DESALINATION

Isobaric device brine/

seawater mixing effect – what
does it mean to the SWRO
plant designer and operator?

Isobaric energy recovery devices such as the ERI Pressure Exchanger are very efficient because they
achieve a direct transfer of pressure from the brine reject to the incoming seawater feed. Since the two
liquids streams are in motion and have different densities, this means that there is an inherent tendency
for some of the brine to contaminate the seawater. Because any increase in seawater reverse osmosis
(SWRO) feed salinity will affect membrane performance, it is important to consider the effects of mixing in
SWRO plants and how designers and operators of hundreds of plants running with PXs are working around
this effect. It is also important to consider mixing in the larger context of overall isobaric device operations,
including efficiency performance and maintenance requirements

W
ith traditional isobaric energy recovery devices such
as work exchangers manufactured by Aqua Design
(now Ionics), RO Kinetics, Siemag, etc. pressure
transfer between the brine and the seawater streams occurs in
large vessels. Pressure exchange is done as a batch process
with a cycle time of 3 or 4 batches per minute. This means that
the two liquids are typically in contact for 15 to 20 seconds.
To minimise mixing, some of these devices use tall vertical

50 Water & Wastewater Asia • January/February 2006


Figure 1: PX flow schematic
towers to try to take advantage of density
differences. Others use complicated
sensors and controls, however, given
the long contact time, mixing in some
of these devices tend to be as high as
15 to 20 per cent. Because of the large
volumes involved, attempts to minimise
mixing by reducing the cycle time results
in increased pressure losses and often
destructive, pipe-busting water hammer.
Work exchangers such as the Aqua
Design Dyprex use a piston inside the
vessels to separate the two streams
as they push back and forth during the
cycles. The piston must have a loose
fit to minimise the possibility of binding.
Because of this loose fit, high pressure
brine flows past the piston resulting in
mixing between the streams – about 1.5
per cent. In addition, the piston creates
operating challenges such as piston and
pressure vessel wall wear, additional
control issues such as piston detection
and synchronization, piston sticking and
aggravated water hammer transients.
The ERI Pressure Exchanger (PX) is
designed to minimise and control mixing
without using pistons.
PX technology minimises mixing in
two ways.
The first is to keep the contact time
between the brine and the seawater very
short – 1/60 of a second or less, about
the time that the shutter in a camera
stays open. In a PX, there is simply too
little time for the two fluids to significantly
mix.
The other way the PX minimises
Water & Wastewater Asia • January/February 2006
DESALINATION
mixing is by maintaining a plug of water membranes. The corresponding increase
in the rotor duct at all times. Please in membrane operating pressure is about
see Figure 1. The rotor is designed to 1 bar (15 PSI). An experienced SWRO
spin fast enough so that the plug that operator will recognise that a seawater
separates the brine and seawater is temperature decrease of 2°C – a daily
not displaced during rotation. Mixing is occurrence in some plants – can cause a
limited to the brine that traverses the 1 bar increase in operating pressure.
liquid plug during a 1/60 second cycle – 6 Modern thin film composite
per cent or less. So with either a piston desalination membranes enjoy salt
device or a PX, some mixing will occur. rejection as high a 99.8 per cent.
As a plant engineer or operator, how From a permeate-quality point of
does mixing affect plant design and view, the increase in permeate salinity
operations? The first mixing effect the expected due to PX mixing is 6 to 8 ppm
operator sees is an increase in salinity depending on membrane specifications
at the outlet of the isobaric device. As and plant recovery. This increase in
illustrated in Figure 2, the salinity at salinity is within the normal variation
the outlet of the device is a function in membrane salt passage one would
of the brine salinity which varies with expect in a large plant. Indeed, with
membrane recovery rate. At balanced over 1,000 PX units installed worldwide,
flow (equal low- and high-pressure flow experience has proven that mixing does
rates) and 40 per cent recovery, the
increase in salinity at the PX outlet is
about 4.5 per cent.
After leaving the PX, high-pressure
seawater is diluted by water from the
high-pressure pump as illustrated in
Figure 3 on page 52. The resulting
salinity increase at the membranes is
about 2 to 3 per cent at 35 to 45 per
cent recovery.
How does a 2 to 3 per cent salinity
increase at the membranes affect plant
design and operations? With 35,000
to 38,000 ppm seawater, such as that
from the Caribbean, Pacific or even
the Mediterranean, a 2 to 3 per cent
increase in salinity equals about 1,000
ppm TDS higher salt concentration at the Figure 2: Salinity at device outlet
51
 DESALINATION

will induce more fresh seawater into

Figure 3: Salinity at membranes
not affect permeate quality regardless of
membrane type.
To address the increase in membrane
operating pressure caused by mixing,
the SWRO plant designer and operator
have several choices.
Choice number 1 is to do nothing. As
described above, mixing causes about
a 1 bar operating pressure increase.
For a typical SWRO plant operating
at 70 bar, such a pressure increase is
equivalent to about a 1 per cent loss in
PX efficiency. For a PX-220 operating in
a typical plant, this means that the net
PX efficiency is about 94 per cent. This
compares favourably to a net efficiency
of 80 per cent for state-of-the-art Pelton
plants and is equal or better than the
efficiency achieved by the PXʼs nearest
competitor.
Choice number 2 is to adjust
membrane recovery to compensate for
mixing. Typically the SWRO operator
will adjust the VFD Hz/speed of the
booster pump to adjust recovery. This
the high pressure circuit, lower salinity
and lower the osmotic pressure fed to
the membranes. A 2 per cent decrease
in recovery completely eliminates the
salinity increase caused by PX. This
recovery adjustment will cost the operator
about 5 per cent more filtered seawater,
however, operating at a lower recovery
often decreases plant operating costs as
illustrated in Figure 4. The cost savings
at lower recovery typically makes up for
the extra cost of seawater.
Choice number 3 is to unbalance
the PX. Increasing the low pressure
seawater feed to the PX flushes the
device and reduces the salinity at the
outlet. For instance, 5 per cent excess
seawater to the PX in an SWRO plant
running at 40 per cent recovery results
in lowering the salinity increase at
the membranes to about 1 per cent.
However, this “overflushing” is not the
most efficient way to deal with the PX
mixing effect.
Choice number 4 is to consider
using the new high flow (low energy)
membrane elements available in the
market. For an existing plant PX retrofit,
a 20 per cent reload with these high
flow membranes at your next scheduled
replacement will eliminate the effect
of mixing on RO plant feed pressure
without affecting seawater cost.
In summary, the PX minimises
mixing between the brine and seawater
without using a piston. This simple
solution greatly reduces the operating
complexities and maintenance costs
inherent in other approaches. PX mixing
has a negligible affect on the permeate
quality. The plant engineer or operator can
Figure 4: Plant energy consumption vs
recovery rate
adjust the SWRO plant to compensate
for the limited mixing that occurs in
a PX in several ways, or do nothing
without significantly compromising plant
performance. Considering mixing and
all other losses, the PX is still 94 per
cent efficient – one of the most efficient
energy recovery devices in the market.
The savvy BOOT operator of a 25-MGD
plant recognises that PX technology
can save him over US$40 million over
the lifetime of the plant compared to an
efficient Pelton in the market. The PX also
eliminates all the maintenance problems
associated with work exchangers such
as pulsations, valve maintenance,
metallurgy, and sticky piston issues. It
also makes unnecessary the complex,
computer-controlled synchronization
needed when using multiple work
exchangers in a single desalination plant
train. WWA
This article — courtesy of Energy
Recovery Inc.
Enquiry No: 015

Use us as your voice.

For advertisement enquiries, please contact: audreyyao@pabloasia.com

52 Water & Wastewater Asia • January/February 2006