Advanced oxidation processes rip apart dye molecules while nanofiltration and reverse osmosis strip them out. The catch is fouling—managed by old‑school coagulation, smart filtration, and disciplined pretreatment.
Two technologies are quietly rewriting the playbook for highly colored, recalcitrant textile wastewater: advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) that chemically dismantle dye molecules, and pressure-driven membranes—nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO)—that physically separate them. In controlled studies, both paths delivered >90% color removal and deep cuts in organic load. The difference is that AOPs break compounds down; membranes remove them intact, concentrating the problem in a reject stream.
Across multiple trials, Fenton chemistry, catalytic ozonation, and modern NF/RO stacks turned nearly opaque effluents into reuse-ready water—provided operators got pretreatment right. Without that, flux collapse and frequent cleans can swamp the economics, a theme that recurs in pilot data and full-scale accounts.
Advanced oxidation for dye breakdown
AOPs generate short‑lived hydroxyl radicals (•OH) that non‑selectively attack organic chemicals. In textile service, bench studies show Fenton’s reagent (Fe²⁺/H₂O₂) can achieve 96–98% color removal and 85–89% COD (chemical oxygen demand) reduction at pH≈3 (www.researchgate.net). Catalytic ozonation delivered 98–99% decolorization of woolen textile effluent after 40 minutes (www.mdpi.com).
There’s a biodegradability dividend too: in one reactive‑dye solution, ozone raised the BOD₅/COD ratio from ~0.23 to 0.65 (www.mdpi.com), with another report noting 0.226→0.649 after ozonation (www.mdpi.com). On energy, median “electrical energy per order” (E_EO, kWh/m³·order) runs about 0.98 for Fenton and 3.34 for ozonation (www.mdpi.com), and a full‑scale enhanced Fenton installation in China reported ~USD $0.23 per m³ treated (www.mdpi.com). Other AOP variants like photocatalysis or sonolysis consume far more energy.
Bottom line: under optimized conditions AOPs “oxidatively mineralize” stubborn dyes, commonly delivering 90%+ color and COD removal (www.researchgate.net; www.mdpi.com). They do require chemical dosing, careful pH control, and can produce sludge or oxidative by‑products; accurate metering via a dosing pump is standard practice when handling H₂O₂ or catalysts.
Membrane separation for dye removal
NF and RO are size‑exclusion workhorses. NF has ~0.5–2 nm pores and rejects multivalent ions and large organics; RO’s effective pore size is <0.5 nm, removing virtually all dissolved salts and organics. Textile trials routinely report high retention: NF removes ~94–97% of dye molecules and RO up to 99–100% under typical conditions (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Plants often specify integrated RO, NF, and UF systems for water reuse lines in dyehouses.
In one Iraqi textile effluent study at 8 bar, NF removed about 93.8–97.0% of red/black/blue dyes while RO removed 97.2–99.9% of the same dyes (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). An Indonesian batik effluent trial reported ~99.84% color rejection and 87.6% COD reduction using NF (ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id). Using a membrane like nanofiltration for color, followed by RO if desalination is required, is a common pairing.
Membrane permeates are typically reuse‑ready: one NF90 study measured ~20 mg/L TOC (total organic carbon) and 76 μS/cm conductivity; dyeing tests comparing light and dark shades showed no significant color difference, affirming reuse quality (www.scielo.org.za). Typical pressures are ~10–15 bar for NF and ~20–40 bar for RO; trade‑offs include capital and energy (pressures for RO ~5–10 MPa are substantial) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.mdpi.com). For high-salinity reuse targets, facilities may select RO elements from lines such as UF and RO membranes.
In short, NF/RO achieves >90% removal of recalcitrant dyes (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id) and is attractive for zero‑liquid‑discharge or stringent reuse. They do not “break down” organics—those concentrate in the reject—but yield very low C/N (carbon‑to‑nitrogen) in the treated water. Combined NF–RO pilots have achieved COD removals on the order of 99%, with permeates meeting strict reuse standards (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.mdpi.com).
Fouling as the operational constraint
The Achilles’ heel of NF/RO in textile streams is fouling. High solids, colloidal waxes, unreacted dyes, and polymers cause a steep drop in permeate flux within minutes of startup (ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id). An NF trial on batik wastewater reported “rapid flux decline” followed by a slow fall to low steady‑state (ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id).
Chemical cleaning often can’t fully undo the damage: recoveries of ~76–82% of original flux are typical (www.scielo.org.za), with one study reporting 80% flux recovery (~20% permanently lost) (www.scielo.org.za). Facilities lean on specialty membrane cleaners to restore performance, but pretreatment is the decisive variable.
Pretreatment trains to manage fouling
Textile plants build multistage pretreatment to cut particulate and organic loading before membranes:
Coagulation/Flocculation: Jar tests with FeCl₃ at pH≈6 removed ~81–85% of color (measured as SAC, a color proxy) and ~40–50% TOC; adding a flocculant lifted color removal above 90% (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). One setup hit 96.8% turbidity removal, 92–93% color (SAC) removal, and ~50% TOC at optimal pH (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). High color/TSS removals—e.g., turbidity to <6.4 NTU (turbidity units)—were reported with 0.2 g/L flocculant, reducing dye chromophores by >92% (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Plants commonly dose coagulants like PAC and follow with flocculants, then settle solids in a clarifier. The trade‑off is chemical consumption and sludge.
Coarse filtration: Sand and multimedia filters trim turbidity and some organics. One pilot’s sand filter lowered TOC from 363.4 to 242.3 mg/L (33.3% removal) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). A bed of sand/silica media is a standard first barrier ahead of membranes.
Micro/Ultrafiltration: A UF step strips fine colloids and pigments; hollow‑fiber UF has removed >90% of colloids and suspended solids from dye effluent, yielding ~15% higher NF productivity and largely eliminating colloidal fouling (www.scielo.org.za). As pretreatment, cross‑flow ultrafiltration stabilizes downstream flux.
Other measures: pH adjustment and anti‑scalant dosing for RO guard against inorganic scaling (Ca/Mg), a non‑trivial contributor to fouling. Using targeted membrane antiscalants is typical. Maintaining near‑neutral pH and removing hardness upstream with a softener are standard practice. In one plant, combined sand+UF pretreatment produced permeate clean enough to wash dyeing machines, saving ~26,000 m³/yr of fresh water (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
With robust pretreatment, NF/RO can run at stable flux and lower cleaning frequency; without it, membranes quickly foul—flux can fall by 20–80% and demand frequent cleaning (ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id; www.scielo.org.za).
Quantitative outcomes and reuse potential
Bench and pilot data converge on three points: (a) AOPs decolorize >90% and remove a similar fraction of COD in minutes to hours (www.researchgate.net; www.mdpi.com); (b) NF/RO reject >95% of dyes (e.g., NF ~94–97%, RO ~98–100%) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id); and (c) fouling is severe without pretreatment—e.g., 20–40% flux loss even after cleaning (www.scielo.org.za)—whereas coagulation+filtration+UF can remove >90% of particulates and recover most capacity (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.scielo.org.za). Together, these findings support integrating AOPs or strengthened NF/RO with robust pretreatment to meet tight discharge or reuse targets while managing energy and maintenance costs (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.scielo.org.za).
Sources and references
Sources: www.researchgate.net; www.mdpi.com; www.mdpi.com; www.mdpi.com; www.scielo.org.za; pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.scielo.org.za; ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id; pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; www.researchgate.net.
- Patil, A.D., Raut, P.D. (2014). Treatment of textile wastewater by Fenton’s process as an advanced oxidation process. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 8(10):29–32 (www.researchgate.net).
- Zou, Y., Lam, J.Y., Hein, E.W., Zhou, D. (2021). Treatment of Textile Wastewater Using Advanced Oxidation Processes — A Critical Review. Water 13(24):3515. (www.mdpi.com; www.mdpi.com; www.mdpi.com).
- Chollom, M.N., Rathilal, S., Pillay, V.L., Alfa, D. (2015). The applicability of nanofiltration for the treatment and reuse of textile reactive dye effluent. Water SA, 41(3):501–510. (www.scielo.org.za; www.scielo.org.za).
- Ćurić, I., Dolar, D. (2022). Investigation of Pretreatment of Textile Wastewater for Membrane Processes and Reuse for Washing Dyeing Machines. Membranes 12(5):449. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
- Istirokhatun, T., Susanto, H., Budihardjo, M.A., et al. (2021). Treatment of Batik Industry Wastewater Plant Effluent using Nanofiltration. Int. J. Technology 12(4):770–780. (ijtech.eng.ui.ac.id).
- Abid, M.F., Zablouk, M.A., Abid‑Alameer, A.-M. (2012). Experimental study of dye removal from industrial wastewater by NF and RO. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 9:17. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
- Angi, J.C.W., Al Mukarramah, N.H., Maskun, M. (2025). Mitigating water depletion through wastewater management law in Indonesia’s textile sector. BIO Web of Conf. 155:06017. (www.researchgate.net).
