DES-12379; No of Pages 11

Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis

hybrids for seawater desalination
Gaetan Blandin a,b, Arne R.D. Verliefde b, Chuyang Y. Tang c, Pierre Le-Clech a,⁎
a
UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, School of Chemical Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia
b
Ghent University, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Applied Analytical and Physical Chemistry, Particle and Interfacial Technology Group (PaInT), Coupure Links 653,
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
c
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A flux threshold of 30 L·m− 2·h− 1 was

defined for FO economic viability.
• Current membrane developments do not
match the fixed minimum flux threshold.
• Membranes with higher A
(N 5 L·m − 2·h− 1 ·bar − 1) and lower S
(b100 μm) are required.
• Pressure assisted osmosis could be an
economically favourable alternative to
FO.

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

Article history: Despite being energetically attractive, the economic sustainability of forward osmosis (FO) - reverse osmosis
Received 3 October 2014 (RO) hybrid process for seawater desalination has not yet been fully demonstrated. This study is the first to
Received in revised form 10 December 2014 carry out an extensive economic evaluation of FO-RO hybrid, benchmarked against stand-alone RO system.
Accepted 10 December 2014
This assessment clearly highlights that FO-RO hybrid can be beneficial, comparatively to RO, only for high energy
Available online xxxx
costs and/or substantial operational costs savings. It is also demonstrated that improvement in water permeation
Keywords:
flux, typically above 30 L·m−2·h−1 for classical water recoveries, is an absolute prerequisite to lower investment
Forward osmosis costs down to an economically acceptable level. Such fluxes are not achieved with current membrane developments
Economics when realistic feed and draw solutions are considered. In a second step, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to as-
Permeation flux sess the effects of process parameters on flux in FO, compared to the above-mentioned benchmark. Results indicate
Pressure assisted osmosis that for novel FO membranes, typically a coupling of higher water permeability (A N 5 L·m−2·h−1·bar−1) and lower
Hydraulic pressure structural parameter (S b 100 μm) is required. This study also shows that the concept of pressure assisted osmosis
(PAO) can help to reach higher fluxes with current commercial membranes, thereby demonstrating more
favourable economics compared to state-of-the-art FO membranes.
© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

⁎ Corresponding author at: UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science & Technology, School of Chemical Engineering, Building F10, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052,
Australia.
E-mail address: p.le-clech@unsw.edu.au (P. Le-Clech).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
0011-9164/© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
2 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
1. Introduction
Within the last decade, a growing interest has been observed in
osmotically-driven membrane processes and more specifically in for-
ward osmosis (FO), which has been evaluated as a promising alternative
to reverse osmosis (RO) for seawater desalination to produce fresh
water at low energy consumption [1]. Thanks to the recent develop-
ment and commercialisation of novel semi-permeable membranes ded-
icated to this application, a significant amount of academic research has
been performed to better understand process limitations and proposed
further improvement [1]. The first industrial FO desalination plant in
Oman has been recently inaugurated, testifying of the potential future
of this technology [2]. However, questions remain on the optimised
configuration of such process, as well as its economic sustainability
[3,4].
In the context of seawater desalination, FO is typically operated within
a two-step process. FO could be implemented as a pre-treatment of RO
(Fig. 1). In this case, low salinity water is used as an FO feed solution to di-
lute seawater (draw). As a result of the seawater dilution, less energy
(due to lower osmotic pressure of the feed) is required to produce fresh
water using the subsequent RO step. This type of scheme is referred to
as FO-RO hybrid [5,6], and is typically of interest when impaired water
is used as feed, as the scheme can uniquely combine water reuse and de-
salination [6,7], and has the advantages of double-barrier protection
against pollutants in the impaired water, low membrane fouling and sub-
stantial energy savings. The FO-RO hybrid mentioned in this study, also
called osmotic dilution [8] has to be distinguished from other FO concepts
also used for desalination. Those other concepts are combining a FO pro-
cess with a very high osmotic driving force using a closed loop draw solu-
tions that has to be recovered by nanofiltration (NF), RO or other technic
currently under study [9–11], yet are out of the scope of this manuscript.
One study specifically mentioned that the FO-RO hybrid de-
scribed above, using immersed FO membranes led to a specific ener-
gy decrease for RO seawater desalination from 2.5 - 4 kWh·m− 3
down to 1.5 kWh·m− 3 [12]. However, these values were obtained
following dilution of seawater by a factor of 2.5 in the FO process. In
such conditions, this process relies mainly on water reuse and therefore
does not really qualify as desalination process. In general, lab-scale and
pilot operation of hybrid FO-RO have both confirmed technical process
feasibility, by showing lower fouling tendency and claiming significant
energy savings in comparison with current RO seawater desalination [1,
7,13]. Despite these observations and intensive research, questions re-
main on FO-RO hybrid economic sustainability for seawater desalination.
Reasons for these questions are obvious: firstly, integration of FO will re-
quire additional investment costs that have to be ultimately compensated
by significant energy savings. Moreover, due to recent RO development,
energy consumption in RO is getting so close to the thermodynamic
limit of desalination that additional energy savings may become marginal
[14]. Finally, the FO–RO hybrid process has been pointed out as not offer-
ing advantages in comparison with two distinct, simpler and established
Fig. 1. Integration of FO in desalination process as FO-RO hybrid.
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
water treatment streams, i.e., water reuse and desalination or simple
mixing of these streams [15]. One very recent study on economics con-
firmed that FO–RO hybrids could offer an alternative to classical water
reuse and desalination scenarios, but only when considering a high
share of energy in the total desalination cost, assuming lower membrane
costs (30$·m−2) and/or higher fluxes (15 L·m−2·h−1) than existing
commercial membranes can obtain [8]. This demonstrates the need for
a better consideration of economics in FO–RO hybrid within the desalina-
tion process and the necessity of sensitivity analysis. The need for perme-
ation flux improvement is often mentioned [1,16], and is a key driver for
research towards membrane development and FO process optimisation.
However, despite the numerous reviews on the topic [1,2,17–23], and in
comparison with pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) where a threshold of
5 W·m−2 has been set as breakeven point for sustainability [24,25], no
clear permeation flux threshold has been defined for FO sustainability
for seawater desalination applications.
Water transport through FO membrane is limited by a number of
phenomena extensively reviewed elsewhere [26] — internal concentra-
tion polarisation (ICP), external concentration polarisation (ECP), foul-
ing and reverse salt diffusion (RSD). Extended fundamental work was
performed to model the impact of concentration polarisation on perme-
ation flux through the use of the solution diffusion model [27–29].
Membrane characteristics, i.e. pure water and salt permeability of the
rejection layer (A & B) and the structural parameter (S), are key param-
eters impacting permeation flux, and the ideal membrane for FO appli-
cations should have a high water permeability and salt rejection (high
A, low B), have minimal ICP (low S), and sufficient mechanical strength
to support industrial operation and possibly moderate pressure [17]. A
significant body of work has been performed in terms of FO membrane
optimisation since the introduction of the first FO commercial mem-
brane by HTI [16]; a recent review compiled an extended list of
all recent membrane developments [21] confirming that important
improvements have been obtained on laboratory scale. Water perme-
ability enhancement by more than 20 in comparison with existing com-
mercial membrane was mentioned; however, it is difficult to translate
this linearly into higher fluxes, as only a 6-fold increase in flux has
been reached in FO operation using these membranes. Moreover, high
permeation fluxes are often claimed in the lab, but the used test condi-
tions are usually different from industrial reality (i.e. pure water as feed
and a high salinity draw [30–34]), thus overestimating the practical
values reachable on industrial scale. Standard test conditions have
been proposed [35], but so far, most studies have been conducted
using different conditions, such as type and concentration of draw and
feed solutions, membrane orientations, type of spacers and cross-flow
velocity (CFV). This further demonstrates the need for a clear, unambig-
uous and comparative evaluation of existing membranes. Interestingly,
the solution–diffusion model can be used as a modelling tool, integrat-
ing the impact of both membrane characteristics and process driving
forces on water and salt permeation flux. As such, it represents a predic-
tive and quantitative tool to (1) investigate optimisation of membrane
 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
and/or process parameters, (2) evaluate current (i.e., state-of-the art)
membranes in similar conditions to obtain a fair comparison and (3) de-
fine opportunities for further improvement (i.e., carry out a sensitivity
analysis).
As an alternative to new material developments or the use of high
osmotic driving forces, the pressure-assisted osmosis (PAO) concept
has been recently proposed. In this concept, hydraulic pressure applied
on the feed side is used as an additional driving force to enhance water
permeation flux [36–38]. Recent studies confirmed that hydraulic pres-
sure could indeed increase fluxes substantially and even more than ex-
pected due to an increase in membrane permeability with increasing
flux, as a consequence of membrane deformation [36,39]. In PAO oper-
ation, the FO membrane maintained good separation performances,
leading to increased water permeation fluxes and limited RSD. This
mode of operation thus tackles the so-called “water–salt permeability
trade-off”, which currently limits FO membrane development and
therefore represents an interesting option for FO improvement [36].
The objectives of this study are therefore to:
• Establish the economic basis for cost calculation in FO–RO hybrid, to
define the optimum FO process configuration for desalination, and
to set a threshold for FO minimum permeation flux required to
reach economic viability.
• Use the solution–diffusion model to evaluate potential options to
tackle current flux limitations of state-of-the-art FO membranes and
configurations, i.e., by membrane development and implementation
of hydraulic pressure as additional driving force.
• Assess the relevance and extent of need for further membrane and/or
process development related to requirements for FO economic
sustainability.
2. Economics of FO in desalination
2.1. FO integration in RO desalination schemes
Based on the process described in Fig. 1, FO integration in RO desali-
nation schemes decreases the salinity of the outlet draw solution (dilut-
ed seawater). In this study, similar flow for feed and draw solution and
50% of the feed permeating to the draw (i.e. 50% recovery) were consid-
ered in order to be in a combined water reuse and desalination scheme.
Energy estimation was performed using ROSA® software and integrating
2.5
RO energy consumpon (kWh.m-3)
(a)
2.0
1.5
Constant RO feed flow (4000m3.h-1)
Increased RO feed flow with FO permeate
1.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% FO recovery
Fig. 2. RO energy consumption considering different scenario of FO–RO hybrid implementations using ROSA software: (a) operating at constant RO feed flow or increasing the RO feed flow
with the amount of water permeated in FO stage, (b) operating at 50% FO recovery and constant RO feed flow but increasing RO recovery. FO operating as similar feed and draw solution
flows, FO recovery defined as % feed permeating through the draw. RO feed salinity was calculated using initial seawater salinity of 35 g·L−1 of red sea salt [36] and adjusted based on the
dilution occurring in the FO step depending on FO recovery. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
3
an energy recovery device to assess the impact of FO pre-dilution on RO
energy consumption for three different scenarios with the goals to de-
crease energy consumption and/or increase water production of existing
RO system:
(1) RO installation is maintained at its original feed flow and recov-
ery, FO is mainly used to lower RO energy usage for the same
final permeate production (Fig. 2a, continuous blue line).
(2) RO feed flow is increased with the amount of water permeated in
the FO stage (Fig. 2a, dotted red line); RO operates at same recov-
ery but higher feed and permeate flow; i.e. higher production.
(3) Fixed 50% FO recovery and RO installation is maintained at its
original feed flow but recovery is increased; permeate produc-
tion is increased (Fig. 2b).
The conditions used for the ROSA® calculation are described in
Fig. S1 of supporting document, and the final energy consumption
values were calculated incorporating energy recovery devices.
Fig. 2a showed that considering scenario 1 (keeping RO at similar
feed flow and recovery), up to 36% decrease of the energy consumption
is possible. In such scenario, in the RO step, part of the seawater is re-
placed by pure water permeated in the FO step from impaired water,
no production increase occurs, energy savings are observed as a direct
benefit of osmotic dilution. Alternatively, using FO permeate to increase
the existing RO feed flow (scenario 2) did not lead to any significant en-
ergy reduction, the benefit of osmotic dilution being counter-balanced
by additional pressure needed to filtrate more water on a similar RO fil-
tration surface area. As a result, more production could occur but with-
out energy savings in the RO part, making this configuration irrelevant.
In the third scenario (50% FO recovery, similar RO feed flow, and in-
creasing RO recovery Fig. 2b), energy consumption already equals
stand-alone RO already (2.2 kwh·m− 3) at 60% RO recovery. In fact,
the benefit of osmotic dilution is lost due to the operation of RO at
high operating pressure to allow for higher permeation flux. As a result,
scenarios for which increased permeate production was considered did
not allow for significant energy savings, and a simple extension of RO
unit may be preferable to FO–RO hybrid implementation. Thus, only
the implementation of FO–RO hybrid to decrease energy needs (scenar-
io 1) will be considered in this study. In that case, the implementation of
FO will lead to additional investment costs that need to be compensated
by the obtained energy savings and potential operational expenditure
4.0
RO energy consumpon (kWh.m-3)
(b)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
45% 55% 65% 75%
%RO recovery
4 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
(OPEX) reduction (less fouling, less membrane replacement due to
lower operating pressure) to make the FO–RO hybrid economically
sustainable.
2.2. FO–RO hybrid costs — sensitivity analysis
At this stage, it is difficult to balance the energy savings in the FO–RO
hybrid and the increased capital expenditure (CAPEX). Due to the very
limited amount of data available on FO CAPEX and OPEX in the litera-
ture, assumptions have to be made. The sense and non-sense of these
assumptions will be assessed in this section through a sensitivity
analysis.
Conventional seawater RO is the only system that is rather similar to
FO, and will here be used as a benchmark for assessment of FO cost cal-
culations. Existing CAPEX data from RO literature were adapted to give
an approximation of FO CAPEX. Pre-treatment and intake costs were
considered similar for stand-alone RO and FO–RO hybrid in this study.
In order to estimate the cost of FO systems and the potential interest
of FO–RO hybrid, a number of assumptions have been made regarding
water production costs and the CAPEX distribution within the overall
FO–RO hybrid desalination plant. All these parameters will be discussed
in the following paragraphs, together with the impact and importance
of permeation flux on FO costs and FO–RO hybrid costs (and thus FO
sustainability).
2.2.1. FO and FO–RO CAPEX
Considering values obtained from desaldata.com [40] and according
to the latest RO technology, an average cost value of 0.76$·m−3 of water
produced can be considered as the benchmark for RO in this study.
Overall, RO water desalination cost can be split in energy costs, CAPEX
and maintenance/labour (OPEX) at 32, 38 and 30%, respectively [40].
CAPEX represents a significant amount of the produced water cost, i.e.
0.29$·m−3 for the overall desalination plant (38% if 0.76$·m−3,
Fig. S2, [40]). It could be reasonably assumed that 50% of the CAPEX is
dedicated to the RO filtration step (Fig. S3, [40]), i.e. 0.14$·m−3, and
the rest related to the pre- and post-treatment. Additionally, benchmark
RO was assumed with 20 years plant lifetime, a working load of
8000 h·y−1 and 20 L·m−2·h−1 as average permeation flux for RO oper-
ation [41–43].
When translating CAPEX of RO to FO, some assumptions are re-
quired, based on the differences in operating regime. Considering
spiral-wound modules, FO operates with two solutions that need to be
pumped on both sides on the membrane, leading to lower intrinsic
packing density and thus higher prices of FO modules compared to RO
modules. In addition, FO membranes in their current state of develop-
ment are also inherently more expensive than existing RO membranes.
Furthermore, current commercial FO performance is lower than RO, es-
pecially in terms of average permeation flux. On the other hand, FO
operates without the need for high pressure, and as a consequence, sig-
nificant savings could be obtained in terms of material requirements for
the pressure vessels, modules and pumps for an FO installation.
As such, not only membrane and module costs should be considered
for FO and RO economics comparison, but also all the other CAPEX need-
ed for the filtration, such as pumps, piping, civil engineering and moni-
toring need to be considered. To clarify the influence of assumptions
made on the CAPEX for FO compared to RO, some sensitivity studies
were performed on 2 key parameters: 1) the filtration surface depen-
dency of FO CAPEX investment, i.e., how much of the CAPEX is directly
related to required membrane surface area and 2) the comparison be-
tween FO and RO CAPEX, expressed as ratio FO/RO CAPEX investment.
Surface dependency of CAPEX was varied from 7% (where only the
membranes and pressure vessels CAPEX is assumed to be dependent
on filtration surface area), to 100% (where the whole CAPEX is assumed
to be dependent on filtration surface area) (Fig. S3). As first estimate,
FO/RO CAPEX ratios were varied from 2 (which is more or less the cur-
rent situation, due to the expensive FO membranes and the lower
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
packing density) down to 0.5 (the hypothetical optimised FO situation
whereby high performance modules and cheaper FO materials are pos-
sible due to low pressure operation). The sensitivity analysis of the po-
tential CAPEX savings of the FO–RO hybrid versus conventional RO is
plotted in Fig. 3, as a function of the average FO permeation flux.
As expected, the FO–RO hybrid process was found to be always more
expensive than the RO baseline (0% savings). This is due to the addition-
al FO installation, increasing the investment cost. In the most favourable
case (high FO flux, low FO cost), the FO unit is expected to add 20%
CAPEX to the whole desalination plant. This demonstrates that, despite
being promoted as a potentially better process, the economic viability of
the FO–RO hybrid cannot be established from the CAPEX.
This presents a much more challenging case to reach economic
viability of FO-based systems only based on energy gain. This is in
contrast to benefit–cost ratio analyses reported in previous studies [7,
12], for which only membrane (12–30$·m−2 [7,24]) or module costs
(100$·m−2 [12]) were considered.
Incorporating more costs than just filtration surface area-dependent
costs in the CAPEX, as proposed in this study, can be considered as more
realistic since the costs calculated like this include all related equipment
and auxiliary investments. Moreover, accounting only for membrane
and module as CAPEX surface dependent (i.e. 7%) is not relevant: other-
wise increasing permeation flux would not lead to any economics
benefits. As such, considering 50% to 100% surface dependent CAPEX ap-
pears more realistic and better translates the need for higher perme-
ation flux in FO. According to first rough estimation (Fig. S3), 75% flux
dependant seems to be an appropriate assumption and will be consid-
ered in further simulation.
It is also estimated that current state-of-the-art for FO using spiral-
wound modules with relatively expensive membrane and low packing
density are likely to result in a FO/RO CAPEX ratio even higher than 2
(Fig. 3b). This, in combination with the low permeation fluxes reported
in the literature (5 to 10 L·m−2·h−1), results in doubles the CAPEX for
an FO–RO hybrid desalination plant compared to a classical RO CAPEX
and makes FO–RO economically unattractive. The need for cheaper ma-
terials, higher packing density modules and higher permeation fluxes is
thus clearly demonstrated here. Even with the recent improvements
achieved in FO membrane materials, reaching an FO/RO CAPEX ratio
of 0.5 is probably a very optimistic hypothesis, as it requires break-
through long-term developments such as cheap hollow fibre modules
with extremely high packing densities that still need to prove their
suitability for treatment of wastewater with high concentrations of
foulants. Assumptions of a future FO/RO CAPEX ratio of 1 may therefore
appear more realistic in the near future (Porifera already proposes sys-
tems with similar packing density as RO modules [44], Toyobo men-
tioned PRO pilot tests with hollow fibre elements [45]). As such, an
FO/RO CAPEX ratio = 1 will be considered in the further assessment
of the potential economic viability of FO–RO hybrids.
2.2.2. Energy costs
As demonstrated in Section 2.1, energy needs for the RO step can be
lowered by 30% as a result of the osmotic dilution in FO. However it is
still unclear if those significant energy cost savings are sufficient to com-
pensate the irremediable additional CAPEX related to the FO. Assuming
energy costs of 0.24$.m−3 [40] and considering specific energy con-
sumption of RO about 2.2 kWh·m−3 (Fig. 2a), the average energy cost
could be estimated to 0.1$·kWh− 1. However, energy cost is highly
dependent on the location and global market prices. Therefore, a
sensitivity analysis was carried out on the impact of energy cost
(and consequently the contribution of energy to total costs within
the desalination plant) whereby the energy price was varied in the
range of 0.05 to 0.2$·kWh− 1 (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 confirms that the higher the energy cost (and thus its contribu-
tion to the overall desalination cost), the easier the economic justifica-
tion of FO–RO hybrids becomes. It is clear that a breakeven point for
FO–RO hybrids compared to RO desalination is only reached when
 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

0% 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) (b)

CAPEX savings (%)

CAPEX savings (%)

-50% -50%

FO 100% surface dependent

FO/RO CAPEX rao=0.5
FO 75% surface dependent
FO/RO CAPEX rao=1
FO 50% surface dependent
FO/RO CAPEX rao=2
FO 7% surface dependent
-100% Jw(L.m-2.h-1) -100% Jw (L.m-2.h-1)

Fig. 3. CAPEX savings (in %) of FO–RO hybrid vs. RO with permeation flux depending on the surface dependence of the capex (for FO/RO capex ratio = 1) (a) and the FO/RO CAPEX ratio (for
75% surface dependence) (b).

energy costs exceed 0.15$·kWh−1 and when a high permeation flux
(30 L·m−2·h−1) is used. Above 0.15 kWh−1, the energy costs savings
become predominant and additional CAPEX is easier to justify, allowing
for lower permeation flux. When the energy cost is thus equal to or
below 0.1 kWh−1, energy savings are insufficient to cover the CAPEX in-
crease. In that case, potential OPEX costs savings should be considered
to justify the economic interest for FO–RO hybrid.
2.2.3. Operational expenditures (OPEX)
Implementing FO before RO could lead to potential OPEX savings
(maintenance, membrane replacement, chemical cleaning) thanks to
the lower pressure operation in RO and significantly less fouling in FO
[13]. This results in a more continuous process, less need for chemicals
and potentially a longer membrane lifetime. In the analysis below, the
FO wastewater feed is considered pre-treated and therefore no addi-
tional treatment is deemed necessary. No clear values for reduction in
OPEX for FO, compared to RO, are given by the literature, and a sensitiv-
ity analysis is carried out. As a first approximation, reductions in opera-
tional costs of 15 and 30% were considered for two energy cost scenarios
(0.1 and 0.15 kWh−1) in Fig. 5a and b.
Results confirm that current FO performance (5–10 L·m−2·h−1 [5,6,
12]) does not allow economic savings for seawater desalination com-
pared to RO, even when integrating the optimistic hypothesis of 30%
OPEX savings (Fig. 5a and b). However, from Fig. 5a it is clear that
(when considering 0.1$·kWh−1 as energy cost) 30% OPEX savings and
high permeation flux (N20 L·m−2·h−1) will result in more economical
operation of FO–RO hybrids than simple RO. Overall, savings become
even more significant when higher energy cost are considered (see
Fig. 5b). This demonstrates the importance of OPEX in the evaluation
of FO–RO hybrid and RO economics.
2.3. Importance of permeation flux
It is thus more than clear that permeation flux will play a key role in
FO–RO hybrid economical sustainability. From the realistic scenarios
developed in Fig. 5a and b, the conclusion can be drawn that an average
flux 30 L·m−2·h−1 constitutes a breakeven point, above which FO–RO
hybrids become more economical than RO.
It is however also important to differentiate between the initial and
the average fluxes in the FO installation for process design. Indeed, in

20%

10%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Overall savings (%)

-10%

-20%

0.05$.kWh-1
-30% 0.1$.kWh-1
0.15$.kWh-1
0.2$.kWh-1
-40%

-50%
Jw (L.m-2.h-1)

Fig. 4. Impact of energy costs on the overall savings of FO–RO hybrid vs. RO (CAPEX FO assumptions: 75% flux dependent, FO/RO ratio = 1; similar OPEX for FO and RO).

Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
6 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

20% 20%
(a) (b)
10% 10%

Overall savings (%)

Overall savings (%) 0% 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
-10% -10%

-20% -20%
0% OPEX savings 0% OPEX savings
-30% -30%
15% OPEX savings 15% OPEX savings
-40% 30% OPEX savings -40% 30% OPEX savings

-50% -50%
Jw(L.m-2.h-1) Jw (L.m-2.h-1)

Fig. 5. Impact of OPEX savings hypotheses of FO–RO hybrid on the overall savings of FO–RO hybrid vs. RO for energy cost of 0.1$·kWh−1 (a) and 0.15$·kWh−1 (b) (CAPEX FO assumptions:
75% flux dependent, FO/RO ratio = 1).

the literature, FO membrane performance is usually reported using the this study [6]. The actual osmotic pressure at the membrane surface
optimum driving force at the initial stage of filtration (i.e., at extremely (πFm) is dependent on the permeation flux and, considering concentra-
low feed water recovery). In practice, as a result of water permeation, tive ECP, could be written as in Eq. (3).
RSD, and increasing recovery, a dilution of the draw solution and an
JW
increase in feed concentration will occur, decreasing the driving force π Fm ¼ πFbulk e k ð3Þ
and thus the permeation flux. Typically, considering a reasonable FO re-
covery of 50%, the aforementioned objective of an average flux of
with πFbulk the osmotic pressure of the feed solution and k the mass
30 L·m−2·h−1 can only be obtained if the FO membranes reach an ini-
transfer coefficient in the feed channel, as defined in Eq. (4).
tial permeation flux of 40 L·m−2·h−1 (Fig. S4).
In the following section, based on the solution–diffusion model, the Sh  D
potential to reach the benchmark flux of 40 L·m−2·h−1 in FO will be k¼ ð4Þ
dh
critically discussed. More specifically, a sensitivity analysis will be per-
formed on two approaches that can be used to increase permeation
with Sh the Sherwood number, D the self-diffusion coefficient of the
flux: (1) further membrane development and (2) the use of hydraulic
solute and dh the hydraulic parameter of the flow channel [48–50]. On
pressure on the feed water as additional driving force (PAO).
the draw side, dilutive ICP occurs in the support layer of the membrane,
decreasing the osmotic pressure at the active layer of the membrane:
3. Flux modelling
− Jw K
3.1. Theoretical background πDm ¼ πDbulk e ð5Þ

In osmotic membrane processes, water flux is generally dependent with πDbulk the osmotic pressure of the draw solution and K the resis-
of osmotic and hydraulic pressures, and the specific properties of the tance to solute diffusion (s.m−1) defined as in Eq. (6):
membrane. In such processes, the well-known and most used equation
ts  τ S
to calculate water flux is based on the solution–diffusion theory [16,28] K¼ ¼ ð6Þ
Dε D
(Eq. (1)).
where ts is the thickness (m), τ the tortuosity and ε the porosity of the
JW ¼ A  ðΔP−Δπm Þ ð1Þ
support layer. These latter parameters are characteristics of the mem-
brane, and the S factor in which they are combined is commonly re-
where Jw is the water flux (L·m−2·h−1), A is the membrane-specific
ferred to as the structural parameter [51]. By integrating Eqs. (5) and
pure water permeability (L·m− 2·h−1·bar− 1), ΔP is the applied hy-
(6) into Eqs. (1), (7) for the flux in FO, can be derived [38]:
draulic pressure differential (bar) between the feed (PF) and the draw
(PD) and Δπ is the osmotic pressure differential (bar) between the
JW

− J K
feed (πDm) and the draw (πFm) across the active layer of the membrane. JW ¼ A  πDbulk e w −πFbulk e k þ P F −PD : ð7Þ
As a result of concentration polarisation and to better account for ICP,
ECP and RSD, a reflection coefficient can be introduced (σ) into
Eq. (7) expresses the flux in FO (with or without applied pressure),
Eq. (1). This parameter refers to the ratio of the effective (Δπm) to the
assuming that there is no RSD. As a result of RSD, a further reduction
bulk (Δπbulk) osmotic pressure difference (Eq. (2)).
in osmotic driving force is observed. Following existing models [28],
JW ¼ A  ðΔP−σ  Δπbulk Þ ð2Þ the impact of RSD on flux has been incorporated [52], and advanced so-
lution–diffusion models considering ICP, ECP and RSD have been obtain-
ed [48]. In the case of PAO integration of the RSD effect results in Eq. (8):
In FO operation, especially when wastewater is used as feed, the
membrane orientation with the active layer facing the feed solution is 0 1
preferred to avoid irreversible fouling and has proven to be more effi- JW
BπDbulk  e− Jw K −πFbulk  e k C
cient on long term operation [46,47] despite higher ICP on the draw JW ¼AB
@
 þ P F −PD C
A ð8Þ
side [27]. In such configuration, the impact of fouling on the flux is B − Jw K
JW
1− : e −e k
very limited and will thus not be considered, as a first approach, in JW

Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
with B the membrane-specific solute permeability. This model con-
siders important limitations to the mass transfer in FO and PAO and
the influence of intrinsic membrane characteristics (A, B and S through
K) on these limitations, in addition to the effect of hydrodynamics
(k) and driving forces (ΔΠ and ΔP). Thus, through Eq. (8), a sensitivity
analysis of the impact of one or several membrane parameters on the
overall efficiency of FO systems (in terms of flux) can be performed. It
is therefore possible to assess which membrane parameters need to
be altered (independently) to obtain the initial flux benchmark of
40 L.m−2.h−1 as set out above.
3.2. Operating conditions
Based on membrane characteristics and operation parameter values
found in the literature, FO fluxes for different commercial and lab-scale
FO membranes were calculated using Eq. (8), and compared to experi-
mental results [21]. Then, to better mimic wastewater (WW [7,12])
and seawater (SW) salinity, model calculations were conducted consid-
ering a WW–SW system, featuring initial salinities of feed and draw so-
lutions of 1.2 g.L−1 and 35 g.L−1 red sea salt (Red Sea Inc.) respectively.
CTA (HTI, Albany, OR) membrane characteristics [37] were used as ref-
erence and for model calculations unless otherwise specified. Specific
and combined impacts of membrane intrinsic parameters (A, B, S),
and hydraulic pressure on permeation flux were evaluated. k was con-
sidered constant and similar to our former study [36]. Diffusion coeffi-
cients for NaCl and MgCl2 were obtained from [48,53]. The boundary
conditions described in Table 1 were considered with regards to mem-
brane characteristics and process conditions found in [21]. In PAO con-
ditions, membrane deformation was considered as described in our
former work [36].
4. Current flux and potential for improvement
4.1. Current membrane performance
In order to assess and contrast accurately the hydraulic perfor-
mances of a number of FO membranes (both commercially available
and under small-scale development), a number of flux values have
been calculated and reported in Table 2. At first, reported flux perfor-
mances from literature (Jlit) were compared with fluxes modelled
using Eq. (8), based on the operating conditions mentioned in the liter-
ature (Jmod) to validate the model relevance. Then, flux values were all
normalised under the WW–SW model and calculated based on Eq. (8).
Despite the assumption of similar hydrodynamic conditions for all
membranes (constant k), a good fitting of the model with the reported
experimental values is observed. Indeed, differences were lower than
17% (or 2 L·m− 2·h− 1) in most of the cases and for a wide range of
membrane types and permeation fluxes. This shows the validity of
Eq. (8) to model fluxes in FO. There are two exceptions to this trend:
the Oasys TFC membrane exhibits a much higher flux than expected
by the model, while the opposite is observed with the NC PAN PA. One
of the reasons for this discrepancy could be the difficulty to measure
the support layer characteristics, i.e. K and S, which were used in the
Table 1
Model boundaries and HTI CTA characteristics and experimental conditions used in [36].
Model boundaries
Lower range Higher range
A L·m−2·h−1·bar−1 0.5 10
B ×10−7 m·s−1 0.01 10
S ×10−6 m 100 1000
k ×10−5 m·s−1 1.1
Pfeed Bar 0 10
πFbulk Bar 0.9
πDbulk Bar 24.5
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
7
model. These parameters have already been pointed out as being highly
variable and dependent on operational conditions during the measure-
ment [59].
Despite intensive research, the threshold value for initial flux (J0) of
40 L·m−2·h−1 is not reached experimentally for any of the membranes.
Moreover, most of the high flux values reported in the literature were
obtained using model feed and draw solutions with a high osmotic pres-
sure on the draw side (N45 bar osmotic) and pure water on the feed
(except Oasys TFC) to increase the driving force and avoid ECP. This is
not representative of any current industrial configuration. The modelled
fluxes for the WW–SW systems show significantly lower permeation
fluxes than those observed in the lab-scale testing: all fluxes in the
WW–SW system were modelled to be below 26.6 L·m−2·h−1. It was
also observed that fluxes above 10 L·m−2·h−1 were generally obtained
with membranes featuring high A (N1.5 L·m−2·h− 1) and low S
(b 67 μm). Some examples confirmed that either too high S (e.g., SW30
without fabric) or a too low A (e.g. HTI CTA, TFC FO solution 3) are prohib-
itive to allow high permeation fluxes [37,56].
Interestingly, among the commercial membranes and according to
experimental literature values, the Oasys TFC membrane demonstrated
the best performance. Most likely, this is due to the combination of a
high A (4.72 L·m− 2·h−1) and relatively low S (365 μm). The main
drawback of a high A value for FO membranes, remains the accompany-
ing increase of B value, leading to higher RSD [62]. This is partly
confirmed here, since the Oasys membrane also features one of the
highest B values (1.2 × 10−7 m·s−1). The recently synthesised nanofi-
ber support layers (PI-FO, NC PVA PA, NC PAN PA in Table 2 [57,
60–62]) appears to be very promising. The example of NC PVA PA dem-
onstrates a good fitting of the model with experimental values and also
shows the highest modelled flux in industrial conditions (i.e.
26.6 L·m−2·h− 1). The NC PVA PA membrane manages to lower the
structural parameter of the membrane below 100 μm, using a less tortu-
ous support and, as a result, demonstrates significantly decreased ICP.
As an intermediate conclusion, it is clear that all the existing mem-
branes considered in this study remain below our defined flux criterion
for FO sustainability (i.e., J0 = 40 L·m−2·h−1). A detailed sensitivity
analysis will be conducted in the next paragraph to evaluate if improve-
ment of membrane characteristics has the potential to ever reach the
flux threshold.
4.2. Improving membrane properties
Both membrane characteristics of active layer (A,B) and support
layer (S) will ultimately impact the permeation flux. As such, previous
studies [51,63] have focussed on improving both membrane permeabil-
ity and selectivity (by decreasing the B/A ratio) as well as decreasing the
membrane structural parameter [57,60–62]. Sensitivity analysis on the
respective impact of A, B and S values on the initial water flux in FO
was performed (Fig. 6).
A non-linear increase of flux is observed with the membrane perme-
ability (A) as a consequence of exponentially enhanced CP (both ICP and
ECP) with the permeation flux. Typically, in the defined conditions and
even considering extremely high A values (up to 10 L·m−2·h−1·bar−1),
flux remains limited below 25 L·m−2·h−1 (Fig. 6a, based on HTI CTA
membrane S value). It is thus clear that only improving membrane per-
meability is not sufficient to reach threshold fluxes of 40 L·m−2·h−1
when seawater is used as draw solution. Results also show that salt per-
HTI CTA meability has a relatively lower influence on the permeation flux; in the
extreme condition of very poor salt rejection (B = 1 × 10−6 m·s−1), the
permeation flux is impacted by less than 10%. Although not directly af-
0.6
fecting flux, poorer salt rejection may limit the potential to reach high
0.5
678 recovery as a direct consequence of a huge decrease in the osmotic driv-
1.1 ing force by an increasing salt concentration in the feed (Fig. S5 of
0–10 supporting document). In the specific context of FO–RO hybrid operated
0.9 with WW as feed and SW as draw, very high recovery (N95%) is gener-
24.5
ally not a requirement, therefore further decrease in salt permeability
8 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Reported membrane characteristics and initial permeation flux (Jlit), compared with flux values obtained with solution diffusion model obtained using initial study conditions (Jmod) and
conditions used in this study (Jmod WW–SW).

Membrane reference A B S Jlit Jmod Jmod Ref.

Ww–Sw

L·m−2·h−1·bar−1 ×10−7 m·s−1 ×10−6 m L·m−2·h−1 L·m−2·h−1 L·m−2·h−1

Commercial membranes
HTI CTA 0.55 0.48 463 10.1 9.2 6.8 [37]
HTI CTA-W 0.32 0.04 1000 5.0 3.6 3.6 [54]
HTI CTA-NW 0.47 0.27 1000 4.4 4.4 4.4 [54]
HTI TFC 1.63 0.83 690 10.0 11.3 9.6 [37]
Oasys TFC 4.72 1.20 365 30.0 22.6 20.7 [37]

Laboratory scale development

SUB 90 0.97 0.53 498 8.1 9.7 6.2 [53]
TFC-FO 1.14 1.30 492 18.1 16.6 9.8 [34]
TFC 9PSf-100NMP 1.63 2.30 389 20.5 18.5 12.9 [32]
TFC-1 1.15 0.47 710 9.5 8.1 8.2 [54]
TFC-2 1.80 0.94 670 12.0 10.1 10.1 [54]
TFC 1.44 0.39 782 7.0 6.0 8.5 [55]
TFC PES/SPSF 0.77 0.31 238 26.0 24.1 10.8 [33]
TFC FO solution 3 0.73 0.69 324 21.0 19.8 9.3 [56]
PI-FO 1.25 0.30 450 13.4 11.1 10.8 [57]
CAP-II-TFC 1.42 0.37 695 16.7 16.1 9.1 [30]
A-FO 0.94 0.81 1370 5.0 5.3 5.1 [58]
B-FO 2.23 0.56 595 14.0 12.5 11.9 [58]
#C-FO 3.50 0.62 550 19.0 15.7 14.6 [59]
TFC-PES 1.64 0.78 252 32.1 32.4 16.3 [31]
NC PVA PA 1.69 0.67 66 27.2 27.2 26.6 [60]
NC PAN PA 2.04 4.40 109 34.9 47.9 24.8 [61]

RO membrane
SW30 NW 1.28 0.80 9583 2.2 2.1 1.4 [34]
SW30 (no fabric) 1.46 1.10 2155 7.3 6.6 4.4 [34]

(tighter membrane) is not expected to lead to any substantial improve-
ment to the process, and could be detrimental to the water permeability.
As described in Eq. (5), ICP is correlated to the structural parameter
(S) of the membrane support layer. As such, an optimised S value is ex-
pected to have a significant effect on flux, by limiting ICP and thus in-
creasing osmotic pressure driving force efficiency. Permeation flux as
a function of different structural parameter (S) values for different
membrane pure water permeabilities (A) is shown in Fig. 6b. As expect-
ed, decrease of the S value leads to substantial improvement in the per-
meation flux. Typical values for S of 300 to 500 μm (as observed with
current commercial membranes) are a limiting factor to reach accept-
able fluxes. Reaching the threshold flux of 40 L·m−2·h−1 is only possi-
ble for S around 100 μm. In that case, each increase of A value will also
efficiently impact permeation flux, as a result of low ICP, up until the
point where ECP becomes limiting (which might be the case at high
feed water recoveries). In this study, very distinct A-driven and S-
driven regions could not be recognized, in contrast to what was men-
tioned in the literature [57], indicating that A and S are both key param-
eters that need to change simultaneously to obtain high permeation
fluxes. Typically, a membrane with a combination of a high A value of
5 L·m−2·h−1 and a small S value of 100 μm would allow to reach the
desired initial flux. According to the current state-of-the-art, mem-
branes with such low S-value [57,60,61] were synthesised recently
thanks to nanofiber support materials, but to our knowledge, none of
the developed FO membranes have reached the required level in terms
of A (N5 L·m−2·h−1·bar−1). Moreover, the mechanical resistance of

60 (a) 60
S=100μm (b)
50 B=1x10-6 m.s-1 50 S=300μm
B=1x10-7 m.s-1 S=500μm
40 B=1x10-8 m.s-1 40
J0 (L.m-2.h-1)
J0 (L.m-2.h-1)

B=1x10-9 m.s-1
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
A (L.m-2.h-1.bar-1) A (L.m-2.h-1.bar-1)

Fig. 6. Respective and combined impact of (a) water and solute permeability (A and B) and (b) structural parameter (S) on initial permeation flux (J0) (using the WW–SW model).

Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
very low S-value membranes is questionable. A recent study [60] dem-
onstrated good mechanical stability of low S-value membranes during
formulation, but the need for further improvement of membrane me-
chanical strength was pointed out.
4.3. Implementing hydraulic pressure as additional driving force
In PAO operation, hydraulic pressure is added to the feed water to
assist the osmotic driving force and enhance permeation flux. It was
also reported that the HTI CTA membrane suffers from deformation
due to the compression of the membrane on the spacers [36] leading
to increasing membrane permeability. The model was first validated
by comparison and fitting with experimental data from 0 to 10 bar
(Fig. S6 from supporting document). Model calculations were then car-
ried out at 0 and 10 bar of applied hydraulic pressure on the feed side to
estimate the potential for PAO within the FO-RO hybrid process. The
modelling was carried out with and without incorporation of mem-
brane deformation and its impact on the pure water permeability
(Fig. 7).
In the FO–RO hybrid process configuration (Fig. 7), a strong response
of flux to hydraulic pressure is observed, especially for higher water
permeability membranes. This is the result of the (almost) linear corre-
lation of permeation flux with water permeability and hydraulic
pressure (Eq. (1)), since hydraulic pressure is not affected by ICP. Inter-
estingly, a discrepancy between the fluxes reached by low and high S
value membranes remains apparent and demonstrates that the efficien-
cy by which the osmotic pressure is used, is still very important in
determining flux. For higher S membranes, the osmotic pressure is inef-
ficiently used due to the high ICP and flux increase is mainly due to the
pressure effect, for lower S membranes, ICP is low and the contribution
of osmotic pressure is still clear. When incorporating the effect of mem-
brane deformation, the same trends with increasing pressure are seen,
but they are even more pronounced and even more flux improvement
is observed with increasing pressure. Due to the applied hydraulic pres-
sure, the apparent water permeability increases.
PAO is thus confirmed to be a potential strategy to overcome current
limitations of FO, and may help to reach the 40 L·m−2·h−1 permeation
flux threshold. The threshold flux is already theoretically obtained for
membranes with a relatively thick support layer (500 μm) at limited hy-
draulic pressure applied (10 bar). When membrane deformation is
taken into account, the 40 L·m−2·h− 1 threshold is reached at even
lower operating pressure (8.5 bar). As such, PAO offers an alternative
to development of very thin membranes with low S values and poten-
tially also low mechanical resistance, to reach the high fluxes needed.
Importantly also, the extent of membrane deformation has been consid-
ered only according to existing data on HTI CTA behaviour in this study.
Most likely the development of thinner support layer may result in less
80
70
A= 0.6L.m-2.h-1.bar-1 & S=500μm
60 A= 5L.m-2.h-1.bar-1 & S=500μm
A= 5L.m-2.h-1.bar-1 & S=100μm
50
J0: L.m-2.h-1
40
30
20
10
0 higher recoveries with associated osmotic driving force decrease). To
FO (0bar) PAO (10bar) PAO (10bar & mbr
deformaon)
Fig. 7. Impact of pure water permeability, structural parameter, osmotic and hydraulic
pressure applied on the feed side on the permeation flux for FO–RO hybrid process.
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
9
mechanical resistance and, as a result, enhanced deformation and per-
meability. Moreover, improvement of membrane characteristics (A
and S) will be further beneficial to PAO, limiting the hydraulic pressure
to be applied. In addition to the beneficial impact on the permeation
flux, hydraulic pressure also limits RSD [36], allowing not only for higher
permeation flux, but also a higher recovery (Fig. 8).
One major drawback of PAO is the additional energy needed for feed
pressurisation. To allow for fair comparison between FO and PAO, a
sensitivity analysis has been conducted to consider the trade-off be-
tween savings in required membrane surface area and thus CAPEX
costs when using pressure, and the increased energy costs required
for feed pressurisation. Impact of hydraulic pressure on recovery and as-
sociated membrane surface area was calculated using HTI CTA mem-
brane characteristics (Fig. 8a). FO and PAO energy consumptions were
calculated based on the specific energy consumption of the feed and
draw pumps present in the system. An additional hydraulic pressure
of 0.5 bar on both feed and draw sides of the process was integrated
into the model to consider frictional losses in the system. Required
pumping energy power was calculated using Eq. (9).
Q  ðPoutlet −Pinlet Þ
Wpump ¼ ð9Þ
η
with Wpump the pump power, Q the flow entering the pump, Pinlet
the pressure of the flow inlet stream, Poutlet the pressure of the outlet
stream and η the pump efficiency, fixed at 90% in this study. Pumping
costs per m−3 of FO/PAO permeate were then calculated considering
50% FO recovery and energy costs estimated at 0.1$·kWh−1.
When operating in PAO mode, owing to the additional driving
force and membrane deformation, the filtration surface area can be
decreased by more than 3 times to reach the same recovery (i.e. 90
vs 27 m2·m− 3·h− 1 for 0 and 10 bar respectively) (Fig. 8a). As a re-
sult, CAPEX is reduced correspondingly (Fig. 8b). It can be observed
that PAO operation leads to an overall significant cost decrease,
even with its higher energy requirements. Above an applied pressure
of 6 bar, pumping energy costs become too detrimental, resulting in
only marginal additional savings. This confirms that the application
of moderate additional pressure on the feed side could be beneficial
to overall FO–RO hybrid process economics. Higher operating pres-
sures (above 6 bar) are not recommended since these pressures
may lead to higher materials costs to withstand pressure and poten-
tially more severe fouling (in addition to the observed economic
limitation).
5. Conclusion
FO can present a sustainable opportunity for future fresh water pro-
duction, but important improvements are still needed to overcome cur-
rent limitations. The initial economic study in this paper demonstrated
the need for a better knowledge of FO economics, since the additional
CAPEX of an FO–RO hybrid system can be detrimental in comparison
with conventional RO. FO–RO hybrid integration has been shown to
be beneficial only if substantial energy and OPEX costs savings are ob-
tained by using the FO. A first economic evaluation proposed in this
study has determined a 30 L·m−2·h− 1 as average permeation flux
(equivalent to 40 L·m−2·h−1 for initial permeation flux) as threshold
flux value to guarantee FO economic sustainability. Despite the high
fluxes claimed by the latest membrane developers (both commercial
and in lab settings), none of them currently allows to reach this thresh-
old FO flux value, especially when real operational conditions are con-
sidered (i.e., real feed and draw solutions, not synthetic solutions; and
reach the FO economically sustainable flux, further membrane improve-
ments are therefore needed; typically, a combination of higher water
permeability (A N 5 L·m−2·h−1·bar−1) and lower structural parameter
(S b 100 μm) are pertinent targets. Membrane mechanical resistance
10 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
100%
(a)
80%
Recovery (%)
$.m-3
60%
FO
40% PAO 2bar
PAO 4bar
20% PAO 6bar
PAO 8bar
PAO 10bar
0%
0 50 100 150 200
Filtraon surface area (m2.m-3.h)
Fig. 8. Impact of applied hydraulic pressure on (a) recovery and (b) FO/PAO costs per m3 of permeate (HTI CTA membrane characteristics, with deformation, WW-SW system, CAPEX FO
assumptions: 75% flux dependent, FO/RO ratio = 1).
will be a major challenge, since deformation has been already observed
in PAO mode with commercial high-S FO membrane. Alternatively, PAO
proved to achieve higher flux with current commercial membranes,
while demonstrating more favourable economics. Further work will
be needed to refine the economics especially considering fouling behav-
iour in FO/PAO when higher flux of hydraulic pressure is applied; possi-
bly requiring more stringent cleaning procedure and further limiting
the interest of FO–RO hybrid.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National Centre
of Excellence in Desalination Australia, which is funded by the Australian
Government through the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011.
References
[1] J.J. Qin, W.C.L. Lay, K.A. Kekre, Recent developments and future challenges of for-
ward osmosis for desalination: a review, Desalin. Water Treat. 39 (1–3) (2012)
123–136.
[2] P. Nicoll, Forward osmosis is not to be ignored, Desalin. Water reuse 22 (4) (2013).
[3] R.K. McGovern, J.H. Lienhard V, On the potential of forward osmosis to energetically
outperform reverse osmosis desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 469 (0) (2014) 245–250.
[4] R.W. Field, J.J. Wu, Mass transfer limitations in forward osmosis: are some potential
applications overhyped? Desalination 318 (2013) 118–124.
[5] O.A. Bamaga, et al., Hybrid FO/RO desalination system: preliminary assessment of
osmotic energy recovery and designs of new FO membrane module configurations,
Desalination 268 (1–3) (2011) 163–169.
[6] T.Y. Cath, J.E. Drewes, C.D. Lundin, A Novel Hybrid Forward Osmosis Process for
Drinking Water Augmentation using Impaired Water and Saline Water Sources,
WERC, 2009.
[7] T.Y. Cath, et al., A multi-barrier osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalina-
tion and purification of impaired water, J. Membr. Sci. 362 (1–2) (2010) 417–426.
[8] V. Yangali-Quintanilla, et al., Lowering desalination costs by alternative desalination
and water reuse scenarios, Desalin. Water Treat. (2014) (in press).
[9] C.H. Tan, H.Y. Ng, A novel hybrid forward osmosis–nanofiltration (FO-NF) process
for seawater desalination: draw solution selection and system configuration,
Desalin. Water Treat. 13 (1–3) (2010) 356–361.
[10] S.M. Park, et al., Optimization of hybrid system consisting of forward osmosis and
reverse osmosis: a Monte Carlo simulation approach, Desalin. Water Treat. 43
(1–3) (2012) 274–280.
[11] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia–carbon di-
oxide forward osmosis: influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on pro-
cess performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278 (1–2) (2006) 114–123.
[12] V. Yangali-Quintanilla, et al., Indirect desalination of Red Sea water with forward os-
mosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for water reuse, Desalination 280 (1–3)
(2011) 160–166.
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
0.4
(b)
FO/PAO CAPEX
0.3 FO/PAO energy costs
0.2
0.1
0.0
FO PAO PAO PAO PAO PAO
2bar 4bar 6bar 8bar 10bar
[13] S. Lee, et al., Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse
osmosis (RO), J. Membr. Sci. 365 (1–2) (2010) 34–39.
[14] R. Semiat, J. Sapoznik, D. Hasson, Energy aspects in osmotic processes, Desalin.
Water Treat. 15 (1–3) (2010) 228–235.
[15] H. Takabatake, et al., More than 30% energy saving seawater desalination system by
combining with sewage reclamation, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (4–6) (2012)
733–741.
[16] S. Zhao, et al., Recent developments in forward osmosis: opportunities and chal-
lenges, J. Membr. Sci. 396 (2012) 1–21.
[17] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and
recent developments, J. Membr. Sci. 281 (1–2) (2006) 70–87.
[18] T.S. Chung, et al., Emerging forward osmosis (FO) technologies and challenges
ahead for clean water and clean energy applications, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 1
(2012) 246–257.
[19] T.-S. Chung, et al., Forward osmosis processes: yesterday, today and tomorrow, De-
salination 287 (2012) 78–81.
[20] Ge, Q., M. Ling, and T.-S. Chung, Draw Solutions for Forward Osmosis Processes: Devel-
opments, Challenges, and Prospects for the Future. J. Membr. Sci., (0).
[21] C. Klaysom, et al., Forward and pressure retarded osmosis: potential solutions for
global challenges in energy and water supply, Chem. Soc. Rev. 42 (16) (2013)
6959–6989.
[22] J. Su, et al., Forward osmosis: an emerging technology for sustainable supply of clean
water, Clean Techn. Environ. Policy (2012) 1–5.
[23] N.A. Thompson, P.G. Nicoll, Forward osmosis desalination: a commercial reality, IDA
World Congress — Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre (PCEC), Perth, Western
Australia September 4–9, 2011, 2011.
[24] Helfer, F., C. Lemckert, and Y.G. Anissimov, Osmotic Power with Pressure Retarded
Osmosis: Theory, Performance and Trends – A Review. J. Membr. Sci., (0).
[25] S.E. Skilhagen, Osmotic power — a new, renewable energy source, Desalin. Water
Treat. 15 (1–3) (2010) 271–278.
[26] C.Y. Tang, et al., Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on
flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration, J. Membr.
Sci. 354 (1–2) (2010) 123–133.
[27] G.T. Gray, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Internal concentration polarization in for-
ward osmosis: role of membrane orientation, Desalination 197 (1–3) (2006) 1–8.
[28] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membranes for power generation by pressure-
retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8 (2) (1981) 141–171.
[29] S. Loeb, et al., Effect of porous support fabric on osmosis through a Loeb-Sourirajan
type asymmetric membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 129 (2) (1997) 243–249.
[30] X. Li, et al., Thin-film composite membranes and formation mechanism of thin-film
layers on hydrophilic cellulose acetate propionate substrates for forward osmosis
processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (30) (2012) 10039–10050.
[31] P. Sukitpaneenit, T.S. Chung, High performance thin-film composite forward osmo-
sis hollow fiber membranes with macrovoid-free and highly porous structure for
sustainable water production, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (13) (2012) 7358–7365.
[32] A. Tiraferri, et al., Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis
membranes to support layer formation and structure, J. Membr. Sci. 367 (1–2)
(2011) 340–352.
[33] K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, G. Amy, Developing thin-film-composite forward osmosis
membranes on the PES/SPSf substrate through interfacial polymerization, AIChE J
58 (3) (2012) 770–781.
[34] N.Y. Yip, et al., High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (10) (2010) 3812–3818.
[35] T.Y. Cath, et al., Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance in os-
motically driven membrane processes, Desalination 312 (2013) 31–38.
[36] G. Blandin, et al., Validation of assisted forward osmosis (AFO) process: impact of
hydraulic pressure, J. Membr. Sci. 447 (2013) 1–11.
[37] B.D. Coday, et al., Effects of transmembrane hydraulic pressure on performance of
forward osmosis membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (5) (2013) 2386–2393.
 G. Blandin et al. / Desalination xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
[38] T. Yun, et al., Flux behavior and membrane fouling in pressure-assisted forward os-
mosis, Desalin. Water Treat. 52 (4-6) (2013) 564–569.
[39] Q. She, et al., Effect of feed spacer induced membrane deformation on the perfor-
mance of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO): implications for PRO process operation,
J. Membr. Sci. 445 (2013) 170–182.
[40] Desaldata.com, Website desaldata, www.desaldata.com.
[41] G. Codemo, et al., Hamriyah SWRO desalination plant—largest sea water IMS plant,
IDA World Congress–Atlantis, The Palm–Dubai, UAE November, 2009.
[42] lenntech, Reverse Osmosis Plant, http://www.lenntech.com/systems/reverse-osmosis/
ro/rosmosis.htm2014.
[43] nanoH2O, NanoH2O Case Studies, http://www.nanoh2o.com/case-studies.
[44] Poriferanano, Element Packing Density Comparison, http://www.poriferanano.com/
technology/forward-osmosis-membrane/2013.
[45] K. Saito, et al., Power generation with salinity gradient by pressure retarded osmosis
using concentrated brine from SWRO system and treated sewage as pure water,
Desalin. Water Treat. 41 (1–3) (2012) 114–121.
[46] S. Zhao, L. Zou, D. Mulcahy, Effects of membrane orientation on process
performance in forward osmosis applications, J. Membr. Sci. 382 (1–2)
(2011) 308–315.
[47] S. Zou, et al., The role of physical and chemical parameters on forward osmosis mem-
brane fouling during algae separation, J. Membr. Sci. 366 (1–2) (2011) 356–362.
[48] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Power generation with pressure retarded osmosis: an
experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci. 343 (1–2) (2009) 42–52.
[49] G. Schock, A. Miquel, Mass transfer and pressure loss in spiral wound modules, De-
salination 64 (C) (1987) 339–352.
[50] A.R.D. Verliefde, et al., Influence of solute-membrane affinity on rejection of un-
charged organic solutes by nanofiltration membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43
(7) (2009) 2400–2406.
[51] A. Tiraferri, et al., A method for the simultaneous determination of transport and struc-
tural parameters of forward osmosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 444 (2013) 523–538.
Please cite this article as: G. Blandin, et al., Opportunities to reach economic sustainability in forward osmosis–reverse osmosis hybrids for sea-
water desalination, Desalination (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.011
11
[52] W.A. Phillip, J.S. Yong, M. Elimelech, Reverse draw solute permeation in forward
osmosis: modeling and experiments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (13) (2010)
5170–5176.
[53] J. Su, T.S. Chung, Sublayer structure and reflection coefficient and their effects on
concentration polarization and membrane performance in FO processes, J. Membr.
Sci. 376 (1–2) (2011) 214–224.
[54] J. Wei, et al., Synthesis and characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite for-
ward osmosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 372 (1–2) (2011) 292–302.
[55] N. Ma, et al., Zeolite-polyamide thin film nanocomposite membranes: towards en-
hanced performance for forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 405–406 (2012) 149–157.
[56] N. Widjojo, et al., The role of sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in
the support layer for thin-film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes, J.
Membr. Sci. 383 (1–2) (2011) 214–223.
[57] X. Song, Z. Liu, D.D. Sun, Nano gives the answer: breaking the bottleneck of internal
concentration polarization with a nanofiber composite forward osmosis membrane
for a high water production rate, Adv. Mater. 23 (29) (2011) 3256–3260.
[58] R. Wang, et al., Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes,
J. Membr. Sci. 355 (1–2) (2010) 158–167.
[59] L. Shi, et al., Effect of substrate structure on the performance of thin-film composite for-
ward osmosis hollow fiber membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 382 (1–2) (2011) 116–123.
[60] J.M.C. Puguan, et al., Low internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis
membranes with hydrophilic crosslinked PVA nanofibers as porous support layer,
Desalination 336 (2014) 24–31.
[61] N.-N. Bui, et al., Electrospun nanofiber supported thin film composite membranes
for engineered osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 385–386 (2011) 10–19.
[62] N.Y. Yip, M. Elimelech, Performance limiting effects in power generation from salin-
ity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (23) (2011)
10273–10282.
[63] G.M. Geise, et al., Water permeability and water/salt selectivity tradeoff in polymers
for desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 369 (1–2) (2011) 130–138.