Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Selection of pretreatment technologies for seawater reverse osmosis plants: T

A review
⁎
Mohammad Badruzzamana, , Nikolay Voutchkovb, Lauren Weinrichc, Joseph G. Jacangelod,e
a
Stantec Consulting Services, 300 N. Lake Ave, Suite 400, Pasadena, CA 91101, United States of America
b
Water Globe Consultants, LLC, 824 Contravest Lane, Winter Spring, FL 32708, United States of America
c
American Water, 213 Carriage Lane Delran, NJ 08075, United States of America
d
Stantec Consulting Services, 1101 14th Street NW Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005-5637, United States of America
e
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States of America

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Seawater desalination using reverse osmosis (RO) process has increased substantially in the recent past and is
Seawater desalination expected to grow at an increasingly rapid pace in the future. Successful operation of a seawater reverse osmosis
Pretreatment (SWRO) plant depends on the ability of the pretreatment system to consistently produce adequately treated
Dissolved air flotation filtered water for the subsequent RO process. Both conventional (e.g., conventional/lamella sedimentation,
Granular media filtration
dissolved air flotation, granular media gravity/pressure filtration) and membrane-based pretreatment processes
Low pressure membrane
(e.g., microfiltration, ultrafiltration) have found practical application worldwide. Although most of the currently
Microfiltration
Ultrafiltration operational pretreatment systems are conventional, low-pressure membrane based pretreatment systems are
Reverse osmosis increasingly being considered for future plants. Thus, selection of conventional versus membrane based pre-
Membrane fouling treatment is increasingly becoming difficult. Both water quality perspectives and non-water quality based cri-
teria (ease of operation, facility footprint, construction costs, operating costs, economy of scale, design speci-
fications, contractual agreements, etc.) need to be critically reviewed to make a prudent decision. This paper
provides a critical review of both conventional and membrane-based pretreatment technologies by presenting
water quality issues impacting their performances, critical design characteristics and their impacts on pre-
treatment selection, non-water quality based selection criteria, and a conceptual decision matrix for selection of
pretreatment technologies for site specific conditions.

1. Introduction
With water shortage crisis around the world and increasing demand,
communities are turning to desalination as important strategy to sup-
plement diminishing freshwater sources and to ensure reliable and
drought-proof water supplies. The total global desalination capacity
was about 40 million cubic meter per day (Mm3/day) in 2013, and has
reached 88.6 Mm3/day in 2016 [1]. Seawater desalination is an indis-
pensable source of fresh water supply in many areas of the world such
as in the Middle East and in North African countries [2]. Desalination
using reverse osmosis (RO) membranes has rapidly developed since the
1960's and has been the most frequently employed technology for de-
salination over the last 10 years [3]. RO systems account for > 65% of
the current global production capacity (i.e., 58 Mm3/day) of desalina-
tion plants [1]. Seawater desalination by reverse osmosis (SWRO) is
becoming increasingly popular compared to thermal and
electrochemical processes due to its ease of operation, lower energy use
and other operational and maintenance costs, and environmental
friendliness [4–6]. Recent developments in membrane materials,
modules and process design have contributed to the reduction of energy
consumption for production of desalinated water by SWRO to 3 to
6 kWh/m3, which is lower than the typical energy required by con-
ventional thermal desalination processes (10 to 15 kWh/m3) [7,8].
According to Amy et al., development of emerging, potentially dis-
ruptive technologies through advances in material science, process
engineering, and system integration will further reduce the energy
consumption of a SWRO plant [9].
Despite significant advancements in membrane materials and de-
sign practices, membrane fouling, and biological fouling in particular,
still remains as one of the major challenges associated with RO system
operation and affects process efficiency in terms of quality and quantity
of treated water [10]. Seawater has complex water quality

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mohammad.Badruzzaman@stantec.com (M. Badruzzaman), nvoutchkov@water-g.com (N. Voutchkov),
Lauren.Weinrich@amwater.com (L. Weinrich), Joseph.jacangelo@stantec.com (J.G. Jacangelo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.10.006
Received 24 May 2018; Received in revised form 25 August 2018; Accepted 2 October 2018
Available online 24 October 2018
0011-9164/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.
M. Badruzzaman et al.
characterization, which could vary substantially throughout the year,
especially during the time of heavy algal blooms. Suspended solids,
dissolved salts, microbial film, and natural organic matter (NOM) may
accumulate on the surface of SWRO membranes and cause loss of
membrane productivity over time [11]. Occasional algal blooms, which
are major concerns for most of the existing SWRO plants, are projected
to grow in frequency and distribution in coming years due to nutrient
pollution, climate change shifts, and other natural and human-influ-
enced factors [12]. Consequently, SWRO facilities are becoming in-
creasingly susceptible to damage or shutdown during algal bloom
events. To address these issues and other fouling events, improvements
in SWRO operations can be accomplished by: (i) selection of appro-
priate pretreatment systems, (ii) use of fouling resistant SWRO mem-
branes, and (iii) incorporation of appropriate SWRO design configura-
tions such as low-recovery membrane systems [13–15].
A properly designed and operated pretreatment system ideally al-
lows SWRO plants to be operated for a substantial period of time (e.g., 6
or more months) without cleaning, and contributes to the extension of
the membrane useful life. Conversely, challenging source seawater in
combination with inadequate pretreatment results in RO system per-
formance deficiencies, such as: (i) accelerated increase in net driving
pressure, (ii) accelerated reduction in normalized permeate flow, (ii)
increased frequency of RO chemical cleanings, (iv) reduced RO mem-
brane life, and (v) reduced plant availability due to frequent RO che-
mical cleanings [16]. Selection of the best pretreatment technology is
not always straightforward because several factors need to be con-
sidered, including feed water quality, filtered water quality, ease of
operation, facility footprint, design specifications, construction and
operating costs, economy of scale, and contractual agreements. Pre-
treatment varies from simple cartridge filtration to conventional gran-
ular media filtration to microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) low
pressure membrane filtration or combination of these and/or other
pretreatment processes. For continuous, consistent, and reliable op-
eration of a SWRO plant, a system approach of the entire process train,
which encompasses all key desalination plant components (e.g., intake,
chemical source water conditioning, filtration, SWRO, and post treat-
ment), must be applied for design and operation [17].
Pretreatment based on conventional processes (coagulation-floccu-
lation-media filtration) is the most commonly applied approach at
present [18]. Conceptual illustrations of conventional pretreatment
processes are presented in Fig. 1. In recent years, a number of new full-
scale MF or UF systems have been installed for pretreatment prior to
SWRO. Conceptual example of membrane-based pretreatment processes
are presented in Fig. 2. Huehmer reported that about 100 MF/UF units
for SWRO pretreatment were installed or under contract for construc-
tion in 2010 [19]. Busch et al. also reported that approximately
3.4 million m3/day of UF pretreatment capacity was installed in SWRO
plants through 2010 [20]. Pearce, K. G reported that the application of
UF with seawater RO could reduce RO replacement costs, chemical
costs, and RO cleaning frequency [21]. Therefore, a critical under-
standing of the selection criteria for both conventional and membrane-
based pretreatment is important. To date, there is still a paucity of in-
formation in the literature that addresses SWRO pretreatment as ap-
plied to full-scale operating plants; only a limited number of review
papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Previous papers,
authored by Voutchkov [22], Jamaly et al., [23], and Henthorne and
Boysen [24], only discussed the performance of pretreatment processes
for RO applications in general terms (mostly water quality perspectives,
without providing any critical assessment and/or selection guidance of
their applicability for SWRO applications). Voutchkov provided a re-
view of different pretreatment technologies for seawater desalination
applications, but the author did not provide a critical review on the
pretreatment selection related to both water quality and non-water
quality parameters that are important for full-scale design and opera-
tions [22]. Each pretreatment process has its advantages and draw-
backs; thus, proper selection of a pretreatment scheme will depend on
79
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
the filtered water quality, footprint requirements, residuals manage-
ment criteria, capital and operational costs. This paper provide a cri-
tical review of water quality issues impacting the performance, design
characteristics and their impacts on pretreatment selection, non-water
quality based issues, and a conceptual methodology for selection of
pretreatment technologies. Since the detailed design and operation
aspects of most existing pretreatment technologies are confidential at
present and actual pretreatment performance information from full-
scale SWRO plants is not readily available, this review will provide up-
to-date pretreatment selection guidance for the seawater desalination
community. The objective of this paper is to present the current state-
of-the-art on the selection of pretreatment technologies through: (i) a
comparison of different pretreatment technologies for challenging
source water qualities, (ii) an in-depth discussion on the different de-
sign characteristics and relevant selection criteria, (iii) a critical ana-
lysis of the performance of existing full-scale plants, (iv) assessment of
benefits and challenges associated with water conditioning chemicals
widely used at present, and (v) a methodology and a set of criteria for
selection of conventional versus membrane based pretreatment pro-
cesses.
2. Drivers for seawater pretreatment
2.1. Major foulants impacting the performance of SWRO operations
Membrane fouling has been extensively studied in the past [25,26].
Membrane fouling involves accumulation of deposits on the surface of
the membrane by the following mechanisms: (a) formation of mineral
deposits (scale), (b) accumulation of rejected solids, particulates, col-
loids and other organic and/or inorganic matter, and (c) development
of biofilms due to growth and accumulation of microorganisms [11].
Genesys Membrane Products Laboratory in Madrid completed autopsies
of 400 SWRO membranes collected from 2002 to 2010 and published
the results of ninety-nine membrane autopsies from SWRO plants col-
lected from thirteen different countries [27]. According to the autopsy
results reported by Chesters et al., major foulants that resulted in
membrane failure as a percent of the total were biofoulants promoted
by biofilm on the surface (27%), oxidation caused by chlorination
(18%), metal (Fe/Mn/Al) oxide precipitation (12%), spacer indentation
caused by excess applied pressure (11%), clay/alumino-silicate pre-
cipitation (10%), ion-oxide precipitation (6%), manganese oxide pre-
cipitation (4%), and general scale caused by calcium carbonate (8%),
and silica (3%) [27]. Although membrane failure can be caused by any
combination of foulants at any given time, these results are important
to better understand and improve the removal of deleterious materials
through pretreatment processes. Understanding of the major membrane
foulants and their relevance to the SWRO operations is important for
evaluating and selecting pretreatment processes for a SWRO plant.
According to Voutchkov [11], five types of foulants are critical for
SWRO plant operations as briefly described below:
• Particulate foulants: organic and inorganic particles contained in the
source water such as fine debris, plankton, detritus and silt, which
cannot pass through the SWRO membranes. Particulate foulants in
raw source seawater vary in size. Most particulates, including pico-
phytoplankton, are larger than 0.1 μm (majority larger than 1 μm);
• Colloidal foulants: colloidal foulants are inorganic and organic
compounds that have particle size of 0.001 to 1 μm. Most common
types of foulants of SWRO membranes are colloidal silica and iron.
Colloidal foulants form a cake layer on the membrane surface and
the fouling characteristics depend on the membrane properties,
water chemistry (pH, ionic strength, and ionic composition), and the
characteristics of the colloids (size, shape, charge, and hydro-
phobicity);
• Mineral scale: mineral scale formation is attributed to the presence
of multivalent cations (calcium, magnesium, barium, iron,
M. Badruzzaman et al.
Fig. 1. Examples of conventional pretreatment processes.
manganese, copper, zinc and aluminum) and multivalent anions
(sulfate, phosphate, and carbonate). As their concentration increases
during the desalination process, these ions form sparingly insoluble
salts which could precipitate on the RO membrane surface;
• Natural organic matter (NOMs): the NOMs are organic macro-
molecules with a wide range of molecular weights (500 to 3000 Da)
and functionalities (phenolic, hydroxyl, carbonyl groups, and car-
boxylic acid, etc.) that are produced during the degradation of
marine vegetation and fauna; and
• Microbial (bio) foulants: microbial foulants include bacteria, algae
80
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
and fungi and extracellular substances released by them which ac-
cumulate on the surface of the RO membranes. Extracellular and
intracellular macromolecules and cellular debris that result from
deposition, growth, and lysis of algal cells are referred algogenic
organic matter. Usually the most predominant bacteria causing
biofouling are: Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Arthobacter, Corynebacterium,
Flavobacterium and Aeromonas.
Membrane fouling is a complex process which often results from the
additive impacts of a combination of foulants listed above [11,26,28].
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Fig. 2. Examples of membrane based pretreatment processes.

Fig. 3. Conceptual illustration of the biofouling on membrane surface.

Of the various types of fouling, biological fouling is the most difficult to
prevent or control in the seawater desalination [10,23,29,30]. The
biological fouling potential depends on several factors: the concentra-
tion and speciation of microorganisms contained in the seawater; the
content of easily biodegradable compounds in the water; the con-
centration of nutrients and the balance (ratio) between organic com-
pounds, and the source water temperature [18]. Biofouling is usually
progressive, involving: (1) formation of primary organic conditioning
film; (2) colonizing bacteria attachment; (3) formation of biopolymer
matrix; (4) establishment of mature secondary biofilm; and (5) biofilm
equilibrium and die-off [11]. A conceptual diagram is presented in
Fig. 3. Algal blooms occur when the populations of photosynthetic
marine organisms suddenly and rapidly increase beyond typical am-
bient levels, posing potential risk to human health, natural resources,
and SWRO facilities. During algal blooms usually one algal species
dominates the algal population in the seawater [31]. Conventional pre-
screening devices (coarse and fine screens) which are typically
1–100 mm in opening size, will not remove any algal cells as the typical
cell size of these organisms is 5–100 μm [12]. In many cases, especially
in the waters of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, algal blooms are
dominated by pico- and micro-algae, which are smaller than 5 μm in
size [18]. In addition to the increase in difficult-to-remove, small size
particles and high algae counts, extensive algal bloom events (e.g., red
tide events) may result in significant increase in total organic carbon

81
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Table 1
Guidelines for acceptable RO feed water (Voutchkov [22]; Desormeaux et al. [32]; AMTA [17]).
Parameter Recommended maximum value Pretreatment decision issues

Silt density index (SDI15) 3 • SDI values can be influenced by the type of membrane used for the testing and feed water quality (turbidity)
• Source
needed.
seawater SDI levels consistently below 2 typically indicate that no additional filtration pretreatment is

Turbidity 0.5 NTU • Typically 0.1 NTU is recommended for open intake
Total organic carbon
(TOC)
2 mg/L • If below 0.5 mg/L, biofouling is unlikely and for above 2 mg/L, biofouling is expected to occur.
Iron 0.1 mg/L • Ifconcentration
iron is in its reduced form, SWRO membranes can tolerate up to 2 mg/L. If iron is in its oxidized form,
> 0.05 mg/L might cause accelerated fouling
Manganese 0.05 mg/L • Ifoxidized
manganese is in its reduced form, SWRO membranes can tolerate up to 0.1 mg/L. If manganese is in its
form, concentration > 0.02 mg/L would cause accelerated fouling.
Silica 20 • IfConcentrations
the concentration is higher than 20 mg/L, colloidal silica fraction should be analyzed
Free chlorine 0.1 mg/L • Concentrations higher than 0.01 mg/L would cause RO membrane damage.
Oil and grease 0.1 mg/L • higher than 0.02 mg/L would cause accelerated organic fouling.

(TOC) concentration, which could exceed 15 mg/L in some cases [32].
For comparison, seawater, which is not exposed to algal blooms typi-
cally has TOC concentration of 1 mg/L or less [18]. A SWRO pretreat-
ment process should be evaluated based on its performance in terms of
removal of the above-mentioned foulants, and most importantly, on the
removal of biological (e.g., algogenic) and NOM foulants.
2.2. Performance goals for pretreatment technologies for SWRO
desalination
Design and operation of SWRO plants is strongly dependent on the
raw water quality [33–36]. Membrane manufacturers and SWRO plant
designers have been using a few source seawater quality parameters as
guidance for the design of pretreatment systems [17]. Those parameters
and their threshold levels of significance based on full-scale experience
are presented in Table 1. In addition to these threshold values, the
seasonal variability of the concentration should be considered.
In addition to the parameters listed above, concentration of mi-
croorganisms and phytoplankton/chlorophyll-A levels in the pretreated
water need to be controlled to reduce RO fouling tendency. Assimilable
organic carbon (AOC) can be employed as a useful tool to monitor the
impact of biodegradable organic matter on biological fouling. Weinrich
et al. compared changes of chemical dosing, AOC, and other operational
parameters against the membrane fouling rate at a full-scale SWRO
plant and showed statistically significant correlations when AOC was
used as a predictor variable for the increase in differential pressure and
the decrease in specific flux (about 53%) [37]. The authors surveyed
three full-scale SWRO plants and observed that AOC present in the RO
feed water was in the range of 10 to 180 ppb [37]. In most cases, nei-
ther TOC nor UV254 have a statistically significant correlation to AOC.
The data are presented in Table 2. At the Tampa Bay Seawater Desa-
lination Plant (TBSDP), the removal of TOC by the pretreatment process
varied in the range of 3 to 6% and UV254 reduction was < 16%. AOC
concentration was generally low in the media filter effluents; however,
it increased in the RO feed (i.e., after cartridge filtration) and resulted
in biological fouling on the RO membranes. Chemical addition after the
cartridge filter was limited to sodium bisulfite to remove the residual
oxidant from sodium hypochlorite that was added prior to coagulation.
These data suggest that AOC concentration can be an important in-
dicator of biofouling; however, further research in additional full-scale
facilities is needed to identify a threshold value for AOC in order to
minimize biofouling potential on the SWRO membranes. A preliminary
AOC threshold of 50 ppb evaluated using growth kinetics and maximum
yield of Vibrio harveyi in the saltwater AOC assay based on pilot work at
TBSDP, showed an effect on increased biofouling.
Another study on biofouling conducted by Jeong et al. showed that
a very good linear correlation between AOC concentration and low
molecular weight neutral (LMW-N) concentration [38]. Thus, the au-
thors calculated a standard blocking index (Ks), as expressed by MFI-
UF10, which is a modified fouling index using an ultrafiltration 10 kDa
membrane, and suggested that the MFI-UF10 test could serve as a pre-
liminary indicator of biofouling precursors such as AOC and LMW-N. In
addition to water quality parameters, operational parameters such as
filter run time for conventional pretreatment, chemical enhanced
backwash (CEB) and cleaning in place (CIP) for low pressure mem-
branes, and CIP for SWRO membranes are often used as pretreatment
goals [32]. Pretreatment goals are based on the seawater quality re-
quirements of the pretreated water which are determined by all SWRO
membrane suppliers as a condition to uphold their membrane perfor-
mance guarantees and useful life.
3. Source water conditioning
Seawater is conditioned using various chemicals such as coagulants,
flocculants, scale inhibitors, oxidants and reducing compounds in order
to control its fouling potential. This section highlights important aspect
of water conditioning relevant to the fouling and operational issues of
the SWRO membranes.
Pre-chlorination involves the addition chlorine to the raw water
after screening and before flash mixing to control the growth of marine
organisms/microorganisms (algae, mussels, etc.) growing inside pipes
and tank walls. Most algal cells are negatively charged due to con-
tribution from extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), which include
carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, humic acids, and some DNA molecules.
The negatively charged surface originates from the dissociation of an
acidic group, such as a carboxylic acid moiety, on the cellular surface.
Zhu and Bates [39] showed that coagulation combined with sodium
hypochlorite addition substantially shifts the zeta potential toward
neutral as compared to the use the same coagulant dosage without pre-
chlorination, suggesting that pre-chlorination is effective in enhanced
agglomeration of algal cells and results in better removal by coagula-
tion. Nonetheless, it should be noted that source water chlorination
modifies non-biologically available NOM into easily biodegradable or-
ganics, which subsequently accelerates the biological fouling of the
SWRO membranes [18]. Therefore, pre-chlorination should be selected
based on the application dose, application location, mode of application
(continuous/intermittent/shock), byproduct formation potential, as
well as impact on the SWRO membrane in absence of sodium bisulfate
[37,40].
Membrane autopsy conducted on membranes collected from the
Fujairah 2 SWRO plant in the United Arab Emirates demonstrated the
presence of biofouling on the membrane surface due to continuous
chlorination, which provided a readily available and digested nutrient
source for the biofilm development [41]. According to Basha et al., a
sharp rise in trans-membrane pressure (TMP) across the pretreatment
and the differential pressure across first-stage SWRO during online
shock chlorination and de-chlorination caused marine organisms dis-
lodging from the pipeline/equipment and their transport downstream

82
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Table 2
AOC concentrations in different steps of the full-scale SWRO plants.
(After Weinrich et al. [37]).
Plant name Sampling Treatment TOC AOC Comments
period processes (mg/L) (μg/L)

Al Zawarah, UAE July Raw seawater 1.21 2 The desalination process consists of coagulation with ferric chloride, dual media
DMF feed 1.17 14 filtration (DMF), cartridge filtration and RO.
DMF filtrate 0.96 8 Coagulant dose was 1.7 mg/L in July and 2.5 mg/L in November. pH was adjusted
CF filtrate 1.04 12 using H2SO4 at the feed to the cartridge filter (CF) to achieve a pH value of 6.9–7.
Nov Raw seawater 1.26 4
DMF feed 1.24 2
DMF filtrate 1.22 147
CF filtrate 1.24 181
Tampa Bay, USA September Coagulation 6.2 20 The seawater is treated with chlorine dioxide (0.5–1.1 mg/L) and further treated
SF filtrate 6.38 60 with sodium hypochlorite, sulfuric acid, and ferric chloride in the coagulation step.
DE filtrate 6.12 8 The water is flocculated prior to sending to the sand filters (SF) that were upflow,
CF filtrate 6.00 97 deep bed, granular media filters with continuous backwash. From these filters, the
October Coagulation 5.49 2 water is sent to two parallel banks of diatomaceous earth (DE) filters.
SF filtrate 5.29 1
DE filtrate 5.07 2
CF filtrate 5.17 23
West Basin Municipal Water June Raw seawater 1.08 131 ± 24 The desalination process consists of a 2 mm intake screen, 100 μm Arkal disk filters,
District, USA UF filtrate 1.01 33 ± 9 followed by ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO). UF membranes were
RO feed 1.03 20 ± 5 ZeeWeed 1000 (GE, USA).
July Raw seawater 0.91 27 ± 4
UF filtrate 0.88 62 ± 9
RO feed 0.86 89 ± 20

Note: DMF: Dual media filtration, CF: Cartridge filtration, SF: Sand filtration, and DE: Diatomaceous earth filtration.

[42]. Sodium bisulfite or other reducing chemicals were introduced to
quench the residual chlorine.
The added chemical disinfectant also reacts with the organic matter
of the feed water and produces various disinfection by-products (DBPs)
such as trihalomethanes (THMs), haloacetic acids (HAAs), haloaceto-
nitriles (HANs), halonitromethanes (HNMs), iodinated THMs (I-THMs),
iodinated HAAs (I-HAAs), haloketones (HKs), N-nitrosamines, bromate,
and chlorite [43]. The types and concentrations of DBPs depend on
several factors such as type and amount of disinfectant used, contact
time, organic and inorganic contents, temperature, and pH [44–47]. To
reduce the formation of chlorinated DBPs, alternative oxidants (disin-
fectants) such as chloramines, chlorine dioxide, and ozone can be
considered, but they also produce other types of DBPs. In addition, due
to high levels of bromide and iodide concentrations in seawater, highly
cytotoxic and genotoxic DBP species (i.e., brominated and iodinated
DBPs) may form in distribution systems, especially when desalinated
water is blended with other source waters having higher levels of or-
ganic matter. A previous study showed that the formation of THMs in
chloraminated seawater decreased by approximately 55% compared to
chlorination, while ozonation increased THM formation [48]. On the
contrary, other studies show that chlorine dioxide produced negligible
amounts of THMs and HAAs at < 10 mg/L dose [47,49]. This research
suggests that it is important to conduct DBP studies in full-scale sea-
water desalination plants to understand the removal of both regulated
and non-regulated emerging DBPs (e.g., HANs, HNMs, N-nitrosamines,
I-THMs) by the pretreatment and membrane processes.
Coagulants are added to enhance removal of particulate, colloidal
foulants, and dissolved organic matter in seawater pretreatment facil-
ities [50]. Coagulants, such as ferric sulfate, ferric chloride, alum, and
poly‑aluminum chloride are among those most frequently used prior to
sedimentation or filtration [11]. The effect of algae concentration on
coagulation is important and should be considered in determining
coagulant dosages. Zhu and Bates demonstrated that the zeta potential
of C. polykrikoides in seawater was shifted toward a neutral direction
with the addition of ferric chloride [39]. When zeta potential was
shifted to the range of −2 mV to −4 mV, algae began to agglomerate
and the removal was effective. Flocculants (polymers) are sometimes
applied at a very low dosage (0.25 to 0.5 mg/L) to improve the per-
formance. The use of polymer dosages higher than 1 mg/L should be
avoided as high content of unused polymer in the filter effluent can
plug the cartridge filters and/or be carried-over to the downstream
membrane elements [11,51].
While water conditioning is essential in most SWRO treatment
plants, the impacts of chemical addition on membrane fouling should
also be properly evaluated. Pretreatment changes frequently impact
AOC in the RO feed at the SWRO plants. The AOC concentrations in
different steps of the SWRO plant operations are presented in Table 2.
Weinrich et al. investigated the changes to organic carbon pretreatment
chemicals including oxidizing, membrane cleaning, antiscaling and
dechlorinating agents [37,52]. AOC, which was formed as a byproduct
of reactions with chlorine, chlorine dioxide and ozone increased by
70% in seawater with 1 mg/L humic acid and a chlorine dose of 0.5 mg/
L of free chlorine. Increase in biodegradability and AOC was often not
accompanied by a significant change in TOC, which varied < 3%.
These data suggest that TOC is not an informative tool for plant op-
erators to predict the biofouling potential of the SWRO membranes.
Laborious equipment is required for the measurement of AOC. Jeong
et al. investigated the performance of granular media filtration systems
in terms of organic and biological foulants [53]. The authors observed
that low molecular weight neutrals (LMW-N) fraction of DOC showed a
linear relationship with AOC. A linear relationship also existed between
AOC compounds and Standard blocking index by ultrafiltration (Ks-
UF), indicating that Ks-UF can be used as an indicative parameter of
biofouling since this can be done using a simple filtration device similar
to SDI set-up [53].
The biofouling potential for several antiscalant types (polypho-
sphates, polyphosphonates, and polycarboxylates) was also investigated
and the results showed that polyphosphonates and polymer-based an-
tiscalants in seawater contributed generally to < 30 μg/L AOC.
However, phosphate-based antiscalants increased AOC levels nearly to
100 μg/L AOC. Weinrich et al. also observed that overdosing sodium
bisulfite as a control practice for the oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) increased AOC levels and led to decreased specific flux and in-
creased differential pressure on the RO membranes [37]. Thus, it is
important to understand how chemical type, dose, application se-
quence, reaction time, etc. impact of the entire operation of the SWRO
plant. A set of water conditioning guidance based on full-scale plant
operational experience is presented in Table 3.

83
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Table 3
Water conditioning guidance (Weinrich et al. [37]; Edzwald and Haarhoff [51]; Voutchkov N [11]; Vrouwenvelder et al. [40]).
Fouling type Recommendations/guidance

Prechlorination • Shock chlorination (1 to 3 times a week) or intermittent chlorination (1 to 4 times a day) is better than continuous chlorination since long-term exposure to
chlorine triggers the production of extra-cellular polysaccharides.
• Pre-chlorination has become less common as a result of concerns over trihalomethanes.
Coagulation • The use of aluminum-based coagulants should be avoided since they are too soluble for use in pretreatment of seawater. Besides, the residual dissolved
aluminum can be carried over to RO membranes and cause precipitative scaling.
• Membrane pretreatment can remove particles as fine as 0.2 μm (MF membranes) or 0.02 μm (UF membranes) without coagulation. However, the coagulation
may be needed when the seawater contains NOM.
• When algal blooms causes an increase in the background TOC by 2 mg/L or more, then the algae and specially the dissolved organic matter associated with
the algae create a coagulant demand that must be satisfied by adding sufficient Fe in coagulation to first complex with the NOM compounds and then to
precipitate ferric hydroxide under sweep-floc conditions
Flocculation • Flocculation aid is recommended for seawater with moderate to high concentrations of algae
• Overdosing of polymer may also cause organic fouling on the SWRO membranes and should be avoided.
• Only non-ionic or anionic polymers should be applied because most SWRO membrane elements carry a negative surface charge. Use of cationic polymer
should be considered only after discussing with membrane manufacturers since it is likely to form a polymer film on the membrane surface.
Scale inhibitor • Sulfuric acid is usually preferred over hydrochloric acid because of cost and safety reasons. However, hydrochloric acid may be used if the sulfate
introduced to the source seawater by sulfuric acid addition significantly affects the system design and cost.
• Antiscalants and mineral acids have shown to increase biofouling potential. Phosphate based antiscalant could increase AOC levels nearly 100 μg/L.
• Sodium hexa-metaphosphate (SHMP) can serve as a bacterial nutrient and because it contains phosphates and its use/overdose could result in brine
discharge of high phosphorus content, which in turn can trigger algal blooms in the discharge area.
Reducing agents • Overdosing of sodium meta-bisulfite reacts with naturally occurring oxygen of the concentrate stream and may pose a negative impact on the marine
environment receiving this concentrate.
• Sodium bisulfite could serve as a food to some of the biofouling bacteria growing on the SWRO membrane and exacerbate membrane fouling by increasing
AOC levels in the water.

4. Conventional pretreatment process DAF process [12].

Conventional pretreatment processes can be applied in a number of
combinations as illustrated in Fig. 1. This section provides a review of
those conventional processes.
4.1. Conventional sedimentation
Sedimentation is typically used upstream of granular media and
membrane filters when the membrane plant source water has daily
average turbidity higher than 30 NTU or experiences turbidity spikes of
50 NTU or more for periods of over 1 h. If sedimentation basins are not
provided, large turbidity spikes may cause the pretreatment filters to
exceed their solids retention capacity (especially if granular media fil-
ters are used), which in turn may impact filter pretreatment capacity
[11]. If the source water turbidity exceeds 100 NTU, then conventional
sedimentation basins are often inadequate to produce turbidity of the
desired target level of < 2 NTU [11]. Under these conditions, sedi-
mentation basins should be designed for enhanced solids removal by
installing lamella plates or using sedimentation technologies that
combine lamella and fine granular media.
4.2. Dissolved air flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) technology removes particulate fou-
lants such as algal cells, oil, grease or other floating contaminants prior
to conventional media filtration or membrane filtration. In most algal
bloom events, seawater turbidity almost never exceeds 30 to 50 NTU, so
DAF can provide reduction of floating particulates, such as algal cells
during algal bloom events. DAF is more effective than sedimentation in
removing low density particles from water and is therefore a suitable
treatment process for algal bloom-impacted waters [54]. A review
paper on separation of algae by Henderson et al. reported DAF removals
of 96% to about 99.9% when pretreatment and DAF are optimized [55].
Several DAF plants in the Netherlands and Great Britain have been
primarily used for treatment of algal-laden waters [54]. However, it
should be noted that these studies specifically discuss the fresh water
application of DAF for algal removal. Coagulant added in a DAF system
can also aid removal of some extracellular AOM (e.g., microcystin is
97% intracellular in Microcysis aeuginosa) that may have leaked from
the cell. However, extracellular algal toxins are poorly removed by the
The DAF process has been coupled with granular media filtration
processes. Sanz et al. demonstrated the effectiveness of DAF coupled
with coagulation prior to dual stage granular media filtration (GMF) in
producing RO feed water with SDI15 < 4 (typically < 3) when treating
seawater containing various algae, including red tide species [56]. A
combination of DAF followed by two-stage dual-media pressure filtra-
tion is efficiently employed at the 45,400 m3/day El Coloso SWRO plant
in Chile, which at present is the largest desalination plant in South
America. The plant is located in the City of Antogofasta, where sea-
water is exposed to year-round red tide events, which have the capacity
to create frequent particulate fouling and biofouling of the SWRO
membranes [57]. Although this combined DAF/filter configuration is
very compact and cost-competitive, it has three key disadvantages: (i) it
complicates the design and operation of the pretreatment filters; (ii)
DAF loading is controlled by the filter loading rate and therefore, DAF
tanks are typically oversized; (iii) the flocculation tanks must be cou-
pled with the individual filter cells [11].
The DAF process has also been combined with membrane based
filtration processes. The Al-Shuwaikh desalination plant in Kuwait
equipped with DAF/UF provided SDI < 2.5 for good quality feed water
and < 3.5 for deteriorated conditions during a red tide event [58]. DAF
process with built-in filtration (DAFF) is used at the 136,000 m3/day
Tuas seawater desalination plant in Singapore [59]. This pretreatment
technology has been selected for this project to address the source water
quality challenges associated with the location of the desalination
plant's open intake in a large industrial port (i.e., oil spills) and the
frequent occurrence of red tides in the area of the intake. The source
seawater has total suspended solids concentration that can rise to
60 mg/L and oil and grease levels in the seawater to 10 mg/L.
4.3. Pretreatment using granular media filtration
Granular media filter is the most commonly used filtration process
in existing full-scale SWRO plants [23,54]. Filter media type, uni-
formity, size and depth are of key importance for the performance of
seawater pretreatment filters. Dual media filters typically include 0.4 to
0.8 m of anthracite over 1.0 to 2.0 m of sand. Deep dual media filters
are often used to achieve enhanced removal of soluble organics from
seawater by biofiltration and the depth of anthracite level is then in-
creased to between 1.5 and 1.8 m. When the source seawater is

84
M. Badruzzaman et al.
relatively cold (i.e., below 15 °C) and contains high level of organics, a
layer of granular activated carbon (GAC) is used instead of deeper layer
of anthracite so that a portion of the seawater organics are mainly re-
moved by adsorption [22]. When the source seawater contains a large
amount of fine silt or the seawater intake experiences algal blooms
dominated of micro-algae (0.5 to 20 μm), tri-media filters (0.45 to 0.6 m
of anthracite, 0.2 to 0.3 m of sand, and 0.1 to 0.15 m of garnet or li-
monite) are often be employed [60].
4.3.1. Design and operational characteristics
Granular media filters can be classified as gravity and pressure fil-
ters depending on the driving force used for filtration. Gravity filters are
operated at water pressure drops between 1.8 m and 2.4 m. Pressure
filters typically run at feed pressures equivalent to 15 to 30 m of water
column. According to Voutchkov, pressure filters are typically used for
small and medium size capacity SWRO plants (< 20,000 m3/day) and
gravity filters are used for any sizes of desalination plants [11]. In most
cases for good source seawater quality (SDI < 5 and turbidity < 5
NTU), pressure filters are designed as single stage, dual media (an-
thracite and sand) units, although some plants with relatively poor
water quality use two-stage pressure filtration systems.
Gravity filters are installed as a single-stage or a two-state config-
uration depending on the raw water quality. Two-stage filtration sys-
tems typically consist of coarse (roughing) filters and fine (polishing)
filters operated in series. The benefits of the two-stage filters over single
stage dual media filters are: (i) coarse media filters removes large
particulate foulants and allow the second-stage filters to be designed as
shallow-beds rather than deep bed ones and to be operated at higher
surface loading rates, (ii) two stage-filters can handle larger fluctuations
of intake seawater turbidity because of the larger total filter media
volume/solids retention capacity, and (iii) when the second stage filters
are designed as deep-bed filters (rather than shallow bed), this system
can achieve enhanced TOC removal by biofiltration.
Filtration rate is an important design parameter for the GMF process
in relation to footprint, power use, construction costs [61,62]. The
average and maximum filtration rates currently being used at selected
SWRO plants are shown in Table 4. The filtration rates vary from 8 to
10 m3/m2.h for gravity dual media filters and 15 to 25 m3/m2.h for
pressure dual media filters, respectively. Because the operating pressure
of pressure filters is often higher than the algal cell break pressure
threshold, pressure filters would have the disadvantage to cause an
accelerated biofouling when filtering seawater of very high algal con-
tent [63]. However, the energy use for pressure filtration is higher than
the gravity filters. Pressure filters are prefabricated steel structures and
their production costs per unit filtration capacity are lower than these
of concrete gravity filters. Since pressure filters are designed at ap-
proximately two to three times higher surface loading rates than gravity
filters, their volume and size are smaller and therefore, they usually are
less costly to build and install [64]. However, Gravity media filters have
approximately two to three times larger volume of filtration media and
retention time than pressure filters for the same water production ca-
pacity. Therefore, this type of filters can retain proportionally more
Table 4
Filtration rates for different configuration of granular media pretreatment.
No. Pretreatment system configuration Filter loading rates
Average (m3/m2·h)
1 Single-stage dual media gravity filters 8 12
2 Single-stage dual media gravity filters 8.5
3 DAF + sand media filtration. 10
4 DAF + two-stage dual media. 25
5 Single-stage dual media pressure filters. 10
6 Single-stage dual media pressure filters 12
7 Single-stage dual media vertical pressure filters. 11
85
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
solids and as a result, pretreatment filter performance is less sensitive to
occasional spikes in turbidity. Sometime DAF is combined with gran-
ular media filtration when the seawater contains a large amount of algal
particles and/or oil and grease, as previously discussed. Under this
configuration, the design surface loading rate of these filters is usually
two to three times higher than that of single-stage dual media filters
(i.e., 16 to 35 m3/m2.h). Gravity filters are operated at a lower surface
loading rate than pressure filters. However, when a DAF system is
combined with gravity filters (e.g., El Coloso SWRO Plant, Chile), the
loading could be significantly improved, as shown in Table 4.
4.3.2. Foulant removal efficiency
Full scale experience at many granular media pretreatment filter
installations indicates that filters can consistently reduce source water
turbidity to < 0.1 NTU [11]. Dual-media filtration can consistently
produce filtrate with SDI15 of 3 to 4. As presented in Table 5, the SDI
value in the GMF effluent could exceed 4 even after coupling with a
DAF system. According to Leparc et al., pretreatment processes with
dual-media filtration provide limited removal (< 1 order of magnitude)
of picophytoplankton and bacteria [36]. Dixon et al. also reported that
DMF is capable of microbial removals of up 90% when optimized [12].
According to Desormeaux et al., conventional pretreatment (GMF)
achieved > 2-log removal of particles larger than 2 μm [32]. However,
if algal cells were chlorinated, then the DMF had a high organic loading
with more frequent backwashing needs. Further, Leparc et al. [37]
showed that TOC removal varied from 5 to 20% and polysaccaride from
10 to 50%. Chlorophyll A removal varied from 90 to 99%. One of the
major concerns with the GMF process is the escape of coagulant. Des-
ormeaux et al. observed significant iron breakthrough even when the
GMF system was switched to a tri-media configuration [32]. Therefore,
in many cases granular media filters at SWRO desalination plants need
to be designed more conservatively than similar filters in conventional
surface water treatment plants.
5. Membrane based pretreatment processes
Particulate, colloidal and some of the organic foulants contained in
the seawater can be removed successfully using MF (pore size range of
0.1–1 μm) or UF (pore size range of 0.01–0.1 μm) pretreatment [65]. A
seawater desalination plant with membrane pretreatment includes
coarse and fine screens, microscreens to remove fine particulates, and
UF or MF membrane systems. Conceptual illustrations of membrane-
based pretreatment are presented in Fig. 2.
5.1. Design and operational characteristics
Membranes used for seawater pretreatment are typically made of
polyethersulfone (PES), polypropylene (PP), polyvinylidene diflouride
(PVDF) or polysulfone (PS) [54]. The most widely used membranes in
seawater pretreatment are hollow fiber membranes with a capillary
geometry. Typically, the internal diameter of the membrane fibers is 0.4
to 1.5 mm. Depending on the membrane manufacturer, the hollow-fiber
Desalination plant location and capacity
Maximum (m3/m2·h)
Ashkelon SWRO plant, Israel – 325,000 m3/day
9.5 Fujairah SWRO plant, UAE – 170,500 m3/day
14 Tuas desalination plant, Singapore – 136,000 m3/day
25 El Coloso SWRO plant, Chile – 45,400 m3/day
18 Kwinana SWRO plant, Perth, Australia – 160,000 m3/day
14 Carboneras SWRO plant, Spain – 120,000 m3/day
16 Glen Rocky SWRO plant, Gibraltar – 1400 m3/day
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

(capillary) membrane elements may be operated in either inside-out or

3–5.5(DMF outlet); < 3 (UF outlet)

Pretreatment effluent water quality
outside-in flow pattern. An inside-out mode of operation provides a
better control of flow and more uniform flow distribution than an
outside-in flow. Tubular membranes have inner tube diameters which
are an order of magnitude larger than that of hollow fiber membranes
(i.e., 0.6 to 2.5 cm). In practice, the pros and cons of the two config-
urations are finely balanced, hence both formats have survived com-
mercially. The UF and MF membranes that have been most commonly
used for SWRO pretreatment are outside-in membranes. Such config-
< 4.5 uration is more suitable for waters with high biofouling potential and
<1

<1
<4
<5
<4

<2
<3

<3
SDI

NA

high solids content because the space available on the outside of the
fibers is significantly larger than the space inside the fibers of the in-
side-out membranes.
> 33
> 33

> 33
<1
<1
<1

<6
SDI

NA

NA

NA
25

Membrane systems can be divided into two main types: pressure

and vacuum-driven. Pressure-driven membrane systems use membrane
elements installed in pressure vessels and the membrane separation
< 15
< 10

< 40
5–20
3–30

5–30
<1
<1
TSS
Raw water quality

NA

NA

NA

process in these systems is driven at 0.2 to 2.5 bars of pressure.

Vacuum-driven systems use membrane modules/cassettes which are
immersed in tanks and operate under a slight negative pressure (va-
Turbidity

cuum) of typically 0.2 to 0.5 bars. Flux is an important design para-

< 0.5
< 0.5

< 20
2–14
2–20

2–15
1–10
Foulant removal capacity by conventional and membrane-base pretreatment (Gaid et al., [74]; Suarez et al., [75]; Millan et al. [67]; Jin et al., [76]).

<5

<5
2–5
NA

meter for low pressure membrane systems. A comparative analysis of

membrane flux for different application is presented in Table 6. As
presented in the table below, submersible UF membranes are operated
Media filtration - ultrafiltration

at a lower flux compared to pressure-driven membranes; however,

when a dual media filtration is placed before membrane system, the
Strainer-Coag-Floc-DMF
Pretreatment processes

flux of the membrane system can be enhanced substantially. Vacuum-

150 μm filters + UF

driven membrane pretreatment systems are usually more space efficient

Direct filtration

Coag-Floc-DMF
Cartridge filter

than pressure-driven systems due to the higher membrane surface area

DAF – DMF

per unit facility. Typically, vacuum-driven membrane systems occupy

DAF + UF

10 to 20% less space than pressure-driven membrane installations, as-

DMF

DMF

suming the same operating parameters. Vacuum-driven systems of the

UF

same type (MF or UF) usually operate at lower pressure. The vacuum-
driven systems may use 10 to 30% less energy than pressure-driven
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Open intake
Beach well
Beach well
Beach well

systems for water sources of medium to high turbidity and temperature

between 18 and 35 °C pattern [11]. In addition, since vacuum-driven
Intake

systems usually operate at lower trans-membrane pressure, their rate of

membrane fouling is lower and they have more stable operation during
transient solids load conditions.
Plant capacity (m3/day)

5.2. Foulant removal efficiency

MF and UF membrane systems have been shown to be very effective

133,000

136,000
136,500

for turbidity removal as well as for the removal of non-soluble and

80,000
24,000

14,500

14,500
60,000
26,840
30,200
7500

colloidal organics contained in the source seawater. Turbidity can be

lowered consistently below 0.1 NTU and filter effluent SDI15 levels
achieved are usually below 3 as shown in Table 5. Both MF and UF
The Island of Aruba

systems can remove 4 or more logs of protozoa such as Giardia and

Cryptosporidium. In contrast to MF membranes, UF membranes can also
Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

effectively remove viruses [32]. If the source seawater turbidity is of

Australia
Location

consistently higher turbidity or if the seawater intake experiences fre-

Kuwait

Ghana
Oman

Korea
Spain

Spain
UAE

quent and extensive algal blooms and/or turbidity spikes, than sea-
water solids removal by DAF, sedimentation or coarse media filtration
may be warranted and economical.
Fujairah seawater desalination plant

Algal cells removal by UF/MF is typically close to 100% [12].

Al-Buhaira City desalination plant

Maspalomas-I desalination plant

Maspalomas-I desalination plant

However, biofouling due to breakage of algal cells still remains a

Gold Coast desalination plant

Note: “NA” means “Not Available”.

challenge and warrants new major research for design and operational
Kindasa desalination plant
Accra desalination plant

control of algal impacts within the desalination process. Data collected

at a desalination pilot plant in Carlsbad, Calif., provide a correlation
between differential pressure (DP) of a pretreatment system, increased
Gwanyang plant

levels of algal cell breakage, and increased biofouling [11]. Similar

Oman Sur

results were demonstrated with artificial laboratory tests that used UF

Plant ID

Az Zour
Aruba

membranes upstream of RO, which indicated that an increased amount

of organic matter was able to pass through membrane pretreatment
filters during increased levels of algal breakage through shear [65,66].
Table 5

Desormeaux et al. calculated DOC-to-total nitrogen ratios (DOC:N)

No.

10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

before and after filtration to assess whether the breakage of algal cells

86
M. Badruzzaman et al.
Table 6
Comparison of fluxes for different membrane-based pretreatment facilities.
No. Pretreatment system type and configuration Hydraulic loading rate/flux
(l/m2·h)
1 Submersible UF membranes 30 to 50
2 Pressure UF membranes 60 to 80
3 Pressure UF system 60 to 80
4 Pressure UF system 50 to 60
5 Pressure UF system 64.9
5 Pressure UF system 30–60
5 DAF + pressure UF system 40–67
6 Dual media pressure filtration + pressure UF membranes 80 to 100
occurs during UF filtration [32]. Higher DPs correlated with increased
DOC concentrations and DOC:N suggested that algal cells were
breaking during filtration. Addition of coagulant is often practiced to
improve the time between backwashes; however, care must be taken
not to overdose coagulants as they may cause fouling downstream in
the RO process, particularly if the UF has broken fibers or rolled seals
[12].
6. Comparison of conventional and membrane pretreatment
Conventional and membrane-based systems have their advantages
and disadvantages. For instance, GMF is a well understood and widely
used pretreatment treatment technology. However, membrane filtra-
tion technologies have a number of advantages and are increasingly
being considered for full-scale implementation. A thorough evaluation
between conventional and membrane-based treatment should be con-
ducted based on water quality performance as well as for non-water
quality parameters.
6.1. Water quality based comparison
Water quality based comparison needs to be conducted based on the
ability to remove foulants. A study by Millan et al. reported that
membrane pretreatment produces a constant product water quality
with low turbidity, TSS and SDI in a wide range of feed water qualities
and consequently provides a better protection of SWRO membrane
[67]. Moreover, membrane filtration was found to remove algae/bac-
teria more efficiently (log 1.8 and > log 4 removal, respectively)
compared to media filtration (log 0.6 and log 0.8). Nonetheless, similar
with media filtration, membrane filtration alone cannot remove dis-
solved organic matter (as measured by TOC) without additional treat-
ment capable of removing NOM such as coagulation. It was shown that
the any type of coagulation (chemical coagulation or electrocoagula-
tion) prior to membrane filtration resulted in higher TOC and poly-
saccharide removal compared to membrane filtration alone [68].
Through various membrane surface characterization analysis such as
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) or X-ray Photoelectron
Spectroscopy (XPS), Sari et al. also found that coagulation indeed re-
duce the concentration of polysaccharides, amides, and humic acids in
the NF/RO feed water as demonstrated by the reduced intensities of
these foulants on NF/RO membrane surface [68]. Therefore, for NOM-
rich water (especially rich in humic and fulvic acids), it is re-
commended to employ coagulation prior to media/membrane filtra-
tion. Since MF/UF inherently capable of removing more foulants than
media filtration, the inclusion of coagulation in the treatment train is
expected to surpass the performance of conventional pretreatment.
Various indicators such as algae concentration, biopolymer con-
centration, and transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) could be mon-
itored to assess the magnitude of the bloom and effectiveness of pre-
treatment systems [53,54,69,70]. According to Villacorte et al., algae
removal in granular media filters (GMF) is highly variable (48–90%) as
compared to the more stable MF/UF membranes characterized by
87
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
Desalination plant location and capacity
Yu-Huan SWRO plant, China – 34,500 m3/day
Fukuoka SWRO plant, Japan – 96,000 m3/day
Palm Jumeirah SWRO plant, UAE – 64,000 m3/day
Colakoglu steel mill SWRO facility, Turkey – 6700 m3/day
Accra SWRO plant, Nungua, 60,000 m3/day
Maspalomas-I desalination plant, Spain. 14,500 m3/day
Gwangyan Bay plant, Korea, 30,000 m3/day
Kindasa SWRO plant, Saudi Arabia – 90,000 m3/day
higher removal efficiencies by (> 99%) [69]. High algal removals
(> 75%) were also reported for sedimentation and DAF treatments
[54]. Biopolymers in the water can be substantially reduced (> 50%)
by UF and sub-surface intake (e.g., beach well) treatments while
granular media filtration typically removes < 50% of biopolymers. In
another study, Guastalli et al. compared the performance of dissolved
air flotation (DAF) followed by dual-media filter (DMF) and ultra-
filtration (UF) membrane pre-treatment [71]. Results indicated that
both processes provided high removal of particulate and microbial
contaminants. Both treatments successfully maintained water turbidity
to values < 0.1 NTU and SDI15 < 2. UF, however, showed almost
100% elimination of algal content while DMF demonstrated an average
algae removal of only 60%. The data also suggested that biopolymers in
raw seawater were partially removed by both pre-treatments tested
(41% removal in UF permeate and 18% removal in DMF filtrate). Lower
impact in LMW (6% removal by UF, 1% removal by DMF) and humics
(removals of 8% by UF and 2% by DMF) was observed [71].
Several water quality criteria such as particle removal capacity,
water quality variations, water temperature, and algal bloom may im-
pact the selection of pretreatment systems. A comparative evaluation of
membrane vs granular media filtration based on these water quality
issues is presented in Table 7. According to Jacangelo et al., membrane
(UF/MF) filtration may be competitive to granular media filtration
based on costs and performance when designed appropriately and op-
erated by well-trained staff [63]. Such pretreatment is advantageous for
source waters with high solids and silt content, but with low con-
centrations of algae and a low biofouling propensity. During periods of
intense algal blooms, membrane pretreatment may have inferior per-
formance as compared to a well-designed gravity granular media fil-
tration system because the applied membrane pressure negatively im-
pacts the integrity of algal cells. Consequently, an increase in biofouling
of the SWRO membranes may be observed.
The selection and performance of pretreatment technologies largely
depends on the feed water quality of the seawater plant. In order to
understand the impact of feed water quality, the authors reviewed the
performance of pretreatment systems of eight seawater desalination
plants including three from the Middle-East, three from the United
States, and two from Europe [63]. The study suggested that the selec-
tion of the pretreatment technology are driven by the quality of the feed
water and intake type. For SWRO plants using open intakes (sub-
merged, surface, and co-located) the water quality of the feed will likely
have higher organic carbon and other constituents, and greater varia-
bility than feed water from well sources. Subsurface intakes such as
beach wells have low turbidity. For a conceptual level screening pur-
poses, the critical water quality parameters to be considered for pre-
treatment selection purposes are turbidity, total organic carbon, iron
and manganese for subsurface intake, oil and grease, and algal bloom
conditions [63]. A selection guidance in presented in Fig. 4, which
could be used as the first level of selection guidance. The authors have
developed an Excel-based spreadsheet to assist water utilities in the
selection of various seawater pretreatment systems, based on the water
quality of the seawater and on the type of intake presented in Fig. 4
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

Table 7
Conceptual selection guidance for granular media vs membrane pretreatment based on water quality criteria.
(“+” indicates “Favorable/Preferred Selection”, “−” indicates “Less Favorable/Preferred Selection”).
Criteria Selection guidance Rationale

Granular media Membrane filtration

filtration

Source water removal − + Micro- and ultrafiltration have a wider spectrum of particle removal capabilities than conventional
efficiency media filtration.
Source water variations − + For applications where intake seawater quality experiences significant seasonal variations and
presents a challenge in terms of high level of pathogens and elevated concentration of fine particles
and particulate organics, membrane filtration technologies are likely to offer performance benefits.
Source water temperature + − Application of vacuum driven membrane pretreatment systems is usually less cost-effective than
conventional granular media filtration for seawater of temperature lower than 15 °C, because the
productivity (flux) of vacuum-driven membrane filtration is dramatically reduced at low
temperature.
Need for a cartridge filter − + Membrane pretreatment eliminates the need and costs for installation and operation of cartridge
filter system ahead of the SWRO feed pumps.
Algal bloom + − Many of the marine micro-algae which grow excessively during algal blooms cannot withstand
external pressure of > 0.3 to 0.6 bars and their cells could break when exposed to pressure or
vacuum-driven MF or UF filtration.

[64]. However, in order to make the final selection, site-specific pilot/
demonstration scale tests are warranted.
6.2. Non-water quality based comparison
In addition to water quality issues, additional parameters such as
surface area requirement, waste stream generation, coagulant dose,
chemical costs, energy costs, and economy of scale should be con-
sidered in the selection process. According to Busch et al., there are
other potential benefits of using UF systems, such as- (i) little to no pH
reduction before the coagulation process; (ii) less chlorine addition or
shock dosing with chlorine; (iii) elimination of pH increase before
SWRO stage; (iii) less reducing agent required for SWRO stage; (iv)
reduction in chemical use in the SWRO process due to lower cleaning
frequency; and (v) reduction in remineralization/re-alkalization [72].
However, it is also important to recognize that the membrane process
requires a highly specialized team for operation since the system re-
quires a large amount of equipment and routines (BW, CEB, CIP, rin-
sing, soaking, etc.). According to Basha et al., a UF pretreatment may
have UF membrane fiber and component damage, mechanical integrity

Fig. 4. Pretreatment process selection guidance for SWRO plants based on available literature.
Note: If Fe/Mn level exceeds the limits mentioned here, then an appropriate technology (e.g., green sand) should be included.

88
M. Badruzzaman et al. Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91

failure, a sharp rise in TMP due to online chlorination, etc. [42]. In this
particular plant, a sharp rise in TMP across UF and differential pressure
across first stage SWRO occurred during the online shock chlorination
and dichlorination process due to dislodging of marine organisms from
the pipeline/equipment and being carried over downstream. In order to
minimize biofouling, the plant employed the following two strategies:
(i) the shock Chlorine of the intake had to be run to waste, and (ii) long
rinse up after CEB. Millan et al. also suggested that GMF is a well-
known technology that is relatively straightforward for commissioning
and operations but poor seawater quality may cause a decrease in the
system recovery due to an increase in BW cycles [67].
At present, the overall cost of production of desalinated water using
membrane pretreatment is typically 5 to 10% higher than that for
freshwater produced by desalination plants with conventional seawater
pretreatment [11]. In some cases, such as conditions when the source
water quality is highly variable and/or the cost and availability of land
are at premium, membrane pretreatment may be more advantageous
from a cost perspective. Busch et al. argued that in UF's early devel-
opment, lower SWRO costs paid for higher UF pretreatment costs [72].
Recently, UF stage costs have been equivalent, or in certain cases lower,
than a conventional media filtration process. The sensitivity analysis
conducted by Chu et al. shows that if novel UF technology is used (e.g.,
large UF modules with 8-in. diameter and 80-in. length and at a flux of
75 Lm2h), combined with higher SWRO permeate flux (17 Lm2h) and a
lower degree of fouling (20% permeability loss), then an integrated UF-
SWRO system can be less expensive than a conventional system with
media filtration pretreatment [73].
Several non-water quality issues such as surface area requirement,
waste stream generation, chemical costs, energy costs, economy of
scale, and media replacement costs need to be considered for pre-
treatment sections. A comparative evaluation of membrane versus
granular media filtration based on non-water quality issues is presented
in Table 8. In addition, practical experience to date shows that the type
of project procurement - design-bid-build (DBB); design-build (DB); or
design-build-operate (DBO) - has the potential to have a significant
impact on the selection of a pretreatment system [63]. When the de-
signer and contractor are not responsible for the plant operation (e.g.,
under DBB or DB methods of project delivery), the designer may prefer
to select the lowest capital cost granular media pressure-driven
pretreatment system or to choose the use of membrane pretreatment
with a very aggressive design flux. The selection of such pretreatment
systems yield the lowest project capital costs. Since performance
guarantees and acceptance testing typically last only one month, the
lowest-cost contractor with aggressive pretreatment design could ar-
range the plant testing to occur during non-algal bloom periods when
the plant is not exposed to challenging performance and to pass the
acceptance testing. This procurement approach is to the detriment of
the project owner and operator, who will face project performance
constraints during the period of challenging source water conditions
(e.g., algal bloom season, monsoon season, etc.). Another approach for
project procurement is when one contractor is responsible for design,
construction and operation of the plant. Under such procurement con-
ditions (e.g., DBO), the designer may select a robust and conservative
pretreatment system, which is capable to operate reliably and cost ef-
fectively under all conditions, including challenging water quality
events such as algal blooms [63].
7. Conclusions
This paper presents a comprehensive assessment of the conventional
and membrane based pretreatment processes. Selecting the most sui-
table pretreatment processes (water conditioning, clarification, and
filtration), particularly for open intake installations, is complicated
because of many factors including diverse nature of foulants present in
seawater, challenges associated the design and operation of pretreat-
ment technologies, and irreversible fouling on the SWRO surface due to
inadequate pretreatment particularly during algae bloom periods.
Important concluding points of this paper are listed below:
• Selection of pretreatment process trains should be started with a
good understanding of the feed water quality, intake system, and
fouling propensity on the SWRO primarily caused by biological or
organic foulants. Based on the literature, conceptual pretreatment
selection guidance based on water quality parameters is presented in
this paper. The decision flow diagram suggests that with appropriate
water conditioning and clarification processes, either conventional
or membrane based process trains might be appropriate for a given
water matrix.

Table 8
Conceptual selection guidance for granular media vs membrane pretreatment based on non-water quality criteria.
(“+” indicates “Favorable/Preferred Selection”, “−” indicates “Less Favorable/Preferred Selection”).
Criteria Selection guidance Rationale

Granular media Membrane filtration

Surface area requirement − + Depending on the type and size of the membrane modules and the intake water quality characteristics,
a membrane filtration system may have 20 to 50% smaller footprint than a conventional filtration
system.
Waste stream volume + − Granular media filtration systems generate only one large liquid waste stream – spent filter backwash.
generation The volume of this stream plant varies between 2 and 6% of the total plant intake seawater volume.
The volume of the spent membrane filter backwash water is typically 5 to 15% of the plant intake
source volume.
Coagulant dose requirement − + Typically coagulant dosage for seawater pretreatment by membrane filtration is two to three times
lower than that for granular media filtration. One key advantage of membrane pretreatment systems is
that the waste filter backwash generated by these systems contains less source water conditioning
chemicals.
Chemical costs − + Typically, cost of chemical conditioning of seawater for granular media filtration is in a range of 4 to
6% of the total annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for production of desalinated water.
Granular media pretreatment systems use 50 to 100% more source seawater conditioning chemicals.
Energy costs + − Gravity granular filtration pretreatment process requires < 0.05 kWh/m3. On the other hand,
depending on the type of the membrane system (pressure or vacuum-driven) membrane systems use
approximately four to six times more power (0.2 to 0.4 kWh/m3).
Economy of scale + − For desalination plants with capacity of 40,000 to 200,000 m3/day, the granular media filtration
systems typically yield more economy of scale benefits.
Media replacement costs − + Granular media filters typically lose 5 to 10% of filter media per year and the costs of granular media
replacement are relatively low. Assuming 5 years of membrane useful life, approximately 20% of the
membrane elements would need to be replaced per year.

89
M. Badruzzaman et al.
• Water conditioning using chemicals (prechlorination, coagulation,
polymer, reducing agent, pH) is prerequisite for meeting pretreat-
ment goals for most applications; however, care must be taken to
avoid inadequate or overdosing of the chemicals and to avoid sub-
sequent detrimental effects on the SWRO membranes.
• Dissolved air flotation may improve the effectiveness of the granular
media and membrane filtration, particularly for challenging water
qualities (e.g., algal bloom).
• Membrane (UF/MF) filtration is becoming more competitive to
granular media filtration based on costs and performance when
designed and operated by well-trained staff.
• In addition to the water quality parameters, other factors (e.g., ease
of operation, facility footprint, construction costs, operating costs,
economy of scale, design specifications, contractual agreements)
should be considered in the final selection.
Finally, a thorough life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of both conven-
tional and membrane-based pretreatment processes is still not available
in the published literature. Therefore, further research related to the
development of a life-cycle-cost-benefit database using full-scale op-
erational data from a wide variety of desalination plants will be ex-
tremely valuable to the seawater desalination industry.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge The Water Research
Foundation (WRF) for financial, technical, and administrative assis-
tance in funding and managing the project. The authors would like to
thank the Foundation Project Officer, Kristan VandenHeuvel. The au-
thors would also like to thank the following individuals for their
thoughtful contributions: Carla Cherchi, Mutiara Ayu Sari, and Maria
Chau from Stantec. The comments and conclusions detailed in this
paper do not reflect the views of the WRF, its officers, affiliates or
agents.
References
[1] Global Water Intelligence (GWI), IDA Desalination Yearbook, 2016–2017, Media
Analytics, Oxford, UK, 2017.
[2] H.S. Zyoud, F.D. Hanusch, Estimates of Arab world research productivity associated
with desalination: a bibliometric analysis, IDA J. Desalin. Water Reuse 7 (1-4)
(2015) 3–16.
[3] S.P. Goh, T. Matsuura, F.A. Ismail, N. Hilal, Recent trends in membranes and
membrane processes for desalination, Desalination 391 (2016) 43–60.
[4] C. Liu, K. Rainwater, L. Song, Energy analysis and efficiency assessment of reverse
osmosis desalination process, Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358.
[5] B. Peñate, L. García-Rodríguez, Current trends and future prospects in the design of
seawater reverse osmosis desalination technology, Desalination 284 (2012) 1–8.
[6] E. Curcio, D.G. Profio, E.D. Rontanova, Membrane technologies for seawater de-
salination and brackish water treatment, Advances in Membrane Technologies for
Water Treatment, 2015, pp. 411–441.
[7] M. Badruzzaman, C. Cherchi, G.J. Jacangelo, L. Baker, Evaluation of natural gas to
reduce carbon footprint and energy costs for desalination, A Report Submitted to
the WateReuse Research Foundation, 2015.
[8] N. Voutchkov, Energy use for membrane seawater desalination-current status and
trends, Desalination 431 (2018) 2–14.
[9] G. Amy, N. Ghaffour, Z. Li, L. Francis, V.R. Lnares, T. Missimer, S. Lattmann,
Membrane-based seawater desalination: present and future prospects, Desalination
(2017) 16–21.
[10] A. Matin, Z. Khan, S.M.J. Zaidi, M.C. Boyce, Biofouling in reverse osmosis mem-
branes for seawater desalination: phenomena and prevention, Desalination 281
(2011) 1–16.
[11] N. Voutchkov, Seawater Pretreatment, Water Treatment Academy, Bangkok, 2010.
[12] B.M. Dixon, Harmful algae blooms and desalination: an algae cell's journey from sea
to SWRO, A Proceeding Published at the IDA Conference in San Diego, CA, 2015.
[13] E.M.V. Hoek, S. Bhattacharjee, M. Elimelech, Effect of surface roughness on colloid
membrane DLVO interactions, Langmuir 19 (2003) 4836–4847.
[14] E.M.V. Hoek, G. Agaewal, Extended DLVO interactions between spherical particles
and rough surfaces, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 298 (1) (2006) 50–58.
[15] M. Wilf, L. Awerbuch, C. Bartels, M. Mickley, G. Pearce, N. Voutchkov, The
Guidebook to Membrane Desalination Technology, Balaban Desalination
Publications, L'Aquila, Italy, 2007.
[16] L. Henthorne, Trends in Pretreatment for Seawater Reverse Osmosis, Water
Conditioning & Purification, November 2010, (2010).
90
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
[17] AMTA, Pretreatment for Membrane Processes, American Membrane Technology
Association, 2012.
[18] N. Voutchkov, Desalination Engineering – Planning and Design, McGraw Hill, New
York, 978-0-07-177715-5, 2013.
[19] R. Huehmer, MF/UF pretreatment in seawater desalination: applications and
trends, American Membrane Technology Association Annual Conference, San
Diego, California, 2010.
[20] M. Busch, R. Chu, S. Rosenberg, Novel trends in dual membrane systems for sea-
water desalination: minimum primary pretreatment and low environmental impact
treatment schemes, IDA J. 2 (1) (2010) 56–71 (First Quarter).
[21] K.G. Pearce, The case for UF/MF pre-treatment to RO in seawater applications G K
Pearce, Desalination 203 (2007) 286–295.
[22] N. Voutchkov, Considerations for selection of seawater filtration pretreatment
system, Desalination 261 (2010) 354–364.
[23] S. Jamaly, N.N. Darwish, I. Ahmed, S.W. Hasan, A short review on reverse osmosis
pretreatment technologies, Desalination 354 (2014) 30–38.
[24] L. Henthorne, B. Boysen, State-of-the-art of reverse osmosis desalination pretreat-
ment, Desalination 356 (2015) 129–139.
[25] P.S. Goh, J.W. Lau, M.H.D. Othman, A.F. Ismail, Membrane fouling in desalination
and its mitigation strategies, Desalination 425 (2018) 130–155.
[26] J. Brant, P. Kwan, State-of-the-science review of membrane fouling: organic, in-
organic, and biological, A Report Published by the Water Reuse Research
Foundation, 2012.
[27] P.S. Chesters, N. Pena, S. Gallego, M. Fazel, Results form 99 seawater RO membrane
autopsies, World Congress/Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre (PCEC), Perth,
Western Australia September 4–9, 2011.
[28] M.T. Khan, C.L. Manes, C. Aubry, J.P. Croue, Source water quality shaping different
fouling scenarios in a full scale desalination plant at the Red Sea, Water Res. 47
(2013) 558–568.
[29] N. Fujiwara, H. Matsuyama, Elimination of biological fouling in seawater reverse
osmosis desalination plants, Desalination 227 (2008) 295–305.
[30] R.A. Al-Juboori, T. Yusaf, Biofouling in RO system: mechanisms, monitoring, and
controlling, Desalination 302 (2012) 1–23.
[31] N. Voutchkov, Desalination Engineering – Operation and Maintenance, McGraw
Hill, New York, 978-0-07-180421-9, 2014.
[32] E.D. Desormeaux, P. Meyerhofer, H. Luckenbach, M.R. Kudela, Pilot-testing mul-
tiple pretreatment systems for seawater desalination, IDA J. 3 (1) (2011) (First
Quarter).
[33] M. Al-Ahmad, F.A. Aleem, A. Mutiri, A. Ubaisy, Biofouling in RO membrane sys-
tems, part 1: fundamentals and control, Desalination 132 (2000) 173–179.
[34] N.P. Isaias, Experience in reverse osmosis pretreatment, Desalination 139 (2001)
57–64.
[35] P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, M. Wilf, Field evaluation of capillary UF technology as a
pretreatment for large seawater RO systems, Desalination 147 (2002) 55–62.
[36] J. Leparc, C.J. Schrotter, S. Rapenne, P.J. Croué, P. Lebaron, D. Lafon, K. Gaid, Use
of advanced analytical tools for monitoring performance of seawater pretreatment
processes, A Proceeding Submitted to the IDA Conference, 2007.
[37] L. Weinrich, M.W. LeChevallier, C.N. Hass, Application of the bioluminescent
saltwater assimilable organic carbon test as a tool for identifying and reducing
reverse osmosis membrane fouling in desalination, A Report Submitted to the
WateReuse Research Foundation, 2015.
[38] S. Jeong, S. Vigneswaran, Practical use of standard pore blocking index as an in-
dicator of biofouling potential in seawater desalination, Desalination 365 (2015)
8–14.
[39] X.I. Zhu, J.B. Bates, Seawater desalination pretreatment for harmful algae blooms
using dissolved-air flotation, IDA J. 4 (1) (2012) (First Quarter).
[40] J.S. Vrouwenvelder, S.A. Manolarakis, H.R. Veenendaal, D. van der Kooij,
Biofouling potential of chemicals used for scale control in RO and NF membranes,
Desalination 132 (1–3) (2000) 1–10.
[41] H. Faujour, H.K. Koeing, C. Ventraque, D.C. Vomecourt, M. Nicholson, Y. Ahmed,
V.R. Leeuw, Fujiarah 2 RO: impact of effective sweater pretreatment on RO mem-
brane performance and replacement, A Proceeding Submitted to the IDA
Conference in San Diego, CA, 2015.
[42] A.S.K. Basha, H.A. Gulamhusein, A.A. Khalil, Successfully operating a seawater UF
pretreatment system, IDA J. 3 (1) (2011) (First Quarter).
[43] D. Kim, L.G. Amy, T. Karanfil, Disinfection by-product formation during seawater
desalination: a review, Water Res. 81 (2015) 343–355.
[44] A. Abdel-Wahab, A. Khodary, N. Bensalah, Formation of trihalomethanes during
seawater chlorination, J. Environ. Prot. 1 (2010) 456–465.
[45] E. Agus, D.L. Sedlak, Formation and fate of chlorination by-products in reverse
osmosis desalination systems, Water Res. 44 (5) (2010) 1616–1626.
[46] R.M. Brookman, R. Lamsal, G.A. Gagnon, Comparing the formation of bromate and
bromoform due to ozonation and UV-TiO2 oxidation in seawater, J. Adv. Oxid.
Technol. 14 (1) (2011) 23–30.
[47] H.-W. Yu, S.-G. Oh, I.S. Kim, I. Pepper, S. Snyder, A. Jang, Formation and speciation
of haloacetic acids in seawater desalination using chlorine dioxide as disinfectant, J.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 26 (2015) 193–201.
[48] P.C. Mayankutty, A.A. Nomani, T.S. Thankachan, R. Al-Rasheed, Studies on THMs
formation by various disinfectants in seawater desalination plants, Proceedings of
IDA Conference, 1995.
[49] W.X. Simon, E. Berdalet, F.A. Gracia, F. Espana, J. Llorens, Seawater disinfection by
chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite. A comparison of biofilm formation,
Water Air Soil Pollut. 225 (2014) 1921.
[50] D.O. Schneider, A.L. Weinrich, E. Giraldo, W.M. LeChevallier, Impacts of salt type
and concentration on coagulation of humic acid and silica, J. Water Supply Res.
Technol. AQUA 62 (2013) 6.
M. Badruzzaman et al.
[51] J.K. Edzwald, J. Haarhoff, Seawater pretreatment for reverse osmosis: chemistry,
contaminants, and coagulation, Water Res. 45 (2011) 5428–5440.
[52] L. Weinrich, N.C. Haas, W.M. LeChevallier, Recent advances in measuring and
modeling reverse osmosis membrane fouling in seawater desalination: a review, J.
Water Reuse Desalin. 03.2 (2013).
[53] S. Jeong, R. Vollprecht, K. Cho, T. Leiknes, S. Vigneswaran, H. Bae, S. Lee,
Advanced organic and biological analysis of dual media filtration used as a pre-
treatment in a full-scale seawater desalination plant, Desalination 385 (2016)
83–92.
[54] S.A.A. Tabatabai, Coagulation and ultrafiltration in seawater reverse osmosis pre-
treatment, A Thesis Submitted to UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education,
2014.
[55] R.K. Henderson, S.A. Parsons, B. Jefferson, The impact of algal properties and pre-
oxidation on solid-liquid separation of algae, Water Res. 42 (2008) 1827–1845.
[56] M.A. Sanz, D. Guevara, F. Beltrán, E. Trauman, 4 stages pre-treatment reverse os-
mosis for South-Pacific seawater: El Coloso plant (Chile), Proceedings of the 2005
International Desalination Association World Congress, Singapore, 2005.
[57] M. Petry, M.A. Sanz, C. Langlais, V. Bonnelye, J.P. Durand, D. Guevara,
W.M. Nardes, C.H. Saemi, The El Coloso (Chile) reverse osmosis plant, Desalination
203 (2007) 141–152.
[58] K.S. Park, S.S. Mitra, W.K. Yim, S.W. Lim, Algal bloom - critical to designing SWRO
pretreatment and pretreatment as built in Shuwaikh, Kuwait SWRO by Doosan,
Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (31–33) (2013) 1–12.
[59] F.H. Kiang, W.W.L. Young, D.D. Ratnayaka, The Singapore solutions, Civ. Eng. 77
(1) (2007) 62–69 January.
[60] N. Voutchkov, Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis Desalination, Elsevier, Cambridge,
Ma, 978-0-12-809953-7, 2017.
[61] S.T. Mitroulia, S.G. Yiantsiosa, A.J. Karabelasa, M. Mitrakasb, M.F. llesdalc,
P.A. Kjolseth, Pretreatment for desalination of seawater from an open intake by
dual-media filtration: pilot testing and comparison of two different media,
Desalination 222 (2007) 24–37.
[62] A. Zouboulis, G. Traskas, P. Samaras, Comparison of single and dual media filtration
in a full-scale drinking water treatment plant, Desalination 213 (2008) 334–342.
[63] J. Jacangelo, N. Voutchkov, M. Badruzzaman, A.L. Weinrich, Pretreatment for
seawater reverse osmosis: existing plant performance and selection guidance, A
Report Submitted to the WateReuse Research Foundation, 2017.
[64] N. Voutchkov, Seawater desalination, Chapter 3, Advanced Membrane Technology
and Applications, 2008 9780471731672.
[65] D.A. Ladner, Effects of Bloom-Forming Algae on Fouling of Integrated Membrane
91
Desalination 449 (2019) 78–91
Systems in Seawater Desalination, PhD dissertation University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 2009 Retrieved at www.clemson.edu/ces/ladnergroup/theses/
Ladner2009.pdf.
[66] D.A. Ladner, D.R. Vardon, M.M. Clark, Effects of shear on microfiltration and ul-
trafiltration fouling by marine bloom-forming algae, J. Membr. Sci. 356 (2010)
33–43.
[67] G.J. Millan, G.R. Garcia, G.M.J. Lopez, B. Linney, E.M. Beltrain, M.S. Clares,
V.J. Escudero, S.J. Orta, Commissioning of two SWRO with different pretreatment:
conventional vs ultrafiltration, IDA Conference, San Diego, CA, 2015.
[68] M.A. Sari, S. Chellam, Surface water nanofiltration incorporating (electro) coagu-
lation–microfiltration pretreatment: fouling control and membrane characteriza-
tion, J. Membr. Sci. 437 (2013) 249–256.
[69] O.L. Villacorte, A.A.S. Tabatabai, M.D. Anderson, L.G. Amy, C.J. Schippers,
D.M. Kennedy, Seawater reverse osmosis desalination and (harmful) algal blooms,
Desalination 360 (2015) 61–80.
[70] L. Sheng, S. Shahnawaz, T. Leiknes, L.G. Amy, N. Ghaffour, Evaluation of potential
particulate/colloidal TEP foulants on a pilot scale SWRO desalination study,
Desalination 393 (2016) 127–134.
[71] R.A. Guastalli, X.F. Simon, Y. Penru, D.A. Kerchove, J. Llorens, S. Baig, Comparison
of DMF and UF pre-treatments for particulate material and dissolved organic matter
removal in SWRO desalination, Desalination 344 (2013) 144–150.
[72] M. Busch, R. Chu, S. Rosenberg, Novel tends in dual membrane systems for seawater
desalination: minimum primary pretreatment and low environmental impact
treatment schemes, IDA J. 2 (1) (2010) (First Quarter).
[73] R. Chu, J. Wei, M. Busch, Economic evaluation of UF + SWRO in seawater desa-
lination, Chinese Desalination Association Conference, Qing Dao, China, 2009.
[74] K. Gaid, C. Ventresque, C. Pitavy, B.J. Thubert, J. Lepark, Pretreatment of RO de-
salination: Success stories for various water qualities, The International
Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse 2015/
San Diego, CA, USA, 2015.
[75] J. Suarez, L. Barbera, G. Gilbert-Oriol, C.J. Gonzalez, J. Pordomingo, Two years
operational experience with ultrafiltration as pretreatment of seawater desalination
system, USA, The International Desalination Association World Congress on
Desalination and Water Reuse 2015/San Diego, CA, USA, 2015.
[76] S.-J. Jin, S.-H. Kang, M.-G. Kang, H. Yang, H. Han, J.-H. Kim, K.-Y. Ryu, Y. Maeda,
Korea’s first advanced IMS seawater desalination plant: Design and operation
concept and actual performance, The International Desalination Association World
Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse 2015/San Diego, CA, USA, 2015.