Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com Current Opinion in
ScienceDirect
Beyond NEWater: An insight into Singapore’s water reuse
prospects
Olivier Lefebvre
Abstract
Indirect potable water reuse has been implemented island-
wide in Singapore over the last 15 years. Nowadays, water
reuse provides in average 30% of the nation’s water demand
and the so-called NEWater success story has largely contrib-
uted to turning Singapore into a global hydrohub for pioneering
new water technologies. In this context, this short review pre-
sents the latest technological advances and the perspectives
for water reuse in Singapore. Areas of focus include mem-
brane development (including forward, reverse and pressure
retarded osmosis, as well as membrane bioreactors),
advanced oxidation processes, electrochemical approaches,
and their integration as cost-effective tailored solutions to
tackle new challenges as diverse as direct potable reuse, in-
dustrial water reuse, decentralized water reuse and the circular
economy.
Addresses
Centre for Water Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Dr. 2,
Singapore, 117576, Singapore
Corresponding author: Lefebvre, Olivier (ceelop@nus.edu.sg)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018,
2:26–31
This review comes from a themed issue on Wastewater and reuse
Edited by Paola Verlicchi and Paolo Roccaro
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.12.001
2468-5844/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Advanced oxidation processes, Decentralized water reuse, Direct
potable reuse, Electro-Fenton, Forward osmosis, Industrial water reuse.
Introduction
The 2017 theme for World Water Day was ‘wastewater’,
which can defined as water whose quality has been
deteriorated by agricultural, industrial or domestic use
[1]. Concurrent to World Water Day was the launch of
the World Water Development Report 2017 entitled
‘Wastewater- The Untapped Resource’ which refers to
wastewater as the new oil, emphasizing the vital
importance of water as a natural resource, which in many
parts of the world is taken for granted [2]. With climate
change expected to shift water availability over the
world, emphasize geographical disparities and threaten
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31
Environmental Science & Health
up to four billion people in regions that are generally
already vulnerable, action is required to rethink our
water consumption paradigms [3].
As a tiny island-nation off the southern border of con-
tinental Malaysia, Singapore faces many challenges: lack
of land and natural resources, highly urbanized densely-
populated environment, etc. With total renewable
freshwater resources of 0.6 km3 and a population of 5.6
million, corresponding to less than 110 m3 per capita,
Singapore’s water situation is comparable to that of
Libya, Jordan or Sudan and makes it by far the most
water scarce country in South East Asia. Historically,
Singapore has relied on Malaysia for its freshwater
supply but has started looking at water reuse as early as
the 1970s [4]. Though at that time, membrane tech-
nology was deemed unviable economically, the assid-
uous technology watch that ensued later led to pilot
demonstration in the 1990s followed in the 2000s by
island-wide implementation of NEWater, the brand
name given to reclaimed water by Singapore’s Public
Utilities Board (PUB). Nowadays, 4 NEWater plants
supply in average 30% of Singapore’s water demand, a
number which is expected to rise to 55% by 2060, at
which point of time NEWater production could be as
high as 440 million imperial gallons per day (mgd).
Resorting to water reuse frees space for more valuable
land usage in a megacity and is more energy efficient
than desalination. Most importantly, it is the strategic
goal to render the country self-sufficient water wise that
has contributed to larger public acceptance in Singapore
than in neighboring Australia for example [5]. Indeed,
even though the NEWater success story is generally
attributed to the seal of quality underlain under the
branding of NEWater, which encompasses different
layers of trust in technology, experts and government
[4], research has demonstrated that the primary reason
for acceptance was the positive discourse dominantly
circulated by the media, which allowed the overcoming
of visceral reactions, also known as the ‘yuck’ factor [5].
In particular, the development of a thick narrative,
associating the issue of water reuse to water security and
environmental constraints, making it imperative to
recycle water, has contributed largely to the NEWater
success story [6].
Singapore has adopted a highly centralized approach to
water reuse with a treatment train consisting of primary
sedimentation/activated sludge/microfiltration (MF)/
ultrafiltration (UF)/reverse osmosis (RO)/ultraviolet
www.sciencedirect.com
 Beyond NEWater: An insight into Singapore’s water reuse prospects Lefebvre
(UV) disinfection. Thus, the core technology behind
the production of NEWater is pressure-driven RO,
which allows particle separation primarily by size
exclusion through pores ranging between 0.2 and 0.4 nm
[7]. At this pore size, permeate is literally solid-free,
including no emerging contaminants, metals, salts, vi-
ruses or other micro-organisms. The downsides of RO
consist of high energy requirements and membrane
fouling, which are mitigated through pre-treatment,
consisting of successive stages of primary clarification,
biological treatment, and low-pressure MF (0.1e
0.2 mm)/UF (0.01e0.02 mm). In the unlikely event of
RO integrity breach, UV post-treatment ensures that
the permeate remains free of any microbiological con-
tent at all time. Following this multiple-barrier
approach, NEWater surpasses the WHO drinking
water quality guidelines [8] at a cost below SGD0.2/m3
and a fraction is directed towards industries requiring
ultrapure water (e.g., in the micro-electronics sector)
while the remaining enters the reservoirs for reminer-
alization and indirect potable reuse (IPR) [4].
State of the art of water reuse research
Membrane development
RO constitutes the core technology behind water reuse
but high energy requirement and brine management
constitute serious drawbacks. The main benefit of RO is
its ability to deal with salinity removal. For pathogens
and emerging contaminants, it could well be substituted
by a more cost-effective multi-barrier approach implying
a combination of biological, adsorption, MF/UF and
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) [9].
Among alternatives to RO, the recent years have
increasingly emphasized the promises of forward osmosis
(FO) and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) [10]. By
making use of a draw solution to naturally drive the os-
motic process, FO benefits from drastically lower energy
consumption and fouling propensity as compared to RO;
however the product of FO is not NEWater but a diluted
draw solution that requires secondary treatment. This
implies that FO and RO may not necessarily be mutually
exclusive and in fact they could be combined for energy
optimization with RO concentrate being used as the
draw solution for FO (Fig. 1). This approach is particu-
larly promising for inland water reuse solutions where
brine disposal is not an option. In Singapore, the inherent
limitations of FO such as the need for better membrane
materials [11] still limit its applications in the near
future. PRO however could constitute a promising
avenue to generate hydropower from RO brine provided
sturdier membranes are developed that can withstand
the high pressure of concentrated brine [10].
Advanced oxidation processes
AOPs, based on the generation of hydroxyl radicals
($OH), have been successfully implemented for tertiary
www.sciencedirect.com
27
Fig. 1
Concentrated Concentrated
Wastewater Brine
Reverse Osmosis
Forward Osmosis
Diluted
Wastewater Brine NEWater
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health
Combination of FO and RO processes for energy optimization. The RO
brine would play the role of the draw solution in that NEWater production
scheme.
treatment of urban wastewater, alone or in combination
with other technologies as an element of a multiple-
barrier process in water reuse schemes. Unlike mem-
branes, AOPs are destructive methods that cause the
cleavage of structural bonds and induce the conversion
of the initial pollutant into several intermediates at a
rate higher than natural processes [12]. AOPs are thus
applicable before membranes processes to decrease
fouling or after in order to remove micro-pollutants that
can pass through. Disadvantages of AOP technologies
include the formation of oxidation by-products that, in
certain circumstances, can accumulate in water and be
more toxic than the parent compound. For example, O3/
H2O2 and UV/H2O2 can lead to either the formation or
the degradation of bromate [13], polyfluorinated com-
pounds [14] or halogenated disinfection byproducts
[15] depending upon the conditions. N-Nitro-
sodimethylamine (NDMA) has been particularly well
studied and was found to form only when AOPs are
applied before RO [16,17]. However, AOPs can produce
more-reactive NDMA precursors persisting in RO
permeate and enhancing NDMA formation during final
chloramination [15e17]. Because both the AOP dose
and the nature of the matrix play determinant effects, it
is necessary to carefully evaluate these effects before
implementation for water reuse [18]. A summary of
various AOPs and their advantages and disadvantages is
compiled in Table 1.
Electrochemical approaches
Electrochemistry is increasingly regarded as a core sci-
ence for the development of a sustainable society from
fuel cells to waste electrochemical oxidation, desalina-
tion and water reuse [21]. Electrochemical AOPs are
attracting a lot of attention, owing to their many ad-
vantages, including use a cleaner reagent (electricity),
possibility to reach superior degrees of mineralization,
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31
28 Wastewater and reuse

Table 1

AOP comparison.

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Ozonation (O3/H2O2, O3/Fe2+, O3/Fe2+/UV) Field-proven Formation of oxidation by-products, air

Photolysis (O3/UV, H2O2/UV)
Heterogeneous photocatalysis (TiO2/UV)
Conventional Fenton reaction (H2O2/Fe2+)
Electro-Fenton
Field-proven, disinfection effect of UV
Works in a wider range of UV than
photolysis such as UVA (300–380 nm)
Yield not affected by water quality. Highly
Affordable due to high solubility of H2O2.
The most potent of all AOPs. Can be
automated. No chemicals except for
catalytic amount of iron (<0.1 mM),
electrochemically regenerated at the
cathode of the system. Little sludge
production.
permit required for ozone emissions, off-
gas treatment system for ozone
destruction. High operational costs due to
low water solubility.
Interference from turbidity. High cost of
UV. Limited range of UV.
If TiO2 is used as a slurry, a separation
step is required. Supported TiO2
technology shows promises in this sense
but has yet to be scaled-up.
No full-scale application. Optimal pH ca.
3.0a. Generates high amounts of iron
sludge.
No full-scale application. Requires acidic
pH ca. 3.0. and continuous supply of O2.

a
(Solar) photo-Fenton has been widely investigated in the last few years as tertiary treatment method for urban wastewater reuse and it was found
that it can be operated under milder conditions (pH in the range 5–6, lower concentrations of iron and H2O2) [19] because for the removal of
contaminants of emerging concern (typically occurring in the range of ng/L) and bacterial inactivation the smaller amount of hydroxyl radicals
produced compared to pH 3 process is sufficient. Moreover, the use of complexing/chelating agents has been successful investigated too [20].

versatility, high energy efficiency, amenability of auto-
mation and safety [22]. Electro-Fenton (Table 1) is
rapidly emerging as the most promising among electro-
chemical technologies [23], especially upon combina-
tion with nanomaterials such as graphene [24,25] or
boron-doped diamond (BDD) to promote anodic
oxidation as an extra source of $OH [26].
In contrast with other membrane processes, Electrodi-
alysis (ED) relies on charge exclusion and is a techni-
cally and economically viable alternative to RO for
brackish water desalination, especially for small plants
[27,28]. The less stringent feed quality for ED as
compared to RO contribute to lower the pre-treatment
costs. Finally, capacitive deionization has shown poten-
tial to increase water recovery from RO brine despite
cleaning issues [4,29,30].
Perspectives
Membrane bioreactor
The next approach to water reuse in Singapore will be
the development of the membrane bioreactor (MBR)
that combines the benefits of secondary treatment and
MF/UF in a single vessel, with the main benefits being a
compact structure and consistently good effluent qual-
ity. This MBR-RO approach has already been explored
at the pilot stage in Singapore [31]. A recent develop-
ment is the FO-MBR with the advantage of energy ef-
ficiency but the drawback of low flux and increased
salinity over time within the bioreactor, which can
adversely impact sludge viability [32].
Direct potable reuse
Direct potable reuse (DPR) is presented as the new
frontier of water reuse [9,33]. The key aspect for such a
scheme to succeed is treatment redundancy in a
multiple-barrier approach, which can lead to practically
inexistent probability of failure [34]. Sinapore has many
advantages to implement DPR. First, the PUB already
manages the whole water cycle from drinking water to
wastewater treatment. Second, the management of
NEWater in Singapore has already proven to be trust-
worthy over a decade. For example, over 300 persistent
organic pollutants are already routinely monitored [4].
Nowadays, it is possible to monitor many of these com-
pounds at concentrations as low as parts per trillion [35].
This is however a two-edged sword in the sense that
compounds present at such low concentrations may
cause unnecessary concern and ultimately the quality of
water from a DPR scheme should be compared to that of
a conventional drinking water scheme, in order to avoid
unnecessary cost escalation. Also, because it is not
possible to follow every pathogen or compound, online
sensing of both indicator compounds and performance
surrogates (e.g., UVA, total organic carbon, etc.) will be
needed [36]. It has recently been indicated that DPR
would be more sustainable without use of RO mem-
branes [37]. Ultimately, more than regulations it is
essential to apply a sound risk management strategy [38].

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31 www.sciencedirect.com

 Beyond NEWater: An insight into Singapore’s water reuse prospects Lefebvre
Industrial water reuse
Singapore differs from the rest of the world in that in-
dustry and not agriculture is the prime water user
representing 55% of the demand, a number which will
increase to 70% by 2060. With NEWater targets of 55%
of water supply, the situation creates a new challenge to
(i) supply high-quality water for pharmaceutical,
chemical, biotechnology, electronic sectors, etc. and (ii)
be able to reprocess the wastewater from the above-
mentioned activities. Typically, wastewater contami-
nated by industrial activities is enriched with bio-
recalcitrant organic compounds [39]. At this time, there
is still no gold standard for the treatment of such
wastewater. The promises of AOPs in this field are real
[40]; yet at the moment there still exist some limits
related to the excessive consumption of reagents at high
concentrations (COD > 10 g/L) of organic materials to
sustain the production of $OH [41]. In contrast, elec-
trochemical AOPs such as electro-Fenton work over a
broader range of organic loads (0.01 < COD < 100 g-O2/
L). In an industrial water reuse scheme, AOPs are ex-
pected to be more cost-effective when used as pre-
treatment prior to biological degradation. In this way,
recalcitrant contaminants can first be transformed into
biocompatible intermediates during the electro-
chemical phase, and then the treatment can be
completed by well-established biological methods, with
lower operating costs [42,43]. Again, the nature and
eventual toxicity of the oxidation byproducts will have
to be assessed in order to not affect the biological
treatment [44,45].
Finally, and though RO market is widely dominated by
polymeric materials, industrial water reuse could pro-
vide a niche market for sturdier ceramic membranes
[46e48]. Indeed, their higher mechanical strength and
lower fouling propensity make ceramic membranes
particularly resistant to extreme pH, temperature and
oxidation, making them ideal for combination with
AOPs in an industrial water reuse scheme.
Decentralized water reuse
Because the treatment of industrial wastewater depends
highly on the nature of the process, it should not be
mixed with sewage and instead treatment should be
done in a decentralized manner at the level of the fac-
tory (Fig. 2).
The possibility to use small-scale treatment schemes for
reuse in an urbanized environment could be extended to
greywater. Singapore boasts a very unique system of
vertical public housing managed by the Housing and
Development Board (HDB) that are propitious for
innovative small-scale water treatment schemes for non-
potable reuse of greywater (e.g., for landscaping or for
flushing toilets). Even urine boasts potential for water
www.sciencedirect.com
29
Fig. 2
INDUSTRY
Electro-
Process Wastewater
Fenton
Ensure no toxicity
Biological
Treatment
Ceramic
Membrane
to sewer MBR
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health
One of the many possible schemes to implement decentralized industrial
water reuse.
reuse in a decentralised manner [49]. Community
ownership in such projects should be encouraged in
order to further increase societal awareness and accep-
tance of water reuse.
Water reuse as a component of circular economy
The concept of circular economy to increase reuse of
materials, energy, resources, and nutrients [50] is still
nascent in Singapore but is expected to grow in the near
future, with water reuse occupying a central position.
The symbol of this new paradigm is the planned co-
location for 2021/22 of the Integrated Waste Manage-
ment Facility (IWMF) with the Tuas Water Reclamation
Plant (TWRP) to increase plant performance and cost
efficiency for both installations (Fig. 3). The limitation
of this system is that most food waste and sludge will
continue to end up at the waste-to-energy plants. More
sustainable alternatives are currently being investigated
in the form of anaerobic co-digestion of sludge and food
waste to produce more biogas from these valuable ma-
terials, a practice expected to display a lower environ-
mental impact [51]. This project is currently being
tested at the pilot stage. Decentralized options are also
being investigated in parallel by many companies using
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31
30 Wastewater and reuse
Fig. 3
Reclaimed Water
Sludge
Tuas Water
Reclamation
Plant (TWRP) Electricity
Waste Heat
to landfill
Simplified integrated waste management system in Singapore.
aerobic digesters to convert food waste into compost,
water or liquid fertilisers.
Conclusion
Singapore NEWater success story reflects the overall
long-term strategy of the city-state in terms of sus-
tainability. As the importance of water reuse is gaining
recognition throughout the world to solve the water-
food-energy nexus in a context of uncertainties and
climate change, there is a need to continue developing
water technologies and innovative reuse schemes for
Singapore in the XXIst century. The key is integration
of tailored integrated solutions combining advanced
degradation and separation technologies and their
implementation at various scales to tackle different
applications.
References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
* of special interest
* * of outstanding interest
1. Asano T: Water from (waste) water–the dependable water
resource (the 2001 stockholm water prize laureate lecture).
Water Sci Technol 2002, 45:23–33.
2. Connor R, Renata A, Ortigara C, Koncagül E, Uhlenbrook S,
Lamizana-Diallo BM, Zadeh SM, Qadir M, Kjellén M, Sjödin J: The
United Nations World Water Development Report 2017.
Wastewater: the untapped resource. U N World Water Dev Rep
2017:180.
3. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY: Four billion people facing severe
water scarcity. Sci Adv 2016, 2:1–6.
4. Lee H, Tan TP: Singapore’s experience with reclaimed water:
* * NEWater. Int J Water Resour Dev 2016, 32:611–621.
A review article that features the reasons for success of the Singapore
approach to indirect potable reuse with many historical and techno-
logical details
5. Ching L, Yu DJH: Turning the tide: informal institutional
change in water reuse. Water Policy 2010, 12:121–134.
6. Ching L: A quantitative investigation of narratives: recycled
drinking water. Water Policy 2015, 17:831–847.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31
Solid Waste
Integrated Waste Management
Facility (IWMF)
Materials
Recovery
Incinerator Facility
Alternative
Incinerator materials for civil
Bottom engineering
Ash (roads, buildings,
land reclamation)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health
7. Kosuti
c K, Kunst B: Removal of organics from aqueous solu-
tions by commercial RO and NF membranes of characterized
porosities. Desalination 2002, 142:47–56.
8. PUB. In Singapore water reclamation study: expert panel review
and findings. NEWater Expert Panel; 2002.
9. Drewes JE, Horstmeyer N: Recent developments in potable
water reuse. In Advanced treatment technologies for urban
wastewater reuse. Springer; 2015:269–290.
10. Chung TS, Luo L, Wan CF, Cui Y, Amy G: What is next for
* forward osmosis (FO) and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO).
Separ Purif Technol 2015, 156:856–860.
A review article about the perspectives of FO and PRO with focus on
membrane development, applications and system integration.
11. Han G, Cheng ZL, Chung T-S: Thin-film composite (TFC)
hollow fiber membrane with double-polyamide active layers
for internal concentration polarization and fouling mitigation
in osmotic processes. J Membr Sci 2017, 523:497–504.
12. Cheng L, Zhang TQ, Vo H, Diaz D, Quanrud D, Arnold RG,
Saez AE: Effectiveness of engineered and natural wastewater
treatment processes for the removal of trace organics in
water reuse. J Environ Eng 2017, 143:18.
13. Bourgin M, Borowska E, Helbing J, Hollender J, Kaiser H-P,
Kienle C, McArdell CS, Simon E, von Gunten U: Effect of oper-
ational and water quality parameters on conventional ozon-
ation and the advanced oxidation process O3/H2O2: kinetics
of micropollutant abatement, transformation product and
bromate formation in a surface water. Water Res 2017, 122:
234–245.
14. Anumol T, Dagnino S, Vandervort DR, Snyder SA: Trans-
formation of Polyfluorinated compounds in natural waters by
advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere 2016, 144:
1780–1787.
15. Zeng T, Plewa MJ, Mitch WA: N-Nitrosamines and halogenated
* disinfection byproducts in U.S. Full Advanced Treatment
trains for potable reuse. Water Res 2016, 101:176–186.
This study quantified the concentrations of different N-nitrosamines
and halogenated disinfection byproducts and includes useful informa-
tion about their formation and water toxicity in indirect potable reuse
systems.
16. Sgroi M, Roccaro P, Oelker GL, Snyder SA: N-nitrosodimethyl
* amine (NDMA) formation at an indirect potable reuse facility.
Water Res 2015, 70:174–183.
This article shows that AOPs can generate NDMA precursors with
higher NDMA formation rates than the parent compounds that persist
in RO permeate and then form NDMA by during final chloramination in
indirect potable reuse schemes.
17. Sgroi M, Vagliasindi FGA, Snyder SA, Roccaro P: N-Nitro-
* sodimethylamine (NDMA) and its precursors in water and
www.sciencedirect.com
 Beyond NEWater: An insight into Singapore’s water reuse prospects Lefebvre
wastewater: a review on formation and removal. Chemo-
sphere 2018, 191:685–703.
This review of NDMA sources, formation and removal presents several
options for cost-effective control of this disinfection byproduct of health
and regulatory concern.
18. Schindler Wildhaber Y, Mestankova H, Scharer M, Schirmer K,
Salhi E, von Gunten U: Novel test procedure to evaluate the
treatability of wastewater with ozone. Water Res 2015, 75:
324–335.
19. Klamerth N, Rizzo L, Malato S, Maldonado MI, Agüera A,
Fernández-Alba AR: Degradation of fifteen emerging contam-
inants at mgL−1 initial concentrations by mild solar photo-
Fenton in MWTP effluents. Water Res 2010, 44:545–554.
20. Bianco A, Polo Lopez MI, Fernandez Ibanez P, Brigante M,
Mailhot G: Disinfection of water inoculated with Enterococcus
faecalis using solar/Fe(III)EDDS-H2O2 or S2O82- process.
Water Res 2017, 118:249–260.
21. Bockris JOM, Reddy AK, Gamboa-Adelco ME: Modern electro-
chemistry 1, 2A, and 2B. US: Springer; 2006.
22. Comninellis C, Chen G: Electrochemistry for the environment.
Springer; 2009.
23. Brillas E, Sires I, Oturan MA: Electro-Fenton process and
related electrochemical technologies based on Fenton’s re-
action chemistry. Chem Rev 2009, 109:6570–6631.
24. Mousset E, Ko ZT, Syafiq M, Wang Z, Lefebvre O: Electro-
catalytic activity enhancement of a graphene ink-coated
carbon cloth cathode for oxidative treatment. Electrochim Acta
2016, 222:1628–1641.
25. Mousset E, Wang Z, Hammaker J, Lefebvre O: Physico-chemi-
cal properties of pristine graphene and its performance as
electrode material for electro-Fenton treatment of waste-
water. Electrochim Acta 2016, 214:217–230.
26. Mousset E, Wang Z, Lefebvre O: Electro-Fenton for control and
removal of micropollutants –process optimization and energy
efficiency. Water Sci Technol 2016, 74:2068–2074.
27. Becheleni EMA, Borba RP, Seckler MM, Rocha SDF: Water re-
covery from saline streams produced by electrodialysis.
Environ Technol 2015, 36:386–394.
28. Liu RD, Wang YK, Wu G, Luo JN, Wang SG: Development of a
selective electrodialysis for nutrient recovery and desalina-
tion during secondary effluent treatment. Chem Eng J 2017,
322:224–233.
29. Lee LY, Ng HY, Ong SL, Tao G, Kekre K, Viswanath B, Lay W,
Seah H: Integrated pretreatment with capacitive deionization
for reverse osmosis reject recovery from water reclamation
plant. Water Res 2009, 43:4769–4777.
30. Tao G, Viswanath B, Kekre K, Lee LY, Ng HY, Ong SL, Seah H:
RO brine treatment and recovery by biological activated
carbon and capacitive deionization process. Water Sci Tech-
nol 2011, 64:77–82.
31. Qin J-J, Kekre KA, Tao G, Oo MH, Wai MN, Lee TC, Viswanath B,
Seah H: New option of MBR-RO process for production of
NEWater from domestic sewage. J Membr Sci 2006, 272:
70–77.
32. Eyvaz M, Aslan T, Arslan S, Yuksel E, Koyuncu I: Recent de-
velopments in forward osmosis membrane bioreactors: a
comprehensive review. Desalin Water Treat 2016, 57:
28610–28645.
33. Drewes J, Khan S: Contemporary design, operation, and
monitoring of potable reuse systems. J Water Reuse Desalin
2015, 5:1–7.
34. Pecson BM, Triolo SC, Olivieri S, Chen EC, Pisarenko AN,
Yang C-C, Olivieri A, Haas CN, Trussell RS, Trussell RR: Reli-
ability of pathogen control in direct potable reuse:
www.sciencedirect.com
31
performance evaluation and QMRA of a full-scale 1 MGD
advanced treatment train. Water Res 2017, 122:258–268.
35. Fawell J, Ong CN: Emerging contaminants and the implica-
tions for drinking water. Int J Water Resour Dev 2012, 28:
247–263.
36. Yu HW, Anumol T, Park M, Pepper I, Scheideler J, Snyder SA:
On-line sensor monitoring for chemical contaminant attenu-
ation during UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Water
Res 2015, 81:250–260.
37. Lahnsteiner J, van Rensburg P, Esterhuizen J: Direct potable
reuse–a feasible water management option. J Water Reuse
Desalin 2017, 8:14–28.
38. Sari MDK, Kristensen GH, Andersen M, Ducheyne AAM, Lee WA:
Water-reuse risk assessment program (WRAP): a refinery
case study. J Water Reuse Desalin 2017, 7:162–174.
39. Mutamim NSA, Noor ZZ, Hassan MAA, Yuniarto A, Olsson G:
Membrane bioreactor: applications and limitations in treating
high strength industrial wastewater. Chem Eng J 2013, 225:
109–119.
40. Souza BM, Souza BS, Guimarães TM, Ribeiro TF, Cerqueira AC,
Sant’Anna GL, Dezotti M: Removal of recalcitrant organic
matter content in wastewater by means of AOPs aiming in-
dustrial water reuse. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2016, 23:
22947–22956.
41. Sirés I, Brillas E, Oturan M, Rodrigo M, Panizza M: Electro-
chemical advanced oxidation processes: today and
tomorrow. A review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2014, 21:
8336–8367.
42. Ganzenko O, Huguenot D, Van Hullebusch ED, Esposito G,
Oturan MA: Electrochemical advanced oxidation and biolog-
ical processes for wastewater treatment: a review of the
combined approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2014, 21:
8493–8524.
43. Uribe IO, Mosquera-Corral A, Rodicio JL, Esplugas S: Advanced
technologies for water treatment and reuse. AIChE J 2015, 61:
3146–3158.
44. Lefebvre O, Shi X, Tein JG, Ng HY: Suitability of ozone pre-
treatment for amoxicillin wastewater. Water Sci Technol 2013,
68:2492–2496.
45. Le TXH, Van Nguyen T, Yacouba ZA, Zoungrana L, Avril F,
Nguyen DL, Petit E, Mendret J, Bonniol V, Bechelany M: Corre-
lation between degradation pathway and toxicity of acet-
aminophen and its by-products by using the electro-Fenton
process in aqueous media. Chemosphere 2017, 172:1–9.
46. Bhattacharya P, Ghosh S, Swarnakar S, Mukhopadhyay A:
Tannery effluent treatment by microfiltration through ceramic
membrane for water reuse: assessment of environmental
impacts. Clean Soil Air Water 2015, 43:633–644.
47. Cristovao RO, Botelho CM, Martins RJE, Loureiro JM,
Boaventura RAR: Fish canning industry wastewater treatment
for water reuse - a case study. J Clean Prod 2015, 87:603–612.
48. Weschenfelder SE, Borges CP, Campos JC: Oilfield produced
water treatment by ceramic membranes: bench and pilot
scale evaluation. J Membr Sci 2015, 495:242–251.
49. Lefebvre O, Hu JY, Ong SL, Ng HY: Optimization of resource
and water recovery from urine. J Water Reuse Desalin 2016, 6:
229–234.
50. Cannella S, Bruccoleri M, Framinan JM: Closed-loop supply
chains: what reverse logistics factors influence perfor-
mance? Int J Prod Econ 2016, 175:35–49.
51. Ahamed A, Yin K, Ng BJH, Ren F, Chang VWC, Wang JY: Life
cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste
management technologies from environmental and eco-
nomic impact perspectives. J Clean Prod 2016, 131:607–614.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:26–31