Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Hybrid technologies: The future of energy efficient desalination – A review T

Farah Ejaz Ahmed, Raed Hashaikeh , Nidal Hilal
⁎ ⁎

NYUAD Water Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Further reduction in energy consumption is an attractive prospect for both well-established technologies such as
Desalination reverse osmosis and electrodialysis, and for emerging desalination technologies struggling to reach commer­
Hybrid cialization. One way of reducing energy consumption and meeting target water demands is by playing on the
Reverse osmosis strengths of two or more processes through hybridization. Other key objectives of hybridization include flexible
Salinity gradient
operation, increased plant capacity and/or meeting specific water quality requirements. Here, we provide a
Forward osmosis
critical review of hybrid desalination systems, and methods used to optimize such systems with respect to these
Membrane distillation
objectives. Providing a brief overview of current status and energy consumption in both mature and developing
desalination processes, we review the advantages and challenges of hybridization of these processes to overcome
limitations of standalone systems. For instance, coupling of electrodialysis with reverse osmosis helps overcome
the low recovery of reverse osmosis systems. On the other hand, reverse osmosis can be coupled with membrane
distillation for treatment of hypersaline feed solutions or for zero liquid discharge brine treatment. Forward
osmosis relies on hybridization with a low-cost separation process to recover the draw solution. Some promising
candidates for this have been nanofiltration and membrane distillation. Membrane distillation hybrids are sui­
table when thermal energy can be supplied at very low costs. We also review the applicability of salinity gradient
power technologies with desalination systems and identify gaps that need to be addressed for effective upscaling
and implementation of such hybrid systems.

1. Introduction adequate food and livelihood. Despite making up most of the Earth's
surface, clean water remains a precious resource to which billions of
Water is essential to life and to fundamental human rights such as people have little or no access. The UN predicts that up to 5.7 billion

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: raed.hashaikeh@nyu.edu (R. Hashaikeh), nidal.hilal@nyu.edu (N. Hilal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114659
Received 14 July 2020; Received in revised form 30 July 2020; Accepted 30 July 2020
0011-9164/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
people could be affected by water scarcity by 2050 as more and more
people continue to live under water stress [1]. Some of the factors
contributing to growing water scarcity are population growth, urbani­
zation, climate change as well as depletion of limited freshwater re­
sources. It is vital that we explore develop technologies and benefit
from alternative water sources such as seawater to meet our increasing
water needs [2]. However, many widely available water sources are
complex in composition and can contain large amounts of dissolved
salts, that first need to be removed via desalination. Desalination can
treat brackish water and remove salts and minerals from seawater [3].
Today, desalination meets nearly 1% of the global water demand and
the global water desalination market is predicted to grow at 8% be­
tween 2018 and 2025 [2]. Water-intensive industries such as oil and
gas, agriculture and chemical manufacturing are expected to support
this growth over the next few years.
Traditionally, desalination processes either rely on thermal dis­
tillation such multi-stage flash (MSF) and multi-effect distillation
(MED) or on mechanically driven membrane processes such as reverse
osmosis (RO). The growing acceptance, and often preference, of
membrane technologies is based on ease of operation, compactness,
limited use of chemicals, low energy consumption and the development
of enhanced membrane materials [4].
Emerging desalination technologies such as freeze desalination (FD)
and osmotically driven processes like forward osmosis (FO), have also
recently garnered interest although they still face many challenges on
the road to commercialization.
Constituting roughly 20–30%, energy is a major factor in the overall
cost of product water from desalination plants [5]. It does not come as a
surprise that there is a vast amount on literature available on energy
consumption of desalination processes. Some reviews target specific
processes, while others take a broader approach towards energy con­
sumption in the desalination industry. Shrivastava et al. broke down the
energy efficiency of reverse osmosis, and found an asymptoting energy
efficiency, indicating that RO systems currently operate very close to
their thermodynamic limit [6]. Similarly, Zarzo et al. [7] consider
major energy contributions and methods to optimize energy costs for
RO desalination. Ghalavand et al. [8] compare the energy consumption
of leading desalination technologies: mainly seawater reverse osmosis
(SWRO), brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO), MSF and MED. Re­
cently, Nassrullah et al. consider both thermal and membrane desali­
nation processes, providing a systematic review of the evolution of
energy consumption and breakdown of desalination processes [9]. They
emphasize the need for continued attention on renewable energy. The
number of studies, and in turn reviews, focusing solely on renewable
energy for desalination [10–22] are manifest to the continuous efforts
in integrating renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geo­
thermal power with desalination, which also includes implementation
of large-scale solar-powered desalination plants.
Flexibility in operation while meeting specific product water quality
demands and brine disposal regulations with high water production
rates comes at the price of high energy consumption. Specific demands
in water quality often require the use of additional passes and/or in­
creased stress on the energy costs of a stand-alone system. There is
growing interest in combining the benefits of two or more systems, to
meet specific water quality goals and/or reduce energy consumption.
Hybridization of desalination technologies is often aimed at meeting
one or more objectives, such as eliminating the need for a second pass,
increasing water recovery rate or reducing brine salinity. Hybrid sys­
tems have been considered as economically superior alternatives to
standalone systems due to their ability to reduce energy consumption
and therefore cost of desalinated water through improved recovery rate
and/or water quality [23,24]. Additionally, hybridization of salinity
gradient power generation technologies with desalination serves as
integrated energy recovery and may potentially lower the cost of de­
salination. Effective hybridization requires the optimization of opera­
tional parameters and configuration depending on feed type, target
2
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
water quality and the individual processes that make up the hybrid
system.
Hybrid desalination systems, first proposed towards the end of the
20th century, have traditionally constituted thermal/RO systems,
touting the combined benefits of high separation efficiency of multi-
stage flash (MSF) and low energy consumption of RO [25–30]. This
MSF-RO hybrid arrangement has been adopted by existing and new
plants in Saudi Arabia and the UAE to expand water production capa­
city, as briefly reviewed by Hamed [24]. However, in 2007, Ismat
Kamal [31] concluded that there is no justification for new hybrid
power/thermal/SWRO plants. She argued that such hybridization
makes economic and technological sense only when refurbishing ex­
isting thermal desalination plants by adding SWRO, which could in fact
lead to a several-fold increase in water output and improved fuel effi­
ciency, whereas new hybrid MSF-RO plants are not techno-economic­
ally feasible. Today, hybrid desalination technologies encompass a
broad spectrum that includes integration of RO with other membrane
processes such as electrodialysis (ED) and membrane distillation (MD),
as well as the hybridization of RO or MSF with other emerging desa­
lination technologies. Although, the use of more than one power source
integrated with a single desalination process is also referred to as hy­
brid, such systems are not included in the scope of this review. Hybrid
systems were initially employed for small-scale desalination systems,
but have recently been extended to large-scale plants, to reduce energy
cost [23].
In the past, researchers have proposed hybrid desalination tech­
nologies as a potential solution towards energy efficient desalination
[9,32]. The development of new membrane processes such as FO and
pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) has caused a revival of research in
hybrid desalination systems. In 2015, Ang et al. [33] reviewed the
performance and applications of integrated/hybrid membrane systems
for desalination and water treatment. They encouraged researchers to
focus on efficient designs of integrated membrane systems and high-
energy efficiency processes; however, they left out osmotically driven
membrane processes. Soon after, Chekli et al. assessed recent devel­
opments and applications of FO systems integrated with thermal,
membrane and/or chemical processes for desalination and water
treatment, citing high recovery rates, ability to treat challenging feeds
and reduced environmental impact as advantages of hybrid FO systems
[34]. Hybrid desalination systems are characterized not only be low
specific energy consumption (SEC), but also high plant capacity, flex­
ibility in operation and meeting specific water quality demands. The
current work presents a critical review of the past, present and future of
hybrid desalination technologies with respect to these aspects.
2. Overview of desalination processes
The acceptance and growth of desalination have been primarily
driven by reduction in costs [35], of which energy consumption is a key
component [36]. Membrane-based desalination, which made up
roughly 10% of the world's seawater desalination capacity in 1999, has
now surpassed traditional thermal technologies primarily due to lower
energy costs [37].
2.1. Current status and energy consumption in desalination systems
2.1.1. Thermal desalination processes
In the Middle East and North Africa region, thermal desalination
such as multi-stage flash (MSF) and multi-effect distillation (MED) are
the predominant desalination technologies making up to 85% of total
production capacity [38]. Thu et al. attribute this to the following
reasons: greater seawater salinity the Gulf region, the recurrent algal
blooms that would cause severe fouling of RO membranes and the
number of large-scale power generation plants that enable cost-effec­
tive colocation of power and desalination plants.
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
2.1.1.1. Multi-stage flash (MSF)
2.1.1.1.1. Overview of MSF. As its name suggests, MSF relies on
flash evaporation of part of the feed as it moves through multiple
stages. Flashing occurs when the pressure in each stage is lower than
the vapor pressure of the heated liquid. In MSF, each stage is at a higher
temperature than the previous stage and the pressure in each stage
corresponds to the boiling point of water at that temperature. Cold feed
is heated as it passes through each stage and is further heated in the
brine heater. As the brine flows back through the stages, it has a
temperature higher than the boiling point at the given pressure and
thus a fraction of the brine boils to steam. The vapor is then condensed
on the external surface of heat exchanger tubes [39]. The two most
common MSF configurations are once-through MSF (MSF-OT) and brine
mixing MSF (BM-MSF). In OT-MSF, the brine blowdown, or the
unevaporated brine leaving the last stage, is returned to sea. In BM-
MSF, part of the brine is mixed with incoming feed. Evaporator surfaces
are a key component of both MSF and MED [40]. Evaporator surfaces
can consist of submerged tubes or falling films and plates, among
others.
Today, MSF accounts for roughly 23% of total installed desalination
capacity [41], as is seen in Fig. 1. In the Middle East, desalination is
dominated by MSF despite its higher capital investment and operating
costs as compared to other existing technologies. This is attributed to
the accumulated experience, simple construction, use of low-cost con­
struction materials and proven reliability. As MSF desalination makes
up a significant portion of the global installed desalination capacity and
remains the most widely used desalination technology in the Middle
East due to availability of low-grade heat and cogeneration of power
and water, it is important to implement strategies to further minimize
the cost of running these systems. In the following section, we will
consider the evolution of energy consumption in MSF systems.
2.1.1.1.2. Energy consumption in MSF. Although many factors such
as the maximum temperature of the heat source, salt concentration in
the flashing brine, configuration and number of stages as well as the
design of the heat-exchange devices affect the energy consumption in
an MSF system, Al-Karaghouli and Kazmerski emphasize that reduction
in energy consumption in MSF can be driven by increasing the gain
output ratio (GOR), number of stages and heat transfer area [42]. GOR
is used to measure the efficiency of a thermal desalination system and is
defined as the mass of kg of water produced per kg of steam used
[8,43]. Practical values of 8 to 12 kgdistillate / kgsteam are typically
reported for commercial MSF systems [43]. Scale formation, fouling
and corrosion of pipes also reduce the energy efficiency of MSF systems.
MSF plants consume heat energy equivalent to ~20 kWh/m3 in
addition to mechanical equivalent energy of 4 kWh/m3 [44,45]. El-
Naser reported that the energy consumption by MSF plants falls 12–24
kWh of power for every cubic meter of water produced [46]. It must be
noted that the cost of the thermal energy for a thermal desalination
Fig. 1. Breakdown of worldwide desalination capacity by technology [41].
3
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
system also depends on whether the energy is supplied with waste heat
from a power generation plant as is the case in many GCC countries. In
such cogeneration plants, high availability steam produced by a steam
turbine is partly used to supply thermal energy to desalination systems
including MSF and MED [44,47].
2.1.1.2. Multi-effect distillation (MED)
2.1.1.2.1. Overview of MED. Multi-effect distillation (MED) is the
oldest industrial desalination process in use today [48,49]. The MED
evaporator consists of cells, called effects, at decreasing pressure and
temperature from first to last, with temperature typically between 65
and 90 °C [50]. The lower pressure in each effect enables water to
evaporate at low temperatures as the boiling point of water decreases
with pressure [51]. Each effect consists of evaporator tube bundles on
which seawater is sprayed. Heating steam or hot water through the
tubes is supplied in the first effect and it transfers energy to the
seawater in each effect, causing partial evaporation [50]. Clean
distillate water is produced when steam is condensed in the last effect
using a heat exchanger. This product water is pumped into a storage
tank while the brine is pumped back into the sea.
2.1.1.2.2. Energy consumption in MED. MED plants producing water
in the range of 5000 to 50,000 m3/day typically require between 145
and 230 MJ/m3 of thermal energy which translates into 12.2 to 19.1
kWh/m3 of electrical energy. In addition, pumps account for 2 to 2.5
kWh/m3 of additional electrical energy [9]. The energy consumption in
MED is linked to the configuration of feed and vapor flow. The three
main configurations are forward feed, backward feed and parallel feed.
As shown in Fig. 1, MED accounts for roughly 8% of the world's
installed desalination capacity.
The top brine temperature (TBT) in MED plants is limited by cal­
cium sulfate scaling whereas the temperature at the bottom of the
condenser is limited by the normal temperature of seawater that is used
as cooling water. Although many plants operate at a TBT of 70 °C to
minimize potential of scaling on tube surfaces, a lower TBT translates
into greater required heat transfer area is required for evaporation [37].
Another factor affecting the performance of MED is the number of ef­
fects. Studies show that the performance ratio in MED increases with
the number of effects [37]. This is because the number of effects in­
creases specific heat transfer area, reduces the temperature drop across
each effect and allows for enhanced internal energy recovery. This re­
duces SEC and thus enhances the performance ratio of the system [9].
However, the number of effects is limited by the difference between the
condensing temperature at the first hot plant effect and that in the final
condenser [49] as well as the minimum temperature difference between
consecutive effects [37]. MED requires less thermal energy than MSF as
it typically operates at lower temperatures [9,52] and is thermo­
dynamically the most efficient of thermal distillation processes [53].
2.1.2. Reverse osmosis
2.1.2.1. Overview. Today, RO is a leading membrane process and is
considered an established desalination technology. Prior to widespread
commercialization of RO, desalination involved high-energy thermal
processes that relied on phase change. RO relies on reversing the flow of
osmosis by applying a hydraulic pressure greater than the osmotic
pressure of a solution, thus forcing water to move from a high-solute
region to a low-solute region through a semi-permeable non-porous
membrane. As RO is not a phase change process, the theoretical energy
consumption to produce fresh water from RO is significantly lower than
that needed to evaporate water from a feed solution. This has made RO
an attractive technology over the years with large-scale plants installed
worldwide [54]. In many parts of the world, RO desalination has
surpassed thermal desalination in installed capacity. The low recovery
of RO plants especially for seawater desalination combined with the
vast knowledge available on optimization of RO systems makes RO.
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
2.1.2.2. Energy consumption in reverse osmosis systems. According to the
laws of thermodynamics, the minimum theoretical energy to produce
fresh water from seawater at 50% recovery is 1.14 kWh/m3 [55].
However, pump inefficiencies, other losses as well as the energy
consumed in downstream and upstream processes result in seawater
RO plants typically operating at 10 kWh/m3 without energy recovery
and at 2–5 kWh/m3 with energy recovery. The energy consumption of
smaller plants can be > 15 kWh/m3. Brackish water RO requires
around 1–3 kWh/m3 [56].
Kim et al. [57] have critically analyzed trends in energy consump­
tion for SWRO systems by using data from > 70 large-scale SWRO
plants (with capacity ≥10,000 m3/day). The increasing need for de­
salination, reflected by growing plant capacity (Fig. 1), complements a
gradual decrease in energy consumption.
Data collected by Nikolas Voutchkov from 20 desalination plants of
production capacity ≥40,000 m3/day between 2005 and 2010 shows
that the average energy consumption of SWRO membrane systems is
3.1 kWh/m3 [58]. A comparable figure of 3.7 kWh/m3 has been found
by Raphael Semiat [59]. Voutchkov emphasizes that this energy use
represents the desalination component, which contributes roughly 65%
- 80% of the total energy demand for a desalination plant, while pre­
treatment of seawater and, occasionally, product water delivery are the
next largest users of energy.
The overall energy of RO systems depends on several factors such as
feed characteristics, recovery rate, pump efficiency, membrane per­
meability, RO configuration (determined by target permeate quantity
and quality), and the type of energy recover device (ERD) used, if any.
Many of these factors and the evolution of pumps, ERDs, membranes
and configurations over decades have been discussed in detail else­
where [9,57,58,60]; thus only a brief overview is provided here in order
to guide our discussion on energy and hybrid desalination technologies.
2.1.2.2.1. Feed characteristics. Feed temperature is said to not be
strongly related to SEC for RO systems [57]. As Koutsou et al. point out
[61], an increase in feed-water temperature generally increases
membrane permeability, lowers the pressure required and thus leads
to a reduction of SEC, especially for low-salinity feeds. For desalination
of high salinity feeds such as seawater, an increase in temperature
increases the osmotic pressure and counters the positive effects and an
optimum temperature is reached at ~30 °C. With respect to salinity,
higher feed total dissolved solids (TDS) or greater osmotic pressure
requires a higher applied pressure. Hence, the greater the feed salinity,
the greater the energy consumption.
2.1.2.2.2. Recovery ratio and energy consumption. Semiat calculated
the energy requirement of RO as a function of recovery ratio, as shown
in Fig. 2. The energy demand for pumping and pretreatment decreases
with increasing recovery ratio, while the energy demand for the RO
process increases as recovery ratio due to pressure changes [59].
Fig. 2. Energy demand in RO as a function of water recovery [59].
4
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Fig. 3. Specific energy consumption (SEC) in kWh/m3 for desalination of saline
water from the Arabian Sea, typical seawater, Tampa Bay and brackish
groundwater as a function of membrane permeability [62]. Published by the
Royal Society of Chemistry.
Combining these two yields a total energy demand curve with a
shallow minimum at around 50% recovery, indicating that even
major improvements in RO membranes may not lead to significant
reduction in RO energy consumption today [59].
Recently, Patel et al. reached a similar conclusion for desalination
technologies through their systematic analysis of materials on energy
consumption: ultrapermeable materials will do little to further improve
energy efficiency of desalination systems (Fig. 3) [62]. On the contrary,
issues related to concentration polarization and membrane fouling may
amplify at the high fluxes achieved by such membranes and efforts
should instead emphasize aspects of membrane-solute selectivity for
specific applications such as removal of boron or chlorides [62].
2.1.2.2.3. High-pressure pumps and ERDs. Pressurizing the feed
through high-pressure pumps is the largest contributor to energy
consumption and operating cost in an RO system. Karabelas et al.
agree that, in addition to membrane permeability, pump and ERD
inefficiencies have the greatest effect on SEC [63]. In RO systems, a
large part of the energy leaves in the form of pressurized brine. This
holds especially true for seawater RO systems which typically operate at
low recovery rates of 35–45% [64] and also require greater applied
pressure. ERDs were first applied to RO systems in the 80s with the aim
of recovering this energy and using it to pressurize incoming feed, thus
reducing the energy consumption of the system [65,66].
The first generation of ERDs used for RO was of the centrifugal type.
Widely used devices of this type include Francis turbines, Pelton wheels
and turbochargers. These were limited in capacity and had efficiencies
of < 80%. The advent of isobaric ERDs in the form of piston-type work
exchangers and rotary pressure exchangers (PX) translated into un­
limited capacity and efficiencies reaching as high as 98% [67–69],
which led to RO energy savings of up to 40% [70].
The Pelton turbine (PT) remains a widely used commercial ERD
technology despite it being a centrifugal device. Among isobaric de­
vices, PX are widely being implemented in RO plants, although other
technologies such as axial piston motors (APM) and pressure in­
tensifiers (PI) are also commonly available ERD technologies. PX ERDs
operate by bringing the pressurized brine into contact with low-pres­
sure feed to transfer energy at high efficiency. Although the choice of
ERD also depends on the minimum brine flow rate [22,71], PX devices
offer low payback time, are scalable and require little maintenance.
[67,70,72–74]. Improvement in the energy efficiency of ERDs as they
F.E. Ahmed, et al. Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

Fig. 4. (a) Production capacity of SWRO desalination plants over commissioning years; (b) Specific energy consumption (kWh/m3) for SWRO desalination plants
using ERDs of different types [57]. DWEER: dual work exchanger energy recovery; FT: Francis turbine; PT: Pelton turbine; PX: pressure exchanger.

transitioned from turbine to isobaric has caused significant reduction in With a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy (RE), the coupling
SEC. Fig. 4 shows the reduction in SEC of SWRO plants and the different of commercially viable RE technologies such as photovoltaics (PV) with
types of ERDs employed over the years. desalination technologies is set to achieve new energy trends. Al Khafji,
ERDs are not only beneficial for SWRO systems, but have also shown the world's largest PV-powered reverse osmosis (PV-RO) desalination
to reduce the energy consumption for brackish water RO (BWRO) [75]. plant is set to become the world's largest PV-powered reverse osmosis
For a medium-scale BWRO desalination plant, an ERD with efficiency of (PV-RO) desalination plant with a production capacity of 60,000 m3/
90% could reduce energy consumption by almost 54%. day [22]. Semiat argues that solar powered desalination is only suitable
Table 1 summarizes the relative weight of each factor on the SEC of when batteries are used to ensure continuous operation, which adds to
small-scale RO systems [76]. It can be seen that SEC depends strongly energy costs [22,59].
on feed and product water quality, applied pressure and the use of
energy recovery devices [76]. 2.1.3. Nanofiltration
Fath et al. analyze trends in production rates and energy con­ 2.1.3.1. Overview. With membrane properties that lie between
sumption for different desalination technologies among nations of the ultrafiltration (UF) and RO, nanofiltration has emerged as a unique
Gulf Cooperation Council between 2005 and 2025 [77]. In Saudi and versatile pressure-driven separation technology which many
Arabia, a country that leads desalination and is also home to the world's applications. With lower required pressure and therefore lower
largest desalination plant in Al-Jubail, a 2.5-fold increase in installed energy consumption when compared to RO [78], NF is capable of
desalination capacity is accompanied by a similar increase in energy separating multivalent inorganic salts and small organic molecules from
consumption from 48,000 GWh to 119,000 GWh. A similar trend was feed streams at high rejection rates. NF membranes exhibit rejection
observed for the UAE. Given rapid global advances in both membrane rates between 75 and 99% for divalent salts and 30–50% for
productivity and selectivity, this increase in energy consumption could monovalent salts [79]. As the rejection of some small-size organic
be surprising. One of the factors has been the slower transition from contaminants is lower in NF, it is often used in combination with other
high-energy consuming thermal technologies to membrane technolo­ separation processes such as adsorption to achieve similar removal of
gies in the region as compared to the rest of the world. The study micropollutants [80].
suggested energy consumption strategies in the form of novel pre­
treatment methods and configurations for thermal desalination, and
low-pressure membranes for the growth of RO [77]. 2.1.3.2. Nanofiltration as pretreatment to desalination. Adequate and
reliable pretreatment can minimize fouling and scaling issues in the
desalination system and lower operating costs [81–83]. In addition to
Table 1 removal of large impurities as is the case with conventional
Relative importance of various factors in determining the SEC of small-scale RO pretreatment and low-pressure membrane processes such as
systems, as analyzed by Stillwell and Webber [76]. microfiltration (MF) to ultrafiltration (UF), softening of the feed and
efficient removal of divalent ions at the pretreatment stage would not
Factor Variable Relative weight
only reduce the osmotic pressure of the feed and lower the energy
3
Raw water flow (m /day) qrw 0.067a required for RO, but would control membrane scaling and increase the
Product water flow (m3/day) qpw 0.072a lifespan of RO membranes. Pretreatment to desalination processes, both
Inverse recovery 1 0.071a thermal and RO, have thus been a major application of NF [84]. By
1 R
Raw water TDS (mg/L) crw 0.15a removing scaling species such as calcium sulfate and calcium
Product water TDS (mg/L) cpw 0.19a carbonate, NF pretreatment enables the use of higher top brine
Pressure (bar) P 0.12a
temperatures (TBT) in thermal desalination, and increases GOR.
Energy recovery equipment ER 0.15a
Temperature (∘C) T 0.034 Apart from desalination, NF membranes are also widely used in food
and dairy, textile, paper pharmaceutical, and petrochemical industries
a
Relative weight is statistically significant. [85].

5
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Although ionic transport in NF membranes is not fully understood,
as is shown by recent efforts in modelling NF mass transport [86].
However, there have been sufficient studies to show that charge, size
exclusion and dielectric effects are all partially responsible for ionic
transport through NF membranes [87,88]. Charge polarity between the
membrane and the solute causes separation by attraction/repulsion
forces. Steric effects are related to transport due to the relative size of
the ions and membrane pores, which for NF membranes are on the
order of 1 nm [89,90]. Transport due to dielectric effects results from
differences in dielectric constant between bulk and membrane pores
[87].
2.1.3.3. Energy consumption in nanofiltration. Many of the factors that
determine energy consumption for RO are shared by NF since it is also a
pressure-drive process. As discussed earlier, RO systems have energy
demands of 1.5–2.5 kWh/m3, with the highest contributor to cost being
high-pressure pumps. Since NF membranes operate at lower pressures,
the energy demand is also lower at 0.6–1.2 kWh/m3 [80]. Some
challenges associated with nanofiltration include membrane fouling,
low separation of micropollutants and the need to develop a deeper
understanding of mass transport [91,92]. Advances in membrane
materials [93–95], especially anti-fouling membranes [96,97], have
partially driven nanofiltration towards lower energy costs. NF as
pretreatment to RO or MSF has not been considered a hybrid
desalination technology in this review.
2.1.4. Electrodialysis
2.1.4.1. Overview and current status. Electrodialysis (ED) is an electro-
membrane process in which ionic and non-ionic components are
removed under the effect of an electric field. Although it was first
patented in 1890, ED became a commercially established process for
desalinating brackish water > 50 years ago [98]. Anions migrate
towards the positive electrode while cations migrate towards the
negative electrode. An ED system consists of alternately arranged
cation exchange membranes (CEM) and anion exchange membranes
(AEM), as shown in Fig. 5.
When an electric field is applied across the electrodes, an ionic
current forces anions and cations to migrate towards the positive and
Fig. 5. Schematic of electrodialysis desalination [99].
6
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
negative electrodes respectively. Combined with the selective separa­
tion of cations and anions through the stack of CEMs and AEMs, this
ionic transport results in channels with low-concentration (diluate) and
high-concentration (concentrate) solutions [100]. Separation via ED
takes place when cations moving through the CEM are prevented from
the following AEM and the similar takes place for anions [99]. This
results in removal of salt and subsequent accumulation in concentrate
channels. A single cell pair refers to the assembly of an AEM and a CEM
and adjacent channels [100]. Ion exchange membranes used for ED are
characterized by high selectivity and low electrical resistance. Like
other membranes, these membranes are prone to fouling in the form
accumulation of impurities on the surface. Reversing the polarity of the
ED system mitigates fouling by removing foulants from the surface of
the membranes [101–104]. This modified process, known as electro­
dialysis reversal (EDR) was first developed by Ionics in 1974 and
eliminated the need to use acid or anti-scalant chemicals into ED sys­
tems [105]. Fig. 6 shows key milestones in the development of ED
technology.
2.1.4.2. Energy consumption in electrodialysis. An industrial scale ED
system can consist of 300–500 cell pairs [107,108]. The potential
difference applied and hence the energy consumption depends strongly
on the salt concentration of the feed solution, as well as the membrane
used. The rate of salt removal is proportional to the electric current
[109,110]. Values between 0.75 and 1.5 V/cell are typical, requiring a
high potential difference for a large-scale ED system. Higher
concentration of ions would require a higher potential difference for
efficient separation. Given the high concentration of ions in seawater,
the electrical energy required for seawater desalination by ED would be
unfeasible, rendering it suitable for low-concentration solutions such as
brackish water with < 5000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS) [111].
Energy is also required for pumping and for the reactions that take
place at the electrodes, the latter of which accounts for 1–3% of the
total energy consumption [112]. The efficiency of the ED process
depends on the properties of the ion exchange membranes used, feed
water composition and amount of salt removal required. The electrical
conductivity of the membrane determines the potential drop across the
stack of membranes and thus the energy efficiency of the overall system
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 6. Milestones in the development of electrodialysis and related technologies. Adopted from [106,107].
[106]. Theoretically, the energy required for ED to produce water of
800 mg/L is 3.3 kWh/m3 for brackish water and 26 kWh/m3 for
seawater desalination [113]. On average, 0.5–1.1 kWh/m3 for
pumping, 0.7 kWh for each 1000 mg/L TDS removed and roughly 5%
accounts for energy losses in a brackish water ED desalination system
[112]. According to a review by Sajtar and Bagley, energy consumption
for removal between 0 and 2000 mg/L TDS from a feed stream ranges
from 0.1 to 1 kWh/m3 [110]. Although ED is typically applied as a
room temperature process, introducing a temperature gradient or
increasing the temperature of the system can cause energy reductions
[114]. Increasing the temperature increases ion mobility, reduces
electrical resistance of the solution and decreases solution viscosity.
Benneker et al. found that the energy required for ED can be reduced by
9% if the temperature of one of the feed streams is increased by 20 °C
[115]. However, loss of rigidity or degradation of polymer membranes
could occur at high temperatures limiting the upper temperature for ED
design and operation. A higher current density lowers the required
membrane area which leads to a reduction of capital cost. However, the
voltage applied also increases with current density, thus increasing
energy costs. Depending on the water salinity, 0.5–10 kWh/m3 of
electrical energy can be consumed by an ED system [56]. For example,
to lower TDS from 1500 ppm to 500 ppm, an ED unit would consume
~1.5 kWh/m3. Recently, multi-stage electrodialysis systems have been
investigated for reduced energy consumption. Chehayeb et al. found
that energy consumption for brackish water desalination can be
reduced by 29% by using a two-stage system provided that fixed
costs are lowered [116]. In ED, the rate of salt removal is proportional
to the electric current applied. Limiting current density (LCD) is the
phenomenon of the electric current being limited by the rate of
diffusion of ions to the membrane surface and occurs when the ion
concentration at the membrane surface reaches zero. Thus, LCD i.e.
current per unit area of membrane (mA/cm2) represents the maximum
transport rate of ions through the membrane [117]. Doornbusch et al.
used the limiting current density of each stage to determine the
maximum desalination rate per each stage and evaluate the potential
for multistage ED with 4 stages for seawater desalination. They were
able to lower the salinity of seawater from 500 mM to 11.4 mM TDS at
an energy consumption of 3.6 kWh/m3, which is not far off from state-
of-the-art RO systems [118]. ED mass transfer continues to grow in the
overlimiting current region. Membrane modification plays a strong role
in ED desalination performance at overlimiting currents, enabling a
shift of optimum voltage range corresponding to minimum costs [119].
The application of ED remains limited by the high cost of electrodes and
ion exchange membranes, and the electrically-driven degradation of
polymeric membranes [120].
7
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
2.1.5. Emerging desalination technologies
Many argue that the cost of desalination today, particularly sea­
water desalination, remains high despite increasing industrial installa­
tion capacity. Key issues associated with RO for example include high
energy consumption, high capital cost and membrane fouling. In ad­
dition, other growing challenges in the form of brine treatment and
disposal require new approaches. This has led scientists and engineers
to delve into novel desalination processes. Some promising emerging
desalination technologies that have received significant interest in re­
cent years but are not yet widely applied at a commercial scale are
discussed in this section.
2.1.5.1. Membrane distillation
2.1.5.1.1. Overview and current status. Membrane distillation is a
separation process in which a porous hydrophobic membrane is in
contact with aqueous heated feed solution on one side. A vapor pressure
difference across the membrane arises from the temperature difference
between the hot solution and the colder permeate flowing on the other
side. This vapor pressure difference causes more volatile compounds to
evaporate and transport through the membrane pores. MD is a versatile
separation technique with applications ranging from the separation of
dairy compounds, juices, pharmaceutical compounds to desalination
and treatment of oily wastewater [121]. MD has found niche
applications within desalination in recent years where it may
compete with conventional processes such as RO. These include brine
concentration [122–125] or simple, small-scale desalination systems in
remote areas powered using waste heat or renewable energy
[126–128].
2.1.5.1.2. Energy consumption in membrane distillation. The thermal
energy used for heating the feed is the largest contributor of energy in
MD. Thermal energy efficiency corresponds to heat energy such as
latent heat and conductive heat. MD energy costs can be low if waste
heat is used to supply thermal energy to the system. When the energy
being supplied comes at a cost however, the goal should be to maximize
thermal efficiency. As discussed above, a niche application for MD is
brine concentration, for which RO would not be energetically feasible
due to the high osmotic pressure of brine streams. MD has not still not
achieved widespread commercial implementation in desalination due
to high energy consumption and in turn the high cost of product water
[129].
There are four basic MD configurations namely, direct contact
membrane distillation (DCMD), air-gap membrane distillation (AGMD),
vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) and sweeping gas membrane
distillation (SGMD). All of them involve direct contact of the membrane
with a heated feed solution. They differ in how the vapor pressure
gradient is induced and how transported vapor is collected on the
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Table 2
Pros and cons of the four major MD configurations [121].
Configuration Pros
DCMD The easiest and simplest configuration to realize practically, flux is more stable
than VMD for the feeds with fouling tendency, high gained output ratio, it
might be the most appropriate configuration for removal of volatile
components.
VMD High flux, can be used for recovery of aroma compounds and related
substances, the permeate quality is stable despite of some wetting, no
possibility of wetting from distillate side, thermal polarization is very low.
AGMD Relatively high flux, low thermal losses, no wetting on permeate side, less
fouling tendency.
SGMD Thermal polarization is lower, no wetting from permeate side, permeate
quality independent of membrane wetting
permeate side [121]. The energy consumed in MD is largely dependent
on the configuration used. However, non-standardized testing condi­
tions make it difficult to compare configurations across studies.
Due to simplicity, most lab-scale MD studies adopt the DCMD con­
figuration [130]. However, it has been reported that both VMD and
AGMD have greater thermal energy efficiency [131,132], which makes
them popular choices for companies seeking to commercialize MD
processes [121]. Table 2, adopted from Drioli et al. [121], shows the
benefits and drawbacks of each of the four conventional MD config­
urations.
In the last decade alone, much progress has been made in novel MD
membrane materials [133–143]. Despite developments in membrane
fabrication and process design, SEC of MD systems is still vague with a
wide range of reported values. This dispersion has been studied by
Khayet et al. [144], who also suggested that standard methods should
be implemented to calculate water production costs for MD. Operating
conditions such as recovery rate have not been optimized in many MD
studies. When comparing relative flow arrangements between feed and
permeate, Swaminathan et al. [145] found that countercurrent flow
yielded highest energy efficiency, followed by crossflow and parallel.
Table 3 illustrates reported SEC values reported for selected MD sys­
tems [146].
2.1.5.2. Forward osmosis
2.1.5.2.1. Overview. Osmosis is the spontaneous and selective
passage of solvent from a dilute solution to a concentrated solution
through a semipermeable membrane separating the two [159,160]. The
pressure needed to stop this spontaneous movement across the
membrane and maintain equilibrium is known as osmotic pressure.
When hydraulic pressure is applied to counter and exceed the osmotic
pressure, osmosis is reversed i.e. ‘reverse osmosis’ and water is
transported from high solute to low solute region. On the other hand,
transport in osmotically driven processes such as forward osmosis (FO)
is guided by an osmotic pressure gradient across the semipermeable
membrane. As a result, separation in FO requires little or no hydraulic
pressure as a concentrated draw solution (DS) with a greater osmotic
pressure draws in water molecules from the feed solution through a
membrane [161]. The then diluted DS is then further processed to
separate draw solutes from purified water. FO does not require high
pressure and, for the same reason, is not as prone to fouling and scaling
as RO membranes. FO is also a strong candidate for hybrid systems
where other separation techniques are applied to recover the draw
solute after the direct osmosis step.
Apart from feed characteristics and membrane properties, the
choice of appropriate DS strongly affects the performance of an FO
system [162]. An appropriate draw solution must fulfill several re­
quirements. First, it must be able to generate a high osmotic pressure, to
ensure a high osmotic pressure difference between feed and draw so­
lutions [163]. This can be achieved by using ionic compounds with low
8
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Cons
Flux obtained is relatively lower than vacuum configurations under the identical
operating conditions, thermal polarization is highest among all the
configurations, flux is relatively more sensitive to feed concentration, the
permeate quality is sensitive to membrane wetting, suitable mainly for aqueous
solutions.
Higher probability of pore wetting, higher fouling, minimum selectivity of
volatile components, require vacuum pump and external condenser.
Air gap provides an additional resistance to vapors, difficult module designing,
difficult to model due to the involvement of too many variables, lowest gained
output ratio.
molecular weight, high solubility in water and a high degree of dis­
sociation [164,165]. Low molecular weight and viscosity in water also
indicate a greater diffusion coefficient, reducing the effects of con­
centration polarization during FO [166].
As such, multivalent ionic solutes are preferred candidates. Second,
the draw solution must be readily regenerated or reconcentrated using
simple low-cost methods so as to keep overall operation costs and en­
ergy consumptions low [163]. The dependence of osmotic pressure on
solution concentration for various draw solutions was calculated and
presented by Cath et al. [167], as shown in Fig. 7.
Although forward osmosis was first explored in the late 60s, the first
commercial application did not emerge until 2002. The world's first FO
desalination plant was built in 2010, followed by large-scale pilot de­
monstrations in other locations. Since then, there has been an increase
in FO system suppliers in the market. Fig. 8 shows key milestones in the
development of FO as a desalination technology.
2.1.5.2.2. Energy consumption in FO. FO is widely promoted as a
low-energy desalination technique. Although drawing water from the
feed solution to the concentrated DS is a low-energy process driven by
osmotic flow, it is the DS recovery step that dictates the energy
consumption of the entire process. During the osmosis step, a low-
pressure pump is needed to overcome the pressure drop in the feed
channel, and the energy consumed is ~0.10–0.11 kWh/m3 at 50%
water recovery [169,170]. Values of 0.2–0.55 kWh/m3 have also been
reported for the osmosis step [168]. Moon and Lee suggest that FO
desalination ranges from 3 to 8 kWh/m3, depending on the energy
required for draw solute regeneration [171]. Future work in reducing
the energy consumption in FO systems is geared towards process
configuration as well as large-scale process implementation [168].
For a more detailed review on the technological status of and factors
affecting energy consumption in FO desalination systems, the reader is
referred [168] and [9].
2.1.5.3. Freeze desalination
2.1.5.3.1. Overview and current status. Although the concept of
water desalination by freezing was first proposed in the late 1600s
[172], it was not considered to be of practical use before the invention
of refrigeration systems. When the Office of Saline water was created in
1955, freeze desalination (FD), along with other desalination
techniques received renewed interest [173,174]. Since then, as
membrane technologies moved towards commercialization, progress
in FD as a viable desalination technology remained slow, and only
picked up pace in the last 10 years. According to the Web of Science
databases, out of 82 publications with ‘freeze desalination’ in their title,
52 were published between 2010 and 2019. In freeze desalination, ice
crystals are formed from the chilled feed and later melting, thus
allowing fresh water to be extracted [175]. Freeze desalination (FD)
relies on salts and impurities being rejected by ice crystals during the
freezing process which results in a high separation efficiency [176]. The
F.E. Ahmed, et al. Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

[147]
[148]
[149]
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155]
[156]

[157]

[158]
Refs.
Plant capacity (m3/h)

0.0034–0.0094
931 (overall)

2.67–6.94
3.46–19
0.2–20
0.05

3.85
–

~697 to 10,457b
8100.8–9089.5
SEC (kWh/m3)

~65 to ~ 127

~130 to 1700
3550–4580
600–1600
140–200

200–300
1.6–27.5

1500
30.8

130
Tap water, synthetic seawater

Simulated reverse osmosis

Radioactive solution

Underground water
Brackish water

Distilled water

Distilled water

Wastewater
Feed type

Seawater

Seawater
Seawater

Seawater
brine

Fig. 7. Osmotic pressure as a function of solution concentration at 25C for

various potential draw solutions as calculated by Cath et al. [167].
13.4–14.4
Operating conditions

Tp (°C)

18–21

observation of brine pockets trapped in frozen sea ice indicates that

5–30

30

20

frozen sea ice is not pure fresh water and the ice should be separated
–

from the brine before melting to obtain high quality product water
313–343

39.8–59
15–22a

[172]. Thus, the three main steps involved in FD are ice crystallization,
Tf (°C)

35–80
60–85

50–70

separation of ice from brine and melting. Fig. 9 shows a flow diagram of
80
80

60

85
–
–

components in any freeze desalination process [172]. The crystallizer is

the vessel in which ice crystals are formed. These are then separated
PTFE with PP support, mean pore size 0.5 ± 0.08, porosity 91 ± 0.5, active layer thickness

from brine in the separator/washer unit which often consists of a

centrifuge, filter or wash column [177,178]. Product water is obtained
by melting the ice crystals in the last stage of the process.
In addition to exhibiting high separation efficiency, FD is insensitive
Commercial membranes from Membrana with Pore size 0.2 μ and thickness 91 μ

to fouling and does not require any chemicals. Commercialization of FD

has been limited by difficulties related to separation of the ice crystals
Flat sheet PP, thickness 400 μm, Pore size 0.1 μ, porosity 70%, Am 5 m2

from the concentrated brine solution, as well as lack of optimization of

process parameters [179].
LDPE, thickness 76 μ, Pore size 0.3 mμ, porosity 85%, Am 7.4 m2

2.1.5.3.2. Energy consumption in FD. Compared to other phase

PP models from Microdyn Nadir, Pore size 0.2 μ, porosity 73%
Spiral wound PTFE (SEP GmbH), Pore size 0.2 μ, porosity 80%

Several commercial membranes with different characteristics

change processes that involve distillation, FD has a significantly lower

energy requirement as the latent heat of vaporization of water is
2256.7 kJ/kg, which is roughly 7 times the latent heat of fusion of ice
(333.5 kJ/kg) [178,180]. Cold energy can also be provided from
regasification of liquefied natural gas (LNG) [181–188]. Most cold
Specific energy consumption (SEC) of selected MD systems [146].

energy during LNG regasification is wasted, but if used in FD systems,

could keep desalination costs low. For 80% water recovery, FD needs
PVDF hollow fiber, thickness 240 μm
PTFE, Pore size 0.2 μ, porosity 80%

between 12.31 and 13.78 kW/m3 of energy [189]. Although this is

PP, thickness 35 μ, Pore size 0.1 μ

higher than energy consumed by RO systems, it is significantly lower

than other phase change processes. If this energy is provided mainly by
46 ± 1 μm, Am 0.67 m2
Membrane characteristics

waste cold energy from LNG regasification, FD has the potential to be a

PTFE, Pore size 0.2 μ

low-cost desalination alternative.

2.1.6. Salinity gradient energy harvesting

Techniques for harvesting salinity energy are closely related to de­
salination techniques. These techniques convert chemical energy in
salinity gradients to useful energy. Often, these are hybridized with
DCMD in hybrid systems

desalination technologies to simultaneously generate clean water and

energy. Two of these techniques, namely reverse electrodialysis (RED)
and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) are introduced here. Although
Configuration

there are other techniques in literature for conversion of salinity gra­

dient to useful energy, PRO and RED are the most commonly studied
Table 3

AGMD
AGMD
AGMD

AGMD
DCMD

DCMD

DCMD

DCMD

DCMD
VMD

VMD

[190]. They differ in operating principles, membrane properties and

performance.

9
F.E. Ahmed, et al. Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

Fig. 8. Milestones in the development of FO desalination [168].

Fig. 9. Flow diagram of freeze desalination [172].

Fig. 10. Schematic of power generation via reverse electrodialysis (RED) stack with two cells [191].

2.1.6.1. Reverse electrodialysis. RED systems, like ED systems, consist of
alternating cation and anion ion exchange membranes (IEMs) forming a
stack. Concentrated and diluted salt solutions flow through alternating
compartments to create a salinity gradient [190]. Ion transport through
the membranes due to chemical potential difference between solutions
is guided by IEMs and a voltage is generated across the membranes
[191]. This voltage is known as the membrane potential. The electric
potential difference generated across the stack is an accumulation of the
potential differences across each membrane [190,191]. Fig. 10 shows a
schematic of an RED system. The two solutions (concentrated and
diluted) are continuously supplied to maintain current flow.
In the late 20th century, the power density of RED systems was too
low for practical purposes (~ 0.4 W/m2). Power densities of 1.27 W/m2
were achieved when IEMs were tailored for RED along with improve­
ments in stack design [192]. As is the case in ED, membrane properties
play a significant role in determining the performance of the process.
Recently, high power density membranes have been developed at the
lab-scale. These include nanoporous membranes that demonstrate
power densities 1–3 orders of magnitude greater than conventional
IEMs [193]. However, IEMs remain 2–3 times more costly than RO
membranes [194]. Other factors that play a role in enhancing RED
power density include spacer and electrode system design.
Although there are no full-scale RED plants to date, pilot facilities
have been commissioned in the Netherlands and in Italy [192,195].
Existing pilot plants are limited to capacities of < 330 W and exhibit
low power density of < 1 W/m2 [192]. Low-cost, high power density

10
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
RED stacks at the industrial scale are crucial for the commercialization
of RED systems [196]. Scaling up of RED systems depends on the via­
bility of RED pilot plants and improvement of hydrodynamics and
spacer designs for greater power density [197].
2.1.6.2. Pressure retarded osmosis. The first PRO system was designed
by Loeb and Norman in what they referred to as osmotic power plants
[198]. Both FO and PRO rely on the osmotic pressure difference
between two solutions separated by a semipermeable membrane that
allows the solvent to pass through but not the solute. The feed solution
is at a lower osmotic pressure than the draw solution, causing the draw
solution to ‘draw’ water from the feed to the draw via a positive osmotic
pressure gradient [199,200]. If the volume expansion of the draw
solution is restricted, the hydraulic pressure of the draw reservoir will
increase and the pressurized flow of water can be used to drive a
turbine and generate electricity [201,202].
A pilot facility based on PRO was opened by Statkraft in Tofte,
Norway in 2009. For PRO plants to be commercially viable, the energy
generated should be adequately higher than the energy consumed in
pretreatment, feed pumps, chemicals, etc. [203]. PRO membranes
would be required to generate 5 W/m2 and be comparable in price to
RO membranes [204,205]. The unavailability of low-cost high-per­
forming membranes eventually caused the plant to shut down in 2013.
Since then, research efforts in the development low-cost membranes
with high power densities ≥5 W/m2 and using hypersaline waters have
intensified [206,207].
3. Hybrid desalination technologies
A hybrid desalination system is the integration of two or more de­
salination systems in order to enhance performance and/or reduce costs
compared to individual components. Hybrid processes seek to over­
come the limitations of individual processes, improve overall system
performance and/or meet specific requirements using a synergistic
approach. Since hybrid systems require substantial investment, the
optimization of hybrid configurations is an important part of the pro­
cess. This section aims to critically review hybrid desalination tech­
nologies at the lab-scale and pilot scale as appropriate.
3.1. Forward osmosis-nanofiltration hybrid systems
For the recovery of draw solutes in FO, thermal and reverse osmosis
have both been suggested. The advantage of applying thermal desali­
nation is that separation is independent of feed concentration. On the
other hand, RO theoretically and practically consumes less energy and
requires low capital when compared to thermal systems. However, the
cost of operating an RO system is still relatively high. As a result, to
keep FO sustainable, efforts have been put into hybridizing FO with
lower-energy alternatives for draw solute recovery. One such process is
nanofiltration, in which 99% removal of divalent salts [208] can be
achieved at a lower hydraulic pressure than RO.
Tan and Ng proposed a hybrid forward osmosis – nanofiltration (FO-
NF) process for seawater desalination in which NF is applied to re­
generate the draw solution and produce clean water [209]. Empha­
sizing the importance of choosing an appropriate draw solute, they
compared seven potential draw solutes: NaCl, KCl, MgCl2, CaCl2,
MgSO4, Na2SO4 and C6H12O6. A commercial cellulose triacetate (CTA)
membrane was used for FO while a thin-film composite membrane from
GE Osmotics was applied to NF. They found that solute rejection in NF
depended on the concentration of dilute draw solution. Only Na2SO4 as
a draw solute was able to maintain solute rejection of > 90% even as
the concentration of dilute draw solution increased. However, they
tested each process separately and left optimizing the hybrid system,
including draw solution concentration, and energy consumption ana­
lysis to future work.
Following this work, Zhao et al. designed a similar FO-NF process
11
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Fig. 11. FO-NF hybrid schematic as proposed by Zhao et al.
but for brackish water desalination [210]. Fig. 11 shows a schematic of
the hybrid process [210]. This schematic is applicable to most FO-NF
processes where the diluted draw solution is treated with NF to recover
the draw solution and to produce clean water. Compared to stand-alone
RO, the FO-NF system requires less pressure, is less prone to fouling and
also exhibits higher flux recovery upon cleaning. All of these lower the
energy consumption of the desalination system although they did not
present SEC values.
Considerable research effort has also been directed towards ferti­
lizer-drawn forward osmosis (FDFO), in which fertilizers are used as
draw solution and the desalinated water can be used directly for irri­
gation [211–218]. However, it has been noted that the concentration of
fertilizer in the diluted draw solution may still be too high for it to be
directly used as fertilizer [219]. Hence, hybridizing FDFO with se­
paration processes such as NF has been studied in the lab and pilot
scales. Kim et al. investigated an integrated FDFO-NF pilot in the Mil­
dura region of Australia [220,221]. They studied the effect of NF feed
flow rate, feed concentration and applied pressure on water flux and
ammonium sulphate rejection, and found that feed concentration was
the most dominant factor affecting these parameters [221]. The pilot-
scale hybrid system consisted of two spiral wound FO modules and one
spiral wound NF module [220]. To prevent the use of a two-pass NF,
which would increase costs, they suggested that the fertilizer should be
diluted to 70% of the initial concentration during FDFO which would
allow a much lower nutrient concentration in the product water and
make it suitable for direct irrigation. When applied to saline ground­
water from coal mines, the group found that the pilot-scale FDFO-NF
hybrid system operating at NF recovery of 84% only required 1.08 kW/
m3 of energy, which is 14% and 21% less than that needed by MF-RO
and UF-RO systems with similar initial feed conditions [217,220]. Since
MF and UF pretreatment lower the SEC of RO systems by reducing
membrane cleaning and replacement requirements [222], it can be
inferred that the FDFO-NF hybrid system operates at a lower SEC than
standalone RO. FO-NF hybrid systems have also been applied for was­
tewater treatment and reuse [223,224].
3.2. Electrodialysis – reverse osmosis hybrid systems
RO systems, especially those treating challenging feeds, operate at
limited recovery rates due to issues related to scaling and retentate
salinity [225,226]. Increasing recovery in RO systems requires multiple
stages and thus significantly increased capital and operation costs
[227]. On the other hand, ED systems can be operated at higher re­
covery rates, although this is also eventually limited by scale formation.
Electrical desalination systems such as ED also cannot achieve the high
salt rejection of RO membranes [228], and the magnitude of applied
current and hence the energy consumed increases with the amount of
salt rejected [228]. The high recovery rates possible in ED combined
with high salt removal rates in RO provide an opportunity for hy­
bridization to produce high-quality permeate at high recovery and low
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 12. Standalone ED and hybrid ED-RO configurations [230].
SEC [229].
The concept of a hybrid system of an electrodialysis-reverse osmosis
(ED-RO) hybrid system was first explored in 1981 by Schmoldt et al.
[118]. They proposed the use of ED as a second stage to control
permeate quality. However, the lack of high-flux, high-selectivity
membranes back then translated into a high energy consumption of
7.94 kWh/m3 for RO of seawater of 45,000 ppm [118]. At the time,
they established that for a plant capacity of 1000 m3/day with feed
TDS < 4000 mg/L, the investment cost for ED is lower than that for
RO. Today, energy required for RO constitutes a small fraction of this
value, as seen in section 2.2. They noted that the development of high
flux, high salt-rejection membranes would not only reduce the cost of
the RO system, but also lower the TDS of incoming feed and hence the
electrical energy consumption of the ED unit.
McGovern et al. modelled ED-RO systems for both brackish water
desalination [230] and for desalination of highly saline brines [231].
For brackish water desalination, the cost of ED can be reduced by hy­
bridization with RO using the system shown in Fig. 12. The single-stage
RO unit treats feed streams of 3000 ppm TDS at 50% recovery, and the
concentrate stream from RO becomes the feed to the ED at 6000 ppm
TDS [230]. They attributed two advantages of a hybrid system: re­
duction in total membrane area as higher current densities (and
therefore salt removal rates) are possible at higher salinities, and since
the final product is a blend of RO and ED permeates, the required
salinity of the ED permeate can be higher than the final product water
salinity [230]. Percentage reduction in cost is greatest when both feed
and product salinity are low, and highest when salt removal occurs at
high salinity. They suggest that if drinking water is required as product
water is required, i.e. 500 ppm TDS, the relative cost from the single-
stage RO would have to be 65% of that from stand-alone ED to justify
hybridization. If product water requirements are more relaxed, then the
savings in applying a hybrid system are even less.
Since ED is a salt removal process as opposed to water removal,
treatment of RO concentrate with ED results in a highly concentrated
brine that can be further used for salt production [232]. When applied
to treatment brine with TDS 120,000 ppm, a similar arrangement of
counterflow ED systems with RO proposed by the same group could not
perform at high recovery rates due to concentration differences be­
tween streams, greater osmotic pressure and lower efficiency. The
current density corresponding to lowest water cost was much higher
than that needed to maximize efficiency [231].
The concept of incorporating ED on RO concentrate had been ap­
plied previously by Zhang et al. [233] who modified a UF-RO system
treating secondary effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. At a
higher overall recovery rate of 95%, the quality of the ED effluent was
similar to the system without RO, but with higher total organic carbon
(TOC). This was resolved by adding an ozonation process to reduce the
accumulation of organic compounds [233]. However, this study did not
provide data on energy consumption.
Thampy et al. [229] demonstrated an ED-RO hybrid process for
brackish water desalination (feed TDS: 2000–4000 ppm) at high recovery
such that the permeate from ED becomes the feed to RO. A flow diagram
12
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Fig. 13. Flow diagram of ED-RO hybrid where ED is applied to high salinity
region and RO is applied to low salinity region. TS: treated stream, CS: con­
centrated stream; EW: electrode wash; ED: electrodialysis; RO: reverse osmosis
[229].
of the described ED-RO hybrid is shown in Fig. 13. The ED system is
operated as pretreatment in the high salinity region where high solution
conductivity translates into greater efficiency. The RO unit operates in
the low salinity region where the osmotic pressure and thus the energy
required for RO is low. Water was produced with TDS between 50 and
120 ppm at recoveries > 50% for all feed TDS between 2000 and
4000 ppm. The lab-scale ED system consisted of 30 cell pairs and an
effective membrane area of 200 cm2. RO alone requires 7.8 kWh/m3 to
produce water at 10–20% recovery. The hybrid ED-RO system consumed
8–10 kWh/m3, but at a much higher recovery rate of 50–60% [229]. The
energy consumption of the hybrid ED-RO system is comparable or
slightly higher than RO alone, but with 3–5 times the recovery of stan­
dalone RO. Such high recovery rates are not feasible in standalone RO at
comparable SEC. A similar scheme that applies ED as pretreatment was
proposed by Galama et al. for seawater desalination [234].
Turek et al. [235] compared four different configurations for sea­
water desalination plants: single-stage standalone RO, hybrid ED-RO
system, a nanofiltration-RO (NF-SWRO) system and an NF-SWRO-ED
system. They compared SEC and recovery rates for the four systems. As
seen in Table 4, a high recovery of 69% was achieved for the hybrid NF-
SWRO-ED system at 6.90 kWh/m3. Although SEC of the standalone RO
system was much less (2.76 kWh/m3), this single-stage RO system
operates at a recovery rate of only 43%. Furthermore, they highlight
that the saturated brine produced by the system can be used in the
production of salt or in the chlor-alkali industry.
So far, we have considered ED-RO systems in which ED was used as
the second stage in RO to either purify RO permeate or to desalt RO
brine and blend it with RO permeate. In a contrasting approach,
Pellegrino et al. [236] present a theoretical hybrid system in which
hollow-fiber RO membranes are packed in a density similar to ED
spacers and act as spacer channels between AEMs and CEMs, as shown
in Fig. 14. ED helps remove some salt from the RO concentrate stream
and also lowers concentration polarization via electrophoretic move­
ment of ions [236]. Depending on the transport properties of both RO
membranes and IEMs for ED, they identified feed water TDS and pro­
duct recovery rates that would result in energy savings compared to RO
alone. However, such a prototype for this system has not yet been
tested.
Table 4
Specific energy consumption and water recovery for SWRO, SWRO-ED, NF-
SWRO and NF-SWRO-ED systems [235].
System Energy consumption [kWh m−3] Water recovery [%]
SWRO 2.76 42.6
SWRO-ED 7.77 81.1
NF-SWRO 3.93 41.2
NF-SWRO-ED 6.90 69.0
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 14. (a) Schematic cell pair in hybrid ED-RO by Pellegrino et al., (b) Cross-section view of stack configuration for hybrid ED-RO. M+ and X- are cations and
anions respectively. The rectangular elements are CEMs and AEMs. The circles are RO hollow fiber membranes. [120,236].
Although various studies have been implemented in which either
ED or RO are used as the second stage to the other technology, there are
few experimental studies on a hybrid single-stage process. Additionally,
the industrial use of ED-RO systems is not yet widespread as further
optimization of these processes is needed. A comparison of selected ED-
RO studies has been presented in Table 5.
3.3. Reverse osmosis – membrane distillation hybrid systems
Low capital cost, high separation efficiency and ability to operate at
high recovery make MD a promising candidate for hybrid separation
technologies [237,238]. There have been a few studies investigating the
hybridization of MD and RO, where MD is used to treat the concentrate
stream from the RO process. Choi et al. assessed the economic feasi­
bility of a hybrid membrane distillation-reverse osmosis (RO-MD)
system for seawater desalination. They found that and RO-MD hybrid
system or an MD stand-alone system could compete with RO only when
the recovery and flux are greater than that for RO and the thermal
energy supplied for MD comes at a relatively low cost [239]. Naidu
et al. [240] applied DCMD for wastewater RO concentrate treatment
with granular activated carbon (GAC) pretreatment to mitigate the ef­
fects of organic fouling. With wastewater RO concentrate, MD is able to
achieve a high water recovery rate of 85%. Energy consumption for RO-
MD systems for desalination is still unclear and should be further in­
vestigated.
3.4. Forward osmosis – membrane distillation hybrid systems
Although FO is considered a low-energy technology relying on the
spontaneous process of osmosis to transport water from the feed solu­
tion to the concentrated draw solution, the cost of recovering the draw
solution is often ignored. Practical implementation of FO desalination
requires that a simple, low-cost separation process be applied to pro­
duce clean water from the diluted draw solution. Continuous re­
concentration of the draw solution would also keep costs low by pre­
venting the need for frequent replace of the draw solution. MD was first
proposed for this purpose by Cath et al. in 2007 [241]. Since then, the
simultaneous growth of FO and MD with novel membranes, new draw
solutes for FO, and an attempt to reduce energy consumption has been
complemented by research in hybrid FO-MD.
13
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
3.4.1. Draw solution for FO-MD hybrid processes
Zhao et al. exploited temperature-controlled osmotic pressure using
a thermoresponsive copolymer as the draw solute in an FO-MD hybrid
process for seawater desalination [242]. They used poly(sodium
styrene-4-sulfonate-co-n-isopropylacrylamide) (PSSS-PNIPAM) as the
draw solute. When dissolved in water, the polyelectrolyte PSSS gen­
erates high osmotic pressure, facilitating extraction of water from sea­
water at a flux of 4 LMH. When the diluted draw solution is heated to
above the low critical solution temperature (LCST) of PNIPAM, ag­
glomeration of polymer chains causes a reduction in osmotic pressure
and an increase in vapor pressure of the solution (Fig. 15). They note
that although MD requires 29 kWh/m3 to heat water to 50 °C making it
more energy-intensive than RO, capital cost is low and using waste heat
would make the process cost-effective [242]. The concept of a poly­
electrolyte-based draw solution for FO-MD hybrid systems was pro­
posed by Ge et al. [243]. Their group applied poly(acrylic acid) sodium
(PAAeNa) salt as the draw solute followed by MD for reconcentration
for wastewater treatment, and found that efficient treatment required a
stabilized PAA-Na concentration of 0.48 g/mL at a temperature of
66 °C. The same group developed a multi-charged hydroacid complex to
enable FO-MD hybrid systems for seawater/brackish water desalination
[244], as well as the removal of arsenic As(III) from water [245].
This allows improved separation via MD for recovery of the draw
solution. They attributed improved regeneration via MD to the ther­
moresponsive behavior of the draw solute to improved regeneration via
MD. More studies on this of materials that respond to temperature in
the temperature range desirable for MD would assist in further opti­
mization of the FO-MD process. Guo et al. [246] applied Na+-functio­
nalized carbon quantum dots (Na_CQDs) as draw solute for FO as the
feed solution and found that at a concentration of 0.4 g/mL, Na_CQDs
resulted in higher flux than 2.0 M NaCl, a model FO draw solution.
After each FO run, the diluted draw solution was reconcentrated using
MD at 45 °C. FO. MD flux when DI water is applied as FO feed is shown
in Fig. 16b. Osmolality, or osmotic concentration, gives an indication of
the osmotic pressure of the solution. As mentioned earlier, a draw so­
lute should have a high osmotic pressure to induce an osmotic pressure
gradient and draw water from the feed solution. Fig. 16a shows the
effect of draw solute concentration on osmolality. When tested with
seawater near the coast of Singapore, FO flux was lowered to ~10 LMH
due to lower osmotic pressure gradient between seawater and the draw
solution. The system could be further optimized by testing at different
MD feed temperatures. In addition, the study did not consider energy
F.E. Ahmed, et al. Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

Reference

[229]

[233]

[230]

[231]
alone: 7.8
ED-RO: 8–10
SEC (kWh/m3)

• RO
–
•
–

–
Performance at high recoveries is limited by

Fig. 15. Schematic of FO-MD hybrid system for seawater desalination using a
thermoresponsive copolymer PSSS-PNIPAM as draw solute [242].

consumption, which plays a critical role in the practical application.

concentration differences

Nguyen et al. reported the use of a high charge of phosphate as the

alone: 10–20%

draw solute in an FO-MD system. Three types of polytetra­

50–60%
alone: 75%

fluoroethylene (PTFE) MD membranes were investigated for the re­

• ED-RO: 95%

generation of the draw solute, and 100% recovery of the draw solute
Recovery rate

• ED-RO:

was achieved [247]. They found that the pH of the draw solution
• RO
• RO

strongly affected FO flux. The draw solute was used in the concentra­
50%

tion of high-nutrient sludge but could also be extended to desalination.

It is evident that more studies are needed to optimize draw solute
Hybrid preferred over ED alone only when product

concentration as well as MD operating conditions, especially tempera­

ture, to render FO-MD systems more efficient. Additionally, novel draw
solutes [248,249] should be further extended to desalination and stu­
died specifically for seawater and brackish water desalination applica­
tions. Data on energy consumption also remains vague.
TDS requirement is strict

3.4.2. Integrated FO-MD module design

Most studies on FO-MD hybrid systems explore limited integration
Product TDS (mg/L)

where the product of one process becomes the feed of another. Few
studies focus on a single hybrid process that combines elements of two
or more processes. Maintaining their position as pioneers in FO-MD
50–120

hybrid systems, Cath et al. were the first to report a more integrated
300

design with a single module in which both processes were sealed to­
–

gether, as shown in Fig. 17 [250].

Feed TDS (mg/L)

Kim et al. comment that the FO draw solution and MD feed solution
flowing in the same channel simultaneously could limit MD perfor­
2000–4000

2550–3550

120,000

mance due to heat transfer from MD feed to FO feed and MD permeate

3000

[251]. To tackle this issue, Ghaffour et al. [252] recently proposed an

osmotically and thermally isolated FO-MD integrated module. In this
ED of RO concentrate; ED product water blended with RO

design (Fig. 18) the FO DS and MD feed streams are separated using an
isolation barrier. This barrier does not prevent MD product (/brine) to
flow into the FO DS inlet. They suggest that this design maintains os­
motic and thermal isolation, allowing both processes to operate at high
ED as pretreatment to lower RO feed salinity
Key parameters from selected ED-RO hybridization studies.

efficiency [251].
They also established that the flow rate and concentration of the
initial DS determined long-term operation of the integrated system,
with greater flow rate and lower concentration pointing to greater flux
of the module [251]. Although such integrated designs of FO-MD hy­
permeate to produce water

Counterflow ED with RO

brids provide obvious benefits in the form of compactness and low

ED of RO concentrate

footprint, more work is needed in design improvement and in evalu­

ating the energy consumption to consumption of such modules.
Hybridization

Koo et al. found that the efficiency of FO-MD hybrid systems de­
pends on the draw solute transport through the MD membrane.
Selectivity of the draw solute can be increased by reducing the tem­
perature difference between MD feed and distillate, but this also lowers
MD flux [253].
Hypersaline brine

Many FO-MD systems have been applied to treatment of municipal

Brackish water

Brackish water
Wastewater

and industrial wastewater [254–261], and the efficiency of these sys­

Feed type

tems needs to be investigated with respect to desalination of different

Table 5

feed types.

14
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 16. (a) Osmolality, or osmotic concentration, as a function of NaCQDs concentration; (b) FO flux with DI water as feed and 0.4 g/mL Na_CQDs as draw solution;
MD flux with diluted Na_CQDs as the feed solution [246]
Fig. 17. Schematic of FO-MD module patented by Cath et al. [250,251].
Fig. 18. Schematic of FO-MD integrated module proposed by Kim et al. [251]
3.5. Forward osmosis – electrodialysis
Electrodialysis is not commonly applied for the recovery of draw
solutes in FO desalination. Zou et al. demonstrated a hybrid FO-ED
system for wastewater treatment, with energy consumption of 0.72
kWh/m3 [262]. However, extending to seawater desalination, a more
concentrated draw solution will be required to overcome the high os­
motic pressure of seawater. Recovery of such a solution will lead to
15
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Table 6
Comparison of SEC for selected FO hybrid systems [263].
System Specific energy Reference
consumption [kWh/m3]
Hybrid FO-Crystallization-RO (sodium 2.35 [264]
periodate as a draw solute)
Seawater RO 4.00–7.00 [265,266]
FO-RO hybrid for 25% total recovery 2.40 [267]
Hybrid FO-ED-RO 2.48 [263]
elevated energy costs. Bitaw et al. compared SEC for selected hybrid FO
systems, as shown in Table 6. They also developed a hybrid FO-ED-RO
system in which ammonium chloride was selected as the optimum draw
solute. The draw solution was recovered first by ED and the outlet from
ED became the RO feed. Their work showed that the relative energy
consumed by ED and RO depends on the intermediate concentration at
the ED outlet/RO inlet with higher concentrations increasing the con­
tribution of RO to energy consumption.
3.6. Freeze desalination – membrane distillation hybrid systems
The advantage of MD is that the separation efficiency does not de­
pend on the salinity of the feed and a 100% separation efficiency is
possible even with hypersaline feed. Other processes such as FD and RO
can overcome their limitations in treating concentrated feed by hy­
bridization with MD [268]. Such hybridization of MD with other de­
salination processes to further concentrate brine allows the realization
of zero liquid discharge [269–271]. Additionally, waste cold energy can
be used for both freezing in FD and for cooling the distillate in MD.
These reasons have led to the development of hybrid FD-MD systems in
which the FD concentrate is treated by MD to produce water and/or the
same source of waste cold energy is utilized by both processes.
In 2012, Peng Wang and Tai-Shung Chung demonstrated the design
of an FD-MD hybrid in which seawater is first treated via FD, generating
purified water from melted ice [181]. The brine byproduct is treated by
MD, resulting in further concentration of brine and production of high
quality product water through condensation of water vapor on the
distillate side of the MD membrane. They applied an LNG vaporizer to
provide cold energy to both the FD crystallizer and the MD distillate.
Chang et al. evaluated the feasibility of such an FD-MD hybrid
system employing VMD for seawater desalination with a high water
recovery of 74% [272]. They used regasification to provide cold energy
for FD whereas both the regasification process and solar panels were
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 19. Schematic of hybrid freeze desalination, membrane distillation and crystallization system [273].
considered as sources of electricity to heat the VMD feed. Heat in­
tegration between the feed, clean ice and vaporized steam can lower the
cooling energy requirement by 27%.
Lu et al. [273] developed a mathematical model for a hybrid system
consisting of FD and membrane distillation-crystallization (MD-C). MD-
C is itself an integrated process combining MD and crystallization to
recover both clean water and valuable resources in crystal form [274].
In crystallization, specific techniques such as reducing temperature and
removing solvent are applied to control saturation and extract resources
from brine. The effect of various parameters such as MD feed tem­
perature, feed TDS, distillate temperature and FD recovery ratio on
energy consumption was evaluated for the hybrid FD-MD-C system.
Optimal parameters for minimizing SEC were MD feed temperature of
80 °C, distillate temperature of 5 °C, feed TDS of 26,500 ppm and an FD
recovery of 30% [273]. However, at 810 kWh/m3 of hot energy and
830 kWh/m3 of cold energy with heat integration, the hybrid FD-MD-C
system remains energy-intensive. A schematic of the hybrid system is
shown in Fig. 19.
4. Future perspectives
4.1. Hybridization of salinity gradient power and water desalination
technologies
Integrated application of salinity gradient energy harvesting tech­
nologies with desalination technologies serves two noteworthy pur­
poses. First, high salinity brine from desalination processes can be used
as the concentrated solution for power production. In RO, this equates
to further recovering brine energy in addition to that recovered with
ERDs. This also provides a method of diluting the brine before disposal.
Second, combining energy harvesting with desalination allows the po­
tential development of self-sufficient desalination systems, which en­
ables production of freshwater at considerably lower costs. Research in
this area are still in its infancy. This section explores such systems in
with RED or PRO are integrated with traditional and emerging desali­
nation processes.
4.1.1. Reverse electrodialysis hybrid systems
Highly saline brine streams from desalination systems such as RO
and ED can be fed into the high concentration compartments of RED
systems. A conceptual illustration developed by Tufa et al. for the in­
tegration of RED systems with other desalination technologies can be
seen in Fig. 20. They cite several advantages for the integration of RED
with desalination technologies, namely: use of high salinity brine as
high concentration stream of RED which reduces ohmic losses, appli­
cation of power generated by RED to reduce energy consumption of
desalination, no extra pumps to recirculate seawater and brine streams
through RED, no additional pretreatment and dilution of brine from
desalination in RED which reduces environmental impact [275].
16
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Kwon et al. show that, compared to using seawater as the high
concentration solution for RED, RO and FO brines can increase power
generation by 1.5 and 2 times respectively. For their system, a max­
imum power of 1.48 W/m2 was obtained when RO brine was used while
1.86 W/m2 was obtained when FO brine was used, as seen in Fig. 21.
Applying RED for energy recovery in each of these processes could
reduce energy cost by 7.8% for RO and 13.5% for FO [276]. They used
concentrations of 0.6 mol/L, 1.2 mol/L and 2.4 mol/L for seawater, RO
brine and FO brine respectively.
Wang et al. developed a hybrid RED/ED system to recover salinity
gradient power (SGP) and phenol in the treatment of phenol-containing
wastewater treatment [277]. The advantage of this hybridization is
lower energy consumption than standalone ED and greater water pro­
duction rate than standalone RED. The energy consumption of the hy­
brid system is 17.65 kWh/m3 which is significantly lower than 25.32
kWh/m3 for a standalone ED system [277]. Interestingly, this study
showed that the type of wastewater stream can be optimized to achieve
high desalination rate and SGP.
Tufa et al. proposed a hybrid membrane distillation-reverse elec­
trodialysis (MD-RED) system to produce fresh water and energy from
seawater [278]. Feeding the RED system with DCMD brine at different
temperatures and flow velocities could generate a power density of
0.9–2.4 W/m2 per cell. Mei and Tang explored the implications of co-
locating RED with RO desalination [279]. Optimizing the RED system,
they suggested that maximum power was obtained when the low sali­
nity stream was of moderate salinity, i.e. 0.01–0.02 M NaCl whereas an
increase in salinity and feed temperature of the high salinity stream led
to improved power generation. As post-treatment for RO, RED could
reduce almost 50% of TDS from the RO brine.
Li et al. modelled various configurations for the RED-RO hybrid
process in terms of energy consumption [280]. Compared to conven­
tional SWRO, they found that hybridization with RED results in much
lower energy consumption for desalination and the possibility of gen­
erating energy. For practical applications involving integration of RED
with desalination processes, combinations with multiple desalination
technologies may need to be explored. Additionally, the limitations of
RED systems have to be overcome through the improvement of elec­
trodes, membranes and optimization of feed solutions [281].
4.1.2. Pressure retarded osmosis hybrid systems
PRO can be used as an energy recovery system in desalination
processes providing benefits similar to those outlined for RED above.
This section reviews hybrid systems in which PRO is integrated with
selected desalination processes to harness energy and produce water at
a lower cost compared to standalone desalination systems.
Prante et al. developed a reverse osmosis-pressure retarded osmosis
(RO-PRO) system in which the energy generated in PRO offsets the
energy required for RO. They found that the minimum theoretical SEC
for the modelled system was 1.2 kWh/m3 operating at 50% RO
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
Fig. 20. Conceptual illustration of integration of RED with desalination technologies [275].
Fig. 21. Experimental and theoretical maximum power density for various
concentrated solutions applied as the high concentration solution in RED [276].
recovery [282], which is a 40% energy reduction from an RO SEC of 2.0
kWh/m3. Fig. 22 shows the variation of SEC with PRO dilution for the
RO-PRO system at different RO recovery rates, for both the thermo­
dynamically reversible, or ideal, case and the modelled case.
Kim et al. also modelled an RO-PRO system and evaluated the water
and energy return rate for such a system [283]. They found that a de­
crease in RO plant size leads to reduction in water and energy return
rate, whereas the PRO plant size does not play a significant role.
Senthil optimized the design of a hybrid RO-PRO system using a
17
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
Fig. 22. Specific energy consumption of RO-PRO as a function of PRO dilution
for several RO recoveries for ideal (thermodynamically reversible) and model
RO-PRO systems [282].
mathematical model with seawater and urban wastewater as feed so­
lutions [284]. Out of six potential RO-PRO systems, he found that the
one in which the diluted PRO draw outlet is mixed with RO feed brings
down SEC by 49% when compared to a standalone RO system, without
the need for additional ERD units. Wan and Chung also modelled PRO
as an energy recovery system together with a pressure exchanger (PX)
ERD in a seawater RO system [285]. Using both PX and PRO for energy
recovery brings the SEC of RO to 1.08 kWh/m3 and 1.15 kWh/m3 at 25
and 50% recovery, respectively. PRO as an energy recovery system was
previously proposed by Sharqawy et al. [286]
Although researchers have investigated the design of RO-PRO sys­
tems [287] many studies are still at the modelling stage with little
practical implementation to date. Commercialization of PRO-RO re­
mains a possibility but requires focus on experimental lab-scale and
pilot-scale studies. Additionally, the development of low-cost high
power density membranes for PRO will also be crucial in making RO-
PRO systems economically viable solutions for reducing the energy
consumption of RO desalination.
Lin et al. integrated PRO with MD by coupling the mass and energy
flows between MD and PRO stages at different heat source temperatures
between 40 and 80 °C [288]. They suggested that there is an optimal
relative flow rate between the MD permeate and feed streams that
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
reduces overall energy efficiency of the PRO-MD system. However, they
cautioned that low thermal efficiencies should be taken into con­
sideration when choosing the heat source for such a system.
The prospect of multihybrid desalination systems with PRO for
energy recovery has not been widely explored. Kim et al. evaluated the
performance of an RO-MD-PRO system numerically [289] by com­
bining previously validated models of each of the three processes. In the
proposed hybrid process, RO brine is partially used as MD feed and the
MD concentrate is mixed with the remaining RO brine and employed as
the PRO draw solution. They considered the effect of RO brine division
ratio, plant size and cost of MD thermal energy as factors affecting the
performance of the hybrid plant. They determined that, for a plant size
of 2000 m3/day, the hybrid system could generate clean water at an
SEC of 1.61–1.78 kWh/m3 depending on brine division ratio, compared
to 1.9 kWh/m3 required for stand-alone RO, provided that free or low-
cost thermal energy is supplied for the MD component.
When selecting a salinity-gradient power technology, it is important
to assess the strengths of both PRO and RED. PRO is attractive for
power generation using concentrated saline brines due to high power
density and energy recovery [190,290]. On the other hand, RED is
suitable for energy generation with moderately concentrated solutions
such as seawater and river water. However, there is immense room for
improvement for both technologies. For example, PRO will benefit from
the development of membranes with greater permeability. Although
improving the characteristics of IEMs is also crucial for RED develop­
ment, other elements such as spacer and system design will allow RED
to achieve better performance [190].
4.2. Renewable energy for hybrid desalination systems
The decreasing cost of renewable energy especially photovoltaic
(PV) technology has led to several advances in integrated renewable
energy with desalination technologies. Such systems seek to lower the
carbon footprint, providing a sustainable and efficient means of energy
supply. To date, integration of renewable energy systems with hybrid
and multihybrid desalination technologies remains an unexplored do­
main. Today, PV powered RO is a technologically mature and com­
mercially available system, the energy cost of which depends greatly on
the energy consumption of each of its components [22]. As we have
discussed earlier, the energy consumption of RO can further be reduced
through hybridization with other processes. This would help further
lower the cost of PV-powered RO.
Similarly, solar thermal energy as a renewable low-cost source of
heating could be beneficial for MD hybrid systems [291], where the
cost of heat supply greatly affects the energy efficiency of the entire
hybrid system.
Although there are limitations such as seasonal supply and addi­
tional cost of batteries for storage, the integration of renewable energy
sources with hybrid technologies could potentially be a viable pathway
to energy efficient desalination and is an area that needs further in­
vestigation. SEC of hybrid desalination systems and of the renewable
energy sources must be optimized through both modelling and ex­
perimental studies before the commercial applicability of these systems
is explored.
5. Conclusion
The energy consumption of both thermal and membrane processes
is widely acknowledged as a drawback of established desalination
technologies and a hindrance to the growth of emerging technologies.
Novel configurations, improvement in process design and the devel­
opment of high-performance materials have led to significant reduction
in energy costs over the years. However, further reduction in energy
can be sought through hybridization of desalination processes to
overcome limitations of each process and benefit from their strengths.
This paper provides a critical review of hybrid desalination processes
18
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
with respect to methods used to optimize hybrid systems. We first
provide an overview of established and emerging desalination tech­
nologies, focusing on their current status and future potential in terms
of energy use. We then review state-of-the-art hybridization of various
desalination processes, identifying specific applications, gaps in litera­
ture and future direction of the hybridization of desalination technol­
ogies, with each other and with salinity gradient power technologies as
well. The low recovery of seawater reverse osmosis can be overcome by
coupling with electrodialysis systems. On the other hand, the im­
practicality of treating hypersaline solutions with reverse osmosis
means that processes whose separation efficiency does not depend on
feed concentration, such as membrane distillation, may be used in
conjunction for the treatment of high salinity feeds and/or RO brine.
The appropriate choice of separation process employed in osmotically
driven separation processes such as forward osmosis is key in de­
termining overall energy consumption and thus commercial viability.
This separation process is applied to separate water from the diluted
draw solution and recover the draw solution. As RO applies higher
hydraulic pressures than nanofiltration, the latter has emerged as a
potential process for integration with FO. In cases where waste or low-
grade heat is available, MD has also been investigated as a viable se­
paration process for FO. There has been considerable effort in opti­
mizing draw solutions for specific hybrid processes involving FO such
as forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD). This includes the
development of thermally responsive draw solutes. Apart from factors
that control the energy consumption of each of the processes involved
in the hybrid system, the design of the integrated module plays an
important role in the overall energy consumption. We also review re­
cent advances in power generation from salinity gradients using pres­
sure retarded osmosis and reverse electrodialysis and recent advances
and challenges in applying these technologies to recover energy and
further lower the cost of desalination and/or simultaneously generate
energy and power. Further research focused on the following key areas,
as identified in this review, is likely to drive progress in the area of
hybrid desalination technologies towards more energy efficient sys­
tems.
• In many studies, hybridization is carried out by one process followed
by another. Very few designs for integrated system coupling have
been suggested and optimized in literature, with even fewer proto­
types. In some cases, each process is optimized separately but the
effect on the integrated system has not been investigated. For ex­
ample, in FO-NF hybrids, optimization of the draw solute type and
solution concentration with respect to the performance of the hybrid
system is still needed.
• For ED-RO hybrid systems, more work is needed targeting the use of
seawater as the feed solution.
• Energy consumption of hybrid systems remains unclear as many
studies with different operating conditions cannot be compared. The
benefits and drawbacks of hybridization in terms of energy con­
sumption remains unclear especially for RO-MD, FO-MD and FD-MD
processes. Research efforts should be directed towards design im­
provement and evaluation of energy consumption.
• In the case of MD hybrid systems, often the effect of MD feed tem­
perature on the energy efficiency of hybrid processes is neglected.
• Combinations of multiple desalination technologies in multi-stage
multi-hybrid systems should be considered to reduce energy con­
sumption and meet product water targets. This would pave the way
for upscaling of hybrid desalination systems.
• Overcoming limitations related to salinity gradient power technol­
ogies and pushing them towards commercialization would render
hybrid desalination more economically viable as salinity gradient
power could be used as energy recovery systems on their own or
with other ERDs in desalination systems. In addition to the devel­
opment of low-cost high power density membranes and systems for
reverse electrodialysis and pressure retarded osmosis, the
F.E. Ahmed, et al. Desalination 495 (2020) 114659

implementation and testing of pilot plants would speed up their [2] V. Barawkar, Growth expected for global water desalination market from 2018 to
transition and make them more commercially viable for industrial 2025, Water Technology, 2019.
[3] A.K. Plappally, J.H. Lienhard V, Energy requirements for water production,
scale operation with other desalination processes.
•
treatment, end use, reclamation, and disposal, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16 (7)
More studies are needed to evaluate the impact of applying re­ (2012) 4818–4848.
newable energy systems with hybrid desalination technologies. [4] K. Wang, et al., Mechanical properties of water desalination and wastewater
treatment membranes, Desalination 401 (2017) 190–205.
[5] M. Busch, W.E. Mickols, Reducing energy consumption in seawater desalination,
Abbreviations Desalination 165 (2004) 299–312.
[6] A. Shrivastava, S. Rosenberg, M. Peery, Energy efficiency breakdown of reverse
osmosis and its implications on future innovation roadmap for desalination,
MSF multi-stage flash Desalination 368 (2015) 181–192.
MED multi-effect distillation [7] D. Zarzo, D. Prats, Desalination and energy consumption. What can we expect in
RO reverse osmosis the near future? Desalination 427 (2018) 1–9.
[8] Y. Ghalavand, M.S. Hatamipour, A. Rahimi, A review on energy consumption of
FD freeze desalination
desalination processes, Desalin. Water Treat. 54 (6) (2015) 1526–1541.
FO freeze osmosis [9] H. Nassrullah, et al., Energy for desalination: a state-of-the-art review,
SWRO seawater reverse osmosis Desalination 491 (2020) 114569.
BWRO brackish water reverse osmosis [10] C. Charcosset, A review of membrane processes and renewable energies for de­
salination, Desalination 245 (1–3) (2009) 214–231.
ED electrodialysis [11] E. Mathioulakis, V. Belessiotis, E. Delyannis, Desalination by using alternative
MD membrane distillation energy: review and state-of-the-art, Desalination 203 (1–3) (2007) 346–365.
PRO pressure retarded osmosis [12] A. Subramani, et al., Energy minimization strategies and renewable energy utili­
zation for desalination: a review, Water Res. 45 (5) (2011) 1907–1920.
MSF-OT once-through MSF [13] M.A. Eltawil, Z. Zhengming, L. Yuan, A review of renewable energy technologies
BM-MSF brine mixing MSF integrated with desalination systems, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13 (9) (2009)
TBT top brine temperature 2245–2262.
[14] N. Ghaffour, et al., Renewable energy-driven desalination technologies: a com­
ERD energy recovery device prehensive review on challenges and potential applications of integrated systems,
TDS total dissolved solids Desalination 356 (2015) 94–114.
PX pressure exchanger [15] H. Sharon, K. Reddy, A review of solar energy driven desalination technologies,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 41 (2015) 1080–1118.
PT Pelton turbine [16] A. Alkaisi, R. Mossad, A. Sharifian-Barforoush, A review of the water desalination
DWEER dual work exchanger energy recovery systems integrated with renewable energy, Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 268–274.
APM axial piston motors [17] C. Li, Y. Goswami, E. Stefanakos, Solar assisted sea water desalination: a review,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 19 (2013) 136–163.
RE renewable energy
[18] M.T. Ali, H.E. Fath, P.R. Armstrong, A comprehensive techno-economical review
PV photovoltaic of indirect solar desalination, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (8) (2011) 4187–4199.
UF ultrafiltration [19] Q. Ma, H. Lu, Wind energy technologies integrated with desalination systems:
MF microfiltration review and state-of-the-art, Desalination 277 (1–3) (2011) 274–280.
[20] M. Chandrashekara, A. Yadav, Water desalination system using solar heat: a re­
NF nanofiltration view, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 67 (2017) 1308–1330.
CDI capacitive deionization [21] L. Garcia-Rodriguez, Seawater desalination driven by renewable energies: a re­
CEM cation exchange membrane view, Desalination 143 (2) (2002) 103–113.
[22] F.E. Ahmed, R. Hashaikeh, N. Hilal, Solar powered desalination – technology,
AEM anion exchange membranes energy and future outlook, Desalination 453 (2019) 54–76.
LCD limiting current density [23] A. Al Bloushi, et al., Chapter 3 - environmental impact and technoeconomic
DCMD direct contact membrane distillation analysis of hybrid MSF/RO desalination: the case study of Al Taweelah A2 plant,
in: V.G. Gude (Ed.), Sustainable Desalination Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann,
AGMD air-gap membrane distillation 2018, pp. 55–97.
VMD vacuum membrane distillation [24] O.A. Hamed, Overview of hybrid desalination systems — current status and future
SGMD sweeping gas membrane distillation prospects, Desalination 186 (1) (2005) 207–214.
[25] M.A. Darwish, Critical comparison between energy consumption in large capacity
DS draw solution
reverse osmosis (RO) and multistage flash (MSF) seawater desalting plants,
LNG liquefied natural gas Desalination 63 (1987) 143–161.
RED reverse electrodialysis [26] A.M.R. Al-Marafie, Prospects of hybrid RO-MSF desalting plants in Kuwait,
Desalination 72 (3) (1989) 395–404.
IEM ion exchange membrane
[27] E. El-Sayed, et al., Pilot study of MSFRO hybrid systems, Desalination 120 (1)
FDFO fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis (1998) 121–128.
GAC granular activated carbon [28] S.P. Agashichev, M.E. El-Dahshan, Reverse osmosis incorporated into existing
PSSS-PNIPAM poly(sodium styrene-4-sulfonate-co-n-isopropylacrylamide) cogenerating systems as a sustainable technological alternative for United Arab
Emirates, Desalination 157 (1) (2003) 33–49.
LCST low critical solution temperature [29] Z.K. Al-Bahri, W.T. Hanbury, T. Hodgkiess, Optimum feed temperatures for sea­
PAA-Na poly(acrylic acid) sodium water reverse osmosis plant operation in an MSF/SWRO hybrid plant, Desalination
Na_CQD Na+-functionalized carbon quantum dots 138 (1) (2001) 335–339.
[30] A.M. Helal, et al., Optimal design of hybrid RO/MSF desalination plants part II:
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) results and discussion, Desalination 160 (1) (2004) 13–27.
[31] I. Kamal, Myth and reality of the hybrid desalination process, Desalination 230 (1)
Declaration of competing interest (2008) 269–280.
[32] N. Ghaffour, T.M. Missimer, G.L. Amy, Technical review and evaluation of the
economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water
The authors of this manuscript declare that there is no conflict of supply sustainability, Desalination 309 (2013) 197–207.
[33] W.L. Ang, et al., A review on the applicability of integrated/hybrid membrane
interest. processes in water treatment and desalination plants, Desalination 363 (2015)
2–18.
Acknowledgement [34] L. Chekli, et al., A comprehensive review of hybrid forward osmosis systems:
performance, applications and future prospects, J. Membr. Sci. 497 (2016)
430–449.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of NYU Abu [35] J. Bundschuh, J. Hoinkis, Renewable Energy Applications for Freshwater
Dhabi for funding this work. Production, CRC Press, 2012.
[36] S. Avlonitis, K. Kouroumbas, N. Vlachakis, Energy consumption and membrane
replacement cost for seawater RO desalination plants, Desalination 157 (1) (2003)
References 151–158.
[37] A.D. Khawaji, I.K. Kutubkhanah, J.-M. Wie, Advances in seawater desalination
[1] WWAP, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-based technologies, Desalination 221 (1) (2008) 47–69.
Solutions, UNESCO, Paris, 2018. [38] K. Thu, et al., A hybrid multi-effect distillation and adsorption cycle, Appl. Energy

19
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
104 (2013) 810–821.
[39] H. Ettouney, Conventional thermal processes, in: G. Micale, L. Rizzuti, A. Cipollina
(Eds.), Seawater Desalination: Conventional and Renewable Energy Processes,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 17–40.
[40] J.B. Tonner, S. Hinge, C. Legorreta, Plates—the next breakthrough in thermal
desalination, Desalination 134 (1–3) (2001) 205–211.
[41] V.G. Gude, Desalination and sustainability – an appraisal and current perspective,
Water Res. 89 (2016) 87–106.
[42] A. Al-Karaghouli, L.L. Kazmerski, Energy consumption and water production cost
of conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes, Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 24 (2013) 343–356.
[43] I.S. Al-Mutaz, A.M. Al-Namlah, Characteristics of dual purpose MSF desalination
plants, Desalination 166 (2004) 287–294.
[44] M.A. Darwish, N.M. Al-Najem, Energy consumption by multi-stage flash and re­
verse osmosis desalters, Appl. Therm. Eng. 20 (5) (2000) 399–416.
[45] M.A. Darwish, F. Al Asfour, N. Al-Najem, Energy consumption in equivalent work
by different desalting methods: case study for Kuwait, Desalination 152 (1) (2003)
83–92.
[46] H. El-Naser, Management of Scarce Water Resources: A Middle Eastern
Experience, WIT Press, 2009.
[47] D. Wogan, S. Pradhan, S. Albardi, GCC Energy System Overview - 2017, King
Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), 2017.
[48] B. Rahimi, H.T. Chua, Chapter 1 - introduction to desalination, in: B. Rahimi,
H.T. Chua (Eds.), Low Grade Heat Driven Multi-effect Distillation and
Desalination, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 1–17.
[49] M. Al-Shammiri, M. Safar, Multi-effect distillation plants: state of the art,
Desalination 126 (1) (1999) 45–59.
[50] X. Wang, et al., Low grade heat driven multi-effect distillation technology, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 54 (25) (2011) 5497–5503.
[51] J.A. Fleck, The influence of pressure on boiling water reactor dynamic behavior at
atmospheric pressure, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 9 (2) (1961) 271–280.
[52] M.A. Darwish, A. Alsairafi, Technical comparison between TVC/MEB and MSF,
Desalination 170 (3) (2004) 223–239.
[53] A. Ophir, F. Lokiec, Advanced MED process for most economical sea water desa­
lination, Desalination 182 (1) (2005) 187–198.
[54] N. Hilal, A.F. Ismail, C. Wright, Membrane Fabrication, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, UNITED KINGDOM, 2015.
[55] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy, tech­
nology, and the environment, Science 333 (6043) (2011) 712–717.
[56] L. Rizzuti, H.M. Ettouney, A. Cipollina, Solar Desalination for the 21st Century: A
Review of Modern Technologies and Researches on Desalination Coupled to
Renewable Energies, Springer, 2007.
[57] J. Kim, et al., A comprehensive review of energy consumption of seawater reverse
osmosis desalination plants, Appl. Energy 254 (2019) 113652.
[58] N. Voutchkov, Energy use for membrane seawater desalination – current status
and trends, Desalination 431 (2018) 2–14.
[59] R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (22)
(2008) 8193–8201.
[60] S. Mirza, Reduction of energy consumption in process plants using nanofiltration
and reverse osmosis, Desalination 224 (1) (2008) 132–142.
[61] C.P. Koutsou, et al., Analysis of temperature effects on the specific energy con­
sumption in reverse osmosis desalination processes, Desalination 476 (2020)
114213.
[62] S.K. Patel, et al., The relative insignificance of advanced materials in enhancing
the energy efficiency of desalination technologies, Energy Environ. Sci. 20 (2020)
1694–1710, https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE00341G.
[63] A.J. Karabelas, et al., Analysis of specific energy consumption in reverse osmosis
desalination processes, Desalination 431 (2018) 15–21.
[64] X. Wang, et al., Comparative study on stand-alone and parallel operating schemes
of energy recovery device for SWRO system, Desalination 254 (1–3) (2010)
170–174.
[65] B. Peñate, L. García-Rodríguez, Energy optimisation of existing SWRO (seawater
reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery turbines): technical and ther­
moeconomic assessment, Energy 36 (1) (2011) 613–626.
[66] R.L. Stover, Retrofits to improve desalination plants, Desalin. Water Treat. 13
(1–3) (2010) 33–41.
[67] R.L. Stover, Seawater reverse osmosis with isobaric energy recovery devices,
Desalination 203 (1) (2007) 168–175.
[68] W. School, ‘New Water’ Offers an Ocean of Hope, Knowledge@Wharton, 2013.
[69] J.P. MacHarg, B. Sessions, Modular pumps bring efficiencies, IDA J. Desalin. Water
Reuse 5 (2) (2013) 106–113.
[70] Arenas Urrea, S., et al., Technical review, evaluation and efficiency of energy
recovery devices installed in the Canary Islands desalination plants. Desalination,
2018.
[71] J. Rheinländer, D. Geyer, Photovoltaic reverse osmosis and Electrodialysis, in:
G. Micale, L. Rizzuti, A. Cipollina (Eds.), Seawater Desalination: Conventional and
Renewable Energy Processes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
2009, pp. 189–211.
[72] ERIEnergy, How the PX Pressure Exchanger® Works, (2013).
[73] G. Migliorini, E. Luzzo, Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plant Using the Pressure
Exchanger for Energy Recovery: A Calculation Model, 165 (2004), pp. 289–298.
[74] C. Harris, Energy recovery for membrane desalination, Desalination 125 (1–3)
(1999) 173–180.
[75] A.A. Alsarayreh, et al., Evaluation and minimisation of energy consumption in a
medium-scale reverse osmosis brackish water desalination plant, J. Clean. Prod.
248 (2020) 119220.
20
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
[76] A.S. Stillwell, M.E. Webber, Predicting the specific energy consumption of reverse
osmosis desalination, Water 8 (12) (2016) 601.
[77] H. Fath, A. Sadik, T. Mezher, Present and future trend in the production and en­
ergy consumption of desalinated water in GCC countries, Int. J. Therm. Environ.
Eng. 5 (2) (2013) 155–165.
[78] M.K. Wafi, et al., Nanofiltration as a cost-saving desalination process, SN Appl. Sci.
1 (7) (2019) 751.
[79] L.K. Wang, et al., Membrane and Desalination Technologies, Humana Press, 2010.
[80] C. Kazner, T. Wintgens, P. Dillon, Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe
Managed Aquifer Recharge, IWA Publishing, 2012.
[81] L. Henthorne, B. Boysen, State-of-the-art of reverse osmosis desalination pre­
treatment, Desalination 356 (2015) 129–139.
[82] P.H. Wolf, S. Siverns, S. Monti, UF membranes for RO desalination pretreatment,
Desalination 182 (1) (2005) 293–300.
[83] I. Sutzkover-Gutman, D. Hasson, Feed water pretreatment for desalination plants,
Desalination 264 (3) (2010) 289–296.
[84] B.A. Abdelkader, M.A. Antar, Z. Khan, Nanofiltration as a pretreatment step in
seawater desalination: a review, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 43 (9) (2018) 4413–4432.
[85] L.W. Jye, A.F. Ismail, Nanofiltration Membranes : Synthesis, Characterization, and
Applications, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, UNITED KINGDOM, 2016.
[86] F.E. Ahmed, et al., Mathematical and optimization modelling in desalination:
state-of-the-art and future direction, Desalination 469 (2019) 114092.
[87] W.R. Bowen, A.W. Mohammad, Characterization and prediction of nanofiltration
membrane performance—a general assessment, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76 (8)
(1998) 885–893.
[88] O. Agboola, et al., Theoretical performance of nanofiltration membranes for
wastewater treatment, Environ. Chem. Lett. 13 (1) (2015) 37–47.
[89] Pore Size, Pore size distribution, and roughness at the membrane surface, in:
K.C. Khulbe, C.Y. Feng, T. Matsuura (Eds.), Synthetic Polymeric Membranes:
Characterization by Atomic Force Microscopy, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 101–139.
[90] A. Street, et al., Nanotechnology Applications for Clean Water: Solutions for
Improving Water Quality, Elsevier Science, 2018.
[91] B. Van der Bruggen, M. Mänttäri, M. Nyström, Drawbacks of applying nanofil­
tration and how to avoid them: a review, Sep. Purif. Technol. 63 (2) (2008)
251–263.
[92] A.W. Mohammad, et al., Nanofiltration membranes review: recent advances and
future prospects, Desalination 356 (2015) 226–254.
[93] N. Song, et al., A review of graphene-based separation membrane: materials,
characteristics, preparation and applications, Desalination 437 (2018) 59–72.
[94] S. Tul Muntha, A. Kausar, M. Siddiq, Advances in polymeric nanofiltration
membrane: a review, Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 56 (8) (2017) 841–856.
[95] A. Wahab Mohammad, N. Hilal, M. Nizam Abu Seman, A study on producing
composite nanofiltration membranes with optimized properties, Desalination 158
(1) (2003) 73–78.
[96] M.A. Seman, M. Khayet, N. Hilal, Development of antifouling properties and
performance of nanofiltration membranes modified by interfacial polymerisation,
Desalination 273 (1) (2011) 36–47.
[97] N. Hilal, M. Khayet, C.J. Wright, Membrane Modification : Technology and
Applications, Taylor & Francis Group, Baton Rouge, UNITED STATES, 2012.
[98] H. Strathmann, Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a multitude of new
applications, Desalination 264 (3) (2010) 268–288.
[99] N.A.A. Qasem, B.A. Qureshi, S.M. Zubair, Improvement in design of electrodialysis
desalination plants by considering the Donnan potential, Desalination 441 (2018)
62–76.
[100] A. Campione, et al., A hierarchical model for novel schemes of electrodialysis
desalination, Desalination 465 (2019) 79–93.
[101] A. Merkel, A.M. Ashrafi, An investigation on the application of pulsed electro­
dialysis reversal in whey desalination, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20 (8) (2019) 1918.
[102] J.J. Schoeman, Evaluation of electrodialysis for the treatment of a hazardous
leachate, Desalination 224 (1) (2008) 178–182.
[103] Y. Oren, et al., Modified heterogeneous anion-exchange membranes for desalina­
tion of brackish and recycled water, Environ. Eng. Sci. 19 (6) (2002) 512–529.
[104] W.S. Walker, Y. Kim, D.F. Lawler, Treatment of model inland brackish ground­
water reverse osmosis concentrate with electrodialysis—part I: sensitivity to su­
perficial velocity, Desalination 344 (2014) 152–162.
[105] Y. Tanaka, Ion Exchange Membranes: Fundamentals and Applications, Elsevier
Science, 2015.
[106] A. Campione, et al., Electrodialysis for water desalination: a critical assessment of
recent developments on process fundamentals, models and applications,
Desalination 434 (2018) 121–160.
[107] S. Al-Amshawee, et al., Electrodialysis desalination for water and wastewater: a
review, Chem. Eng. J. 380 (2020) 122231.
[108] V. Montiel, et al., Membrane processes, Electrodialysis, in: G. Kreysa, K.-i. Ota,
R.F. Savinell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Applied Electrochemistry, Springer New
York, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 1224–1229.
[109] Interior, U.S.D.o.t. and U.S.O.o.S. Water, Saline Water Conversion Report for,
United States Department of the Interior, 1965.
[110] E.T. Sajtar, D.M. Bagley, Electrodialysis reversal: process and cost approximations
for treating coal-bed methane waters, Desalin. Water Treat. 2 (1–3) (2009)
284–294.
[111] Chapter 1 - Overview of Ion-Exchange Membrane Processes, in: H. Strathmann
(Ed.), Membrane Science and Technology, Elsevier, 2004, pp. 1–22.
[112] A.M. Bernardes, M.A.S. Rodrigues, J.Z. Ferreira, Electrodialysis and Water Reuse:
Novel Approaches, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
[113] E. Korngold, Electrodialysis unit: optimization and calculation of energy
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
requirement, Desalination 40 (1–2) (1982) 171–179.
[114] F.B. Leitz, M.A. Accomazzo, W.A. McRae, High temperature electrodialysis,
Desalination 14 (1) (1974) 33–41.
[115] A.M. Benneker, et al., Effect of temperature gradients in (reverse) electrodialysis in
the Ohmic regime, J. Membr. Sci. 548 (2018) 421–428.
[116] K.M. Chehayeb, K.G. Nayar, J.H. Lienhard, On the merits of using multi-stage and
counterflow electrodialysis for reduced energy consumption, Desalination 439
(2018) 1–16.
[117] R.W. Baker, Membrane Technology and Applications, Wiley, 2004.
[118] G.J. Doornbusch, et al., Experimental investigation of multistage electrodialysis
for seawater desalination, Desalination 464 (2019) 105–114.
[119] V.V. Nikonenko, et al., Desalination at overlimiting currents: state-of-the-art and
perspectives, Desalination 342 (2014) 85–106.
[120] T. Xu, C. Huang, Electrodialysis-based separation technologies: a critical review,
AICHE J. 54 (12) (2008) 3147–3159.
[121] E. Drioli, A. Ali, F. Macedonio, Membrane distillation: recent developments and
perspectives, Desalination 356 (2015) 56–84.
[122] G. Amy, et al., Membrane-based seawater desalination: present and future pro­
spects, Desalination 401 (2017) 16–21.
[123] S. Adham, et al., Application of membrane distillation for desalting brines from
thermal desalination plants, Desalination 314 (2013) 101–108.
[124] J. Minier-Matar, et al., Field evaluation of membrane distillation technologies for
desalination of highly saline brines, Desalination 351 (2014) 101–108.
[125] U.K. Kesieme, et al., Economic analysis of desalination technologies in the context
of carbon pricing, and opportunities for membrane distillation, Desalination 323
(2013) 66–74.
[126] F. Banat, R. Jumah, M. Garaibeh, Exploitation of solar energy collected by solar
stills for desalination by membrane distillation, Renew. Energy 25 (2) (2002)
293–305.
[127] K. Schneider, et al., Membranes and modules for transmembrane distillation, J.
Membr. Sci. 39 (1) (1988) 25–42.
[128] E. Curcio, E. Drioli, Membrane distillation and related operations—a review, Sep.
Purif. Rev. 34 (1) (2005) 35–86.
[129] G. Zaragoza, J.A. Andrés-Mañas, A. Ruiz-Aguirre, Commercial scale membrane
distillation for solar desalination, npj Clean Water 1 (1) (2018) 20.
[130] E. Drioli, A. Criscuoli, E. Curcio, Membrane Contactors: Fundamentals,
Applications and Potentialities, Elsevier, 2011.
[131] F. Benyahia, Membrane-Distillation in Desalination, CRC Press, 2019.
[132] E.K. Summers, H.A. Arafat, J.H. Lienhard, Energy efficiency comparison of single-
stage membrane distillation (MD) desalination cycles in different configurations,
Desalination 290 (2012) 54–66.
[133] B.S. Lalia, et al., Fabrication and characterization of polyvinylidenefluoride-co-
hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) electrospun membranes for direct contact
membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 428 (2013) 104–115.
[134] F. Guo, et al., Desalination by membrane distillation using electrospun polyamide
fiber membranes with surface fluorination by chemical vapor deposition, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 7 (15) (2015) 8225–8232.
[135] Y. Liao, et al., Electrospun superhydrophobic membranes with unique structures
for membrane distillation, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6 (18) (2014)
16035–16048.
[136] L.D. Tijing, et al., Recent progress of membrane distillation using electrospun
nanofibrous membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 453 (2014) 435–462.
[137] C. Su, et al., Novel three-dimensional superhydrophobic and strength-enhanced
electrospun membranes for long-term membrane distillation, Sep. Purif. Technol.
178 (2017) 279–287.
[138] K.-J. Lu, J. Zuo, T.-S. Chung, Novel PVDF membranes comprising n-butylamine
functionalized graphene oxide for direct contact membrane distillation, J. Membr.
Sci. 539 (2017) 34–42.
[139] X. Li, et al., A novel profiled core–shell nanofibrous membrane for wastewater
treatment by direct contact membrane distillation, J. Mater. Chem. A 4 (37)
(2016) 14453–14463.
[140] H.C. Duong, et al., A novel electrospun, hydrophobic, and elastomeric styrene-
butadiene-styrene membrane for membrane distillation applications, J. Membr.
Sci. 549 (2018) 420–427.
[141] G. Zuo, R. Wang, Novel membrane surface modification to enhance anti-oil fouling
property for membrane distillation application, J. Membr. Sci. 447 (2013) 26–35.
[142] Y.-X. Huang, et al., Novel Janus membrane for membrane distillation with si­
multaneous fouling and wetting resistance, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (22) (2017)
13304–13310.
[143] M.E. Leitch, et al., Bacterial nanocellulose aerogel membranes: novel high-porosity
materials for membrane distillation, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3 (3) (2016)
85–91.
[144] M. Khayet, Solar desalination by membrane distillation: dispersion in energy
consumption analysis and water production costs (a review), Desalination 308
(2013) 89–101.
[145] J. Swaminathan, et al., Energy efficiency of permeate gap and novel conductive
gap membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 502 (2016) 171–178.
[146] W. Jantaporn, A. Ali, P. Aimar, Specific energy requirement of direct contact
membrane distillation, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 128 (2017) 15–26.
[147] G. Zakrzewska-Trznadel, M. Harasimowicz, A.G. Chmielewski, Concentration of
radioactive components in liquid low-level radioactive waste by membrane dis­
tillation, J. Membr. Sci. 163 (2) (1999) 257–264.
[148] J. Koschikowski, M. Wieghaus, M. Rommel, Solar thermal-driven desalination
plants based on membrane distillation, Desalination 156 (1) (2003) 295–304.
[149] S. Bouguecha, B. Hamrouni, M. Dhahbi, Small scale desalination pilots powered by
renewable energy sources: case studies, Desalination 183 (1) (2005) 151–165.
21
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
[150] F. Banat, et al., Performance evaluation of the “large SMADES” autonomous de­
salination solar-driven membrane distillation plant in Aqaba, Jordan, Desalination
217 (1) (2007) 17–28.
[151] F. Macedonio, E. Curcio, E. Drioli, Integrated membrane systems for seawater
desalination: energetic and exergetic analysis, economic evaluation, experimental
study, Desalination 203 (1) (2007) 260–276.
[152] A. Criscuoli, M.C. Carnevale, E. Drioli, Evaluation of energy requirements in
membrane distillation, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 47 (7) (2008)
1098–1105.
[153] X. Wang, et al., Feasibility research of potable water production via solar-heated
hollow fiber membrane distillation system, Desalination 247 (1–3) (2009)
403–411.
[154] H.C. Duong, et al., Evaluating energy consumption of air gap membrane distilla­
tion for seawater desalination at pilot scale level, Sep. Purif. Technol. 166 (2016)
55–62.
[155] A. Criscuoli, M.C. Carnevale, E. Drioli, Modeling the performance of flat and ca­
pillary membrane modules in vacuum membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 447
(2013) 369–375.
[156] G. Guan, et al., Evaluation of hollow fiber-based direct contact and vacuum
membrane distillation systems using aspen process simulation, J. Membr. Sci. 464
(2014) 127–139.
[157] N. Dow, et al., Pilot trial of membrane distillation driven by low grade waste heat:
membrane fouling and energy assessment, Desalination 391 (2016) 30–42.
[158] M.I. Ali, et al., Effects of membrane properties on water production cost in small
scale membrane distillation systems, Desalination 306 (2012) 60–71.
[159] J. Feher, 2.7 - Osmosis and osmotic pressure, in: J. Feher (Ed.), Quantitative
Human Physiology, Second edition, Academic Press, Boston, 2017, pp. 182–198.
[160] B.H. Ozer, P.C. Brazy, 2 - Body fluid compartments and their regulation, in:
A.V. Moorthy (Ed.), Pathophysiology of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, W.B.
Saunders, 2009, pp. 17–27.
[161] M. Eyvaz, et al., Forward osmosis membranes–a review: part I, Osmotically Driven
Membrane Processes-Approach, Development and Current Status, IntechOpen,
2018.
[162] M. Amjad, et al., Novel draw solution for forward osmosis based solar desalina­
tion, Appl. Energy 230 (2018) 220–231.
[163] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia–carbon
dioxide forward osmosis: influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on
process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278 (1) (2006) 114–123.
[164] Q. Ge, M. Ling, T.-S. Chung, Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: de­
velopments, challenges, and prospects for the future, J. Membr. Sci. 442 (2013)
225–237.
[165] N. Akther, et al., Recent advancements in forward osmosis desalination: a review,
Chem. Eng. J. 281 (2015) 502–522.
[166] D.J. Johnson, et al., Osmotic’s potential: an overview of draw solutes for forward
osmosis, Desalination 434 (2018) 100–120.
[167] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis: principles, applications,
and recent developments, J. Membr. Sci. 281 (1) (2006) 70–87.
[168] A.M. Awad, et al., The status of forward osmosis technology implementation,
Desalination 461 (2019) 10–21.
[169] N.M. Mazlan, D. Peshev, A.G. Livingston, Energy consumption for desalination —
a comparison of forward osmosis with reverse osmosis, and the potential for
perfect membranes, Desalination 377 (2016) 138–151.
[170] R.K. McGovern, J.H. Lienhard V, On the potential of forward osmosis to en­
ergetically outperform reverse osmosis desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 469 (2014)
245–250.
[171] A.S. Moon, M. Lee, Energy consumption in forward osmosis-desalination com­
pared to other desalination techniques, World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 65 (2012)
537–539.
[172] P.M. Williams, et al., Technology for freeze concentration in the desalination in­
dustry, Desalination 356 (2015) 314–327.
[173] H.M. Hendrickson, R.W. Moulton, Research and Development of Processes for
Desalting Water by Freezing, US Department of the Interior, 1956.
[174] H.F. Wiegandt, Desalting of Seawater by Freezing, (1968).
[175] R. Fujioka, et al., Application of progressive freeze-concentration for desalination,
Desalination 319 (2013) 33–37.
[176] M. Shafiur Rahman, M. Ahmed, X.D. Chen, Freezingmelting process and desali­
nation: review of present status and future prospects, Int. J. Nucl. Desalin. 2 (3)
(2007) 253–264.
[177] F.G.F. Qin, et al., Experimental study of wash columns used for separating ice from
ice-slurry, Desalination 218 (1) (2008) 223–228.
[178] M.S. Rahman, M. Ahmed, X.D. Chen, Freezing-melting process and desalination: I.
Review of the state-of-the-art, Sep. Purif. Rev. 35 (2) (2006) 59–96.
[179] P. Englezos, The freeze concentration process and its applications, Dev. Chem.
Eng. Miner. Process. 2 (1) (1994) 3–15.
[180] G.F.C. Rogers, Y.R. Mayhew, Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Fluids,
Blackwell, 1995.
[181] P. Wang, T.-S. Chung, A conceptual demonstration of freeze desalination–mem­
brane distillation (FD–MD) hybrid desalination process utilizing liquefied natural
gas (LNG) cold energy, Water Res. 46 (13) (2012) 4037–4052.
[182] W. Cao, C. Beggs, I.M. Mujtaba, Theoretical approach of freeze seawater desali­
nation on flake ice maker utilizing LNG cold energy, Desalination 355 (2015)
22–32.
[183] J. Chang, et al., Freeze desalination of seawater using LNG cold energy, Water Res.
102 (2016) 282–293.
[184] W. Lin, M. Huang, A. Gu, A seawater freeze desalination prototype system utilizing
LNG cold energy, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 42 (29) (2017) 18691–18698.
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
[185] C. Xie, et al., A direct contact type ice generator for seawater freezing desalination
using LNG cold energy, Desalination 435 (2018) 293–300.
[186] A. Messineo, D. Panno, Potential applications using LNG cold energy in Sicily, Int.
J. Energy Res. 32 (11) (2008) 1058–1064.
[187] T. He, et al., LNG cold energy utilization: prospects and challenges, Energy 170
(2019) 557–568.
[188] C. Xie, et al., High efficient seawater freezing desalination technology by utilizing
cold energy of LNG, IDA J. Desalin. Water Reuse 6 (1) (2014) 5–9.
[189] A.A. Madani, Zero-discharge direct-contact freezing/solar evaporator desalination
complex, Desalination 85 (2) (1992) 179–195.
[190] J.W. Post, et al., Salinity-gradient power: evaluation of pressure-retarded osmosis
and reverse electrodialysis, J. Membr. Sci. 288 (1) (2007) 218–230.
[191] B. Zhang, et al., Chapter 6 - Pressure retarded osmosis and reverse electrodialysis
as power generation membrane systems, in: A. Basile, A. Cassano, A. Figoli (Eds.),
Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes, Elsevier, 2019,
pp. 133–152.
[192] Y. Mei, C.Y. Tang, Recent developments and future perspectives of reverse elec­
trodialysis technology: a review, Desalination 425 (2018) 156–174.
[193] W. Guo, et al., Energy harvesting with single-ion-selective nanopores: a con­
centration-gradient-driven nanofluidic power source, Adv. Funct. Mater. 20 (8)
(2010) 1339–1344.
[194] J.G. Hong, et al., Potential ion exchange membranes and system performance in
reverse electrodialysis for power generation: a review, J. Membr. Sci. 486 (2015)
71–88.
[195] F. Giacalone, et al., Exergy analysis of reverse electrodialysis, Energy Convers.
Manag. 164 (2018) 588–602.
[196] J. Moreno, et al., Upscaling reverse electrodialysis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (18)
(2018) 10856–10863.
[197] P. Długołȩcki, et al., Practical potential of reverse electrodialysis as process for
sustainable energy generation, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (17) (2009) 6888–6894.
[198] S. Loeb, et al., The osmotic power plant, iece, 1976.
[199] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membranes for power generation by pressure-
retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8 (2) (1981) 141–171.
[200] F. Helfer, C. Lemckert, Y.G. Anissimov, Osmotic power with pressure retarded
osmosis: theory, performance and trends – a review, J. Membr. Sci. 453 (2014)
337–358.
[201] A.P. Straub, A. Deshmukh, M. Elimelech, Pressure-retarded osmosis for power
generation from salinity gradients: is it viable? Energy Environ. Sci. 9 (1) (2016)
31–48.
[202] A. Cipollina, G. Micale, Sustainable Energy from Salinity Gradients, Elsevier
Science, 2016.
[203] W. Gai, D.L. Zhao, T.-S. Chung, Novel thin film composite hollow fiber membranes
incorporated with carbon quantum dots for osmotic power generation, J. Membr.
Sci. 551 (2018) 94–102.
[204] Statkraft discontinues investments in pressure retarded osmosis,
ForwardOsmosisTech, 2014.
[205] Z.L. Cheng, X. Li, T.-S. Chung, The forward osmosis-pressure retarded osmosis
(FO-PRO) hybrid system: a new process to mitigate membrane fouling for sus­
tainable osmotic power generation, J. Membr. Sci. 559 (2018) 63–74.
[206] J.M. Salamanca, O. Álvarez-Silva, F. Tadeo, Potential and analysis of an osmotic
power plant in the Magdalena River using experimental field-data, Energy 180
(2019) 548–555.
[207] N. Bajraktari, C. Hélix-Nielsen, H.T. Madsen, Pressure retarded osmosis from hy­
persaline sources — a review, Desalination 413 (2017) 65–85.
[208] M. Park, et al., Application of nanofiltration pretreatment to remove divalent ions
for economical seawater reverse osmosis desalination, Desalin. Water Treat. 57
(44) (2016) 20661–20670.
[209] C. Tan, H. Ng, A novel hybrid forward osmosis-nanofiltration (FO-NF) process for
seawater desalination: draw solution selection and system configuration, Desalin.
Water Treat. 13 (1–3) (2010) 356–361.
[210] S. Zhao, L. Zou, D. Mulcahy, Brackish water desalination by a hybrid forward
osmosis–nanofiltration system using divalent draw solute, Desalination 284
(2012) 175–181.
[211] S. Phuntsho, et al., Blended fertilizers as draw solutions for fertilizer-drawn for­
ward osmosis desalination, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (8) (2012) 4567–4575.
[212] Y. Kim, et al., Selection of suitable fertilizer draw solute for a novel fertilizer-
drawn forward osmosis–anaerobic membrane bioreactor hybrid system, Bioresour.
Technol. 210 (2016) 26–34.
[213] L. Chekli, et al., Evaluation of fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis for sustainable
agriculture and water reuse in arid regions, J. Environ. Manag. 187 (2017)
137–145.
[214] P. Nasr, H. Sewilam, Investigating the performance of ammonium sulphate draw
solution in fertilizer drawn forward osmosis process, Clean Techn. Environ. Policy
18 (3) (2016) 717–727.
[215] S. Li, et al., Impact of reverse nutrient diffusion on membrane biofouling in fer­
tilizer-drawn forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 539 (2017) 108–115.
[216] P. Nasr, H. Sewilam, Investigating fertilizer drawn forward osmosis process for
groundwater desalination for irrigation in Egypt, Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (56)
(2016) 26932–26942.
[217] S. Phuntsho, et al., Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis process: pilot-scale desali­
nation of mine impaired water for fertigation, J. Membr. Sci. 508 (2016) 22–31.
[218] W. Suwaileh, D. Johnson, N. Hilal, Brackish water desalination for agriculture:
assessing the performance of inorganic fertilizer draw solutions, Desalination 456
(2019) 53–63.
[219] S. Phuntsho, et al., A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desali­
nation for direct fertigation: evaluating the performance of fertilizer draw
22
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
solutions, J. Membr. Sci. 375 (1) (2011) 172–181.
[220] J.E. Kim, et al., Environmental and economic impacts of fertilizer drawn forward
osmosis and nanofiltration hybrid system, Desalination 416 (2017) 76–85.
[221] J.E. Kim, S. Phuntsho, H.K. Shon, Pilot-scale nanofiltration system as post-treat­
ment for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation,
Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (31−33) (2013) 6265–6273.
[222] S.F. Anis, R. Hashaikeh, N. Hilal, Reverse osmosis pretreatment technologies and
future trends: a comprehensive review, Desalination 452 (2019) 159–195.
[223] M. Giagnorio, et al., Hybrid forward osmosis–nanofiltration for wastewater reuse:
system design, Membranes 9 (5) (2019) 61.
[224] B. Corzo, et al., Long-term evaluation of a forward osmosis-nanofiltration de­
monstration plant for wastewater reuse in agriculture, Chem. Eng. J. 338 (2018)
383–391.
[225] E.M.V. Hoek, et al., Modeling the effects of fouling on full-scale reverse osmosis
processes, J. Membr. Sci. 314 (1) (2008) 33–49.
[226] M. Turek, et al., Prospects for high water recovery membrane desalination,
Desalination 401 (2017) 180–189.
[227] R.L. Stover, Industrial and brackish water treatment with closed circuit reverse
osmosis, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (4–6) (2013) 1124–1130.
[228] B. Kim, et al., Purification of high salinity brine by multi-stage ion concentration
polarization desalination, Sci. Rep. 6 (1) (2016) 31850.
[229] S. Thampy, et al., Development of hybrid electrodialysis-reverse osmosis domestic
desalination unit for high recovery of product water, Desalination 282 (2011)
104–108.
[230] R.K. McGovern, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard V, The benefits of hybridising elec­
trodialysis with reverse osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 469 (2014) 326–335.
[231] R.K. McGovern, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard V, Hybrid electrodialysis reverse os­
mosis system design and its optimization for treatment of highly saline brines, IDA
J. Desalin. Water Reuse 6 (1) (2014) 15–23.
[232] C. Jiang, et al., Electrodialysis of concentrated brine from RO plant to produce
coarse salt and freshwater, J. Membr. Sci. 450 (2014) 323–330.
[233] Y. Zhang, et al., Electrodialysis on RO concentrate to improve water recovery in
wastewater reclamation, J. Membr. Sci. 378 (1) (2011) 101–110.
[234] A.H. Galama, et al., Seawater predesalination with electrodialysis, Desalination
342 (2014) 61–69.
[235] M. Turek, et al., Energy consumption and gypsum scaling assessment in a hybrid
Nanofiltration-reverse osmosis-electrodialysis system, Chem. Eng. Technol. 41 (2)
(2018) 392–400.
[236] J. Pellegrino, C. Gorman, L. Richards, A speculative hybrid reverse osmosis/
electrodialysis unit operation, Desalination 214 (1) (2007) 11–30.
[237] P. Wang, T.-S. Chung, Recent advances in membrane distillation processes:
membrane development, configuration design and application exploring, J.
Membr. Sci. 474 (2015) 39–56.
[238] D. Eumine Suk, T. Matsuura, Membrane-based hybrid processes: a review, Sep.
Sci. Technol. 41 (4) (2006) 595–626.
[239] Y.-J. Choi, et al., Evaluation of economic feasibility of reverse osmosis and
membrane distillation hybrid system for desalination, Desalin. Water Treat. 57
(51) (2016) 24662–24673.
[240] G. Naidu, et al., Membrane distillation for wastewater reverse osmosis concentrate
treatment with water reuse potential, J. Membr. Sci. 524 (2017) 565–575.
[241] Cath, T.Y., A.E. Childress, and C.R. Martinetti, Water extraction system for pur­
ifying liquid, e.g. seawater, comprises membrane-distillation desalination unit
having input and output and used to remove salt solutes from intermediate draw
solution, and forward-osmosis system. UNIV NEVADA SYSTEM HIGHER
EDUCATION (UNEV-C) CATH T Y (CATH-Individual) CHILDRESS A E (CHIL-
Individual) MARTINETTI C R (MART-Individual).
[242] D. Zhao, et al., Thermoresponsive copolymer-based draw solution for seawater
desalination in a combined process of forward osmosis and membrane distillation,
Desalination 348 (2014) 26–32.
[243] Q. Ge, et al., Polyelectrolyte-promoted forward osmosis–membrane distillation
(FO–MD) hybrid process for dye wastewater treatment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46
(11) (2012) 6236–6243.
[244] P. Wang, et al., Evaluation of hydroacid complex in the forward osmosis–mem­
brane distillation (FO–MD) system for desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 494
(2015) 1–7.
[245] Q. Ge, G. Han, T.-S. Chung, Effective As(III) removal by a multi-charged hydroacid
complex draw solute facilitated forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD)
processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (5) (2016) 2363–2370.
[246] C.X. Guo, et al., Na+−functionalized carbon quantum dots: a new draw solute in
forward osmosis for seawater desalination, Chem. Commun. 50 (55) (2014)
7318–7321.
[247] N.C. Nguyen, et al., Exploring high charge of phosphate as new draw solute in a
forward osmosis–membrane distillation hybrid system for concentrating high-
nutrient sludge, Sci. Total Environ. 557-558 (2016) 44–50.
[248] Q. Long, et al., Recent advance on draw solutes development in forward osmosis,
Processes 6 (9) (2018) 165.
[249] L. Zohrabian, N.P. Hankins, R.W. Field, Hybrid forward osmosis-membrane dis­
tillation system: demonstration of technical feasibility, J. Water Process Eng. 33
(2020) 101042.
[250] Cath, T.Y., A.E. Childress, and C.R. Martinetti, Combined membrane-distillation-
forward-osmosis systems and methods of use. 2011, Google Patents.
[251] Y. Kim, et al., Osmotically and thermally isolated forward osmosis–membrane
distillation (FO–MD) integrated module, Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (7) (2019)
3488–3498.
[252] Ghaffour, N., et al., Osmotically and thermally isolated forward osmosis-mem­
brane distillation (FO-MD) integrated module for water treatment applications.
F.E. Ahmed, et al.
2018, Google Patents.
[253] J.-W. Koo, et al., Integration of forward osmosis with membrane distillation: effect
of operating conditions, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (25–27) (2013) 5355–5361.
[254] M. Xie, et al., Toward resource recovery from wastewater: extraction of phos­
phorus from digested sludge using a hybrid forward osmosis–membrane distilla­
tion process, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1 (2) (2014) 191–195.
[255] H. Song, J. Liu, Forward osmosis membrane bioreactor using Bacillus and mem­
brane distillation hybrid system for treating dairy wastewater, Environ. Technol.
(2019) 1–12.
[256] S. Zhang, et al., Sustainable water recovery from oily wastewater via forward
osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD), Water Res. 52 (2014) 112–121.
[257] Q. Liu, et al., Integrated forward osmosis-membrane distillation process for human
urine treatment, Water Res. 91 (2016) 45–54.
[258] G.S. Arcanjo, et al., Draw solution solute selection for a hybrid forward osmosis-
membrane distillation module: effects on trace organic compound rejection, water
flux and polarization, Chem. Eng. J. 400 (2020) 125857.
[259] F. Volpin, et al., Optimisation of a forward osmosis and membrane distillation
hybrid system for the treatment of source-separated urine, Sep. Purif. Technol. 212
(2019) 368–375.
[260] X.-M. Li, et al., Water reclamation from shale gas drilling flow-back fluid using a
novel forward osmosis–vacuum membrane distillation hybrid system, Water Sci.
Technol. 69 (5) (2014) 1036–1044.
[261] W. Suwaileh, et al., An integrated fertilizer driven forward osmosis- renewables
powered membrane distillation system for brackish water desalination: a com­
bined experimental and theoretical approach, Desalination 471 (2019) 114126.
[262] S. Zou, Z. He, Electrodialysis recovery of reverse-fluxed fertilizer draw solute
during forward osmosis water treatment, Chem. Eng. J. 330 (2017) 550–558.
[263] T.N. Bitaw, K. Park, D.R. Yang, Optimization on a new hybrid forward osmosis-
electrodialysis-reverse osmosis seawater desalination process, Desalination 398
(2016) 265–281.
[264] B. Gu, J.H. Kim, D.R. Yang, Theoretical analysis of a seawater desalination process
integrating forward osmosis, crystallization, and reverse osmosis, J. Membr. Sci.
444 (2013) 440–448.
[265] L.F. Greenlee, et al., Reverse osmosis desalination: water sources, technology, and
today’s challenges, Water Res. 43 (9) (2009) 2317–2348.
[266] S. Miller, H. Shemer, R. Semiat, Energy and environmental issues in desalination,
Desalination 366 (2015) 2–8.
[267] D.L. Shaffer, et al., Seawater desalination for agriculture by integrated forward
and reverse osmosis: improved product water quality for potentially less energy, J.
Membr. Sci. 415 (2012) 1–8.
[268] L. Martinez-Diez, F. Florido-Diaz, Desalination of brines by membrane distillation,
Desalination 137 (1–3) (2001) 267–273.
[269] D. González, J. Amigo, F. Suárez, Membrane distillation: perspectives for sus­
tainable and improved desalination, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 80 (2017) 238–259.
[270] K. Nakoa, et al., Sustainable zero liquid discharge desalination (SZLDD), Sol.
Energy 135 (2016) 337–347.
[271] J.-H. Tsai, et al., Membrane-based zero liquid discharge: myth or reality? J.
Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 80 (2017) 192–202.
[272] J. Chang, et al., Membrane development and energy analysis of freeze
23
Desalination 495 (2020) 114659
desalination-vacuum membrane distillation hybrid systems powered by LNG re­
gasification and solar energy, Desalination 449 (2019) 16–25.
[273] K.J. Lu, et al., Design of zero liquid discharge desalination (ZLDD) systems con­
sisting of freeze desalination, membrane distillation, and crystallization powered
by green energies, Desalination 458 (2019) 66–75.
[274] Y. Choi, et al., Membrane distillation crystallization for brine mining and zero
liquid discharge: opportunities, challenges, and recent progress, Environ. Sci.:
Water Res. Technol. 5 (7) (2019) 1202–1221.
[275] R.A. Tufa, et al., Progress and prospects in reverse electrodialysis for salinity
gradient energy conversion and storage, Appl. Energy 225 (2018) 290–331.
[276] K. Kwon, et al., Brine recovery using reverse electrodialysis in membrane-based
desalination processes, Desalination 362 (2015) 1–10.
[277] Q. Wang, et al., Hybrid RED/ED system: simultaneous osmotic energy recovery
and desalination of high-salinity wastewater, Desalination 405 (2017) 59–67.
[278] Ramato A. Tufa, et al., Membrane distillation and reverse electrodialysis for near-
zero liquid discharge and low energy seawater desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 496
(2015) 325–333.
[279] Y. Mei, C.Y. Tang, Co-locating reverse electrodialysis with reverse osmosis desa­
lination: synergies and implications, J. Membr. Sci. 539 (2017) 305–312.
[280] W. Li, et al., A novel hybrid process of reverse electrodialysis and reverse osmosis
for low energy seawater desalination and brine management, Appl. Energy 104
(2013) 592–602.
[281] H. Tian, et al., Unique applications and improvements of reverse electrodialysis: a
review and outlook, Appl. Energy 262 (2020) 114482.
[282] J.L. Prante, et al., RO-PRO desalination: an integrated low-energy approach to
seawater desalination, Appl. Energy 120 (2014) 104–114.
[283] J. Kim, et al., Reverse osmosis (RO) and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) hybrid
processes: model-based scenario study, Desalination 322 (2013) 121–130.
[284] S. S, S. S, Reverse osmosis–pressure retarded osmosis hybrid system: modelling,
simulation and optimization, Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97.
[285] C.F. Wan, T.-S. Chung, Energy recovery by pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) in
SWRO–PRO integrated processes, Appl. Energy 162 (2016) 687–698.
[286] M.H. Sharqawy, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard, Second law analysis of reverse os­
mosis desalination plants: an alternative design using pressure retarded osmosis,
Energy 36 (11) (2011) 6617–6626.
[287] D.I. Kim, et al., Pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) for integrating seawater desali­
nation and wastewater reclamation: energy consumption and fouling, J. Membr.
Sci. 483 (2015) 34–41.
[288] S. Lin, et al., Hybrid pressure retarded osmosis–membrane distillation system for
power generation from low-grade heat: thermodynamic analysis and energy effi­
ciency, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (9) (2014) 5306–5313.
[289] J. Kim, et al., Performance analysis of reverse osmosis, membrane distillation, and
pressure-retarded osmosis hybrid processes, Desalination 380 (2016) 85–92.
[290] N.Y. Yip, M. Elimelech, Comparison of energy efficiency and power density in
pressure retarded osmosis and reverse electrodialysis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 48
(18) (2014) 11002–11012.
[291] B. Ricci, et al., Critical performance assessment of a submerged hybrid forward
osmosis-membrane distillation system, Desalination 468 (2019) 114082.