Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research

Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research

Micellar Enhanced Ultrafiltration (MEUF) Using Cetylpyridinium Chloride (CPC) and Hexadecyltrimethylammonium Bromide (HDTAB) Surfactants for Fluoride Rejection: Modeling andProcess Optimization

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Sodabeh Heidarnejad 1, 2, 3
Ali Jafari 1, 3
Seyyed Alireza Mousavi 1, 3
Mohammad Javad Shokoohizadeh 1, 3
1 Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
3 Health, Safety and Environment Technologies Research Core, Health Technology Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
10.34172/jaehr.1444
Abstract
Introduction: The current study aimed to optimize micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF), a low-pressure membrane method, for removing fluoride from water, a contaminant linked to serious health risks such as fluorosis-through two cationic surfactants.
Methods: In this study, a dead-end ultrafiltration system was employed to remove fluoride using cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HDTAB). Important operational parameters such as pH (4-10), initial fluoride concentration (4-10 mg/L), and surfactant concentration (0.5-1.5 mM) were modeled and optimized via Response Surface Methodology (RSM) based on a Box-Behnken design.
Results: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed the high significance of the developed quadratic models, with regression coefficients (R2) of 0.99 and 0.97 for CPC and HDTAB, respectively. The optimal removal efficiencies were 94.5% for CPC (at pH 8, 1.2 mM CPC, 8 mg/L F-) and 89.6% for HDTAB (at pH 7, 1.4 mM HDTAB, 10 mg/L F-). Under the optimum conditions, flux values of 268.1 L/m2.h and 276.5 L/m2.h were also obtained for CPC and HDTAB, respectively.
Conclusion: It was found that MEUF is an effective technique for fluoride rejection. And the RSM successfully modeled and optimized the process, with CPC demonstrating superior performance and model predictability compared to HDTAB. These observations suggest that the proposed system can be reliably applied to larger-scale fluoride removal from aqueous solutions.
Keywords
Fluoride removal
Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration
Surfactant
Response surface methodology
Parameter optimization
Water treatment
Subjects
1.       Gorchev HG, Ozolins G. WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality. WHO Chron. 1984;38(3):104-8.
2.       Bennekou SH, Allende A, Bearth A, Casacuberta J, Castle L, Coja T, et al. Updated consumer risk assessment of fluoride in food and drinking water including the contribution from other sources of oral exposure. EFSA J. 2025;23(7):e9478. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9478
3.       Kaur A, Bala R, Kansal SK, Shaheen A. Fluoride contaminated water—a review on sources, pathways of exposure, health risks, and treatment technologies. Water Conserv Sci Eng. 2025;10(3):101. doi: 10.1007/s41101-025-00411-x
4.       Liu C, Gao R, Wang X, Faria AF, Yang L, Zhang B, et al. Maximizing membrane antifouling potential: the impact of fluoride positioning in multifunctional designs. Water Res. 2025;281:123565. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2025.123565
5.       De S, Mondal S. Micellar Enhanced Ultrafiltration: Fundamentals & Applications. CRC Press; 2012.
6.       Obotey Ezugbe E, Rathilal S. Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: a review. Membranes (Basel). 2020;10(5):89. doi: 10.3390/membranes10050089
7.       Osman AI, Chen Z, Elgarahy AM, Farghali M, Mohamed IM, Priya AK, et al. Membrane technology for energy saving: principles, techniques, applications, challenges, and prospects. Adv Energy Sustain Res. 2024;5(5):2400011. doi: 10.1002/aesr.202400011
8.       Castro K, Abejón R. Removal of heavy metals from wastewaters and other aqueous streams by pressure-driven membrane technologies: an outlook on reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and microfiltration potential from a bibliometric analysis. Membranes (Basel). 2024;14(8):180. doi: 10.3390/membranes14080180
9.       Raval HD, Parmar P, Raval K. Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration with a novel modified membrane for removal of arsenate and emerging contaminants from water. Desalination. 2024;574:117230. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2023.117230
10.   Das P, Rangari R, Kumar B. Integrated MEUF, MENF and MERO for phenol remediation: a process intensified technology. Chem Zvesti. 2024;78(2):861-74. doi: 10.1007/s11696-023-03127-1
11.   Elgharbi S, Ounifi I, Boubakri A, Abdedayem A. A review of the application of response surface methodology in nanofiltration: insights into process modeling, parametric analysis, and optimization. Sep Sci Technol. 2025;60(12):1589-603. doi: 10.1080/01496395.2025.2508232
12.   Rice EW, Bridgewater L. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Vol 10. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2012.
13.   Tripathi P, Srivastava VC, Kumar A. Optimization of an azo dye batch adsorption parameters using Box–Behnken design. Desalination. 2009;249(3):1273-9. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2009.03.010
14.   Khoshnamvand N, Jafari A, Kamarehie B, Faraji M. Optimization of adsorption and sonocatalytic degradation of fluoride by zeolitic imidazole framework-8 (ZIF-8) using RSM-CCD. Desalin Water Treat. 2019;171:270-80. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2019.24775
15.   Jafari A, Rezaee R, Nasseri S, Mahvi AH, Maleki A, Safari M, et al. Application of micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) for arsenic (v) removal from aqueous solutions and process optimization. J Dispers Sci Technol. 2017;38(11):1588-93. doi: 10.1080/01932691.2016.1263798
16.   Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons; 2017.
17.   Hasan DU, Abdul Aziz AR, Daud WM. Application of response surface methodology in process parameters optimization for phenol mineralization using Fenton’s peroxidation. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10(50):10218-31. doi: 10.5897/ajb10.2315
18.   Myers RH, Anderson-Cook CM. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. Vol 705. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
19.   Koocheki A, Taherian AR, Razavi SM, Bostan A. Response surface methodology for optimization of extraction yield, viscosity, hue and emulsion stability of mucilage extracted from Lepidium perfoliatum seeds. Food Hydrocoll. 2009;23(8):2369-79. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2009.06.014
20.   Khayet M, Zahrim AY, Hilal N. Modelling and optimization of coagulation of highly concentrated industrial grade leather dye by response surface methodology. Chem Eng J. 2011;167(1):77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2010.11.108
21.   Khataee AR, Zarei M, Moradkhannejhad L. Application of response surface methodology for optimization of azo dye removal by oxalate catalyzed photoelectro-Fenton process using carbon nanotube-PTFE cathode. Desalination. 2010;258(1-3):112-9. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2010.03.028
22.   Fazeli H, Soleimani R, Ahmadi MA, Badrnezhad R, Mohammadi AH. Experimental study and modeling of ultrafiltration of refinery effluents using a hybrid intelligent approach. Energy Fuels. 2013;27(6):3523-37. doi: 10.1021/ef400179b
23.   Klimonda A, Grzegorzek M, Majewska-Nowak K. Removal of fluoride ions by ultrafiltration in the presence of cationic surfactants. Environ Prot Eng. 2017;43(2):5-13. doi: 10.5277/epe170201
24.   Grzegorzek M, Majewska-Nowak K. The use of micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) for fluoride removal from aqueous solutions. Sep Purif Technol. 2018;195:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.022
25.   Iqbal J, Kim HJ, Yang JS, Baek K, Yang JW. Removal of arsenic from groundwater by micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF). Chemosphere. 2007;66(5):970-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.06.005
26.   Xu K, Zeng GM, Huang JH, Wu JY, Fang YY, Huang G, et al. Removal of Cd2+ from synthetic wastewater using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration with hollow fiber membrane. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp. 2007;294(1-3):140-6. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2006.08.017
27.   Landaburu-Aguirre J, Pongrácz E, Perämäki P, Keiski RL. Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for the removal of cadmium and zinc: Use of response surface methodology to improve understanding of process performance and optimisation. J Hazard Mater. 2010;180(1-3):524-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.04.066
Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research
Volume 14, Issue 1
Winter 2026
Pages 64-71