novel green hybrid processes for oily water photooxidation and purification from merchant ship

Desalination xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

DES-12792; No of Pages 7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /desa l

Novel green hybrid processes for oily water photooxidation and purification frommerchant ship

A. Moslehyani a,b, M. Mobaraki a, T. Matsuura a,b, A.F. Ismail a,⁎, M.H.D. Othman a, M.N.K. Chowdhury a

a Advanced Membrane Technology Research Centre (AMTEC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Malaysiab Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Ottawa, 161 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Photoxidation of oily water by two dif-ferent photocatalytic reactors (PR-UFand PMR)

• Immobilizing TiO2 in the HNT surfacevia AEAPTMS silan and embedded onthe PVDF polymer matrix

• Over 80% TOC degradation has beenachieved via PR-UF process.

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.F. Ismail).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.0030011-9164/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: A. Moslehyani, et aDesalination (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.10

Two hybrid systems for photooxidation and separation of oily water frommerchant ship have been investigated
in this study.
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 30 September 2015Received in revised form 3 January 2016Accepted 4 January 2016Available online xxxx

Two hybrid photooxidation systems consisting of two different reactors; photocatalytic reactor-ultrafiltration(PR-UF) and photocatalytic membrane reactor (PMR) have been investigated and compared for photolysis andseparation of oily water. In both, oily water was irradiated by ultraviolet (UV) light. In PR, UV irradiation wasmade on the TiO2 photocatalyst suspended in oilywater, followed by ultrafiltration (UF) to remove TiO2 particlesand hydrocarbon residues. On the other hand, TiO2 was immobilized on the halloysite nanotube (HNT) andembedded in the UF membrane in PMR. In both systems, hydrocarbon concentration, chemical oxygen demand(COD), total dissolved solid (TDS), and hydrocarbon concentration were measured at each step ofphotooxydation and filtration. In UF, membrane flux, reduction in solute concentration, flux decline and fluxrecovery by backwashing were investigated. The experimental results showed that the reduction in TOC byPR-UF was ~10% higher than PMR. On the other hand, reduction in hydrocarbon concentration, COD and TDSwas higher for PMR. The TiO2 concentration in UF permeate was 8 ppm and 0.2 ppm, respectively, for PR-UFand PMR.

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:PR-UFPMRPhotocatalystPhotocatalytic membranePhotolysisOily water

1. Introduction

Merchant ships' water filter including small feeder ships, car carrierships, giant container vessels, oil tankers, warships, and cruise ships

l., Novel green hybrid process16/j.desal.2016.01.003

have given many advantages to human life via huge carrying capacityand low cost shipping compared to other vehicles [1–4]. However,their oily water discharge is known to have a negative impact on themarine ecosystem. In particular, one merchant ship crew practice isusing their clean ballast water for washing out ship oil or fuel tanks,which makes oil emulsion in ballast water [5,6]. Afterward, that oilyballast water will be pumped offshore without proper treatment. This

es for oily water photooxidation and purification frommerchant ship,

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.003

www.elsevier.com/locate/desal


2 A. Moslehyani et al. / Desalination xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

practice results in the spillage of oily ballast offshore, causing extensiveecological and economic damages to the aquatic ecosystems around theworld, along with serious human health issues including death due tothe discharge of toxic waste to the environment. This negative impactof merchant ship on marine and human life has become a subjectfor green global organizations since the late 1980s. Accordingly, the In-ternational Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the Ballast WaterManagement (BWM) convention in February 2004, and its ratificationis under way for having green environment. Prior to BWM, marine pol-lution (MARPOL) was made by England in 1978 to prevent pollutionfrom all types of ships [7]. The marine pollution 1973–1978 (MARPOL73–78) conventions have regulated that merchant ships install awater purification system for their wastewater in order to purifywater on board such that their oily wastewater discharge contains nomore than 15 mg of oil per liter. In particular, merchant ships shouldstore their retentate of treated oily ballastwater or untreated oily ballastwater in their segregated ballast tanks (SBT) until the vessel reaches areception facility in the port [8]. Regarding these regulations, themerchant ship industry has been looking forward to having green andadvanced on board oily ballast water treatment. Hence, companiesspecializing in water and wastewater treatment systems are providingballast water treatment systems and processes for merchant ships [7].Currently, the potable ultraviolet (UV) irradiation application as thegreenest and most advanced process is of interest to the merchantship industries due to their promising performance [9]. Schematicdiagram of a 20,000 deadweight (dwt) merchant ship elements areshown in Fig. 1.

TheUV irradiation system is one of theAOPs [10,11]. It consists of UVreactor, UV lamp and photocatalyst or photocatalyst support (e.g.photocatalytic membrane) [12,13] and can photooxidize the toxic com-ponents to non-toxic or lower level toxic components via photoreaction[14–16]. The factors that affect the performance of a UV irradiatedphotocatalytic system are photocatalyst type [17] and loading [18], con-taminants concentration [19], UV wavelength and UV intensity [20,21].Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is well-accepted as a photocatalyst due to itshigh degradation performance, recovery capability via heating up tothe temperature of 250 °C for 5 or more degradation cycles and lowcost [22,23].

In a photocatalytic reactor (PR) system ultrafiltration (UF) can becombined with photocatalyst either separately, called PR-UF system,or as a photocatalytic membrane reactor, called PMR system, in whichboth photocatalytic reaction and filtration take place [4]. However, inthe latter system, membrane flux may decrease with the filtration

Fig. 1. Schematic diag

Please cite this article as: A. Moslehyani, et al., Novel green hybrid processDesalination (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.003

time due to the deposition of oil [24], or catalyst particles or agglomer-ate of the catalyst particles [25–27]. Hence, a number of suggestionswere made to address the problem, e.g. backwashing of the membraneor immobilization of photocatalysts to the surface of nanofillers [28].

The objective of this research is to develop a novel photooxidation-filtration system for the treatment of oily wastewater. To this end, twohybrid photooxidation systems, photocatalytic reactor- ultrafiltration(PR-UF) andphotocatalyticmembrane reactor (PMR),were constructedand compared. In both systems, UV irradiation was made on TiO2

photocatalyst. The catalyst particles were suspended in the oily waterin PR and ultrafiltered by UF hollow fibers in the PR-UF system. On theother hand, the catalyst particles were incorporated in UF hollow fibermembrane in PMR.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials and chemicals

Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) Solef 6012 from Solvay AdvancedPolymers was used as polymer and the solvent was dimethylacetamide(DMAc, N99.5%) from Merck. Halloysite nanotubes (HNTs) claywith inner tube diameter of 5–15 nm from Sigma Aldrich andtitanium-dioxide (TiO2) P25 nanoparticles with specific surfacearea of 50 ± 15 m2g−1 from Evonik Degussa were used¸ respective-ly, as the nanofiller and the photocatalyst. N-β-(aminoethyl)-ɣ-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AEAPTMS) from Merck was usedto immobilize TiO2 on the surface of HNTs.

2.2. System design

Fig. 2a and b show the schematic diagram of the PR-UF and PMRsystems, respectively, used in this study. The same stainless steel vesselwith amaximum liquid loading of 22 Lwas used as the UF separator andthe membrane reactor, respectively, for the PR-UF and PMR systems.Two UV lamps (type A of HITACHI, Japan; 18 W, ~340 nm, OD~25 mm, length ~ 60 cm), a stainless steel stirrer (50 rpm) and twohollow fiber bundles (diameter, ½ in., length 30 cm) containing 120hollow fibers were installed in the vessel.

2.3. Photocatalyst preparation

In the PR of the PR-UF system TiO2 nanoparticles were used asphotocatalyst without any treatment. For PMR TiO2 was chemically

ram of oil tanker.



Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of (a) PR-UF and (b) PMR.

3A. Moslehyani et al. / Desalination xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

immobilized to the HNTs before incorporation into the polymericmembrane. HNT is an aluminum-silicate clay available at a low costcompared to other nanotubes such as single walled carbon nanotubes(SWCNTs) and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). It wasreported recently that copper nanoparticles immobilized at the surfaceof HNTs were incorporated in a polymeric membrane, showing a highefficiency and a low metal loss from the fabricated membrane [29].The immobilization procedure is as follows. Firstly, 10 g of AEAPTMSwas dissolved in 400 mL toluene and then 10 g HNTs and 10 g TiO2

were added to the solution under sonication. The suspension so obtainedwas refluxed at 65 °C for 30 h with stirring. The precipitate, TiO2-HNTs,was washed by centrifuging consecutively with 400 mL THF and400 mL distilled water. The TiO2-HNTs in powder form were kept in anoven at 95 °C for 48 h for drying [30,31].

2.4. Membrane fabrication

PVDF was kept in an oven at 65 °C for 72 h in order to remove themoisture. The spinning dope for neat PVDF hollow fiber, denoted asM1, was prepared by dissolving 18 wt.% of PVDF in DMAc. The spinningdope for the photocatalytic membrane hollow fiber, denoted as M2,contained 18 wt.% PVDF and 1 wt.% HNTs-TiO2 in DMAc. To preparethe dope HNTs-TiO2 was first dispersed in DMAc uniformly byultrasonication at 65 °C for 6 h. The details of the spinning methodwere given elsewhere [32–34]. The spinning conditions are listed inTable 1. After spinning, the hollow fibers were further kept immersedin water for 3 days with daily exchange of fresh water to remove the

Table 1Hollow fiber spinning and installation parameters.

Parameters Value

Dope extrusion rate (mL/min) 4.35Bore fluid Distilled waterBore fluid flow rate (mL/min) 1.40External coagulant Tap waterAir gap distance (cm) 5Spinneret OD/ID (mm) 1.10/0.55Coagulation temperature °C 18Room relative humidity (%) 55Number of bundles membrane modules 2Number of glued bundles hollow fibers in each module 120


residual solvent and then dried at ambient conditions prior to use inPMR [35,36].

2.5. Process procedure

The oily water has been obtained from a Malaysian internationalship company with ~400 ppm hydrocarbon components concentrationas a feed solution,whichwas analyzed by AgilentGC–MSequippedwitha HP.5.MS column (see Fig. 3A). In the first experiment using PR-UF, 5 Lof oily water with 200 ppm of TiO2 was irradiated by UV lights for 6 h inPR and then transferred to UF cell for 1 h further treatment. In the sec-ond experiment, the 5 L of oily water was irradiated for 6 h by UV lightsto the photocatalyticmembrane surface inside PMR, afterwardUV lightswere switched-off and membrane filtration was started for 1 h byadjusting the nitrogen gas regulator at 0.5 bar gauge in all experiments.The Langmuir–Hinshelwood model as expressed in Eq. (A) describesthe relationship between organic compound concentration and itsphotodegradation rate [37].

r ¼ −dcdt

¼ krKadC1þ KadC

ðAÞ

where kr is the intrinsic rate constant (mgL−1min−1), Kad is the adsorp-tion equilibrium constant (Lmg−1) and C is the concentration (mgL−1).When the adsorption is relatively weak and/or the concentration of or-ganic compound is low, Eq. (A) can be simplified to first-order kineticswith an apparent rate constant, kapp (min−1), as shown in Eq. (B).

lnCC0

� �¼ −krKadt ¼ −kappt ðBÞ

where C0 is the initial concentration of organic pollutant (mgL−1), C isthe final concentration of the pollutant after time t of the photocatalyticdecomposition (mgL−1), kapp is the apparent rate constant of a pseudofirst order reaction (min−1) and t is the time of photocatalysis (min).According to Eq. (B), the reaction rate is expected to increase withirradiation time due to the decreasing amount of contaminants. More-over, Fig. 3B illustrates the mechanism of the photocatalytic reactionusing UV light and TiO2.



Fig. 3. GCMS chromatograms of (A) original oily ballast water quantity, (B) possible photoreaction of oily wastewater with UV-TiO2 photocatalyst.


2.6. Membrane characterization and experiments analysis

The hollow fiber membrane's morphology and elemental analysiswas made by field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM,Jeol JSM 6701-F) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX-Jeol JED-2300F),respectively. To observe membrane samples by FESEM, the membranewas placed on a stainless steel stand with carbon tape and thensputtered with 15 nm of gold, which was sputter coated. The surfacemorphology and roughness of the prepared membranes were studiedby solid model-atomic force microscopy (SM-AFM) using atomic forcemicroscope (AFM) (model SPA-300HV Seiko) equippedwith NanoNaviStation version 5.01 software. The membrane surfaces were imagedin a scan size of 5 μm × 5 μm. AFM results have given the averageroughness (Ra), root mean square of Z data (Rq) the mean differencebetween the highest peaks and lowest valleys (Rz) and the rootmean square. The contact angle of both membrane surfaces hasbeen analyzed by goniometer (IMC-159D) supplied from IMOTOMachinery as well. Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) wasalso conducted to detect the TiO2 in solutions. The UV–vis spectro-photometer (HACH DR5000) was used to detect the total organiccarbon (TOC), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) in samples.Moreover, total dissolved solid (TDS) was obtained for all samples(JENWAY TDS meter model 4520) as well. Membrane porosity


percentage (ε) was calculated by Eq. (1):

ε %ð Þ ¼Ww−Wd

dwWw−Wd

dwþWd

dp

� 100 ð1Þ

where Ww is weight of wet membranes (g), Wd is weight of drymembranes (g), dw is the pure water density (0.998 g/cm3) anddp is the polymer density (1.765 g/cm3). In membrane filtration ex-periments, permeation flux (J) was calculated by Eq. (2):

J ¼ VA� t

ð2Þ

where V (L) is the volume, A (m2) is membrane effective area, and t(h) is sampling time. Concentration reduction percentage (CR) wascalculated by Eq. (3):

CR %ð Þ ¼ 1−CP

C F

� �� 100 ð3Þ

where CP (ppm) is hydrocarbon concentration in the permeate andCF (ppm) is hydrocarbon concentration in the feed.



Fig. 4. FESEM cross sectional images for M1 and M2.


Flux decline, FDt (%) was calculated by Eq. (4):

FDt %ð Þ ¼ 1−JP;tJP;i

!� 100 ð4Þ

where Jp,t is the permeate flux at time t (Lm−2 h−1), and Jp,i is the initialpermeate flux (Lm−2 h−1).

Flux recovery (FR) was calculated by Eq. (5):

FR %ð Þ ¼ Jw2

Jw1� 100 ð5Þ

where Jw1 is the pure water flux (Lm−2 h−1) before UF with oily waterand Jw2 is the pure water flux (Lm−2 h−1) after UF with oily water andbackwashing with water-hydrochloric acid (10:1) solution.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Membrane characteristics

3.1.1. FESEMFig. 4 illustrates the FESEMcross-sectional images ofM1andM2hol-

low fibers. M1's inner wall is circular while that of M2 has an irregularshape with a larger surface area than M1, which will lead to a higherpermeation rate through the hollow. In both M1 and M2 finger-likevoids extended from both inner and outer surface and met with asponge-like layer in the center. The fiber-like voids are longer and thesponge-like region is thinner for M2 than M1, which may also enhancethe pure water flux.

Fig. 5. 3D surface SMAFM im


3.1.2. Membrane surface morphologyFig. 5 shows the outer surface of M1 and M2 by SM-AFM images of

the neat PVDF (M1) and photocatalytic membrane (M2) over an areaof 10 μm2. The valley (dark spot) of M2 seems much deeper than M1,which is reflected in the surface roughness parameters listed inTable 2. All roughness parameters of M2 are greater than M1. Thecontact angle and the porosity are also listed in Table 2. According tothe table, the contact angle of M2 is smaller than M1, meaning thatM2 is more hydrophilic than M1, and the porosity of M2 is higherthan M1.

3.2. PR performance

3.2.1. TOC degradationThe initial TOC numerical value in the oily water was ~583 ppm and

the TOC degradation (%) was calculated based on the Eq. (6). The TOCdegradation (%) is defined as:

TOC Degradation %ð Þ ¼ TOC f−TOCt� �

TOC f

� �� 100 ð6Þ

where TOCf is the TOC in feed and TOCi is the TOC at time t of irradiation.Accordingly, the TOC degradation of oily water has been depicted inFig. 6. During 6 h of photolysis, 80% of TOC was decomposed. The TOCdegradation (%) increased sharply from the first 1 to 4 h, however, itincreased only slightly during the last 2 h, which is probably dueto low activation or deactivation of TiO2. According to the reactionscheme shown in Fig. 3B, photoinduced electrons are generated by UVirradiation and a large amount of hydroxyl radicals are formed due to

ages of the M1 and M2.



Table 2Contact angle, porosity and roughness parameters of the hollow fibers.

Membrane Contact angle (°) ε, (%) AFM roughness parameters

Sa (nm) Sq (nm) Sz (nm)

M1 ~79 ~59 ~23 ~28 ~168M2 ~42 ~67 ~35 ~36 ~199

Table 3Hydrocarbon concentration during photolysis and membrane filtration from PR-UF.

Parameter PR UF

Time (min) Initially 60 120 180 240 300 360 420Oil concentration (ppm) 400 376 352 284 252 216 196 15


dissociation of water molecules. Those radicals combinewith hydrocar-bonmolecules, leading to the decomposition of hydrocarbonmolecules.

Fig. 7. TOC analyzed data during photolysis in PMR.

3.2.2. COD and TDS reductionCOD and TDS in PR were recorded during 6 h of photolysis. Accord-

ingly, the initial COD of oilywaterwas ~870 ppm,whichwas reduced to719 and 255 ppm after 1 and 6 h of photolysis, respectively. Moreover,COD was further decreased to 159 ppm in the UV permeate. Totaldissolved solid (TDS) is the sum of all inorganic and organic contentsin the oily wastewater. Their primary sources include those fromleaching of soil contamination and other mixed chemicals, and theexact analysis of individual dissolved solids which is difficult. However,TDS constituents are mostly inorganics such as calcium, phosphates,nitrates, sodium, potassium and chloride, which are not susceptible tophotodegradation [38]. Accordingly, the TDS decreased from the initialvalue of ~1809 ppm to ~1267 ppmafter 6 h of UV irradiation, duemost-ly to the degradation of organic compounds. The TDS value in the UFpermeate was 681 ppm, indicating removal of inorganic ions by UF.

3.2.3. Hydrocarbon concentration reduction and TiO2 rejectionOily water concentration reduction during the PR and UF has been

listed in the Table 3. The initial hydrocarbon concentration in the feedtank was ~400 ppm, which decreased to ~15 ppm in the UF permeate.Based on the American environmental regulations 15-ppm hydrocarbonis acceptable for discharge, however, this concentration of hydrocarbonis not acceptable for European Union (EU). The AAS result showed thathigh TiO2 rejection was achieved by M1, i.e. the initial 200 ppm wasreduced to ~8 ppm of suspended TiO2 in the UF permeate.

3.3. PMR performance

3.3.1. TOC degradationThe TOC degradation results of PMR are illustrated in the Fig. 7. The

initial TOC was ~583 ppm, and the degradation reached 70% after 6 hof UV irradiation. The analyzed data show that most of degradationoccurred during the first 3 h and only little TOC reduction occurredduring the last 3 h of irradiation due to the deactivation of TiO2 on thesurface of membrane.

Fig. 6. TOC analyzed data during photolysis in PR.


3.3.2. COD and TDS data analysisPhotolysis experiment in PMR has shown better performance than

PR-UF in terms of COD and TDS reduction. The initial COD of ~870 ppmwas reduced to 621 and 197 ppm after 1 and 6 h of photolysis, respec-tively. Moreover, COD was further decreased to 110 ppm in the UVpermeate. The TDS results for PMR were also better than PR-UF. TDSdecreased from the initial value of ~1809 ppm to ~1267 ppm after 6 hof UV irradiation, and further to 657 ppm in the UF permeate.

3.3.3. Hydrocarbon concentration reduction, TiO2 loss and TiO2 leachingThe CR percentage defined by Eq. (3) only 11% for 6 h of UV irradia-

tion in PMR, however, CR based on the UF permeate was 99.3% (seeTable 4). Accordingly, the oil concentration in the UF permeate was2.8 ppm, which is even lower than allowable limit of 5 ppm by EU.Hence, the photocatalytic membrane (M2) has shown a high perfor-mance in terms of hydrocarbon degradation. On the other hand, theAAS analysis showed that the TiO2 concentrations in the PMR permeateprocess was ~1 ppm, respectively, which seems insignificant values forenvironmental discharge.

3.4. Membrane performance factors

Some of the membrane performance factors are listed in Table 5. Jw1

and Jw2 of M2 are higher than M1. As well, PR of M2 was higher than M.On the other hand, FD of M1 was higher than M2, due to the followingthree different resistances; a) resistance of the membrane, b) resistanceof the cake layer formed on the top of the membrane and c) resistancedue to the partial blocking of the pore. Among those a) does not changewith time. The resistances b) and c) increase with time and the fluxdeclines, the phenomena that are called fouling. The higher FD of M1means the fouling by b) and c) is more severe for M1. The higher PR ofM2 means, the permanent fouling by c) is less for M2, which is ascribedto the higher hydrophilicity of M2 surface, indicated by its lower contact

Table 4Hydrocarbon concentration during photolysis and membrane filtration from PMR.

Parameter PMR UF

Time (min) Initially 60 120 180 240 300 360 420Oil concentration (ppm) 400 392 384 372 368 360 356 2.8



Table 5Membrane performance parameters.

Time(min)

Jw1 (l/m2h) Jw2 (l/m2h) RF (%) Jp,t (l/m2h) FDt (%)

M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2

15 321 342 296 331 92.2 96.7 272 306 4.2 4.030 238 279 217 258 91.1 92.4 189 246 33.4 22.845 194 223 171 205 88.1 91.9 145 190 48.9 40.460 168 213 134 193 79.7 90.6 119 180 58.0 43.5

* Jp,i for M1 was 284 (L/hm−2 h) and for M2 was 319 (L/hm−2 h).


angle [33–35]. On the other hand, effective back-washing by water-hydrochloric acid via 10:1 ratio.

4. Conclusions

Two novel photolysis-filtration hybrid systems were studied andcompared for oily water treatment. The first hybrid system is calledPR-UF and the second hybrid system is called PMR. From all the investi-gation, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Both photolysis-filtration hybrid systems could effectively treat oilywater.

1. The PR-UF hybrid system could degrade TOC over 80%, which was10% more than PMR.

2. The reduction of COD and TDS by PMR was higher than PR-UF.3. The hydrocarbon concentration of 2.8 ppm was achieved by PMR,

which was lower than the severer concentration limit of 5 ppm setby EU.

4. The UF permeate of PMR contained only 0.2 ppm TiO2, which isconsidered insignificant from environmental view point.

5. The M2 nanocomposite membrane showed better permeation flux,rejection and antifouling capacity than M1, when used in PMR.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from theEuropean Commission FP7 — LIMPID (Project number: NMP3-SL-2012-310177, UTM reference: R.J130000.7609.4C031) and technical supportfrom both Aquakimia Sdn. Bhd. and Research Management Centre,Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The authors also acknowledge SolvaySpecialty Polymers Italy and Johnson Matthey PLC UK for providingmaterials used in this work. Authors wish to acknowledge Dr. ArunMohan Isloor of National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal,Mangalore 575 025, India for his technical support.

References

[1] S.A. McCARTHY, F.M. Khambaty, International dissemination of epidemic Vibriocholerae by cargo ship ballast and other nonpotable waters, Appl. Environ.Microbiol. 60 (1994) 2597–2601.

[2] A. Huq, B. Xu, M. Chowdhury, M.S. Islam, R. Montilla, R.R. Colwell, A simple filtrationmethod to remove plankton-associated Vibrio cholerae in raw water supplies indeveloping countries, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62 (1996) 2508–2512.

[3] E. Tsolaki, E. Diamadopoulos, Technologies for ballast water treatment: a review, J.Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 85 (2010) 19–32.

[4] A. Moslehyani, A. Ismail, M. Othman, T. Matsuura, Design and performance study ofhybrid photocatalytic reactor-PVDF/MWCNT nanocomposite membrane system fortreatment of petroleum refinery wastewater, Desalination 363 (2015) 99–111.

[5] D. Oemcke, J.V. Leeuwen, Seawater ozonation of Bacillus subtilis spores: implica-tions for the use of ozone in ballast water treatment, Ozone: Science & Engineering26 (2004) 389–401.

[6] C.L. Hewitt, S. Gollasch, D. Minchin, The vessel as a vector—biofouling, ballast waterand sediments, Biological invasions in marine ecosystems, Springer 2009,pp. 117–131.

[7] A. Fakhru'l-Razi, A. Pendashteh, L.C. Abdullah, D.R.A. Biak, S.S. Madaeni, Z.Z. Abidin,Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment, J. Hazard. Mater.170 (2009) 530–551.

[8] K. Yazu, Y. Yamamoto, T. Furuya, K. Miki, K. Ukegawa, Oxidation ofdibenzothiophenes in an organic biphasic system and its application to oxidativedesulfurization of light oil, Energy Fuel 15 (2001) 1535–1536.


[9] A. Moslehyani, A.F. Ismail, M. Othman, A.M. Isloor, Novel hybrid photocatalyticreactor-UF nanocomposite membrane system for bilge water degradation andseparation, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 45331–45340.

[10] R. Thiruvenkatachari, S. Vigneswaran, I.S. Moon, A review on UV/TiO2 photocatalyticoxidation process (journal review), Korean J. Chem. Eng. 25 (2008) 64–72.

[11] M.E. Sillanpää, T.A. Kurniawan, W.-h. Lo, Degradation of chelating agents in aqueoussolution using advanced oxidation process (AOP), Chemosphere 83 (2011)1443–1460.

[12] S.G. Kumar, L.G. Devi, Review on modified TiO2 photocatalysis under UV/visiblelight: selected results and related mechanisms on interfacial charge carrier transferdynamics, J. Phys. Chem. A 115 (2011) 13211–13241.

[13] A. Stasinakis, Use of selected advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for wastewatertreatment—a mini review, Glob. NEST J. 10 (2008) 376–385.

[14] D. Wilson, PMR-15 processing, properties and problems—a review, Br. Polym. J. 20(1988) 405–416.

[15] S. Mozia, Photocatalytic membrane reactors (PMRs) in water and wastewatertreatment. A review, Sep. Purif. Technol. 73 (2010) 71–91.

[16] A. Moslehyani, A. Ismail, M. Othman, T. Matsuura, Hydrocarbon degradation andseparation of bilge water via a novel TiO 2-HNTs/PVDF-based photocatalyticmembrane reactor (PMR), RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 14147–14155.

[17] A. Kudo, Y. Miseki, Heterogeneous photocatalyst materials for water splitting, Chem.Soc. Rev. 38 (2009) 253–278.

[18] A.A. Ismail, D.W. Bahnemann, One-step synthesis of mesoporous platinum/titaniananocomposites as photocatalyst with enhanced photocatalytic activity for metha-nol oxidation, Green Chem. 13 (2011) 428–435.

[19] R.G. Zepp, D.M. Cline, Rates of direct photolysis in aquatic environment, Environ. Sci.Technol. 11 (1977) 359–366.

[20] C.G. Joseph, G.L. Puma, A. Bono, Y.H. Taufiq-Yap, D. Krishnaiah, Operating parame-ters and synergistic effects of combining ultrasound and ultraviolet irradiation inthe degradation of 2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol, Desalination 276 (2011) 303–309.

[21] U. Akpan, B. Hameed, Parameters affecting the photocatalytic degradation of dyesusing TiO 2-based photocatalysts: a review, J. Hazard. Mater. 170 (2009) 520–529.

[22] M.N. Chong, B. Jin, C.W. Chow, C. Saint, Recent developments in photocatalytic watertreatment technology: a review, Water Res. 44 (2010) 2997–3027.

[23] S.M. Sajadi, M. Naderi, S. Babadoust, Nano TiO2 as an efficient and reusable hetero-geneous catalyst for the synthesis of 5-substituted 1H-tetrazoles, J. Nat. Sci. Res. 1(2012) 10–17.

[24] A. Moslehyani, M. Mobaraki, A. Ismail, M. Othman, A. Mayahi, E. Shamsaei, M.Abdullah, M. Razis, PVDF membrane for oil-in-water separation via cross-flowultrafiltration process, J. Teknol. 78 (2015).

[25] Z. Yu, G. Zeng, Y. Pan, L. Lv, H. Min, L. Zhang, Y. He, Effect of functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes on the microstructure and performances of PVDFmembranes, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 75998–76006.

[26] M.N.K. Chowdhury, A.F. Ismail, M.R. Khan, M.D.H. Beg, M.H.D. Othman, R.J. Gohari, A.Moslehyani, Physicochemical and micromechanical investigation of a nanocopperimpregnated fibre reinforced nanocomposite, RSC Adv. 5 (2015) 100943–100955.

[27] A. Moslehyani, M. Mobaraki, A. Ismail, T. Matsuura, S.A. Hashemifard, M.H.D.Othman, A. Mayahi, M.R. DashtArzhandi, M. Soheilmoghaddam, E. Shamsaei, Effectof HNTs modification in nanocomposite membrane enhancement for bacterialremoval by cross-flow ultrafiltration system, React. Funct. Polym. 95 (2015) 80–87.

[28] M. Padaki, R.S. Murali, M. Abdullah, N. Misdan, A. Moslehyani, M. Kassim, N. Hilal, A.Ismail, Membrane technology enhancement in oil–water separation. A review,Desalination 357 (2015) 197–207.

[29] A. Moslehyani, Silver Ion Exchange Fillers Incorporated with Mixed MatrixMembrane for Antibacterial Application, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty ofChemical Engineering, 2012.

[30] A. Moslehyani, O. Nasser, R. Junin, E. Halakoo, A. Ismail, Polyethersulfone Ultrafiltra-tion Membrane for Oil-in-Water Emulsion Separation, MST2013, 2013 1–5.

[31] J.-T. Sheu, C.-H. Wu, T.-S. Chao, Selective deposition of gold particles on dip-pennanolithography patterns on silicon dioxide surfaces, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 45 (2006)3693.

[32] E. Yuliwati, A.F. Ismail, Effect of additives concentration on the surface propertiesand performance of PVDF ultrafiltration membranes for refinery produced waste-water treatment, Desalination 273 (2011) 226–234.

[33] E. Yuliwati, A.F. Ismail, T. Matsuura, M.A. Kassim, M.S. Abdullah, Effect of modifiedPVDF hollow fiber submerged ultrafiltration membrane for refinery wastewatertreatment, Desalination 283 (2011) 214–220.

[34] E. Yuliwati, A.F. Ismail, T. Matsuura, M.A. Kassim, M.S. Abdullah, Characterization ofsurface-modified porous PVDF hollow fibers for refinery wastewater treatmentusing microscopic observation, Desalination 283 (2011) 206–213.

[35] N. Hamid, A.F. Ismail, T. Matsuura, A. Zularisam, W.J. Lau, E. Yuliwati, M.S. Abdullah,Morphological and separation performance study of polysulfone/titanium dioxide(PSF/TiO 2) ultrafiltration membranes for humic acid removal, Desalination 273(2011) 85–92.

[36] E. Yuliwati, A.S. Mohruni, Membrane processing of refined palm oil wastewaterusing TiO2 entrapped nanoporous PVDF membrane, Applied Mechanics andMaterials, Trans Tech Publication 2014, pp. 16–20.

[37] A. Moslehyani, A. Ismail, M.H.D. Othman, B. Ng, S. Abdullah, M.A. Rahman, Photocat-alytic Membrane Reactor, MST2013, 2013 1–5.

[38] K.S. Jacobson, D.M. Drew, Z. He, Efficient salt removal in a continuously operatedupflow microbial desalination cell with an air cathode, Bioresour. Technol. 102(2011) 376–380.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0011-9164(16)30002-9/rf0005










































































































novel green hybrid processes for oily water photooxidation and purification from merchant ship

Documents