Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Pre-treatment strategies for seawater desalination by reverse osmosis system

Noka Prihasto, Qi-Feng Liu, Seung-Hyun Kim ⁎
Dept. Civil Engineering, Kyungnam University, 449 Wolyoung-dong, Masan 631-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A good quality pre-treatment process is instrumental to the successful operation of a seawater reverse
Accepted 3 September 2008 osmosis (SWRO) plant. The compounds that are susceptible to foul the reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are
Available online 30 September 2009 inorganic suspended solids, sand, oil, clays, bacteria, and dissolved organic matters. In order to prevent the
fouling, a pre-treatment of the raw water needs to be conducted. The pre-treatment technologies to prevent
Keywords:
membrane fouling and to extend the lifetime of the RO membrane are commonly grouped into two
Antifouling
Conventional pre-treatment
categories, conventional and non-conventional. Both of these treatments are currently applied in SWRO
Membrane pre-treatment plants in the world. The pre-treatment system applied is highly site specific and depending on the type of the
Operating experience feed water. This paper reviews the recent representative researches that are related to SWRO antifouling
strategies and answers the most crucial questions about design and operating parameters of SWRO and its
pre-treatment process. Also the economic evaluation of the SWRO system in regards to antifouling strategies'
experience is discussed.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and to prevent slime growth. A comprehensive review of antifouling

Desalination offers the potential of an unlimited source of
freshwater purified from the vast oceans of salt water that surround
us. Among many desalination technologies, RO achieved great
advances in recent years. Some of the largest new desalination plants
under construction and in operation now use RO membranes,
including Ashkelon in Israel and the new plant at Tuas in Singapore.
Ashkelon, the largest RO plant in the world, desalinates seawater for
municipal purposes with a capacity of 395,000 m3 per day. However, a
significant minority of plants is overly expensive, inaccurately
promoted, poorly designed, inappropriately sited, and ultimately
useless [1]. To avoid newer, expensive errors, policymakers and the
public need to take a careful look at the existing plants and learn the
useful experiences then know how to evaluate and judge proposals
for the new facilities. In addition, a crucial drawback of RO membranes
is the susceptibility to fouling [2]. Fouling will lead to higher
operational costs (higher energy demand, increase of cleanings and
reduced lifetime of the membrane elements) [3]. Antifouling
strategies therefore are required in a SWRO system to prevent fouling
of the membranes, maintain the performance of the system and
extend the lifetime of the membranes.
It needs to be designed accordingly to countenance the extreme
condition of the feed water quality due to seasonal or climatic
changes. To achieve those objectives, the antifouling strategies are
expected to: decrease the silt density index (SDI), remove excessive
turbidity or suspended solids, inhibit or control the formation of scale,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 55 249 2665; fax: +82 55 249 2664.
E-mail address: shkim@kyungnam.ac.kr (S.-H. Kim).
strategies of SWRO desalination is presented to summarize popular
pre-treatment methods used currently and their general design
parameters. Based on full-scale and/or pilot scale case surveys,
general problems occurring in real practice also expect to be clarified.
At the present time, pre-treatment technology is divided into
conventional pre-treatment, which includes disinfection, coagulation/
flocculation and filtration process, and non-conventional pre-treat-
ment such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration and the beachwell system.
Conventional RO pre-treatment has been widely applied for seawater
RO plants to achieve the expected quality of feed water to the RO
membrane. But with the deterioration of feed waters and the
consideration of the less efficient conventional system, an increasing
number of plant owners are nowadays considering the use of
membrane based pre-treatments [4]. This paper also includes
evaluation to compare performance results, challenges encountered
during operation, capital investment and operating cost of conven-
tional media filtration with low-pressure membrane filtration (MF/
UF), which is one of the most important decision-making bases for
choosing feasible pre-treatment methods.
2. RO fouling mechanisms
The main fouling mechanisms of RO membranes include partic-
ulate/colloidal fouling, biofouling, organic fouling, and inorganic
fouling (including scaling) [3]. The particulate/colloidal category
mainly includes suspended solids and some metal-based hydroxides
which can accumulate on the surface of the membrane over time and
form cake fouling. Microorganisms such as bacteria, fungus or algae
can secrete polymers that anchor themselves to the surfaces of

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.09.010
 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
membrane and promote growth as a biofilm. This process may also
accelerate the chemical decomposition of RO membranes, posing
serious threats to the operation of RO plants [5]. Organic compounds
consisting of humic and fulvic acids, polysaccharides, and aromatic
compounds may cause adsorptive fouling. On the other hand, they can
be the energy source of microorganisms. Scaling is caused by
exceeding the solubility of soluble salts. It is considered less
problematic and can be controlled by adjusting the pH and adding
antiscalants. However, the prevention of colloidal, organic and
biofouling is a much more difficult task that usually requires an
intensive pre-treatment step [3].
3. Antifouling strategies
3.1. Pre-treatment
Generally, for RO desalination, feed water with constant high
quality is the key factor to a successful operation. The poor feed water
quality can lead to short RO membrane lifetime, short periods of
operation, and high maintenance. So, undesirable materials in raw
water have to be removed or reduced to acceptable levels. Such
materials that need to be removed include suspended solids,
dissolved organic contaminants, immiscible liquids as oil and grease,
and sparingly soluble salts. Based on the manufacturer's guarantee,
the maximum allowable contaminants in the feed water are shown as
follows: turbidity should be lower than 1.0 NTU; SDI ≤3.0 or 4.0; oil
and grease ≤1.0 mg/L [6]; sparingly soluble concentration should
lower the saturated concentration.
Settleable solids are easily removed from water by gravity settling
or filtration, but most non-settleable solids, organic matter, immis-
cible liquids and sparingly soluble salts need to be reduced by
chemical treatment. Chemical treatment may involve any of the
following: coagulation, either with or without clarification; pH
adjustment, which may influence fluoride removal; or scale inhibi-
tion. When required, degasification and secondary filtration follow
chemical treatment [7].
3.1.1. Coagulation
Coagulation is a process for combining small particles into larger
aggregates by neutralizing the electrical charges on the surface of the
particles. Commonly used coagulants include alum, ferric salts, lime,
and polyelectrolyte. Coagulation has been shown to successfully
improve water quality both in conventional pre-treatment (media
filtration) and low-pressure membrane pre-treatment (MF/UF) of
SWRO. Coagulation also has the additional benefit of reducing MF/UF
fouling and improving operational stability in some circumstances.
However, several issues still remain to be resolved before coagulation
pre-treatment can be applied optimally especially in the water
treatment membrane field, such as the selection of a proper type of
coagulant for water characteristics, the optimal dosage, coagulation
strategies (coagulation-settlement process and in-line coagulation)
and overall cost and benefits of chemical pre-treatment to MF and UF
membrane systems.
Many research studies have been carried out in these fields. Ma
et al. [8] reported a study to reduce the pollution of materials such as
iron, silica and microbial contamination in the feed water by applying
a combination of enhanced coagulation and membranes. The study
showed that when using potassium polymer ferrate (VI) as a
coagulant and pre-oxidant there can be an excellent increase in
algae and microbial removal which can reach more than 98%.
Furthermore the study showed that turbidity is less than 0.5 NTU,
the iron concentration never exceeds 0.2 mg/L and the Si concentra-
tion does not exceed 0.1 mg/L. The study conducted by Duan et al. [9]
showed that adsorption of humic acid by powdered activated carbon
(PAC) can be significantly greater in saline water compared to
freshwater and low conductivity water. The addition of either
309
aluminum sulfate or ferric chloride, on overall humic acid removal
were found to depend strongly on the coagulant dose, solution pH and
the sequence of addition of the PAC and the metal salt coagulant.
Addition of the PAC prior to the coagulant was found to give the
greatest removal of humic acid. On the other hand, a study done by
Gabelich et al. [10] showed that coagulant residuals from the pre-
treatment process may negatively affect reverse osmosis (RO)
membrane performance using either aluminum sulfate (alum) or
ferric chloride coagulants and chloramines. Experiments using alum
with multiple RO elements exposed rapid deterioration in specific flux
(up to 60% over 100 h of operation), and also progressive reductions
in salt rejection. Meanwhile the specific flux data using ferric chloride
and chloramines increased over time for all membranes. Salt rejection
decreased significantly during testing of each membrane. The study
reported that the RO membranes may have been degraded by residual
iron catalyzing a chlorine–amide reaction on the membrane surface.
In summary, evaluating each chemical used in pre-treatment to
determine its effects must be based on the successive steps'
performance i.e., how much it can reduce RO fouling potential and
increase the permeate water quality. Usually, sufficient jar-tests and
bench scale experiments or pilot tests with different types and dosage
concentrations of coagulants are necessary to determine the optimal
coagulation condition. Coagulants without prior operational experi-
ence and an exhaustive actual application review should be avoided
for use in real practice. In particular, it is noted that calcium present in
lime can cause an increase in scale formation in distillation/
condensation processes [5] while the iron present in ferric salts can
cause excessive fouling in membrane desalination systems.
3.1.2. Acidity (pH) adjustment
Acidity (pH) adjustment is an efficient way to control calcium
carbonate scaling. The solubility of CaCO3 depends on the pH, as can
be seen from the following equation:
Ca
2þ − þ
þ HCO3 ↔H þ CaCO3
By adding H+ as acid, the equilibrium can be shifted to the left side
to keep calcium carbonate dissolved. Adjustment chemicals to lower
the pH include carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid.
Carbon dioxide should not be used for pH adjustment of lime addition
systems due to scaling problem associated with lime pre-treatment.
Sulfuric acid is easier to handle and in many countries more readily
available than hydrochloric acid; however, additional sulfate is added
to the feed stream, potentially causing sulfate scaling. It should be
known that the pH is always changed significantly after coagulants
have been added and the pH must be returned to a neutral state for
the final produced water [5].
3.1.3. Scale inhibition
Scale inhibitors (antiscalants) can be used to control carbonate
scaling, magnesium hydroxide scaling, sulfate scaling, and calcium
fluoride scaling. There are generally three different types of scale
inhibitors: sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP), organophospho-
nates and polyacrylates.
According to FILMTEC Reverse Osmosis Membranes Technical
Manual [11], SHMP is inexpensive but unstable compared to
polymeric organic scale inhibitors. Minor amounts adsorb on the
surface of micro crystals, preventing further growth and precipitation
of the crystals. Food-grade quality SHMP should be used. Care must be
taken to avoid hydrolysis of SHMP in the dosing feed tank. Hydrolysis
will not only decrease the scale inhibition efficiency, but also create a
calcium phosphate scaling risk. Therefore, SHMP is generally not
recommended. Organophosphonates are more effective and stable
than SHMP. They act as antifoulants for insoluble aluminum and iron,
keeping them in solution. Polyacrylates (high molecular weight) are
generally known for reducing silica scale formation via a dispersion
310 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
mechanism. Polymeric organic scale inhibitors are also more effective
than SHMP. Precipitation reactions may occur, however, with
negatively charged scale inhibitors and cationic polyelectrolytes or
multivalent cations (e.g., aluminum or iron). The resulting gum-like
products are very difficult to remove from the membrane elements.
Dosage rates on all antiscalants, should be based on the antiscalant
manufacturers. Overdosing should be avoided to make certain that no
significant amounts of cationic polymers are present when adding an
anionic scale inhibitor.
3.1.4. Filtration with granular media
Direct filtration, using mono, dual media or mixed-media filtration,
is the most common technology used for the filtration of seawater prior
to the RO system. Filtration depends primarily on a combination of
complex physical and chemical mechanisms, the most important being
adsorption. As water passes through the filter bed, the suspended
particles contact and adsorb (stick) onto the surface of the individual
media grains or onto previously deposited material [5].
To reach the expected quality of filtrate, the size, surface charge,
and geometry of both suspended solids and filter media, are the most
important parameters that need to be well designed. In addition,
exhaustive water analysis and choosing proper operational para-
meters are crucial. As has been reported in Water Desalination
Technical Manual, Department of the U.S. Army [7], the most popular
filter media in water treatment are sand and anthracite. The effective
grain size for fine sand filters is in the range of 0.35–0.5 mm, and 0.7–
0.8 mm for anthracite filters. The design depth of the filter media is a
minimum of 0.8 m. In the dual filter media, the filters are usually filled
with 0.3 m of sand covered with 0.5 m of anthracite. The design
filtration flow rates are usually 10–20 m/h, and the backwash rates
are in the range of 40–50 m/h. For feed waters with a high fouling
potential, flow rates of less than 10 m/h and/or second pass media
filtration are preferred. If the flow rate has to be increased to
compensate for one filter that goes out of service, the flow rate
increase must be gradual and slow to prevent the release of previously
deposited particles. The available pressure is usually about 5 m of
head for gravity filters, and 2 bar to more than 4 bar for pressure
filters. In comparison to single sand filter media, dual filter media with
anthracite over sand permit more penetration of the suspended
matter into the filter bed, thus resulting in more efficient filtration and
longer runs between cleaning. Periodically, when the differential
pressure increase between the inlet and outlet of the pressure filter is
0.3–0.6 bar, and about 1.4 m for the gravity filter, the filter is
backwashed and rinsed to carry away the deposited matter. Backwash
time is normally about 10 min. Before a backwashed filter is placed
back into service, it must be rinsed to drain until the filtrate meets the
specification [11].
Moreover, the Water Desalination Technical Manual, Department
of the U.S. Army [7], gave the following design parameters for single,
dual and mixed-media filtration:
1. Single-media filtration. Single-media filtration consists of one
media. This media is often small-grained silica sand; however,
anthracite may be used after lime and lime-soda softening. Some
desalination pre-treatment systems use an alternate media such as
greensand to remove iron and manganese compounds. Diatoma-
ceous earth media is not recommended for primary filtration
because of its characteristic high head loss and short run times.
2. Dual media filtration. Dual media filtration consists of two media
with different specific gravities. The difference creates a two-layer
separation effect: The use of silica sand or greensand for one layer;
or the use of anthracite for the other layer. The use of dual media
will allow larger quantities of material to be filtered and will reduce
head loss during operation. The use of two media types will provide
a good coarse-to-fine filtration process for desalination facilities.
3. Mixed-media filtration. When three media are used in filters, a
better coarse-to-fine filtration pattern can be obtained. High-
density silica sand, garnet, and anthracite are commonly used to
provide the filter bed. The different media do not stratify
completely. Instead, there is a small amount of intermixing
among the different layers. This gradual change in media size
provides a gradient from coarse to fine and creates a media flow
pattern necessary to achieve a very low silt density index.
To protect the RO membrane from the breakthrough particles from
media filtration, cartridge filters are usually recommended in the last
step of a pre-treatment sequence. The pore size from 1 to 20 µm can
be used based on different produced water quality from media
filtration [7].
3.1.5. Low-pressure membrane filtration
MF/UF has gradually gained acceptance as the preferred pre-
treatment to RO in recent years [12]. UF can remove all suspended
particles and some of dissolved organic compounds, with the removal
rating dependent upon their molecular mass and on the molecular
mass cutoff of the membrane; the typical removal capability of UF
used for general water treatment is 0.01–0.02 micron. Some new
materials even provide 0.005-micron filtration. MF typically operates
at a particle size in order of magnitude coarser than UF, e.g. approx
0.1–0.2 micron. UF therefore has the advantage over MF of providing a
better disinfection barrier, since the pore size of UF excludes viruses.
However, in the application of RO/NF feed conditioning, both
technologies are effective at reducing particle concentrations to a
satisfactory level [12]. The commercially available products include
immersed plate-, pressure driven capillary-, and pressure driven
spiral wound and immersed hollow-fiber membranes at present [13].
There are dead-end and cross-flow filtration modes.
3.1.6. Disinfection
Seawater contains microorganisms such as bacteria, algae, fungi,
and viruses, which can cause serious biological fouling. There are
various methods to prevent and control biological fouling such as the
addition of chemical oxidants (chlorine, bromine, iodine, or ozone),
ultraviolet irradiation, biofiltration to remove nutrients, and the
addition of biocide. Because of the risk of oxidation of the membrane,
the use of oxidants must be monitored carefully to keep the chlorine
well below 0.1 mg/L of free chlorine residual. Sometime dechlorina-
tion upstream of the membranes is required through sulfite
compound addition or passage through granular-activated carbon.
3.2. Membrane cleaning
The fouling of RO elements is unavoidable with long-term
operation. They can be fouled by biological matter, colloidal particles,
mineral scale, and insoluble organic constituents. Deposits build up on
the membrane surfaces during operation until they are causing loss in
normalized permeate flow and/or loss of normalized salt rejection.
Elements should be cleaned whenever the normalized permeate flow
drops by ≥10%, or the normalized salt passage increases by ≥10%, or
the normalized differential pressure (feed pressure minus concen-
trate pressure) increases by ≥15% from the reference condition
established during the first 48 h of operation [11].
The cleaning chemicals used, the frequency of cleaning cycles are
determined by the biofilm composition, the membrane material and
the degree of fouling present. Cleaning procedures are usually given
by the membrane manufacturers. There are usually three or four stage
cleaning schedules, which incorporate alkaline surfactant cleaners
and non-oxidizing biocides [14]. When using MF/UF as pre-treatment,
proper backwash has been found to successfully remove most of the
reversible fouling of those membranes. The backwash frequency,
 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
duration and chemical injection are vital in order to maintain the
performance of the RO membranes [14].
3.3. Membrane surface modifications
Gilron et al. [15] reported the effects of surface modification of
commercial RO. Polyamide membranes were studied in terms of flux/
rejection and surface properties from contact angle measurements.
Selected RO membranes, spanning ultra-low pressure to seawater
membranes, were modified by in situ graft polymerization using
redox generation of monomer radicals. Modification of the membrane
significantly reduced the contact angles measured. Lower contact
angles indicate more hydrophilic membranes and such membranes
will potentially show better resistance to fouling by hydrophobic
foulants. This was confirmed by adsorption measurements carried out
on modified and unmodified membranes with a highly fouling surface
rate. Modified membranes adsorbed less organic material and were
more easily cleaned than unmodified membranes. Specific fluxes did
not vary by more than 0–25%, and NaCl rejection was unchanged or
increased slightly [3].
3.4. Optimization of operating parameters
The prevention of fouling is not only a matter of the proper pre-
treatment selection, but also of the system design and operation. The
recovery rate is limited by the solubility of sparingly soluble salts. For
seawater desalination, the limit of about 50% recovery is dictated by
the osmotic pressure of the concentrate stream. The flux is limited by
the fouling tendency of the feed water. Systems designed with high
permeate flux rates are likely to experience higher fouling rates and
more frequent chemical cleaning.
4. Application of pre-treatment strategies (case studies)
4.1. Conventional pre-treatment system
4.1.1. Jeddah SWRO plants
The Jeddah SWRO plants, Phase 1 and Phase 2, had a production
capacity of 15 MGD (56,800 m3/d) and started operation from 1989
and 1994 respectively [16]. The raw seawater for the plant was taken
from below the Red Sea surface and sodium hypochlorite which acted
as a disinfectant was injected into the raw seawater. The seawater was
characterized by a TDS of 43,300 mg/L and SDI of 5.5–6. The
chlorinated seawater was pumped into a dual media filter (DMF)
which contained anthracite and sand. Ferric chloride as a coagulant
was injected before the dual media filter. The pH of filtered seawater
was controlled by injecting sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to prevent scale
formation. Treated seawater was then flowed through 10 µm
cartridge filters. Sodium Meta bisulphate was injected downstream
of the cartridge filters to eliminate residual chlorine. During operation
of the pre-treatment plant, there were two main problems faced;
membrane degradation due to oxidation caused by chlorine reaction
and difficulties in controlling the SDI limit during seasonal variation of
natural seawater. Membrane degradation was due to the oxidation
reaction of chlorine with coexisting heavy metals, like cobalt, copper,
nickel, chrome, iron and lead which acted as a catalyst. The solution
was to dechlorinate the feed water just prior to the high pressure
pump to prevent oxidation in the system. This action prevented
degradation of the membranes.
With the conventional pre-treatment facilities, an SDI value less
than 4.0 is achieved most of the time. But during the transition period
of summer to winter and winter to summer, a seasonal variation in
SDI value reaches about 6, seawater pH was reduced by sulfuric acid
dosing prior to the DMF filtration and the ferric chloride dosing rate
was also increased to improve the coagulation effect. But these
measures showed only a limited improvement in the performance of
311
the pre-treatment regarding the SDI control. Finally it was decided to
find a coagulant aid to enhance the coagulation effect of the prevailing
ferric chloride dosing system. Applying cationic polyelectrolyte at a
rate of 0.1 ppm with 0.3 ppm of ferric chloride helps to improve the
feed SDI.
4.1.2. Doha Research Plant, Kuwait
At the Doha Research Plant, a conventional system was imple-
mented to pre-treat the surface seawater required to feed the RO
lines. These RO lines had their own additional pre-treatment system,
in addition to the conventional pre-treatment [17]. The surface
seawater in Doha was characterized by TDS of 47,000 mg/L and SDI15
was more than 6.5 on average. The removal of suspended and
colloidal particles from the untreated water was carried out by
flocculation and filtration. The flocculants, FeClSO4 (ferric chloride
sulfate), was added to the untreated water at the inlet to the
destabilization tank. The pH value was adjusted for destabilization
and flocculation by adding H2SO4. The media filter consisted of a
supporting layer (with various grain size and height of 0.3 m), silica
sand (0.7–1.2 mm, 1 m) and hydro anthracite (1.4–2.5 mm, 0.7 m).
Before entering the storage tank, chlorine gas was added, in condition
when the chlorine content was less than the minimum level. The
filtrate in the storage tank was then fed to the RO lines.
Each of the RO lines had its own pre-treatment system to achieve
the specified quality of feed water according to each specific RO
membrane manufacturer. They consisted of:
✓ RO Line 1: Sodium hydrogen sulfite dosing to remove residual
chlorine, activated carbon filters to ensure the complete removal of
residual chlorine, antiscalant to prevent sulfate scaling, acid dosing
system to prevent carbonate scaling, and cartridge filters (micron
filters) to filter out particles larger than 5 µm.
✓ RO Line 2: Acid dosing system to prevent carbonate scaling,
Polyelectrolyte dosing system and three in-line coagulation filters
to further reduce the silt density index (SDI) of the feed to less than
3.0, sodium hydrogen sulfite dosing to remove residual chlorine, and
3 cartridge filters to remove particles larger than 5 µm.
✓ RO Line 3: Acid dosing system to prevent carbonate scaling,
antiscalant dosing system to prevent sulfate scaling, sodium
hydrogen dosing system to remove residual chloride, and 2 cartridge
filters to filter out particles larger than 25 µm.
During the operation period the system was successfully con-
trolled to give the desired quantity of filtrate with an SDI value of 3.6.
However, during certain conditions the system failed to produce
acceptable quality and quantity of filtrate to the RO lines. The reasons
for these failures were mainly attributed to clogging of the dual media
filters, effect of pH, dosing rate of FeCISO4, dosing rate of polyelec-
trolyte, energy input, and climatic conditions (such as temperature,
dust storm and wind).
4.1.3. French Institute of Marine Research
The raw water characteristics of the feed water to the plant are as
follows; the turbidity of the seawater entering the plant was 0.5–
4 NTU, with TOC concentration 2.7–6.1 mg/L, SDI 6.1–6.4, conductiv-
ity level 50–57.3 mS/cm, pH 8, suspended solids concentration was
between 10 and 20 mg/L and the temperature ranged from 9 to 25 °C
during the whole time of operation [18]. The plant operated a
conventional pre-treatment system using coagulation and followed
by sand filtration (10 µm) as well as operating a pilot trial of UF pre-
treatment using the following system configuration; coagulation
using PAC and followed by filtration through polysulfone hollow-fiber
membrane in dead-end mode, MWCO 100 kDa and pore size of
0.01 µm. The flux ranges were 25, 50 and 65 L/h·m2 with filtration
time between 40 and 60 min and backwash duration of 60 s.
Performance evaluation of the conventional system showed that
the permeate SDI remained between 5.8 and 5.9 while the RO
312 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316

membrane had lost 28% of its permeability within 30 days. The UF UF and MF membranes operate by a surface removal mechanism,
membrane pilot trial showed a constant TMP when the flux was lower and resemble a fine screen or sieve. The pore size at the surface of a
than 50 LMH with backwash water containing chlorine. The SDI of the membrane is highly uniform, with a narrow pore size distribution.
UF permeate was constantly between 1 and 2, turbidity was lower Particles larger than the size of the largest pore are rejected by the
than 0.1 NTU, and SS was lower than 0.01 mg/L. In comparison with membrane surface, and remain on the feed or concentrate side. The
the result observed from the conventional system the RO did not lose bulk carrier fluid, and any particles finer than the largest pore, can
any of its permeability within a 20 day trial. pass through the membrane to the filtrate side.
Pilot plants have been conducted in many parts of the world to
examine the capacity and reliability of MF/UF pre-treatment system in
4.1.4. Persian Gulf and Indonesia
preparing compatible feed water for the RO membrane. The common
In such cases where the seawater is characterized by high turbidity
objectives were to find potential substitution to the costly and
water, possibility of algae bloom and/or hydrocarbon pollution, a
cumbersome conventional pre-treatment, increase the current level
dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit can be added to the main
of design flux rate of the RO system and to assess the impact on RO
clarification stage as a complementary pre-treatment [19]. Dissolved
performance.
air flotation (DAF) is the most utilized process removing a number of
pollutants, including, colloids, fine and ultra fine particles, precipi-
4.2.1. ONDEO Services, Gibraltar
tates, ions, microorganisms, proteins, dispersed and emulsified oils in
A trial was conducted for 4 months on a pilot plant platform
water [20]. Compared to the common sedimentation technique, DAF
installed at the desalination plant of ONDEO Services in Gibraltar [22].
allows the light particles that settle slowly to be removed more
The seawater of Gibraltar was known as difficult water because it was
completely and in a shorter time and also generally produce low
subject to algae bloom twice a year and was characterized by a
generation of sludge from the system.
conductivity of 48.7 mS/cm at 20 °C and a Silt Density Index (SDI)
A pilot study in the Persian Gulf with high and unstable SDI (10–45%/
between 13 and 15. The platform consisted of one UF-RO pilot line
min), average turbidity around 0.7 NTU and some hydrocarbon
that was directly connected to the seawater intake and another line
pollution was conducted using DAF as pre-treatment strategy. In the
consisted of an electro-chlorination generator, coagulation with
case of more degraded water occurring in the Gulf region (in terms of
organic coagulant RO Floc 10, three dual media filters (DMF), a
turbidity, algae bloom and hydrocarbons), the association of DAF with
10 μm cartridge filtration and then followed by a RO pilot.
double direct filtration and two coagulant injection points gave a
The operating feed pressure for the RO system was 65–70 bar, the
reliable and efficient feed water to the RO, including the removal of
recovery rate was 30% and the permeate flow rate was 480 m3/d. For
hydrocarbons when present in the form of a suspension. Also, the
the UF line, seawater was pumped through a pre-filter (200 µm),
maturation was very short, and the risk of breakthrough very low, due to
passed through the membrane and the filtered water was collected in
the sticky nature of the flocs formed with the FeCl3 and the flocculant
the permeate tank. After that, the permeate was pumped from the
aids applied. Filtering runs remained longer than 24 h. The results
permeate tank, chlorinated with 5 mg/L of free chlorine and directed
obtained from the 4 month operation yielding SDI in the range of 1.8–
to the permeate side of the module. The overall experiment was
2.9%/min and UV absorbance removal was in 20–30% range [19].
conducted using an Aquasource membrane, a hollow-fiber polymeric
One other application of DAF as part of a pre-treatment strategy
membrane having an inside–outside configuration and a molecular
was located in the northern shore of Java. The International Power
weight cutoff of 100,000 Da.
Mitsui Operation and Maintenance Indonesia operates a power plant
The study first showed that the removal of fouling constituents of
using steam turbine power generation with a capacity of 2 × 615 MW
seawater was more efficient with UF pre-treatment than with
[21]. The plant utilizes seawater as raw water for all water needs by
conventional pre-treatment: UF reduced SDI from 13 to 25 to less
means of an RO system. Their pre-treatment system includes a DAF
than 0.8 whereas the DMF filtrate SDI remained between 2.7 and 3.4.
unit, which is followed by a polishing filter using horizontal filter. Raw
The UF permeate had a constant quality for the whole duration of the
seawater quality is characterized by a high conductivity level
experiment whereas the quality of DMF filtrate fluctuated signifi-
(37,900–52,200 µS/cm), TDS in the range of 25,153–50,491 ppm, pH
cantly in respect to turbidity. These variations came from the fact that
is between 8–8.5, and turbidity in the range of 5–20 NTU. The
during filter backwashing, the flow rate of filters remaining in
coagulants used in the process are FeCl3 and polymers. With this
operation was increased, thus increasing the possibility of break-
treatment the RO feed water is maintained less than 0.25 NTU and SDI
through. Also, after the backwash, during the period of maturation,
less than 1.5 on average. The redox potential is maintained at less than
colloidal particles may have been carried over with the filtration
350 mV to prevent RO membrane hydrolysis due to oxidant attack by
effluent. So, the major strength of UF pre-treatment is the steady feed
addition of sodium bisulfite. Because the operation of the RO system is
water quality and quantity that make the seawater RO system more
limited by the high TDS characteristic, the system can only operate at
reliable than with conventional pre-treatment.
a maximum recovery of 35%. The system is able to produce permeate
with conductivity level less than 400 µS/cm. RO membrane chemical
4.2.2. Singapore SWRO plant
cleaning is conducted after 3 months of operation after the last
Performance of different pre-treatment systems also studied in
cleaning, although the pressure drop increase of the RO membrane
Singapore [5]. The conventional pre-treatment facility of the SWRO
units is still less than 10%.
plant comprises coarse screens before the seawater supply pumps,
gravity-driven single-medium sand filters and a three-stage (10–5–
4.2. Membrane pre-treatment system 1 μm) polishing cartridge filtration system. In addition to the above,
coagulant is also dosed prior to the sand filters to enhance the removal
There are several major drawbacks of conventional pre-treatment of colloidal and suspended particles. SDI of the seawater was observed
which stimulates the application of other pre-treatment technology. to be fairly consistent, varying from 6.1–6.5. According to the collated
UF/MF membranes have originally been developed and proven for data, a majority of the SDI readings of the sand-filtered stream varied
many years in a wide range of much more difficult liquid environ- within a performance band of 4.0 ± 0.5. However, performance spikes
ments than seawater, such as highly polluted municipal and industrial as high as 6.3 were observed during the experiment. This was
wastewaters [4]. Consequently they are being increasingly considered attributed to a turbidity breakthrough.
for new RO desalination installations, especially when treating surface The plant also evaluated the performance of MF pre-treatment
seawater in the effort to prolong the life of the RO membranes. system. The filtering media consisted of four hollow-fiber membrane
 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
modules manufactured from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) with a
nominal pore size of 0.1 μm. Operation of the pilot system was based on a
direct-flow concept. To prevent an uncontrollable increase in TMP, air
scouring and filtrate backwashing were carried out periodically. Despite
these preventive measures, TMP built up with time and a thorough
chemical clean was required to restore the TMP back to its initial level.
The entire chemical cleaning process was comprised of citric acid
cleaning followed by sodium hypochlorite cleaning.
During the operation time, the turbidity of the seawater feed was
stable, varying from 1.5 to 3.0 NTU. According to chemical analysis
data, a moderate removal of colloidal silica and suspended solids was
possible through MF pre-treatment. The initial TSS was 6 mg/L and
the MF pre-treatment filtrate was 1.3 mg/L. There was no rejection of
reactive silica and for organics a percentage rejection of approxi-
mately 40% was achievable during the experiment. The start-up SDI
was found to be 3.8. With continuous operation, SDI stabilized and
fluctuated within a performance band of 2.0–3.0.
The system configuration of the UF pre-treatment 1 consisted of a
hollow-fiber membrane (pore size 0.01 µm), applying a dead-end
mode, at a flux of 50 LMH, with a backwash frequency of 30 min, at a
duration of 20 s with air scour and feed from filtrate produced by the
sand filter. There was 80% rejection of TSS, SDI was stabilized and
varied within 2.5–3.0, and the TMP was kept at a stable state at a
filtrate flux of 47 LMH. In spite of that, there was a less obvious result
for organic, colloidal silica and total coliform rejection.
The UF pre-treatment 2 consisted of a hollow-fiber membrane (pore
size 0.01 µm) applying a cross-flow mode (0.5 m/s) and backwash water
with 1 ppm of sodium hypochlorite. The feed water came directly from
the seawater. As a result, there was 16% removal of organics without any
rejection of oil and grease. A majority of the SDI results varied between
1.0 and 2.0 when the flux was 57 LMH; higher flux caused the SDI value
to reach 3.0. A minimum increasing TMP trend was found under low
flux-high recovery operational condition (50 LMH and 80%).
4.2.3. Ashdod, Mediterranean Sea
A field testing program was also conducted at Ashdod, on the
Mediterranean [23] to compare performance of RO seawater systems
operating on the surface seawater treated with conventional pre-
treatment and with UF membrane technology. The test operated for a
course of 10 months in 2000 after the similar initial test in the Gulf of
Eilat on the Red Sea Shore from September 1998 until October 1999.
The Mediterranean seawater quality fluctuates widely with extended
periods of high concentration of suspended solids and high organic
load. The Mediterranean Sea had turbidity in the range of 1–10 NTU,
TDS value of 40,500 ppm, SDI15 was above 6.5 consistently and SS in
the range of 2–14 ppm.
The reduction of suspended solids by conventional pre-treatment
was achieved by initial settling combined with coagulation and then
followed by media filtration. The coagulant used was ferric salt with
dosing rate of 0.3–0.7 ppm. The filtration velocity of the sand filters
was 6.5–7.2 m/h. Backwash with air scouring was applied every 100 h.
Chlorination in the level of 1.2 ppm was applied to remove the high
level of microorganisms. The UF pre-treatment system consisted of a
50 μm screen filter, capillary UF module, additional of ferric coagulant
at the rate of 0.3 ppm and free chlorine addition in the form of
hypochlorite at the level of 20 ppm. The UF membrane was back-
washed with filtrate at the intervals of 15–30 min. Carbonate scaling
was removed by conducting low pH backwash twice a day. The UF
membrane also was cleaned using NaOH and citric acid to remove
other kinds of foulants. The RO units were operated at a flux rate of
13.9–19 L/m2h and a recovery rate of 45–55%.
During periods of normal weather when the seawater quality was
at a good to average level, the filtrates produced by both systems were
good. The turbidity was in the range of 0.1–0.2 and 0.09–0.16 for
conventional and UF pre-treatment system, respectively. The SDI15
was reduced to 2.6–3.8 for conventional system and 2.1–3.0 for the UF
313
membrane system. Nevertheless, during the storm periods when
there was a high concentration of SS in the feed water the UF pre-
treatment performed significantly better than the conventional
system. In those periods the frequency of media backwashing had
to be increased and the system had to be shutdown to hinder damage
to the RO membrane. In spite of the fluctuating seawater quality the
filtrate produced by the UF system could still be accepted by the RO
membrane system. In regard to the flux stability of the RO units, the
feed water from both conventional and UF membrane pre-treatment
gave similar performance.
4.2.4. Addur SWRO Desalination Plant, Bahrain
The gulf seawater where the plant was located is characterized as
high in salinity and in bioactivity [24]. Industrial and residential waste
disposals caused additional organic content. Temperature and SDI
band in 16–36 °C and 15–19, respectively. The full-scale plant
consisted of pre-chlorination unit, sand filtration and UF spiral
wound membranes. In addition to the full-scale plant, there was
also a pilot plant consisting of pre-chlorination, screening and UF
(Multibore membranes). The UF Multibore membranes (Inge AG,
Germany) have a pore diameter of 20 nm, molecular cutoff of
100,000–150,000, average flux of 70 LMH, with filtration time
between 17–20 min and chemical enhanced backwash (CEB) with
addition of NaOCl (50 ppm as free Cl2, 20 min soaking) every 2–3 h.
As it was experienced, it could be concluded that pre-chlorination
demonstrated the negative effects on the existing full-scale plant,
while giving a positive effect on the pilot plant. The laboratory tests
indicated that coagulation (FeCl3) has a positive effect on perfor-
mance and cleaning of the membranes. The dose of 0.25 ppm Fe
seems to be the optimum dose for the UF membranes. As a result of
dosing the FeCl3 coagulant, the filtration cake on the membrane
surface acts as an additional pre-filter that protects the membrane
from irreversible fouling by dissolved organic compounds (DOC) and
improves the filtrate quality. From the observation during the whole
operation time, it was found out that the chlorine dose at the intake
must be raised to 2 ppm in summer to avoid bioactivity, whereas
1 ppm was sufficient during winter. Also stable operation at a flux of
70 LMH was achieved during the summer months. The Multibore
membranes allow substantial reduction of chemical consumption and
energy saving compared with existing spiral wound UF modules.
5. Performance evaluation of conventional and membrane
pre-treatment
Although in some RO plants the conventional pre-treatment system
can provide feed water for the RO systems with SDI less than 4.0 and
even less than 3.0, the pre-treatment system was not easy to control.
Experiences from the SWRO plants in the Middle East where there were
periodic irregular changes of the seawater quality the conventional pre-
treatment showed instability of SDI value, high rate of chemical
consumption, frequent backwashing which leads to high rate of water
consumption, and produces unsteady feed water quality and quantity.
5.1. Evaluation of the case studies
The conventional pre-treatment system applied at Doha Research
Plant was able to produce feed water to the RO with SDI less than 4.0.
Furthermore, the availability of this system was more than 97% during
the operating period. There were several factors that obstructed the
continuous full utilization of the system [18]. Among them were:
instability of SDI value, frequent backwashing, clogging of media
filters, and relatively high operating cost following excess consump-
tion of chemical, filtrate and energy. The plant failed to produce
acceptable quality or the required quantity of filtered seawater due to
unsuitable dosing rate of FeCISO4 and polyelectrolyte. In an effort to
improve the quality of the filtrate in terms of the SDI value, the Fe+ 3
314 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
was dosed at an average rate of 4–5 mg/L. This was conducted along
with the addition of polyelectrolyte (0.3–0.5 mg/L) and pH adjust-
ment to 6.0, enabled the system to produce SDI value of less than 4.
Surface clogging of the dual media filters which caused deterioration
in the quality and quantity of filtered water resulted in an increase of
backwash frequency to twice daily instead of once a day. This was
followed by an increase in the time required to reduce the water level in
the filter to 30% before the start of the backwash sequence, which was
2 min of air followed by 8 min of water and blow-down, then 2 min of
air followed by 8 min of water. To overcome the clogging, the backwash
program was modified to 3 min backwash with water, to break down
the clogging layer on the surface of the filter, followed by backwashing
twice with air flow for 2 min and water for 6 min.
In the Jeddah SWRO plant when the SDI of raw seawater increases
abnormally, the filtration system becomes inadequate and the SDI of the
filtered water goes higher than the allowable limit, forcing a partial or
complete shutdown of the plants. In an effort to anticipate the seasonal
change of seawater quality coming into the system, the Jeddah SWRO
plants tried to improve the coagulation effect through addition of
sulfuric acid dosing and increasing the ferric chloride dosing rate. Later
on they applied cationic polyelectrolyte as a coagulant aid which proved
to improve the feed SDI acceptable to the RO system.
The Addur SWRO desalination plant had to undergo some
improvement on the pre-treatment stage in order to minimize fouling
rate and to improve the SDI value due to the high variable SDI value of
the seawater (between 14 and 20) from season to season. The
improvement measures including trials of variation of chemical dosage
which were: variation of pH across the media filters to achieve an
improved coagulation, variation of residual chlorine concentration
across the pre-treatment to assess the chlorination efficacy and chlorine
demand, study of dechlorination efficiency and consequences, and
variation of coagulant and coagulant aid dosing rates. Through the trials,
it was concluded that the dose of 0.25 ppm Fe to be the optimum dose
for the UF membranes and it was also found out that the chlorine dose at
the intake must be raised to 2 ppm in summer and 1 ppm during winter.
In the end, reverting to the conventional coagulation-flocculation pre-
treatment and combining them along with UF technique may prove cost
effective for the Addur plant.
The pre-treatment system must be adapted to the seawater
characteristics and is expected to face variability. To anticipate rather
unfortunate feed water quality, some SWRO plants put an additional
treatment unit within the pre-treatment system to improve the
performance of the media filtration. In the Persian Gulf, the pre-
treatment line which was equipped with a dissolved air flotation unit
was more robust and able to handle very bad water quality. The removal
of turbidity and suspended solids was satisfactory and with the
optimisation of filter's media and coagulation chemicals, low and steady
SDI in the filtered water could be achieved. Similar experience was also
encountered in the operation of a SWRO plant on the north coast of Java,
Indonesia. Applying dissolved air flotation, the pre-treatment system
was designed to produce RO feed water with a reduced inorganic scale
fouling potential by removing particulates, micro-pollutants and
microorganisms. The tropical climate of this area enhances biofouling
potential problem. The RO feed water produced (turbidity <0.25 NTU,
and SDI15 < 3) significantly prevented RO membrane fouling. This was
indicated by a stable trend of pressure drop across the membrane units,
though they had operated for 3 months after previous cleaning. The
chemical cleaning of the RO membrane was conducted after 3 months of
operation, although the pressure drop of the RO membrane units was
less than 10%.
However, besides the significant fluctuations of the quality of the
RO feed caused by changing raw water conditions, conventional pre-
treatment technology also was the following disadvantages [4]:
▪ Low removal efficiency of particles smaller than 10–15 microns.
▪ Possibility of breakthrough during filter backwash.
▪ Carryover of high concentrations of colloidal particles immediately
following a filter backwash.
▪ Coagulant impact on RO membranes.
Coagulation always works as a coupled process with media filtration.
Its positive effects have been considered as established. For UF/MF pre-
treatment, it has been proved that coagulation could effectively remove
NOM and reduce membrane fouling even at a low dose [22,25].
Pilot projects have been conducted at various locations to find out
the significant benefits of using membrane pre-treatment systems in
comparison with the commonly used conventional systems. The
studies showed the relevance of fouling properties of seawater on
which the RO performance depends. Membrane pre-treatment was
able to achieve the objective to reduce the concentration of these
fouling constituents exceeding what could be achieved by the
conventional treatment.
The membrane pre-treatment system is able to provide a barrier to
particulates, thus they provide significant benefits to the RO, and to
the overall system design [26]. Other benefits are as follows:
• Higher RO design flux and recovery may be possible
• Low space required, with 33% saving with UF
• RO membrane replacement reduced significantly
• Can treat surface water, with poor and/or variable quality
• Preventing the RO system to operate with out of specification feed
water
• Reduced requirement for RO disinfection and cleaning
The improved treated water quality of UF/MF can reduce the size
of the RO by allowing a higher RO flux to be used. But this advantage
tends to be marginal for high salinity waters above 40,000 ppm TDS,
since the RO flux at this salinity is limited by the osmotic pressure, and
the maximum pressure rating of the RO elements. This was
experienced by the pilot project on the Mediterranean Sea where
the feed water from both conventional and UF membrane pre-
treatment gave similar performance in terms of flux stability.
This is also mentioned by Wilf and Schierach [27] that the MF/UF
element has trouble operating at high flux rates when treating highly
fouling surface water because of severe membrane fouling and
plugging of fibers. High cross-flow feed velocities, required to reduce
concentration polarization, resulted in high power consumption.
Membrane cleaning, frequently required, was troublesome and not
very effective in restoring permeate flux. That is why conventional
system for this condition is still preferred.
5.2. Cost analysis of the pre-treatment systems
In terms of the economic point of view, conventional pre-
treatment systems have a relatively high operating cost resulting
from excess consumption of chemicals, filtrate and energy. Although
the chemical usage and disposal costs of conventional pre-treatment
will be significantly higher than UF/MF, the equipment and media of
the conventional system are long lasting, requiring low maintenance.
For UF/MF systems, the membranes will need to be replaced from
time to time. Membrane life is typically 5–10 years, so this requires a
moderate running cost, but this should be similar to the savings by
using a lower RO replacement [26]. RO membrane cleaning frequen-
cies were also typically minimized with the application of membrane
pre-treatment because the membrane allows very low particle
concentration and low SDI value of the RO feed. The frequent
backwash cleaning required for the media filtration unit in the
conventional system would reduce the on-stream time for the RO
system. This affects the efficiency of the RO operating system
especially during fluctuations of the raw seawater where shutting
down the whole operation system may have to be done.
The selection of the right pre-treatment strategy must be based on
analysis of the pre-treatment technology adopted largely because it is
 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
Table 1
Cost Analysis for different pre-treatment options [28].
No. Parameter Conventional pre-treatment
1 Capital cost Cost competitive if compared to MF/UF
2 Energy Using gravity flow, it requires less energy
requirements
3 Foot print Calls for larger foot print
4 Chemical High due to coagulant/flocculant and process chemicals
costs required for optimization
5 RO capital Relatively higher since RO operates at lower flux
cost
6 RO operating Relatively higher costs since the high potential of
costs membrane fouling will result in higher operating
pressure. Also may result in frequent cleaning of RO
membranes.
site specific and requires careful judgment. Cost related evaluation of
the conventional pre-treatment system compared to the membrane
pre-treatment system should consider the level of cleaning, back-
washing and maintenance required. According to Vedavyasan [28]
since membrane costs are becoming competitive, both the capital and
operating expenses of plants applying the membrane pre-treatment
system are perhaps favourable. Table 1 shows a cost analysis between
the application of conventional pre-treatment and the MF/UF pre-
treatment.
6. Conclusions
The raw feed water quality is an important factor in the
performance of the pre-treatment system. Raw water, if aggressive
and with fluctuating chemistry, presents a challenging task for the
selection of pre-treatment technology [28]. The conventional pre-
treatment system applied in various SWRO plants in various parts of
the world proved to be able to provide the feed water quality required
for the RO lines. However, the system was very difficult to control.
Several factors obstruct the continuous full utilization of this system,
which are: instability of SDI value, high rate of chemical consumption
that leads to high operating cost, frequent backwashing and high rate
of water consumption for this purpose. Membrane pre-treatment on
the other hand provides a more stable and reliable system that can
tolerate feed water quality variations. With SDI values significantly
lower than that from conventional pre-treatment it will lessen
cleaning frequency leading to reduced downtime and increased
membrane life. Thus, membrane pre-treatment can be proven to be
even more economical in long-term operation due to reduced
chemical consumption and the extension of RO membrane lifetime.
The performance comparison between conventional pre-treat-
ment and membrane filtration pre-treatment based on the experi-
ences from the case studies can lead to the following conclusions:
♦ The UF/MF-RO hybrid process demonstrated excellent perfor-
mance in terms of constant high permeate water quality and stable
TMP increase trends.
♦ Lower chemical cleaning frequency and RO membrane replace-
ment are expected due to the superior UF/MF permeate water
quality.
♦ The benefits of reduced footprint and easier operation of UF/MF.
♦ The conventional pre-treatment demonstrated inconsistent water
quality of filtrate, intensive consumption of chemicals, and low
reliability in many full-scale plants experiences. But it still can be
effective in certain cases with careful design and diligent
operation. The available journals elaborating the operating
experiences of seawater desalination using reverse osmosis
315
Membrane pre-treatment Benefits
Slightly higher than conventional Capital costs of MF/UF could be 0–25% higher, whereas life
pre-treatment and costs continue cycle costs using either of the treatment schemes are
to decline as developments are comparable
made
Higher than conventional. MF/UF requires pumping of water through the membranes.
This can vary depending on the type of membrane and
water quality
Significantly smaller foot print Foot print of MF/UF could be 30–50% of conventional filters
Chemical use is low, dependent on Less chemicals
raw water quality.
Higher flux is logically possible Due to lower SDI values, RO can be operated at 20% higher
resulting in lower capital cost, flux if feasible, reducing RO capital costs
which may allow higher recovery
Lower RO operating costs are The net driving pressure is likely to be lower if the feed
expected due to less fouling water is pre-treated by MF/UF. Membrane cleaning
potential and longer membrane life frequency is reduced by 10–100%, reducing system
downtime and prolonged element life.
process do not present sufficient data explaining the process
parameters and the characteristics of the feed seawater. The
filtrate quality parameters measured to show the process results
are not identical for each of the case studies thus the comparisons
made are in general terms.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (07seaheroB0101-03)
from Plant Technology Advancement Program funded by Ministry of
Construction & Transportation of Korean government. This study is
also supported by Kyungnam University.
References
[1] N.P. Isaisa, Experience in reverse osmosis pretreatment, Desalination 139 (2001)
57–64.
[2] J. Xu, G.L. Ruan, X.Z. Chu, Y. Yao, B.W. Su, C.J. Gao, A pilot study of UF pretreatment
without any chemicals for SWRO desalination in China, Desalination 207 (2007)
216–226.
[3] M. Pontié, S. Rapenne, A. Thekkedath, J. Duchesne, V. Jacquemet, J. Leparc, H. Suty,
Tools for membrane autopsies and antifouling strategies in seawater feeds: a
review, Desalination 181 (2005) 75–90.
[4] P.H. Wolf, S. Siverns, S. Monti, UF membranes for RO desalination pre-treatment,
Desalination 182 (2005) 293–300.
[5] K.T. Chua, M.N.A. Hawlader, A. Malek, Pretreatment of seawater: results of pilot
trials in Singapore, Desalination 159 (2003) 225–243.
[6] A.A. Alawadhi, Pretreatment plant design-Key to a successful reverse osmosis
desalination plant, Desalination 110 (1997) 1–10.
[7] Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., Water Desalination
Technical Manual, 1986.
[8] W. Maa, Y. Zhao, L. Wang, The pretreatment with enhanced coagulation and a UF
membrane for seawater desalination with reverse osmosis, Desalination 203 (2007)
256–259.
[9] J. Duan, F. Wilson, N. Graham, J. Hwa Tay, Adsorption of humic acid by powdered
activated carbon in saline water conditions, Desalination 151 (1) (2003) 53–66.
[10] C.J. Gabelich, T.I. Yun, B.M. Coffey, I.H. Suffet, Effects of aluminum sulfate and ferric
chloride coagulant residuals on polyamide membrane performance, Desalination 150
(1) (2002) 15–30.
[11] FILMTEC Reverse Osmosis Membranes Technical Manual, 2004.
[12] G.K. Pearce, The case for UF/MF pretreatment to RO in seawater applications,
Desalination 203 (2007) 286–295.
[13] P.H. Wolf, S. Siverns, S. Monti, UF membranes for RO desalination pretreatment,
Desalination 182 (2005) 293–300.
[14] M. Al-Ahmad, F.A. Abdul Aleem, A. Mutiri, A. Ubaisy, Biofuoling in RO membrane
systems Part 1: fundamentals and control, Desalination 132 (1–3) (2000) 173–179.
[15] J. Gilron, S. Belfer, P. Väisänen, M. Nyström, Effects of surface modification on
antifouling and performance properties of reverse osmosis membranes, Desali-
nation 140 (2001) 167–179.
[16] A.H.H. Al Sheikh, Seawater reverse osmosis pre-treatment with an emphasis on
the Jeddah Plant operation experience, Desalination 110 (1997) 183–192.
[17] S. Ebrahim, M. Abdel-Jawad, S. Bou-Hamad, M. Safar, Fifteen years of R&D program
in seawater desalination at KISR part I. Pretreatment technologies for RO systems,
Desalination 135 (2001) 141–153.
[18] O. Lorain, B. Hersant, F. Persin, A. Grasmick, N. Brunard, J.M. Espenan, Ultrafiltration
membrane pre-treatment benefits for reverse osmosis process in seawater desalting.
316 N. Prihasto et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 308–316
Quantification in terms of capital investment cost and operating cost reduction,
Desalination 203 (2007) 277–285.
[19] V. Bonnelye, M.A. Sanz, J.P. Durand, L. Plasse, F. Gueguen, P. Mazounie, RO on open
intake seawater: pre-treatment strategy, Desalination 167 (2004) 191–200.
[20] J. Rubio, M.L. Souza, R.W. Smith, Overview of flotation as wastewater treatment
technique, Minerals Engineering 15 (2002) 139–155.
[21] E. Yulianto, Pre-Treatment Performance Monitoring to Enhance RO Production
Reliability, PT, International Power Mitsui Operation and Maintenance Indonesia –
Operational Experience, 2007.
[22] A. Brehant, V. Bonnelye, M. Perez, Comparison of MF/UF pretreatment with
conventional filtration prior to RO membranes for surface seawater desalination,
Desalination 144 (2002) 353–360.
[23] P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, M. Wilf, Field evaluation of capillary UF technology as a
pretreatment for large seawater RO systems, Desalination 147 (2002) 55–62.
[24] K. Burashi, A.R. Hussain, Seawater RO plant operation and maintenance
experience: Addur desalination plant operation assessment, Desalination 165
(2004) 11–22.
[25] G.K. Pearce, S. Talo, K. Chida, A. Basha, A. Gulamhusein, Pretreatment options for
large scale SWRO plants: case studies of UF trials at Kindasa, Saudi Arabia, and
conventional pretreatment in Spain, Desalination 167 (2004) 175–189.
[26] G.K. Pearce, The case for UF/MF pre-treatment to RO in seawater applications,
Desalination 203 (2007) 286–295.
[27] M. Wilf, M.K. Schierach, Improved performance and cost reduction of RO seawater
systems using UF pre-treatment, Desalination 135 (2001) 61–68.
[28] C.V. Vedavyasan, Pretreatment trends — an overview, Desalination 203 (2007)
296–299.