Desalination and Water Treatment

ISSN: 1944-3994 (Print) 1944-3986 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tdwt20

Closed circuit desalination — A new low energy

high recovery technology without energy recovery

Avi Efraty , Ran Natanel Barak & Zviel Gal

To cite this article: Avi Efraty , Ran Natanel Barak & Zviel Gal (2011) Closed circuit desalination
— A new low energy high recovery technology without energy recovery, Desalination and
Water Treatment, 31:1-3, 95-101, DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2011.2402

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2402

Published online: 03 Aug 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 93

View related articles

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tdwt20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 12 November 2015, At: 05:06

 Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101
July
www.deswater.com
1944-3994 / 1944-3986 © 2011 Desalination Publications. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.5004/dwt.2011.2402

Closed circuit desalination — A new low energy high recovery technology

without energy recovery

Avi Efraty*, Ran Natanel Barak, Zviel Gal

Desalitech Ltd., P.O.Box 132, Har Hadar 90836, Israel
Tel. +972 (52) 4765-687; Fax +972 (2) 5700-262; email: avi@desalitech.com
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015

Received 19 June 2010; Accepted in revised form 15 December 2010

ab s t r ac t
Closed circuit desalination of Mediterranean water with 47.5±1.5% recovery was demonstrated in
the RO energy range 1.85–2.25 kWh/m3 for the respective flux range 6–18 lmh with head element
recovery of 7.0±0.5%.
Keywords: Closed circuit desalination; Seawater, Low energy; High recovery; No energy recover

1. Introduction
Since the inception of RO application for desalination
in the late fifties of the last century by Loeb and Sourira-
jan [1], this technique remained essentially unchanged
over the past 50 years, despite of great improvements of
membranes and energy recovery means. Conventional
RO involves a hydrodynamic “plug flow” process with
pressurized feed (Qf) at inlet of modules containing semi-
permeable membranes splits at outlet into two streams,
one of pressurized brine (Qb) and the other of none pres-
surized permeate (Qp). Recovery (Rec) in conventional RO
[Eq. (1)] is a function of the number of membranes in line
through which feed passes with limitations imposed by
the feed flow and recovery associated with the head ele-
ment. Flow balance of conventional RO [Eq. (2)] requires
continuous release of pressurized brine (Qb), and in order
to make such a process energetically effective the power
stored in Qb needs to be recovered.
( )
Rec (%) = Qp / Q f × 100
Q f = Qp + Qb
* Corresponding author.
In contrast with widespread conventional RO, the
terms closed circuit desalination (CCD) or closed loop
desalination originated in the patent literature [2–4] for
a rare class of batch RO processes of little if any com-
mercial prospects until recently. The typical apparatus
for batch CCD displayed in Fig. 1 comprises a pressure
vessel with one or more membrane elements inside, a
feed pressurizing pump (HP), a circulation pump (CP) for
concentrate recycling from outlet to inlet of module(s) as
well as for pressure loss compensation (Δp), and a 3-way
valve to enable brine replacement with fresh feed when
batch desalination completed at a desired recovery level.
Batch CCD operates on the basis of hydrostatic principles
with same flow rates of pressurized feed and permeate.
The cross flow over membranes is created in CCD by
circulation means, instead of the excess feed flow require-
ment of conventional RO. Batch CCD takes place only
in the presence of concentrate recycling, without which
desalination stops due to immediate rise in concentration
(1)
polarization. Batch CCD operates without need for energy
recovery since the compression and decompression of
the batch reactor during the respective steps of actuation
(2)
and terminations involve the loss of negligible amounts
of hydrostatic energy.

Presented at EuroMed 2010 — Desalination for Clean Water and Energy: Cooperation among Mediterranean Countries of Europe and
MENA Region, 3–7 October 2010, David Intercontinental Hotel, Tel Aviv, Israel. Organized by the European Desalination Society.
 96 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101
Permeate
3-way valve
CP
Feed
Brine [A]
HP
Permeate
3-way valve
CP
Feed
HP Brine [B]
Fig. 1: [A] Batch CCD. [B] Batch reactor recharge without desalination
desalination
Fig. 1. [A] Batch CCD; [B] Batch reactor recharge without
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015
desalination.
Batch CCD operates by different rules compared with
conventional RO with recovery (REC-CCD) expressed by
Eq. (3), wherein V stands for the fixed intrinsic volume
of the batch reactor and v for the permeate volume pro-
duced, or the feed volume consumed, during a single
batch operation. If batch CCD performed with fixed feed
flow (Qf) under variable pressure conditions with mean
pressure expressed by p, the volume term v expressed by
Eq. (4), wherein T stands for a single sequence duration.
Substituting v in Eq. (3) by Eq. (4) provides the relation-
ship expressed in Eq. (5) between REC-CCD, T, V and Qf (=
Qp). The module recovery (MR) of the unit displayed in
Fig. 1, expressed by Eq. (6), is fully controlled from the
flow rates of HP (Qf) and CP (QCP). The specific energy
(SP) terms of a batch CCD process are expressed by Eq. (7)
and Eq. (8) for HP and CP, respectively, with total RO
energy demand expressed by the sum of those two terms,
wherein effHP and effCP stand for the efficiency factors of
the respective pumps.
REC-CCD (%) = v / ( v + V )× 100 (3)
v = Q f ⋅ T = Qp × T since Q f = Qp (4)
T = REC ⋅ V / Q f ⋅ ( 100 − REC ) 
(5)
= REC ⋅ V / Qp ⋅ ( 100 − REC ) 
( )
MR(%) = Q f ⋅ 100 / Q f + QCP = Qp ⋅ 100 / Qp + QCP ( ) (6)
SEHP = p / 36 / eff HP (7)
SECP = QCP ⋅ ∆p / 36 / effCP / Qp (8)
In contrast with conventional RO wherein recovery is
a function of the number of membrane elements in line,
recovery in batch CCD is only a function of the batch
duration T, irrespective of the number of elements per
module. The high energy efficiency of the batch CCD
process manifests the gradual increase in pressure as
function of increased system recovery [Eq. (3)] and a
unique flow balance without pressurized brine rejection.
Batch CCD requires smaller pressurizing means com-
pared with conventional RO, since Qf = Qp in the absence
of pressurized flow of brine.
Incorporation of the enormous benefits offered by
batch CCD in a continuous RO process was made pos-
sible by development of the consecutive sequential
CCD technology for continuous desalination with [5] or
without [6] side conduits, with the former technique suit-
able in particular for seawater desalination (henceforth,
SWRO-CCD) and the latter for brackish water desalina-
tion (henceforth, BWRO-CCD) for domestic use and
industrial applications. The BWRO-CCD technology unit
design is essentially that of the batch reactor displayed in
Fig. 1 with modifications to enable a two-step consecu-
tive sequential desalination process with CCD of 100%
recovery experienced most of the time (85%–90%) and
with plug flow desalination (PFD) of 40%–50% recovery
experienced part of time (10%–15%) for brine replacement
with fresh feed (henceforth, BR or brine rejection). The
CCD step in the process takes place with fixed flow of
HP and CP under variable pressure conditions and the
BR step initiated at a desired maximum applied pres-
sure or maximum electric conductivity of the recycled
brine. Termination of BR concomitant with resumption
of CCD takes place in this process by volumetric means,
when recharge of entire fixed volume of the closed
circuit completed. The BWRO-CCD technology was
demonstrated successfully during the past 18 months
[7] by commercial units of 40 m3/h permeate production
capacity, operated with recovery of up to 93.5% with a
feed source of 600 ppm TDS, 90% with a feed source of
2,500 ppm TDS and 87% with a feed source of 5,700 ppm
TDS. The BWRO-CCD technology allows high recovery
without staging with low energy demand in units of low
installation and maintenance costs.
The schematic design of a consecutive sequential CCD
unit for seawater displayed in Fig. 2 comprises a pressure
vessel with one or more membrane elements inside; a
feed pressurizing pump (HP), a circulation pump (CP)
for concentrate recycling from outlet to inlet of module
as well as for pressure difference (Δp) compensation; a
side conduit (SC) of the same volume as the principle
closed circuit (CC), valves and conduits means to en-
able engagement and disengagement between the CC
and SC, and a low pressure (1–2 bar) brine replacement
pump (BRP) for recharge of the SC with fresh feed. The
principle operational positions of the system depicted
in Fig. 2 are as follows: [A] CCD experienced in the CC
with disengaged SC on stand-by with pressurized fresh
feed; [B] CCD experienced in the expanded system of CC
 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101 97

Permeate
[A]
HP CP

Feed
BRP
Brine
Permeate
Permeate
[B] ME PV

HP CP

Feed
BRP
Brine

Brine
Permeate [C] CP
HP
HP
MF HPFS Lubrication Leakage
CP
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015

Feed
BRP
Brine
Fig.2:2.[[A]
Fig. [A]CCD
CCD with
with SCstand-by
SC on on stand-by for engagement;
for engagement. [B] CCD with[B]SC
CCD
engaged.
with
[C] CCDSC withengaged; [C] CCD
SC disengaged with SC disengaged
decompressed and rechargeddecompressed
with fresh feed.
and recharged with fresh feed.
and SC with fresh feed received in the former and brine
collected in the latter while desalination continued; and
[C] CCD experienced in the CC with disengaged decom-
pressed SC recharged with fresh feed by the BRP, then
sealed, compressed and left on stand-by as in Fig. 2A for
next engagement displayed.
The entire consecutive sequential SWRO-CCD process
performed with fixed flow rates of HP and CP under
variable pressure conditions with engagement of SC
initiated at a desired maximum applied pressure, and
with disengagement determined volumetrically when
the recharge of the entire closed circuit volume of the
apparatus with fresh feed completed.
The new SWRO-CCD technology was ascertained by
trials on Mediterranean seawater feed (4.1%) using the
unit of the design displayed schematically in Fig. 3 with
four modules of four elements each (henceforth ME4
module configuration). The continuously monitored
data included flow and electric conductivity (EC) of feed,
permeate and recycled concentrate; pressure at inlet and
outlet of modules; pH of feed and permeate; and the
energy consumption of each of the pumps separately.
The lubrication leakage of CP was determined from the
flow rates difference of feed and permeate as well as by
direct measurements, and the results presented herein
are for zero leakage operation of CP. The performance
characteristics of the SWRO-CCD unit described herein
for the first time compare well with those of the similar
BWRO-CCD units [7].
2. Summary of SWRO-CCD trials results and projections
Desalination of Mediterranean feed (average salinity
MF
BRP
Feed
Actuated valves (1/2”) for compression/decompression
Actuated valves (3.0”) for flow direction control
One-way check valve
MF: 5μ Micronic Filters
HP: High Pressure Pump (Danfoss; max. 10 m3/h)
CP: Circulation Pump (FEDCO; max. 50 m3/h)
BRP: Brine Replacement Pump (60 m3/h)
HPFS: High Pressure Feed Supply pump (max. 10 m3/h)
PV: 8” Pressure Vessels of 1,200 psi rating
ME: SWC6 Membrane Elements
Fig. 3. Schematic
Fig. design
3: Schematic of the
Design SWRO-CCD
of the SWRO-CCD unit
Unitfor the for
used Medi-
the
terranean desalination
Mediterranean trials Trials
Desalination reported herein.
reported herein
of 4.1% and temperature range of 22–23°C) with 47.5±1.5%
recovery (7.0±0.5% head element recovery) using the
SWRO-CCD unit displayed in Fig. 3 (4 modules of 4 ele-
ments each) gave the RO energy range 1.85–2.25 kWh/m3
in the respective flux range 6–18 lmh (Fig. 4) with mean
efficiency (Fig. 5) of 82.6% for HP and 29.3% for CP and
without need for energy recovery. The RO energy range
1.65–1.87 kWh/m3 (Fig. 6) for the same feed under the
same desalination conditions is attainable by the SWRO-
CCD technology if efficiency of HP and CP increased
to 88% (instead of 82.6%) and 60% (instead of 28.3%),
respectively. Ocean water (3.5%) SWRO-CCD with the
improved efficiency pumps is expected to proceed with
RO energy in the range 1.5–1.7 kWh/m3 (Fig. 7). Other
noteworthy information concerning the SWRO-CCD
trials includes the flow conditions (Fig. 8); the pressure
conditions (Fig. 9); the consecutive sequential time inter-
vals (Fig. 10); the performance of membranes (Fig. 11);
the electric conductivity of permeates and brine (Fig. 12);
and percent recovery (Fig. 13).
3. RO energy comparison between SWRO-CCD and
conventional SWRO
Meaningful energy comparison between RO tech-
niques should pertain to similar feed source salinity, flux
and recovery. Practical experience gained by operating
 98 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101

ME4: SWRO-CCD kWh/m3

for
3 Med.(4.1% ) ME4: SWRO-CCD
ME4: PUMPS
SWRO-CCD EFFICIENCY
PUMPS EFFICIENCY
ME4: SWRO-CCD kWh/m for Med.(4.1% )
90 90
2.3 2.3
2.2 2.2
2.1 2.1 80 80
2.0 2.0
1.9 1.9
70 70
1.8 1.8
1.7 1.7
1.6 1.6 60 60
1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3 50 50
HPHP
kWh/m3

1.2
kWh/m3

1.2

%
%
RO (HP+CP+HPFS)
RO (HP+CP+HPFS) CPCP
1.1 1.1
40 40 BRP
BRP
1.0 1.0 HPFS
HPFS
Service Pumps
Service (BRP)
Pumps (BRP)
0.9 0.9
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015

0.8 0.8 30 30
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 20 20

0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
10 10
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 0 0
6 6
7 7
8 89 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18 6 67 78 89 9 10 1011 1112 1213 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 1717 1818

FLUX
FLUX - lmh
- lmh FLUX
FLUX - lmh
- lmh

Fig. 4. Trials energies vs. flux. Fig. 5. Efficiency (Eff) of pumps vs. flux.

3 3
ME4: SWRO-CCD
ME4: SWRO-CCDkWh/m
kWh/mfor3 Med.(4.1% )- )-
for Med.(4.1% ME4: SWRO-CCD
ME4: kWh/m
SWRO-CCD kWh/mfor3 Ocean (3.5%
for Ocean )- )-
(3.5%
assuming
assuming CP Eff. 60%HP
CP Eff. 60% & Eff. Eff.
& HP 88%88% assuming CP Eff. 60% & HP&Eff.
assuming CP Eff. 60% HP 88%
Eff. 88%
2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
kWh/m3

1.2 1.2
kWh/m3

1.2 1.2
kWh/m3

kWh/m3

RO RO
(HP+CP+HPFS)
(HP+CP+HPFS) RO (HP+CP+HPFS)
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 RO (HP+CP+HPFS)
1.0 1.0 Service Pumps (BRP) 1.0 1.0
Service Pumps (BRP) Service Pumps
Service (BRP)
Pumps (BRP)
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
FLUX - lmh FLUX - mh
FLUX - lmh FLUX - mh

Fig. 6. Med. (4.1%) energy if pumps Eff improved. Fig. 7. Ocean (3.5%) energy if pumps Eff improved.
 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101 99

ME4: ME4:
SWRO-CCD
SWRO-CCD
FLOWFLOW
CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS ME4: ME4:
SWRO-CCD
SWRO-CCD
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS
45 45 75 75
CP: RECYCLED
CP: RECYCLED
CONCENTRATE
CONCENTRATE Sequence
Sequence
Low Low
HP: FEED=PERMETAE
HP: FEED=PERMETAE Sequence
Sequence
meanmean
40 40 70 70
Sequence
Sequence
High High

35 35 65 65

30 30 60 60

25 25 55 55
m3/h

m3/h

bar

bar
20 20 50 50

15 15 45 45
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015

10 10 40 40

5 5 35 35

0 0 30 30
6 76 87 98 10
9 11
10 12
11 13
12 14
13 15
14 16
15 17
16 18
17 18 6 76 87 98 10
9 11
10 12
11 13
12 14
13 15
14 16
15 17
16 18
17 18
FLUXFLUX
- lmh - lmh FLUXFLUX
- lmh - lmh

Fig. 8. Trials flow conditions. Fig. 9. Trials pressure conditions.

ME4: SWRO-CCD SEQUENCE

ME4: SWRO-CCD DURATION
SEQUENCE DURATION ME4: ME4:
SWRO-CCD MEMBRANES
SWRO-CCD PERFORMANCE
MEMBRANES PERFORMANCE
12 12 25 25

Sequence Duration
Sequence Duration
Stand-By
Stand-By Time
Time for for Conduit
Conduit Engagement
Engagement
10 10
20 20

8 8
MR: Module
MR: Module Recovery
Recovery per Cycle
per Cycle
15 15
"MER:"MER: Maximum
Maximum Element
Element Recovery(head
Recovery(head element)"
element)"
6 6
%
%
minute
minute

10 10

4
4

5
5
2
2

0 0
0 0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
FLUX - lmh FLUX - lmh
FLUX - lmh FLUX - lmh

Fig. 10. Trials sequential durations. Fig. 11. Trials performance of membranes.
 100 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101

ME4: SWRO-CCD
ME4: SWRO-CCD ELECTRICELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY
CONDUCTIVITY ME4:
ME4: SWRO- SWRO- DESALINATION
DESALINATION RECOVERYRECOVERY
110 110 65 65

100 100
60 60

90 90
55 55

80 80 micro-S/cm/10 for PERMEATE

micro-S/cm/10 for PERMEATE
EC unitsIndicated

EC unitsIndicated

mili-S/cm for Rejected

mili-S/cm forBrine
Rejected Brine 50 50

% Recovery

% Recovery
70 70

45 45

60 60
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015

40 40
50 50

35 35
40 40

30 30 30 30
6 7 86 97 108 119 12
10 13
11 14
12 15
13 16
14 17
15 18
16 17 186 7 86 97 108 11
9 12
10 13
11 14
12 15
13 16
14 17
15 18
16 17 18

FLUX - lmh
FLUX - lmh FLUX - lmh
FLUX - lmh

Fig. 12. Trials electric conductivity data. Fig. 13. Trials recoveries.

large conventional SWRO plants in Israel and elsewhere DWEER plant in Ashkelon and 23.1% compared with
with average flux of 13–14 lmh and recovery of 46±2% the SWRO-PX plant in Hedera. RO energy savings by
revealed RO energies as follows (feed salinity in brack- the SWRO-CCD unit of improved pumps efficiency (1.80
ets): 2.73 kWh/m3 for SWRO-PX in Hedera,Israel (40,000 kWh/m3 at 13.4 lmh — Fig. 6) of 39.0%, 39.5% and 34.1%
ppm) [8]; 2.47 kWh/m3 for SWRO-PX in Perth,Australia are expected compared with reported data for respective
(34,000 ppm) [9]; 2.98 kWh/m3 for SWRO-DWEER in SWRO-Pelton, SWRO-DWEER and SWRO-PX desalina-
Ashkelon,Israel (40,500 ppm) [10]; 3.64 kWh/m3 for tion plants in Israel. Noteworthy is that the new SWRO-
SWRO-DWEER in Tuas, Singapore (max. 35,000 ppm) CCD technology allows high recovery operation at higher
[11]; 2.65 kWh/m3 projected for SWRO-DWEER in Soreq, flux with a small added energy increment and without
Israel (40,000 ppm) [7]; and 2.95 kWh/m3 for SWRO-Pelton exceeding the preferred test conditions specifications of
in Palmachim, Israel (max. 42,000 ppm) or 2.68 kWh/m3 membrane elements by their manufacturers.
for the expanded Palmachim plant when operated by
means of the Pelton-PX hybrid system [12]. The low-
4. Technology type
est RO energy of conventional SWRO according to the
aforementioned is that of the SWRO-PX technique with SWRO-CCD is a new technology of conduits and
consistent results reported for Hedera, Israel and Perth, valves which departs from the principles of conventional
Australia if account taken for feed salinity difference. RO and circumvents entirely the need for energy recovery
The RO energy projected for the currently constructed (ER). Brine release by the SWRO-CCD technology takes
Soreq, Israel SWRO-DWEER plant is well below the place through side conduits under hydrostatic pressure
value experienced already in the Ashkelon, Israel SWRO- conditions with a negligible waste of energy. ER means such
DWEER plant with the same feed salinity. Operated with as PX and/or DWEER apply only for conventional RO
the same Mediterranean feed under similar flux and but not for SWRO-CCD due to the absence of pressur-
recovery conditions of the large conventional SWRO ized brine flow. Evidently, the PX and DWEER devices
plants in Israel, the measured RO energy (2.10 kWh/m3 are essentially feed pressurizing pumps powered by the
at 13.4 lmh) of the small experimental SWRO-CCD unit pressurized brine flow of conventional RO; hence, such
(4 modules of 4 membrane elements each) implies en- devices can not function in the absence of pressurized
ergy saving of 28.8% compared with the SWRO-Pelton brine flow as in the case of SWRO-CCD. In contrast with
plant in Phalmachim, 29.5% compared with the SWRO- conventional RO, the recycled concentrate flow in the
 A. Efraty et al. / Desalination and Water Treatment 31 (2011) 95–101 101
SWRO-CCD technology stores very little energy, since
created by the CP at a small pressure difference (Δp <
1.0 bar).
5. Scope and prospects
The new SWRO-CCD technology is not confined to
the flow, flux, recovery and pressure conditions of the
trials described in present document. Evidently, many of
the SWRO-CCD trials performed thus far confirmed the
facile attainment of high desalination recovery (tried up to
53%) of Mediterranean feed with head element recovery
maintained well under 10%, a feature impossible with
conventional RO. Low recovery (e.g., 35%–38%) and flux
(e.g., 7–8 lmh) SWRO-CCD trials of Mediterranean feed,
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 05:06 12 November 2015
performed with consecutive sequential pressure varia-
tions of 38.2–50.5 bar, revealed exceptionally low RO en-
ergy under 1.6 kWh/m3, unattainable by conventional RO.
High recovery (e.g., 48%–50%) and flux (e.g., 21–23 lmh)
intended SWRO-CCD trials are expected to involve en-
ergy of 2.2–2.3 kWh/m3 with head element recovery re-
mained under 10%, features inaccessible by conventional
RO. The SWRO-CCD technology also appears ideal for
small compact RO units, since any desired recovery is
attainable already at the level of a single element module
unit with a desired performance over an extended flux
range. The implication alternating side conduits in the
context of the SWRO-CCD technology should enable the
design of large production capacity units.
Experience gained thus far with the new SWRO-CCD
and BWRO-CCD technologies [7] suggests the following
major benefits:
•• Major reduction of energy consumption (variable
lower pressure instead of constant high pressure, and
extremely low energy loss to the brine, with no need
for any energy recovery devices).
•• Feed water recovery not limited by design — each
unit can reach the ultimate recovery made possible
by a given water source, thereby, minimizing waste
of source, pretreatment costs, and brine disposal
expenses.
•• Flexible operation with regard to pressure, flow,
recovery and energy demand even with a variable
salinity source.
•• Reduced membrane fouling (both mechanical and
biofouling); hence, less CIP cleaning expenses.
•• Superior permeate quality (at any given recovery level
due to prospects of high flux operation).
•• Reduced installation costs (~30%) due to higher flux
(less elements) smaller pressurizing pumps, absence
of energy recovery means and simple designs without
staging with common commercial components.
•• Membrane performance without exceeding test condi-
tions specifications declared by the manufactures even
at high recovery and flux.
•• Modular and scalable designs of high cost effective-
ness for any production capacity, with simple and
efficient monitoring and control systems.
References
[1] S. Loeb and S. Sourirajan, Sea water deminaralization by means
of an osmotic memebrane, Amer. Chem. Soc., Adv. Chem. Ser.,
ACS 38 (1963) 117–132, and references therein.
[2] R.I. Bratt, Method and Apparatus for fluid treatment by reverse
osmosis, US Patent No. 4,814,086.
[3] L. Szucs, K. Jozzsef and A. Szucs, Method and apparatus for
treating fluids containing foreign materials by membrane filter
equipment, US Patent No. 4,983,301.
[4] A. Efraty, Variable pressure closed circuit desalination, PCT
Intern. Publication No. WO O3/013704 A2 20.02.2003.
[5] A. Efraty, Apparatus for continuous closed circuit desalination
under variable pressure with a single container, US Patent No.
7,628,921 and related patents issued worldwide.
[6] A. Efraty, Continuous closed-circuit desalination apparatus
without containers, US Patent No. 7,695,614 and related patents
issued worldwide.
[7] Desalitech Ltd., unpublished results.
[8] N. Voutchkov, Membrane seawater desalination — Overview
and recent trends, IDA conference, November 2–3, 2010, CA,
USA.
[9] R.C. Stover and M.A. Sanz, Low energy consumption in the Perth
seawater desalination plant, IDA conference, October 21–26,
2007, Gran Canaria, Spain.
[10] B. Liberman, Present and future: Energy efficiency seawater
desalination, IDA conference, November 2–3, 2010, CA, USA.
[11] F.H. Kiang, Energy efficiency considerations of the SingSpring
SWRO plant, Tuas, Singapore, IDA conference, November 2–3,
2010, CA, USA.
[12] A. Hermoni, Actual energy consumption and water cost for the
SWRO systems at Palmachim — case history”, IDA conference,
November 2–3, 2010, CA, US.