Review

A Brief Review of the Status of Low-Pressure Membrane

Technology Implementation for Petroleum Industry Effluent
Treatment
Kasro Kakil Hassan Dizayee 1 and Simon J. Judd 2,*

1 College of Engineering, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Erbil, Iraq; kasro.dizayee@su.edu.krd

2 Cranfield Water Science Institute, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK MK43 0AL
* Correspondence: simon@juddwater.com

Abstract: Low-pressure membrane technology (ultrafiltration and microfiltration) has been applied
to two key effluents generated by the petroleum industry: produced water (PW) from oil explora-
tion, a significant proportion being generated offshore, and onshore refinery/petrochemical effluent.
PW is treated physicochemically to remove the oil prior to discharge, whereas the onshore effluents
are often treated biologically to remove both the suspended and dissolved organic fractions. This
review examines the efficacy and extent of implementation of membrane technology for these two
distinct applications, focusing on data and information pertaining to the treatment of real effluents
at large/full scale. Reported data trends from PW membrane filtration reveal that, notwithstanding
extensive testing of ceramic membrane material for this duty, the mean fluxes sustained are highly
variable and generally insufficiently high for offshore treatment on oil platforms where space is
limited. This appears to be associated with the use of polymer for chemically-enhanced enhanced
oil recovery, which causes significant membrane fouling impairing membrane permeability.
Against this, the application of MBRs to onshore oil effluent treatment is well established, with a
relatively narrow range of flux values reported (9–17 L.m−2.h−1) and >80% COD removal. It is con-
Citation: Dizayee, K.K.H.; Judd, S.J. cluded that the prospects of MBRs for petroleum industry effluent treatment are more favorable
A Brief Review of the Status of Low-
than implementation of membrane filtration for offshore PW treatment.
Pressure Membrane Technology
Implementation for Petroleum
Keywords: produced water; refinery effluent; petrochemical effluent; ultrafiltration; microfiltration;
Industry Effluent Treatment.
membrane bioreactors; ceramic membranes
Membranes 2022, 12, x.
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx

Academic Editor(s):

Received: date 1. Introduction

Accepted: date The challenge imposed by effluents produced by the petroleum industry has been
Published: date extensively reviewed [1–6]. Effluents range from “produced water” (PW) [2–6] generated
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- from oil exploration—by far the largest-volume effluent across the sector—to those relat-
tral with regard to jurisdictional ing to oil refining (i.e., the separation of crude oil into useful fractions) and the synthesis
claims in published maps and institu- of petrochemicals [1,2]. Produced water (PW) is water that is extracted from an oil well
tional affiliations. with the crude oil during crude oil production. It results from displacing oil in the reser-
voir with environmental waters—most often seawater—and contains many chemical spe-
cies, which are onerous to the environment and/or challenging to oil abstraction [7,8].
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. They include cations which form scales, such as calcium and magnesium, and toxic spe-
Submitted for possible open access cies such as hydrogen sulfide and heavy metals. These species, which can vary signifi-
publication under the terms and con- cantly in concentration both regionally and temporally, can be categorized according to
ditions of the Creative Commons At- their origin and/or chemistry (Figure 1). The extent to which they must be removed is
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- determined by:
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
(a). the legislated limits for discharge to the environment (i.e., to sea),

Membranes 2022, 12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/membranes

Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

(b). the contaminant level limits demanded by reuse of the treated effluent for reinjection
into the reservoir (known as produced water reinjection, or PWRI), and/or
(c). the overall wastewater management strategy and treatment technologies selected,
determined largely by whether the installation is based onshore or offshore (Figure
2).
Key onshore petroleum effluents comprise those discharged from refining and pet-
rochemical manufacturing. Refining refers to the fractionation of crude oil primarily into
transportation fuels, along with heating oils and other more minor oil elements. Petro-
chemicals are the intermediates used to produce industrial and consumer products (e.g.,
plastics, rubbers, resins, synthetic fibers, adhesives, dyes, detergents and pesticides).
For such on-shore installations, where footprint is a less critical factor, relatively low-
energy/high-footprint technologies can be applied. These are often based on biological
treatment processes, frequently applied to industrial effluents including refinery and pet-
rochemical effluents. For offshore applications, where space is limited [2–6], biological
treatment is not considered feasible. The most widely applied treatment technologies on
oil platforms are hydrocyclones followed by induced gas flotation (IGF) [5,6], with media
filtration or other polishing technologies if it is considered essential or viable (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Produced water (PW) primary constituents.

Within the petroleum sector, low-pressure (or “porous”) membrane technologies

have been extensively studied based on abiotic [9–23], i.e., conventional perm-selective
physical separation, and biological [24–29] treatment focused on membrane bioreactor
(MBR) technology (Figure 3), which provides an enhancement over conventional biologi-
cal treatment. Both polymeric and, increasingly for PW applications, ceramic [9,11–12,14–
23,30] ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF) materials have been tested. Although
there has been a preponderance of bench-scale investigations using analogue wastewaters
[9–11,19,21,23], it is the data from studies based on real effluents—including full-scale in-
stallations [24–26]—which offer the most pertinent insight into process technical perfor-
mance.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Figure 2. Treatment options offshore/platform-based (for PW) and onshore (PW and refinery/pet-
rochemical effluents).

Figure 3. Membrane process schematics: (a) abiotic membrane filtration for PW treatment, (b) im-
mersed membrane bioreactor (iMBR), and (c) sidestream membrane bioreactor (sMBR). FBD and
CBD denote fine bubble and course bubble aerators. AO and AE denote the anoxic and aerobic
zones of the bioreactor.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

Given that both on-shore and off-shore installations are faced with similar challenges
in terms of the nature of the effluent, ostensibly from the biorefractory organic matter and
oil content, it is of interest to compare the overall performance of the abiotic and biological
processes with reference to:
• the influent water quality,
• system hydraulics, and specifically sustainability of flux and permeability (the flux
per unit transmembrane pressure, TMP),
• organic carbon removal, as represented by the oil and/or chemical oxygen demand
(COD), and
• requirement for supplementary system components, and specifically pretreatment
and post-treatment.
The above facets are reviewed, based on all accessible information (peer-reviewed
literature, conference presentations, company reports and other grey literature). The col-
lated and synthesized data are subsequently used to inform an assessment of the current
and future likely implementation of the two membrane technologies.

2. Water Quality
Different treated water quality objectives apply to PW for sea discharge and land-
based petroleum effluents. For the former, the discharged water quality is based on the
oil concentration, and physicochemical removal of the suspended oil is normally sufficient
to meet the requirement. The required water quality for effluents discharged inland, on
the other hand, is normally based on the total organic concentration measured as the COD
or BOD.

2.1. Produced Water (PW)

The ranges of concentration of the key PW bulk water quality parameters (Table 1)
vary widely according to the reservoir formation and other geological characteristics [2–
6]. PW is highly saline and is usually supersaturated in key scalant cations such as cal-
cium, magnesium and barium. It often contains elevated levels of toxic metals such as
lead. Scalant species present a challenge from precipitation within the reservoir formation
pores, reducing its permeability and impeding the extraction of oil.

Table 1. Oil field PW quality [31,32].

Parameter Units Min Max

Density kg/m3 1014 1140
Conductivity μS/cm 4200 58,600
Salinity mg/L 1000 >300,000
Total organic carbon, TOC mg/L – 1500
Chemical oxygen demand, COD mg/L 1220 2600
BTEX a mg/L 0.7 24
Oil and grease mg/L 2 565
Total suspended solids, TSS mg/L 1.2 1000
Total dissolved solids, TDS mg/L 100 400,000
a benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

The organic fraction derives largely from the oil itself, which is partitioned between
the dissolved/emulsified and suspended (or “free”) fractions. Free oil presents a greater
challenge than dissolved or emulsified oil due to its high membrane fouling propensity.
The organic chemicals making up the oil fraction are classified according to the general
molecular chemistry (aliphatic or aromatic, saturated or unsaturated), functional groups
(alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, etc.) or individual species. Of the latter, benzene, toluene,
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

ethylbenzene and xylene are collectively expressed as BTEX, these chemicals being ubiq-
uitous in PW. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also expressed as a single
group of compounds, their toxicity having been long recognized [34].
Another key component of the organic fraction is the additives (Figure 1), synthetic
compounds added to the injection water to assist its flow through the formation and sup-
press blockages. The exact composition with reference to the additives is not known
and/or considered proprietary by the industry.

2.2. Refinery Effluent (RE)

Refineries generate products from crude oil (or “crude”) by thermal fractionation:
separation of the crude constituents takes place by virtue of their differing boiling points.
Wastewater streams generated from the refining process include (Table 2):
• tank bottom draws
• desalter effluent
• stripped sour water, and
• cooling tower blowdown.

Table 2. RE stream water quality, mg/L [24].

Stripped Cooling
Parameter BS and W a Desalter Sour Wa- Tower Blow-
ter down
COD 400–1000 400–1000 600–1200 150
Free hydrocarbons Up to 1000 Up to 1000 <10 <5
SS Up to 500 Up to 500 <10 Up to 200
Phenol - 10–100 Up to 200 -
Benzene - 5–15 negligible -
Sulphides Up to 100 Up to 100 - -
Ammonia - Up to 100 - -
TDS High High Low Intermediate
a bottom sediment and water.

Entrained water in crude originates from the oil well extraction process and/or from
ingress during transportation [33]. It is usually removed as storage tank bottom sediment
and water (BS and W) or by the desalter—a key component of the crude oil processing at
the refinery—and forms part of the wastewater. A significant effluent stream derives from
where pre-softened or stripped sour water has been in contact with hydrocarbons.
Wastewaters generated from operations from where no direct contact with hydrocarbons
arises include residual water rejected from boiler feedwater pre-treatment processes, wa-
ter produced from: (i) regeneration of ion exchange resins in zeolite softeners and demin-
eralisers, and (ii) blowdown (the concentrate stream) from cooling towers and boilers.
There is also likely to be minor contamination of stormwaters from run off, as well as
minor flows from laboratory discharges, washing and sewage.
The principal water stream in a refinery is the cooling water (CW), which makes up
50–55% of all the water in a refinery [33]. At times CW can bypass the WwTP to reduce its
hydraulic loading provided the CW quality is appropriate for discharge. In addition, CW
may be used for dilution of high-COD waters if they are otherwise bypassing the WwTP.
Since oil refining combines a number of different processes (Table 2) that generate
effluents of different qualities, reported refinery effluent composition from different stud-
ies vary widely (Table 3). Temporal variations in effluent quality are significant, according
to the sequencing of the discharges from the various internal operations. Consequently,
the key reported determinant of COD varies by more than an order of magnitude—from
around 200 to more than 5000 mg/L—across the different studies.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

Table 3. Reported discharged RE water quality, mg/L [34].

Parameter [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]
pH 8.3–8.9 6.3 8 7.5–10.3 6.7–8.2 7–9 5.6–6.0 8.0–8.2 –
BOD – 61.4 950 – 300–630 150–350 65–80 570 150–350
COD 3600–5300 209 4800 330–556 2500–4100 300–600 228–481 850–1020 300–800
Phenol 11–14 – – – – – – 98–128 20–200
Oil 160–185 11.3 – 40–91 50–100 50 76–105 12.7 3000
TPH 1.8–1.85 – 320 – – – – – –
TOC – – – 57–126 1290–2360 – 76–105 – –
TSS 0.03–0.04 33.1 – 130–250 – 150 90–180 nd 100
BTEX – – – 57–126 – – – 23.9 1–100
Sulphides – – – – – – – 15–23 –
NH3 – 11.9 – 33–41 – 10–30 82 2.1–5.1 –

Notwithstanding the temporal and site/installation-related fluctuations in refinery

effluent quality, a review of the data sets given in Tables 1 and 3 indicates the PW and RE
to be broadly similar in terms of the COD and oil content. However, it cannot necessarily
be inferred from these data that the two streams are of comparable treatability.

3. Abiotic Low-Pressure (UF/MF) Membrane Separation

UF membranes have been used for treating small volumes of oil-laden industrial
wastewaters since the mid 1970s [44], primarily to reduce the volume of wastewater to be
disposed of off-site. Research into filtration of oil-laden waters by low-pressure mem-
branes has subsequently been based on:
• bench-scale studies,
• crossflow operation of tubular or square-channel membrane elements to sustain high
shears and thus suppress membrane surface fouling,
• analogue (or synthetic) effluent feeds,
• refinery wastewaters, and
• limited duration (<6 h) trials conducted under constant transmembrane pressure
(TMP) conditions.
Studies have demonstrated the expected effective rejection of emulsified and sus-
pended oil down to levels well below legislated discharge limits [9–23], which are gener-
ally in the region of 30 mg/L total oil. This is currently the only stipulated water quality
requirement for PW discharged from oil platforms, although there is a legal requirement
for assessing environmental risk. Unlike the classical PW clarification technologies (Figure
1), membrane separation is not limited in efficacy by the oil droplet size.
The literature reveals an increased interest in ceramic membranes for this duty, with
some commercial suppliers apparently collaborating in site-based demonstration trials
[14,15]—though such trials have been very limited in number in the case of PW treatment.
Ceramic materials provide greater tolerance to aggressive chemical and thermal condi-
tions. They are also considered to offer greater resistance to fouling by the effluent hydro-
phobic content. Trials encompassing both real PW and its analogues have demonstrated
the significantly greater fouling propensity of the former [10–11,19].
Outputs of the various of studies (Table 4) have been largely defined by a rapid de-
cline in flux (or permeability) to some neo-steady-state value. There is no apparent pattern
in this decline across the different studies, though it must clearly relate to key factors such
as feedwater composition, hydraulics (primarily crossflow velocity, CFV) and tempera-
ture, as well as the characteristics of the membrane itself. Various studies [11–13,19,21–22]
have demonstrated the efficacy of optimizing the physical (backflushing) and chemical
cleaning to sustain the flux.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

A key reported observation regarding the application of low-pressure membrane

technology to PW concerns the impact of polymers, employed in chemical enhanced oil
recovery (CEOR) [23,45]. Polymers are used to enhance the displacement of oil from the
formation, but in doing so increase the PW viscosity and decrease the oil droplet size. The
increased degree of emulsification of the oil challenges oil–water separation by the con-
ventional hydrocyclone and induced gas flotation methods (Figure 2).

Table 4. Reported filtration performance from abiotic UF-MF studies.

Oil Concn mg/L, Pore Size Init Flux, Fin Flux, Fin Perm,
Scale Material TMP, bar Ref
Water Source μm LMH LMH LMH/bar
6000, RE b ZrO 0.2 240 120–175 1.1 109–159 [9]
b PS 0.007 225 128 1–1.7 95 [10]
366, PW
b PS 0.006 100 70 1–1.7 74
b AlO 0.2 128 28 1 28
200–1000, tank de-
b TiO 0.05 80 4 1 <5 [11]
watering effl.
b TiO 0.05 120 30 1 120–30
50–350, synth p AlO 0.1–0.5 - 80–175 0.06–0.25 400–800 [12]
Gas field PW p ZrO 0.05 - 170–255 - 190–250 [13]
3–25 (24–74), PW p SiC 0.1–0.5 25–120 50 0.3–1.5 150 [14]
TiO 0.5–3.5 60 [15]
PW p 0.01–0.1 200 -
SiC 0.25–1.5 135
221–722, PW p 0.35–0.95 450–1020 [16]
SiC 0.04–0.1 - 135–590
20, PW p 0.6 520
3000, RE b PS 0.1–0.2 145 65 1.5 50–15 [17]
p AlO 0.05 200 - 1.52 132
SAGD effl. [18]
p ZrO 202 - 1.52 45
100, synth b, p ZrO 0.1 910 194–240 2 97–120
[19]
~60, RE b, p ZrO 0.1 910 175 2 88
~250, RE b ZrO 0.1 1000 290 1.5 193 [20]
9–43, PW p AlO 0.2 - 295–312 2.5 118–125
[21]
b PAN 202 - 104–280 5 20–36
0.04 - ~350 370–380
24–95, PW p SiC 0.55–0.6 [22]
0.5 - ~700 1190–1240
100, synth + poly b ZrO 0.1 430 69 1–2 35 [23]
2
LMH liters per m per hr; SAGD Steam-assisted gravity drainage; OFPW oilfield produced water; TMP transmembrane
pressure; TSS total suspended solids; b bench; p pilot; synth synthetic (analogue) feed; AlO aluminium oxide; PS Polysul-
phone; SiC silicon carbide; TiO titanium oxide; ZrO zirconium oxide; poly CEOR polymer.

Critically, the polymer has been demonstrated to cause rapid fouling of ceramic
membranes [23]. Given that the implementation of membrane technology for PW treat-
ment on offshore platforms has been reported to rely on sustaining a flux above ~650 LMH
[18,20] to ensure a sufficiently low footprint, the challenge imposed by polymer fouling
associated with CEOR is significant. Whilst the fouling can be expected to be controlled
by the backflush and chemical cleaning cycles, these increase the process downtime (and
so decrease the net flux) and add to the installation footprint through the tankage and
equipment requirement associated with storage and conveying of cleaning chemicals.

4. Membrane Biological Treatment (MBRs)

In contrast to the apparent absence of implemented UF/MF polishing of PW on off-
shore oil platforms, MBRs have been employed for treating refinery and petrochemical
effluents for more than 15 years. An early example is the landmark Syndial plant at Porto
Marghera in Italy, which treats an average daily flow of 38,400 m 3/d and was installed in
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

2005. The largest congregation of petrochemical industry MBR plants is in China: by the
end of 2010 there were at least 12 MBRs treating petroleum effluents, each of more than
5000 m3/d individual capacity, providing a combined treatment capacity of more than
130,000 m3/d in mainland China [46,47]. Against this, the implementation of MBRs for on-
shore PW treatment appears to have been much more limited, with studies largely re-
stricted to short-term bench-scale studies [29].
A crucial facet of the MBR technology, and biological processes generally, is that they
provide removal of both dissolved and suspended organic material rather than just the
suspended oil. A review of data reported for COD removal from refinery and petrochem-
ical effluents based on both bench and pilot scale studies [52–59] and full-scale references
[24–26] (Table 5) reveals them to achieve an average of 91% COD removal, leaving a re-
sidual of 56 mg/L on average (Figure 4).

Table 5. Reported performance of full-scale MBR installations treating refinery and petrochemical
effluents [24–26].

Sinopec Sinopec Jin- Yunlin/For- Yanan

Porta Maghera Dalsung Petrobras [24]
Guangzhou ling mosa Fengfuchuan
Country Italy China China Taiwan Korea Brazil China
Applica- Oilfield
Petrochemical Refinery Petroleum Petroleum Industrial park Refinery
tion reinjection
Configura-
iHF iHF iHF iHF iHF iHF sMT
tion
Material PVDF PVDF PVDF PVDF HDPE PVDF PES
Required dis-
Restricted Limit risk of
Selection Required dis- Re-use (cool- Re-use (cool- charge WQ Required dis-
footprint and reservoir pore
reason(s) charge WQ ing towers) ing towers) and restricted charge WQ
water re-use. plugging
footprint.
Capacity
47.5 PDF 4.8 ADF 6 ADF 25 PDF 25 PDF 7.2 PDF 1.5 PDF
(MLD)
HRT, h 20 18 16 - 8 - -
SRT, d - 49 26 - 45 36 -
Feed COD,
280 ~150 ~300 990 50 850 45 (oil)
mg/L
% COD
>96% >80% >80% 95% >80% 93% >98% (oil)
rem
MLSS, g/L 8.4 (design) 3 (3.5 MT) 3 (4.5, MT) 3.5 8 10 -
Flux
9 9 10 17 12.5 16.4 44
(LMH)
SECm
- 0.60 0.60 - 0.70 - -
(kWh/m3)
30% sewage 75% sewage
MBR down- MBR down- Probably MBR down-
feed. MBR feed. 25% in-
Pre and post stream of DAF stream of pri- downstream of stream of
Notes downstream of dustrial stream
DN employed + oxidation mary sed. 40 h primary sedi- skimmer and
primary sedi- pre-clarified
ditch. 12 h EQ EQ mentation DAF.
mentation and w. 8 h EQ
KEY iHF immersed hollow fiber; sMT sidestream multitube; PVDF polyvinylidene difluoride; HDPE high-density pol-
yethylene; PES polyethylsulphone; WQ water quality; MLD megaliters per day; ADF average daily flow; PDF peak daily
flow; HRT hydraulic retention time; SRT solids retention time; MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids; SEDm specific energy
consumption of membrane permeation; DN denitrification; DAF dissolved air flotation; EQ equalization.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

Figure 4. Mean key MBR process performance parameters, each based on 7–9 data points, for refin-
ery and petrochemical treatment [24–26,54–59]. Bars represent the mean values of parameters ab-
stracted from Table, and the error bars the standard deviation around the mean.

Unlike the abiotic UF-MF application to PW treatment, where a very significant range
of pseudo-steady state fluxes have been reported from bench and pilot scale studies (Table
4), the range of sustainable fluxes reported from full-scale MBR installations treating re-
finery and petrochemical effluents is relatively narrow at 9–17 LMH in the case of the
immersed process configuration (iMBR), where the membrane modules are submerged in
a tank (Figure 3b).
In the case of the sidestream configuration (sMBR), where the sludge from the biore-
actor is pumped under pressure through an external multitube (MT) module (Figure 3c),
the flux is significantly higher. The example given in Table 5 is the installation at Yanan
Fengfuchuan, where a mean net flux of 44 LMH is reported based on the stated flow ca-
pacity and total membrane area. The sMBR configuration more closely resembles that of
the PW membrane filtration plants (Figure 3a) and yields a commensurately higher flux
than the immersed configuration due to the higher shears and TMPs applied.
As with abiotic membrane filtration of PW, MBR treatment of RE is often immedi-
ately preceded by flotation to reduce the load of free oil onto the membrane separation
process, though sedimentation pretreatment appears to be favored for petrochemical ef-
fluents in China [47]. In the case of MBRs, dissolved air flotation (DAF) is employed rather
than IGF: IGF is used for offshore PW treatment since oxygen has to be excluded from the
treatment train to avoid corrosion issues and suppress explosion risks [6].
Moreover, MBRs are more tolerant of feedwater free oil than the abiotic process since
the effluent flows initially into the biological process tank (Figure 3b,c). This tank contains
a high concentration (8–10 g/L) of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), which also re-
tain the bacteria responsible for biodegrading the organic matter. Fouling of the mem-
brane directly by the free oil is thus mitigated by: (a) the partitioning of the oil between
the MLSS and the liquid phase, and (b) biodegradation by the bacteria. The low design
flux of the iMBRs also significantly reduces membrane fouling propensity.
Whilst most MBR membrane products are polymeric, and more than half of these
polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) [24], implementation of ceramic multitube membranes
for potable water treatment began in the late 90s [48] and ceramic MBR membrane imple-
mentation has been steadily increasing since the first installation in the mid-noughties
[49,52]. There are currently at least five commercially-available ceramic iFS module prod-
ucts [50]. Whilst the material is 4–6 times more costly than the polymeric membranes in
terms of the purchase price per m2 membrane area, the membrane life is envisaged as
being at least double that of the polymeric materials and the fluxes sustained significantly
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

higher—partly because the mechanical strength and chemical resistance of the ceramic
material permits more aggressive chemical cleaning [51].

5. Conclusions
Some key observations can be made regarding the relative extent of implementation
of membrane technology for offshore PW treatment and onshore refinery/petrochemical
effluent treatment:
1. PW UF/MF membrane filtration studies have been limited in scale and duration, and
largely based on synthetic/analogue feedwaters, which are not necessarily repre-
sentative of real effluents. A wide range of final fluxes (4–700 LMH) and permeabili-
ties (5–1240 LMH/bar) have consequently been reported, which may not be repre-
sentative of full-scale operation.
2. The most economical method of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is through dosing with
polymer. Whilst this improves the yield of oil from reservoirs, it also causes signifi-
cant membrane fouling [23,45]. This decreases the flux, commensurately increasing
the required membrane area and associated footprint to beyond the threshold where
implementation on offshore oil platforms can be considered feasible [20,22].
3. Ceramic membranes have been successfully implemented for onshore applications,
with examples from 1997 onwards of abiotic potable water installations in Japan, [48]
and, from 2007 onwards, MBR technologies for wastewater treatment [52]. Despite
the apparent viability of ceramic membranes for these onshore duties, there has been
no significant implementation for the key offshore application of PW filtration using
either ceramic or polymeric membrane materials and no successful demonstration-
scale trials reported.
4. Onshore treatment of refinery and petrochemical effluents specifically using MBR
technology, providing advanced biological treatment, has been established since the
early noughties. Such treatment is appropriate since removal of both the suspended
and dissolved organic matter (manifested as the COD) for this duty rather than just
suspended oil removal as for PW treatment.
5. The main contributors to MBR operational costs have been shown to be labor effort,
sustainable flux, energy, and membrane replacement [53]. The comparative eco-
nomic viability of ceramic membrane-based MBR technology for effluent treatment
compared with the polymeric materials is thus dependent on the cost benefit offered
by the reduced labor effort, longer membrane life and higher fluxes weighed against
the cost penalty of the membrane material [50].
A simple SWOT analysis of the two technologies and applications (Figure 5) suggests
that CEOR represents a key threat to the implementation of UF/MF offshore, unless the
noted fouling challenge can be mitigated. Furthermore, the absence of a successful ex-
tended site-based demonstration of the technology remains a significant barrier. Against
this, membrane filtration is perhaps the only reasonable option for reinjection of the re-
covered PW in the reservoir, given the severe economic ramifications of impairing the
reservoir permeability if the water is insufficiently clarified.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 5. SWOT analysis, abiotic offshore PW membrane filtration vs. onshore MBR treatment of
refinery and petroleum effluents.

MBR technology has been applied to oil industry effluents for over 15 years. It is
particularly favored if water reuse is a key objective, since the process provides robustness
pretreatment upstream of reverse osmosis demineralization. It is nonetheless relatively
high in energy consumption, and the membrane replacement (in the case of polymeric
membrane materials) adds significantly to the operating costs. The drive towards low-
energy treatment solutions could present a significant threat to MBR technology imple-
mentation in the future, though energy efficiencies and general robustness of the process
continue to improve.
It is concluded that the prospects of MBRs for onshore petroleum industry effluent
treatment appear favorable. The implementation of abiotic UF/MF for offshore duties, on
the other hand, appears to be hampered by the challenge imposed by membrane fouling
and the associated impaired membrane permeability.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.J.J. and K.K.H.D.; funding acquisition, K.K.H.D.; writ-
ing—original draft, K.K.H.D.; writing—reviewing and editing, S.J.J. and K.K.H.D.; project admin-
istration, K.K.H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and advice provided by Mr.
Alan Azad Rauof of the KAR Group.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

List of Abbreviations
ADF Average daily flow
AE Aerobic
AlO Aluminum oxide
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

AO Anoxic
API American Petroleum Institute
ASF Advance sand filtration
BOD Biological oxygen demand
BS and W Bottom sediment and water
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene
CBD Course bubble diffuser
CEOR Chemically-enhanced oil recovery
CFV Crossflow velocity
COD Chemical oxygen demand
CW Cooling water
DAF Dissolved air flotation
DN Denitrification
EQ Equalization
FBD Fine bubble diffuser
HDPE High density polyethylene
HRT Hydraulic retention time
IFAS Integrated fixed-film activated sludge
IGF Induced gas flotation
iHF Immersed hollow fiber
iMBR Immersed membrane bioreactor
LMH Liter/m2/h
MBBR Moving bed bioreactor
MBR Membrane bioreactor
MLD Millions of liters per day
MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids
MT Multitube
MF Microfiltration
OFPW Oilfield produced water
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PDF Peak daily flow
PES Polyethylsulphone
PS Polysulphone
PVDF Polyvinylidene fluoride
PW Produced water
PWRI Produced water reinjection
RE Refinery effluent
SAGD Steam-assisted gravity drainage
SBR Sequence batch reactor
SEDm Specific energy consumption of membrane permeation
SiC Silicon carbide
sMBR Sidestream membrane bioreactor
sMT Sidestream multitube
SRT Solid retention time
SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
TDS Total dissolved solids
TiO Titanium oxide
TMP Transmembrane pressure
TOC Total organic carbon
TSS Total suspended solids
UF Ultrafiltration
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

WQ Water quality
WwTP Wastewater treatment plant
ZrO Zirconium oxide

References
1. Lin, H.; Gao, W.; Meng, F.; Liao, B.-Q.; Leung, K.-T.; Zhao, L.; Chen, J.; Hong, H. Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial
Wastewater Treatment: A Critical Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 42, 677–740.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2010.526494.
2. Munirasu, S.; Abu Haija, M.; Banat, F. Use of membrane technology for oil field and refinery produced water treatment—A
review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 100, 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.01.010.
3. Al Jabri, F.; Muruganandam, L.; Aljuboury, D.A.D.A. Treatment of the oilfield-produced water and oil refinery wastewater by
using inverse fluidization—A review. Global Nest Rev. 2019, 21, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.002975.
4. Amakiri, K. T.; Canon, A. R.; Molinari, M.; Angelis-Dimakis, A. Review of oilfield produced water treatment technologies.
Chemosphere, 2022 298 doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134064.
5. Judd, S.; Qiblawey, H.; Al-Marri, M.J.; Clarkin, C.; Watson, S.; Ahmed, A.; Bach, S. The size and performance of offshore pro-
duced water oil-removal technologies for reinjection. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 134, 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sep-
pur.2014.07.037.
6. Stewart, M.; Arnold, K. Produced Water Treatment Field Manual; Gulf Professional Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/c2009-0-61889-4.
7. Bayat, M.; Mehrnia, M.R.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Sheikh-Sofla, R. Petrochemical wastewater treatment and reuse by MBR: A pilot
study for ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol and olefin units. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 25, 265–271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.11.003
8. Amaral, M.C.S.; De Andrade, L.H.; Neta, L.S.F.; Moravia, W.G. Long-term use of the critical flux for fouling control in mem-
brane bioreactors treating different industrial effluents: Bench and pilot scale. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 55, 859–869.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.937767.
9. Zhong, J.; Sun, X.; Wang, C. Treatment of oily wastewater produced from refinery processes using flocculation and ceramic
membrane filtration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2003, 32, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1383-5866(03)00067-4.
10. Chakrabarty, B.; Ghoshal, A.K.; Purkait, M.K. Cross-flow ultrafiltration of stable oil-in-water emulsion using polysulfone mem-
branes. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 165, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.09.031.
11. Ebrahimi, M.; Willershausen, D.; Ashaghi, K.S.; Engel, L.; Placido, L.; Mund, P.; Bolduan, P.; Czermak, P. Investigations on the
use of different ceramic membranes for efficient oil-field produced water treatment. Desalination 2010, 250, 991–996.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.088.
12. Silalahi, S.H.; Leiknes, T. Cleaning strategies in ceramic microfiltration membranes fouled by oil and particulate matter in pro-
duced water. Desalination 2009, 236, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.10.063.
13. Subramani, A.; Schlicher, R.; Long, J.; Yu, J.; Lehman, S.; Jacangelo, J.G. Recovery optimization of membrane processes for
treatment of produced water with high silica content. Desalination Water Treat. 2011, 36, 297–309.
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2604.
14. CoMeTas, Commissioning of the SemCoMem unit, Company report, 2011, Project no. 110–11.
15. Pedenaud, P.; Heng, S.; Evans, W.; Bieonneau, D. Ceramic Membrane and Core Pilot Results for Produced Water, OTC-22371-
PP. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 4–6 October 2011.
16. Prado‐Rubio, O.A.; Cardona, D.; Svendsen, T.; Yuan, L. SiC Membrane Pilot Plant Ultrafiltration Test for Produced Water Treatment,
Ocelote Field—Hocol (Colombia); Company report; Liqtech: Ballerup, Denmark, 2012.
17. Madaeni, S.S.; Gheshlaghi, A.; Rekabdar, F. Membrane treatment of oily wastewater from refinery processes: Membrane Treat-
ment of Oily Wastewater. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2013, 8, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.1619.
18. Guirgis, A.; Gay-De-Montella, R.; Faiz, R. Treatment of produced water streams in SAGD processes using tubular ceramic
membranes. Desalination 2015, 358, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.007.
19. Weschenfelder, S.E.; Louvisse, A.M.; Borges, C.; Meabe, E.; Izquierdo, J.; Campos, J. Evaluation of ceramic membranes for oil-
field produced water treatment aiming reinjection in offshore units. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 131, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pet-
rol.2015.04.019.
20. Weschenfelder, S.E.; Fonseca, M.J.d.C.; Borges, C.; Campos, J. Application of ceramic membranes for water management in
offshore oil production platforms: Process design and economics. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 171, 214–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.07.040.
21. Reyhani, A.; Meighani, H.M. Optimal operating conditions of micro- and ultra-filtration systems for produced-water purifica-
tion: Taguchi method and economic investigation. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 19642–19654.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1101714.
22. Zsirai, T.; Qiblawey, H.; Buzatu, P.; Al-Marri, M.; Judd, S. Cleaning of ceramic membranes for produced water filtration. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 2018, 166, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.03.036.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 15

23. Weschenfelder, S.; Fonseca, M.; Borges, C. Treatment of produced water from polymer flooding in oil production by ceramic
membranes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 196, 108021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108021.
24. Judd, S.J. Industrial MBRs; Judd & Judd: Cranfield, UK, 2014.
25. The MBR Site. Available online: www.thembrsite.com (accessed on 17 March 2022).
26. Cerqueira, A.C.; Lopes, T.; Santiago, V.; Vallero, M.; Trovati, J.; Arntsen, B.; Syed, W. Design and Performance of the First Full
Scale Membrane Bioreactor Plant Treating Oil Refinery Effluent in Brazil. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2013, 2013, 3573–3584.
https://doi.org/10.2175/193864713813685557.
27. Ahmadi, M.; Benis, K.Z.; Faraji, M.; Shakerkhatibi, M.; Aliashrafi, A. Process performance and multi-kinetic modeling of a mem-
brane bioreactor treating actual oil refinery wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 28, 115–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.01.010.
28. Sambusiti, C.; Saadouni, M.; Gauchou, V.; Segues, B.; Leca, M.A.; Baldoni-Andrey, P.; Jacob, M. Influence of HRT reduction on
pilot scale flat sheet submerged membrane bioreactor (sMBR) performances for Oil&Gas wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci.
2020, 594, 117459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117459.
29. Asante-Sackey, D.; Rathilal, S.; Tetteh, E.K.; Armah, E.K. Membrane Bioreactors for Produced Water Treatment: A Mini-Review.
Membranes 2022, 12, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12030275.
30. Samaei, S.M.; Gato-Trinidad, S.; Altaee, A. The application of pressure-driven ceramic membrane technology for the treatment
of industrial wastewaters—A review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2018, 200, 198–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.02.041.
31. Liu, Y.; Lu, H.; Li, Y.; Xu, H.; Pan, Z.; Dai, P.; Wang, H.; Yang, Q. A review of treatment technologies for produced water in
offshore oil and gas fields. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145485.
32. Fakhru’L-Razi, A.; Pendashteh, A.; Abdullah, L.C.; Biak, D.R.A.; Madaeni, S.S.; Abidin, Z.Z. Review of technologies for oil and
gas produced water treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.044.
33. IPIECA. Petroleum Refining Water/Wastewater Use and Management 2010, Operations Best Practice Series, IPIECA, London.
Available online: https://www.ipieca.org/resources/good-practice/petroleum-refining-water-wastewater-use-and-manage-
ment/ (accessed on 17 March 2022).
34. Pal, S.; Banat, F.; Almansoori, A.; Haija, M.A. Review of technologies for biotreatment of refinery wastewaters: Progress, chal-
lenges and future opportunities. Environ. Technol. Rev. 2016, 5, 12–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622515.2016.1164252.
35. El-Naas, M.; Acio, J.A.; El Telib, A.E. Aerobic biodegradation of BTEX: Progresses and Prospects. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2,
1104–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2014.04.009.
36. Tong, K.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, G.; Ye, Z.; Chu, P. Treatment of heavy oil wastewater by a conventional activated sludge process
coupled with an immobilized biological filter. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation 2013, 84, 65–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2013.06.002.
37. Gargouri, B.; Karray, F.; Mhiri, N.; Aloui, F.; Sayadi, S. Application of a continuously stirred tank bioreactor (CSTR) for biore-
mediation of hydrocarbon-rich industrial wastewater effluents. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 189, 427–434.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.057.
38. Khaing, T.-H.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Wai, N.; Wong, F.-S. Feasibility study on petrochemical wastewater treatment and reuse using a
novel submerged membrane distillation bioreactor. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2010, 74, 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sep-
pur.2010.05.016.
39. Wei, L.; Guo, S.; Yan, G.; Chen, C.; Jiang, X. Electrochemical pretreatment of heavy oil refinery wastewater using a three-dimen-
sional electrode reactor. Electrochimica Acta 2010, 55, 8615–8620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2010.08.011.
40. Ma, F.; Guo, J.-B.; Zhao, L.-J.; Chang, C.-C.; Cui, D. Application of bioaugmentation to improve the activated sludge system into
the contact oxidation system treating petrochemical wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 597–602.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.06.066.
41. Lu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, W.; Zhu, W. Biological treatment of oilfield-produced water: A field pilot study. Int. Biodeterior. Biodeg-
radation 2009, 63, 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2008.09.009.
42. Coelho, A.; Castro, A.V.; Dezotti, M.; Sant’Anna, G. Treatment of petroleum refinery sourwater by advanced oxidation pro‐
cesses. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.01.051.
43. Dold, P. Current Practice for Treatment of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater and Toxics Removal. Water Pollut. Res. J. 1989, 24,
363–390. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.1989.023.
44. Goldsmith, R.L.; Roberts, D.A.; Burre, D.L. Ultrafiltration of soluble oil wastes. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 1974, 46, 2183–2192.
45. Li, C.; Li, J.; Wang, N.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, P. Status of the treatment of produced water containing polymer in oilfields: A review.
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105303.
46. Zhang, J.; Xiao, K.; Liu, Z.; Gao, T.; Liang, S.; Huang, X. Large-Scale Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
in China: Technical and Economic Features, Driving Forces, and Perspectives. Engineering 2021, 7, 868–880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.09.012.
47. Li, P.; Liu, L.; Wu, J.; Cheng, R.; Shi, L.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, Z. Identify driving forces of MBR applications in China. Sci. Total
Environ. 2018, 647, 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.412.
48. Hattori, K. Operation with ceramic membrane filtration system for SWTP in Japan. In Sborník Konference Pitn´a Voda; W&ET
Team, C.: Budejovice, Czech Republic, 2010; pp. 101–106. ISBN 978-80-254-6854-8.
Membranes 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 15

49. Binkle, O.; Gabriel, K.; Braun, G.; Nonninger, R. Small-scale sewage plant tests ceramic flat membranes. Water Wastewater Int.
2005, 20, 42–43. Available online: https://www.waterworld.com/technologies/article/16201625/smallscale-sewage-plant-tests-
ceramic-flat-membranes (accessed on 17 March 2022).
50. Jarvis, P.; Carra, I.; Jafari, M.; Judd, S. Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment. Water Res.
2022, 215, 118269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118269.
51. Kurth, C.J.; Wise, B.L.; Smith, S. Design considerations for implementing ceramics in new and existing polymeric UF systems.
Water Pr. Technol. 2018, 13, 725–737. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2018.081.
52. Kaplan, A.; Kaschek, M. Case study—Application of Ceramic Membranes on MBR and MBBR Process, Unpublished Report.
2009. Available online: https://docplayer.net/30930733-Case-study-application-of-ceramic-membranes-on-mbr-and-mbbr-pro-
cess.html (accessed on 17 March 2022).
53. Qiblawey, H.; Judd, S. Industrial effluent treatment with immersed MBRs: Treatability and cost. Water Sci. Technol. 2019, 80,
762–772. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.318.
54. Alsalhy, Q.F.; Almukhtar, R.S.; Alani, H.A. Oil Refinery Wastewater Treatment by Using Membrane Bioreactor (MBR). Arab. J.
Sci. Eng. 2015, 41, 2439–2452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1881-9.
55. Razavi, S.M.R.; Miri, T. A real petroleum refinery wastewater treatment using hollow fiber membrane bioreactor (HF-MBR). J.
Water Process Eng. 2015, 8, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.09.011.
56. Alkmim, A.R.; da Costa, P.R.; Moser, P.B.; Neta, L.S.F.; Santiago, V.M.J.; Cerqueira, A.C.; Amaral, M.C.S. Long-term evaluation
of different strategies of cationic polyelectrolyte dosage to control fouling in a membrane bioreactor treating refinery effluent.
Environ. Technol. 2016, 37, 1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2015.1096964.
57. Jelic, A.; Di Fabio, S.; Vecchiato, G.; Cecchi, F.; Fatone, F. Nano-occurrence and removal of PCBs within the Europe's largest
petrochemical MBR system. Water Res. 2015, 83, 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.009.
58. Wang, Z.; Liu, X.; Luo, H.; Peng, B.; Sun, X.; Liu, Y.; Rui, Z. Foaming Properties and Foam Structure of Produced Liquid in
Alkali/Surfactant/Polymer Flooding Production. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 2021, 143, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050498.
59. Al-Maamari, R.S.; Sueyoshi, M.; Tasaki, M.; Kojima, K.; Okamura, K. Polymer Flood Produced Water Treatment Trials. In Pro-
ceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—30th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition Conference, ADIPEC, Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 10–13 November 2014. https://doi.org/10.2118/172024-ms.