Next Article in Journal
Effect of Different Catalyst Supports on the Quality, Yield and Morphology of Carbon Nanotubes Produced from Waste Polypropylene Plastics
Previous Article in Journal
Cost Effective Solvothermal Method to Synthesize Zn-Doped TiO2 Nanomaterials for Photovoltaic and Photocatalytic Degradation Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploitation of Lignocellulose Fiber-Based Biotemplates to Improve the Performance of an Immobilized TiO2 Photocatalyst
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Catalysts
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/catal11060691
catalysts-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Catalytic Membrane Reactors: The Industrial Applications Perspective

by
Catia Algieri
1,*,
Gerardo Coppola
2,
Debolina Mukherjee
2,
Mahaad Issa Shammas
3,
Vincenza Calabro
2,
Stefano Curcio
2 and
Sudip Chakraborty
2,*
1
Institute on Membrane Technology, National Research Council of Italy (ITM–CNR), Cubo 17C, Via Pietro Bucci, 87036 Rende, Italy
2
Department of DIMES, University of Calabria, Via Pietro Bucci, Cubo 42A, 87036 Rende, Italy
3
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Dhofar University, Salalah 211, Sultanate of Oman
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2021, 11(6), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11060691
Submission received: 23 April 2021 / Revised: 24 May 2021 / Accepted: 27 May 2021 / Published: 29 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Photocatalytic Membrane and Reactor for Environmental Remediation Processes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Catalytic membrane reactors have been widely used in different production industries around the world. Applying a catalytic membrane reactor (CMR) reduces waste generation from a cleaner process perspective and reduces energy consumption in line with the process intensification strategy. A CMR combines a chemical or biochemical reaction with a membrane separation process in a single unit by improving the performance of the process in terms of conversion and selectivity. The core of the CMR is the membrane which can be polymeric or inorganic depending on the operating conditions of the catalytic process. Besides, the membrane can be inert or catalytically active. The number of studies devoted to applying CMR with higher membrane area per unit volume in multi-phase reactions remains very limited for both catalytic polymeric and inorganic membranes. The various bio-based catalytic membrane system is also used in a different commercial application. The opportunities and advantages offered by applying catalytic membrane reactors to multi-phase systems need to be further explored. In this review, the preparation and the application of inorganic membrane reactors in the different catalytic processes as water gas shift (WGS), Fisher Tropsch synthesis (FTS), selective CO oxidation (CO SeLox), and so on, have been discussed.

1. Inorganic Membrane Reactor

1.1. Introduction to Catalytic Inorganic Membrane Reactors

Since the conventional methodologies of chemical processes have been successfully applied to synthesize enormous numbers of sophisticated products, researchers worldwide have been searching for alternative methods, which are more efficient concerning energy consumption, space reduction, and environmental safety [1]. One of the most promising strategies to achieve these challenging goals is utilizing catalysts. Catalysts play an essential role in numerous environmental transformations with high reaction regioselectivity and stereospecificity. These peculiar characteristics allow scientists to apply them in modern chemistry and organic synthesis processes. Anyway, the rapid growth of the chemical industries for producing different chemicals requires improving manufacturing and processing by reducing the equipment size, energy consumption, and waste production to achieve sustainable and cheaper technologies (process intensification strategy) [1].
Membrane reactors, a process intensification technology, combine the membrane separation process with chemical or biochemical reactions in a single unit [2]. This combination determines higher conversion and improved selectivity and a compact and cost-effective reactor design [3]. Considering these aspects, membrane reactors (MRs) represent a potential technology in different fields: pharmaceutical, biotechnology, petrochemical sectors, energy, and environmental applications, including phase change behaviour [4].
MRs are categorized as polymeric (or organic) and inorganic depending on the chemical process operating conditions. Polymeric membranes can operate at temperatures that do not exceed 300 °C [5,6]. Inorganic membranes can be used when polymeric ones fail considering that they can operate at higher temperatures (300–800 °C and in some case over 1000 °C) and in the aggressive chemical environment due to their high chemical resistance [7]. In addition, in polymeric membranes, there is a trade-off between permeability and selectivity. Generally, glassy polymers have high selectivity and low permeability, while rubbery polymers show high permeability and low selectivity [8]. Considering this disadvantage, inorganic membranes have elicited much attention due to their high permeability and selectivity. The limits in the inorganic membrane field are the high production cost and the brittleness [9]. Different materials have been used to fabricate inorganic membranes as carbon, silica, alumina, titania, zirconia, zeolite, palladium, silver, and alloy [10,11]. Inorganic membranes can also be classified as dense or porous. Porous membranes are categorized according to the IUPAC classification into macroporous (pore diameter (pd) > 50 nm), mesoporous (2 nm < pd < 50 nm) and microporous (0.5 nm < pd < 2 nm) [11]. These membranes are self-standing or supported, the support being used to give them mechanical strength [12].
According to the role of the membrane in the reactor, three different configurations have been identified: extractor, distributor and contactor and their; these aspects will be deeply explained in Section 2. In addition, the inorganic membranes used in MR can be inert or catalytically active. In the first case, the catalytic particles are separated from the membrane or are dispersed in its pores, and these configurations are called inert membrane reactor (IMR). In the last case, the membrane acts as both separator and catalysts, and this configuration is called catalytic membrane reactor (CMR).
In this review, the different methods used for the preparation of inorganic membranes have been presented. The application of inorganic membrane reactors in different interesting reactions has also been discussed.

1.2. Preparation of Inorganic Membrane Reactors

The materials frequently use for ceramic membrane preparation are alumina (Al2O3), titania (TiO2), zirconia (ZrO), glass (SiO2), and combinations of these metal oxides [10,11]. These membranes present an asymmetric structure with two or three layers characterized by different pore sizes [13]. The first layer acts as a support, and the second one is fragile and is responsible for the separation having a small pore size [14]. An intermediate layer is sometimes synthesized to ensure a structural fitting between the other two; the ceramic membrane layers are schematically illustrated in Figure 1 [14].
The methods used for their synthesis are slip casting, extrusion, pressing, freeze-casting, and sol-gel [15,16,17,18]. Among them, the most used is the slip-casting that includes the following three steps: In the beginning, a paste or suspension is prepared by using a ceramic powder. The paste is deposited on a porous support. Finally, the ceramic membrane was subjected to a drying and heat treatment [19,20]. Tape casting and pressing technique permit fabricating flat sheet membranes. A ceramic paste is added to a reservoir and cast utilizing a blade adjusted at a fixed height in the tape casting. After, the membrane is dried and sintered at high temperatures [21]. In the pressing, the paste poured into a metal mould, and a force equivalent to 100 to 1000 bar was applied for producing an asymmetric membrane with a flat configuration. Finally, the sintering procedure is performed [22].
Tubular (mono and multichannel) and hollow-fibre membranes are prepared using the extrusion method. In this process, a semi-dried past passed through an orifice with a fixed cross-section and shape [22]. The freeze-casting process is used for the preparation of highly porous membranes. Initially, a solid suspension is frozen. Later, the sublimation of the frozen solvent (by operating at low pressures) allows the formation of the porous structure [23]. In the sol-gel method, the natural compound (metal alkoxide) is dissolved in a solvent, and then the hydrolysis permits the formation of a monomer [24]. The monomer polymerizes, and the formed polymer is deposited on a support surface. After drying and thermal treatment, the membrane is obtained. The high production cost hinders a broad application of the ceramic membranes; in fact, different researchers focus their activity on fabricating ceramic membranes by using waste with the urban or industrial origin [25].
Zeolites are aluminosilicate materials with pore size at the molecular scale and high thermal and chemical resistance. By changing the reaction mixture’s Si/Al molar ratio the resulting zeolites can have hydrophilic or hydrophobic character [26]. Considering these peculiar characteristics, zeolite membranes can continuously separate a mixture of liquid and gas species with similar sizes and shapes and different adsorption properties [27]. They can be used as membrane reactors [28]. Zeolite membranes are prepared on supports (usually in alumina or stainless steel) to ensure their mechanical stability [29]. Two main methods are used for their synthesis: the traditional method (called too one-step or in-situ) [30] and the secondary growth [31]. In the first one, the support is added in an autoclave in contact with a synthesis solution. In this case, nucleation and crystal formation occurs in the same chemical environment [31]. Considering this last aspect, this method is not reproducible, and the membranes are very thick. The second one is reproducible and permits fabricating membranes fragile because the nucleation is separated from the crystal growth [32]. In particular, it presents the seeding and growth steps. During the first step, pre-synthesized nuclei of zeolites are seeded on the support. The zeolite layer is held on the support through weak chemical interaction [33]. Then, the support is put in contact with a precursor solution of the zeolite in an autoclave (under hydrothermal treatment) to ensure the growth of crystals present on the support and stabilize the zeolite layer by forming a chemical bond. A schema of the secondary growth method is illustrated in Figure 2.
The critical step is seeding, and the procedures used for performing it are different, and the most used are dip-coating [34,35], rubbing [36,37], electrostatic and covalent chemical deposition [38,39], and filtration [33,40,41,42]. During the dip-coating, the zeolite crystals dribble in the suspension owing to the gravitational force. For this reason, it is performed several times, and it is less reproducible [43]. The rubbing procedure is also less reproducible considering that it is achieved with small brushes using a zeolite paste and has limitations during the coverage [44]. More reproducible are the procedures where a filtration process is involved because, being a well-known membrane process, it is possible to obtain a uniform and thin layer by choosing appropriate operating conditions [40,41,42]. After the synthesis, the zeolite membranes are thermally treated (calcination process) for the template removal, an organic chemical species used for orienting the zeolite formation [45]. During this process, defects are formed owing to the different thermal expansion coefficients of support and zeolite. Anyway, the preparation of thin, defect-free, and high-reproducible, and low –cost membranes represent still challenges. Indeed, today, at an industrial level, a few zeolite-membrane topologies are used in the dehydration of various organic solvents [46].
The metal materials mainly used for the membrane preparation are palladium and alloys due to the high solubility and permeability of hydrogen [47]. These membranes have a dense structure and are applied in the gas separation process and as membrane reactors when H2 is a reactant or a product of the process [48,49,50].
Different methods are available for synthesizing Pd-based membranes, and the most used are electroless plating (ELP) [51], chemical vapour deposition (CVD) [52], physical vapour deposition (PVD) [53] and the electroplating deposition (EPD) [54]. In this review, the ELP method has been discussed as being mainly exploited for membrane fabrication [55]. This method includes four steps: the cleaning/smoothing of the support surface [56]. In the second and third ones, the activation of the support and the deposition of the palladium is carried out, respectively. The membrane is dried and annealed for performing the Pd activation [57]. The precursor of the metal species, dissolved in an aqueous solution, is stabilized by using ligand (as ammonium hydroxide and ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid (EDTA)) that can form a metal complex [58]. Then, the palladium ions are reduced by an appropriate chemical reaction [59].

1.3. Inorganic Membrane Reactor Applications

Different MR configurations, classified into three groups, can be identified by varying the membrane role in the process [60]: extractor, distributor and contactor membrane [61]. In the extractor, the membrane is used to remove a reaction product and improve the conversion (reaction equilibrium shift according to Le Chatelier’s principle) [62]. The role of the membrane in the extractor configuration is illustrated in Figure 3. In distributor one, the reactant passes through the membrane and reaches the reaction environment in a controlled way by limiting side reactions (see Figure 3) [63]. In these two configurations, the membrane is catalytically inert, and it is coupled with a conventional catalytic process. In the contactor, the membrane is catalytically active, and it is used for improving the contact between reactants and catalytic sites [64]. This last configuration is shown in Figure 3.
The applications of inorganic membrane reactors in various chemical reactions have been reported and discussed. Today, steam methane reforming (SMR) is the primary process for hydrogen production [65]. A gaseous mixture, called syngas, is produced containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a low amount of carbon dioxide [64]. For increasing the hydrogen produced by SMR, the water-gas shift (WGS) produces H2 and CO2 from carbon monoxide and steam. The WGS is limited by the thermodynamic equilibrium at elevated temperatures [65]. A possible way to improve the CO2 conversion is to remove a reaction product to overcome the chemical equilibrium limitation [66]. Kim et al. used MFI zeolite membranes as membrane reactors for performing a WGS reaction at high temperatures [67], and the catalyst used was Fe/Ce nanoparticles. The membranes showed a reasonable hydrogen selectivity (H2/CO2 = 31 and H2/CO = 25) at 500 °C. In this work, the CO conversion enhanced (98.5%), overcoming the equilibrium limit by using the silicalite membranes and operating at high temperature (>500 °C) and pressure (6 bar). In addition, Simulation studies indicated that the zeolite MRs could achieve a very high CO conversion (≥99%) with these operating conditions: T > 500 °C, P = 30 atm and RH2O/CO∼3.5 [67].
Arvanitis et al. have also obtained exciting results by using MFI zeolite membrane reactors [68]. A complete conversion of the carbon monoxide (>99.9%) was achieved and with a hydrogen recovery of 99.9%, operating at 500 °C and 20 bar. The catalyst remained stable for about 50 h of WGS reaction at 20 bar. However, carbon deposition on the surface appeared, causing a CO conversion decline from 99.9% to ~96% within two days. In addition, a low purity of hydrogen was due to the moderate H2 selectivity of the zeolite membrane. Table 1 reports other results on H2 production by WGS by using the zeolite membrane reactors.
Lee and coworkers produced H2 from WGS and using a Pd-Cu membrane reactor coupled with a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) [73]. A commercial catalyst (composed of aluminium oxide, chromium oxide, chromium trioxide and copper oxide) has been used for carrying out the catalytic process. The experimental results evidenced raising the steam/CO ratio from 1 to 5 the CO conversion increased from 85.4% to 94.8% and the H2 recovery from 53.4% to 56.1% (as illustrated in Figure 4). When the CMR has been integrated with a PSA unit (using activated carbon and zeolite), the H2 recovery has improved by about 31.2–35.7%. The combination of a CMR with PSA could be used to produce hydrogen rich-stream to use in a proton-exchange membrane fuel cell; in fact, this system permitted to enhance CO conversion (almost complete CO conversion) and H2 recovery (R = 99.9991%).
Fisher Tropsch synthesis (FTS) converts the syngas, obtained from natural gas or biomass, into liquid hydrocarbons (see Equation (1)) and on an industrial scale, iron and cobalt-based catalysts are used [80].
(2n + 1)H2 + nCO → CnH2n+2 + nH2O
The membrane combined with the FTS can improve the performance of the catalytic process, exerting a function of extractor or distributor. In the first case, the membrane is used to remove water, a reaction product, to reduce the catalyst deactivation, increase conversion and displacing the water gas-shift equilibrium, and enhance the hydrocarbon production [81]. When it is used as a distributor, the membrane must be selective towards the H2 or CO. In this case, it is possible to maintain the reactants’ ratio and avoid side reactions [82]. Different research groups studied the possibility of using hydrophilic zeolite membranes for water removal from hydrogen and carbon monoxide using the operating conditions typical of the FT process. In 2005, Zhou et al. [83] studied the separation of H2O/CO, H2O/H2, and H2O/CH4 versus the temperature using NaA membranes. The selectivities of H2O/CO, H2O/H2, and H2O/CH4 were 30, 72, and 323 at 100 °C. The water quickly passes through the membrane for the high affinity with the zeolite NaA strongly hydrophilic. Kapteijn and coworkers prepared sodalite membrane on alumina support that exhibited very high H2O/H2 selectivity up to 200 °C and so it is very promising for the water removal in FTS [84].
Recently, palladium membranes have been used to control hydrogen in a fixed-bed catalytic reactor for the FTS [85]. In particular, three different systems have been considered: (i) traditional fixed-bed reactor (FBR) using as catalyst CoRu/Al2O3, (ii) traditional FBR and CoRu/Al2O3-zeolite as a catalyst and the CMR (catalyst: CoRu/Al2O3). The selectivity of different hydrocarbon (HC) fractions versus the product distribution for the other experiments is shown in Figure 5. The results evidenced as the CMR permits to have better results due to the possibility to add in a controlled way the H2 avoiding the formation of methane (side reaction). The carbon monoxide conversion was about 45% after 15 h of catalytic test for the three experiments. FBR (catalyst: CoRu/Al2O3), FBR (catalyst: CoRu/Al2O3-zeolite); CMR (catalyst: CoRu/Al2O3).
The distributor configuration is usually used in different reactions such as the oxidation or oxy-dehydrogenation of hydrocarbons and oxidative coupling of methane. The oxygen, a reactant of the responses, is provided in a controlled manner [86,87]. The oxidative dehydrogenation of alkanes allows olefin production conveniently than dehydrogenation and steam cracking [87]. This process shows no chemical equilibrium limitations as the dehydrogenation and required mild temperatures than the steam cracking [88]. In 1999, Santamaria and coworkers studied the oxidative dehydrogenation of propane by using a macroporous alumina membrane coated with the catalyst [89]. In particular, the researchers found that the membrane used as a distributor improved the reaction conversion [89]. The membrane application as the distributor has also been studied by Kartell et al., employing a theoretical study [90]. They proposed, using numerical simulations, a new membrane reactor for the direct synthesis of propylene oxide (PO) in the liquid phase. The reactor combines two consecutive catalytic reactor units: the hydrogen peroxide synthesis and the reaction of H2O2 with the propylene for synthesizing PO. Pd/SiO2 is the top layer of the membrane (used and for H2O2 synthesis), and titanium silicalite-1 is the bottom layer (used for promoting the reaction between H2O2 and propylene). The theoretical results indicated as a thickness of 250 µm for Pd/SiO2 layer and 100 µm for the other catalytic layer are required to achieve attractive conversion and selectivity [90]. Recently, by Ermilova et al. performed the ethane oxidative dehydrogenation to ethylene by using a catalytic membrane reactor (as a distributor) [91]. In particular, the external surface of the asymmetric alumina membrane has been coated with a catalyst (Mo-V-Te-Nb-Ox) and used as a distributor. Figure 6 shows how the co-current mode of the supply of the reactant to the catalytic surface of the membrane enables a significant increase in the ethane conversion compared to the counter-current mode. This is owing to due to the different distribution of ethane and oxygen fluxes along the membrane. In particular, when the reactants are fed in co-current mode arrive on the catalyst surface with a maximum concentration, ensuring an almost complete conversion.
Anyway, the researcher obtained better results (ethane conversion of 70% and an ethylene selectivity of 95–98%) with a layer of titanium oxide deposited on the Al2O3 membrane.
The deep purification of hydrogen, produced for steam reforming, is a critical technology for producing energy by proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEM-FCs) [92]. However, the carbon monoxide present in hydrogen-rich streams, produced by steam reforming, poisons the anode of the PEM-FCs. Furthermore, it is necessary to reduce the CO amount (down to 10 ppm) [93] The CO selective oxidation (SelOx) is a promising and economical approach [93]. During the process, not only the CO oxidation but also the H2 oxidation happens; the reactions involved are:
2CO + O2 → 2CO2
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
A selective catalyst must be used to consider this aspect, and a good compromise between cost and functionality is represented by the platinum (Pt) [93]. Bernardo et al. used NaY zeolite membrane loaded with Pt for performing the CO SelOx [28]. The catalytic membrane reactor acts as a catalytic contactor and permits to achieve exciting results in C. conversion and CO2 selectivity than the traditional fixed bed reactors. A comparison between the results obtained with the Pt-NaY membrane reactor and the traditional ones for the CO SelOx is illustrated in Figure 7.
The better results obtained with the zeolite membrane reactor are due to the excellent dispersion of the catalytic particles in the zeolite layer. Good contact between reactants and catalytic sites is ensured [94,99]. Besides, considering that the zeolite layer is fragile a reduced by-pass and low-pressure drop are attained [94,99]. In an actual SelOx process, the gas stream, after the WGS, contains CO2 (20–25%) and Medrano et al. [99] demonstrated as the CO2 causes a decrease of the conversion and the selectivity due to the presence of the reverse water gas shift that limited the CO oxidation at elevated temperature.
Their use at an industrial scale is missing among the different works focused on applying membrane reactors in various industrial processes. The main drawbacks are the lack of scientific evidence about the long-term stability of the membrane reactors applied in actual operating conditions of the processes and the very high cost for the fabrication.

2. Organic Membrane Reactors

2.1. Introduction of Organic Membrane Reactors

Industrial-scale membrane units are often based on polymers, either natural (cellulose, rubbers and wool) or synthetic (Teflon, polyamide, polystyrene). Essentially, any kind of polymer can suit membrane casting, but, taking into account the wide range of physical and chemical features that they can exhibit, just a restricted part can be utilized. Choosing a polymer for a specific membrane is centred on precise features that regard the structural organization of the polymers themselves.
Porous or dense polymeric membranes are usually employed in processes with low reaction temperatures or in the presence of biocatalysts. Sorption–diffusion principles can couple catalytic reactions so that membranes such as the dense polymeric ones can act well to separate gases and liquids from mixtures in processes where separation and reaction act in the same step. Polymeric membranes need to be highly selective and exhibit high permeability to convey a satisfactory separation. Also, polymeric membranes may be well employed in catalytic reactions (liquid phase) [100].

2.2. Enzymatic Membrane Reactors: Preparation and Applications

A catalytic membrane reactor (E-MBR) offers advantages concerning conventional reactors because of the membrane’s ability to operate simultaneously as catalyst support and selective barrier, combining a reaction with a particular mass transfer through the membrane.
Simultaneous removal of products from the reaction site allows effective conversion, even inhibiting or thermodynamically unfavourable reactions [101]. Researchers have developed enzyme-catalyzed response at room temperature to reduce energy consumption and minimize thermal degradation of the products. One of the essential characteristics of the catalyst is activation by organic/aqueous biphasic interface (interface activation). The membrane allows them to independently control the catalyst and substrate concentrations, residence time and permeate flow; this, in turn, increases CMR productivity over a batch reactor.
Membrane reactors can be categorized into two types: inert and catalytic reactors. The membrane is next to the reaction bulk in the inert type, which contains the catalyst, either suspended or packed. In contrast, in the catalytic reactors, the membrane is fixed on the catalysts or has its catalytic activity. Often the inert types encounter inadequate compound transport due to the locking effect of particles, even by the enzymes/NPs, on the pores. At the same time, catalytic membrane reactors don’t suffer from these issues because of their fixed embedding of the catalysts on the membrane itself. Metal nanoparticles seem to be often chosen as catalysts, especially in environmental remediation scopes. They can have very high catalytic performances; as an example Au and Pt nanoparticles are widely used. In this context, Huang et al., as a solution for reducing 4-nitrophenol, developed a catalytic membrane reactor embedding a film by alloy nanoparticle-loaded β-lactoglobulin fibrils. They observed Cu nanoclusters’ formation, which stimulated the Ag0 synthesis as a reducing agent for the 4-nitrophenol [101].
Biofilms have widely been applied to civil water treatment before activated sludge processes were available. In addition, biofilm reactors are used primarily in industrial fields for their reliability and ease of use. Biofilm growth begins by molecules (e.g., lipids, proteins) adsorption on a surface. These molecules can modify the physicochemical features of the surface, being a nutrient source for microbes, alter the release of metal ions, and cause the adsorption of inhibitory matters. As a general rule, biofilm reactors are consisted of: inlet and outlet sections, a biofilm carrier, an aeration unit in case of aerobic processes or a mixing device in case of anoxic processes. Lai et al. demonstrated how perchlorate, mainly known as a groundwater contaminant, can undergo microbial reduction to form chloride. The process was driven by C2H6 or C3H8 with oxygen as a limiting compound. The research applied two membrane biofilm reactors in parallel resulting in novel applications for groundwater remediation [102].
Anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) is a valid technology for domestic, civil, and wastewater treatment. This because of the high separation between hydraulic and solid retention times (HRT and SRT), thus consenting to the growth of anaerobic bacteria; in addition, they appear to have a low footprint and high treatment capacity while producing high-quality effluents. AnMBR, in contrast with aerobic MRs have low energy consumption (no aeration needed), exhibit lower solid yield and lower carbon dioxide emissions. The main downside of AnMBRs being the fast decay of permeate flux caused by membrane fouling. Berkessa et al. studied two formulations of AnMBRs applied on wastewater treatment with long hydraulic retention times (47 days) and a 22 g·L−1 sludge concentration. The long HRT leadss to biofilm reduction by Chloroflexi (heterotrophic bacteria), resulting in large fluxes. Either the membrane resistances and the fouling rates values resulted as low so that the study resulted in AnMBRs with excellent membrane fouling control [103].
Immobilized catalysts in Figure 8 have widespread organic synthesis, pollution control and diagnostic purposes. It is well understood that the enzyme has some specific advantages over inorganic, metal-derived or chemical catalysts. Products with high purity and high added value can be obtained with enzymes immobilized on porous supports. Moreover, enzymes decrease the side reactions and simplify post-reaction separation problems. Due to the considerably unstable nature of enzymes, there has been constant endeavour to develop different efficient immobilization techniques, which can protect enzymes from various physical and chemical stresses, such as pH, temperature, salts, solvents, inhibitors, and poisons. Immobilization is achieved by fixing catalyst to or within solid supports, resulting from which heterogeneous immobilized catalytic systems are obtained [102]. The physical methods are simple and based on weak chemical interactions (van der Waal forces, electrostatic force and hydrogen bonds) between the enzyme and the membrane [103]. Chemical immobilization is based on the formation of covalent bonds. In this case, the enzyme is not released in the reaction environment [104]. At the same time, this problem is usually found with the physical methods. Usually, immobilization strategy improves the stability and also permits its re-use. However, it reduces the catalytic activity because the catalytic sites are less accessible to the reactants.
Although the enzymes can be quite expensive, recycling the used enzyme makes the process more economically viable. When the enzyme has been immobilized, it makes the process simpler in terms of design and easier to control the different reaction parameters. To reuse the enzyme, it must be active after use, and it has to be stable in the reaction media. It is only possible when the catalyst is in immobilized conditions in porous support. Table 3 the advantages and disadvantages of different immobilization of biocatalysts, which are mainly used in the chemical and biochemical processes industry.
Membrane bioreactors (MBR) are part of an established -developed technology found throughout the years’ many industrial applications worldwide. To mention one of the leading applications, many municipal and industrial wastewater is treated through MBR systems. Still, substantial research and progress are needed in this field as technical difficulties are still encountered, such as membrane fouling and not so low energy needs, thus slowing down the spread of MBR plants.
Nonetheless, as membrane costs of production have been reduced in recent years, MBR technology has gained increasing attention, mainly for constructing medium-size wastewater plants, corresponding to a water feed of an equivalent of up to 100,000 people. Moreover, in the same years, a focus on process optimization led to a substantial reduction of capital and operating expenses of new MBR plants.
Summing up all the features, it can be stated that the excellent quality of purified water mainly drives MBR technology in water treatment applications interest, the increasing water scarcity issues, the growing strictness of quality and discharge legislations worldwide, the lower costs of investment, the fact that MBR technology is becoming more accepted as a valid option over time, and the possibility to be applied as an upgrade to existing water treatment plants [101,105,106].
MBR devices can be organized in two main configurations, in which the positioning of the two main elements, the membrane and the reactor, varies. The first one can be seen as a side-stream method with a membrane situated outside the reactor, as in Figure 9a. The second one has the membrane collocated in the bulk of the reactor, so it acts while submerged in the feed stream (Figure 9b).
In Table 4, the two configurations are compared in terms of applications and operational features [107].
The membrane in an MBR system works by three main principles: size exclusion, adsorption, electrostatic repulsion [107]. In size-exclusion, any compound larger than the membrane’s pores’ dimension is rejected or adsorptions of chemical species are governed by hydrophobicity and electrostatic repulsion [108]. The optimal circumstance occurs when the two constituents have either opposite charge or just a reduced charge; besides, a low pH usually enhances adsorption. When the membrane and the chemical species have an identical account, the molecules are rejected [108]. This determines the biomass growth in the reactor bulk, with the development of a phase with suspended solids and a (cake) layer directly attached to the surface of the membrane [109]. As an addition to that, the cake layer growth offers additional adsorption points, this because they are composed of microbial products and polymers that can virtually act as an adsorbent for the chemical species, which must be rejected [110,111].
MBR technology can improve water recycling thanks to its high pathogen elimination performance. The typically accepted limit of total suspended solids of 10 mg/L is not reachable by standard activated sludge technology but can be easily reached by MBR devices in deeper detail. Furthermore, MBR technology applies physical disinfection to the treated water, so the succeeding disinfection unit reaches a higher degree of effectiveness, thus reaching compliance with the imposed microbiological values. We can affirm that water recycling is significant to locate water scarcity and environmental remediation concurrently. In addition, MBRs can efficiently eliminate an extensive range of organic pollutants, even some types that are immune to activated sludge [110].
Pharmaceutically-active compounds (PhACs) characterize an essential fraction of organic pollutants traced in urban water environments. PhACs reach wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) after human utilization either as metabolized or unmetabolized components. Even in PhACs remediation, MBR technology can deliver an efficient biological action on pollutants and a physical filtration without the limits that activated sludge (CAS) can bring. In fact, in MBR processes, biomass growth is not limited to flocculation microorganisms, however, bacteria can mature as dispersed. More than one study reported the successful usage of MBR technology for PhACs in urban wastewaters [112,113].
Urban and industrial wastewater streams may even contain an assortment of enteric viruses, which take advantage of the faecal-oral routes of transmission to spread and cause numerous severe diseases like hepatitis and gastroenteritis [114]. In municipal sewage, the primary source of infection by enteric viruses starts with detachment from infected people. The norovirus’s detaching (or shedding) rate surpasses 1010 particles per gram of faeces [115]. Furthermore, waterborne viruses result in more resistance to either environmental variables and treatments when compared to other pathogens (e.g., bacteria), this thanks to some of their peculiar features, either physical and biological.
It is easy to state that MBR applications can expand in many other wastewater streams, an example of greywater. Greywater is domestic sourcing wastewater (e.g., from kitchens, laundries and hand basins). These streams contain a wide range of pollutants like preservatives, emulsifiers, surfactants, softeners and solvents, and some heavy metals (Cd, Hg, Ni, Pb) lower concentrations than in urban wastewaters.
In the most recent years, the problem of energy recovery has mostly narrowed to methane generation by anaerobic digestion (A.D.). The steps involved in the process are hydrolysis, acidogenesis, then acetogenesis, followed by methanogenesis. The latter is the main critical phase because it results in the slowest of all four A.D. steps. So A.D. methane production improvement has been studied with lots of efforts to achieve higher energy efficiencies [116].
Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) can harvest energy sourcing from wastewater feeds by degradation the organic waste content. Generally speaking, anaerobic methods are preferred because of the high energy recovery rates, thus producing biogas with some important methane content, so they resemble a well promising application route so long. In Figure 10, a scheme of a pilot-scale AnSMBR unit for municipal wastewater treatment is shown [117].
With improved process variables optimization, AnMBR technology for methane production is now a fully developed technology. It has been found that under thermophilic circumstances (ranging from 50 to 0 °C), the growth rates of methanogenic bacteria are better compared to mesophilic conditions. Besides, coadjutants as nanoparticles (N.P.s) (Co, Ni, Fe oxides etc.) and modification methods as high-pressure treatments, alkaline pre-treatments, ammonia soaking can substantially increase the production yields [118].
As a valid application worth mentioning, biohydrogen production by anaerobic processes is in some ways preferred over methane for more than several reasons, such as the more comprehensive flammability limits, higher energy density, and the lower environmental impact during combustion which make hydrogen a preferable energy source. AnMBRs for biohydrogen production have a lesser environmental effect because of the absence of dissolved methane. Simultaneously, addressing both shows (hydrogen and methane) can increase efficiency in an AnMBR process.
Anyway, the more significant issue in biohydrogen production resides in the storage and transportation structure design. Storages with little densities, product losses (because of the hydrogen boiling-off), and methane chemical embrittlement (due to the penetration of hydrogen) are the main concerns in this field.
Nevertheless, energy production by AnMBRs still has engineering, financial, and ecological fields issues. It has been already said that methanogenesis is the slowest of the A.D. stages, resulting in really overall slow processes. Some treatments (either pre-or post) can be combined to quicken the initial steps of hydrolysis and acidogenesis, but in an case those might not increase the overall methane yield. Methane content is one of the critical features in biogases. For AnMBR processes, the product’s composition is directly linked to bacterial activity and substrate, starting with the feeds and process variables [119]. In an addition to that, the main challenge in the implementation of AnMBR applications on an industrial scale is the need for invariability of the feed composition to avoid consequent alteration of the methane fraction in the biogas during the time.
The efficiency of AnMBR systems is furthermore affected by the effect of inhibition on the methanogenesis step. This is due to some of the chemical compounds produced during the intermediary stages of the A.D. In some instances, AnMBR goes through fast hydrolysis, leading to better rates of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) generation. The VFAs can gather in the reactor because they are transformed by methanogens in a extended manner, causing a severe reduction of pH and causing a level of instability in the process.

2.3. Cell Bioreactors

Microbial membrane bioreactors incorporate either a bioreactor in which biomass is suspended and a microfiltration (or even ultrafiltration) unit. Microbial cells are continuously recycled in the reactor through the retentate. Consequently, the biomass concentration is enhanced in the reactor, resulting in efficiency and lower hydraulic residence times.
As membrane fouling is a significant disadvantage in MBR processes, alternative MBR technologies can lead to better results. For instance, the incorporation of a post-treatment with micro-fuel cells (MFCs) in wastewater processing leads, at the same time, to high-quality effluents and modest bioelectricity harvesting, thus empowering the sustainability of wastewater treatments. The whole system is referred to as a microbial fuel cell–membrane bioreactor (MFC-MBR) system.
Two main types of MFCs can be distinguished: dual chamber and single chamber type. The dual-chamber MFC is subdivided in anode and cathode chambers through a membrane, either an ion or proton exchange membrane or even reverse osmosis or UF type. In the anode chamber, microorganisms electrochemically degrade organic and inorganic compounds, thus generating electrons and protons. Bacteria enable electron transfer to the anode by a peripheral circuit, while the protons cross the membrane towards the cathode, reacting with electrons in the cathode chamber. This process generates a current while the contaminants are oxidized [1]. In the following Figure 11 the single chamber and the dual-chamber MFC-MBR layouts are presented.
The high contaminant removal of MFC-MBR units has been the focus of many studies. To cite one, Li et al. coupled MBR and MFC and for sewage water treatment. As a result, the COD removal was nearly 94%, near the standard MBR systems [2]. In the Table 5 below, the application of MFC-MBR systems on sewage treatment is reported and the corresponding studies, summing the most recent trends in this research area [3].

3. Conclusions and Future Perspective

Catalytic membrane reactors (CMRs) represent a process intensification-based technology that combines chemical or biochemical reactions with a membrane separation process in a single unit. CMR promotes an increase in process efficiency and a decrease in capital cost and energy consumption. The membranes used can be polymeric and inorganic, depending on the operating conditions of the process. The membranes can also be inert or catalytically active. Different catalytic processes are performed in very harsh conditions and elevated temperatures, and so the use of the inorganic membranes is favored. The first part is devoted to preparing and applying inorganic membrane in catalytic membrane reactors in this review. Besides, the membrane roles in CMR have also been discussed. They can function as an extractor, distributor, and contractor. As an extractor, removing a reaction product is achieved with better conversion due to the possibility of overcoming chemical equilibrium limitations when the membrane function as a distributor as a reactant is added to the reaction environment in a controlled way by limiting the side reactions. The membrane as a contactor ensures better interaction between reactants and catalytic particles by determining a conversion increase. Afterwards, MR application in various catalytic processes has also been reported and discussed. However, among the different works focused on the CMR application on various industrial processes, their use at an industrial scale is missing. The main disadvantages that block their application on a large scale are the lack of scientific evidence about the CMRs’ long-term stability (when used under actual operating conditions) and the high capital costs for their fabrication. Biocatalyst-based processes are currently running in different parts of the world, but the application of inorganic catalysts still needs lots more research before being applied industrially.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization by S.C. (Sudip Chakraborty) and C.A.; data investigation by G.C., data curation, C.A. and D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C. (Sudip Chakraborty), C.A., G.C., D.M.; writing—review S.C. (Sudip Chakraborty) Sudip Chakraborty and C.A., M.I.S., editing, S.C. (Stefano Curcio), V.C.; supervision, S.C. (Sudip Chakraborty). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Stankiewicz, A.I.; Moulijn, J.A. Process Intensification: Transforming Chemical Engineering. Chem. Eng. Prog. 2000, 96, 22–34. [Google Scholar]
  2. Helmi, A.; Gallucci, F. Latest Developments in Membrane (Bio)Reactors. Processes 2020, 8, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Westermann, T.; Melin, T. Flow-through Catalytic Membrane Reactors—Principles and Applications. Chem. Eng. Process. Process. Intensif. 2009, 48, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Algieri, C.; Chakraborty, S.; Pal, U. Efficacy of Phase Inversion Technique for Polymeric Membrane Fabrication. J. Phase Chang. Mater. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdallah, H. A Review on Catalytic Membranes Production and Applications. Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 2017, 12, 136–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Soria, R. Overview on Industrial Membranes. Catal. Today 1995, 25, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fard, A.K.; McKay, G.; Buekenhoudt, A.; Al Sulaiti, H.; Motmans, F.; Khraisheh, M.; Atieh, M. Inorganic Membranes: Preparation and Application for Water Treatment and Desalination. Materials 2018, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Robeson, L.M. The Upper Bound Revisited. J. Memb. Sci. 2008, 320, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ismail, A.F.; David, L.I.B. A Review on the Latest Development of Carbon Membranes for Gas Separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 193, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zaman, J.; Chakma, A. Inorganic Membrane Reactors. J. Membr. Sci. 1994, 92, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. van Veen, H.M.; Bracht, M.; Hamoen, E.; Alderliesten, P.T. Chapter 14 Feasibility of the Application of Porous Inorganic Gas Separation Membranes in Some Large-Scale Chemical Processes. Membr. Sci. Technol. 1996, 4, 641–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kallus, S.; Hahn, A.; Golemme, G.; Algieri, C.; Timmins, P.; Ramsay, J.D.F. Sol-Gel Routes to Zeolite Membranes and Thin Films. J. Sol Gel Sci. Technol. 2003, 26, 721–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alem, A.; Sarpoolaky, H.; Keshmiri, M. Sol-Gel Preparation of Titania Multilayer Membrane for Photocatalytic Applications. Ceram. Int. 2009, 35, 1837–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dong, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, X.; Meng, G. Fabrication and Characterization of Low Cost Tubular Mineral-Based Ceramic Membranes for Micro-Filtration from Natural Zeolite. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 281, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kim, J.; Van der Bruggen, B. The use of nanoparticles in polymeric and ceramic membrane structures: Review of manufacturing procedures and performance improvement for water treatment. Envrion. Pollut. 2010, 158, 2335–2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Li, K. Ceramic Membranes for Separation and Reaction; Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dong, X.; Jin, W.; Xu, N.; Li, K. Dense Ceramic Catalytic Membranes and Membrane Reactors for Energy and Environmental Applications. Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 10886–10902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Liu, J.; Dong, Y.; Dong, X.; Hampshire, S.; Zhu, L.; Zhu, Z.; Li, L. Feasible Recycling of Industrial Waste Coal Fly Ash for Preparation of Anorthite-Cordierite Based Porous Ceramic Membrane Supports with Addition of Dolomite. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2016, 36, 1059–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schafföner, S.; Freitag, L.; Hubalkova, J.; Aneziris, C.G. Functional Composites Based on Refractories Produced by Pressure Slip Casting. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2016, 36, 2109–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Amin, S.K.; Abdallah, H.A.M.; Roushdy, M.H.; El-Sherbiny, S.A. An Overview of Production and Development of Ceramic Membranes. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2016, 11, 7708–7721. [Google Scholar]
  21. Das, N.; Maiti, H.S. Ceramic Membrane by Tape Casting and Sol–Gel Coating for Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Application. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2009, 70, 1395–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fan, P.; Zhen, K.; Zan, Z.; Chao, Z.; Jian, Z.; Yun, J.Z. Preparation and Development of Porous Ceramic Membrane Supports Fabricated by Extrusion Technique. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2016, 55, 277–282. [Google Scholar]
  23. Santos, L.N.R.M.; Silva, J.R.S.; Cartaxo, J.M.; Rodrigues, A.M.; Neves, G.A.; Menezes, R.R. Freeze-Casting Applied to Ceramic Materials: A Short Review of the Influence of Processing Parameters. Ceramica 2021, 67, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Agoudjil, N.; Kermadi, S.; Larbot, A. Synthesis of Inorganic Membrane by Sol–Gel Process. Desalination 2008, 223, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nandi, B.; Das, B.; Uppaluri, R.; Purkait, M.K. Microfiltration of Mosambi Juice Using Low Cost Ceramic Membrane. J. Food Eng. 2009, 95, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Armbruster, T.; Gunter, M.E. Crystal Structures of Natural Zeolites. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2001, 45, 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Peng, P.; Gao, X.-H.; Yan, Z.-F.; Mintova, S. Diffusion and catalyst efficiency in hierarchical zeolite catalysts. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2020, 7, 1726–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bernardo, P.; Algieri, C.; Barbieri, G.; Drioli, E. Catalytic zeolite membrane reactors for the selective CO oxidation. Desalination 2006, 200, 702–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jiang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, D.; Gu, X. Fabrication of pure-phase CHA zeolite membranes with ball-milled seeds at low K+ concentration. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2015, 215, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boudreau, L.C.; Kuck, J.A.; Tsapatsis, M. Deposition of Oriented Zeolite a Films: In Situ and Secondary Growth. J. Membr. Sci. 1999, 152, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lovallo, M.C.; Gouzinis, A.; Tsapatsis, M. Synthesis and characterization of oriented MFI membranes prepared by secondary growth. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 1903–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nair, S.; Lai, Z.; Nikolakis, V.; Xomeritakis, G.; Bonilla, G.; Tsapatsis, M. Separation of close-boiling hydrocarbon mixtures by MFI and FAU membranes made by secondary growth. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2001, 48, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Algieri, C.; Bernardo, P.; Barbieri, G.; Drioli, E. A novel seeding procedure for preparing tubular NaY zeolite membranes. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2009, 119, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lovallo, M.C.; Tsapatsis, M. Preferentially oriented submicron silicalite membranes. AIChE J. 1996, 42, 3020–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sato, K.; Nakane, T. A High Reproducible Fabrication Method for Industrial Production of High Flux NaA Zeolite Membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 301, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kusakabe, K.; Kuroda, T.; Morooka, S. Separation of carbon dioxide from nitrogen using ion-exchanged faujasite-type zeolite membranes formed on porous support tubes. J. Membr. Sci. 1998, 148, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hasegawa, Y.; Sotowa, K.-I.; Kusakabe, K.; Morooka, S. The influence of feed composition on CO oxidation using zeolite membranes loaded with metal catalysts. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2002, 53, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chun, Y.S.; Ha, K.; Lee, Y.-J.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, H.S.; Park, Y.S.; Yoon, K.B. Diisocyanates as novel molecular binders for monolayer assembly of zeolite crystals on glass. Chem. Commun. 2002, 1846–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Huang, A.; Liang, F.; Steinbach, F.; Caro, J. Preparation and separation properties of LTA membranes by using 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as covalent linker. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 350, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pera-Titus, M.; Llorens, J.; Cunill, F.; Mallada, R.; Santamaría, J. Preparation of zeolite NaA membranes on the inner side of tubular supports by means of a controlled seeding technique. Catal. Today 2005, 104, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garofalo, A.; Donato, L.; Drioli, E.; Criscuoli, A.; Carnevale, M.; Alharbi, O.; Aljlil, S.; Algieri, C. Supported MFI zeolite membranes by cross flow filtration for water treatment. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 137, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Garofalo, A.; Carnevale, M.; Donato, L.; Drioli, E.; Alharbi, O.; Aljlil, S.; Criscuoli, A.; Algieri, C. Scale-up of MFI zeolite membranes for desalination by vacuum membrane distillation. Desalination 2016, 397, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Z.; Ge, Q.; Gao, J.; Shao, J.; Liu, C.; Yan, Y. High-performance zeolite membranes on inexpensive large-pore supports: Highly reproducible synthesis using a seed paste. ChemSusChem 2011, 4, 1570–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Feng, C.; Khulbe, K.C.; Matsuura, T.; Farnood, R.; Ismail, A.F. Recent Progress in Zeolite/Zeotype Membranes. J. Membr. Sci. Res. 2015, 1, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Choi, J.; Jeong, H.-K.; Snyder, M.A.; Stoeger, J.A.; Masel, R.I.; Tsapatsis, M. Grain Boundary Defect Elimination in a Zeolite Membrane by Rapid Thermal Processing. Science 2009, 325, 590–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Morigami, Y.; Kondo, M.; Abe, J.; Kita, H.; Okamoto, K. The first large-scale pervaporation plant using tubular-type module with zeolite NaA membrane. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2001, 25, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Catalano, J.; Baschetti, M.G.; Sarti, G.C. Hydrogen permeation in palladium-based membranes in the presence of carbon monoxide. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 362, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gade, S.K.; Thoen, P.M.; Way, J.D. Unsupported palladium alloy foil membranes fabricated by electroless plating. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 316, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Palo, E.; Salladini, A.; Morico, B.; Palma, V.; Ricca, A.; Iaquaniello, G. Application of Pd-Based Membrane Reactors: An Industrial Perspective. Membranes 2018, 8, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Fernandez, E.; Helmi, A.; Medrano, J.; Coenen, K.; Arratibel, A.; Melendez, J.; de Nooijer, N.; Spallina, V.; Viviente, J.; Zuñiga, J.; et al. Palladium based membranes and membrane reactors for hydrogen production and purification: An overview of research activities at Tecnalia and TU/e. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 13763–13776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wei, L.; Yu, J.; Hu, X.; Wang, R.; Huang, Y. Effects of Sn residue on the high temperature stability of the H2-permeable palladium membranes prepared by electroless plating on Al2O3 substrate after SnCl2–PdCl2 process: A case study. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2016, 24, 1154–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Iliuta, M.C.; Grandjean, B.P.A.; Larachi, F. Methane Nonoxidative Aromatization over Ru−Mo/HZSM-5 at Temperatures up to 973 K in a Palladium−Silver/Stainless Steel Membrane Reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gallucci, F.; Fernandez, E.; Corengia, P.; van Annaland, M.S. Recent advances on membranes and membrane reactors for hydrogen production. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013, 92, 40–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, Y.; Wu, H.; Fan, X.; Zhou, L.; Chen, Q. Palladium composite membrane fabricated on rough porous alumina tube without intermediate layer for hydrogen separation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 9958–9965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cheng, Y.S. Effects of electroless plating chemistry on the synthesis of palladium membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 182, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Alkali, A. Electroless Plating of Palladium Membranes on Porous Substrates for Hydrogen Separation and the Effects of Process Factors on Plating Rate and Efficiency: A Review. J. Power Energy Eng. 2020, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Alique, D.; Martinez-Diaz, D.; Sanz, R.; Calles, J.A. Review of Supported Pd-Based Membranes Preparation by Electroless Plating for Ultra-Pure Hydrogen Production. Membranes 2018, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Li, A.; Grace, J.R.; Lim, C.J. Preparation of thin Pd-based composite membrane on planar metallic substrate: Part II. Preparation of membranes by electroless plating and characterization. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 306, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Miachon, S.; Dalmon, J.-A. Catalysis in Membrane Reactors: What about the Catalyst? Top. Catal. 2004, 29, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Julbe, A.; Farrusseng, D.; Guizard, C. Porous ceramic membranes for catalytic reactors—Overview and new ideas. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 181, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Leonzio, G. Methanol Synthesis: Optimal Solution for a Better Efficiency of the Process. Processes 2018, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kingsbury, B.F.; Wu, Z.; Li, K. A morphological study of ceramic hollow fibre membranes: A perspective on multifunctional catalytic membrane reactors. Catal. Today 2010, 156, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Caro, J.; Caspary, K.J.; Hamel, C.; Hoting, B.; Kölsch, P.; Langanke, B.; Nassauer, K.; Schiestel, T.; Schmidt, A.; Schomäcker, R.; et al. Catalytic Membrane Reactors for Partial Oxidation Using Perovskite Hollow Fiber Membranes and for Partial Hydrogenation Using a Catalytic Membrane Contactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 2286–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, L.; Qi, Z.; Zhang, S.; Su, J.; Somorjai, G.A. Catalytic Hydrogen Production from Methane: A Review on Recent Progress and Prospect. Catalysts 2020, 10, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Catalano, J.; Guazzone, F.; Mardilovich, I.P.; Kazantzis, N.K.; Ma, Y.H. Hydrogen Production in a Large Scale Water–Gas Shift Pd-Based Catalytic Membrane Reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 1042–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Augustine, A.S.; Ma, Y.H.; Kazantzis, N.K. High pressure palladium membrane reactor for the high temperature water–gas shift reaction. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36, 5350–5360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, S.-J.; Yang, S.; Reddy, G.K.; Smirniotis, P.; Dong, J. Zeolite Membrane Reactor for High-Temperature Water-Gas Shift Reaction: Effects of Membrane Properties and Operating Conditions. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 4471–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Arvanitis, A.; Sun, X.; Yang, S.; Damma, D.; Smirniotis, P.; Dong, J. Approaching complete CO conversion and total H2 recovery for water gas shift reaction in a high-temperature and high-pressure zeolite membrane reactor. J. Membr. Sci. 2018, 549, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, Y.; Sun, Q.; Gu, X. Pure H2production through hollow fiber hydrogen-selective MFI zeolite membranes using steam as sweep gas. AIChE J. 2015, 61, 3459–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Hong, Z.; Gu, X.; Xu, N. Hydrogen-selective zeolite membrane reactor for low temperature water gas shift reaction. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 197, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tang, Z.; Kim, S.-J.; Reddy, G.K.; Dong, J.; Smirniotis, P. Modified zeolite membrane reactor for high temperature water gas shift reaction. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 354, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kim, S.-J.; Xu, Z.; Reddy, G.K.; Smirniotis, P.; Dong, J. Effect of Pressure on High-Temperature Water Gas Shift Reaction in Microporous Zeolite Membrane Reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 1364–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bang, G.; Moon, D.-K.; Kang, J.-H.; Han, Y.-J.; Kim, K.-M.; Lee, C.-H. High-purity hydrogen production via a water-gas-shift reaction in a palladium-copper catalytic membrane reactor integrated with pressure swing adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 411, 128473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Abdollahi, M.; Yu, J.; Liu, P.K.; Ciora, R.; Sahimi, M.; Tsotsis, T.T. Ultra-pure hydrogen production from reformate mixtures using a palladium membrane reactor system. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 390–391, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pinacci, P.; Broglia, M.; Valli, C.; Capannelli, G.; Comite, A. Evaluation of the water gas shift reaction in a palladium membrane reactor. Catal. Today 2010, 156, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mendes, D.; Chibante, V.; Zheng, J.-M.; Tosti, S.; Borgognoni, F.; Mendes, A.; Madeira, L.M. Enhancing the production of hydrogen via water–gas shift reaction using Pd-based membrane reactors. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 12596–12608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dolan, M.; Donelson, R.; Dave, N. Performance and economics of a Pd-based planar WGS membrane reactor for coal gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 10994–11003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Brunetti, A.; Drioli, E.; Barbieri, G. Medium/high temperature water gas shift reaction in a Pd–Ag membrane reactor: An experimental investigation. RSC Adv. 2012, 2, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Iyoha, O.; Enick, R.; Killmeyer, R.; Howard, B.; Morreale, B.; Ciocco, M. Wall-catalyzed water-gas shift reaction in multi-tubular Pd and 80 wt%Pd–20 wt% Cu membrane reactors at 1173 K. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 298, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Senatore, A.; Giorgianni, G.; Dalena, F.; Giglio, E. Lignocellulosic biomass conversion into bioenergy: Feedstock overview. J. Phase Chang. Mater. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rohde, M.P.; Unruh, D.; Schaub, G. Membrane application in Fischer–Tropsch synthesis reactors—Overview of concepts. Catal. Today 2005, 106, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liuzzi, D.; Fernandez, E.; Perez, S.; Ipiñazar, E.; Arteche, A.; Fierro, J.L.G.; Viviente, J.L.; Tanaka, D.A.P.; Rojas, S. Advances in membranes and membrane reactors for the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process for biofuel production. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhu, W.; Gora, L.; Berg, A.V.D.; Kapteijn, F.; Jansen, J.; Moulijn, J. Water vapour separation from permanent gases by a zeolite-4A membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 253, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rohde, M.; Schaub, G.; Khajavi, S.; Jansen, J.; Kapteijn, F. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis with in situ H2O removal—Directions of membrane development. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2008, 115, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Escorihuela, S.; Toldra-Reig, F.; Escolástico, S.; Murciano, R.; Martínez, A.; Serra, J.M. Copper surface-alloying of H2-permeable Pd-based membrane for integration in Fischer–Tropsch synthesis reactors. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 619, 118516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kustov, L.M.; Kucherov, A.V.; Finashina, E.D. Oxidative dehydrogenation of C2–C4 alkanes into alkenes: Conventional catalytic systems and microwave catalysis. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. A 2013, 87, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mleczko, L.; Baerns, M. Catalytic oxidative coupling of methane—Reaction engineering aspects and process schemes. Fuel Process. Technol. 1995, 42, 217–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rostom, S.; De Lasa, H. Propane Oxidative Dehydrogenation on Vanadium-Based Catalysts under Oxygen-Free Atmospheres. Catalysts 2020, 10, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Alfonso, M.; Julbe, A.; Farrusseng, D.; Menéndez, M.; Santamaría, J. Oxidative dehydrogenation of propane on V/Al2O3 catalytic membranes. Effect of the type of membrane and reactant feed configuration. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1999, 54, 1265–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kertalli, E.; D’Angelo, M.N.; Schouten, J.; Nijhuis, T. Design and optimization of a catalytic membrane reactor for the direct synthesis of propylene oxide. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 138, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ermilova, M.; Kucherov, A.; Orekhova, N.; Finashina, E.; Kustov, L.; Yaroslavtsev, A. Ethane oxidative dehydrogenation to ethylene in a membrane reactor with asymmetric ceramic membranes. Chem. Eng. Process. Process. Intensif. 2018, 126, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ercolino, G.; Ashraf, M.A.; Specchia, V.; Specchia, S. Performance evaluation and comparison of fuel processors integrated with PEM fuel cell based on steam or autothermal reforming and on CO preferential oxidation or selective methanation. Appl. Energy 2015, 143, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Manasilp, A.; Gulari, E. Selective CO Oxidation over Pt/Alumina Catalysts for Fuel Cell Applications. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2002, 37, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bernardo, P.; Algieri, C.; Barbieri, G.; Drioli, E. Hydrogen purification from carbon monoxide by means of selective oxidation using zeolite catalytic membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2008, 62, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Igarashi, H.; Uchida, H.; Suzuki, M.; Sasaki, Y.; Watanabe, M. Removal of carbon monoxide from hydrogen-rich fuels by selective oxidation over platinum catalyst supported on zeolite. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 1997, 159, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Avgouropoulos, G.; Ioannides, T.; Papadopoulou, C.; Batista, J.; Hocevar, S.; Matralis, H. A comparative study of Pt/γ-Al2O3, Au/α-Fe2O3 and CuO–CeO2 catalysts for the selective oxidation of carbon monoxide in excess hydrogen. Catal. Today 2002, 75, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ko, E.-Y.; Park, E.D.; Seo, K.W.; Lee, H.C.; Lee, D.; Kim, S. Selective CO oxidation in the presence of hydrogen over supported Pt catalysts promoted with transition metals. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2006, 23, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Monyanon, S.; Pongstabodee, S.; Luengnaruemitchai, A. Preferential oxidation of carbon monoxide over Pt, Au monometallic catalyst, and Pt–Au bimetallic catalyst supported on ceria in hydrogen-rich reformate. J. Chin. Inst. Chem. Eng. 2007, 38, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Medrano, J.; Garofalo, A.; Donato, L.; Basile, F.; De Santo, M.; Gallucci, F.; Cofone, F.; Ciuchi, F.; Algieri, C. CO selective oxidation using catalytic zeolite membranes. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 351, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chakraborty, S.; Pal, U. Towards growth and sustainable researches in phase change materials. J. Phase Chang. Mater. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Huang, R.; Zhu, H.; Su, R.; Qi, W.; He, Z. Catalytic Membrane Reactor Immobilized with Alloy Nanoparticle-Loaded Protein Fibrils for Continuous Reduction of 4-Nitrophenol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 11263–11273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lai, C.-Y.; Wu, M.; Lu, X.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Guo, J. Microbial Perchlorate Reduction Driven by Ethane and Propane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 2006–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Berkessa, Y.W.; Yan, B.; Li, T.; Tan, M.; She, Z.; Jegatheesan, V.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Y. Novel anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) design for wastewater treatment at long HRT and high solid concentration. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 250, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hamedi, H.; Ehteshami, M.; Mirbagheri, S.A.; Rasouli, S.A.; Zendehboudi, S. Current Status and Future Prospects of Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) and Fouling Phenomena: A Systematic Review. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2019, 97, 32–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Zhu, Y.; Chen, R.; Li, Y.-Y.; Sano, D. Virus removal by membrane bioreactors: A review of mechanism investigation and modeling efforts. Water Res. 2021, 188, 116522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Gentile, G.J.; Cruz, M.C.; Rajal, V.B.; de Cortalezzi, M.M.F. Electrostatic interactions in virus removal by ultrafiltration membranes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 1314–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. ElHadidy, A.M.; Peldszus, S.; Van Dyke, M.I. An evaluation of virus removal mechanisms by ultrafiltration membranes using MS2 and φX174 bacteriophage. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2013, 120, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Yin, Z.; Tarabara, V.V.; Xagoraraki, I. Effect of pressure relaxation and membrane backwash on adenovirus removal in a membrane bioreactor. Water Res. 2016, 88, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Sherwin, C.; Bhat, S.; Hebbar, S.P. Effect of plating time on surface morphology and coating thickness of nickel plating on copper surface. J. Phase Chang. Mater. 2021, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shakir, E.; Zahraw, Z.; Al-Obaidy, A.H.M. Environmental and health risks associated with reuse of wastewater for irrigation. Egypt. J. Pet. 2017, 26, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Teunis, P.F.M.; Sukhrie, F.H.A.; Vennema, H.; Bogerman, J.; Beersma, M.F.C.; Koopmans, M.P.G. Shedding of norovirus in symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 1710–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Adekunle, K.F.; Okolie, J.A. A Review of Biochemical Process of Anaerobic Digestion. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2015, 06, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Martinez-Sosa, D.; Helmreich, B.; Netter, T.; Paris, S.; Bischof, F.; Horn, H. Anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactor (AnSMBR) for municipal wastewater treatment under mesophilic and psychrophilic temperature conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 10377–10385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Abdelsalam, E.; Samer, M.; Attia, Y.; Abdel-Hadi, M.; Hassan, H.; Badr, Y. Comparison of nanoparticles effects on biogas and methane production from anaerobic digestion of cattle dung slurry. Renew. Energy 2016, 87, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Liu, W.; Jia, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Xin, C.; Zhang, Y. Microbial fuel cell and membrane bioreactor coupling system: Recent trends. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 23631–23644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wang, Y.-K.; Sheng, G.-P.; Li, W.-W.; Huang, Y.-X.; Yu, Y.-Y.; Zeng, R.J.; Yu, H.-Q. Development of a Novel Bioelectrochemical Membrane Reactor for Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9256–9261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Wang, Y.-P.; Liu, X.-W.; Li, W.-W.; Li, F.; Wang, Y.-K.; Sheng, G.-P.; Zeng, R.J.; Yu, H.-Q. A microbial fuel cell–membrane bioreactor integrated system for cost-effective wastewater treatment. Appl. Energy 2012, 98, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Su, X.; Tian, Y.; Sun, Z.; Lu, Y.; Li, Z. Performance of a combined system of microbial fuel cell and membrane bioreactor: Wastewater treatment, sludge reduction, energy recovery and membrane fouling. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 49, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Liu, J.; Shen, X.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, L. Acryloylmorpholine-Grafted PVDF Membrane with Improved Protein Fouling Resistance. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 18392–18400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kim, K.-Y.; Chae, K.-J.; Choi, M.-J.; Yang, E.-T.; Hwang, M.H.; Kim, I.S. High-quality effluent and electricity production from non-CEM based flow-through type microbial fuel cell. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 218, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Malaeb, L.; Katuri, K.P.; Logan, B.E.; Maab, H.; Nunes, S.P.; Saikaly, P.E. A Hybrid Microbial Fuel Cell Membrane Bioreactor with a Conductive Ultrafiltration Membrane Biocathode for Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11821–11828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Li, J.; Ge, Z.; He, Z. Advancing membrane bioelectrochemical reactor (MBER) with hollow-fiber membranes installed in the cathode compartment. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 89, 1330–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Xu, L.; Zhang, G.-Q.; Yuan, G.-E.; Liu, H.-Y.; Liu, J.-D.; Yang, F.-L. Anti-fouling performance and mechanism of anthraquinone/polypyrrole composite modified membrane cathode in a novel MFC–aerobic MBR coupled system. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 22533–22543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Tian, Y.; Li, H.; Li, L.; Su, X.; Lu, Y.; Zuo, W.; Zhang, J. In-situ integration of microbial fuel cell with hollow-fiber membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment and membrane fouling mitigation. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 64, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Li, Y.; Liu, L.; Yang, F.; Ren, N. Performance of carbon fiber cathode membrane with C–Mn–Fe–O catalyst in MBR–MFC for wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 2015, 484, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wang, J.; Bi, F.; Ngo, H.-H.; Guo, W.; Jia, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X. Evaluation of energy-distribution of a hybrid microbial fuel cell–membrane bioreactor (MFC–MBR) for cost-effective wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 420–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ishizaki, S.; Terada, K.; Miyake, H.; Okabe, S. Impact of Anodic Respiration on Biopolymer Production and Consequent Membrane Fouling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9515–9523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Kim, K.-Y.; Yang, W.; Ye, Y.; LaBarge, N.; Logan, B.E. Performance of anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactors using effluents of microbial fuel cells treating domestic wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 208, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Li, L.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zuo, W.; Li, H.; Li, A.; Huang, D.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Z.; et al. Insight into the roles of worm reactor on wastewater treatment and sludge reduction in anaerobic-anoxic-oxic membrane bioreactor (A2O-MBR): Performance and mechanism. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 330, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Liu, J.; Tian, C.; Jia, X.; Xiong, J.; Dong, S.; Wang, L.; Bo, L. The brewery wastewater treatment and membrane fouling mitigation strategies in anaerobic baffled anaerobic/aerobic membrane bioreactor. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 127, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Catalysts 11 00691 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of ceramic membrane layers. Adapted from [15]. Reprinted with permission from ref. [15]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Figure 1. Scheme of ceramic membrane layers. Adapted from [15]. Reprinted with permission from ref. [15]. Copyright 2021 Elsevier.
Catalysts 11 00691 g001
Catalysts 11 00691 g002 550
Figure 2. Scheme of the secondary growth method.
Figure 2. Scheme of the secondary growth method.
Catalysts 11 00691 g002
Catalysts 11 00691 g003 550
Figure 3. Membrane role in a membrane reactor.
Figure 3. Membrane role in a membrane reactor.
Catalysts 11 00691 g003
Catalysts 11 00691 g004 550
Figure 4. CO conversion and H2 recovery (at the steady-state) as a function of the steam/carbon ratio [73].Tsotsis and coworkers prepared an ultra-permeable palladium membrane via ELP method, and it was used for hydrogen production using the WGS process [74]. A commercial Cu/Zn has been used as a catalyst. The authors found that increasing the feed pressure decreased the purity of the hydrogen owing to an increased driving force through the membrane for all the gas species. In addition, the membrane exhibited good stability for one month, and the change in H2 permeance was equal to 6%. A complete CO conversion and an H2 recovery of 90% have been obtained at 300 °C and 4.6 bar. Other results present in the open literature with metal membrane reactors in WGS are presented in Table 2.
Figure 4. CO conversion and H2 recovery (at the steady-state) as a function of the steam/carbon ratio [73].Tsotsis and coworkers prepared an ultra-permeable palladium membrane via ELP method, and it was used for hydrogen production using the WGS process [74]. A commercial Cu/Zn has been used as a catalyst. The authors found that increasing the feed pressure decreased the purity of the hydrogen owing to an increased driving force through the membrane for all the gas species. In addition, the membrane exhibited good stability for one month, and the change in H2 permeance was equal to 6%. A complete CO conversion and an H2 recovery of 90% have been obtained at 300 °C and 4.6 bar. Other results present in the open literature with metal membrane reactors in WGS are presented in Table 2.
Catalysts 11 00691 g004
Catalysts 11 00691 g005 550
Figure 5. Hydrocarbons (H.C.) fraction selectivity versus the product distribution for three experiments after 15 h on stream (XCO ≈ 45%).
Figure 5. Hydrocarbons (H.C.) fraction selectivity versus the product distribution for three experiments after 15 h on stream (XCO ≈ 45%).
Catalysts 11 00691 g005
Catalysts 11 00691 g006 550
Figure 6. Ethane conversion in the membrane reactor (alumina support coated with the Mo-V-Te-Nb-Ox active phase at different stream modes: (1) co-current; (2) counter-current; operating conditions: initial flow rates in the membrane reactor are: 558 cm3/h for O2 and 1672 cm3/h for C2H4 (O2:C2H6 = 1:3).
Figure 6. Ethane conversion in the membrane reactor (alumina support coated with the Mo-V-Te-Nb-Ox active phase at different stream modes: (1) co-current; (2) counter-current; operating conditions: initial flow rates in the membrane reactor are: 558 cm3/h for O2 and 1672 cm3/h for C2H4 (O2:C2H6 = 1:3).
Catalysts 11 00691 g006
Catalysts 11 00691 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison between Pt-NaY zeolite CMR and traditional reactors for the CO SelOx [94,95,96,97,98].
Figure 7. Comparison between Pt-NaY zeolite CMR and traditional reactors for the CO SelOx [94,95,96,97,98].
Catalysts 11 00691 g007
Catalysts 11 00691 g008 550
Figure 8. Different biocatalyst immobilization mechanism.
Figure 8. Different biocatalyst immobilization mechanism.
Catalysts 11 00691 g008
Catalysts 11 00691 g009 550
Figure 9. MBR configurations: (a) Side-stream and (b) submerged.
Figure 9. MBR configurations: (a) Side-stream and (b) submerged.
Catalysts 11 00691 g009
Catalysts 11 00691 g010 550
Figure 10. Pilot scale AnSMBR unit for municipal wastewater treatment, as presented by D. Martinez-Sosa et al. [117].
Figure 10. Pilot scale AnSMBR unit for municipal wastewater treatment, as presented by D. Martinez-Sosa et al. [117].
Catalysts 11 00691 g010
Catalysts 11 00691 g011 550
Figure 11. MFC-MBR layouts: (a) single chamber, (b) dual chamber.
Figure 11. MFC-MBR layouts: (a) single chamber, (b) dual chamber.
Catalysts 11 00691 g011
Table
Table 1. Performance of zeolite membrane reactors in the WGS process.
Table 1. Performance of zeolite membrane reactors in the WGS process.
Zeolite TopologyTemperature (°C)CO Conversion%H2 Recovery (%)References
MFI *35073.6>98.2[69]
MFI30095.4-[70]
MFI55081.718[71]
MFI->99>60[72]
* MFI = Mobil-Type Five.
Table
Table 2. Metal membrane reactors are applied in WGS process.
Table 2. Metal membrane reactors are applied in WGS process.
MembraneTemperature (°C)CO Conversion%H2 Recovery (%)References
Pd41085-[75]
Pd-Ag20096.692[76]
Pd-Ag30099.198[76]
Pd40092<80[77]
Pd-Ag40099.5<89[77]
Pd-Ag3308580[78]
Pd-Cu9006585–90[79]
Table
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of biocatalysts immobilized on porous supports.
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of biocatalysts immobilized on porous supports.
Binding MethodBinding NatureAdvantagesDisadvantages
AdsorptionWeak bondsSimple and easy to useDesorption
Limited loss of enzyme activityNon-specific adsorption
Covalent BindingChemical binding between functional groups of the enzyme and those on the supportNo diffusion barrierMatrix not regenerable
--Stable & Short response timeCoupling with toxic product
EntrapmentIncorporation of the enzyme within a gel or a polymerNo chemical reaction between the monomer and the enzyme that could affect the activity of enzymeEnzyme leakage and Diffusion barrier
--Several types of enzymes can be immobilized within the same polymerHigh concentrations of monomer and enzyme for electropolymerization
Cross-linkingBond between enzyme/cross-linker (e.g., glutaraldehyde)/inert moleculeSimpleHigh enzyme activity and activity loss
AffinityAffinity bonds between a functional group on a support and affinity tag on a protein sequenceControlled and oriented immobilizationNeed of the presence of specific groups on enzyme
Table
Table 4. Comparison between the two MBR configurations. Adapted from [107].
Table 4. Comparison between the two MBR configurations. Adapted from [107].
Submerged MBRSidestream MBR
ApplicationMunicipal-scale systemsIndustrial systems
Solids in activated sludgeFeed with high temperature
Shear byAerationPump
Operation ModeDead-end filtrationCross-flow filtration
PressureLowHigh
Energy ConsumptionSignificantly lowHigh
FoulingLowHigh
Table
Table 5. MFC-MBR coupling systems for wastewater treatment.
Table 5. MFC-MBR coupling systems for wastewater treatment.
Membrane TypeBrand-ModelCOD Removal RateNH3-N Removal RateReferences
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation95.6%92.4%[117]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation89.6 ± 3.7%-[118]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANEMotian, China>90%90  ±  3%[119]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation95  ±  5%70%[120]
-->90%-[121]
--97%97%[122]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation>95%-[123]
--92.5%70.6%[124]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation95 ± 2.5%85  ±  2.5%[125]
PVDFRuiBang, China90%80%[126]
TUBULAR MEMBRANEMotian, China86.21%-[127]
HOLLOW-FIBER MEMBRANESelf-preparation77  ±  7%-[128]
PVDFKoion, South Korea89  ±  3%-[129]
PVDFSelf-preparation90%80%[130]
PVDFSelf-preparation73.87%-[131]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Algieri, C.; Coppola, G.; Mukherjee, D.; Shammas, M.I.; Calabro, V.; Curcio, S.; Chakraborty, S. Catalytic Membrane Reactors: The Industrial Applications Perspective. Catalysts 2021, 11, 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11060691

AMA Style

Algieri C, Coppola G, Mukherjee D, Shammas MI, Calabro V, Curcio S, Chakraborty S. Catalytic Membrane Reactors: The Industrial Applications Perspective. Catalysts. 2021; 11(6):691. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11060691

Chicago/Turabian Style

Algieri, Catia, Gerardo Coppola, Debolina Mukherjee, Mahaad Issa Shammas, Vincenza Calabro, Stefano Curcio, and Sudip Chakraborty. 2021. "Catalytic Membrane Reactors: The Industrial Applications Perspective" Catalysts 11, no. 6: 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11060691

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop