www.sciencemag.

org/cgi/content/full/333/6043/712/DC1

Supporting Online Material for

The Future of Seawater Desalination: Energy, Technology, and the

Environment

Menachem Elimelech* and William A. Phillip

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: menachem.elimelech@yale.edu

Published 5 August 2011, Science 333, 712 (2011)

DOI: 10.1126/science.1200488

This PDF file includes:

SOM Text
References
 Supporting Online Material
The Future of Seawater Desalination: Energy, Technology,
and the Environment
Menachem Elimelech* and William A. Phillip
*
Corresponding Author. Email: menachem.elimelech@yale.edu

SOM Text

Power Consumption of Desalination over Time (Figure 2A)

The desalination stage of early SWRO systems installed in the 1970s consumed as much as 20
kWh per cubic meter of produced freshwater (kWh/m3). As reverse osmosis technology
continued to improve, the power consumption dropped to 8 kWh/m3 in the 1980s and then to 5
kWh/m3 in the 1990s. By 2000, newly built SWRO plants were consuming 3.5 kWh/m3. Shortly
after the turn of the century, isobaric pressure exchangers with an energy recovery efficiency
greater than 96% were introduced (4), enabling a further drop in the power consumption of
SWRO desalination at 50% recovery to nearly 2 kWh/m3, where it remains today.

The data on power consumption by reverse osmosis desalination over time reported in Figure 2A
were collected from a variety of sources (4,8,10,11). Early reports of power consumption were
scattered, thus to account for this variability an average value from these sources was reported
for the 1970s (4,8,11). Better record keeping lead to more consistent values for the 1980s,
1990s, and year 2000 data. These data were taken from the U.S. National Research Council
report on desalination (8). Recent journal publications were used for the reported power
consumption in the years 2004 (10) and 2008 (11).

Theoretical Minimum Energy of Desalination

Calculating the minimum amount of energy required to separate pure water from seawater allows
us to understand how effectively energy inputs are being used by a desalination process. This
theoretical minimum energy, which is independent of the desalination method chosen, is realized
when the separation occurs as a reversible thermodynamic process (12). Thus, the energy for the
separation will be equal in magnitude but opposite in sign to the free energy of mixing (13).
Mathematically, this can be expressed as follows:

−𝑑(ΔGmix ) = −𝑅𝑇[ln 𝑎𝑤 𝑑𝑛𝑤 + ln 𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑛𝑠 ] (S1)

S1
where Δ𝐺mix is the free energy of mixing, R is the ideal gas constant, T is the absolute
temperature, aw and as are the activities of water and salt, respectively, and nw and ns are the
number of moles of water and salt, respectively. Since we are concerned with a process that
removes pure water from seawater, 𝑑𝑛𝑠 = 0, and the minimum energy expression reduces to

−𝑑(ΔGmix ) = −𝑅𝑇 ln 𝑎𝑤 𝑑𝑛𝑤 (S2)

Equation S2 can be used to calculate the minimum energy for zero percent recovery (i.e.
the removal of an infinitesimally small amount of water) where aw has a constant value equal to
that of the feed solution (13):

−𝑑(ΔGmix )
𝑊0 = � � = −𝑅𝑇 ln 𝑎𝑤 (S3)
𝑑𝑛𝑤 𝑃,𝑇

Note that the minimum energy in S3 is expressed as energy per mole of water produced. The
molar volume of water, 𝑉�𝑤 , can be used to convert the minimum energy to units of energy per
volume of water produced. Due to variability in the reported experimental values of the activity
of water in typical seawater (9,12,13,51), the data reported by Stokes and Robinson on aqueous
NaCl solutions (tabulated below) was used to calculate the minimum energy of desalination (52).
The activities for molalities of 0.43, 0.60, and 0.77 mol/kg, which correspond to NaCl
concentrations of 25,000, 35,000, and 45,000 mg/L, respectively, were calculated using linear
interpolation.

Water Activities of Sodium Chloride Solutions at 25 °C (52).

Molality (mol/kg) aw Molality (mol/kg) aw

0.1 0.996646 0.8 0.97359

0.2 0.993360 0.9 0.97023

0.3 0.99009 1.0 0.96686

0.4 0.98682 1.2 0.9601

0.5 0.98355 1.4 0.9532

0.6 0.98025 1.6 0.9461

0.7 0.97692 1.8 0.9389

S2
 In order to calculate the minimum energy for finite percent recoveries, Equation S2 must be
integrated (12,13). Assuming that the solution is ideal, so aw = xw, and that the mole fraction of
salt, xs, is relatively small allows Equation S2 to be expanded as a Taylor series:

−𝑑(ΔGmix ) = −𝑅𝑇 ln(1 − 𝑥𝑠 ) 𝑑𝑛𝑤 ≅ 𝑅𝑇𝑥𝑠 𝑑𝑛𝑤 (S4)

The number of moles of salt in the system at any given time is constant, i.e.

𝑛𝑇 𝑥𝑠 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 = (𝑛𝑇 𝑥𝑠 )𝑓 (S5)

where nT = nw + ns is the total number of moles in the system, making (𝑛𝑇 𝑥𝑠 )𝑓 equal to the
number of moles of salt present in the feed solution. Differentiating Equation S5 and recognizing
that dnT and dxs are opposite in sign yields

𝑥𝑠 𝑑𝑛𝑤 = 𝑛𝑇 𝑑𝑥𝑠 (S6)

Note that dnT = dnw because dns = 0. Furthermore, Equation S5 can be used to express nT in
terms of nT and xs at zero percent recovery (i.e. in the feed solution):

(𝑛𝑇 𝑥𝑠 )𝑓
𝑥𝑠 𝑑𝑛𝑤 = 𝑑𝑥𝑠 (S7)
𝑥𝑠

Equation S7 can be inserted into Equation S4. After dividing through by the moles of water
removed, which can be expressed in terms of the salt mole fractions in the feed and concentrate,
xs,f and xs,c, respectively, we obtain
𝑥𝑠,𝑐 𝑥𝑠,𝑓 𝑥𝑠,𝑐 𝑑𝑥𝑠
𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑅𝑇 �𝑥 ∫
� 𝑥
(S8)
𝑠,𝑐 −𝑥𝑠,𝑓 𝑠,𝑓 𝑥𝑠

Integrating Equation S8 allows the minimum energy at a finite percent recovery to be expressed
in terms of the minimum energy at 0% recovery, W0, and the percent recovery Y:
𝑊0 1
𝑊𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ln 1−𝑌 (S9)
𝑌

Wmin calculated from Eq. S9 will have units of energy per mole of water produced if W0 is
calculated from Eq. S3. Dividing through by the molar volume of water, 𝑉�𝑤 , converts Wmin to
units of energy per volume of water produced, as presented in Figure 2B of the article.

Practical Energy of Desalination (Single and Two Stage Operations)

Seawater reverse osmosis modules are finite in size, and thus have irreversible energy losses that
cause the process to operate above the thermodynamic minimum energy for desalination (12).
These irreversible energy losses set the practical minimum energy of desalination. If we assume

S3
that the equipment being used is ideal (i.e., 100% efficient pumps and energy recovery devices
(ERDs), no frictional losses down the membrane channel, and an infinitely selective membrane),
then an energy equal to VPPH must be supplied to the pump to bring the feed volume, VP, to the
applied pressure, PH. This energy is split between the concentrate, VC, and permeate, VP,
volumes. The energy in the concentrate, VCPH, can be recovered using ERDs but the energy in
the permeate, VPPH, must be expended to drive the permeation of water across the membrane.
If the system is operating at the thermodynamic limit (i.e., PH = Πc), then the system will
use the practical minimum energy for desalination (15,16). In this situation, the energy used per
volume of water produced is set by the osmotic pressure of the concentrate:

𝑊 𝑅𝑇
�𝑉 � = 𝛱𝑐 = − 𝑉� ln 𝑎𝑤,𝑐 (S10)
𝑃 1 stage 𝑤

As an example, recovering 50% of a 35,000 mg/L NaCl feed solution at 25 °C would require
1.56 kWh/m3. The ideal membrane rejects all the dissolved salts in the feed so the concentration
of NaCl in the concentrate will be equal to 70,000 mg/L. This corresponds to an activity of
water equal to 0.9601 (Table S1), from which the practical minimum energy is easily calculated.
Staged membrane operations are one way to reduce the practical minimum energy of
desalination because they require smaller volumes of fluid to be brought to a higher pressure.
The first stage operates at a lower pressure PH,1, and thus a lower percent recovery, Y1. The
concentrate from this stage is then brought to a higher pressure, PH,2, and is fed to a second stage
which brings the percent recovery for the whole process to the desired value Y. Simple mass
balances show that the overall percent recovery is related to the percent recovery of each stage
through the following equation (15).

𝑌 = 𝑌1 + 𝑌2 − 𝑌1 𝑌2 (S11)

Assuming both stages operate at the thermodynamic limit, they each will consume an energy per
volume of permeate

𝑊 𝑅𝑇
�𝑉 � = 𝛱𝑐𝑖 = − 𝑉� ln 𝑎𝑤,𝑐𝑖 (S12)
𝑃𝑖 𝑤

and the total energy used by the process is equal to the sum of these values. Previous work has
shown that the total energy is minimized when the two stages operate at the same percent
recovery (i.e., YS = Y1 = Y2) (15). Mass balances then allow the practical minimum energy to be
expressed per total volume of freshwater produced:

𝑊 𝑌𝑆 𝛱𝑐1 +(1−𝑌𝑆 )𝑌𝑆 𝛱𝑐2 𝑅𝑇 𝑌𝑆 ln 𝑎𝑤,𝑐1 +(1−𝑌𝑆 )𝑌𝑆 ln 𝑎𝑤,𝑐2

�𝑉 � = = − 𝑉� (S13)
𝑃 2 stages 𝑌 𝑤 𝑌

S4
 To accomplish the same separation as the single stage operation above the two stage design
would require 1.28 kWh/m3—a reduction of 0.28 kWh/m3 compared to one stage. Each stage
should operate at a percent recovery of 29.3% to achieve an overall recovery of 50%. Therefore,
the concentration of NaCl in the concentrate leaving the first stage will be equal to 49,505 mg/L,
and the water will have an activity equal to 0.9720. The concentrate leaving the second stage
will have a concentration equal to 70,000 mg/L and a water activity equal to 0.9601. From this
information, the energy of a two stage operation is easily computed. In theory, more stages
could be added until the system operated as a reversible thermodynamic process, and the
practical minimum energy equaled the thermodynamic minimum energy, but this is not a feasible
design. Designing reverse osmosis desalination operations requires considering the balance
between operating costs and capital costs.

S5
References and Notes
1. R. F. Service, Desalination freshens up. Science 313, 1088 (2006).
2. M. A. Shannon et al., Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades.
Nature 452, 301 (2008).
3. Q. Schiermeier, Water: Purification with a pinch of salt. Nature 452, 260 (2008).
4. C. Fritzmann, J. Lowenberg, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, State-of-the-art of reverse osmosis
desalination. Desalination 216, 1 (2007).
5. G. L. M. von Medeazza, “Direct” and socially-induced environmental impacts of desalination.
Desalination 185, 57 (2005).
6. Y. Dreizin, A. Tenne, D. Hoffman, Integrating large scale seawater desalination plants within
Israel’s water supply system. Desalination 220, 132 (2008).
7. A. Tal, Seeking sustainability: Israel’s evolving water management strategy. Science 313,
1081 (2006).
8. National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Advancing Desalination Technology,
Desalination: A National Perspective (National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
2008).
9. R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 8193 (2008).
10. M. Busch, W. E. Mickols, Desalination 165, 299 (2004).
11. J. MacHarg, T. F. Seacord, B. Sessions, in Desalination and Water Reuse (Faversham House
Group, South Croydon, Surrey, UK,, 2008), vol. 18, pp. 30–39.
12. K. S. Spiegler, Y. M. El-Sayed, The energetics of desalination processes. Desalination 134,
109 (2001).
13. R. W. Stoughton, M. H. Lietzke, Calculation of some thermodynamic properties of sea salt
solutions at elevated temperatures from data on NaCI solutions. J. Chem. Eng. Data 10,
254 (1965).
14. R. L. Stover, Seawater reverse osmosis with isobaric energy recovery devices. Desalination
203, 168 (2007).
15. A. Z. Zhu, P. D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, Effect of thermodynamic restriction on energy cost
optimization of RO membrane water desalination. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48, 6010 (2009).
16. L. F. Song et al., Emergence of thermodynamic restriction and its implications for full-scale
reverse osmosis processes. Desalination 155, 213 (2003).
17. M. Wilf, Design consequences of recent improvements in membrane performance.
Desalination 113, 157 (1997).
18. K. P. Lee, T. C. Arnot, D. Mattia, A review of reverse osmosis membrane materials for
desalination—Development to date and future potential. J. Membr. Sci. 370, 1 (2011).
19. S. Loeb, S. Sourirajan, in Saline Water Conversion II (American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC, 1963), vol. 38, pp. 117–132.

S6
20. R. E. Larson, J. E. Cadotte, R. J. Petersen, The FT-30 seawater reverse osmosis membrane—
element test results. Desalination 38, 473 (1981).
21. D. R. Paul, Reformulation of the solution-diffusion theory of reverse osmosis. J. Membr. Sci.
241, 371 (2004).
22. G. M. Geise, H. B. Park, A. C. Sagle, B. D. Freeman, J. E. McGrath, Water permeability and
water/salt selectivity tradeoff in polymers for desalination. J. Membr. Sci. 369, 130
(2011).
23. J. Glater, S. K. Hong, M. Elimelech, The search for a chlorine-resistant reverse osmosis
membrane. Desalination 95, 325 (1994).
24. J. K. Holt et al., Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometer carbon nanotubes. Science
312, 1034 (2006).
25. M. Majumder, N. Chopra, R. Andrews, B. J. Hinds, Erratum: Nanoscale hydrodynamics:
Enhanced flow in carbon nanotubes. Nature 438, 930 (2005).
26. M. Kumar, M. Grzelakowski, J. Zilles, M. Clark, W. Meier, Highly permeable polymeric
membranes based on the incorporation of the functional water channel protein Aquaporin
Z. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 20719 (2007).
27. B. Corry, Designing carbon nanotube membranes for efficient water desalination. J. Phys.
Chem. B 112, 1427 (2008).
28. K. Falk, F. Sedlmeier, L. Joly, R. R. Netz, L. Bocquet, Molecular origin of fast water
transport in carbon nanotube membranes: Superlubricity versus curvature dependent
friction. Nano Lett. 10, 4067 (2010).
29. J. Johnson, M. Busch, Engineering aspects of reverse osmosis module design. Desalination
Water Treat. 15, 236 (2010).
30. E. Ostuni, R. G. Chapman, R. E. Holmlin, S. Takayama, G. M. Whitesides, A survey of
structure−property relationships of surfaces that resist the adsorption of protein.
Langmuir 17, 5605 (2001).
31. S. Kang, A. Asatekin, A. M. Mayes, M. Elimelech, Protein antifouling mechanisms of PAN
UF membranes incorporating PAN-g-PEO additive. J. Membr. Sci. 296, 42 (2007).
32. M. Elimelech, X. H. Zhu, A. E. Childress, S. K. Hong, Role of membrane surface
morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide
reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 127, 101 (1997).
33. S. Y. Jiang, Z. Q. Cao, Adv. Mater. 22, 920 (2010).
34. C. Siegers, M. Biesalski, R. Haag, Self-assembled monolayers of dendritic polyglycerol
derivatives on gold that resist the adsorption of proteins. Chemistry 10, 2831 (2004).
35. J. A. Callow, M. E. Callow, Trends in the development of environmentally friendly fouling-
resistant marine coatings. Nat. Commun. 2, 244 (2011).
36. H. B. Park, B. D. Freeman, Z. B. Zhang, M. Sankir, J. E. McGrath, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.
47, 6019 (2008).

S7
37. M. J. Zhou et al., New type of membrane material for water desalination based on a cross-
linked bicontinuous cubic lyotropic liquid crystal assembly. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 9574
(2007).
38. A. Efraty, U.S. Patent 7,695,614 B2 (2010).
39. 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. Membr. Sci. 362, 417 (2010).
40. S. J. Kim, S. H. Ko, K. H. Kang, J. Han, Direct seawater desalination by ion concentration
polarization. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 297 (2010).
41. J. Gilron, L. Song, K. K. Sirkar, Design for cascade of crossflow direct contact membrane
distillation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46, 2324 (2007).
42. J. R. McCutcheon, R. L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, A novel ammonia—carbon dioxide
forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination 174, 1 (2005).
43. R. L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Energy requirements of ammonia–carbon dioxide forward
osmosis desalination. Desalination 207, 370 (2007).
44. W. J. Koros, Evolving beyond the thermal age of separation processes: Membranes can lead
the way. AIChE J. 50, 2326 (2004).
45. G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of MSF, MED and RO desalination
technologies. Energy 31, 2361 (2006).
46. S. Lattemann, T. Hopner, Environmental impact and impact assessment of seawater
desalination. Desalination 220, 1 (2008).
47. H. Cooley, P. H. Gleick, G. Wolff, “Desalination, with a Grain of Salt” (Pacific Institute for
Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, CA, 2006).
48. F. A. Pacheco, I. Pinnau, M. Reinhard, J. O. Leckie, Characterization of isolated polyamide
thin films of RO and NF membranes using novel TEM techniques. J. Membr. Sci. 358, 51
(2010).
49. C. Y. Y. Tang, Y. N. Kwon, J. O. Leckie, Effect of membrane chemistry and coating layer on
physiochemical properties of thin film composite polyamide RO and NF membranes: II.
Membrane physiochemical properties and their dependence on polyamide and coating
layers. Desalination 242, 168 (2009).
50. O. Coronell, B. J. Mariñas, X. J. Zhang, D. G. Cahill, Quantification of functional groups and
modeling of their ionization behavior in the active layer of FT30 reverse osmosis
membrane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5260 (2008).
51. K. S. Spiegler, Y. M. El-Sayed, A Desalination Primer (Balaban Desalination Publications,
Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy, 1994).
52. R. A. Robinson, R. H. Stokes, Electrolyte Solutions; the Measurement and Interpretation of
Conductance, Chemical Potential, and Diffusion in Solutions of Simple Electrolytes
(Butterworths, London, ed. 2d, 1959), pp. xv, 571 p.

S8