ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ULTRAFILTRATION VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PRETREATMENT FOR INTEGRATED MEMBRANE SYSTEM FOR SEAWATER

DESALINATION
Kai-Uwe Hoehn1, Robert Chu2, Jimmy Wei2, Markus Busch3, Angela Yeung4
1. Dow Water & Process Solutions, Sydney, Australia
2. Dow Water & Process Solutions, Shanghai, China
3. Dow Water & Process Solutions, Rheinmuenster, Germany
4. Dow Water & Process Solutions, Minneapolis, USA
ABSTRACT
In recent years low pressure ultrafiltration (UF) and
microfiltration (MF) pre-treatment technologies have
increasingly been employed to improve the
economics of seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)
desalination plants and attract a great deal of
attention for integrated or dual membrane
systems in SWRO.

2)

UF and MF is a suitable and often superior

technology to provide high quality feed water for
SWRO systems and increasingly replaces existing
traditional pre-treatment technologies.
This paper shows a new generation of pressurised
UF system economic modelling based on
fundamental characteristics of UF products. The
model centres on a typical SWRO desalination
plant with an output of 75,000 m3/d and takes into
account the initial capital investment and the
operational costs within the amortisation period.
The total cost of water (TCOW) and total cost of
water per unit water produced is analysed and a
compared to pressurised UF system and the
traditional multi-media-filter (MMF). The total cost of
integrating pre-treatment and SWRO technologies
is also assessed.

3)

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, ultrafiltration (UF) has
gained much interest as an alternative pretreatment technology for seawater desalination;
those systems are often referred to as integrated
or dual membrane system. In the last decade
approximately 10 to 15 sizable SWRO installations
have adapted UF or MF as a pre-treatment (for
example Addur in Bahrain, numerous power plants
in China and also Adelaide and the Southern
Seawater Desalination Plant in WA) and an
increasing number of UF-SWRO pilot tests were
studied extensively. The main reasons to use UF as
pre-treatment for SWRO are typically:
1) The ability to handle challenging seawater
qualities: Growing coastal urbanisation and
industrialisation have led to increased ocean
pollution levels which can post an operational
challenge when trying to maintain a stable
SWRO plant performance. Even for regions
with better water quality, there are still potential

4)

5)

problems for the SWRO operation. For

example, intakes with a coastal channel or
direct open seawater intakes are prone to
major upsets caused by red tides and as a
result of seasonal storm and heavy rain events.
This can lead to severe biological, colloidal and
organic fouling on the RO membranes.
Minimal environmental impact (low chemical
consumption, little sludge discharge): To
improve the filtration efficiency of multi-media
filters, traditional pre-treatment systems
commonly use coagulants or flocculants.
Besides the chemicals needed, extra treatment
steps are required to deal with sludge and the
backwash water. Australia and California for
example require treatment (e.g. dewatering)
and proper landfill disposal of the multi-media
filter discharge and treatment sludges.
Small footprint: Compared to traditional media
filters, UF pre-treatment systems require a
much smaller footprint. Especially when the
feed water quality is poor, double pass media
filters are frequently required. In addition to that,
coagulation or aeration (DAF) would be
necessary to pre-treat the feed water
significantly increasing the pre-treatment
system footprint. Where land costs or
construction costs are high, UF undoubtedly
provides an advantage in this respect. (The
seawater desalination plant on the Palm
Jumeirah island in the United Arab Emirates
has utilised UF as a pre-treatment because of
its low area footprint.)
High stability of the UF pre-treated feed water
for the SWRO: The UF permeate quality is
typically very stable irrespective of seawater
turbidity and bioactivity variations. The UF
system thus brings about a high operational
stability for the SWRO downstream and also
the entire treatment process and thereby
increases the reliability and efficiency of the
desalination system.
Simple system design and operation:
Compared to traditional media filtration systems,
UF allows a more stable permeate quality
production without the need for close
monitoring of ripen or breakthrough points. In
this respect UF allows an easier and simpler
control design than the traditional pre-treatment
methods. This encourages a wider usage of UF
in the SWRO market, especially for participants

with less understanding in media filtration or for

smaller treatment facilities with limited
maintenance and monitoring resources.
6) Lowering of the capital investment and
operating cost of the downstream SWRO: With
more reliable and better permeate quality, UF is
capable of significantly lowering the capital and
operating cost of the SWRO downstream.
Generally, the capital cost for SWRO is 5 to 10
times of the cost of a pre-treatment system. If
UF is used, the SWRO system could be
designed to operate at higher flux, for capital
cost savings. In addition, UF pre-treatment also
helps lower the SWRO membrane replacement
rates, decrease the cleaning frequency and the
operating pressure needed which translates
into cost savings.
7) Lower pre-treatment cost: There is a historic
misconception that UF is still more expensive
than traditional pre-treatment systems. This is
only the case when it is added without
replacing traditional pre-treatment components.
Whether a single pass or double pass dual
media filter (DMF), or a design with
coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation and/or
DAF floatation, the UF is able to eliminate (or
strongly reduce) the dependency on traditional
pre-treatment system components. This will
significantly lower the costs of the system and
increase the economics in favour of the UF
system.
TYPICAL LARGE SCALE SEAWATER
DESALINATION PRE-TREATMENT PROCESS
Based on the current practice in most seawater
desalination plants, the pre-treatment mainly
consists of five components (Figure 1) that are
normally tailored to the particular seawater quality
to be treated.
1) Feed intake system: a typical SWRO feed
would be taken in through open feed or a
constructed or real beach well. Open feed
benefits large scale seawater plants, since it is
low cost and allows large intake flow rates.
However, the feed quality fluctuates greatly.
Simulated and real beach well intake structures
are more costly but the feed quality is more
controlled.
2) Chemical dosing systems: includes chlorination
to disinfect and control the growth of the
microbiological organisms. In order to produce
higher quality permeate, coagulation or
flocculation aids may be added to improve the
coagulation process.
3) Coagulation system: typically includes static
mixing, mechanical mixing coagulation, etc. In
projects with more challenging waters,
mechanical coagulation is often followed by
clarifiers.
4) Clarification system: the typical process
includes lamellar clarifiers, dissolved air
floatation (DAF), etc. In recent years, many

large scale seawater plants are starting to use

DAF to manage potential algae problems
during late summer and to improve the removal
efficiency of organics.
5) Filtration system: includes media filters and
membrane filters. Typical combination includes:
Single or double pass pressurised
dual media filter (DMF)
Single pass gravity dual media filter
Gravity dual media filter + pressurised
dual media filter
Pressurised or submerged UF/MF
membrane filtration.
TRADITIONAL LARGE SCALE SEAWATER
DESALINATION PLANT PRE-TREATMENT
PROCESS
To study SWRO pre-treatment, a focus group in the
Dow Water & Process Solutions team took a closer
look at some large scale seawater desalination
installations (over 50,000 m3/d) that came online
within the past 10 years, mainly in the Middle East,
in the Mediterranean, Australia, USA and
Singapore. SWRO capacities studied ranged from
45,000 m3/d to 320,000 m3/d or more.
Large seawater desalination projects are nowadays
sizable and significant in capital cost. This demands
a stable SWRO system operation to achieve a
longer membrane life and a best-in-class pretreatment is becoming ever more important. For
regions with poor seawater quality, traditional single
pass filters (including gravity filters or pressurised
filters) are not sufficient and double pass media
filters are used instead. Typical combinations
include:
1) Gravity dual media filter DMF (first pass) +
pressurised dual media filter DMF (second
pass);
2) Pressurised dual media filter DMF (first pass)
+ pressurised dual media filter DMF (second
pass).
To improve the filtration efficiency a coagulation
and clarification process is added upstream.
Examples for plants that utilise flocculation are
Point Lisas and Hamma. Coagulation + dissolved
air floatation (DAF) are used at Coloso, Tuas and
Barcelona. For cost reasons open intakes are
popular, for example Ashkelon, Perth, Gold Coast
and Sydney. Depending on the feed water quality,
the open feed pipelines generally extend from 0.5
to 3.0 km or more. To prevent algae growth or total
suspended solids level fluctuation due to tidal
movements, the feed port of open intakes should
be 6 to 20 m below sea level but also 5 to 20 m
above the sea bed to avoid sand being vacuumed
into the pipes. An open feed naturally creates a
heavier workload for the downstream pre-treatment
than a deep well. One way to improve the
traditional pre-treatment is to utilise double pass
filtration to enhance the efficiency of the

coagulation
and
clarification
processes.
Alternatively, ultrafiltration can be used to reduce
the workload. Characteristics of the two alternative
processes are:
Characteristics of traditional dual media filter (DMF):
1) Widely adopted in many projects.
2) Permeate quality is able to meet the basic
requirement of RO feed.
3) Coagulation and clarification or double pass
DMFs are often used to ensure 100% ROready permeate quality water.
4) Flocculation or coagulation aid and pH
adjustment acids are often used to maintain the
required filtered water quality. This adds
chemical and sludge discharge costs.
5) Backwash waste water from the filters needs to
be treated before discharge, operational
expenses for coagulating the backwash waste
water and for sludge dewatering need to be
taken into account.
6) Downstream RO flux is controlled at typically
<14 LMH.
7) High recovery, backwash can be done with
concentrate from the first pass RO. Filter
recovery can then reach 100%.
Characteristics of ultrafiltration (UF):
1) Only a single pass system is needed to 100%
fulfil the RO feed requirement.
2) Widely implemented in many small to medium
seawater desalination projects in the past 10
years. UF is progressing into larger scale
desalination projects: for example Yuhuan
China (30,000 m3/d), Fukuoka Japan (50,000
m3/d), Palm Jumeirah UAE (64,000 m3/d) and
Carlsbad California (132,000 m3/d).
3) Significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate,
the chemical dosages and thus costs for
flocculation/coagulant aids and inorganic acids
and consequently reduce the costs for
coagulation
and
sedimentation
sludge
treatment.
4) If the UF/MF system is not dosed with any
chemicals, the backwash waste water could be
discharged into the sea directly, without further
treatment.
5) Downstream RO flux can be increased by over
15% to around <16 LMH.
6) Typical UF recoveries in seawater pretreatment applications are around 90%-96%.
7) UF systems significantly reduce the footprint
required.
PRE-TREATMENT FOR THE UF SYSTEM
When using UF as pre-treatment for seawater
desalination projects one has to ask, would
coagulation and clarification (sedimentation or DAF)
and chemical dosing still be needed? Coagulation
and clarification processes can often be eliminated
with UF membrane pre-treatment and the chemical

dosing can also be reduced which is an advantage

for UF.
The majority of the feed systems are open intake,
with only the Fukuoka, Japan installation in 2005
that utilised the sea bed infiltration. As for the UF
pre-treatment processes, some installations only
use self cleaning screen filters and no coagulation,
i.e. the Wang Tang Power Plant, Peng Hu and
Cyprus projects; some use flocculation, i.e. Yuhuan
Power Plant and Leqing Power Plant; others have
coagulation and DAF, i.e. ENEL SpA Power Plant
in Italy and Shuwaikh in Kuwait. The selection for
the pre-treatment upstream of an UF mainly
depends on the seawater quality and flexibility
considerations. For waters with high turbidity, low
TOC and little algal growth, UF can be used directly
without any extra pre-treatment. When turbidity and
TOC are both high but there is virtually no algae
growth, flocculation + UF would typically be
selected. For high turbidity, high TOC and active
algae growth (red tide) cases it is advisable to apply
coagulation + DAF + UF.
Meyerhofer
and
Desormeaux
from
CDM
[Meyerhofer et al. 2009] studied the SCWD
installations in the USA and investigated the overall
coagulation, flocculation and chemical dosage
effect on the pressurised dual media filter (P-DMF)
and ultrafiltration (UF). This serves as an excellent
reference for UF system design.
Pressurised Dual Media Filter (P-DMF):
1) Depending on operating conditions DMF can
easily contribute to RO bio-fouling and
particulate fouling.
2) In order to achieve the RO feed target of SDI
<3 and turbidity of <0.1 NTU, DMF would need
to be continuously dosed with chemicals, such
as coagulants, coagulant aids or inorganic
acids.
3) Depending on feed water quality fluctuations,
DMF
requires
constant
monitoring
of
coagulation dose rates and backwash intervals.
Ultrafiltration (UF):
1) Able to produce RO feed of SDI <3, turbidity
<0.1 NTU under virtually all circumstances and
will not be notably affected by the variation of
chemical dosage, flux or feed water quality.
2) The UF might experience bio-fouling if
coagulants arent used during red tide events.
3) To properly protect the SWRO, it is
recommended to add coagulants during red
tide / algal bloom periods.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND MODELLING OF
DUAL MEMBRANE UF + SWRO SYSTEMS
NORIT, ZENON, CH2M HILL and others have
studied and published articles on the economic
modelling and analysis of UF systems in seawater
desalination. [Majamaa 2008; Henthorne 2005;

Busch et al 2008; Bonnlye et al 2008; Knops et al

2007; Remize et al 2008; Rosberg 1997; Vial et al
2003.] These publications have helped to promote
UF and its acceptance in the desalination industry.
As the UF market expands and manufacturing
capacities are growing, the cost of UF
manufacturing decreases and the economic models
need to be updated to reflect such changes. One of
the key reasons for the still limited use of UF in
desalination to date is the relatively high price: the
costs of water from an UF is higher than from a
media filter system. However, as the modular price
of UF components decreases, the price difference
between the two technologies comes down. This
led the Dow Water & Process Solutions team to
develop a new and innovative economic model for
its pressurised DOW Ultrafiltration products.
In order to understand the most recent difference
between the two technologies, Dow Water &
Process Solutions investigated and compared the
total cost of ownership (TCO) during the
amortisation period of the pressurised UF system
with the traditional media filter system. This study
refers to the still most widely used 1P-DMF and 2PDMF as traditional pre-treatment and compares it
with the UF technology.
To obtain a more representative economic model, a
typical seawater desalination plant is considered at
25 degrees Celsius, <20 NTU, 37,300 ppm feed
TDS and TOC <5 ppm with an output flow rate of
75,000 m3/d at 45 % recovery and a pre-treatment
system capacity of 166,600 m3/d. Similar
assumptions have also been used elsewhere in
economic analyses.
To accurately represent the cost of a pressurised
UF and a traditional DMF, Dow Water & Process
Solutions used the total cost of ownership (TCO)
concept to include and account for the initial capital
cost investment (CAPEX) as well as the operating
cost (OPEX) within the amortisation period, so that
TCO = CAPEX + OPEX. To more efficiently
quantify the cost per ton of UF permeate within the
amortisation period, the concept of total cost of
ownership per ton (US cents/m3) is suggested. This
also accounts for the capital expense per ton
(CAPEX per ton, US cents/m3) and the operating
expense per ton (OPEX per ton, US cents/m3). The
items that are included under CAPEX are the
footprint and construction cost, various parts
including
skid
connection
pipes,
valves,
compressed air systems etc., the automated control
system including PLC and software etc., the
installation and commissioning costs, and then
specific to the UF the UF skid cost including
modular components, self cleaning screen filters,
feed pumps, feed dosing system, backwash pumps,
CEB and CIP systems etc. For the DMF the
CAPEX includes the dual media filters, feed pumps,
feed dosing stems and backwash pumps. The
included OPEX items are the energy cost for feed

pumps, backwash pumps, CIP pumps and air

scouring (electric cost is assumed to be 0.05
USD/kWh), the chemical costs including feed
chlorine dosage, CEB and CIP chemicals etc. for
the UF, feed chlorine dosing, sulfuric acids,
coagulants (FeCl3) and flocculants (PAM) for the
DMF, and the replacement costs for filter media or
UF modules.
Economic Model for Pressurised UF in
Seawater Desalination
To evaluate the effect of UF membrane active area
and flux on TCO, two types of UF modules are
selected: DOW UF SFP-2860 (active area of 51 m2)
and DOW UF SFP-2880 (active area of 77 m2). The
list price difference of the two UF elements is in line
with their membrane active area. Two flux values
are selected; 60 LMH and 75 LMH, to reflect the
actual operational fluxes applicable for this model.
Pilot tests demonstrated stable performance when
running 60 and 75 LMH. The CIP intervals were
designed to be once a month. For the operational
cost calculation of the UF system, attention needs
to be given to the proper selection of the UF
operating procedures. This article uses traditional
desalination UF operating procedures as a
guideline and together with the Qingdao pilot test
data from Dow other design and operational
parameters are:
UF module skid size 160 modules/skid with 7 years
module lifetime and 14.3% annual replacement rate
operating with intermittent dosing of 10 ppm free
chlorine for 1 hour at feed port and a backwash
every 30 minutes, CEB every 12 hours with 500
ppm NaClO, 500 ppm HCl, CIP every 30 days with
2000 ppm HCl,1000 ppm NaOH + 2000ppm NaClO.
The total cost of ownership per ton (TCO per ton),
CAPEX per ton and the OPEX per ton are
calculated using the UF system economic model,
the results are listed in Table 1. As expected the
TCO per ton decreases significantly, by 15%, when
the flux goes up from 60 LMH to 75 LMH. The
increase in flux reduces the CAPEX by reducing the
quantity of modules needed and the skid sizes with
the associated pipes, valves, meters and PLC, etc.
The associated lower footprint also enables a lower
infrastructure construction cost and UF module
replacement OPEX. Interestingly when just a larger
area UF module is used (77 vs 51 sqm) the CAPEX
and OPEX also goes down resulting in a 4-5% total
cost saving when evaluated under the same
operating flux and conditions. The increased active
area enables a more economic UF system design.
The new UF module cost accounts for around a
quarter (23% to 26%) of CAPEX during installation
and the UF module replacement cost is
approximately one third (32% to 36%) of OPEX,
see Figure 2. So overall the UF modules account
for 55% to 60% of TCO in this cost model. It is
expected that the UF module price will continue to

decrease, thus lowering the TCO and TCO per ton.

The next biggest cost contributors are the energy
costs (14% to 19%) and chemical costs (7% to 8%).
These two cost factors might increase over time as
energy and chemical prices are likely to rise. Future
UF technology advancements could potentially
stabilise or even allow a cost reduction with regards
to energy and chemical costs.
Economic Model of the Traditional Pressurised
DMF
Traditional pre-treatment technologies still play a
dominant role in the seawater desalination pretreatment market. To compare and contrast the
differences between traditional and UF pretreatment, this article chose the most common
single pass pressurised dual media filter (1P-DMF)
and double pass pressurised dual media filter (2PDMF) and compares their performance with the UF
system. The reference parameters and product
water costs are shown in Table 2. The highest cost
contribution to the TCO per ton is the chemical
consumption, at approximately 36-43%, and the
second and third highest are energy consumption
(25-30%) and the filter vessels costs, approximately
(10-15%), see Figure 3.
Economic Analysis of the Integrated PreTreatment Including SWRO System
For existing seawater desalination installations the
pre-treatments cost is approximately 10% of the
total project investment. This is significant but not
a dominant cost factor especially when
considering the excellent UF permeate quality will
improve the design and benefit the operation of
the SWRO system, thus reducing costs up to
reducing the total cost of the complete seawater
desalination system. Therefore, it is necessary to
include the overall cost analysis of the whole
SWRO system when comparing the pre-treatment
options and costs.
The recommended design flux for a SWRO with
1P-DMF pre-treatment unit is 14 LMH with a
steady state flow factor (FF) at 0.7 - simulating
operation with aged membranes. With 2P-DMF as
pre-treatment, the suggested design flux of the
SWRO is 14 to 15.5 LMH with a steady state FF at
0.7 to 0.75. For UF pre-treatment, the SWRO
design flux aim is 15.5 to 17 LMH with FF at 0.75
to 0.8.

Molina et al. 2008; Desormeaux 2008; Kinser et al.

2009].
The Dow Chemical Company and John Tonner
[Tonner et al. 2005] from Water Consultants
International (WCI) company worked together to
develop an economic analysis model for SWRO
systems. The results are widely published and
generally accepted by the desalination industry.
Thus for consistency, this paper also applies the
same economic model for the SWRO system
analysis at 94% plant availability. Parameters such
as the element type (FILMTEC SW30HRLE400i with a standard flow of ~28 cbm/d), number
of SWRO elements with 7 element long pressure
vessels, the energy consumption and chemical
consumption are all simulated with the help of the
ROSA software.
For the economic analysis of the integrated pretreatment and SWRO system, the calculation of the
CAPEX and OPEX for UF and DMF pre-treatment
are individually shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The
cost calculation results for the SWRO are listed in
Table 3. It is apparent that as the flux and fouling
factor increase, the total system CAPEX and OPEX
will decrease accordingly. As per Table 4 six pretreatment proposals and SWRO treatment
processes were compared.
Proposal 3 (large active area UF followed by
aggressive SWRO design) seems to have the most
economic advantages over the rest of the proposals.
This is mainly due to the aggressive SWRO design
with the new larger UF membrane active area
module. However, an aggressive design would still
need to be further validated with pilot trials and data.
The second most economical is proposal 2 (the
conservative SWRO design with large active area
UF module pre-treatment). In this case the
performance and system stability risk is evidently
decreased and the design is more economical
(approximately 1% saving) than the current
common practice design widely used in the
desalination industry (proposal 5). The larger active
area UF modules (SFP-2880) allow stable
operation at 75 LMH and the larger active area UF
modules paired with a conservative SWRO design
tends to have a higher practicality among all the
proposals, see Table 4.
UF pre-treatment in
SWRO is not only technically advantageous but
also cost effective, especially when larger active
surface area UF modules are used.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Compared to the single pass DMF (1P DMF)

system benchmark: If UF pre-treatment is used
the SWRO can (conservatively) be increased in
design flux by >10% and the resulting flow factor
(FF) increase of 7% is expected. With more
aggressive design guidelines implemented the
SWRO system could even see as much as a 20%
increase in flux and 15% increase in FF. [Garca

Traditional single or double pass media pre-filtration

technologies are most prominent in todays large
scale SWRO installations. With over a decade of
progress in UF developments, the UF pre-treatment
technology is progressively accepted by the market
and increasingly put into operation in many medium
to large scale seawater desalination plants.
Compared to traditional single pass pressurised

dual media filters, UF desalination pre-treatment

may still appear to attract a higher investment cost
and higher total cost of ownership per ton (TCO per
ton) in the lifecycle. However, as the UF modular
cost decreases over time, the cost differences
between the conventional and UF pre-treatment
technologies are rapidly fading. UF modules with
larger membrane active areas are being developed.
This helps to further decrease the total investment
cost and TCO per ton. With UF providing stable and
high quality permeate, the downstream SWRO
design can be optimised. The optimised integrated
UF and SWRO plant design reduces the total
investment cost for the overall SWRO system and
further reduces the TCO per ton.
REFERENCES
Bonnlye, V., Guey, L., Del Castillo, J. 2008.
UF/MF as RO Pre-Treatment: The Real Benefit.
Desalination 222, 5965.
Busch, M., Chu, R., Kolbe, U., Meng, Q.-Q., Li, S.J. 2008. Integrated Ultrafiltration and Reverse
Osmosis Membrane System for Seawater
Desalination1000 Days Field Experience with
DOW UF and FILMTEC Technology in the
Wangtan Datang Power Plant. European
Desalination Society Conference, EUROMED
series, Dead Sea, Jordan.
Desormeaux, E. 2008. Seawater Reverse Osmosis,
Desalination Pilot Test Program - Initial Testing
and Trends. and What Do They Mean?
Monterey Bay Water Works Association
(MBWWA).
Garca Molina, V., Busch, M., Sehn, P. 2008. Cost
Savings by Novel Seawater Reverse Osmosis
Elements and Design Concepts. European
Desalination Society Conference, EUROMED
series, Dead Sea, Jordan.
Henthorne, L. 2005. Evaluation of Membrane Pretreatment for Seawater RO Desalination.
Desalination and Water Purification Research
and Development Report No. 106.
Henthorne, L. 2005. Economic Evaluation of
Membrane and Conventional SWRO Pretreatment - Results from Pilot Study. American
Water Works Association.
Kinser, K., Shen, P., Harrison, S., Price, M. 2009.
Pre-treatment Performance for Desalinating
Seawater with Fluctuating Water Quality due to
Circumstances at Moss Landing. AWWA MTC
proceedings.
Knops, F., van Hoof, S., Zark, A. 2007. Operating
Experience of a New Ultrafiltration Membrane
for Pre-treatment of Seawater Reverse
Osmosis. International Desalination Association

(IDA) World Congress on Desalination and

Water Reuse, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria,
Spain, MP07-023.
Majamaa, K., Chu, R.Q., Liao, J.Z. 2008. An
Optimized Design Approach for Seawater
Reverse Osmosis Desalination: Internally
Staged Design with UF Pre-treatment. IDA
Tianjin Conference.
Meyerhofer, P.F., Desormeaux, E.D. 2009. PilotScale Comparison of Granular Media Filtration
and Ultrafiltration Pre-Treatment System for
Open Intake Seawater Desalination. AMTA
Pre-treatment Solutions newsletter.
Remize, P.-J., Leparc, J., Schrotter J.-C. 2008. A
Pilot Scale Comparison between Granular
Media Filtration and Low Pressure Membrane
Filtration for Seawater Pre-treatment. European
Desalination Society Conference, EUROMED
series, Dead Sea, Jordan.
Rosberg, R. 1997. Ultrafiltration (New Technology),
A Viable Cost-Saving Pre-Treatment For
Reverse Osmosis And Nanofiltration - A New
Approach To Reduce Costs. Desalination 110
(1997) 107-114.
Tonner, J., Mickols, W.E., Busch, M., Maeda, Y.
2005. A Novel Design Approach for Seawater
Plants. IDA 2005 World Congress on
Desalination and Water Reuse, SP05-052.
Vial, D., Doussau, G., Galindo, R. 2003.
Comparison of Three Pilot Studies Using
Microza
Membranes
for
Mediterranean
Seawater Pre-Treatment. Desalination 156
(2003) 43-50.

Chemical
Dosing
Seawater
Open feed

Coagulation

Clarification

Bypass

Bypass

Static Mixing

Sedimentation

Filtration

SWRO
P-DMF

P-DMF

1. Acid
2. Coagulants
3. Flocculants

P-DMF

G-DMF

Enhanced
Mixing
P-DMF: Pressurised Dual Media Filter
G-DMF: Gravity Dual Media Filter
P-UF: Pressurised UF
S-UF: Submerged UF
DAF: Dissolved Air Floatation

DAF

G-DMF

Screen

Screen

P-DMF

S-UF

P-UF

Figure 1: Typical seawater desalination

pre-treatment process

Table 1: Costs of UF system permeate

UF module SFP type / flux
Project total investment (US$)
Annual amortisation (US$)
Annual OPEX (US$)
Annual TCOW (US$)
CAPEX per ton (UScents/m3)
OPEX per ton (UScents/m3)
TCOW per ton (UScents/m3)
Total saving per ton (%)

2860 @ 60 LMH
11,680,251
937,254
1,224,438
2,161,692
1.64
2.01
3.65
100.00%

2860 @ 75LMH
2880 @ 60 LMH
9,633,180
10,837,942
772,991
869,664
1,055,375
1,206,926
1,828,367
2,076,591
1.35
1.52
1.73
1.98
3.09
3.50
84.52%
95.98%

TCO of UF (SFP2860, 60 lmh)

TCO of UF (SFP2860, 75 lmh)

23%

32%

25%

35%

2880 @ 75 LMH
8,745,564
701,767
1,018,308
1,720,075
1.23
1.67
2.90
79.44%

6%
5%

5%

19%

3%
7%

15%

0% 5%

0% 5% 0%

7%

0%

TCO of UF (SFP2880, 75 lmh)

TCO of UF (SPF2880, 60 lmh)

36%

26%

5%
3%

23%

34%

6%
5%
4%
14%

8%

0% 4%

0%

3%

19%

8%

Original UF Module Cost

UF Plant (Excluding UF Rack & Module)

UF Rack Unit (Excluding Original UF Module)

Auxiliary Equipment & Accessories

Electrical & Control

Footprint & Infrastructure

Installation & Commissioning

Chemical

Power

UF Module Replacement

0%

4%

0%

3%

3%

Figure 2: Breakdown of UF product water total cost of ownership (TCO)

Table 2: Typical design, operating parameters + product water costs - traditional DMF pre-treatment
Item
Design and Operating Parameters
DMF vessel diameter
DMF vessel length
DMF vessel amount
P-DMF vessel filter media
Filtration speed (m/h)
pH adjustment
Coagulants
Flocculants
Backwash intervals
Smokeless coal, quartz sand
replacement rate
Product Water Costs
Filtration Velocity (m/h)
Total investment CAPEX(US$)
Annual amortization(US$)
Annual OPEX(US$)
Annual TCO (US$)
CAPEX per ton (US cents/m3)
OPEX per ton (US cents/m3)
TCO per ton (US cents/m3)

Single Pass Pressurised Filter

(1P-DMF)

Double Pass Pressurised Filter

(2P-DMF)

3
10.6
21
smokeless coal + quartz sand
10 m/h
6.5-7.0
5ppm FeCl3,
0.2 ppm PAM
24 hr
10%

3
10.6
17
smokeless coal + quartz sand
single pass: 10 m/h,
double pass: 12 m/h
6.5-7.0
5ppm FeCl3
0.2 ppm PAM
single pass: 24 hr, double pass: 38 hr
10%

10
5,410,378
434,143
1,275,815
1,709,959
0.76
2.23
2.99

1st Pass: 10, 2nd Pass:12

7,742,723
621,272
1,508,572
2,129,844
1.09
2.64
3.72

TCO of 1P-DMF
10%

3%

1%

1%

3%

0%
3% 4%

25%

2%
3%

2%
43%

TCO of 2P-DMF
3%

1%

15%

30%

1%

2%

0%
2%
3%
1%

3%
3%
36%
DMF Units(Excluding filermedia)
Feed & Backwash pumps & Blowers
Original Cartridge filters
Electrical & control
Installation & Commissioning
Power
Cartridge Filter Replacement

Original Filter Media

Chemicals dosing units
Auxiliary Equipment & Accessories
Footprint & Infrastructure
Chemical
Filter Media Replacment

Figure 3: Product water cost components in 2P-DMF and 1P-DMF

Table 3: CAPEX and OPEX of a SWRO system

SWRO system Flux
/ FF:
Total Investment
(US$)

14 LMH /
0.7

15.5 LMH /
0.75

17 LMH /
0.8

56,830,221

54,566,518

52,711,918

Amortisation (US$)

4,560,204

4,378,559

4,229,740

Annual OPEX (US$)

9,334,591

9,337,347

9,347,234

Annual total cost

(US$)

13,894,795

13,715,906

13,576,975

Table 4: CAPEX and OPEX for pre-treatment system + SWRO

Proposal

Design
Concept

UF
conservative
SWRO
conservative

UF new design
SWRO
conservative

UF new
design
SWRO
aggressive

Pre-treatment
System

SFP2860
60 LMH

SFP2880
75 LMH

SFP2880
75 LMH

SWRO System

14 LMH
FF 0.75

15.5 LMH
FF 0.75

17 LMH
FF 0.8

2P-DMF
conservative
SWRO
conservative
double pass
DMF
2P-DMF
14 LMH
FF 0.7

2P-DMF
conservative
SWRO
aggressive
double pass
DMF
2P-DMF
15.5 LMH
FF 0.75

single pass
DMF
DMF
14 LMH
FF 0.7

20.66

19.75

19.16

20.14

19.43

19.41

41.04

40.28

40.28

42.14

42.15

41.23

61.70

60.03

59.45

62.27

61.58

60.64

101.75%

98.99%

98.04%

102.69%

101.55%

100.00%

CAPEX per ton

3
(US cents/m )
OPEX per ton
(US cents/m3)
TCOW per ton
3
(US cents/m )
Total Saving
(%)

6
SWRO
standard
design