Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (4) : 63    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1147-y
REVIEW ARTICLE
Membrane-based treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater: The current state of knowledge
Tiezheng Tong(), Kenneth H. Carlson, Cristian A. Robbins, Zuoyou Zhang, Xuewei Du
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
 Download: PDF(1428 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

• Shale oil and gas production generates wastewater with complex composition.

• Membrane technologies emerged for the treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater.

• Membrane technologies should tolerate high TDS and consume low primary energy.

• Pretreatment is a key component of integrated wastewater treatment systems.

• Full-scale implementation of membrane technologies is highly desirable.

Shale oil and gas exploitation not only consumes substantial amounts of freshwater but also generates large quantities of hazardous wastewater. Tremendous research efforts have been invested in developing membrane-based technologies for the treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater. Despite their success at the laboratory scale, membrane processes have not been implemented at full scale in the oil and gas fields. In this article, we analyze the growing demands of wastewater treatment in shale oil and gas production, and then critically review the current stage of membrane technologies applied to the treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater. We focus on the unique niche of those technologies due to their advantages and limitations, and use mechanical vapor compression as the benchmark for comparison. We also highlight the importance of pretreatment as a key component of integrated treatment trains, in order to improve the performance of downstream membrane processes and water product quality. We emphasize the lack of sufficient efforts to scale up existing membrane technologies, and suggest that a stronger collaboration between academia and industry is of paramount importance to translate membrane technologies developed in the laboratory to the practical applications by the shale oil and gas industry.
Keywords Shale oil and gas production      Wastewater treatment and reuse      Membrane technology      Pretreatment      Academia-industry collaboration     
Corresponding Author(s): Tiezheng Tong   
Issue Date: 01 July 2019
 Cite this article:   
Tiezheng Tong,Kenneth H. Carlson,Cristian A. Robbins, et al. Membrane-based treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater: The current state of knowledge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 63.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-019-1147-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2019/V13/I4/63
Fig.1  Wastewater  production volume per well during the first 12 months after hydraulic fracturing from (A) Permian Basin, (B) Eagle Ford Shale, (C) Marcellus Shale, and (D) Niobrara Shale. The data marked in red indicate gas-producing regions while those marked in blue indicate oil-producing regions. The data used in this figure are extracted from Kondash et al. (2018).
Fig.2  Three  periods of wastewater production from shale oil and gas wells, as well as variation of total dissolved salts (TDS) and organics with time. The TDS and organics from formation brines typically increases with well age, whereas the organics associated with fracturing fluids decrease with time. The shape of wastewater production volume is adopted from Bai et al. (2015).
Fig.3  Pilot-scale  treatment facilities employed for the treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater using (A) MVC (Hayes et al., 2014), (B) UF coupled with RO (Miller et al., 2013), and (C and D) thermolytic FO (McGinnis et al., 2013).
Fig.4  (A) The  specific energy consumption of RO and MVC. Although RO is much more energy efficient than MVC, the salinity of shale oil and gas wastewater often exceeds the salinity limit of RO (typically 70,000 mg/L), constraining the use of RO in the treatment of shale oil and gas wastewater. This gap necessitates the development of technologies that tolerate higher salinity than RO and consume less energy than MVC. These technologies include (B) forward osmosis and (C) membrane distillation, both of which are able to utilize low-grade thermal energy and reduce the consumption of primary electric energy. The style of this figure is adopted from Tong et al. (Tong and Elimelech, 2016)
Feature MVC MF/UF NF/RO FO MD
Technical Maturity
Energy Efficiency
Product Quality
Salinity Limit
Utilize Low-grade Thermal Energy
Capital Cost
On-site Treatment
Tab.1  Qualitative  comparison of technologies used as main step for shale oil and gas wastewater treatment. A higher number of stars indicate of more favorable features
Fig.5  Schematic  description of an on-site wastewater treatment train for shale oil and gas production, which utilizes precipitative softening and walnut shell filtration as the pretreatment steps, as well as membrane distillation as the main treatment step. CNG boiler stands for compressed natural gas boiler. This figure is adopted from Zhang et al. (2019).
1 F R Ahmadun, A Pendashteh, L C Abdullah, D R A Biak, S S Madaeni, Z Z Abidin (2009). Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 170(2-3): 530–551
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.044 pmid: 19505758
2 D S Alessi, A Zolfaghari, S Kletke, J Gehman, D M Allen, G G Goss (2017). Comparative analysis of hydraulic fracturing wastewater practices in unconventional shale development: Water sourcing, treatment and disposal practices. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42(2): 105–121
https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2016.1238782
3 S Alzahrani, A W Mohammad, N Hilal, P Abdullah, O Jaafar (2013). Identification of foulants, fouling mechanisms and cleaning efficiency for NF and RO treatment of produced water. Separation and Purification Technology, 118: 324–341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.07.016
4 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (2016). Fact Sheet and Supplementary Information for General Permit Discharges from Groundwater and Surface Water Clean Up Located within the State of Arkansas
5 H S Aybar (2002). Analysis of a mechanical vapor compression desalination system. Desalination, 142(2): 181–186
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00437-4
6 R Bahar, M N A Hawlader, L S Woei (2004). Performance evaluation of a mechanical vapor compression desalination system. Desalination, 166(1–3): 123–127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.066
7 B Bai, K Carlson, A Prior, C Douglas (2015). Sources of variability in flowback and produced water volumes from shale oil and gas wells. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 12: 1–5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juogr.2015.07.001
8 B Bai, S Goodwin, K Carlson (2013). Modeling of frac flowback and produced water volume from Wattenberg oil and gas field. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 108: 383–392
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.05.003
9 E A Bell, T E Poynor, K B Newhart, J Regnery, B D Coday, T Y Cath (2017). Produced water treatment using forward osmosis membranes: Evaluation of extended-time performance and fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 525: 77–88
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.10.032
10 R Bond, S Veerapaneni (2007). Zero liquid discharge for inland desalination. No. 500–01–040. Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation
11 C Boo, J Lee, M Elimelech (2016a). Engineering surface energy and nanostructure of microporous films for expanded membrane distillation applications. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(15): 8112–8119
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02316 pmid: 27391088
12 C Boo, J Lee, M Elimelech (2016b). Omniphobic polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane for desalination of shale gas produced water by membrane distillation. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(22): 12275–12282
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03882 pmid: 27762141
13 S L Brantley, D Yoxtheimer, S Arjmand, P Grieve, R Vidic, J Pollak, G T Llewellyn, J Abad, C Simon (2014). Water resource impacts during unconventional shale gas development: The Pennsylvania experience. International Journal of Coal Geology, 126: 140–156
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.12.017
14 A Burbano, P Brankhuber (2012). Demonstration of membrane zero liquid discharge for drinking water systems: A literature review. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation
15 A Butkovskyi, H Bruning, S A E Kools, H H M Rijnaarts, A P Van Wezel (2017). Organic pollutants in shale gas flowback and produced waters: Identification, potential ecological impact, and implications for treatment strategies. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(9): 4740–4754
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05640 pmid: 28376616
16 T Y Cath, A E Childress, M Elimelech (2006). Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments. Journal of Membrane Science, 281(1–2): 70–87
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.05.048
17 H Chang, T Li, B Liu, R Vidic, M Elimelech, J C Crittenden (2019a). Potential and implemented membrane-based technologies for the treatment and reuse of flowback and produced water from shale gas and oil plays: A review. Desalination, 455: 34–57
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.01.001
18 H Q Chang, B C Liu, B X Yang, X Yang, C Guo, Q P He, S M Liang, S Chen, P Yang (2019b). An integrated coagulation-ultrafiltration-nanofiltration process for internal reuse of shale gas flowback and produced water. Separation and Purification Technology, 211: 310–321
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.09.081
19 G Chen, Z W Wang, L D Nghiem, X M Li, M Xie, B L Zhao, M X Zhang, J F Song, T He (2015). Treatment of shale gas drilling flowback fluids (SGDFs) by forward osmosis: Membrane fouling and mitigation. Desalination, 366: 113–120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.02.025
20 J A Chermak, M E Schreiber (2014). Mineralogy and trace element geochemistry of gas shales in the United States: Environmental implications. International Journal of Coal Geology, 126: 32–44
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.12.005
21 Chevron Corporation (2018). Chevron tech challenge: Produced water- Unlocking a valuable natural resource
22 N G P Chew, S S Zhao, C H Loh, N Permogorov, R Wang (2017). Surfactant effects on water recovery from produced water via direct-contact membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 528: 126–134
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.01.024
23 Y H Cho, H W Kim, S Y Nam, H B Park (2011). Fouling-tolerant polysulfone-poly(ethylene oxide) random copolymer ultrafiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 379(1–2): 296–306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.05.075
24 B D Coday, N Almaraz, T Y Cath (2015). Forward osmosis desalination of oil and gas wastewater: Impacts of membrane selection and operating conditions on process performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 488: 40–55
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.03.059
25 B D Coday, T Y Cath (2014). Forward osmosis: Novel desalination of produced water and fracturing flowback. Journal- American Water Works Association, 106(2): E55–E66
https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0016
26 B D Coday, P Xu, E G Beaudry, J Herron, K Lampi, N T Hancock, T Y Cath (2014). The sweet spot of forward osmosis: Treatment of produced water, drilling wastewater, and other complex and difficult liquid streams. Desalination, 333(1): 23–35
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.014
27 D M Davenport, A Deshmukh, J R Werber, M Elimelech (2018). High-pressure reverse osmosis for energy-efficient hypersaline brine desalination: Current status, design considerations, and research needs. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 5(8): 467–475
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.8b00274
28 A Deshmukh, C Boo, V Karanikola, S H Lin, A P Straub, T Z Tong, D M Warsinger, M Elimelech (2018). Membrane distillation at the water-energy nexus: limits, opportunities, and challenges. Energy & Environmental Science, 11(5): 1177–1196
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EE00291F
29 X W Du, Z Y Zhang, K H Carlson, J Lee, T Z Tong (2018). Membrane fouling and reusability in membrane distillation of shale oil and gas produced water: Effects of membrane surface wettability. Journal of Membrane Science, 567: 199–208
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.09.036
30 H C Duong, A R Chivas, B Nelemans, M Duke, S Gray, T Y Cath, L D Nghiem (2015). Treatment of RO brine from CSG produced water by spiral-wound air gap membrane distillation: A pilot study. Desalination, 366: 121–129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.026
31 Eastern Municipal Water District and Carollo Engineers (2008). Evaluation and selection of available processes for a zero-liquid discharge system for the Perris, California ground water basin. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
32 M Elimelech, W A Phillip (2011). The future of seawater desalination: Energy, technology, and the environment. Science, 333(6043): 712–717
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200488 pmid: 21817042
33 N Esmaeilirad, K Carlson, P Omur Ozbek (2015). Influence of softening sequencing on electrocoagulation treatment of produced water. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 283: 721–729
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.10.046 pmid: 25464315
34 I Ferrer, E M Thurman (2015). Chemical constituents and analytical approaches for hydraulic fracturing waters. Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 5: 18–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teac.2015.01.003
35 C Forrestal, Z Stoll, P Xu, Z J Ren (2015). Microbial capacitive desalination for integrated organic matter and salt removal and energy production from unconventional natural gas produced water. Environmental Science. Water Research & Technology, 1(1): 47–55
https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EW00050A
36 D E Freedman, S M Riley, Z L Jones, J S Rosenblum, J O Sharp, J R Spear, T Y Cath (2017). Biologically active filtration for fracturing flowback and produced water treatment. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 18: 29–40
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.05.008
37 T J Gallegos, B A Varela, S S Haines, M A Engle (2015). Hydraulic fracturing water use variability in the United States and potential environmental implications. Water Resources Research, 51(7): 5839–5845
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017278 pmid: 26937056
38 K B Gregory, R D Vidic, D A Dzombak (2011). Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements, 7(3): 181–186
https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.7.3.181
39 C Guo, H Q Chang, B C Liu, Q P He, B Y Xiong, M Kumar, A L Zydney (2018). A combined ultrafiltration-reverse osmosis process for external reuse of Weiyuan shale gas flowback and produced water. Environmental Science. Water Research & Technology, 4(7): 942–955
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EW00036K
40 A J Hanson, J L Luek, S S Tummings, M C McLaughlin, J Blotevogel, P J Mouser (2019). High total dissolved solids in shale gas wastewater inhibit biodegradation of alkyl and nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactants. Science of the Total Environment, 668: 1094–1103
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.041 pmid: 31018450
41 T D Hayes, B Halldorson, P Horner, J Ewing, J R Werline, B F Severin (2014). Mechanical vapor recompression for the treatment of shale-gas flowback water. Oil and Gas Facilities, 3(4): 54–62
https://doi.org/10.2118/170247-PA
42 C He, X H Wang, W S Liu, E Barbot, R D Vidic (2014). Microfiltration in recycling of Marcellus Shale flowback water: Solids removal and potential fouling of polymeric microfiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 462: 88–95
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.03.035
43 F He, K K Sirkar, J Gilron (2009). Effects of antiscalants to mitigate membrane scaling by direct contact membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 345(1–2): 53–58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.08.021
44 Y He, C Sun, Y Zhang, E J Folkerts, J W Martin, G G Goss (2018). Developmental toxicity of the organic fraction from hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced waters to early life stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environmental Science & Technology, 52(6): 3820–3830
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06557 pmid: 29376370
45 Y X Huang, Z Wang, J Jin, S Lin (2017). Novel janus membrane for membrane distillation with simultaneous fouling and wetting resistance. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(22): 13304–13310
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02848 pmid: 29083888
46 P Jain, M Sharma, P Dureja, P M Sarma, B Lal (2017). Bioelectrochemical approaches for removal of sulfate, hydrocarbon and salinity from produced water. Chemosphere, 166: 96–108
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.081 pmid: 27689889
47 Q Y Jiang, J Rentschler, R Perrone, K L Liu (2013). Application of ceramic membrane and ion-exchange for the treatment of the flowback water from Marcellus shale gas production. Journal of Membrane Science, 431: 55–61
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.12.030
48 J Kim, J Kim, S Hong (2018). Recovery of water and minerals from shale gas produced water by membrane distillation crystallization. Water Research, 129: 447–459
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.017 pmid: 29179124
49 J Kim, H Kwon, S Lee, S Lee, S Hong (2017). Membrane distillation (MD) integrated with crystallization (MDC) for shale gas produced water (SGPW) treatment. Desalination, 403: 172–178
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.045
50 S Y Kim, P Omur-Ozbek, A Dhanasekar, A Prior, K Carlson (2016). Temporal analysis of flowback and produced water composition from shale oil and gas operations: Impact of frac fluid characteristics. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 147: 202–210
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.06.019
51 A Kondash, A Vengosh (2015). Water footprint of hydraulic fracturing. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2(10): 276–280
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00211
52 A J Kondash, E Albright, A Vengosh (2017). Quantity of flowback and produced waters from unconventional oil and gas exploration. Science of the Total Environment, 574: 314–321
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.069 pmid: 27639468
53 A J Kondash, N E Lauer, A Vengosh (2018). The intensification of the water footprint of hydraulic fracturing. Sci Adv, 4(8): eaar5982
54 F X Kong, J F Chen, H M Wang, X N Liu, X M Wang, X Wen, C M Chen, Y F F Xie (2017). Application of coagulation-UF hybrid process for shale gas fracturing flowback water recycling: Performance and fouling analysis. Journal of Membrane Science, 524: 460–469
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.039
55 F X Kong, G D Sun, J F Chen, J D Han, C M Guo, T Zhang, X F Lin, Y F F Xie (2018). Desalination and fouling of NF/low pressure RO membrane for shale gas fracturing flowback water treatment. Separation and Purification Technology, 195: 216–223
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.12.017
56 A Koren, N Nadav (1994). Mechanical vapor compression to treat oil-field produced water. Desalination, 98(1–3): 41–48
https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(94)00130-8
57 A Krupnick, Z M Wang, Y S Wang (2014). Environmental risks of shale gas development in China. Energy Policy, 75: 117–125
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.022
58 K W Lawson, D R Lloyd (1997). Membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 124(1): 1–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00236-0
59 Y Lester, I Ferrer, E M Thurman, K A Sitterley, J A Korak, G Aiken, K G Linden (2015). Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado: Implications for water treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 512-513: 637–644
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.043 pmid: 25658325
60 S H Lin, S Nejati, C Boo, Y X Hu, C O Osuji, M Elimelech (2014). Omniphobic membrane for robust membrane distillation. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 1(11): 443–447
https://doi.org/10.1021/ez500267p
61 F L Lobo, H Wang, T Huggins, J Rosenblum, K G Linden, Z J Ren (2016). Low-energy hydraulic fracturing wastewater treatment via AC powered electrocoagulation with biochar. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 309: 180–184
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.02.020 pmid: 26894291
62 O R Lokare, S Tavakkoli, G Rodriguez, V Khanna, R D Vidic (2017a). Integrating membrane distillation with waste heat from natural gas compressor stations for produced water treatment in Pennsylvania. Desalination, 413: 144–153
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.03.022
63 O R Lokare, S Tavakkoli, S Wadekar, V Khanna, R D Vidic (2017b). Fouling in direct contact membrane distillation of produced water from unconventional gas extraction. Journal of Membrane Science, 524: 493–501
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.072
64 B D Lutz, A N Lewis, M W Doyle (2013). Generation, transport, and disposal of wastewater associated with Marcellus Shale gas development. Water Resources Research, 49(2): 647–656
https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20096
65 J R McCutcheon, R L Mcginnis, M Elimelech (2005). A novel ammonia-carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination, 174(1): 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.002
66 R L McGinnis, N T Hancock, M S Nowosielski-Slepowron, G D Mcgurgan (2013). Pilot demonstration of the NH3/CO2 forward osmosis desalination process on high salinity brines. Desalination, 312: 67–74
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.11.032
67 D J Miller, X F Huang, H Li, S Kasemset, A Lee, D Agnihotri, T Hayes, D R Paul, B D Freeman (2013). Fouling-resistant membranes for the treatment of flowback water from hydraulic shale fracturing: A pilot study. Journal of Membrane Science, 437: 265–275
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.019
68 S Mondal, S R Wickramasinghe (2008). Produced water treatment by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 322(1): 162–170
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.039
69 M Monge, L A Gil-Alana, F P De Gracia (2017). US shale oil production and WTI prices behaviour. Energy, 141: 12–19
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.055
70 C Notte, D M Allen, J Gehman, D S Alessi, G G Goss (2017). Comparative analysis of hydraulic fracturing wastewater practices in unconventional shale developments: Regulatory regimes. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42(2): 122–137
https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2016.1218795
71 Oasys Water Inc (2014). Oasys applies FO to treat wastewater from China’s growing power market. Membrane Technology, 2014(11): 2–3
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-2118(14)70222-8
72 K Oetjen, K E Chan, K Gulmark, J H Christensen, J Blotevogel, T Borch, J R Spear, T Y Cath, C P Higgins (2018). Temporal characterization and statistical analysis of flowback and produced waters and their potential for reuse. Science of the Total Environment, 619-620: 654–664
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.078 pmid: 29156284
73 S M Riley, D C Ahoor, T Y Cath (2018a). Enhanced biofiltration of O&G produced water comparing granular activated carbon and nutrients. Science of the Total Environment, 640-641: 419–428
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.228 pmid: 29860011
74 S M Riley, D C Ahoor, J Regnery, T Y Cath (2018b). Tracking oil and gas wastewater-derived organic matter in a hybrid biofilter membrane treatment system: A multi-analytical approach. Science of the Total Environment, 613-614: 208–217
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.031 pmid: 28915457
75 S M Riley, J M S Oliveira, J Regnery, T Y Cath (2016). Hybrid membrane bio-systems for sustainable treatment of oil and gas produced water and fracturing flowback water. Separation and Purification Technology, 171: 297–311
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2016.07.008
76 J Rosenblum, E M Thurman, I Ferrer, G Aiken, K G Linden (2017). Organic chemical characterization and mass balance of a hydraulically fractured well: From fracturing fluid to produced water over 405 days. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(23): 14006–14015
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03362 pmid: 29132208
77 K Sardari, P Fyfe, D Lincicome, S R Wickramasinghe (2018a). Aluminum electrocoagulation followed by forward osmosis for treating hydraulic fracturing produced waters. Desalination, 428: 172–181
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.030
78 K Sardari, P Fyfe, D Lincicome, S R Wickramasinghe (2018b). Combined electrocoagulation and membrane distillation for treating high salinity produced waters. Journal of Membrane Science, 564: 82–96
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.06.041
79 A B Schantz, B Y Xiong, E Dees, D R Moore, X J Yang, M Kumar (2018). Emerging investigators series: Prospects and challenges for high-pressure reverse osmosis in minimizing concentrated waste streams. Environmental Science. Water Research & Technology, 4(7): 894–908
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EW00137E
80 D L Shaffer, L H Arias Chavez, M Ben-Sasson, S Romero-Vargas Castrillón, N Y Yip, M Elimelech (2013). Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(17): 9569–9583
https://doi.org/10.1021/es401966e pmid: 23885720
81 D L Shaffer, J R Werber, H Jaramillo, S H Lin, M Elimelech (2015). Forward osmosis: Where are we now? Desalination, 356: 271–284
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.031
82 J S Shih, J E Saiers, S C Anisfeld, Z Chu, L A Muehlenbachs, S M M Olmstead (2015). Characterization and analysis of liquid waste from Marcellus Shale gas development. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(16): 9557–9565
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01780 pmid: 26140412
83 D Singh, K K Sirkar (2012). Desalination of brine and produced water by direct contact membrane distillation at high temperatures and pressures. Journal of Membrane Science, 389: 380–388
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.11.003
84 M H Stephenson (2016). Shale gas in North America and Europe. Energy Science & Engineering, 4(1): 4–13
https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.96
85 Z A Stoll, C Forrestal, Z J Ren, P Xu (2015). Shale gas produced water treatment using innovative microbial capacitive desalination cell. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 283: 847–855
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.10.015 pmid: 25464328
86 Y Sun, D Wang, D C W Tsang, L Wang, Y S Ok, Y Feng (2019). A critical review of risks, characteristics, and treatment strategies for potentially toxic elements in wastewater from shale gas extraction. Environment International, 125: 452–469
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.019 pmid: 30763832
87 S Tavakkoli, O R Lokare, R D Vidic, V Khanna (2017). A techno-economic assessment of membrane distillation for treatment of Marcellus shale produced water. Desalination, 416: 24–34
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.014
88 G P Thiel, E W Tow, L D Banchik, H W Chung, J H Lienhard (2015). Energy consumption in desalinating produced water from shale oil and gas extraction. Desalination, 366: 94–112
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.038
89 T Tong, M Elimelech (2016). The global rise of zero liquid discharge for wastewater management: Drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(13): 6846–6855
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01000 pmid: 27275867
90 U.S. Energy Information Administration (2018a). How much shale (tight) oil is produced in the United States? Available online at: . (accessed February 26, 2019)
91 U.S. Energy Information Administration (2018b). How much shale gas is produced in the United States? Available online at: . (accessed February 26, 2019).
92 U.S. EPA (1995). Technically-based Local Limits Development Strategy
93 U.S. EPA (2005). 2005 Remediation General Permit Fact Sheet Excerpts
94 T Van de Graaf, T Haesebrouck, P Debaere (2018). Fractured politics? The comparative regulation of shale gas in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(9): 1276–1293
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1301985
95 A Vengosh, R B Jackson, N Warner, T H Darrah, A Kondash (2014). A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(15): 8334–8348
https://doi.org/10.1021/es405118y pmid: 24606408
96 R D Vidic, S L Brantley, J M Vandenbossche, D Yoxtheimer, J D Abad (2013). Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science, 340(6134): 1235009
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235009 pmid: 23687049
97 Z Wang, M Elimelech, S Lin (2016). Environmental applications of interfacial materials with special wettability. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(5): 2132–2150
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04351 pmid: 26829583
98 J M Winglee, N Bossa, D Rosen, J T Vardner, M R Wiesner (2017). Modeling the concentration of volatile and semivolatile contaminants in direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) product water. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(22): 13113–13121
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05663 pmid: 29111695
99 Q Wu, G E Chen, W G Sun, Z L Xu, Y F Kong, X P Zheng, S J Xu (2017). Bio-inspired GO-Ag/PVDF/F127 membrane with improved anti-fouling for natural organic matter (NOM) resistance. Chemical Engineering Journal, 313: 450–460
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.079
100 B Xiong, A L Zydney, M Kumar (2016). Fouling of microfiltration membranes by flowback and produced waters from the Marcellus shale gas play. Water Research, 99: 162–170
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.049 pmid: 27155988
101 B Y Xiong, S Roman-White, B Piechowicz, Z Miller, B Farina, T Tasker, W Burgos, A L Zydney, M Kumar (2018). Polyacrylamide in hydraulic fracturing fluid causes severe membrane fouling during flowback water treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 560: 125–131
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.04.055
102 H Yang, X J Huang, Q Y Yang, J J Tu, S F Li, D M Yang, H Xia, R J Flower, J R Thompson (2015). Water requirements for shale gas fracking in Fuling, Chongqing, Southwest China. Energy Procedia, 76: 106–112
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.862
103 M W Yao, Y C Woo, L D Tijing, J S Choi, H K Shon (2018). Effects of volatile organic compounds on water recovery from produced water via vacuum membrane distillation. Desalination, 440: 146–155
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.012
104 M Yu, E Weinthal, D Patiño-Echeverri, M A Deshusses, C Zou, Y Ni, A Vengosh (2016). Water availability for shale gas development in Sichuan Basin, China. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(6): 2837–2845
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04669 pmid: 26881457
105 J Zhai, Z Huang, M H Rahaman, Y Li, L Mei, H Ma, X Hu, H Xiao, Z Luo, K Wang (2017). Comparison of coagulation pretreatment of produced water from natural gas well by polyaluminium chloride and polyferric sulphate coagulants. Environmental Technology, 38(10): 1200–1210
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2016.1217937 pmid: 27460889
106 R Zhang, Y Liu, M He, Y Su, X Zhao, M Elimelech, Z Jiang (2016). Antifouling membranes for sustainable water purification: strategies and mechanisms. Chemical Society Reviews, 45(21): 5888–5924
https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CS00579E pmid: 27494001
107 Z Y Zhang, X W Du, K H Carlson, C A Robbins, T Z Tong (2019). Effective treatment of shale oil and gas produced water by membrane distillation coupled with precipitative softening and walnut shell filtration. Desalination, 454: 82–90
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.12.011
108 X S Zhou, D B Gingerich, M S Mauter (2015). Water treatment capacity of forward-osmosis systems utilizing power-plant waste heat. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 54(24): 6378–6389
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00460
109 C Zou, Y Ni, J Li, A Kondash, R Coyte, N Lauer, H Cui, F Liao, A Vengosh (2018). The water footprint of hydraulic fracturing in Sichuan Basin, China. Science of the Total Environment, 630: 349–356
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.219 pmid: 29482143
110 Y Q Zou, C B Yang, D S Wu, C Yan, M S Zeng, Y Y Lan, Z X Dai (2016). Probabilistic assessment of shale gas production and water demand at Xiuwu Basin in China. Applied Energy, 180: 185–195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.099
[1] Ling Wang, Chunxue Yang, Sangeetha Thangavel, Zechong Guo, Chuan Chen, Aijie Wang, Wenzong Liu. Enhanced hydrogen production in microbial electrolysis through strategies of carbon recovery from alkaline/thermal treated sludge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 56-.
[2] Milan Malhotra, Anurag Garg. Characterization of value-added chemicals derived from the thermal hydrolysis and wet oxidation of sewage sludge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 13-.
[3] Lu Song, Can Wang, Yizhu Wang. Optimized determination of airborne tetracycline resistance genes in laboratory atmosphere[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 95-.
[4] Quan Yuan, Hui Gong, Hao Xi, Kaijun Wang. Aerobic granular sludge formation based on substrate availability: Effects of flow pattern and fermentation pretreatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 49-.
[5] Mengli Wang, Ruying Li, Qing Zhao. Distribution and removal of antibiotic resistance genes during anaerobic sludge digestion with alkaline, thermal hydrolysis and ultrasonic pretreatments[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 43-.
[6] Kit Wayne Chew, Pau Loke Show, Yee Jiun Yap, Joon Ching Juan, Siew Moi Phang, Tau Chuan Ling, Jo-Shu Chang. Sonication and grinding pre-treatments on Gelidium amansii seaweed for the extraction and characterization of Agarose[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 2-.
[7] Munawar Ali, Junli Zhang, Roberto Raga, Maria Cristina Lavagnolo, Alberto Pivato, Xu Wang, Yuanyuan Zhang, Raffaello Cossu, Dongbei Yue. Effectiveness of aerobic pretreatment of municipal solid waste for accelerating biogas generation during simulated landfilling[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 5-.
[8] Bai-Hang Zhao, Jie Chen, Han-Qing Yu, Zhen-Hu Hu, Zheng-Bo Yue, Jun Li. Optimization of microwave pretreatment of lignocellulosic waste for enhancing methane production: Hyacinth as an example[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(6): 17-.
[9] Yun FANG,Meiying XU,Xingjuan CHEN,Guoping SUN,Jun GUO,Weimin WU,Xueduan LIU. Modified pretreatment method for total microbial DNA extraction from contaminated river sediment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(3): 444-452.
[10] Guangyin ZHEN, Xueqin LU, Baoying WANG, Youcai ZHAO, Xiaoli CHAI, Dongjie NIU, Tiantao ZHAO. Enhanced dewatering characteristics of waste activated sludge with Fenton pretreatment: effectiveness and statistical optimization[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2014, 8(2): 267-276.
[11] Shuting ZHANG, Bo WEI, Xin YU, Bing LIU, Zhuoying WU, Li GU. Development of pretreatment protocol for DNA extraction from biofilm attached to biologic activated carbon (BAC) granules[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 459-465.
[12] Guangxue WU , Zhenhu HU , Mark G. HEALY , Xinmin ZHAN , . Thermochemical pretreatment of meat and bone meal and its effect on methane production[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2009, 3(3): 300-306.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed