastewater treatment includes a variety of physical,
chemical, and/or biological methods and processes to reduce solids from effluents such as
colloids, organic matter, nutrients, and soluble pollutants (metals, organics, etc.) (Figure
Processes 2023, 11, 2133
1). Many approaches can be applied, including traditional methods, proven recovery pro- 4 of 15
cesses, and developing removal technologies [41,42]. The advantages and disadvantages
of conventional methods are summarized in Table 1.

Figure1.1.Classical
Figure Classicalwastewater
wastewater removal
removaltechnologies.
technologies.

Table
The1. Advantages and disadvantages
drive to reduce waste and of conventional
energy treatment.in various industrial processes
consumption
Process is driving the replacement
Main Characteristic(s) of legacy technology with
Advantages membrane-based processes
Disadvantages [51,52].
Reference
Membrane technology is an essential processing tool in the food industry
Consumption of chemicals (ox- for treating food
products, by-products, and food waste [53,54]. idants, lime, H2S, etc.).
Simplicity, economics, and effi-
pH amendment is prerequisite.
5. Dairy Wastewater
ciencyTreatment
in workingby Membrane
with high Separation Technology (MST)
At low concentrations, metal
Pollutant uptake andearly 1960s,
In the pollutant
the firstloads.
defect-free, high-flux anisotropic reverse osmosis (RO)
ion elimination is ineffective.
precipitation separationmembrane
of the result-
wasVery effective
created at theinUniversity
removing met-
of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) [18,39,40]
due to growing
If the metals are complex, an
ing products.
worries about theals,drinking
phosphorus
water compounds,
supply. Two UCLA graduate students, Sidney Loeb and
oxidation step is required.
Srinivas Sourirajan, foundand an
fluorides.
efficient method for producing RO membranes [55,56]. Their
Problems with sludge genera-
Significant
lab-scale desalination decrease the
equipment, in COD.
so-called “big dripper”, produced tiny volumes of
tion, handling, and disposal
fresh water, but it spawned a global business worth billions of dollars. The discovery
(treatment, management, cost).
of asymmetric membranes by Loeb and Sourirajan is typically considered the beginning
Low capital expenditure.
of contemporary membrane research. In addition, it is considered the basis of industrial
Simplicity integrated.
membrane processing [57].
Physicochemical methods. Non-recyclable chemical addi-
In the food and beverage industry, applying membrane processes as an alternative
A wide variety of chemicals are tion (coagulants, flocculants,
to classical separation, purification, and concentrated product methods for “sustainable
commercially accessible. aid chemicals) is required.
Pollutantproduction”
uptake and and a “zero waste approach” is a popular and rising topic. Depending on
Coagulation/ Effective for colloidal forEffluent
and S.S physicochemical
use of moni-
separationthe variety
of the of applications,
result- the reasons the widespread suitable[43–46]
membrane
flocculation particles. toring.
processes in the food and beverage industry are as follows: (i) reducing the number of
ing products
process steps inPerfect sludge settling
comparison to traditional Sludge volume
and de-methods; production
(ii) relying has
on minimized changes in
watering properties. increased (cost management,
the loss of aroma and nutritional components of food and beverages due to the use of high
temperatures inSignificant
traditionaldecrease
methods in COD
and improving end treatment).
product quality; and (iii) high
and BOD.
process selectivity [58]. Also, membrane processes have built-in advantages when making
a process moreBacterial inactivation
efficient, potential
mainly because they reduce the amount of equipment needed,
offer much operational flexibility, and use less energy [59].

5.1. Membrane Filtration Methods

The membrane separation process depends on the nature of the membrane, which
divides the liquid into two parts, the permeate part and the retentate part, making it a good
instrument for separation, concentration, and purification. The membranes’ morphology
can be classified according to their porosity, density, symmetries, and asymmetries [60].
Dead end and cross-flow are the typical types of membrane operations. In the dead-end
mode, the filtering fluid is typically driven through the membrane pores by applying
pressure to the feed side. In cross-flow mode, the feed flows parallel to the membrane
surface and permeates the membrane due to a pressure differential. Cross-flow inhibits the
production of filter cake, hence maintaining its low level [61].
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 5 of 15

Membrane processes consist of microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF),

and reverse osmosis (RO) [62] (Figure 2). Typically, membranes are categorized according to the
average size of their pores. Dense membranes are those in which the transport of components
entails a stage of dissolution and diffusion over the membrane material [60]. The transmembrane
pressure is the driving force behind these membrane processes (TMP). Furthermore, the molecular
weight cut-off is crucial in membrane separation processes (MWCO, usually expressed in Da) [63].
These two parameters (TMP and MWCO) can be used to characterize pressure-driven membrane
processes [64]. In this regard, MF necessitates > 100,000 Da and 0.1–2 bar; UF necessitates
1000–100,000 Da and 2–10 bar; NF necessitates 100–1000 Da and 5–40 bar, and RO necessitates
1–100 Da and 30–100 bar [52]. MF can be used as a pretreatment in the dairy industry to remove
bacteria and fat and fractionate milk products. UF can be used to standardize milk; however, the
breakthrough application of UF was to convert milk whey into refined proteins for commercial
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
use [65]; NF can be used for whey demineralization [66,67], while RO can be used for concentration
steps [52].

Figure2.
Figure 2. Diagram
Diagram depicting
depicting filtering
filtering membranes:
membranes: microfiltration
microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofil-
tration(NF),
tration (NF),reverse
reverseosmosis
osmosis(RO).
(RO).

5.1.1.
5.1.1. Microfiltration
Microfiltration
Microfiltration
Microfiltration (MF),
(MF), like
like all
all other
other membrane
membrane separation
separation procedures,
procedures, is is aa technology
technology
that
that permits the differential concentration in the liquid retained by the membrane,known
permits the differential concentration in the liquid retained by the membrane, known
as MF
as MF retentate,
retentate,of
ofthe
thecomponents
components having having aa pore
pore width
width larger
largerthan
thanthe
the average
average pore pore size
size
of
of the
the membrane
membrane [52].
[52]. Membranes
Membranes with with aa diameter
diameter ranging
ranging from
from 0.1
0.1 to
to 10
10 µmµm are are used
used inin
microfiltration
microfiltration (MF).
(MF). Thus,
Thus, particles
particles larger
larger than
than 0.1 µm are
0.1 µm areincluded
included in in the
the retentate,
retentate, and
and
the
thepore
poresize
sizecan
canvary
vary depending
dependingon onthe
the application
application[67].
[67]. The
The typical
typical TMP
TMP ranges
ranges between
between
0.03 and 0.20 MPa [68]. As one of the dairy applications of this
0.03 and 0.20 MPa [68]. As one of the dairy applications of this process is the process is the retention
retention of
of bacteria
bacteria andand spores,it itisisnecessary
spores, necessarytotocontrol
controlthethe size
size of
of the
the membrane
membrane pores, pores, which
which
should
shouldbe be small
small enough
enough to to retain
retain microorganisms
microorganisms without
without compromising
compromisingthe the composition
composition
of the permeated milk [60,66,69]. Introduced were commercial ceramic
of the permeated milk [60,66,69]. Introduced were commercial ceramic membranes membranes and and
the
idea of uniform transmembrane pressure (UTP) for regulating hydrodynamics and fouling
the idea of uniform transmembrane pressure (UTP) for regulating hydrodynamics and
during membrane filtration (MF) of dairy fluids. This breakthrough led to the resolution
fouling during membrane filtration (MF) of dairy fluids. This breakthrough led to the res-
of technical issues, including late emmental cheese expansion, spore removal from whey,
olution of technical issues, including late emmental cheese expansion, spore removal from
effective defatting of milk and whey, and casein micelle separation from milk [55].
whey, effective defatting of milk and whey, and casein micelle separation from milk [55].

5.1.2. Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) can prevent the passage of molecules larger than 0.001 µm due to
membranes with pores ranging from 0.01 to 0.001 µm [67]. Typically, ultrafiltration (UF)
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 6 of 15

5.1.2. Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) can prevent the passage of molecules larger than 0.001 µm due to
membranes with pores ranging from 0.01 to 0.001 µm [67]. Typically, ultrafiltration (UF)
employs membranes with a cutoff of 1–800 kDa and a TMP range of 0.1–1 MPa [68]. UF
can retain proteins and fat while allowing vitamins, minerals, and lactose to pass through.
The use of UF in dairy product development improves yield, nutritional functionality,
and sensory characteristics [70]. This process is helpful for protein concentration and
purification, and it distinguishes itself in cheese production by providing higher protein
concentration and better nutritional characteristics to the product. Another common use
for UF is manufacturing milk protein concentrate (MPC) [71,72]. Ultrafiltration (UF) was
suggested as a potential technology for concentrating milk solids, mainly proteins [55].

5.1.3. Nanofiltration
Membranes with pores ranging from 0.001 to 0.0001 µm are used in nanofiltration
(NF) processes [67]. NF can concentrate small molecules with molecular weights equal to
or greater than 100 kDa. Where sugars, amino acids, dyes, and salts can be retained by
NF membranes [73]. It can also concentrate whey proteins in milk to produce derivatives.
Because of the interaction between the membrane, the solution to be filtered, and electro-
static repulsion, the NF process is capable of high retention of organic compounds [74].
Nanofiltration (NF) employs membranes with a typical cut-off of 150–700 kDa for the con-
centration and partial demineralization of whey or milk streams, thus removing dissolved
mineral salts in inverse proportion to their valence. In ratio to their concentration in the
retentate, the demineralization capability is counterbalanced by the partial penetration of
low molecular weight components such as lactose. Typical operating pressures for this
process are 1–3 MPa [68].

5.1.4. Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process in which membranes with pores smaller than 0.0001 µm
are used [65]. Only water can pass through at pressures between 3.5 and 10 MPa [75]. These
membranes can retain larger ions and compounds while releasing water into the permeate and
can be used for milk preconcentration; this process has increased osmotic pressure and feed
stream viscosity, resulting in severe fouling and permeate flow reduction problems. Several
studies to promote optimization have focused on the disadvantages of this process [68].

5.2. Challenges and Future Perspectives

5.2.1. Fouling Phenomena
Fouling phenomena refer to the limitations encountered in membrane filtration pro-
cesses, primarily attributed to membrane fouling and concentration polarization [76,77].
These phenomena lead to a decline in flux, resulting in decreased productivity over
time [78]. Concentration polarization occurs due to the preferential passage of certain
species across the membrane, accompanied by the accumulation of other species at the
membrane surface, which results in a reduction in permeate flux [79]. While concentration
polarization is typically reversible by adjusting operational parameters like increasing
cross-flow velocity [80], it may also involve the formation of a gel layer at high species
concentrations, which cannot be rectified solely through operating condition modifica-
tions [81,82]. The development of a gel layer necessitates washing to restore the membrane’s
characteristics [61].
Fouling remains a significant obstacle in membrane processes [83]. It generally arises
through two main routes: foulant adhesion/deposition and the foulant layer filtering pro-
cess [59]. Fouling occurs due to the interaction between foulants present in the separation
solutions, which can include particulate matter, colloidal particles, biomacromolecules,
and the membrane surface [84,85]. The foulants physically and chemically interact with
the membrane surface, leading to chemical degradation of the membrane material [86,87].
Microorganisms and biomacromolecules non-specifically adhere to the membrane surface,
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 7 of 15

blocking or significantly reducing the membrane pores, thereby causing a notable decline
in permeation flux and separation efficiency [88]. The fouling phenomenon can be8char-
Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 16
acterized by different mechanisms, including the complete blocking model, intermediate
blocking model, standard blocking model, and cake layer model (Figure 3) [89].

Figure3.3.Hermia
Figure Hermiaof of fouling
fouling mechanisms:
mechanisms: (A) complete
(A) complete blocking
blocking model;model; (B) standard
(B) standard blockingblocking
model;
model; (C) intermediate blocking model; (D) cake layer formation
(C) intermediate blocking model; (D) cake layer formation model. model.

Membrane fouling
Membrane fouling has
has been
beenexamined
examinedextensively.
extensively.Recent trends
Recent include
trends in situ
include in real-
situ
time monitoring
real-time monitoring approaches
approaches forfor
membrane
membranefouling,
fouling,sophisticated
sophisticatedcharacterization tech-
characterization tech-
niquessuch
niques suchasasHPLC
HPLCcoupled
coupled mass
mass spectrometry
spectrometry andand advanced
advanced simulation
simulation methodolo-
methodologies
gies such as molecular simulation
such as molecular simulation [61]. [61].
Numerousapproaches
Numerous approacheshave
havebeen
beenemployed
employed inin addressing
addressing membrane
membrane contamination,
contamination,
encompassingchemical
encompassing chemicalandandphysical
physicaltreatment
treatmentmodalities.
modalities.Presently,
Presently, environmental
environmental sci-
scien-
entists
tists are are actively
actively exploring
exploring contemporary
contemporary andand sustainable
sustainable methodologies
methodologies that that involve
involve the
the utilization
utilization of environmentally
of environmentally benign benign or recycled
or recycled materials
materials for thefor the remediation
remediation of mem- of
membrane
brane pollution.
pollution. The following
The following elucidation
elucidation highlights
highlights several methodologies
several methodologies employedem- in
the treatment
ployed in the of membrane
treatment pollution. pollution.
of membrane

5.2.2.
5.2.2.Pretreatment
Pretreatmentbefore
beforeMSTMST
Various pretreatment methods
Various pretreatment methods areare
utilized in membrane
utilized in membranefiltration. In order
filtration. to enhance
In order to en-
membrane performance, it is crucial to initially identify the primary causes
hance membrane performance, it is crucial to initially identify the primary causes of mem- of membrane
fouling [53]. The
brane fouling effectiveness
[53]. of pretreatment
The effectiveness in reducing
of pretreatment membrane
in reducing fouling relies
membrane heavily
fouling relies
on several
heavily onimportant factors, which
several important include
factors, whichtheinclude
type of the
pretreatment agent employed
type of pretreatment agent(such
em-
as coagulant, adsorbent, oxidant, or bio-filter), the dosage and mode of dosing
ployed (such as coagulant, adsorbent, oxidant, or bio-filter), the dosage and mode of dos- (continuous
or intermittent),
ing (continuous the mixing technique,
or intermittent), the temperature,
the mixing technique, thethetemperature,
properties ofthe natural organic
properties of
matter (NOM) (such as charge density, hydrophobicity, molecular size,
natural organic matter (NOM) (such as charge density, hydrophobicity, molecular size, and molecular
weight), the solution
and molecular environment
weight), the solution(pH and ion strength),
environment (pH and and the characteristics
ion strength), of the
and the charac-
membrane itself (such as hydrophobicity, membrane charge, and surface morphology) [90].
teristics of the membrane itself (such as hydrophobicity, membrane charge, and surface
morphology)
5.2.3. [90].
Coagulation

5.2.3.Coagulation
Coagulationis used as a pretreatment process to increase the rate of particle aggre-
gation. It is the most common and effective pretreatment process due to its low cost and
Coagulation
relatively is used as [91].
simple operation a pretreatment
It is still a process to increase
promising method the
for rate of particle
reducing aggre-
membrane
gation. It is the most common and effective pretreatment process due
fouling while improving turbidity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and microorganism to its low cost and
relatively simple operation [91]. It is still a promising method for reducing membrane
removal [92,93]. It is critical to optimize the coagulation process [94]. To begin, the type of
fouling while
coagulant usedimproving turbidity,
can significantly dissolved
impact organic carbon
the performance (DOC), and
of membranes, andmicroorganism
under-dosed
removal [92,93]. It is critical to optimize the coagulation process [94]. To
coagulation could harm membrane performance. An adequate coagulant dose significantly begin, the type of
coagulant used can significantly impact the performance of membranes, and under-dosed
coagulation could harm membrane performance. An adequate coagulant dose signifi-
cantly reduced fouling and improved membrane performance, resulting in high removal
rates of microorganisms and other waterborne impurities under optimal coagulation con-
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 8 of 15

reduced fouling and improved membrane performance, resulting in high removal rates of
microorganisms and other waterborne impurities under optimal coagulation conditions.
Optimizing operating conditions, such as raw water pH, improves coagulant performance,
resulting in less fouling and improved membrane performance. Other coagulants, such as
alum or ferric chloride (FeCl3 ), may necessitate pH adjustments for optimal performance.
Coagulant performance may also be affected by the mode of coagulation. Coagulants can
be used in-line or in standard mode. In-line coagulation occurs without sedimentation or
pre-filtration, whereas standard coagulation does [95].

5.2.4. Activated Carbon Adsorption

The process of foulant adhesion to an adsorbent surface, known as “adsorption”, is
commonly used as a pretreatment method. Adsorbents possess a high porosity and a large
specific surface area, allowing them to absorb or accumulate impurities effectively [89].
Among the various adsorbents, powdered activated carbon (PAC) is widely utilized in
membrane filtration applications [96]. Adsorption can be combined with membrane fil-
tration in two configurations, similar to pre-coagulation: a unified membrane reactor or a
separate reactor following a PAC reactor. Two dosing methods are employed: step input,
which introduces PAC into the reactor at a constant rate, and pulse input, which adds all
the PAC at the beginning of the filtration cycle. Optimal PAC dosage should be determined
through preliminary tests before implementation. Additionally, PAC size must be opti-
mized, considering the potential impact on membrane integrity due to abrasion and the
specific material, PAC type, and configuration used. To address the challenges associated
with carbon fiber felt (CFF) [96], a separation step has been proposed to prevent direct con-
tact between the PAC and membrane surface. While PAC adsorption is cost-effective [97],
its suitability as a pretreatment method in developing countries needs to be evaluated to
determine if PAC particles can enter membrane pores and cause fouling. The possibility
of some impurities not being absorbed by PAC but readily entering membrane pores may
restrict the widespread adoption of PAC [53].
Several authors have explored the theoretical advantages of specific pretreatment
methods and integrated multiple approaches to compensate for limitations. Integrated sys-
tems often come with high capital costs, which can be challenging for developing countries.
However, if such systems effectively control fouling and improve membrane performance,
operational costs may be reduced. In situations where poor-quality source water needs to
be transformed into high-quality effluent, even if the total costs are high, integrated systems
may be the only viable option. However, it is important to note that no single known
technique can effectively control fouling [89]. Furthermore, some integrated systems might
even exacerbate membrane fouling. One possible explanation for the conflicting perfor-
mance of integrated pretreatment systems is the formation of precipitates resulting from the
combination of certain pretreatment procedures, which can be detrimental to membrane
fouling. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly evaluate any adverse consequences when
implementing integrated systems. Although the capital costs of filtration systems may
increase with integrated pretreatment, current research efforts should focus on optimizing
specific pretreatment methods to enhance membrane permeability [53].

5.2.5. Mitigate Membrane Fouling Using 3D-Printed Promoters

As mentioned above, fouling removal from membranes continues to be a formidable
barrier to their widespread adoption, as cleaning is expensive and generates significant
waste [98]. As a result, there is much interest in new membrane materials and/or structures
that can reduce fouling and the use of cleaning agents. The main goal in all cases is to reduce
interactions between the foulants and the membrane surface [99], either by changing the
wetting behavior of the membrane [100] or by promoting fluid turbulence at the membrane
surface via surface structuring [101]. As a result, the latter approach is preferred because it
applies to commercial membrane materials. Turbulence is created primarily by generating
vortices near the membrane surface due to regular or irregularly patterned structures such
 Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 9 of 15

patterned structures such as pillars, lines, or indents [52]. These patterns are created
asthrough
pillars, various
lines, ortechniques;
indents [52]. oneThese
of thepatterns are created through
latest technologies variouswhich
is 3D printing, techniques;
is a newone
ofmembrane
the latest technologies is 3D printing,
fabrication technology whichthe
that allows is acreation
new membrane fabrication
of more complex andtechnology
irregular
that allows the
membrane creation
shapes of more complex
and structures that are and irregular
impossible withmembrane shapes and
current methods structures
[52,102].
that are impossible
Ref. [103] statewiththat current
fouling is methods
frequently [52,102].
controlled by turbulent flow, which requires
more Ref. [103] state
energy. In thethat
flow fouling
channel is frequently
of tubular controlled
membranes, byturbulence
turbulent flow, whichorrequires
promoters static
mixers
more can be
energy. Ininserted.
the flow Theychannel deflect the fluid,
of tubular induce vortices,
membranes, turbulenceimprove particleorback-
promoters static
transport, and increase the shear rate at the membrane surface,
mixers can be inserted. They deflect the fluid, induce vortices, improve particle back- all of which help to prevent
fouling. However,
transport, and increase more theis shear
needed to at
rate know how the geometry
the membrane surface,of allsuch turbulence
of which help to promot-
prevent
ers affects
fouling. foulingmore
However, reduction.
is needed to know how the geometry of such turbulence promoters
affectsRef. [104]reduction.
fouling explain that changing the hydrodynamic conditions in the membrane mod-
ule Ref.
can result in improved
[104] explain mixing efficiency
that changing and flow conditions,
the hydrodynamic conditionsincorporating
in the membrane three-di-
mod-
mensional
ule can result (3D)-printed
in improved spacers
mixing intoefficiency
the module andcanflow
improve mixing incorporating
conditions, efficiency and flow three-
conditions. Three-dimensional-printed
dimensional (3D)-printed spacers into spacers the module in thecanmodule can improve
improve mixing mass transfer
efficiency and
through the UF membrane by reducing concentration
flow conditions. Three-dimensional-printed spacers in the module can improve masspolarization and fouling. Three-
dimensional
transfer through printing
the UF hasmembrane
the potential by to enable aconcentration
reducing promising new class of efficient
polarization labor-
and fouling.
atory filtration devices. On the other hand, higher mechanical
Three-dimensional printing has the potential to enable a promising new class of efficientstirring into the module can
reduce membrane
laboratory filtration fouling
devices.byOn increasing
the otherthe shear
hand, rate mechanical
higher on the membrane’sstirring surface.
into the module
Researchers
can reduce membrane havefouling
taken an byinterest
increasingin adapting
the shear variants
rate onofthe3Dmembrane’s
printing techniques
surface.to
membrane
Researchersmanufacturing
have taken as an their resolution
interest in adaptinghas variants
improved of to
3Dthe micrometer
printing or even
techniques na-
to mem-
nometer
brane level. [105]indicate
manufacturing in their research
as their resolution that according
has improved to Scopus database
to the micrometer statistics
or even nanometer
(Figure
level. Ref.4), there
[105] has been
indicate an increase
in their researchinthatmembrane
according papers related
to Scopus to 3D statistics
database printing (Figure
over the4),
last decade, mirroring the increase in papers on 3D printing overall
there has been an increase in membrane papers related to 3D printing over the last decade, (Figure 5). Customiz-
ing spacers
mirroring thefor membrane
increase in papers processes
on 3Dsuch as UF,
printing RO, (Figure
overall forward5). osmosis (FO), and
Customizing mem-
spacers for
brane distillation (MD) was the focus of the early work on
membrane processes such as UF, RO, forward osmosis (FO), and membrane distillation (MD) membrane-related printing
technology.
was the focus of the early work on membrane-related printing technology.

Figure 4. Publications on 3D-printed spacer and 3D printing membrane according to Web of Science
Figure 4. Publications
database from 2013 tillon303D-printed
June 2023. spacer and 3D printing membrane according to Web of Science
database from 2013 till 30 June 2023.

Turbulence promoters are a promising alternative for improving hydrodynamic condi-

tions in membrane separation processes [106]. These devices reduce particle deposition by
increasing the shear rate on the membrane surface [107]. Turbulence promoter geometry
is also essential in their effectiveness in membrane filtration processes. Devices based on
3D printing make significant progress in the design of turbulence promoters because 3D
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 10 of 15

Processes 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

printing technology allows the creation of several complex geometric shapes from various
materials [59].

Figure 5. Publications on 3D printing technology according to Web of Science database from 2013
Figure 5. Publications on 3D printing technology according to Web of Science database from 2013 till
till 30 June 2023.
30 June 2023.
Turbulence promoters are a promising alternative for improving hydrodynamic con-
Ongoing research endeavors aim to identify viable strategies for mitigating membrane
ditions in membrane separation processes [106]. These devices reduce particle deposition
contamination, a critical concern in the realm of alternative approaches to conventional
by increasing the shear rate on the membrane surface [107]. Turbulence promoter geome-
treatment methods. The forthcoming scientific investigations will emphasize the utilization
try is also essential in their effectiveness in membrane filtration processes. Devices based
of physical techniques in conjunction with 3D printing methodologies, specifically targeting
on 3D printing make significant progress in the design of turbulence promoters because
the treatment of dairy waste within wastewater management.
3D printing technology allows the creation of several complex geometric shapes from var-
6.ious materials [59].
Conclusions
Ongoing research endeavors aim to identify viable strategies for mitigating mem-
braneWater pollution isaacritical
contamination, significant
concernconcern
in thedue to the
realm increasing approaches
of alternative population and various
to conven-
human activities, leading to the generation of tons of wastewater
tional treatment methods. The forthcoming scientific investigations will emphasizeevery day. The limited
the
availability of freshwater resources and the rising water demands exacerbate
utilization of physical techniques in conjunction with 3D printing methodologies, specifi- the water
shortage issue. Water
cally targeting pollution
the treatment of arises from multiple
dairy waste sources, such
within wastewater as industrial, domestic,
management.
and agricultural sectors, which release harmful contaminants into water bodies. To mitigate
water pollution, strict regulations have been imposed, especially in developed countries, to
6. Conclusions
ensure the proper treatment of industrial effluents before discharge. Among the various
Water pollution is a significant concern due to the increasing population and various
industries, the food sector, particularly the dairy industry, is a significant contributor
human activities, leading to the generation of tons of wastewater every day. The limited
to water pollution. Dairy wastewater contains high concentrations of organic matter,
availability of freshwater resources and the rising water demands exacerbate the water
nutrients, and suspended particles, posing environmental and health risks if not properly
shortage issue. Water pollution arises from multiple sources, such as industrial, domestic,
treated. Traditional treatment methods, including precipitation, coagulation/flocculation,
and agricultural sectors, which release harmful contaminants into water bodies. To miti-
adsorption/filtration, and biodegradation, have been used to treat dairy wastewater. These
gate water pollution, strict regulations have been imposed, especially in developed coun-
methods have their advantages and disadvantages in terms of effectiveness, cost, and
tries, to ensure the proper treatment of industrial effluents before discharge. Among the
environmental impact.
various industries, the food sector, particularly the dairy industry, is a significant contrib-
In recent years, membrane separation technology has gained popularity as an al-
utor to water pollution. Dairy wastewater contains high concentrations of organic matter,
ternative to dairy wastewater treatment. Membrane processes, such as microfiltration,
nutrients, and suspended particles, posing environmental and health risks if not properly
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration,
treated. Traditional treatmentand reverseincluding
methods, osmosis, precipitation,
offer efficient coagulation/flocculation,
separation, concentration,
and purification of dairy wastewater. These processes provide
adsorption/filtration, and biodegradation, have been used to treat dairy advantages such as reduced
wastewater.
process steps, minimal changes in the quality of the end product,
These methods have their advantages and disadvantages in terms of effectiveness, operational flexibility,
cost,
and lower energy consumption.
and environmental impact. The integration of advanced technologies, including
membrane-based processes,
In recent years, membrane in the treatment
separation of dairy wastewater
technology has gained can help achieve
popularity higher
as an alter-
efficiency and improve the sustainability of the dairy industry. The adoption
native to dairy wastewater treatment. Membrane processes, such as microfiltration, ultra- of these
filtration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis, offer efficient separation, concentration, and
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 11 of 15

technologies is crucial for minimizing water pollution, conserving water resources, and
ensuring the production of safe and environmentally friendly dairy products. Continued
research and development in this field are essential to further enhance the effectiveness
and applicability of dairy wastewater treatment technologies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data

curation, A.N.A.-T. and S.K.; writing—original draft, review, S.B.; editing and visualization, E.J.S.; project
administration, S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was financed by National Research, Development and Innovation Office, NKFI-
FK-142414 project. Sz. Kertész is grateful for the financial support of the János Bolyai Research
Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (BO/00576/20/4) and the ÚNKP-22-5-SZTE-210
New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the Source of the
National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Elliott, H. Alabama’s Water Crisis. Ala. L. Rev. 2011, 63, 383.
2. Obotey Ezugbe, E.; Rathilal, S. Membrane Technologies in Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Membranes 2020, 10, 89. [PubMed]
3. Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G.; Adeniran, J.A.; Ogunniyi, S. A Systematic Literature Analysis of the Nature and Regional Distribution
of Water Pollution Sources in Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124566.
4. Rathoure, A.K. Toxicity and Waste Management Using Bioremediation; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; ISBN 1466697350.
5. Li, Y.; Ni, L.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, X.; Dong, Y.; Cheng, Y. Challenges and Opportunities to Treat Water Pollution. In Paths to Clean Water
Under Rapid Changing Environment in China; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 13–42.
6. Dharwal, M.; Parashar, D.; Shuaibu, M.S.; Abdullahi, S.G.; Abubakar, S.; Bala, B.B. Water Pollution: Effects on Health and
Environment of Dala LGA, Nigeria. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 49, 3036–3039. [CrossRef]
7. Ahmad, M.; Yousaf, M.; Nasir, A.; Bhatti, I.A.; Mahmood, A.; Fang, X.; Jian, X.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Mahmood, N. Porous
Eleocharis@ MnPE Layered Hybrid for Synergistic Adsorption and Catalytic Biodegradation of Toxic Azo Dyes from Industrial
Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 2161–2170. [CrossRef]
8. Hettiarachchi, S.; Wasko, C.; Sharma, A. Do Longer Dry Spells Associated with Warmer Years Compound the Stress on Global
Water Resources? Earth’s Futur. 2022, 10, e2021EF002392. [CrossRef]
9. Asgharnejad, H.; Khorshidi Nazloo, E.; Madani Larijani, M.; Hajinajaf, N.; Rashidi, H. Comprehensive Review of Water
Management and Wastewater Treatment in Food Processing Industries in the Framework of Water-Food-Environment Nexus.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4779–4815.
10. El Messaoudi, N.; El Mouden, A.; Fernine, Y.; El Khomri, M.; Bouich, A.; Faska, N.; Ciğeroğlu, Z.; Américo-Pinheiro, J.H.P.; Jada,
A.; Lacherai, A. Green Synthesis of Ag2 O Nanoparticles Using Punica granatum Leaf Extract for Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic
Adsorption: Characterization, Experimental Study, Modeling, and DFT Calculation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
11. El Khomri, M.; El Messaoudi, N.; Dbik, A.; Bentahar, S.; Lacherai, A.; Faska, N.; Jada, A. Regeneration of Argan Nutshell and
Almond Shell Using HNO3 for Their Reusability to Remove Cationic Dye from Aqueous Solution. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2022,
209, 1304–1315.
12. Chang, Y.-C.; Zhao, X.; Han, Y. Responsibility under International Law to Prevent Marine Pollution from Radioactive Waste.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 227, 106294.
13. El Messaoudi, N.; El Khomri, M.; Chegini, Z.G.; Dbik, A.; Bentahar, S.; Iqbal, M.; Jada, A.; Lacherai, A. Desorption of Crystal
Violet from Alkali-Treated Agricultural Material Waste: An Experimental Study, Kinetic, Equilibrium and Thermodynamic
Modeling. Pigment. Resin Technol. 2022, 51, 309–319.
14. Afolalu, S.A.; Ikumapayi, O.M.; Ogedengbe, T.S.; Kazeem, R.A.; Ogundipe, A.T. Waste Pollution, Wastewater and Effluent
Treatment Methods—An Overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 62, 3282–3288. [CrossRef]
15. Jadeja, N.B.; Banerji, T.; Kapley, A.; Kumar, R. Water Pollution in India—Current Scenario. Water Secur. 2022, 16, 100119.
16. Singh, J.; Yadav, P.; Pal, A.K.; Mishra, V. Water Pollutants: Origin and Status. In Sensors in Water Pollutants Monitoring: Role of
Material; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 5–20.
17. Akhtar, N.; Syakir Ishak, M.I.; Bhawani, S.A.; Umar, K. Various Natural and Anthropogenic Factors Responsible for Water Quality
Degradation: A Review. Water 2021, 13, 2660.
18. Hannah, D.M.; Abbott, B.W.; Khamis, K.; Kelleher, C.; Lynch, I.; Krause, S.; Ward, A.S. Illuminating the ‘Invisible Water Crisis’ to
Address Global Water Pollution Challenges. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14525. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 12 of 15

19. Chandnani, G.; Gandhi, P.; Kanpariya, D.; Parikh, D.; Shah, M. A Comprehensive Analysis of Contaminated Groundwater:
Special Emphasis on Nature-Ecosystem and Socio-Economic Impacts. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 19, 100813.
20. Crini, G.; Lichtfouse, E. Advantages and Disadvantages of Techniques Used for Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019,
17, 145–155.
21. Walker, D.B.; Baumgartner, D.J.; Gerba, C.P.; Fitzsimmons, K. Surface Water Pollution. In Environmental and Pollution Science;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 261–292.
22. Ahmad, I.; Ibrahim, N.N.B.; Abdullah, N.; Koji, I.; Mohamad, S.E.; Khoo, K.S.; Cheah, W.Y.; Ling, T.C.; Show, P.L. Bioremediation
Strategies of Palm Oil Mill Effluent and Landfill Leachate Using Microalgae Cultivation: An Approach Contributing towards
Environmental Sustainability. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2023, 34, 107854.
23. Morin-Crini, N.; Crini, G.; Roy, L. Eaux Industrielles Contaminées. PUFC Besançon 2017, 513, 37–47.
24. Rashid, R.; Shafiq, I.; Akhter, P.; Iqbal, M.J.; Hussain, M. A State-of-the-Art Review on Wastewater Treatment Techniques: The
Effectiveness of Adsorption Method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 9050–9066.
25. Crini, G.; Lichtfouse, E.; Wilson, L.D.; Morin-Crini, N. Conventional and Non-Conventional Adsorbents for Wastewater Treatment.
Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 195–213. [CrossRef]
26. Pathak, U.; Das, P.; Banerjee, P.; Datta, S. Treatment of Wastewater from a Dairy Industry Using Rice Husk as Adsorbent:
Treatment Efficiency, Isotherm, Thermodynamics, and Kinetics Modelling. J. Thermodyn. 2016, 2016, 3746316. [CrossRef]
27. Shahedi, A.; Darban, A.K.; Taghipour, F.; Jamshidi-Zanjani, A. A Review on Industrial Wastewater Treatment via Electrocoagula-
tion Processes. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2020, 22, 154–169. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, C.; Huang, Z.; Lee, X.; Tang, Y.; Zeng, L.; Chen, Y. Screening of Composite Flocculants for Food Wastewater Treatment. J.
Water Chem. Technol. 2022, 44, 88–95. [CrossRef]
29. Saxena, G.; Purchase, D.; Bharagava, R.N. Environmental Hazards and Toxicity Profile of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants of
Tannery Wastewater and Bioremediation Approaches. In Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 381–398.
30. Udugama, I.A.; Petersen, L.A.H.; Falco, F.C.; Junicke, H.; Mitic, A.; Alsina, X.F.; Mansouri, S.S.; Gernaey, K.V. Resource Recovery
from Waste Streams in a Water-Energy-Food Nexus Perspective: Toward More Sustainable Food Processing. Food Bioprod. Process.
2020, 119, 133–147. [CrossRef]
31. Barbera, M.; Gurnari, G. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Food Industry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; ISBN
3319684426.
32. Bhuvaneshwari, S.; Majeed, F.; Jose, E.; Mohan, A. Different Treatment Methodologies and Reactors Employed for Dairy Effluent
Treatment—A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 46, 102622.
33. Sar, T.; Harirchi, S.; Ramezani, M.; Bulkan, G.; Akbas, M.Y.; Pandey, A.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Potential Utilization of Dairy Industries
By-Products and Wastes through Microbial Processes: A Critical Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 810, 152253.
34. Kushwaha, J.P.; Srivastava, V.C.; Mall, I.D. Organics Removal from Dairy Wastewater by Electrochemical Treatment and Residue
Disposal. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2010, 76, 198–205. [CrossRef]
35. Mehrotra, R.; Trivedi, A.; Mazumdar, S.K. Study on Characterisation of Indian Dairy Wastewater. Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. Technol.
2016, 1, 77–88.
36. Kertész, S.; László*, Z.; Forgács, E.; Szabó, G.; Hodúr, C. Dairy Wastewater Purification by Vibratory Shear Enhanced Processing.
Desalin. Water Treat. 2011, 35, 195–201. [CrossRef]
37. Scarsbrook, M.R.; Melland, A.R. Dairying and Water-Quality Issues in Australia and New Zealand. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2015, 55,
856–868. [CrossRef]
38. Sonawane, A.V.; Murthy, Z.V.P. Dairy Industry Wastewater Treatment by MOF and 2D Nanomaterial Engineered PVDF Mem-
branes Based Aerobic MBR: Membrane Fouling Mitigation and Stability Study. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 171, 680–693.
[CrossRef]
39. Stasinakis, A.S.; Charalambous, P.; Vyrides, I. Dairy Wastewater Management in EU: Produced Amounts, Existing Legislation,
Applied Treatment Processes and Future Challenges. J. Environ. Manage. 2022, 303, 114152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Kaur, N. Different Treatment Techniques of Dairy Wastewater. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 14, 100640. [CrossRef]
41. Zinicovscaia, I. Conventional Methods of Wastewater Treatment. In Cyanobacteria for Bioremediation of Wastewaters; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 17–25.
42. Chan, S.S.; Khoo, K.S.; Chew, K.W.; Ling, T.C.; Show, P.L. Recent Advances Biodegradation and Biosorption of Organic
Compounds from Wastewater: Microalgae-Bacteria Consortium—A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126159. [CrossRef]
43. Litu, L.; Ciobanu, G.; Cîmpeanu, S.M.; Kotova, O.; Ciocinta, R.; Bucur, D.; Harja, M. Comparative Study between Flocculation-
Coagulation Processes in Raw/Wastewater Treatment. AgroLife Sci. J. 2019, 8, 139–145.
44. Zhao, C.; Zhou, J.; Yan, Y.; Yang, L.; Xing, G.; Li, H.; Wu, P.; Wang, M.; Zheng, H. Application of Coagulation/Flocculation in Oily
Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 765, 142795. [CrossRef]
45. Anderson, A.; Anbarasu, A.; Pasupuleti, R.R.; Sekar, M.; Praveenkumar, T.R.; Kumar, J.A. Treatment of Heavy Metals Containing
Wastewater Using Biodegradable Adsorbents: A Review of Mechanism and Future Trends. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133724.
46. Kurniawan, S.B.; Imron, M.F.; Chik, C.E.N.C.E.; Owodunni, A.A.; Ahmad, A.; Alnawajha, M.M.; Rahim, N.F.M.; Said, N.S.M.;
Abdullah, S.R.S.; Kasan, N.A. What Compound inside Biocoagulants/Bioflocculants Is Contributing the Most to the Coagulation
and Flocculation Processes? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150902. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 13 of 15

47. Moreno-González, M.; Keulen, D.; Gomis-Fons, J.; Gomez, G.L.; Nilsson, B.; Ottens, M. Continuous Adsorption in Food Industry:
The Recovery of Sinapic Acid from Rapeseed Meal Extract. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 254, 117403. [CrossRef]
48. Shrivastava, V.; Ali, I.; Marjub, M.M.; Rene, E.R.; Soto, A.M.F. Wastewater in the Food Industry: Treatment Technologies and
Reuse Potential. Chemosphere 2022, 293, 133553. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Yu, M.; Wang, J.; Tang, L.; Feng, C.; Liu, H.; Zhang, H.; Peng, B.; Chen, Z.; Xie, Q. Intimate Coupling of Photocatalysis and Biodegradation
for Wastewater Treatment: Mechanisms, Recent Advances and Environmental Applications. Water Res. 2020, 175, 115673. [CrossRef]
50. Mustafa, S.; Bhatti, H.N.; Maqbool, M.; Iqbal, M. Microalgae Biosorption, Bioaccumulation and Biodegradation Efficiency for the
Remediation of Wastewater and Carbon Dioxide Mitigation: Prospects, Challenges and Opportunities. J. Water Process Eng. 2021,
41, 102009. [CrossRef]
51. Daufin, G.; Escudier, J.-P.; Carrère, H.; Bérot, S.; Fillaudeau, L.; Decloux, M. Recent and Emerging Applications of Membrane
Processes in the Food and Dairy Industry. Food Bioprod. Process. 2001, 79, 89–102.
52. Al-Shimmery, A.; Mazinani, S.; Ji, J.; Chew, Y.M.J.; Mattia, D. 3D Printed Composite Membranes with Enhanced Anti-Fouling
Behaviour. J. Memb. Sci. 2019, 574, 76–85. [CrossRef]
53. Arhin, S.G.; Banadda, N.; Komakech, A.J.; Kabenge, I.; Wanyama, J. Membrane Fouling Control in Low Pressure Membranes: A
Review on Pretreatment Techniques for Fouling Abatement. Environ. Eng. Res. 2016, 21, 109–120. [CrossRef]
54. Reig, M.; Vecino, X.; Cortina, J.L. Use of Membrane Technologies in Dairy Industry: An Overview. Foods 2021, 10, 2768. [CrossRef]
55. Glater, J. The Early History of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development. Desalination 1998, 117, 297–309. [CrossRef]
56. Matsuura, T. Progress in Membrane Science and Technology for Seawater Desalination—A Review. Desalination 2001, 134, 47–54.
[CrossRef]
57. Pouliot, Y. Membrane Processes in Dairy Technology—From a Simple Idea to Worldwide Panacea. Int. Dairy J. 2008, 18, 735–740.
[CrossRef]
58. Celikten, C.; Mavus, R.; Kemec, S.; Unlu, U.; Ergun, A.; Deligoz, H. Membrane Technologies in the Food and Beverage Industry. J.
Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2022, 37, 1713–1733.
59. Ferreira, F.B.; Ullmann, G.; Vieira, L.G.M.; Cardoso, V.L.; Reis, M.H.M. Hydrodynamic Performance of 3D Printed Turbulence
Promoters in Cross-Flow Ultrafiltrations of Psidium Myrtoides Extract. Chem. Eng. Process. Intensif. 2020, 154, 108005.
60. da Cunha, T.M.P.; Canella, M.H.M.; da Silva Haas, I.C.; Amboni, R.D.; Prudencio, E.S. A Theoretical Approach to Dairy Products
from Membrane Processes. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42. [CrossRef]
61. Charcosset, C. Classical and Recent Applications of Membrane Processes in the Food Industry. Food Eng. Rev. 2021, 13, 322–343.
62. Saboyainsta, L.V.; Maubois, J.-L. Current Developments of Microfiltration Technology in the Dairy Industry. Lait 2000, 80, 541–553.
[CrossRef]
63. Castro-Muñoz, R.; Yáñez-Fernández, J.; Fíla, V. Phenolic Compounds Recovered from Agro-Food by-Products Using Membrane
Technologies: An Overview. Food Chem. 2016, 213, 753–762.
64. Bazinet, L.; Doyen, A. Antioxidants, Mechanisms, and Recovery by Membrane Processes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57,
677–700.
65. Kravtsov, V.; Kulikova, I.; Mikhaylin, S.; Bazinet, L. Alkalinization of Acid Whey by Means of Electrodialysis with Bipolar
Membranes and Analysis of Induced Membrane Fouling. J. Food Eng. 2020, 277, 109891. [CrossRef]
66. Nath, K.; Dave, H.K.; Patel, T.M. Revisiting the Recent Applications of Nanofiltration in Food Processing Industries: Progress and
Prognosis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 73, 12–24.
67. Carter, B.G.; Cheng, N.; Kapoor, R.; Meletharayil, G.H.; Drake, M.A. Invited Review: Microfiltration-Derived Casein and Whey
Proteins from Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 2465–2479. [PubMed]
68. Blais, H.N.; Schroën, K.; Tobin, J.T. A Review of Multistage Membrane Filtration Approaches for Enhanced Efficiency during
Concentration and Fractionation of Milk and Whey. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2022, 75, 749–760.
69. Debon, J.; Prudêncio, E.S.; Petrus, J.C.C.; Fritzen-Freire, C.B.; Müller, C.M.O.; de, M.C. Amboni, R.D.; Vieira, C.R.W. Storage
Stability of Prebiotic Fermented Milk Obtained from Permeate Resulting of the Microfiltration Process. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.
2012, 47, 96–102.
70. Faion, A.M.; Becker, J.; Fernandes, I.A.; Steffens, J.; Valduga, E. Sheep’s Milk Concentration by Ultrafiltration and Cheese
Elaboration. J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 42, e13058. [CrossRef]
71. Gavazzi-April, C.; Benoit, S.; Doyen, A.; Britten, M.; Pouliot, Y. Preparation of Milk Protein Concentrates by Ultrafiltration and
Continuous Diafiltration: Effect of Process Design on Overall Efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 9670–9679. [PubMed]
72. Ng, K.S.Y.; Dunstan, D.E.; Martin, G.J.O. Influence of Processing Temperature on Flux Decline during Skim Milk Ultrafiltration.
Sep. Purif. Technol. 2018, 195, 322–331.
73. Chen, Z.; Luo, J.; Hang, X.; Wan, Y. Physicochemical Characterization of Tight Nanofiltration Membranes for Dairy Wastewater
Treatment. J. Memb. Sci. 2018, 547, 51–63. [CrossRef]
74. Prudêncio, E.S.; Müller, C.M.O.; Fritzen-Freire, C.B.; Amboni, R.D.M.C.; Petrus, J.C.C. Effect of Whey Nanofiltration Process
Combined with Diafiltration on the Rheological and Physicochemical Properties of Ricotta Cheese. Food Res. Int. 2014, 56, 92–99.
[CrossRef]
75. Blais, H.; Ho, Q.T.; Murphy, E.G.; Schroën, K.; Tobin, J.T. A Cascade Microfiltration and Reverse Osmosis Approach for Energy
Efficient Concentration of Skim Milk. J. Food Eng. 2021, 300, 110511. [CrossRef]
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 14 of 15

76. Saffarimiandoab, F.; Gul, B.Y.; Tasdemir, R.S.; Ilter, S.E.; Unal, S.; Tunaboylu, B.; Menceloglu, Y.Z.; Koyuncu, İ. A Review on
Membrane Fouling: Membrane Modification. Desalin. Water Treat 2021, 216, 47–70. [CrossRef]
77. AlSawaftah, N.; Abuwatfa, W.; Darwish, N.; Husseini, G. A Comprehensive Review on Membrane Fouling: Mathematical
Modelling, Prediction, Diagnosis, and Mitigation. Water 2021, 13, 1327.
78. Leu, M.; Marciniak, A.; Chamberland, J.; Pouliot, Y.; Bazinet, L.; Doyen, A. Effect of Skim Milk Treated with High Hydrostatic
Pressure on Permeate Flux and Fouling during Ultrafiltration. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 7071–7082. [CrossRef]
79. Sutrisna, P.D.; Kurnia, K.A.; Siagian, U.W.R.; Ismadji, S.; Wenten, I.G. Membrane Fouling and Fouling Mitigation in Oil–Water
Separation: A Review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107532.
80. Krishnan, S.; Nasrullah, M.; Kamyab, H.; Suzana, N.; Munaim, M.S.A.; Wahid, Z.A.; Ali, I.H.; Salehi, R.; Chaiprapat, S. Fouling
Characteristics and Cleaning Approach of Ultrafiltration Membrane during Xylose Reductase Separation. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng.
2022, 45, 1125–1136. [PubMed]
81. Mohammad, A.W.; Ng, C.Y.; Lim, Y.P.; Ng, G.H. Ultrafiltration in Food Processing Industry: Review on Application, Membrane
Fouling, and Fouling Control. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 5, 1143–1156.
82. Deka, A.; Rasul, A.; Baruah, A.; Malakar, H.; Basumatary, A.K. Treatment of Dairy Wastewater with Tubular Ceramic Membrane.
Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 72, 2773–2779. [CrossRef]
83. Sisay, E.J.; Kertész, S.; Fazekas, Á.; Jákói, Z.; Kedves, E.Z.; Gyulavári, T.; Ágoston, Á.; Veréb, G.; László, Z. Application of
BiVO4 /TiO2 /CNT Composite Photocatalysts for Membrane Fouling Control and Photocatalytic Membrane Regeneration during
Dairy Wastewater Treatment. Catalysts 2023, 13, 315.
84. Hepsen, R.; Kaya, Y. Optimization of Membrane Fouling Using Experimental Design: An Example from Dairy Wastewater
Treatment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 16074–16084. [CrossRef]
85. Zhang, B.; Feng, X. Assessment of Pervaporative Concentration of Dairy Solutions vs. Ultrafiltration, Nanofiltration and Reverse
Osmosis. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 292, 120990.
86. Shi, X.; Tal, G.; Hankins, N.P.; Gitis, V. Fouling and Cleaning of Ultrafiltration Membranes: A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2014, 1,
121–138.
87. Gul, A.; Hruza, J.; Yalcinkaya, F. Fouling and Chemical Cleaning of Microfiltration Membranes: A Mini-Review. Polymers 2021,
13, 846. [CrossRef]
88. Ladewig, B.; Al-Shaeli, M.N.Z. Fouling in Membrane Bioreactors. In Fundamentals of Membrane Bioreactors; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 39–85.
89. Hermia, J. Constant Pressure Blocking Filtration Laws: Application to Power-Law Non-Newtonian Fluids. Inst. Chem. Eng. Trans.
1982, 60, 183–187.
90. Pezeshk, N.; Narbaitz, R.M. More Fouling Resistant Modified PVDF Ultrafiltration Membranes for Water Treatment. Desalination
2012, 287, 247–254.
91. Huang, H.; Schwab, K.; Jacangelo, J.G. Pretreatment for Low Pressure Membranes in Water Treatment: A Review. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2009, 43, 3011–3019.
92. Fiksdal, L.; Leiknes, T. The Effect of Coagulation with MF/UF Membrane Filtration for the Removal of Virus in Drinking Water. J.
Memb. Sci. 2006, 279, 364–371. [CrossRef]
93. Xiangli, Q.; Zhenjia, Z.; Nongcun, W.; Wee, V.; Low, M.; Loh, C.S.; Hing, N.T. Coagulation Pretreatment for a Large-Scale
Ultrafiltration Process Treating Water from the Taihu River. Desalination 2008, 230, 305–313.
94. Jung, J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Park, Y.-J.; Lee, S.; Kim, D. Optimization of Coagulation Conditions for Pretreatment of Microfiltration Process
Using Response Surface Methodology. Environ. Eng. Res. 2015, 20, 223–229.
95. Matsushita, T.; Shirasaki, N.; Tatsuki, Y.; Matsui, Y. Investigating Norovirus Removal by Microfiltration, Ultrafiltration, and
Precoagulation–Microfiltration Processes Using Recombinant Norovirus Virus-like Particles and Real-Time Immuno-PCR. Water
Res. 2013, 47, 5819–5827. [PubMed]
96. Stoquart, C.; Servais, P.; Bérubé, P.R.; Barbeau, B. Hybrid Membrane Processes Using Activated Carbon Treatment for Drinking
Water: A Review. J. Memb. Sci. 2012, 411, 1–12.
97. Khan, M.M.T.; Takizawa, S.; Lewandowski, Z.; Jones, W.L.; Camper, A.K.; Katayama, H.; Kurisu, F.; Ohgaki, S. Membrane Fouling
Due to Dynamic Particle Size Changes in the Aerated Hybrid PAC–MF System. J. Memb. Sci. 2011, 371, 99–107.
98. Wei, Y.; Qi, H.; Gong, X.; Zhao, S. Specially Wettable Membranes for Oil–Water Separation. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 5, 1800576.
99. Ding, Y.; Maruf, S.; Aghajani, M.; Greenberg, A.R. Surface Patterning of Polymeric Membranes and Its Effect on Antifouling
Characteristics. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 240–257.
100. Padaki, M.; Murali, R.S.; Abdullah, M.S.; Misdan, N.; Moslehyani, A.; Kassim, M.A.; Hilal, N.; Ismail, A.F. Membrane Technology
Enhancement in Oil–Water Separation. A Review. Desalination 2015, 357, 197–207.
101. Maruf, S.H.; Wang, L.; Greenberg, A.R.; Pellegrino, J.; Ding, Y. Use of Nanoimprinted Surface Patterns to Mitigate Colloidal
Deposition on Ultrafiltration Membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2013, 428, 598–607.
102. Low, Z.-X.; Chua, Y.T.; Ray, B.M.; Mattia, D.; Metcalfe, I.S.; Patterson, D.A. Perspective on 3D Printing of Separation Membranes
and Comparison to Related Unconventional Fabrication Techniques. J. Memb. Sci. 2017, 523, 596–613.
103. Armbruster, S.; Cheong, O.; Lölsberg, J.; Popovic, S.; Yüce, S.; Wessling, M. Fouling Mitigation in Tubular Membranes by
3D-Printed Turbulence Promoters. J. Memb. Sci. 2018, 554, 156–163.
Processes 2023, 11, 2133 15 of 15

104. Fodor, E.; Šereš, Z.; Gergely, G.; Hodúr, C.; Kertész, S. Investigation of Ultrafiltration Parameters of Different Organic Load
Wastewater Types. Analecta Tech. Szeged. 2022, 16, 129–135.
105. Qian, X.; Ostwal, M.; Asatekin, A.; Geise, G.M.; Smith, Z.P.; Phillip, W.A.; Lively, R.P.; McCutcheon, J.R. A Critical Review and
Commentary on Recent Progress of Additive Manufacturing and Its Impact on Membrane Technology. J. Memb. Sci. 2022, 645, 120041.
106. Liu, J.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Liu, F. Saw-Tooth Spacer for Membrane Filtration: Hydrodynamic Investigation by PIV and Filtration
Experiment Validation. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2015, 91, 23–34.
107. Tsai, H.-Y.; Huang, A.; Luo, Y.-L.; Hsu, T.-Y.; Chen, C.-H.; Hwang, K.-J.; Ho, C.-D.; Tung, K.-L. 3D Printing Design of Turbulence
Promoters in a Cross-Flow Microfiltration System for Fine Particles Removal. J. Memb. Sci. 2019, 573, 647–656.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.