Desalination 524 (2022) 115451

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Life-cycle environmental assessment of solar-driven Multi-Effect

Desalination (MED) plant
Mohamed Alhaj , Furqan Tahir , Sami G. Al-Ghamdi *
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

H I G H L I G H T S

• A life-cycle assessment (LCA) study is conducted on an optimized solar-driven multi-effect desalination (MED) process.
• The LCA results revealed that most of the life-cycle impacts occurs during the operation phase based on electric pumping energy.
• The linear Fresnel collector has a better LCA rating than the parabolic trough collector.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Seawater desalination supplies 97 million m3 of freshwater daily to more than 300 million people worldwide.
Life-cycle Assessment (LCA) The global desalination market is dominated by two technologies, thermal and membrane desalination. These
Solar Desalination processes have adverse impacts on the environment in the form of harmful emissions into the air and water and
Linear Fresnel Collector (LFC)
also on human health. Therefore, our main research questions are: to what extent can we minimize the life cycle
Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC)
Multi-Effect Desalination (MED)
environmental impact of conventional thermal desalination processes through the integration of concentered
solar power collectors, and how do various collectors compare in this regard? We answered these questions by
conducting a life-cycle assessment (LCA) study on an optimized solar-driven multi-effect desalination (MED)
process. The LCA results revealed that most of the life-cycle impact in the climate change, fossil depletion, and
water depletion categories occurs during the operation phase based on electric pumping energy. The solar-driven
process reduces climate change impact by 10 kg-CO2 eq., for every 1 m3 of freshwater as compared to the
conventional one. We also found that the linear Fresnel collector has a better LCA rating than the parabolic
trough collector. The broader implications of this work pertain to renewable energy and water resources poli­
cymaking and resource conservation.

1. Introduction namely: thermal desalination (multistage flash (MSF) and multi-effect

Providing safe potable water is the sixth sustainable development
goal defined by the United Nations. Approximately two billion people
live in regions with severe water shortages [1]. Two of the main reasons
for these shortages are the uneven geographical distribution of renew­
able water resources and escalating demand for freshwater, which puts
more stress on limited water resources [2]. As a result, desalinating
seawater has become essential to providing safe potable water for
municipal consumption. More than 300 million people receive around
97 million m3 of water each day from seawater desalination [3]. This
process is an essential pillar of global water security. Two major desa­
lination technologies dominate the global seawater desalination market,
distillation (MED)) and membrane desalination (e.g., reverse osmosis
(RO)) [4,5]. These processes, although critical for remedying water
poverty, have adverse impacts on the environment. Their impact is
primarily based on energy consumption, which originates from burning
fossil fuels, a significant factor for climate change. Desalination tech­
nologies are a classic example of the interlink between energy, water,
and the environment [6]. By integrating renewable energy with desa­
lination, it is possible to mitigate the environmental impacts of energy
consumption. Given that the global production of renewable energy has
been increasing at a fast pace, we can conclude that renewable-energy-
driven desalination has the significant potential [7].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: salghamdi@hbku.edu.qa (S.G. Al-Ghamdi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.115451
Received 28 August 2021; Received in revised form 10 November 2021; Accepted 14 November 2021
Available online 25 November 2021
0011-9164/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Alhaj et al. Desalination 524 (2022) 115451

1.1. Global solar resources and solar desalination technologies
Among the various renewable energy sources available, solar power
is the most suitable for desalination technologies. Solar energy can be
easily converted into thermal or electrical energy, the two main energy
types consumed in desalination plants. Furthermore, the geospatial
distribution of solar intensity is aligned mainly with regions facing some
form of water scarcity, as shown in Fig. 1. These regions include the
western coast of the United States, the Middle East, and North Africa
regions and Australia. The World Resources Institute compiled a list of
countries potentially facing water shortages by 2040 [8]. The
geographical distribution of these water-stressed countries matches the
geographical distribution of insolation, as shown in Fig. 1.
Solar collectors are devices that convert solar energy from one form
into another. There are two different types of solar collectors: solar
thermal and solar electric collectors. Solar-thermal collectors convert
incident solar radiation into heat. The most commercially mature and
reliable solar thermal collectors are the parabolic trough collector (PTC)
and the linear Fresnel collector (LFC). Solar electric collectors convert
incident solar energy into electricity. Photovoltaic (PV) panels are the
best examples of solar electric collectors. The technical challenges and
opportunities for coupling solar collectors with desalination processes
were discussed in depth in previous studies [10–12]. The concentration
of solar collectors, such as PTCs and the LFCs, is expected to significantly
diversify the global electricity supply [13].
The most commercially mature desalination technologies are MSF,
MED, and RO. These three technologies account for 93% of global
desalination capacity [14]. In this paper, the focus is only on MED. MED
requires less pumping energy and a lower heating steam temperature
than the MSF [15–17]. Furthermore, a literature review revealed sig­
nificant interest in coupling solar-thermal collectors with MED, as
indicated in [12,18–24]. These studies investigated MED coupled to
solar thermal collectors and provided technical results on system per­
formance from steady-state models, estimations for cost of produced
freshwater, assessment of the storage systems integrated with solar-
driven MED, experimental test results, and highlighted the main chal­
lenges in solar-driven MED (and solar desalination in general) research.
1.2. Applications of life-cycle assessment in desalination
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic approach for evaluating
the environmental implications of products and systems across several
impact categories [25]. The ISO 14040 standard defines the four major
phases of any LCA: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact
assessment, and result interpretation. There is significant interest in LCA
in the scientific community because it sheds light on the potential near-
term and long-term impacts. It provides a scientific basis for evaluating
several impacts and can assist in systems development and policy­
making. Given the crucial role of desalination, the applications of LCA in
desalination are highly relevant.
One of the earliest LCA studies on desalination technologies powered
by fossil fuels is [26], where MSF, MED, and RO were compared utilizing

Fig. 1. Global solar insolation alignment with water-scarce regions. a) Potentially water-scarce regions by 2040 (image is published under the creative commons
license) [8]. b) Global solar insolation/irradiance as the annual sum (image is published under the creative commons license) [9].

2
M. Alhaj et al.
the SimaPro tool and three life-cycle impact assessments (LCIA)
methods: CML 2 baseline 2000, Eco-Points 97, and Eco-Indicator 99. The
results revealed that the highest environmental impact occurs during the
operational phase of a plant. RO plants had the smallest environmental
impact, followed by MED and MSF plants. They also investigated the
renewable energy integration with desalination (for providing elec­
tricity only) and found that the environmental load decreases when a
clean source provides electricity. This work was unique and valuable
since it relied on commercial plant data for the life-cycle inventory and
calculated the specific emissions of three major desalination technolo­
gies. However, its conclusions are region-specific because they relied on
the European electricity and natural gas supply profile.
Further, the above study considered using renewable energy for
supplying electric energy only to the chosen thermal desalination
technologies (MSF and MED). This limits the conclusions that can be
drawn from this study. Many other relevant studies examined the
environmental impacts of desalination plants from a purely qualitative
viewpoint, such as [27–29], which are insufficient for sound policy­
making. In [30], the authors carried out an environmental impact
assessment of MSF and RO plants in Saudi Arabia utilizing an index (that
evaluates the sustainability of desalination plants as a function of
environmental footprint and net economic value) which they referred to
as the “inclusive impact index light.” The results revealed that RO plants
have a lower impact because of their lower electrical energy consump­
tion. The authors also highlighted that if 40–50% of the power
consumed comes from renewable sources, then desalination plant sus­
tainability can be realized. However, it didn’t consider a desalination
system powered by renewable energy. In the study by [31], the authors
conducted a LCA study on a hybrid renewable-energy-driven (wind and
solar PV) RO system with variable contribution levels of the solar PV
resource. Surprisingly, it was reported that greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from the plant depend primarily on the treatment chemicals
used. This ran counter to most studies that indicated that the operation
phase of desalination plants creates the largest environmental impact (in
categories affected mainly by GHG emissions, such as climate change),
such as [26,30,32]. In the previous study, the solar PV system had only
an 8% contribution to the energy requirements of the RO plant. Hence,
the results of this study are not very representative of a solar-driven
desalination system.
Most LCA studies on desalination focus only on RO, while limited
studies focus on thermal desalination processes [34–39]. Alhaj and Al-
Ghamdi [33] compared the global warming potential associated with
the solar-powered MED plant for various regions. Their results showed
Fig. 2. The proposed desalination plant integrated with solar field (reproduced with permission from the publisher) [41]. A solar LFC with pressurized water as a
heat transfer fluid provides thermal energy to the MED plant. The MED plant consists of cascaded falling film evaporators. Instead of employing a water-cooled
condenser in the MED unit, an air-cooled condenser is used. The water storage tank is used to store the excess water produced throughout the day. Because the
solar collector produces thermal energy and the electric pumping energy comes from the grid; therefore this is a hybrid arrangement. Hence, the proposed
configuration only operates through the daytime.
3
Desalination 524 (2022) 115451
that solar energy integration could reduce carbon emissions by 47%
compared to conventional desalination plants. Recently, Lee and Jepson
[40] conducted a literature survey of LCA studies related to desalination
technologies. They concluded that RO desalination has lower environ­
mental impacts as compared to MED and MSF technologies. However,
the integration of renewable energy resources may significantly reduce
the impacts of MSF and MED technologies compared to RO. Addition­
ally, technology improvements in desalination may further lower the
life-cycle impacts.
1.3. Solar-driven MED: concept development
In this study, we apply the concept of LCA to quantify the environ­
mental impacts of solar-driven MED desalination that uses the low-
pressure MED process and is powered by a solar linear Fresnel collec­
tor. Fig. 2 presents a schematic and description of the investigated sys­
tem. Utilizing the Engineering Equation Solver (EES) tool, we
established and validated the mathematical model for the entire plant
and examined the plant’s performance under the climate conditions of
Qatar (see Section 1 of supplementary information for modeling details)
[41]. The plant comprises a low-pressure MED chamber and a solar
linear Fresnel collector that supplies the saturated steam to the MED
evaporators. The EES model includes monthly solar direct normal irra­
diance for Doha, Qatar; energy balance equations for the solar field,
energy, and mass; salt balance equations for the MED section; and en­
ergy balance equations for the air-cooled condenser. The solar radiation
data fed into the model is based on ground measurements taken in Doha,
Qatar. The seawater temperature and salinity data fed into the model are
typical for seawater in the Arabian Gulf region (30 ◦ C and 48 g/kg,
respectively). The MED plant’s recovery ratio is 30%. The EES model we
developed was validated through comparisons with data from com­
mercial desalination plants (see Table S1 in supplementary information
for details) [41]. The process is optimized with the number of effects,
cost, specific heat transfer area, cooling requirement, and gain output
ratio. The results from our EES model simulation revealed that by uti­
lizing low-pressure steam and a relatively large number of evaporators
(10 evaporators), it is possible to reduce mechanical energy consump­
tion by 59% (compared to conventional high-pressure MED plants).
Furthermore, the optimized process reduced the required solar field
aperture area by 25%, representing significant savings in capital and
operating costs. The incorporation of an air-cooled condenser minimizes
the plant’s water consumption by 2 m3 for every 1 m3 of feed water. The
water storage concept results in low plant availability (approximately
M. Alhaj et al. Desalination 524 (2022) 115451

20% as the solar irradiance is not constant and available throughout the Table 2
day/year [33,41,42]), but it was found that this results in lower plant LCA design parameters.
capital costs when compared to utilizing a sensible or latent heat storage Parameter Description
system. The concept development and validation in this study are
Functional unit 1 m3 of fresh water at the plant
extremely important because the inputs for the LCA study are based on Thermal energy consumption 76 kWh/m3
the EES model developed. Electric energy consumption 4.2 kWh/m3
System lifetime 30 years [45]
Region Doha, Qatar
1.4. Purpose of this work
Construction material inventory for Commercial plant data provided by [43]
the solar field
Based on the literature review, it can be deduced that little attention Treatment chemical dosage Usual operating quantities for plants in the
was given to evaluating the environmental impacts of thermal desali­ Arabian Gulf region [46]
nation in a systematic way (conventional or powered by solar power).
This work focuses on quantifying the environmental impacts of an
plant in Spain) [43]. This plant is the largest of its kind globally and one
energy-efficient solar-powered MED plant equipped with an air-cooled
of only a few that utilize an air-cooled condenser, meaning it is very
condenser. Furthermore, a comparison between solar-driven thermal
similar to our proposed design. In Table 2, the functional unit is 1 m3 of
desalination and conventional desalination was also conducted. This
freshwater at the plant (which is the unit used in all LCA studies on
comparison helps quantify the environmental benefits of solar desali­
desalination), the thermal energy consumption was calculated from the
nation and can be used for benchmarking various solar-driven desali­
EES model we developed (this value is actually very typical for low-
nation technologies. Additionally, the effect of selecting a different solar
pressure MED), and the electrical energy consumption (which was
collector was also studied. The LFC was compared with the PTC (which
also calculated from the EES model) is effectively the pumping energy
has higher optical efficiency and requires less aperture area). Ultimately,
for both the solar field block (the heat transfer fluid (HTF) pumps) and
we quantified the environmental benefits of this technology as a means
the desalination plant (the brine recirculation pumps). The seawater
of supporting environmental and energy policymaking.
pretreatment chemicals utilized are hydrochloric acid (30% blended),
anti-foaming agents, sodium hypochlorite, sodium bi-sulfite, and an
2. Methodology
anti-scaling agent (sulfuric acid). The final distillate is also treated uti­
lizing calcium hydroxide (for remineralization) and sodium hypochlo­
In this study, we conducted an LCA study on the optimized solar-
rite (for disinfection). The bill of materials for desalination system
driven MED plant shown in Fig. 2. The results of the LCA were
construction consists of the materials for the evaporator walls, tube
expressed as a contribution analysis that allows us to understand the
plates, and tubes. It was assumed that the construction materials were
relative impact of each phase in the plant’s life cycle. The data required
processed in the EU. The environmental impacts of brine discharge are
to conduct the LCA is:
not considered in this work as limited studies focus on the aquatic eco-
toxic potential (ETP) [42].
• Bill of materials for the solar and the desalination units
The LCA was conducted utilizing the Gabi software (by Thinkstep).
• Thermal and electrical energy consumption of the entire plant
The plant data in Table 1 and Table 2 was input in GaBi by locating the
• Chemical dosages for the feedwater pre and post-treatment processes
appropriate reference flow names from GaBi’s local databases (including
• Plant capacity (or freshwater productivity) and lifetime (in years)
the life-cycle inventories for the materials construction and energy
processes). The ReCiPe 2016 impact assessment method in GaBi was
Table 1 and Table 2 provide the data used to conduct the LCA. The
used to calculate the impact scores for five mid-point impact categories;
bill of materials for the solar field was based on commercial data for LFC
climate change, ozone depletion, fossil depletion, water depletion, and
and PTC power plants supplied by manufacturers. This data was scaled
human toxicity. The end-of-life phase for the MED plant and the LFC
down by assuming a linear relation between materials mass and aper­
solar field was neglected because it has a minimal contribution, as found
ture area. The construction bill of materials for the solar fields comprises
in previous LCA studies [26,44]. The system boundaries are illustrated
steel, aluminum, glass mirrors, insulation, and concrete foundations. We
in Fig. 3. The electric pumping energy is taken from Qatar’s grid mix
utilized commercial plant data for construction material inventory for
(100% natural gas) provided in GaBi’s local database.
the LFC solar field (based on the 30 MW Puerto Errado 2 (PE2) power
3. Results and discussion
Table 1
Bill of materials for the LFC and PTC solar fields (scaled down from the values Fig. 4 presents a contribution analysis of the proposed solar-driven
given in [43]).
desalination plant. This result is representative of the construction and
Component LFC solar field (Aperture PTC solar field (Aperture Units operation phases. One can observe from this figure that most of the
area of 221 m2) area of 192 m2)
impact arises from the operation phase (solar field operation and MED
MED plant 1 1 m3/ operation) in all categories, with the exception of ozone depletion and
productivity h human toxicity. The operation phase is strongly affected by natural gas
Optical efficiency 66 76 %
usage, which is the only source of electricity in Qatar, while the use of
Float Glass 1617.06 1848.12 kg
Mirrors pretreatment chemicals primarily causes ozone depletion. In fact, 84%
Steel (support 4758.57 5025.86 kg of ozone depletion is caused by the anti-foaming agents utilized to
structures) pretreat the feed water. Unfortunately, because these agents include a
Steel (receiver 4.26 121.19 kg
large number of ozone-depleting chemicals, this is an “unavoidable” side
tube)
Steel (cold and hot 159.42 172.72 kg effect of their use. Seawater foaming is a common phenomenon due to
pipes) its contaminants and impurities. The anti-foaming agents are required to
Borosilicate Glass 131.07 96.70 kg maintain the optimum performance of evaporators in all thermal desa­
Fiber Glass Wool 22.66 10.12 kg lination plants. The construction phase of the solar field influences
Concrete 234.70 1284.53 kg
human toxicity because of the large quantity of steel required, with solar
Aluminum Pipes 12.90 18.35 kg
Condenser 34.20 15.27 kg field construction accounting for 84% of human toxicity impact (stain­
HTF (Water) 339.79 151.73 kg less steel constitutes 70% of the total mass required for solar field). This

4
M. Alhaj et al. Desalination 524 (2022) 115451

Fig. 3. LCA system boundary for a solar integrated desalination plant. The proportionate mass contribution of each material to the total bill of materials is shown in
the solar field and MED plant construction phases.

Fig. 4. The percentage contribution of the construction/operation stages for the solar-driven desalination plant.

is due to the presence of heavy metals such as chromium in stainless
steel, as well as the welding process used in stainless steel production,
which releases chromium into the environment [47]. By comparing the
results in Fig. 4 with a similar LCA study on a RO plant powered by wind
and solar power [31], we can conclude that the relative contribution of
each subsystem in a renewable-energy driven desalination system is
highly dependent on the plant configuration. The LCA study by Shahabi
et al. [31], which investigated a RO plant powered entirely by wind
power, revealed that 60% of the impact in the category of greenhouse
gas emissions was a result of chemical usage. This was because there was
very little fossil fuel usage within the system’s life cycle boundary (the
only consumption of fossil fuel occurred during the construction of the
wind turbines). Similarly, if we were to change our plant’s configuration
to have 100% solar energy dependence (for thermal and electric energy
requirements), the results would be very different.
The LCA results of this system were compared to those of a con­
ventional MED plant operating on natural gas. Such plants are cogene­
ration plants that produce both desalinated water and electricity based
on a combined power cycle (natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)). NGCC
desalination will be referred to as conventional MED. The power plant’s

5
M. Alhaj et al.
overall efficiency is 48% [46]. This assumption aids us in the allocation
procedure for impacts resulting from the MED processes powered from a
natural gas cogeneration plant. In other words, we assumed that the
impact due to thermal energy from low-pressure exhaust steam (which
enters the MED plant) produced due to natural gas combustion is only
52% of the total thermal energy entering the natural gas turbine (the
remaining 48% will constitute impact that represents the power gener­
ation phase which, in our case, is outside the system boundary). Due to
the lack of comparable data for the construction phase of both systems,
only the operation phase was selected for this comparative study. In the
plant operation phase, a comparison between the solar-driven MED and
conventional MED is presented in Fig. 5. It was observed that the solar-
driven MED plant decreases the climate change impact by 10 kg of CO2
eq., for every 1 m3 of freshwater (i.e., 78% reduction). There is a
negligible difference between the systems in the ozone depletion cate­
gory because the systems have the same consumption rate of pre and
post-treatment chemicals. The solar system has a slightly lower ozone
depletion potential due to thermal energy utilization from a clean
source. Additionally, the human toxicity impact for the conventional
MED plant is three times more than the solar MED plant due to the
extraction and processing of natural gas that supplies thermal energy to
the plant. The water depletion impact is slightly higher for the solar MED
system due to the more electric energy consumption (for recirculation of
the HTF in the solar field).
The effects of selecting a different solar collector for our plant,
namely the PTC, were investigated. PTCs are more commercially mature
than LFCs and have been used extensively in large-scale solar thermal
power plants. Currently, PTC solar power plants’ total power generation
capacity in the US exceeds 1.6 GW [48]. PTCs also have higher optical
6
Desalination 524 (2022) 115451
efficiency, meaning they can operate with a smaller aperture area.
However, they have higher space requirements [49]. When comparing
the PTC to the LFC, we chose to add another impact category called
metal depletion. This category was added because the construction
phase is the distinctive phase when comparing these collectors.
The distinguishing feature in this analysis was the materials re­
quirements to construct two solar fields, where each solar field was
required to power the same MED plant. The solar fields have different
aperture areas because of the difference in optical efficiency between the
collectors. We assumed that the optical efficiency of the PTC is 76%
[50]. We utilized commercial plant data from [43] to develop the bill of
materials for each solar collector after scaling it to match our system size
(capacity of 1 m3/h). Table 1 shows the bill of materials for two solar
fields: utilizing an LFC and using a PTC. Both collectors were assumed to
have the same lifetime (30 years), and both are operating under the
same solar radiation profile. The desalination plant’s productivity is the
same in both cases. Since we are mainly interested in materials con­
sumption and land use for this comparison, we plotted the normalized
impact for both collectors for the following impact categories: climate
change, fossil depletion, metal depletion, and land area. The metal
depletion and land area categories provide a good assessment of both
collectors’ construction-related impacts. Climate change and fossil
depletion were added as a validation step since we expect them not to
change significantly.
Fig. 5 also presents the results for this comparison. This figure rep­
resents the life cycle impacts during the construction and operation
phases. One can observe that the LFC has a better LCA rating in all three
categories. It was found that the LFC solar field’s metal depletion impact
is 24% less than the PTC solar field. This can be attributed to the
Fig. 5. Normalized impacts. Panel (a)
shows the normalized impacts of solar-
driven MED and conventional MED in
the plant operation phase only. The
impacts in each category were normal­
ized with respect to the conventional
MED plant results. Panel (b) shows the
LCA rating for two solar collectors in­
tegrated with MED. The results are
normalized with respect to the LFC.
Land area was calculated based on
reference values from commercial
plants. The results demonstrate the
normalized impacts of construction and
operation phases.
M. Alhaj et al.
simplicity of the LFC in terms of structure (flat mirrors) and lower space
requirements. PTC solar fields are composed of curved mirrors, meaning
they require more materials for a given aperture area. Additionally,
commercial PTC plants require high-pressure joints, which add to the
bill of materials. Land utilization is also a drawback of PTCs. In fact, by
calculating the ratio of land area to aperture area for two commercial
concentrating solar power plants (Andasol PTC plant and PE2 LFC plant
in Spain), it was observed that the required land area per aperture for the
LFC is 24% lower than that for the PTC. This translates into a significant
reduction in land use impact for the LFC.
3.1. Results uncertainty
Our results’ primary source of uncertainty is estimating plant oper­
ational energy usage (effectively the electric energy consumption),
directly affecting the solar field operation and MED operation phases.
Our assumptions for the corresponding reference flows here, although
based on the validated EES model; yet these values are not 100%
representative of real-life operation. Our EES model is a steady-state
model, whereas desalination systems are very dynamic systems. The
above uncertainty will affect the impact categories of climate change,
water depletion, and fossil depletion, which are all highly dependent on
the operation phase, as shown in Fig. 4. Further, although taken from
real plants, the bill of materials for constructing the LFC and PTC sys­
tems may not resemble a small plant-like ours, especially considering
that we assumed a linear relation between materials mass and solar field
aperture area when scaling down the values. This is not necessarily true.
The uncertainty in materials consumption affects human toxicity and
land use impact. However, the general trend in the results is expected to
be the same (i.e., the LFC system has a lower environmental footprint).
The results for ozone depletion are highly dependent on the dosages for
the pre and post-treatment chemicals, which in our analysis, were
representative of thermal desalination plants in the Arabian Gulf. The
chemical usage for desalination plants can vary significantly as water
quality changes, and hence we must evaluate the ozone depletion impact
as being very region-specific.
4. Conclusions
Thermal desalination technologies can help reduce freshwater scar­
city, which affects two billion people globally. In many countries in the
Middle East region, such technologies are the only source of potable
water. Integrating solar power with desalination plants can potentially
reduce their energy-associated impacts. This study examined the envi­
ronmental impacts of MED desalination plants powered by concentrated
solar power collectors (LFC and PTC). We conducted an LCA on an
optimized plant that utilizes a low-pressure, multi-effect distillation
process and solar heat from an LFC. Our results revealed that the plant
construction phase would have a negligible impact in all categories
other than human toxicity (due to the presence of heavy metals, such as
chromium in stainless steel and the welding process). The MED plant’s
operation phase is affected by electricity produced from natural gas
power plants. The operation phase accounts for approximately 80% of
the climate change impact. Our integrated solar desalination plant can
potentially lessen the climate change impact by 10 kg of CO2 eq., for
every 1 m3 of freshwater produced and decrease the human toxicity
impacts by three times as compared to the conventional MED. Based on
anti-foaming agents, chemical use in the desalination process has a
substantial effect on ozone depletion. This may give thermal desalina­
tion technologies an advantage over RO systems because of the minimal
pretreatment requirements for thermal technologies. Given our bound­
ary conditions and assumptions, we found that the LFC has a smaller
environmental impact and 24% less land area than the PTC due to its
simpler structural requirements.
A number of recommendations can be made based on this study. We
strongly recommend utilizing LCA as an indicator for environmental
7
Desalination 524 (2022) 115451
impacts when choosing between various solar desalination technologies,
rather than looking only at specific energy consumption, common in
desalination studies. In addition, it is vital to study the life-cycle impact
of solar-driven desalination systems when operated in cogeneration
mode. Such systems can tap into a larger pool of users in remote coastal
areas who require power and clean water. The findings of this study can
also be used as a benchmark when comparing different desalination
systems. Additionally, it is crucial to explore how expanding LCA system
boundaries can help us understand the optimal conditions for sustain­
able desalination processes.
Lastly, environmental scientists need to address the methodological
challenges in conducting LCA studies for desalination technologies in
more depth. Among these issues is the definition of the functional unit
and its relative value. As an example from this paper, desalination sys­
tems produce freshwater with variable values in different parts of the
world (i.e., 1 m3 of fresh water in a water-stressed country like Qatar has
more value than 1 m3 in another country with multiple water supply
alternatives). This issue emphasizes the need to weigh and rank the LCA
impact scores accordingly when comparing various scenarios. Further­
more, a quantitative uncertainty analysis must always be included to
provide policy-makers with a sense of confidence about the outcomes of
the LCA study.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohamed Alhaj: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft. Furqan Tahir: Investigation, Formal analysis,
Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Sami G. Al-Ghamdi:
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Re­
sources, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a scholarship from Hamad Bin
Khalifa University (HBKU), a member of Qatar Foundation (QF). Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the HBKU or QF. Open Access funding provided by the Qatar
National Library.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.115451.
References
[1] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Progress towards the Sustainable
Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General, 2017.
[2] J.W. Owens, Water resources in life-cycle impact assessment: considerations in
choosing category indicators, J. Ind. Ecol. 5 (2001) 37–54, https://doi.org/
10.1162/10881980152830123.
[3] International Desalination Association (IDA), Desalination by the Numbers, 2019.
[4] F. Tahir, A. Mabrouk, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, I. Krupa, T. Sedlacek, A. Abdala, M. Koc,
Sustainability assessment and techno-economic analysis of thermally enhanced
polymer tube for multi-effect distillation (MED) technology, Polymers (Basel) 13
(2021) 681, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13050681.
[5] F. Tahir, A.A.B. Baloch, H. Ali, Resilience of desalination plants for sustainable
water supply in Middle East, in: P.A. Khaiter, M.G. Erechtchoukova (Eds.), Sustain.
Perspect. Sci. Policy Pract. Strateg. Sustain, Springer Nature, Switzerland AG,
2020, pp. 303–329, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19550-2_15.
M. Alhaj et al.
[6] R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008)
8193–8201, https://doi.org/10.1021/es801330u.
[7] M. Drechsler, J. Egerer, M. Lange, F. Masurowski, J. Meyerhoff, M. Oehlmann,
Efficient and equitable spatial allocation of renewable power plants at the country
scale, Nat. Energy 2 (2017) 17124.
[8] T. Luo, R. Young, P. Reig, Aqueduct Projected Water Stress Country Rankings,
2015.
[9] SolarGIS ©, 2013 GeoModel Solar, 2013. File:SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.
png.
[10] M.T. Ali, H.E.S. Fath, P.R. Armstrong, A comprehensive techno-economical review
of indirect solar desalination, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (2011) 4187–4199,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.012.
[11] J.H. Reif, W. Alhalabi, Solar-thermal powered desalination: its significant
challenges and potential, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 48 (2015) 152–165, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.065.
[12] M. Alhaj, A. Hassan, M. Darwish, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, A techno-economic review of
solar-driven multi-effect distillation, Desalin. Water Treat. 90 (2017) 86–98,
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.21297.
[13] J.J. Burkhardt, G. Heath, E. Cohen, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of trough
and tower concentrating solar power electricity generation: systematic review and
harmonization, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2012.00474.x.
[14] T. Pankratz, IDA desalination yearbook, 2014. File:SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-
map-en.png.
[15] F. Tahir, M. Atif, M.A. Antar, The effect of fouling on performance and design
aspects of multiple-effect desalination systems, in: Recent Prog. Desalination,
Environ. Mar. Outfall Syst, 2015, pp. 35–52, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
19123-2_4.
[16] A. Mabrouk, A. Abotaleb, F. Tahir, M. Darwish, R. Aini, M. Koc, A. Abdelrashid,
High performance MED desalination plants part I: novel design MED evaporator,
in: IDA 2017 World Congr. Water Reuse Desalin., Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2017.
[17] F. Tahir, A.A. Mabrouk, M. Koc, CFD analysis of spray nozzle arrangements for
multi effect desalination evaporator, proceeding 3rd therm, FluidsEng. Conf.
(2018) 935–941, https://doi.org/10.1615/TFEC2018.fip.021685.
[18] M. Alhaj, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, Reducing electric energy consumption in linear fresnel
collector solar fields coupled to thermal desalination plants by optimal mirror
defocusing, Heliyon. 4 (2018), e00813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.
e00813.
[19] I.B. Askari, M. Ameri, Techno economic feasibility analysis of linear fresnel solar
field as thermal source of the MED/TVC desalination system, Desalination 394
(2016) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.022.
[20] M.A. Sharaf, A.S. Nafey, L. Garcia-Rodriguez, Thermo-economic analysis of solar
thermal power cycles assisted MED-VC (multi effect distillation-vapor
compression) desalination processes, Energy 36 (2011) 2753–2764, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.02.015.
[21] G. Iaquaniello, A. Salladini, A. Mari, A.A. Mabrouk, H.E.S. Fath, Concentrating
solar power (CSP) system integrated with MED–RO hybrid desalination,
Desalination 336 (2014) 121–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.12.030.
[22] O.A. Hamed, H. Kosaka, K.H. Bamardouf, K. Al-Shail, A.S. Al-Ghamdi,
Concentrating solar power for seawater thermal desalination, Desalination 396
(2016) 70–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.06.008.
[23] Z. Norwood, D. Kammen, Life cycle analysis of distributed concentrating solar
combined heat and power: economics, global warming potential and water,
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044016.
[24] P. Palenzuela, A.S. Hassan, G. Zaragoza, D.-C. Alarcón-Padilla, Steady state model
for multi-effect distillation case study: plataforma solar de Almería MED pilot
plant, Desalination 337 (2014) 31–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2013.12.029.
[25] The International Standards Organisation, Environmental management — Life
cycle assessment — Principles and framework, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.332.7550.1107.
[26] R.G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of water production
technologies - part 1: life cycle assessment of different commercial desalination
technologies (MSF, MED, RO) (9 pp), Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10 (2005) 285–293,
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.09.179.1.
[27] T. Mezher, H. Fath, Z. Abbas, A. Khaled, Techno-economic assessment and
environmental impacts of desalination technologies, Desalination 266 (2011)
263–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESAL.2010.08.035.
Desalination 524 (2022) 115451
[28] A.J. Morton, I.K. Callister, N.M. Wade, Environmental impacts of seawater
distillation and reverse osmosis processes, Desalination 108 (1997) 1–10, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(97)00002-7.
[29] S. Lattemann, T. Höpner, Environmental impact and impact assessment of seawater
desalination, Desalination 220 (2008) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2007.03.009.
[30] Y. Tokui, H. Moriguchi, Y. Nishi, Comprehensive environmental assessment of
seawater desalination plants : multistage fl ash distillation and reverse osmosis
membrane types in Saudi Arabia, Desalination 351 (2014) 145–150, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.034.
[31] M.P. Shahabi, A. McHugh, M. Anda, G. Ho, Environmental life cycle assessment of
seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant powered by renewable energy, Renew.
Energy 67 (2014) 53–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.050.
[32] R.G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, A. Valero, Life-cycle assessment of desalination
technologies integrated with energy production systems, Desalination 167 (2004)
445–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.160.
[33] M. Alhaj, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, Integrating concentrated solar power with seawater
desalination technologies: a multi-regional environmental assessment, Environ.
Res. Lett. 14 (2019), 074014, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1d74.
[34] J. Zhou, V.W. Chang, A.G. Fane, Life cycle assessment for desalination: a review on
methodology feasibility and reliability, Water Res. 61 (2014) 210–223, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.017.
[35] A. Del Borghi, C. Strazza, M. Gallo, S. Messineo, M. Naso, Water supply and
sustainability: life cycle assessment of water collection, treatment and distribution
service, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 1158–1168, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-013-0549-5.
[36] N.T. Hancock, N.D. Black, T.Y. Cath, A comparative life cycle assessment of hybrid
osmotic dilution desalination and established seawater desalination and
wastewater reclamation processes, Water Res. 46 (2012) 1145–1154, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2011.12.004.
[37] C. Ras, H. Von Blottnitz, A comparative life cycle assessment of process water
treatment technologies at the Secunda industrial complex, South Africa, Water SA
38 (2012), https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v38i4.10.
[38] J. Zhou, V.W.-C. Chang, A.G. Fane, Environmental life cycle assessment of brackish
water reverse osmosis desalination for different electricity production models,
Energy Environ. Sci. 4 (2011) 2267, https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00828a.
[39] I. Muñoz, L. Milà-I-Canals, A.R. Fernández-Alba, Life cycle assessment of water
supply plans in Mediterranean Spain: the Ebro River transfer versus the AGUA
programme, J. Ind. Ecol. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2010.00271.x.
[40] K. Lee, W. Jepson, Environmental impact of desalination: a systematic review of
life cycle assessment, Desalination 509 (2021), 115066, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2021.115066.
[41] M. Alhaj, A. Mabrouk, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, Energy efficient multi-effect distillation
powered by a solar linear fresnel collector, Energy Convers. Manag. 171 (2018)
576–586, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.082.
[42] J. Zhou, V.W.-C. Chang, A.G. Fane, An improved life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) approach for assessing aquatic eco-toxic impact of brine disposal from
seawater desalination plants, Desalination 308 (2013) 233–241, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.039.
[43] K. Aurélie, A. Germain, G. Léda, M. François, Life cycle assessment and
environomic optimization of concentrating solar thermal power plants, in: Proc.
26th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost,Optimization, Simulation, Environ. Impact Energy Syst.,
Guilin, 2013.
[44] G.A. Heath, J.J. Burkhardt, C.S. Turchi, Life Cycle Assessment of a Parabolic
Trough Concentrating Solar Power Plant and the Impacts of Key Design
Alternatives, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1021/es1033266.
[45] Y. Hang, K. Balkoski, P. Meduri, Life cycle analysis of linear fresnel solar power
technology, in: Proc. ASME 2013 Power Conf. POWER2013, 2013, pp. 1–9.
[46] M. Darwish, A.H. Hassabou, B. Shomar, Using seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)
desalting system for less environmental impacts in Qatar, Desalination 309 (2013)
113–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.09.026.
[47] P.B. Tchounwou, C.G. Yedjou, A.K. Patlolla, D.J. Sutton, Heavy metals toxicity and
the environment, EXS 101 (2012) 133–164, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-
8340-4_6.
[48] CSP Today, CSP Today Global Tracker, 2015.
[49] G. Cau, D. Cocco, Comparison of medium-size concentrating solar power plants
based on parabolic trough and linear fresnel collectors, Energy Procedia 45 (2014)
101–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.012.
[50] SkyFuel, SkyTrough Parabolic Trough Concentrator, 2017.