See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256693225

Assessment of large scale brackish water desalination plants in the Gaza Strip

Article  in  Desalination · April 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.11.040

CITATIONS READS

16 275

4 authors:

Yunes Khalil Mogheir Ahmad A. Foul

Islamic University of Gaza Islamic University of Gaza
40 PUBLICATIONS   534 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A.A. Abuhabib Abdul Wahab Mohammad

Univerisiti malaysia terengganu Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
10 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS    257 PUBLICATIONS   7,909 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Use and Management of Water – the Essence of Life View project

Development of Fluidized Graphene Oxide-Multifunctional Nano-Adsorbents Reactor for Water Treatment and Wastewater Reclamation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A.A. Abuhabib on 10 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Desalination 314 (2013) 96–100

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Assessment of large scale brackish water desalination plants in the Gaza Strip
Yunes Mogheir a, Ahmad A. Foul a, A.A. Abuhabib a, b,⁎, A.W. Mohammad c
a
Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine
b
Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

H I G H L I G H T S

► Focus extending to assessing large scale BWDPs in Gaza Strip.

► Assist in recommending possible improvements.
► Plant performance evaluation.

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

Article history: Desalination practice presented by desalination plants' performance is an attractive area in which researchers
Received 26 June 2012 investigate and contribute to both plant improvement and desalination research and development fields. Six
Received in revised form 12 November 2012 large BWDPs and one SW desalination plant are operating in Gaza and providing 4% of the total water
Accepted 30 November 2012
demand of the Gaza population. Most of the drinking water is produced through small private plants and
Available online 9 February 2013
RO housing units. The six BWDPs were investigated and assessed in terms of operational conditions and
Keywords:
feed and permeate quality towards estimating the essential improvements required and their performance
Brackish significance. The quality of plant feed was found to be noncompliant with WHO and Palestinian Standards
Desalination Institute in most cases which is in contrast with the permeate of all plants. The assessment made through
Assessment this study assists in the better understanding of the current situation of these plants in Gaza and
Plants recommending the essential improvements needed to increase their water production without increasing
abstraction. In addition, the multi criteria analysis used to evaluate BWDP performance may assist in priori-
tizing the application of improvements.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Globally, the capacity of desalinated water is estimated to be

The first brackish water desalination RO plant was built with a
capacity of 45 m 3/h by the EMS, a subsidiary of the Israeli (Mekorot)
water company in 1991 in Deir El-Balah of the middle area of the
Gaza Strip [1]. Since then, many large and small scale desalination
plants were built and operated to provide potable water for the pop-
ulation of Gaza Strip who has limited water supplies and depends
mostly on groundwater, the salinity levels of which are seriously
high (TDS: 2200 mg/l and above) [2]. In the past twenty years, six
brackish water desalination plants were built and one seawater desa-
lination plant as well. The desalinated water produced from these
plants represents nearly 4% of the total water consumption by the
population. More than 90% of this population depends on the desali-
nated water for drinking purposes [3]. Additionally, several small pri-
vate RO desalination plants are established and operated all over the
Gaza Strip.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 972599268526.
E-mail addresses: ymogheir@iugaza.edu.ps (Y. Mogheir), azz200@hotmail.com
(A.A. Abuhabib), drawm67@gmail.com (A.W. Mohammad).
61 million cubic meters per day. The share of the countries of the re-
gion (west Asian countries including Gulf and Middle East) is esti-
mated to be 27 million cubic meters per day, or 44% of the global
capacity, which is due to increase in the near future [4]. Thermal and
membrane desalination processes as well as hybrid systems are applied
in the desalination plants within these countries [5]. However, only
membrane processes (mainly RO) are considered for both brackish
water and seawater desalination in Gaza Strip due to the essential ad-
vantages offered by the RO processes [6–11]. Contrarily, due to high
capital costs, high energy consumption [5,12–14], and limited fuel sup-
plies in Gaza, thermal processes have not been considered as an option.
Practically, there are seven public desalination plants located all
over the Gaza Strip operated by the Coastal Municipal Water Utilities
(CMWU), the operating water body in Gaza Strip [15]. These plants
provide drinking water for the population in the middle and southern
parts of the Gaza Strip. All of them are brackish water desalination
plants except for one seawater RO plant located in the middle area
of Gaza Strip. Three plants have been built 2 or 3 years ago while the
rest have been operating for more than 12 years. These public plants
have shown better performance and more significance when compared

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.11.040
 Y. Mogheir et al. / Desalination 314 (2013) 96–100
with small private plants. In addition, these plants are linked directly to
the municipal water networks while private plants have distribution
tanks and collecting points where people have to collect the water on
their own. According to the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA), the of-
ficial water regulating body in Palestine [1], more than 80 small RO pri-
vate plants and stations are operating and providing potable water for
the population of Gaza Strip at a reasonable cost. However, only 37 of
these plants are subjected to PWA licensing and regular monitoring.
Despite the fact that many researchers have recently showed inter-
est in studying the desalination practice in Gaza Strip, only few studies
in the literature could be found [1,3,16,17]. Rebhi et al. [1] studied the
desalination strategies in Gaza Strip to be considered from the decision
making and strategic planning points of view. Baalousha [16] assessed
the environmental impacts of the desalination practice in Gaza Strip.
According to his study, improper disposal of the desalination plants'
brine effluent poses a serious threat to the environment in Gaza Strip.
This work extends the focus on assessing the large scale BWDPs in
Gaza in terms of operational conditions and quality of desalinated water
produced to indicate and recommend the possible improvements re-
quired in the near future. In addition, an evaluation is made for all plants
to classify the weakest and strongest performing plants to assist in prior-
itizing the application of improvements.
2. Methods
The methodology of this study consisted of three parts. First, all large
scale BWDPs were assessed in terms of operational conditions including:
capacity, type of facility and the membrane used, and other related oper-
ating parameters. Such assessment was made by frequent field visits to
all plants and observing the operational conditions in a daily basis for a
certain period of time. Second, samples were taken from all inlets and
outlets of plants following the grab sampling method [18], a single sam-
ple or measurement taken at a specific time or over a short period as fea-
sible. In this method a sample collected at a particular time and place can
represent only the composition of the source at that time and place, as
the source is known to be relatively constant in composition over an
extended time. Thus, the sample can considerably represent a longer
time period and a larger volume than the specified collection time and
place. All samples were sent to a certified scientific lab (Birzeit University
Testing Laboratories, ISO 17025 — Gaza branch) to obtain: pH, TDS, elec-
tric conductivity, turbidity, hardness, and chloride, fluoride, nitrate, sul-
fate, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium concentration. The
concentrations of all the said parameters were obtained and compared
with WHO [19] and Palestinian Standards Institute (PSI) [20] for drinking
water. Third, evaluation criteria are established and used to determine
the best and poorest performing plants to assist in prioritizing and
recommending the application of improvements.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Operational conditions
Table 1 highlighted all the operational conditions of BWDPs. Plants
A, B, and C have been in operation for 14–19 years. Plants D, E, and F,
Table 1
Operational parameters of the large BWDPs in Gaza Strip.
Plant name and label Location and construction date Cost
(USD $)
Al-Balad (A) Deir El-Balah (1991) 650,000
Al-Sharqia (B) Khanyounis (1997) 500,000
Al-Saada (C) Khanyounis (1998) 250,000
Al-Bureij (D) Al-Bureij (2009) N.A.a
Al-Nuwairi (E) Bani Suhaila-Khanyounis (2010) N.A.
Al-Salam (F) Rafah (2010) N.A.
a
N.A.: not available.
97
however, have only been in operation for 3 years or less. Plant C was
found to have the highest production rate of about 640 m 3/day at the
highest flow rate (80 m 3/h) while all other plants were found to have
nearly the same production rate (400–480 m 3/day) at a flow rate of
55–60 m 3/day. Plant A was found to have the highest energy con-
sumption which could be the reason why the cost of the produced
cubic meter is higher and almost double than those of all the other
plants. In terms of recovery rate, the best performing plant is plant
D with about 83% while the weakest performing plant is plant B
with 70%. Although the six plants have the same RO membrane
type supplied by Koch, they have some slight differences in terms
of performance. All operating parameters of the large BWDPs are
shown in Table 1.
3.2. Water quality parameters
Some of the water quality parameters were investigated for all plants'
feed and permeate including: pH, turbidity, and nitrate and fluoride con-
centration. These are important factors affecting water quality and they
are most likely found to be major factors to be investigated in Gaza
groundwater besides salinity. Levels of pH are important to be known
and controlled as lower and higher values of pH may lead to pipe corro-
sion and incrustation. High levels of turbidity affect water taste negative-
ly and indicate the presence of undesirable particles in the water. High
levels of nitrates, which are common phenomena in Gaza, are considered
as a health threat, as they cause the so called blue babies phenomena
[21]. Fluoride in high concentrations may potentially pose health con-
cerns, as it is known to be the cause of dental fluorosis [22,23]. Table 2
shows the water quality tested parameters compared with WHO and
PS standards.
All feed and permeate pH values were within the range of WHO
and PS standards, hint that maximum and minimum allowable stan-
dards for both WHO and PS are considered for comparison. Feed pH
was found to be higher than permeate for all plants. Generally, the de-
salination medium is acidic which is considered as a common trend for
RO membranes applied for desalination.
Principally, turbidity is a determining parameter for drinking water
quality. Generally, some suspended matter or impurities such as clay,
silt, sand, and other particles may cause water turbidity. The turbidity
levels for both feed and permeate of all plants are below WHO and PS
standards. The nitrate concentrations of all plants' feed are much higher
than those allowed by WHO and PS standards except for plants D and E
that showed lower concentration levels. However, the permeate of all
plants has lower and allowable concentration levels of nitrates by both
WHO and PS standards except for plant B, the permeate of which was
found to be slightly higher than the allowable WHO level. Significant ni-
trate removal could be found in plant C with nitrate levels reduced from
nearly 200 mg/l for feed to 50 mg/l for permeate. In terms of fluoride, all
feed concentration levels were found to be lower than the allowed level
according to WHO and PS standards except for plant B which showed
very high fluoride concentrations (3–3.5 mg/l). However, all concentra-
tion levels for permeate were found to be lower than the allowable levels
according to WHO and PS standards.
Capacity Production Recovery rate Energy consumption $/m3
(m3/h) (m3/day) (%) (kwh)
60 420 75 120 0.72
55 440 70 60 0.31
80 640 70 60 0.34
60 480 83 60 0.28
50 400 75 60 0.34
60 480 80 60 0.27
98 Y. Mogheir et al. / Desalination 314 (2013) 96–100

Table 2 2000 mg/l) while the minimum one was found in the plant E feed. The
Water quality tested parameters of BWDPs in Gaza Strip. feeds of plants B, C, and D were found to have chloride concentrations
Plant pH Turbidity F− NO3 of around 1500 mg/l or less. The permeate of all plants was found to
(NTU) (mg/l) (mg/l) have lower chloride concentrations than what is allowed by WHO and
A Feed 7.05 0.65 1.13 94 PS standards. It is worth mentioning that chloride rejection percentage
Permeate 5.9 0.38 0.1 53 of 93%–96% could be found.
B Feed 7.34 1.24 3.2 147 As shown in Table 3, all plant feeds were found to have lower sul-
Permeate 7.11 0.39 0.23 60
fate concentrations than what is allowed by WHO and PS standards.
C Feed 7 0.49 1 217
Permeate 5.74 0.39 0.09 48 Therefore, all plants' permeate were found to have acceptable sulfate
D Feed 7.12 0.39 1.2 40 concentrations indicating a sulfate removal percentage of around 75%.
Permeate 6.14 0.38 0.1 23 Water hardness is a major concern associated with groundwater, as
E Feed 7.41 0.34 1.3 40 high levels of hardness negatively affect water quality [24]. According to
Permeate 7.09 0.75 0.39 23
WHO and PS standards, the maximum allowable value for hardness as
F Feed 7.42 0.48 1 209
Permeate 6.34 0.55 0.12 51 determined by CaCO3 concentration should be 500 mg/l and 600 mg/l
Standards WHO 6.5–8.5 5 1.5 50 respectively. As shown in Table 3, the feeds of plants A and C were
PS 6.5–9.5 4 1.5 70 found to have higher levels of hardness than what is allowed by WHO
and PS standards. Contrarily, feeds of plants E, B, and D were found to
have lower hardness levels, taking into account that the permeate of
all plants was found to have lower and acceptable levels of hardness
3.3. Desalination capacity that comply with both WHO and PS standards. In addition, hardness re-
moval percentage was found to vary from 81% to 99%. Calcium concen-
Desalination capacity is considerably measured by salt removal. tration levels were investigated for the feed and permeate of all plants
Generally, electrical conductivity, TDS, hardness, and the presence of and were compared with WHO and PS maximum allowable values. As
ions like chloride, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and potassium indi- illustrated in Table 3, the feeds and permeate of all plants were found
cate how salty the water is. All feed readings were found to be higher to have lower calcium concentration levels than WHO and PS standards.
than WHO and PS standards except for plant E which had an EC read- For magnesium concentration levels, only the feeds of plants B and E
ing of 2000 μs/cm. Therefore, 83% of inlet samples are not complying were found to have lower magnesium concentrations than what is
with WHO and PS drinking water standards. These relatively high EC allowed by WHO standards while the feeds of plants C and D were
readings of the inlets (4000–6000 μs/cm) were found to be significantly not. In addition, the feeds of all plants were found to have lower magne-
reduced in the produced water of all plants (less than 1000 μs/cm) and sium concentrations than what is allowed by PS standards except for
fit with WHO and PS standards. This may indicate the high desalination plant A which had a higher magnesium concentration than what is
efficiency and salt rejection of the RO membranes of these plants, as allowed by both WHO and PS standards. The permeate of all plants,
most of the high conductivity measured in the plant feed is caused by however, was found to have lower concentrations than what is allowed
the presence of salts at high concentrations. by both WHO and PS standards. Magnesium removal percentage was
All feed concentrations of all plants were found to be higher than found to be ranging from 75% to 95%.
WHO and PS standards. However, concentrations of the permeate of Sodium concentration levels are considered as a major parameter in
all plants reasonably dropped to reach around 200 mg/l or less for groundwater desalination, especially when these are associated with
plants C, D, and F and 400 mg/l or less for plants A, B, and E. Such con- chloride or sulfate. As shown in Table 3, the sodium concentrations of
centrations comply with both WHO and PS standards. the feeds of all plants were found to be higher than what is allowed
The presence of chloride is considered as one of the major causes by WHO and PS standards, ranging from 400 to 1200 mg/l. However,
for the salinity of the Gaza groundwater, taking into account that levels of the permeate of all plants was found to have lower concentrations
chloride concentrations found in the Gaza groundwater are much higher than what is allowed by both WHO and PS standards, indicating an
than those allowed by WHO and PS standards. As shown in Table 3, all average removal percentage of 87%–95%.
investigated feed samples from BWDPs were found to have high chloride Potassium concentration levels were investigated for both the feeds
concentrations, ranging from 500 to more than 2000 mg/l. The maxi- and permeate of all plants and compared with WHO and PS allowable
mum chloride concentration was found in the plant A feed (more than concentration levels. As shown in Table 3, the feeds of all plants were

Table 3
Desalination capacity of BWDPs in Gaza Strip.

Plant EC TDS Cl− SO4 Hardness Ca+ Mg+ Na+ K+

(μs/cm) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

A Feed 6050 3630 2113 212 1030 98 191 1150 22

Permeate 576 346 83 39 33 7.6 3.3 80 1
B Feed 4110 2466 1327 211 320 60 41 970 7
Permeate 759 456 143 27 10 2 1.2 140 1
C Feed 3590 2154 1204 176 660 88 107 800 7
Permeate 313 188 83 17.4 16 4 1.5 80 1
D Feed 4120 2472 1568 200 610 88 95 900 8
Permeate 220 132 70 22 22 8.4 0.25 60 0.5
E Feed 1956 1174 622 107 340 80 34 400 4
Permeate 494 296 108 20 65 16 6 95 1
F Feed 3760 2256 1271 198 490 56 85 800 6
Permeate 386 232 127 18 50 6.4 8.2 100 0
Standards WHO 2000 1000 250 250 500 100 60 200 5
PS 2000 1500 600 400 600 100–200 150 200 12
 Y. Mogheir et al. / Desalination 314 (2013) 96–100 99

Fig. 2. TDS removal of all BWDPs.

Fig. 1. Recovery rate of all BWDPs.

meaning that the best performing plant is D and the poorest performing
plant is B.

found to have higher concentration levels of potassium than what is

allowed by WHO except for plant E while all feeds were found to have
lower concentration levels than what is allowed by PS standards except
for plant A. However, the permeate of all plants was found to have lower
concentration levels than what is allowed by both WHO and PS stan-
dards. It is worth mentioning that the potassium removal percentage
was found to be ranging from 20% for plant E which had the lowest
feed concentration to 91% for plant A which had the highest feed con-
centration among all plants.
3.4. BWDP evaluation
Consistent evaluation of all BWDPs is made based on recovery
rate, operational and maintenance cost, cost of produced desalinated
water per cubic meter, and TDS removal. A multi criteria analysis
method is used to determine the strongest and weakest performing
plants accordingly.
As regards the recovery rate, plant D had the highest recovery rate
of 83% while plants B and C had the lowest recovery rate of 70% as
shown in Fig. 1.
As shown in Table 4, plants A and E had the highest and lowest op-
erational and maintenance costs as well as cost of produced desalinated
water per cubic meter respectively. Information about the monthly op-
erating cost in terms of energy consumption, spare parts, and salaries
was provided by each plant operator to calculate the cost per one
cubic meter of water.
As shown in Fig. 2, the highest and lowest TDS removal was for
plant D (94.66%) and E (74.8%) respectively.
By applying the multi criteria analysis, a measuring scale is established
and used to determine the best and poorest performing plant [25]. Ac-
cordingly, a scale of 1 to 5 points is used, the lowest score of which is 1
and the highest is 5. Table 5 illustrates the multi criteria analysis results.
The highest and lowest scoring plants are plants D and B respectively,
Table 4
Operational, maintenance, and cubic meter of desalinated water costs of BWDPs.
4. Conclusion
An attempt to assess and investigate large scale desalination plants
in Gaza Strip in terms of operational conditions and feed and permeate
quality was made. Operationally, all plants were found to have almost
similar performance except for some slight differences in terms of ca-
pacity and cost per cubic meter of desalinated water. From a quality
point of view, turbidity, pH, hardness, and fluoride and calcium concen-
tration levels for feed and permeate of all plants were found to be with-
in WHO and PS drinking water standards whereas nitrate concentration
levels were found to be exceeding the maximum concentrations allowed
by WHO and PS for all plant feed. The chloride, sulfate, and sodium con-
centrations of all plant feeds were higher than the WHO and PS stan-
dards but the permeate was found to be in compliance with those
standards significantly. However, magnesium, and potassium concentra-
tions for the feeds and permeate of all plants (except for plant A) were
found to be complying only with PS standards. Generally, all plants are
normally performing but the need to improve and increase their produc-
tion without increasing their water resource abstraction and energy con-
sumption is essential to meet the water demand of the Gaza Strip
population. The multi criteria method used to evaluate BWDP perfor-
mance could be used as a guiding tool to prioritize the application of im-
provements. In addition, pre-treatment of feeds with the application of
some new technologies may significantly improve plant performance
and potentially increase their water production.
5. Future work
New technologies including nanofiltration membrane (NF) applica-
tion will be considered and experimentally investigated to measure the
possibility of enhancing the performance of the desalination plants and
increasing production in the near future. In addition, effluent brine treat-
ment technology prior to disposal may be studied and recommended.

Plant Operation and maintenance cost Cost Table 5

($/h) ($/m3) Multi criteria analysis results.
Energy consumption Spare parts Salaries Total
Parameter Plants
A 16 3.73 12.80 32.53 0.72
A B C D E F
B 8 2.40 6.67 17.07 0.31
C 8 2.40 6.67 17.07 0.34 Recovery rate 3 1 1 5 3 3
D 8 2.13 4.00 14.13 0.28 TDS removal 4 3 4 5 1 4
E 8 2.40 6.67 17.07 0.34 Total cost 1 3 3 3 3 3
F 8 2.13 3.47 13.60 0.27 Total 8 7 8 13 7 10
100 Y. Mogheir et al. / Desalination 314 (2013) 96–100

Acknowledgment [11] Y.M. Kim, S.J. Kim, Y.S. Kim, S. Lee, I.S. Kim, J.H. Kim, Overview of systems engi-
neering approaches for a large-scale seawater desalination plant with a reverse
osmosis network, Desalination 238 (2009) 312–332.
The authors would like to acknowledge the following students of the [12] K. Reddy, N. Ghaffour, Overview of the cost of desalinated water and costing
environmental engineering—IUG for their work and valuable contribu- methodologies, Desalination 205 (2007) 340–353.
[13] K.Z. Al-Subaie, Precise way to select a desalination technology, Desalination 206
tion in conducting this research: Adham Al-Yzaji, Tareq Al-Jourani, (2007) 29–35.
Salah Al-Ghazali, and Khaled Abu Ghali. [14] I.C. Karagiannis, P.G. Soldatos, Water desalination cost literature: review and
assessment, Desalination 223 (2008) 448–456.
[15] CMWU, Second Quarter Report for Disinfection & Bi Annual Report of Water
References Quality in Gaza Strip in Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, 2009.
[16] H. Baalousha, Desalination status in the Gaza Strip and its environmental impact,
[1] R. El Sheikh, M. Ahmed, S. Hamdan, Strategy of water desalination in the Gaza
Desalination 196 (2006) 1–12.
Strip, Desalination 156 (2003) 39–42.
[17] I.A. Al-Khatib, H.A. Arafat, Chemical and microbiological quality of desalinated
[2] A. Abuhabib, A. Mohammad, N. Hilal, R.A. Rahman, A.H. Shafie, Nanofiltration
water, groundwater and rain-fed cisterns in the Gaza Strip, Palestine, Desalina-
membrane modification by UV grafting for salt rejection and fouling resistance
tion 249 (2009) 1165–1170.
improvement for brackish water desalination, Desalination (2012).
[18] B.E. Moore, B. Sagik, C.A. Sorber, Viral transport to ground water at a wastewater
[3] M.R. Al-Agha, R.S. Mortaja, Desalination in the Gaza Strip: drinking water supply
land application site, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. (1981) 1492–1502.
and environmental impact, Desalination 173 (2005) 157–171.
[19] World Health Organization (WHO), Guidelines for Drinking Water. Second edition,
[4] ESCWA (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia), Role of desalination in
Geneva (1996).
addressing water scarcity. Retrieved from http://www.escwa.un.org/information/
[20] Palestinian Standards Institution (PSI), Water Quality Standards, 2004. (Ramallah,
publications/edit/upload/sdpd-09-4.pdf November 2009.
Palestine).
[5] T. Mezher, H. Fath, Z. Abbas, A. Khaled, Techno-economic assessment and environ-
[21] J. Bohdziewicz, M. Bodzek, E. Wasik, The application of reverse osmosis and
mental impacts of desalination technologies, Desalination 266 (2011) 263–273.
nanofiltration to the removal of nitrates from groundwater, Desalination 121 (1999)
[6] R.J. Petersen, Composite reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes, J. Membr.
139–147.
Sci. 83 (1993) 81–150.
[22] L.A. Richards, M. Vuachère, A.I. Schäfer, Impact of pH on the removal of fluoride,
[7] M.D. Afonso, J.O. Jaber, M.S. Mohsen, Brackish groundwater treatment by reverse
nitrate and boron by nanofiltration/reverse osmosis, Desalination (2010).
osmosis in Jordan, Desalination 164 (2004) 157–171.
[23] M. Mohapatra, S. Anand, B.K. Mishra, D.E. Giles, P. Singh, Review of fluoride
[8] A. Rahardianto, J. Gao, C.J. Gabelich, M.D. Williams, Y. Cohen, High recovery mem-
removal from drinking water, J. Environ. Manage. 91 (2009) 67–77.
brane desalting of low-salinity brackish water: integration of accelerated precipita-
[24] B. Van der Bruggen, K. Everaert, D. Wilms, C. Vandecasteele, Application of
tion softening with membrane RO, J. Membr. Sci. 289 (2007) 123–137.
nanofiltration for removal of pesticides, nitrate and hardness from ground water:
[9] N. Misdan, W.J. Lau, A.F. Ismail, Seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination by
rejection properties and economic evaluation, J. Membr. Sci. 193 (2001) 239–248.
thin-film composite membrane—current development, challenges and future
[25] E. Kondili, J.K. Kaldellis, M. Paidousi, A multicriteria analysis for the optimal
prospects, Desalination 287 (2012) 228–237.
desalination–RES system. Special focus: the small Greek islands, Desalin. Water
[10] K.P. Lee, T.C. Arnot, D. Mattia, A review of reverse osmosis membrane materials
Treat. (2012) 1–14.
for desalination—development to date and future potential, J. Membr. Sci. 370
(2011) 1–22.

View publication stats