30 Feature

Filtration+Separation July/August 2010

SWRO pre-treatment:
Markets and
experience
n the fourth of a series of articles, Graeme Pearce looks
I at the issues involved in the selection of pre-treatment in
seawater reverse osmosis desalination applications.

Background The fourth and final article in the series will osmosis (SWRO) becoming established
examine membrane filtration markets in as the main technology employed.
Selection of pre-treatment technology for SWRO pre-treatment, and the experiences of According to the Water Desalination
desalination in seawater reverse osmosis applying this technology in pilots and main Report [1], compound growth between
(SWRO) applications tends to polarise plants. The key questions that the article will 1997 and 2008 has been 17%, exceeding
opinion. Conventional technology address are what is the uptake of membrane the expectations of the RO industry.
represents the status quo while membrane pre-treatment technology, how well does it
filtration adopts the role of the challenger, work, and does it provide a robust solution? Likewise, growth rates for UF and MF
with a rapidly developing track record. products in water treatment have also been
Two issues limit the wider adoption of Markets exceptionally strong in the last few years
membrane pre-treatment. Firstly it is at around 20% [2]. These high growth
considered expensive in terms of capital Since the late 1990s, desalination markets rates are predicted to continue due to
cost, though it does provide operational have grown strongly, with seawater reverse opportunities in the drinking water market,
cost savings. Secondly there are misgivings
about whether membrane filtration alone
provides sufficient pre-treatment, since
preparing a feed suitable for RO requires SWRO pre-
more than the removal of fine particulates. treatment
This series of articles has examined the 3%
issues involved in the selection of pre-
treatment technology for SWRO, and has Industrial
considered the case for conventional and 9%
membrane pre-treatment options. The
previous articles looked at the issues of
the treated water quality for the RO feed,
integrity and disinfection, and cost and
sustainability. In terms of treated water
quality, the barrier process of membrane
filtration using ultrafiltration (UF) or
microfiltration (MF) provides improved
Wastewater
particle removal and less physical fouling. 24%
Also, UF and MF membranes provide better
integrity than RO due to a more consistent
membrane separating layer, and a module
construction method which eliminates leak Drinking Water
paths. In addition, UF and MF products
are designed to be testable and repairable, 64%
unlike RO elements. Finally, with regard
to cost and sustainability, membrane
filtration has become competitive with
conventional pre-treatment in many
cases, and can have lower operating
cost and less environmental impact. Figure 1: NWRI membrane filtration vendor survey – Application share.

Filtration+Separation July/August 2010
the emergence of wastewater reuse, and
the adoption of membrane filtration as a
commonplace pre-treatment technology
for the rapidly expanding SWRO market.
Though drinking water became established
as a key application for UF/MF a decade
ago, the use of UF/MF for SWRO pre-
treatment was the exception rather than
the rule up until as recently as 2006. In
early 2007, NWRI carried out a survey of
UF and MF installations for the water and
wastewater market [3]. The survey relied
on data from the membrane companies,
including all of the significant international
players, but did not include activity in
China. Of the total of 13,000 mld of
installed cumulative membrane filtration
capacity, as at December 2006, only
3% had been supplied to SWRO pre-
treatment, as illustrated in Figure 1.
However, a more recent survey published
in GWI illustrates the rapid uptake of
membrane pre-treatment since then
shown in Figure 2, based on data from
CH2M Hill [4]. Thus whereas UF/MF
formed just 4% of contracted capacity
in 2005, GWI estimated that it formed
30% of capacity under bid in 2008.
A more recent survey by CH2M Hill [5]
has shown that the uptake of UF/MF has
continued to increase with cumulative
installed capacity doubling between 2008
and 2009 from 1,100 mld to 2,200 mld.
Pilot plant experience
A large number of pilot studies have been
published on the use of membrane pre-
treatment prior to SWRO. Many early
studies focused on how the UF or MF
products themselves performed in the
application, but more recently, there has
been more focus on using an integrated
membrane system with both UF/MF and RO
stages to evaluate the performance of the
complete system. Most studies have found
that the UF/MF performs well [6,7], but flux
levels may be somewhat lower than for a
surface water feed of similar quality due to
the possibility of occasional contamination
by algal cells or other marine organisms.
None of the evaluations question UF/MF
performance in terms of the main filtered
water quality determinants, i.e. particulates
and microbial cells. However, though these
parameters are key for establishing fouling
and bio-fouling propensity, other factors
also have an influence, as discussed in the
previous articles. For example, bio-fouling
is strongly influenced by dissolved organic
carbon, especially if present as Assimilable
Organic Carbon (AOC), since it acts as a
nutrient source for bio-fouling, and can cause
problems even though microbial activity
Feature 31
itself is low. Therefore, operating an RO
stage after the UF/MF is vital to characterise
the stability of the complete system.
Trials at Santa Cruz, California [7] followed a
typical evaluation pattern in that for 70% of
the time, the feed was of a consistent high
quality with low turbidity (< 5 NTU) and low
organics (< 1.3 ppm TOC). During the other
30% of the time, quality could be poor due to
storms, which increased turbidity to 40-50
NTU, or due to algal bloom/red tide events,
which could take TOC to 10 or even 15ppm.
Coagulant use is often considered for pilot
operation since it allows UF/MF flux to
be increased and cleaning frequency to be
reduced. Also, it is much more likely that
performance can be maintained during a
poor feed quality episode. In addition to
improving stability of the UF/MF operation,
it improves dissolved organic removal, and
thereby reduces the chance of bio-fouling.
Many studies have concluded that coagulant
use is beneficial, both improving UF/MF
performance [8], and reducing organics
arriving at the RO, and hence bio-fouling [9].
At Santa Cruz, coagulant dosing was found
to provide a beneficial effect to the stability
of UF operation, and in appearing to reduce
bio-fouling during episodes of algal bloom.
However, it was felt that UF possibly
increased chances of shearing algal cells,
32 Feature
Figure 2: UF/MF in pre-treatment for seawater desalination – Annual capacity by supplier.
and hence Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
was being considered as a membrane pre-
treatment in the next phase of piloting.
A downside of coagulant dosing is that the
RO membrane can suffer from coagulant
fouling [eg: 10, 11]. This may be a result of
weak floc formation, especially during good
feed water quality episodes, or due to shear
from pumps, or due to disruption of the floc
structure caused by too high a pressure drop
in the membrane system design. It is possible
that floc breakdown problems could be
reduced by longer contact times.
Pre-treatment survey
When membrane pre-treatment was first
considered for the SWRO pre-treatment
application, the hope was that it would
allow chemical free or low chemical
operation. In reality, this has not been
possible, since the UF/MF membranes require
either feed dosing chemicals or cleaning
chemicals, and sometimes both. Two types
of UF/MF operation can be used. One
option is to dose the feed with coagulant,
operate with medium to high flux, and
use a low chemical cleaning frequency.
Alternatively, a low flux operation is used
on an uncoagulated feed, with a relatively
high cleaning frequency. Cleaning for a low
fouling situation may just consist of frequent
Maintenance Wash (MW) or Chemical
Enhance Backwash (CEB), but if fouling
is more pronounced, Clean In Place (CIP)
will be required on a fairly regular basis.
A survey of pilot and main plant
operations [5] has shown that coagulation
is used slightly more frequently than a
no coagulant operation, as illustrated
in Figure 3. However, the choice is
not only influenced by the perceived
benefits for stable UF/MF operation,
but also by concerns about chemical
waste disposal and the ability to obtain
chemical use permits in some locations.
It appears that the polyethersulphone
(PES) membranes are more likely to
realise the benefits of coagulant dosing
than polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF).
As a result, the use of coagulant dosing in
PES pilots and main plant designs is more
widespread than for PVDF. Thus, nearly
all PES plants use coagulant, whereas just
under half of PVDF plants do so. Reviewing
pilot data indicates that PES gains a greater
permeability advantage by using coagulant,
whereas PVDF, normally operates at lower
flux and permeability, but with reasonable
stability whether or not coagulant is used.
Kindasa
One of the earliest large scale membrane
pre-treatment installations was carried out
at Kindasa, situated in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
[12]. Extensive piloting had been carried
out with a pressure driven inside feed (PDI)
system, utilising PES membranes. Several
different flowsheet options were investigated,
both with and without coagulant, all of which
provided good feed quality to the downstream
RO. For direct feeds, in-line coagulation
provided excellent stable performance of
the UF, but there were occasional signs of
partial carry over of the ferric floc. The
uncoagulated feed gave less stable UF
performance, with more frequent cleaning.
Filtration+Separation July/August 2010
For the actual plant, it was decided to use a
rapid rate granular media filter to provide pre-
treatment to the UF, and avoid coagulation.
During the first six months of operation,
excellent RO performance was achieved,
with stable permeability, low salt passage,
and no requirement for RO cleaning.
Following this period, a bio-fouling incident
occurred [10], which was attributed to the
effect of chlorine use, both as an occasional
shock dose to control growth in the intake,
and in the Chemical Enhanced Backwash
(CEB) for the UF system. Accordingly, the
shock dose was changed to a non oxidising
biocide. Also, CEB frequency was reduced
from four times a day to twice a day, and
post CEB rinse up efficiency was improved.
These actions controlled the bio-fouling and
returned the plant to stable performance.
Adelaide
Extensive trials have been carried out on
the SWRO plant at Adelaide using different
membranes and different operating design
procedures. Initial piloting with a PDI
system, again utilising PES membranes,
showed that a high stable flux could be
achieved. However, a relatively frequent
CEB was essential, with three CEB’s per day
providing much better stability than two a
day [13]. Filtrate quality was excellent in
terms of particulates and microbial cells,
and importantly eliminated the variability
of conventional treatment that occurred
during the ripening period. However,
some Fe fouling occurred due to floc
carryover, and occasional specialised CIP
procedures were required. It was felt that
general feed water quality was too good,
so that the coagulant dose concentration
might be too high, or the flocs created
were weak and susceptible to shear.
Subsequent trials were carried out with a
submerged system, utilising a coarse UF
PVDF membrane [14], and this system has
been used in the main plant. Trials were
conducted both with and without coagulant.
Excellent treated water quality was obtained
with both options, but fouling rates were
nearly twice as high with the coagulated
feed. Both options gave stable RO operation.
It has been decided that for the main plant
coagulation will be provided but only utlised
under poor feed water quality conditions.
Following further observation of Fe fouling
[11], variable rate in-line dosing is now
being proposed more generally [15] on
other UF pre-treatment plants to ensure
that coagulant is only used when absolutely
required, and that a minimal level of
coagulant is used consistent with maintaining
stable permeability on the UF stage.
Escombreras
The two previous examples have shown that
although coagulation can be desirable, both

Filtration+Separation July/August 2010
Not disclosed
22%
No pre-treatment
33%
Figure 3: Pre-treatment used for UF/MF SWRO pre-treatment.
in terms of ensuring stable UF performance
and in removing dissolved organics, it can
also cause problems to the RO due to floc
carryover and Fe fouling. Recent plant
designs have looked at the use of Dissolved
Air Flotation (DAF) as a pre-treatment
to UF in order to gain the benefits of
coagulation without suffering the downsides.
One of the first main plants to use this
option in a SWRO plant is located at
Escombreras in Spain [16]. Here a system
based on a submerged UF PVDF membrane
takes the output of a DAF unit. Although
the system has not been in operation
long, initial indications are encouraging,
with excellent stable UF performance
with good levels of permeability, and
apparently stable performance of the
RO. DAF pre-treatment to UF is also
being used for one of the world’s largest
SWRO plants at Hamriyah in the UAE,
but this plant has not yet started up.
Conclusions
• In the past 10 years both desalination
and membrane filtration (UF and
MF) markets have grown strongly.
• The application of membrane filtration
in seawater reverse osmosis pre-
treatment is relatively recent, and it is
only since 2006 that there has been a
significant uptake in this technology.
• Initial results have shown that UF/MF gives
excellent feed quality to the RO in terms
of particulate and microbial cell removal,
and that UF/MF can provide a cost
effective design with stable performance.
• The question of whether to use
coagulation is still open.
In line coagulant
33%
Clarification, DAF
5%
Media filtration
7%
• Coagulation improves the flux
and stability of the UF/MF and
reduces the dissolved organics and
therefore bio-fouling potential.
• The coagulant itself may cause
ferric fouling especially during
periods of good feed quality.
• The current trend is to use a variable
coagulation regime, reducing the
concentration from a minimal
concentration during poor feed quality
episodes to zero when quality is good.
• Another alternative which appears
promising is the use of Dissolved
Air Flotation (DAF) as a UF/
MF pre-treatment. • SWRO: Adelaide Case Study,
References
[1] SWRO market exceeds Forecast,
T Pankratz, Water Desalination Report,
Vol 44, no. 22, p1, 21/06/08
[2] Global Water Market 2008:
Opportunities in Scarcity and
Environmental Regulation, Global
Water Intelligence, October 2007
[3] A Global Perspective of Low
Pressure Membranes, D Furukawa,
NWRI Final Project Report,
March 2008
[4] UF in pre-treatment for seawater
desalination: annual capacity by supplier,
Global Water Intelligence Monthly,
p7, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2008
[5] MF/UF Pre-treatment in Seawater
Desalination: Applications and
Trends, Huehmer, R P, IDA Conf
Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-253 (2009)
Feature 33
[6] Membrane Pre-treatment in SWRO:
Global Applications and Membrane Type
Considerations, Dietrich, J, IDA Conf
Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-010 (2009)
[7] Results from Nine Investigations Assessing
Pacific Ocean Seawater desalination in Santa
Cruz California, Desormeaux, E D, et al, IDA
Conf Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-291 (2009)
[8] Effect of coagulation on MF/UF for
removal of particles as a pre-treatment in
SWRO, Hyun-Jin Yang, Han-Seung Kim,
Desalination 247, 1-3 (2009) 45-52
[9] A pilot scale comparison of granular
media filtration and low pressure
membrane filtration for seawater pre-
treatment, Remize, P-J, Laroche, J-F,
Leparc, J, Schrotter, J-C, Desalination
& Water Treatment, 5 (2009) 6-11
[10] Membrane MF & UF Pre-treatment
Design & Operational Experience
from Three Seawater RO Plants,
Ben Boudinar, M, et al, IDA Conf
Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-230 (2009)
[11] Long Term Operating Experience
of Seaguard UF as Pre-treatment to
SWRO in the Mediterranean Region,
Knops, F, te Lintelo, R, EDS Conf
Proceedings, Baden Baden, (2009)
[12] First Successful Operation of
SWRO Plants in Saudi Arabia with
UF Pre-treatment, Amir Basha, S K,
et al, R P, IDA Conf Proceedings,
Gran Canaria, MP07-073 (2007)
[13] Adelaide Desalination Project
Pilot Experience, Blaikie, M,
Pelekani, C, Water: Desalination &
Membrane Technology, June 2010
[14] Influence of Chemical Treatment
on Membrane Pre-treatment for
Acciona, Proceedings of the Ozwater
Conference, Brisbane, March 2010
[15] UF used as Pre-treatment for SWRO
Desalination: Dynamic Coagulant Control
and Optimization, Futselaar, H, et al, IDA
Conf Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-093 (2009)
[16] Escombreras: Large-Scale Spanish
Seawater Desalination Utilizing
Innovative Membrane Pre-treatment
Technology, Vonghia, E, Hagmeyer, G,
Fernandez, M G, Sanchez, J, IDA Conf
Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-157 (2009)
Contact:
Dr Graeme K Pearce
Membrane Consultancy Associates
E-mail: gpearce@membraneconsultancy.com
www.membraneconsultancy.com
The author has contributed the sections
on membrane filtration in ‘The Guidebook
to Membrane Desalination Technology’
and ‘The Guidebook to Membranes
in Wastewater Reclamation’.