Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Engineering Advance

The status of forward osmosis technology implementation T

a a b b a,⁎
Abdelrahman M. Awad , Rem Jalab , Joel Minier-Matar , Samer Adham , Mustafa S. Nasser ,
S.J. Judda
a
Gas Processing Centre, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
b
ConocoPhillips Global Water Sustainability Centre, Qatar Science & Technology Park, Doha, Qatar

A B S T R A C T

The current review appraises the status of forward osmosis (FO) technology implementation and prospective commercial exploitation through examination of its
energy consumption and other key process attributes compared with classical desalination technologies. The outcomes of 15 studies conducted at pilot scale revealed
the energy associated with the draw solution (DS) recovery to present a significant barrier to implementation of the technology, with a 40–50% decrease in energy
consumption required for the DS recovery step for the process to successfully compete with classical reverse osmosis (RO) based processes. Against this, FO can be
energetically favoured if deployed: (a) without the DS recovery step, i.e. osmotic concentration (OC) or fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis (FDFO), (b) in competition
with evaporative desalination processes, or (c) for combined desalination and wastewater purification, when a comparatively low salinity stream is available for
providing osmotic dilution (OD) of the saline feed water. Whilst these specific applications show some promise for the technology, there remains a paucity of pilot
and demonstration-scale studies corroborating the theoretical energy benefit of the proposed technology configurations.

1. Introduction [26,28]. FO is nonetheless requires DS recovery, which remains a

1.1. FO technology and development
Forward osmosis (FO) is an emerging technology based on the
principal of naturally occurring osmosis, the preferential diffusion of a
solvent (normally water) through a semi-permeable membrane barrier
from a low to a high electrolyte concentration. The concentrated so-
lution, or “draw” solution (DS), acts to transfer the water (the
permeate) from the low-concentration solution (the feedwater).
Recover of the permeated water demands a further step to separate the
permeate from the DS, which may then permit DS reuse.
Although first recognized as a feasible separation process around
80 years ago [1], and demonstrated technically for juice concentration
over 50 years ago [2], it is only within the past 10–12 years that prac-
tical demonstration of FO has taken place with full-scale demonstration
only in the past 3–5 years. Reported studies have included seawater
desalination [3–9] and wastewater reclamation [10–13], with the focus
on the key process aspects of the DS reagent and its recovery [14–19],
membrane fouling [20–22], and membrane material development
[23,24].
Key attributes of the FO technology are the high solute rejection
[25], low energy consumption, and low fouling propensity [26,27]. The
reduced fouling propensity compared with the corresponding pressure-
driven processes, e.g. reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF),
permits membrane permeability recovery by simple physical cleaning
technically challenging and essentially high energy process [29].
Moreover, the choice of DS along with the associated recovery methods,
whilst increasing with new developments in this area [14,15], is limited
by the required product water purity; residual levels of DS in the treated
water cannot be tolerated for potable water or other high-purity ap-
plications, such as steam raising.
The growth in FO research publications (Fig. 1), with over 1850
papers generated between 2005 and 2018 at a growth rate of > 20%
p.a., is largely based on bench scale studies where outputs rarely apply
to full-scale installations and real-life applications. Two-fold differences
in permeability have been reported between bench and full-scale spiral
wound (SWo) FO elements [30], and further discrepancies observed for
water recovery and flux decline profiles [31,32]. FO has, however, been
demonstrated at different scales for sea/brackish water (SW/BW) de-
salination, and both domestic and industrial wastewater (WW) treat-
ment, including landfill leachate, produced water (PW), and food and
beverage WW [5]. The technical viability of the FO process for these
applications is a function of the feed water quality, the choice of the DS
and the required product water purity.
DS recovery has commonly been through conventional RO or NF.
Contradictory reports exist regarding the energy benefit of FO-based
desalination over the classical single-stage RO process. FO with RO/NF
for DS recovery has been shown both theoretically [14,33] and ex-
perimentally [34,35] to consume energy more than conventional RO,
though other reports [36,37] have claimed the reverse to be the case.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.nasser@qu.edu.qa (M.S. Nasser).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.03.013
Received 3 December 2018; Received in revised form 21 March 2019; Accepted 22 March 2019
0011-9164/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.M. Awad, et al.
350
300
250
Number of Publications
200
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Fig. 1. FO publications since 2005 (based on SCOPUS database).
Despite the large number of published articles (Fig. 1), fewer than
2.5% of these have concerned FO technology implementation at large
scale. In the current review outputs of published studies of the FO
technology applied at pilot, demonstration of full scale are critically
appraised. Studies assessed include both the single-step process and the
two-step process involving DS recovery. Implementation is considered
with reference to the range of FO membranes commercially available,
long-term process performance (and specifically the extent of the flux
decline), product water purity, and the nature and fate of the DS.
1.2. FO commercial history
The earliest commercial development of FO technology was by
Hydration Technology Innovations (HTI) in 2002 for emergency po-
table water supply for the US military [37], based on a sugar-based DS.
HTI was also the first company to implement the FO process for ex-
ploration & production (E&P) WW minimization [38], reclaiming over
80% of the drilling WW for reuse in hydraulic fracturing.
In 2008, Oaysis water entered the FO market with a thin film
polyamide (PA) FO membrane. By 2013, the company had developed a
fully integrated FO technology, based on a thermally-recoverable am-
monium carbonate DS components (PA-FO membrane, NH3-CO2 DS
with thermal DS recovery). The company's MBC (“membrane brine
concentrator”) technology was implemented for PW treatment in
Permian Basin and Marcellus Shale projects, as well as for zero liquid
discharge (ZLD) at two different sites in China in early 2017 [39].
By 2010, two worldwide FO/RO installations, in Oman and
Gibraltar, had been implemented by Modern Water [37], which led to
the company winning a contract to build a 200 m3/d desalination plant
at Al Naghdah, Oman.
Most recently, the company Aquaporin A/S launched a new hollow
fiber (HF) FO membrane in 2017 [40], this membrane configuration
providing a higher packing density than the more common spiral-
wound configuration. A recent PA membrane developed by Porifera has
been claimed to perform well in WW reuse and food and beverage
applications, and specifically challenging WWs with a significant hy-
drophobic content [41]. A 2000 m3/day OD FO-RO demonstration
plant was scheduled for implementation in 2018. Since its foundation in
2010, Trevi Systems has demonstrated its cellulose acetate (CA) based
FO membrane at five pilot studies in the USA (2013) and the Middle
East (2015) [42]. This process uses soluble polymers as the DS and two
stages (coalescence and NF) for its recovery. The company claims the
system to require 87% less energy than conventional RO for seawater
desalination [3]. (See Fig. 2.)
Notwithstanding the commercialization of bespoke FO products,
and the significant market potential (purportedly up to $6b [43]), thus
11
Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21
far the majority of reported large-scale practical FO studies have been
based on either commercial RO membranes, not necessarily the best
suited to FO applications, or on bespoke hand-cast FO membranes
prepared on a small scale [7,33]. There are currently only six global FO
membrane suppliers (Fluid Technology Solutions, Modern water,
Oaysis water, Porifera, Toyobo, and Trevi Systems), with a comparable
number of products in the latter stages of development or commercia-
lization (Table 1). Thus, despite the increasing number of research
publications (Fig. 1), examples of full-scale applications remain scarce
and incompletely reported.
2. Data capture
Information on large-scale FO installations was collated from a
variety of sources including peer-reviewed journals, conference pro-
ceedings, and internet-based reports. Reports from 15 sites have been
examined (Table 2), the applications being SW/BW desalination, WW
reclamation, and oil and gas (O&G) industry effluent treatment.
SW/BW desalination applications are required to generate potable
water as the product. Recovery of the DS must therefore leave a water
product meeting potable water quality standards, such that DS recovery
is often by RO (Fig. 3). SW/BW tends to have a higher salinity and
lower organic content than WW, impacting on the relative fouling
propensity. PW and fracturing flowback WW can have high and vari-
able high salinities and complex organic/inorganic constituents,
making them particularly challenging.
For FO/RO systems operating in OD mode, the wastewater source is
first treated by FO using concentrated seawater/or brine as the DS; the
diluted seawater DS can subsequently be desalinated by RO at a re-
duced energy consumption (Fig. 4). Such systems can be integrated
with WW reclamation and low energy desalination, provided all flow
streams are continuously available and can be balanced. (See Table 3.)
For indirect WW desalination, FO has been employed either to
polish a treated secondary or tertiary effluent (Fig. 3) or to be in-
tegrated within a membrane bioreactor (MBR), referred to as an os-
motic membrane bioreactor (OMBR), for raw municipal WW treatment.
OMBRs (Fig. 5) are purported to provide a high rejection of all salts and
nutrients at a lower fouling propensity than a classical MBR [57,58],
but are subject to accumulation of the retained salts in the mixed liquor.
For some applications, which have included treatment of municipal
effluent, coal mine WW, secondary and tertiary effluents and BW feeds,
no DS recovery has been required (Fig. 6). For such applications the
diluted DS is a product of the process whilst the concentrated feed can
be directly discharged or directed to another process for reuse. Re-
ported applications have encompassed the FDFO process where ferti-
lizer (containing concentrated plant nutrients) is used as the DS which
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Fig. 2. FO technology development timeline.

Table 1 Reject
FO
Current commercial membrane suppliers. Seawater,
Updated from [7]. brackish water, Pretreatment
Produced water,
Supplier/ Membrane Systema Configuration Commercial status or MBR effluent Diluted Concentrated
manufacturer draw soluon
draw RO/NF
soluon (e.g brine)
Aquaporin A/S Aquaporin No SWo, HF Commercial
Modern Water Undefined Yes SWo Commercial
Oasys Water TFC Yes SWo Commercial
Porifera TFC Yes SWo Commercial
Toyobo NA No HF Commercial Product water
Trevi Systems NA Yes SWo Commercial
Green Centre Canada NA No SWo Development Fig. 3. FO-RO process configuration (Project A, B, D, E, M, and N).
Idaho National Lab NA No NA Development
Fluid Technology CTA NA SWo Commercial
solutions 3.1.2. Project B
Toray TFC No SWo Development The pilot-scale study [45] by the Centre for Water Management and
IDE Technologies NA Yes SWo Precommercial Reuse, University of South Australia, is based on an HTI TFC-FO
Samsung NA No NA Development
membrane with downstream RO (Filmtec, Dow) for DS recovery (Fig. 4).
GKSS Polymeric No NA Development
Fuji NA No NA Development Four BW feed sources, all extracted from Mawson Lakes and of varying
water qualities, were tested during the trial operation: (1) raw BW
NA not available; TFC thin-film composite; CTA cellulose triacetate. (10.2 mg/L DOC (dissolved organic carbon) without pretreatment, (2)
a
Demonstration-scale FO membrane treatment systems available (yes/no). raw BW spiked with nutrients (305 mg/L DOC), (3) BW containing
gypsum (CaSO4), and (4) BW containing nutrients and gypsum (Fig. 3).
is diluted by FO and the product used directly for irrigation.
The choice of DS is generally dictated by the mode of its recovery. 3.1.3. Project C
The nature of the governing relationship between the osmotic pressure A pilot scale FDFO unit has been demonstrated for desalinating
Π and electrolyte concentration, means that some DS reagents provide a microfiltration (MF) pre-treated brackish groundwater from the
higher Π than others on a mass concentration basis (Fig. 7). Murray–Darling Basin [46]. The FO membrane comprised two cellulose
tri-acetate (CTA) 8040 SWo-FO modules (HTI, Albany, OR). NF post-
treatment (Woongjin Chemical Co. Ltd, Korea) was used to reduce the
3. Case studies nutrient content of the ammonium sulphate ((NH4)2SO4) fertilizer
product concentration to 1.8 M (Fig. 6).
3.1. Seawater/brackish water desalination

3.2. Wastewater reuse

3.1.1. Project A
100 m3/d capacity SW desalination demonstration plants installed
3.2.1. Project D
in Gibraltar (2008) and Oman (2010) by Modern Water [37], have been
A pilot-scale FDFO process, conducted by Acciona Agua in Spain
based on the company's “manipulated osmosis desalination” process.
[47], was used to reclaim municipal WW reclamation as fertilizer to
This process employed an HF-FO membrane as the desalination step
feed to an irrigation system. MBR effluent from an existing wastewater
and RO for DS recovery and potable water production (Fig. 3).
treatment plant at San Pedro del Pinatar (Murcia, Spain) was used as

Table 2
Feature of the three FO applications.
Application Project ID Feed characteristics Challenges

Seawater./Brackish water desalination A, B, and C • Moderate feed salinity • Energy consumption of DS recovery
• Low total organic carbon (TOC) and nutrients • High flux required
WW reclamation D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and • Low salinity • Energy consumption of the DS recovery
K • High TOC (potential of fouling)
O&G industry L, M, N, and Z • Relatively high salinity (RO fails to treat such • Sufficiently high-strength osmotic DS
feed stream) • Energy consumption of the DS recovery
• Complex organic and inorganic foulants • Organic/inorganic
treatment.
membrane fouling, demanding pre-

12
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Concentrated feed for

discharge/reuse
FO
Wastewater, Pretreatment
e.g MBR effluent
Concentrated draw soluon
Diluted draw (e.g seawater, brine)
soluon

RO Brine for discharge

Product water

Fig. 4. Osmotic dilution process (Project J, and K).

the feed. The 3 m3/h plant employed six FS-TFC Porifera FO mem-
branes of 84 m2 total area, fed with a 2 m3/h DS flow. Four Filmtec
NF270/NF90 NF membranes with an area of 60.8 m2 were used to
provide the final product fertilizer solution for irrigation (Fig. 3).
3.2.2. Project E
This wastewater treatment research facility deployed a pilot scale
FO-RO system to reclaim potable water from MBR effluent, the work
was being conducted at the Colorado School of Mines, USA [48]. Ver-
tically installed CTA FO membranes, supplied by HTI, were coupled
with a three-stage RO subsystem (based on Filmtec SW30 modules). The
concentrate from the third RO membrane was used as a DS for the FO
process. The trial was operated continuously for 1300 h at the Mines
Park wastewater treatment research facility and generated 10 m3 of
drinking water from 90 m3 of MBR effluent (Fig. 3).
3.2.3. Project F
A dual-stream OMBR demonstration unit for domestic wastewater
treatment and reuse has been operated at Colorado School of Mines
[49], allowing the OMBR to be compared with two-stage ultrafiltration
(UF) FO. A plate-and-frame CTA membrane (from HTI) was employed
for the FO step whilst a polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) HF-UF was
used as pretreatment. The membranes were immersed in the aerobic
tank with continuous air scouring. Three stages of RO (Filmtec 2540
SW30) were used to simultaneously re-concentrate the DS and provide
potable water. The test operated for 124 days using a brine DS at a
concentration of 32 g/L and 26 g/L for the OMBR and ultrafiltration
osmotic membrane bioreactor (UF-OMBR) respectively (Fig. 5).
3.2.4. Project G
An OMBR pilot trial for domestic municipal sewage treatment has
been conducted at the Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant (UPWRP)
in Singapore [50]. Activated sludge from anoxic/aerobic tanks was fed
to an HTI FS- CTA FO membrane whilst NaCl/MgSO4 was used to draw
pure water from the sludge. The concentrated DS was returned to an
MBR pilot demonstration operated in parallel with the OMBR using the
same feed solution (Fig. 5).
3.2.5. Project H
An FDFO process demonstrating the production of a nutrient solu-
tion for hydroponic applications has been conducted by the University
of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia [51] whilst concentrating mu-
nicipal effluent. Toray 8040 TFC FO membranes were employed in
three stages. The first stage was operated as an FO whilst the following
two stages as pressure-assisted osmosis (PAO) mode to achieve the
250× dilution factor required for the DS to be directly used for irri-
gation, obviating its recovery (Fig. 6).
3.2.6. Project I
A 15 m3/d pilot scale demonstration project deployed FDFO for
direct fertigation (i.e. injection of fertilizer into an irrigation system)
[52] for treating mine-impaired groundwater (2491 mg/L total dis-
solved solids (TDS)) in New South Wales, Australia. The FDFO was
coupled with an NF membrane [52] (cf. PAO for Project H) to achieve
the required product water quality for irrigation. The 180-day pilot trial
was based on two horizontal 8040 CTA FO membranes (HTI) and a
(NH4)2SO4 DS/fertilizer, whilst 4040 NE90 NF membranes (Woongjin
Chemical Co. Ltd, Korea) were used to further treat the diluted DS to
meet the irrigation quality standards, as with Project C (Fig. 6).

Table 3
Installations surveyed.
Project Location Feed DS Process configuration FO membrane Trial period (days) capacity (m3/day) Ref

A Oman Seawater NaCl FO - RO HF 8y 100 [44]

B Austral. Brackish water NaCl FO - RO SWo-TFC 7 – [45]
C Austral. Brackish water (NH4)2SO4 FDFO SWo-CTA 3 – [46]
D Spain MBR effluent MgSO4 FO - NF FS-TFC 480 4.3 [47]
E USA MBR effluent NaCl FO - RO SWo-CTA 55 4.4 [48]
F USA Domestic WW NaCl UF - OMBR PTF-CTA 249 – [49]
G Singap. Domestic Sewage NaCl/MgSO4 OMBR FS-CTA 8.3 13 [50]
H Austral. Municipal effluent Nutrient solution FDFO - PAO SWo-TFC – 72 [51]
I Austral. Coal mine WW (NH4)2SO4 FDFO SWo-CTA 180 15 [52]
J Korea Power-plant WW Seawater OD (FO-RO) FS-TFC 150 21.8 [53]
K USA Secondary and tertiary effluent Brine OD (FO-RO) FS-CTA 13 – [54]
L USA PW NaCl FO SWo-CTA – 926 [38]
M USA PW NaCl FO - RO SWo-CTA 7 – [7]
N USA PW NaCl FO - RO SWo-CTA 28 8.6 [55]
Z USA PW NH3/CO2 FO - distilln. SWo-TFC 4.1 21.8 [56]

FS flat sheet; CTA cellulose triacetate; HF hollow fiber; MBR membrane bioreactor, OD osmotic dilution; OMBR osmotic membrane bioreactor, PTF Plate-and-frame;
SWo spiral-wound; TFC thin film composite; UF ultrafiltration.

13
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

RO
Draw soluon
recovery

Product
FO water
Municipal
wastewater Anoxic tank

Aerobic tank Air

Sludge
wasng

Fig. 5. Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) (Project F, and G).

3.2.7. Project J 140

NaCl [60]
A pilot scale OD process for simultaneous treatment of power plant HCOOK [60]
120
WW and SW desalination was studied at the Huvis Water R&D Center (NH₄)₂SO₄ [46]
(Korea), the plant being operated for 5 months at a design capacity of (NH₄)₂SO₄ [52]
100

, bar
Mg SO₄ [60]
21.8 m3/day [53]. Four parallel PA-FO (PFO-100, Porifera) FO modules K₄P₂O₇ [60]
with total membrane area of 28 m2 were used to treat secondary ef- 80 Polytheylene glycole [60]

Osmotic pressure
fluent from a coal-fired power plant; the diluted seawater was desali- Sodium polyacrylate [60]

nated by three stages of Filmtec SW30 HR-380 RO membranes of 105 m2 60

total area. Seawater from the East Sea (used as a coolant in the plant)
was employed as the DS (Fig. 4). 40

20
3.2.8. Project K
An FO-RO OD plant at the Colorado School of Mines [54] was de-
0
monstrated for combined domestic WW treatment and water desali- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
nation, based on a single stage FS FO followed by a single-stage RO. A Concentration, g/g water
two-stage Filmtec SW30 2540 RO step was used for the continuous DS
Fig. 7. Π vs. DS concentration for different DS electrolytes.
supply (Fig. 4).

3.3. O&G effluent treatment 3.3.3. Project N

3.3.1. Project L
The first FO process for O&G wastewater minimization was con-
ducted in 2009 [38] by HTI. 280 vertical SWo 8040 FO membranes
were used to treat > 473.17 m3 of 25 g/L TDS drilling WW at a flow
rate of 926.67 m3/d using a 260 g/L TDS NaCl DS.
3.3.2. Project M
Building on the above study, a further programme was undertaken
by HTI in 2010, with the WW feed intended for reuse. The FO process
was thus coupled with RO and the system operated under forced-feed
flow with a transmembrane pressure (TMP) of 2.75–4.13 bar. The
system treated 6.8 mS/cm TDS O&G WW using 24 horizontal SWo 8040
FO membranes (Fig. 3).
PW from the Denver-Julesburg basin, Colorado, has been treated by
a demonstration unit at Colorado School of Mines [55], based on two
SWo CTA FO membranes (HTI) with three Filmtec SW30 2540 elements
downstream for DS regeneration (Fig. 3).
3.3.4. Project Z
A PW treatment demonstration MBC plant, fed with O&G waste-
water from the Marcellus Shale and Permian Basin, was reported in
2013 by Oaysis Water [56]. The MBC process comprised pretreatment,
FO-based separation, and thermal recovery of the DS, and was operated
for 800 h treating 227 m3 of frac-flowback water and PW of
~73,000 mg/L TDS. Pretreatment comprised chemical oxidation, soft-
ening, media filtration, activated carbon, and cartridge filtration. The
FO stage was based on two 6-element pressure vessels containing 4040

Concentrated ferlizer or brine

Diluted brine for discharge

Final ferlizer product Diluted ferlizer

for irrigaon NF

Concentrate

Concentrated
Wastewater Pretreatment FO wastewater

Fig. 6. Fertilizer-drawn FO (FDFO) process (Project C, H, and I).

14
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Table 4
Feedwater quality, flux and flux decline.
Project Feed Feed, TDS Organics, TSS and Inorganic DS reagent and Initial flux, Final flux, Operating ΔJ/(JoΔt), Ref
g/L nutrients, mg/L constituents, mg/L concentration, g/L LMH LMH period, h %/day

A SW – – – – – 0.7 [44]
B BW 1.63 DOC, 10.2 Ca, 44 NaCl, 39 10.5 8.9 22 13 [45]
Nutrients, 11.6 Mg, 5.2
C BW 5 P, < 3 (NH4)2SO4, 132 4.5 3.8 4 69 [46]
D MBR effluent 1.7–2.8a COD, 25 MgSO4, 36 2.2 1.4 1392 0.14 [47]
E MBR effluent 0.325 Nutrients, 37 Ca, 36.3 NaCl, 30 7.5 5.1 340 2.1 [48]
TSS, 5–16 Mg, 10.3
F Domestic 0.5 P, 120 Ca, 200 NaCl, 26 4.3 1.3 2400 1.3 [49]
wastewater Nitrate, 35 Mg, 54
G Domestic 0.395 COD, 292 Ca, 66 NaCl, 29 6.3 4.4 195 4.3 [50]
wastewater TSS, 105
H MBR effluent 0.11 TOC, 176 Ca, 5 Nutrient soln, 67 16.5 3.0b 8 218b [51]
Mg, 10
I Mine wastewater 2.49 DOC, 2.1 Ca, 48 (NH4)2SO4, 250 8 1b
200 – [52]
Nitrate, < 0.005 Mg, 22
a
J Secondary 0.35 TOC, 4.9 Ca, 33 Seawater, 32 10.6 ~10.6 480 0.2 [53]
effluent NO3−, 37 Mg,10
TSS, 10
K Ternary/tertiary 0.4 Nitrate, 5 – NaCl, 35 5.7 3.5 40 21 [54]
effluent TOC, 6–9
TSS, 2–10
L PW 25 – – NaCl, 260 – – – – [38]
M PW 3.7a – – NaCl, 60 6.8 5.57 110 3.9 [7]
N PW 20.7 DOC, 241 Ca, 355.5 NaCl, 58 3.1 1.12 656 3.3 [55]
Mg, 41.4
Z PW 73 TOC, 59 Ca, 104 NH3/CO2, 366 2.6 ~2.6 100 2.5 [56]
Mg, 5.5

NS: not significant.

a
Converted from mS/cm, assuming 1 ms/cm = 0.5 g/L TDS.
b
Flux decline attributed mainly to dilution factor rather than fouling.

SWo FO TFC-PA (Oasys Water, Boston, MA) elements. The ammonium
carbonate DS, operated at 50–100% of the feed flow in counter-current
mode, was recovered thermalytically. In a separate 400 h trial [7] 151
m3 of PW of 103,000 mg/L average salinity and high TOC and boron
levels was successfully treated [7].
4. Outcomes
4.1. Flux and flux decline trends
A review of the feedwater quality and flux data (Table 4) reveals:
1. The FO pseudo steady-state fluxes achieved have been wide-ranging,
from < 2.2 to ~10.6 LMH, across the different studies and appli-
cations.
2. For data sets within a specific project the flux increases with the
transmembrane osmotic pressure difference ΔΠ, the rate of change
decreasing with increasing concentration towards a plateau (Fig. 8)
as other factors become mass-transfer limiting at higher imposed
fluxes.
3. Despite the above observed trend, there is no consistent trend in the
initial flux (i.e. prior to the manifestation of membrane fouling) and
ΔΠ across all the reported studies (Fig. 9).
4. Those studies employing a brine solution or seawater of between 26
and 39 g/L NaCl challenged with feedwaters of < 1 g/L TDS
(Projects E, F, G, J and K), generated fluxes of 4.5–10.6 L/(m2.h)
(LMH); the highest initial flux was recorded for the technology
employing the largest ΔΠ (Project H).
5. The greatest normalised flux decline rate, ΔJ/(JoΔt) in % flux de-
cline per day where ΔJ/Δt is the overall flux decline ΔJ over the
time period Δt and Jo is the initial flux, was recorded for the system
(Project H) having the highest initial flux (> 15 LMH) and a high
TOC content (> 150 mg/L).
6. Trends in flux, flux decline rate and feedwater quality (DOC and/or
total suspended solids (TSS), taken as being representative of fouling
propensity) were otherwise inconsistent. For example:
a. the flux decline rate recorded for Project B was 60 times greater
than that for Project J despite the flux (10.5–10.6 LMH) and feed
DOC concentration being comparable;
b. a rapid flux decline (68.5% per day) was recorded at a modest
flux (4.5 LMH) for a relatively low-fouling feed (brackish water);
c. an order-of-magnitude higher flux decline rate (~21% cf. 2.1%
per day) was reported for a tertiary municipal wastewater
(Project K) compared with that recorded for an MBR effluent,
despite the latter operating at a higher imposed flux (7.5 cf. 5.7
LMH).
7. The FO membrane-based OMBR achieved an initial flux of 4.2–5.7
LMH with significant flux decline, compared with a stable flux of 4.5
LMH with no required periodic cleaning for a UF integrated within
an OMBR.
8. The lowest percentage flux declines at high imposed fluxes (≥8
LMH) have been generally associated with feedwaters having the
lowest organic carbon and suspended matter content (< 5 mg/L),
such as brackish water and mining wastewater (Projects B and I
respectively);
9. The effect of osmotic dilution, resulting in the diminishing of ΔΠ, on
flux decline has been observed to be greater than that from fouling.
For example, for Project H [51] 95% of the flux decline was at-
tributed to osmotic dilution cf. 48% from fouling in Project F [49].
Whilst recorded flux decline rates appear to be significant, FO
membrane cleaning requirements have generally been benign, with no
more than flushing with water required for Projects B, F, H, I, J and K
(Table 5). No chemical cleaning at all was apparently necessary over a
19-month operational period for an FO challenged with a seawater feed
of silt density index (SDI) 5 [44], and only simple hydraulic cleaning
(washing) for a brackish water-fed system (Project B [45]). However,
both these systems were challenged with low-TOC feedwater. On

15
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

18

16
HCOOK [60]
14 Hydroponic nutrient [51]
Poly acrolyate [60]
12 Mg SO₄ [60]
K₄P₂O₇ [60]

Flux, LMH 10 NaCl [60]

(NH₄)₂SO₄/SOA [46]
8

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
∆Π, bar
Fig. 8. Flux vs. osmotic pressure difference trends, Projects (C, D, and H).

introducing organic carbon to the feedwater, a marked decrease in flux
was recorded (Project B [45]).
Moreover, the presence of high TSS concentration (16 mg/L) in the
feed stream of Project E [48] also resulted in a considerable flux de-
cline, recovered by only 60% after a combined physical and chemical
cleaning. High foulant feedwater concentrations (Projects B and N) also
produced severe flux declines – 62% in the case of Project B [45] when
challenged with calcium sulphate, with only 43% recovered by che-
mical cleaning.
4.2. Water quality
A review of the contaminant rejection and product water quality
data (Table 6) reveals:
1. The rejection of contaminants by the FO membrane is variable
(Table 6). For example, the reported FO rejection of nitrate and
ammonia in Project E and K [48,54] was 75–84%. For the same two
projects > 95% rejection of these constituents was reported for the
two-stage FO/RO system (Figs. 3 and 4).
2. The FO/RO desalination plant (Project A) demonstrated consistently
high boron removal, reducing products levels to as low as 0.6 mg/L
without the need for post treatment.
3. For wastewater reuse in agriculture, an FO-NF system (Project D
[47]) was able to provide permeate water quality compliant with
agricultural irrigation water quality standards, specifically a con-
ductivity of 1 mS/cm and a boron concentration < 0.4 mg/L. Also,
the FDFO process (Project K) provided a diluted fertilizer solution of
the required nutrient concentration and final water pH (6–6.5) and
conductivity (1.5–2.0 mS/cm) suitable for hydroponic applications,
albeit following NF or PAO post-treatment.
4. A UF-OMBR provided high rejection of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
chemical oxygen demand (COD) from domestic WW, producing a
high permeate water quality from the downstream RO (Project F).
5. For PW discharges (Project Z [56]) the product water quality re-
ported for the final 6 months of operation indicated < 300 mg/L
TDS, 140 mg/L chlorides, 0.025 mg/L barium, and 0.5 mg/L stron-
tium, compliant with Pennsylvania State water quality standards for
surface discharge.

20
Wastewater
Produced water
Brackish water
Flux, LMH

2
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
∆TDS, g/L
Fig. 9. Initial flux vs. salt concentration difference for projects using a saline DS; each data point represents a single project (B, E, F, G, J, K, M and N).

16
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Table 5
Membrane cleaning protocol and efficiency.
Project Fouling type % flux decline Cleaning reagents and sequence % flux recovery Ref

B Organic 15 Pure water (for 30 min) 100 [45]

Organic, biological 45 Pure water (for 30 min) 59
Inorganic 41 Pure water (for 30 min) 92
Biological 61 Chemical cleaning: Na5P3O10, Na-EDTA, Na-DDBS (C6H5(CH2)12·SO3Na, C6H8O7) 43
D Organic 35 NaCl (I h), pure water (15 min), HCl (1 h) 78 (FO) 100 (NF) [47]
Inorganic 62 NaCl (1 h), Pure water (15 min), HCl (1 h) 59 (NF)
Inorganic 48 Genesol (30 min) 703, Pure water (15 min), HCl (30 min) 63 (NF)
E Organic 31 Flushing w. feedwater (for 1 h), liquid acid cleaner and detergent solution (for 15 min) 60 [48]
F Organic 80 Flushing w. tap water 60 [49]
Organic 60 Osmotic backwashing w. NaCl (for 1 h) 100
Organic 35 Chemical cleaning (for 10 min) 100
G Organic 15 Chemical osmotic backwashing w. 3 M NaCl (for 1 h) and pure water on DS side 100 [50]
H Organic – Flushing w. DI water (for 30 min) 75 [51]
Organic – NaCl, osmotic backwashing w. pure water (for 30 min) 95
I Organic – Flushing w. tape water (for 60 min at flowrate 6 m3/h) 100 [52]
J Organic – Flushing w. feed water (for 10 min at cross velocity of 25.6 cm/s) > 80 [53]
K Organic 18 Flushing w. feed water (for 3 min at cross velocity of 4 L/min) 93 [54]
Organic 12 Flushing w. feed water (for 3 min at cross velocity of 4 L/min) 83.1
Organic 9 Flushing w. surfactant (for 1 h at cross velocity of 2.4 L/min) 100
N Organic, inorganic 67 EDTA (pH < 6.5 for 3 h) 52 [55]

% recovery = % (flux after cleaning / initial flux before fouling).

4.3. DS and its recovery methods
A review of the DS reagents and their recovery reveals:
1. Out of the 15 projects, eight employed NaCl as the DS at a con-
centration of 26–35 g/L for wastewater and 39–260 g/L for BW, SW
and PW feeds, the NaCl DS being recovered by downstream RO.
2. The use of fertilizer as a DS (i.e. FDFO, as demonstrated in Projects
C, H, and I) obviates DS recovery but nonetheless demands down-
stream NF (Project C and I) or PAO (Project H) post-treatment
(Fig. 6) to reduce the fertilizer nutrient concentration to a suitable
level for irrigation.
3. Highly saline waters (PW) have been treated using either very high-
concentration (60–260 g/L) NaCl (Projects L, M, and N) or, in the
case of Project Z [56], thermally-recovered (based on a dual column
distillation-condensation process, Fig. 10) ammonium carbonate
(“NH3-CO2”) at a concentration of ~360 g/L.
4. A study (Project D [60]) comparing candidate DS solutions (po-
tassium formate, potassium phosphate, magnesium sulphate, so-
dium polyacrylate, polyethylene glycol, and sodium chloride)
challenged with the same feedwater (2.72 g/ L of NaCl) at constant
TMP revealed:
a. considerable difference in the water flux due to the differing ΔΠ

Table 6
Organic/inorganic constituent rejection.
Project Feed Product water fate Process configuration Constituent rejection, % Product constituent concentration, mg/L Ref

A Seawater Drinkable water FO-RO – TDS, < 200 [37]a

Boron, < 0.6
C Brackish water Direct fertigation FDFO-NF Nutrient N, > 90 Nutrient (N), 831 [59]
D MBR effluent Wastewater reuse in agriculture FO-NF – Boron, < 0.4 [47]b
COD, < 100 [47]c
E SBMBR permeate Direct potable water FO-RO o-PO4, 99.9 PO4, < 0.013 [48]d
NO3, 95.8 NO3, < 2 95.8
DOC, 99.9 DOC, < 0.004
F Domestic wastewater Wastewater reuse for drinking OMBR nitrogen, 82 nitrogen, 6.3 [49]
phosphorus, 99 phosphorus, 1.2
COD, 96
G Domestic wastewater Wastewater reuse for drinking OMBR – Nitrate-N, 3.36–6.8 [50]
PO4. 0.08–0.14
TOC, < 0.5–1.6
K MBR effluent Wastewater minimization FO-RO Ammonia, 94 Ammonia, < 0.5 [54]
Nitrate, 97 Nitrate, < 0.2
TOC, 99.9 TOC, < 0.01
N Produced water Wastewater minimization FO-RO Ions, > 99 DOC, 2.4 [55]
Boron, > 92.9
DOC, > 99
Z Produced water PW for surface discharge FO-distilln TDS, 99.6 TDS, < 300 [56]e
Chlorides, 99.9 Chlorides, < 130
Barium, 97.2 Barium, < 0.025
Boron, 91.1 Boron, < 0.5

a
Complies with Omani Standard No. 8/2006.
b
Complies with European legislation (91/271/CEE).
c
Complies with the Spanish water reuse legislation (RD1620/2007).
d
Complies with the water quality standard for the purpose United States Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level).
e
Water quality standards for surface discharge in the state of Pennsylvania (25 Pa. Code § 95.10(b)(3)).

17
A.M. Awad, et al.
Fig. 10. Thermal process for DS regeneration (“Membrane Brine Concentrator”,
MBC) [56].
values sustained for the different DS electrolytes, the influence of
internal concentration polarization, and the electrolyte diffu-
sivity;
b. sodium polyacrylate to exhibit the lowest reverse solute flow (i.e.
the diffuse flow of DS solute through the membrane into the
concentrate, demanding its replenishment);
c. differences in fouling reversibility for both the FO and down-
stream NF membrane for DS recovery, sodium polyacrylate pro-
viding the most reversible fouling and MgSO4 causing irreversible
fouling;
d. differences in product water quality, MgSO4 providing a water
suitable for irrigation in contrast to sodium polyacrylate;
e. MgCl2 as the most optimum DS in terms of the highest flux (2.58
LMH), lowest DS losses (0.39 g/L), lowest replacement costs
($0.52 m−3) and product water quality compliance;
f. the importance of other mitigating factors such as DS regenera-
tion/replacement costs, pH adjustment and toxicity.
5. The few studies that have estimated the DS energy consumption
have indicated (Fig. 11):
a. a reduction in specific energy consumption (SEC) from 8.5 to 4.9
kWh/m3 when FO is used as a pre-treatment to RO for SW de-
salination (Project A);
b. a 40% increase in SEC for an FO-NF process (Project D, [47]) over
that incurred for conventional UF-RO (~1.66 kWh/m3) for was-
tewater reclamation, largely due to the energy associated with
the NF step (2.23–2.51 kWh/m3), cf. 0.1 kWh/m3 for the FO step
(Fig. 11);
c. a 15% lower (2.85 ± 0.05 vs 3.34 ± 0.05 kWh/m3) estimated
SEC for an OD process compared with RO challenged with the
same UF-prefiltered feedwater for the equivalent salt removal
from a seawater feed (Project J [53]);
d. an extremely high SEC (275 kWh/m3) for thermal ammonium car-
bonate DS recovery used in PW treatment (Project Z, [56]), albeit
without harnessing waste heat;
e. a high electrical SEC (21 kWh/m3) for the membrane brine con-
tractor (FO MBC) operated under mechanical vapor compression
(MVC) mode, which is nonetheless 42% lower than the equivalent
18
Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21
SEC of a conventional forced circulation MVC evaporator (Project
Z).
5. Discussion
Whilst the technical performance of the FO process has been ex-
tensively reported across many applications, economic analyses have
been limited [61,62]. Comparative costs can nonetheless be inferred
from the SEC and flux data.
Reported FO flux values are ~2–4 times lower than those for RO for
the same application. RO desalination employs fluxes of 15–18 and
18–22 LMH for media bed and UF-pretreated SW respectively [63],
with similar corresponding ranges reported for wastewater reclamation
by RO [64]. This compares with reported steady-state flux values
generally between 3 and 10 LMH for the FO process from the pilot
studies. Flux directly impacts on capital expenditure (CAPEX), since a
reduced flux demands a commensurately larger membrane area.
Operational energy is evidently higher for the FO-based process,
with reported theoretical [14,33,65] and experimental [34,35] SEC
values for SW desalination being higher for FO with downstream DS
recovery (by RO/NF) than for conventional RO. A reduced FO process
SEC has been reported for SW desalination (Project A), but only from an
unusually high base of 8.5 kWh/m3 for conventional RO; full-scale RO
installations usually incur an SEC of only 3.5–4.9 kWh/m3 for this duty
[66]. Thus far there is no evidence from large-scale demonstrations that
the FO-RO hybrid configuration (Fig. 3) can consume less energy than
the classical standalone RO process for SW/BW desalination. It has been
determined that FO-RO can only energetically compete with the RO at
fluxes above ~30 LMH [37] or at associated recoveries of 50% or more
[67].
For wastewater reclamation, reported SEC values of an FO-based
process for MBR effluent purification are up to seven times higher than
that for classical RO, based on published values of 0.29–1.2 kWh/m3 for
the latter at full-scale [64]. Additional costs of the FO-based system
arise from loss of DS, though these have been shown to be less than
those associated with chemical cleaning of conventional RO (Project D
[47]). It has nonetheless been determined, from operation of an FO-NF
pilot plant [47], that the FO-based system incurs double the running
costs (typically 0.35–0.45 €/m3) of a classical UF-RO for wastewater
reclamation. Outcomes from other studies [54] similarly suggest higher
costs associated with the increased membrane area requirement.
OMBRs appear to be subject to similar limitations to the physical FO
process, with the stable fluxes of < 5 LMH (Projects F and G [49,50])
being at least four times less than those attained by either a conven-
tional MBR [66] or a downstream RO technology [64]. In addition, the
process is subject to accumulation of salts in the bioreactor, which is
known to generate foulants and potentially adversely affect the mi-
crobial ecology [68].
However, it has been claimed [36] that using FO/RO for SW/BW
desalination combined with secondary wastewater effluent treatment
can achieve ~50% savings in energy as compared to conventional
single pass RO based on an SEC of ~2.5 kWh/m3 [36,62] (Fig. 12). This
has been supported by a recent theoretical technoeconomic analysis
[61] in which a cost benefit from integrating FO has been quantitatively
demonstrated provided there is a supply of wastewater retentate. This
presumably demands that the wastewater reuse installation must at
least be located close to the desalination plant, if not integrated with it,
and must also employ RO as the demineralisation/purification step so
as to generate the retentate stream. Whilst corroborated by other the-
oretical studies [69], practical demonstration at pilot scale (Project J
[53]) has indicated a more modest percentage energy reduction of
~15% (Fig. 12).
The above principle has been applied in Project K [54], which si-
milarly suggested economic favourability of OD for simultaneous de-
salination and wastewater purification. The use of OD as RO pretreat-
ment (Fig. 4) was found to provide a cost benefit up to a threshold
A.M. Awad, et al. Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21

Desalination

Wastewater reclamation

No DS recovery

Fig. 11. Energy consumption for seawater desalination, wastewater treatment, and applications involving no DS recovery, compared with the data for classical
processes (hatched bars).

recovery rate which increased with increasing feed concentration.
Above this threshold, the CAPEX for the FO/RO system was found to be
greater than the overall operational cost savings. It has further been
postulated that an OMBR process may also become economically viable
if similarly used for OD upstream of an RO process for seawater desa-
lination [70], again demanding co-location of the desalination and
wastewater treatment installations.
It is also the case that the SEC of an FO process operated without DS
recovery is comparatively low, since energy is required solely for
pumping the feed and draw solutions at low pressure. For the simple
single-step FDFO process the energy required for OC and FDFO at bench
scale studies was estimated to be around 0.24 kWh/m3 [5,71]. In the
FO-RO osmotic dilution process (Project J), where the FO acts simply to
dilute the SW feed before the RO step, a 16.6% SEC reduction was re-
ported as a result of the reduced ΔΠ, and thus TMP, of the RO step [53].
This compares to a 64% reduction in SEC for the same two-step process
over the conventional single-step RO based on modelling [31], from a
baseline of 3.9 kWh/m3 for the classical RO desalination process.
Lastly, FO may provide a reasonable option for very high salinity
feedwaters (50 g/L TDS or more [59] where the energy consumption
associated with classical RO becomes unfeasibly high and the more
established thermal processes such as multi-stage flash and multi-effect
distillation are used. The reported thermal energy consumption of 275
kWh/m3 for the NH3-CO2 DS recovery step has been claimed to be less
than half that of the primary SEC for thermal desalination by non-
mechanical vapor compression evaporator, based on the same feed
water salinity of 73,000 mg/L and 50% water recovery [56].
6. Conclusions
A review of the status of FO technology has revealed that, whilst
research interest has increased significantly since the late 2000s, im-
plementation has been limited. Moreover, of the 15 cases analysed
where data is available from pilot/demonstration/full-scale installa-
tions, the case for implementing FO over the conventional RO tech-
nology is not supported by the data on the basis of cost. In cases where
recovery of the DS is required, the energy demand of the FO-based
process is higher than the classical RO-based one.
Despite these limitations, evidence from theoretical studies and
pilot/demonstration trials suggests that FO may be energetically fa-
voured over the conventional desalination process if implemented:
a) without the need for recovering the DS,
b) as an alternative to innately high-energy separation processes, and

2 ∆SEC, kWh/m³ 50
1.8 % energy saving 45
1.6 40
% energy reduction
∆SEC, kWh/m3

1.4 35
1.2 30
1 25
0.8 20
0.6 15
0.4 10
0.2 5
0 0
Wan & Chung, Nathan et al, 2012 Quintanilla et al, FO-RO, Project J
2018 [61] [69] 2011 [36] [53]
Source
Fig. 12. Reported specific energy consumption data: absolute (ΔSEC) and % energy reduction for FO cf. classical systems for combined WW reclamation and SW
desalination applications, three theoretical (36, 61 and 69) studies and one pilot-scale study (53).

19
A.M. Awad, et al.
specifically evaporation, or
c) as an OD step upstream of conventional RO desalination.
FO processes obviating the DS recovery step have been shown to
consume comparatively little energy (0.2–0.55 kWh/m3). Under such
circumstances, the process presents an attractive option for combined
OC, for wastewater minimisation, combined with OD of a concentrated
stream either for disposal (such as waste brine) or end use (such as
fertilizer). The process may also compete with evaporation for highly
saline feedwaters where RO becomes untenable because of the asso-
ciated high osmotic pressure. An FO system using an ammonium car-
bonate DS, thermolytically recoverable as NH3 and CO2, has been
shown to consume 42–56% less energy than the conventional thermal
processes.
Whilst the above two niche applications are unlikely to offer ex-
tensive opportunities for the technology, FO appears energetically
feasible for combined desalination and wastewater reclamation.
Evidence from theoretical studies suggest a 50% reduction in energy
demand may be possible through this process configuration, although
the limited pilot-scale demonstration of this duty has demonstrated an
energy benefit of no > 15%. Future more widespread implementation
of FO relies on more robust practical, large-scale demonstration of those
single-step or combined processes to corroborate mooted potential cost
and/or energy benefits.
Acknowledgements
This work was made possible by the support of a National Priorities
Research Programme (NPRP) grant from the Qatar National Research
Fund (QNRF), grant reference number NPRP10-0118-170191. The
statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. The
authors would like to thank Dan Jerry Cortes from Qatar University and
Arnold Janson from ConocoPhillips, Qatar for providing useful in-
formation for this paper.
References
[1] A. Subramani, J.G. Jacangelo, Emerging desalination technologies for water treat-
ment: a critical review, Water Res. 75 (2015) 164–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2015.02.032.
[2] E.M. Garcia-Castello, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Performance evaluation of
sucrose concentration using forward osmosis, J. Memb. Sci. 338 (2009) 61–66,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.04.011.
[3] R. Valladares Linares, Z. Li, S. Sarp, S.S. Bucs, G. Amy, J.S. Vrouwenvelder, Forward
osmosis niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse, Water Res. 66
(2014) 122–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.021.
[4] N. Akther, A. Sodiq, A. Giwa, S. Daer, H.A. Arafat, S.W. Hasan, Recent advance-
ments in forward osmosis desalination: a review, Chem. Eng. J. 281 (2015)
502–522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.080.
[5] P. Nasr, H. Sewilam, Forward osmosis: an alternative sustainable technology and
potential applications in water industry, Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 17 (2015)
2079–2090, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-0927-8.
[6] G. Blandin, A.R.D. Verliefde, J. Comas, I. Rodriguez-Roda, P. Le-Clech, Efficiently
combining water reuse and desalination through forward osmosis-reverse osmosis
(FO-RO) hybrids: a critical review, Membranes (Basel) 6 (2016), https://doi.org/
10.3390/membranes6030037.
[7] B.D. Coday, T.Y. Cath, Forward osmosis: novel desalination of produced water and
fracturing flowback, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 106 (2014) 37–38, https://doi.org/
10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0016.
[8] Y.N. Wang, K. Goh, X. Li, L. Setiawan, R. Wang, Membranes and processes for
forward osmosis-based desalination: recent advances and future prospects,
Desalination 434 (2018) 81–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.028.
[9] M. Qasim, N.A. Darwish, S. Sarp, N. Hilal, Water desalination by forward (direct)
osmosis phenomenon: a comprehensive review, Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.07.016.
[10] K. Lutchmiah, A.R.D. Verliefde, K. Roest, L.C. Rietveld, E.R. Cornelissen, Forward
osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review, Water Res. 58 (2014)
179–197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.045.
[11] A.J. Ansari, F.I. Hai, W.E. Price, J.E. Drewes, L.D. Nghiem, Forward osmosis as a
platform for resource recovery from municipal wastewater - a critical assessment of
the literature, J. Memb. Sci. 529 (2017) 195–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2017.01.054.
[12] J. Korenak, S. Basu, M. Balakrishnan, C. Hélix-Nielsen, I. Petrinic, Forward osmosis
in wastewater treatment processes, Acta Chim. Slov. (2017) 83–94, https://doi.org/
20
Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21
10.17344/acsi.2016.2852.
[13] X. Wang, V.W.C. Chang, C.Y. Tang, Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) tech-
nology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: advances, challenges, and pro-
spects for the future, J. Memb. Sci. 504 (2016) 113–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2016.01.010.
[14] Y. Cai, X.M. Hu, A critical review on draw solutes development for forward osmosis,
Desalination 391 (2016) 16–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.03.021.
[15] T. Alejo, M. Arruebo, V. Carcelen, V.M. Monsalvo, V. Sebastian, Advances in draw
solutes for forward osmosis: hybrid organic-inorganic nanoparticles and conven-
tional solutes, Chem. Eng. J. 309 (2017) 738–752, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
2016.10.079.
[16] S. Dutta, K. Nath, Prospect of ionic liquids and deep eutectic solvents as new gen-
eration draw solution in forward osmosis process, J. Water Process Eng. 21 (2018)
163–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.12.012.
[17] D. Zhao, S. Chen, C.X. Guo, Q. Zhao, X. Lu, Multi-functional forward osmosis draw
solutes for seawater desalination, Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 24 (2016) 23–30, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2015.06.018.
[18] D.J. Johnson, W.A. Suwaileh, A.W. Mohammed, N. Hilal, Osmotic's potential: an
overview of draw solutes for forward osmosis, Desalination 434 (2018) 100–120,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.09.017.
[19] Q. Ge, M. Ling, T.S. Chung, Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: devel-
opments, challenges, and prospects for the future, J. Memb. Sci. 442 (2013)
225–237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.046.
[20] A. Bogler, S. Lin, E. Bar-Zeev, Biofouling of membrane distillation, forward osmosis
and pressure retarded osmosis: principles, impacts and future directions, J. Memb.
Sci. 542 (2017) 378–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.08.001.
[21] Y. Chun, D. Mulcahy, L. Zou, I.S. Kim, A short review of membrane fouling in
forward osmosis processes, Membranes (Basel) 7 (2017) 1–23, https://doi.org/10.
3390/membranes7020030.
[22] Q. She, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, C.Y. Tang, Membrane fouling in osmotically driven
membrane processes: a review, J. Memb. Sci. 499 (2016) 201–233, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2015.10.040.
[23] W.A. Suwaileh, D.J. Johnson, S. Sarp, N. Hilal, Advances in forward osmosis
membranes: altering the sub-layer structure via recent fabrication and chemical
modification approaches, Desalination 436 (2018) 176–201, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2018.01.035.
[24] W. Xu, Q. Chen, Q. Ge, Recent advances in forward osmosis (FO) membrane: che-
mical modifications on membranes for FO processes, Desalination 419 (2017)
101–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.06.007.
[25] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis: principles, applications,
and recent developments, J. Memb. Sci. 281 (2006) 70–87, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2006.05.048.
[26] W.C.L. Lay, T.H. Chong, C.Y. Tang, A.G. Fane, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, Fouling propensity
of forward osmosis: investigation of the slower flux decline phenomenon, Water Sci.
Technol. 61 (2010) 927–936, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.835.
[27] R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Energy requirements of ammonia-carbon dioxide
forward osmosis desalination, Desalination 207 (2007) 370–382, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2006.08.012.
[28] C.H. Tan, H.Y. Ng, A novel hybrid forward osmosis - nanofiltration (FO-NF) process
for seawater desalination: draw solution selection and system configuration,
Desalin. Water Treat. 13 (2010) 356–361, https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2010.
1733.
[29] S. Zhao, L. Zou, C.Y. Tang, D. Mulcahy, Recent developments in forward osmosis:
opportunities and challenges, J. Memb. Sci. 396 (2012) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2011.12.023.
[30] S.J. Im, G.W. Go, S.H. Lee, G.H. Park, A. Jang, Performance evaluation of two-stage
spiral wound forward osmosis elements at various operation conditions, Desalin.
Water Treat. 57 (2016) 24583–24594, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2016.
1157989.
[31] J.E. Kim, S. Phuntsho, S.M. Ali, J.Y. Choi, H.K. Shon, Forward osmosis membrane
modular configurations for osmotic dilution of seawater by forward osmosis and
reverse osmosis hybrid system, Water Res. 128 (2018) 183–192, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2017.10.042.
[32] Y.C. Kim, S.J. Park, Experimental study of a 4040 spiral-wound forward-osmosis
membrane module, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 7737–7745, https://doi.org/
10.1021/es202175m.
[33] D.L. Shaffer, J.R. Werber, H. Jaramillo, S. Lin, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis:
where are we now? Desalination 356 (2015) 271–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2014.10.031.
[34] R.K. McGovern, J.H. Lienhard V, On the potential of forward osmosis to en-
ergetically outperform reverse osmosis desalination, J. Memb. Sci. 469 (2014)
245–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.05.061.
[35] G. Blandin, A.R.D. Verliefde, C.Y. Tang, P. Le-Clech, Opportunities to reach eco-
nomic sustainability in forward osmosis-reverse osmosis hybrids for seawater de-
salination, Desalination 363 (2015) 26–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.
12.011.
[36] V. Yangali-Quintanilla, Z. Li, R. Valladares, Q. Li, G. Amy, Indirect desalination of
Red Sea water with forward osmosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for water
reuse, Desalination 280 (2011) 160–166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.
066.
[37] N.A. Thompson, P.G. Nicoll, Forward Osmosis Desalination: A Commercial Reality,
IDA World Congr. - Perth Conv. Exhib. Cent. (PCEC), Perth, West. Aust, 2011, p. 16
Sept. 4–9, 2011 http://www.modernwater.co.uk/oldsite/assets/pdfs/
PERTHSept11-FODesalACommercialReality.pdf.
[38] N.R. Hutchings, E.W. Appleton, R.A. McGinnis, Making high quality frac water out
of oilfield waste, SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. 2010, ATCE 2010, Sept. 20, 2010 -
A.M. Awad, et al.
Sept. 22, 2010, vol. 6, 2010, pp. 4991–5000, , https://doi.org/10.2118/
135469-MS.
[39] http://oasyswater.com/ , Accessed date: 15 November 2018.
[40] https://aquaporin.dk/twro/ , Accessed date: 14 November 2018.
[41] Wastewater Energy Savings Hyorim Is a Leading South Korea, vol. 18, (2018).
[42] https://www.trevisystems.com/ , Accessed date: 14 November 2018.
[43] https://www.forwardosmosistech.com/the-addressable-fo-market-ranges-from-
300million-to-6billion-in-2017/ , Accessed date: 20 August 2018.
[44] A. Al-zuhairi, A.A. Merdaw, S. Al-aibi, M. Hamdan, P. Nicoll, A.A. Monjezi, S. Al-
aswad, H.B. Mahood, M. Aryafar, A.O. Sharif, Forward osmosis desalination from
labratory to market, Water Sci. Technol. (2015), https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2015.
038.
[45] Y. Chun, F. Zaviska, S.J. Kim, D. Mulcahy, E. Yang, I.S. Kim, L. Zou, Erratum:
corrigendum to: “Fouling characteristics and their implications on cleaning of a FO-
RO pilot process for treating brackish surface water” (Desalination (2016) 394
(91–100) (S0011916416302557) (10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.026)), Desalination
402 (2017) 185–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.010.
[46] J.E. Kim, S. Phuntsho, F. Lotfi, H.K. Shon, Investigation of pilot-scale 8040 FO
membrane module under different operating conditions for brackish water desali-
nation, Desalin. Water Treat. 53 (2015) 2782–2791, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2014.931528.
[47] B. Corzo, T. de la Torre, C. Sans, R. Escorihuela, S. Navea, J.J. Malfeito, Long-term
evaluation of a forward osmosis-nanofiltration demonstration plant for wastewater
reuse in agriculture, Chem. Eng. J. 338 (2018) 383–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2018.01.042.
[48] N.T. Hancock, P. Xu, M.J. Roby, J.D. Gomez, T.Y. Cath, Towards direct potable
reuse with forward osmosis: technical assessment of long-term process performance
at the pilot scale, J. Memb. Sci. 445 (2013) 34–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2013.04.056.
[49] R.W. Holloway, A.S. Wait, A. Fernandes da Silva, J. Herron, M.D. Schutter,
K. Lampi, T.Y. Cath, Long-term pilot scale investigation of novel hybrid ultra-
filtration-osmotic membrane bioreactors, Desalination 363 (2015) 64–74, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.040.
[50] J.J. Qin, K.A. Kekre, M.H. Oo, G. Tao, C.L. Lay, C.H. Lew, E.R. Cornelissen,
C.J. Ruiken, Preliminary study of osmotic membrane bioreactor: effects of draw
solution on water flux and air scouring on fouling, Water Sci. Technol. 62 (2010)
1353–1360, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.426.
[51] L. Chekli, J.E. Kim, I. El Saliby, Y. Kim, S. Phuntsho, S. Li, N. Ghaffour, T.O. Leiknes,
H. Kyong Shon, Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis process for sustainable water
reuse to grow hydroponic lettuce using commercial nutrient solution, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 181 (2017) 18–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.03.008.
[52] S. Phuntsho, J.E. Kim, M.A.H. Johir, S. Hong, Z. Li, N. Ghaffour, T.O. Leiknes,
H.K. Shon, Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis process: pilot-scale desalination of
mine impaired water for fertigation, J. Memb. Sci. 508 (2016) 22–31, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.024.
[53] B.G. Choi, M. Zhan, K. Shin, S. Lee, S. Hong, Pilot-scale evaluation of FO-RO os-
motic dilution process for treating wastewater from coal-fired power plant in-
tegrated with seawater desalination, J. Memb. Sci. 540 (2017) 78–87, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.036.
[54] T.Y. Cath, N.T. Hancock, C.D. Lundin, C. Hoppe-Jones, J.E. Drewes, A multi-barrier
osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and purification of impaired
water, J. Memb. Sci. 362 (2010) 417–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.
06.056.
[55] R.A. Maltos, J. Regnery, N. Almaraz, S. Fox, M. Schutter, T.J. Cath, M. Veres,
B.D. Coday, T.Y. Cath, Produced water impact on membrane integrity during ex-
tended pilot testing of forward osmosis – reverse osmosis treatment, Desalination
21
Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21
440 (2018) 99–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.02.029.
[56] R.L. McGinnis, N.T. Hancock, M.S. Nowosielski-Slepowron, G.D. McGurgan, Pilot
demonstration of the NH3/CO2 forward osmosis desalination process on high sali-
nity brines, Desalination 312 (2013) 67–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.
11.032.
[57] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, E.A. Marchand, A.E. Childress, The forward osmosis mem-
brane bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes, Desalination 239
(2009) 10–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.02.022.
[58] J. Zhang, W.L.C. Loong, S. Chou, C. Tang, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, Membrane bio-
fouling and scaling in forward osmosis membrane bioreactor, J. Memb. Sci.
403–404 (2012) 8–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.01.032.
[59] J.E. Kim, S. Phuntsho, H.K. Shon, Pilot-scale nanofiltration system as post-treatment
for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation, Desalin.
Water Treat. 51 (2013) 6265–6273, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.
780804.
[60] B. Corzo, T. de la Torre, C. Sans, E. Ferrero, J.J. Malfeito, Evaluation of draw so-
lutions and commercially available forward osmosis membrane modules for was-
tewater reclamation at pilot scale, Chem. Eng. J. 326 (2017) 1–8, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2017.05.108.
[61] C.F. Wan, T.S. Chung, Techno-economic evaluation of various RO+PRO and RO
+FO integrated processes, Appl. Energy 212 (2018) 1038–1050, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.124.
[62] R. Valladares Linares, Z. Li, V. Yangali-Quintanilla, N. Ghaffour, G. Amy, T. Leiknes,
J.S. Vrouwenvelder, Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis - low pressure re-
verse osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery, Water
Res. 88 (2016) 225–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.017.
[63] L.F. Greenlee, D.F. Lawler, B.D. Freeman, B. Marrot, P. Moulin, P. Ce, Reverse os-
mosis desalination: water sources, technology, and today's challenges, Water Res.
43 (2009) 2317–2348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.010.
[64] M. Raffin, E. Germain, S. Judd, Wastewater polishing using membrane technology:
a review of existing installations, Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom). 34 (2013)
617–627, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.710385.
[65] T.S. Chung, L. Luo, C.F. Wan, Y. Cui, G. Amy, What is next for forward osmosis (FO)
and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO), Sep. Purif. Technol. 156 (2015) 856–860,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.10.063.
[66] S.J. Judd, Membrane technology costs and me, Water Res. 122 (2017) 1–9, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.027.
[67] D.L. Shaffer, N.Y. Yip, J. Gilron, M. Elimelech, Seawater desalination for agriculture
by integrated forward and reverse osmosis: improved product water quality for
potentially less energy, J. Memb. Sci. 415–416 (2012) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2012.05.016.
[68] E. Reid, X. Liu, S.J. Judd, Sludge characteristics and membrane fouling in full-scale
submerged membrane bioreactors, Desalination 219 (2008) 240–249, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.05.017.
[69] N.T. Hancock, N.D. Black, T.Y. Cath, A comparative life cycle assessment of hybrid
osmotic dilution desalination and established seawater desalination and wastewater
reclamation processes, Water Res. 46 (2012) 1145–1154, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2011.12.004.
[70] G. Blandin, P. Le-Clech, E. Cornelissen, A.R.D. Verliefde, J. Comas, I. Rodriguez-
Roda, Can osmotic membrane bioreactor be a realistic solution for water reuse? Npj
Clean Water 1 (2018) 7, , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-018-0006-x.
[71] J. Minier-Matar, A. Santos, A. Hussain, A. Janson, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, S. Adham,
Application of hollow Fiber forward osmosis membranes for produced and process
water volume reduction: an osmotic concentration process, Environ. Sci. Technol.
50 (2016) 6044–6052, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04801.