Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Performance evaluation of humidification-dehumidification (HDH) T

desalination systems with and without heat recovery options: An
experimental and theoretical investigation
⁎
Syed M. Zubair , Mohamed A. Antar, Samih M. Elmutasim, Dahiru U. Lawal
Mechanical Engineering Department, KFUPM Box # 1474, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Humidification dehumidification (HDH) desalination system is a thermal-based desalination technology that is
Humidification-dehumidification (HDH) suitable for small-scale water desalination applications. In this paper, we present an experimental and ther-
Thermal desalination technology modynamic analysis of the energetic performance of two HDH cycles. The HDH cycles considered are the basic
The gained-output ratio (GOR) open-air open-water (OAOW) cycle and the modified closed-water open-air (CWOA) cycle with the options of
Experimental
brine recirculation. An experimental investigation is performed on the modified cycle to validate the theoretical
Analytical
model that is used to assess the energetic performance of both the basic and modified cycles. The theoretical
Effectiveness
model is found to be in a good agreement with the experimental data with a maximum percentage deviation of
5% from the experimental data. Furthermore, limiting cases of the system are explored. Within the limiting
cases, the modified cycle recorded about 100% improvement in the energy performance over the basic cycle due
to heat recovery process associated with the modified cycle. Additionally, a cost analysis was performed to
determine the cost of freshwater production by the presented desalination cycles. Results show that the fresh-
water price varied from 4.10 to 6.55 $/m3 and 0.79 to 2.25 $/m3 for the basic OAOW HDH cycle and the
modified CWOA HDH cycle, respectively.

1. Introduction
Over the last century, the demand for potable water has sub-
stantially increased due to the increase in human population, activities,
and development such as agricultural, industrial and socio-economic
development. In an attempt to address the problem of freshwater
shortage, several desalination techniques have been developed to de-
salinate saline water. Humidification-dehumidification (HDH) desali-
nation system is one of the most promising desalination technologies
for a decentralized small-scale desalination process [1]. HDH desali-
nation process has been used, investigated and improved over the years.
These systems are suitable for small-scale freshwater production, and
offer numerous advantages over other desalination technologies; how-
ever, the main drawback remains. That is, it requires a relatively high-
energy compared to other desalination technologies [2]. HDH systems
have an advantage over some other technologies, such as reverse os-
mosis, in that they involve a relatively simple, inexpensive components.
It can operate over a wide range of raw water quality without the need
for complex maintenance operations [2]. These systems are also re-
ported to have a higher GOR over solar still. Other benefits of HDH
systems include the ability to operate at low temperature, and the
feasibility of being powered by sustainable energy resources such as
solar and geothermal [3]. These systems may be classified according to
whether air or water is heated and to the nature of air or water stream
[4]. This work has been focused on open-air open-water (OAOW) and
closed-water open-air (CWOA) HDH cycles.
Many studies on HDH system have been directed on optimizing and
improving the performance of its components with the aim of im-
proving the overall system performance. An innovative design that can
reduce the dehumidifier size through direct contact HDH process has
been studied by Niroomand et al. [5]. In the proposed system, air is
dehumidified by spraying cold water to the hot and humid air stream,
instead of using the conventional indirect condensers for the dehumi-
dification process. Their results showed that the water production in-
creases with decreasing initial velocity and diameter of water droplets.
It was also found that the freshwater production and efficiency of the
system increases with increasing hot water flow rate and temperature as
well as by decreasing the cold water flow rate and temperature.
Klausner et al. [6] used a direct-contact dehumidifier in combination
with a shell-and-tube heat exchanger to provide enhanced condensation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smzubair@kfupm.edu.sa (S.M. Zubair).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.02.018
Received 23 October 2017; Received in revised form 12 February 2018; Accepted 12 February 2018
Available online 23 February 2018
0011-9164/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Nomenclature n amortization years (life of the system)

P Pressure (kPa)
Acronyms Q̇ heat transfer rate (kW)
T temperature (°C)
CAOW closed-air open-water X salinity (ppm)
COE the unit cost of electricity x the fraction of saline water mass flow rate (kg/s)
CWOA closed-water open-air y the fraction of brine mass flow rate (kg/s)
EPC annual electric power cost
GOR the gained output ratio Greek Symbols
HCR heat capacity rate ratio
HDH humidification-dehumidification ε effectiveness
MR the water-to-air mass flow rate ratio ω absolute humidity (kgw kga−1)
OAOW open-air open-water L the specific cost of operating a labor ($ m−3)
RR recovery ratio (%)
SEC specific energy consumption Subscripts

Symbols a air
b brine
CF annual capital cost ($ yr−1) cw cooling water
CP unit product cost ($ m−3) deh dehumidifier
CT total annual cost ($ yr−1) fluid working fluid
cP specific heat capacity at constant pressure (kJ kg−1 K−1) fw freshwater
f plant availability hum humidifier
h specific enthalpy (kJ kg−1) in entering
hfg specific enthalpy of vaporization (kJ kg−1) intake entering the stream
i interest rate p pump
LC annual labor cost ($ yr−1) 0,1,… state points
ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s)

and improved heat recovery for the cycle. Dawoud et al. [7] theoreti-
cally investigated different possible cooling techniques for the con-
denser of a seawater greenhouse desalination system. The possible
cooling techniques include; evaporative cooling for surface seawater, a
cooling machine to cool the condenser coolant in a closed loop, or to
utilize deep seawater as a condenser coolant. They suggested that
evaporative cooling with surface seawater seems to be the most suitable
cooling technology for the greenhouse condenser.
Ettouney [8] assessed different configurations of the HDH tower.
The layouts included the conventional humidification system combined
with each of the following units; lithium bromide absorption-desorption
system, water condenser, vapor compressor, and water condenser, to
condense the water vapor from the air. He showed the need to de-
termine the most efficient design and operating conditions that result in
a minimum product cost. In another study, Narayan et al. [9] assessed
the thermodynamic performance of various HDH cycles through a
theoretical cycle analysis. They also proposed different novel high-
performance cycles including multi-extraction, multi-pressure systems.
It is shown that the proposed high-performance cycle can attain a
GOR > 5, which is expected to outperform many existing HDH systems.
Sharqawy et al. [10] numerically investigated the design, performance,
and optimization of two HDH cycles. They presented first-law based
thermal analysis model, as well as performance charts, which can be
used to determine the size of HDH systems under different design
conditions. Aburub et al. [11,12] experimentally assessed the perfor-
mance of another configuration of HDH system, which is described as a
packed-bed cross-flow humidification-dehumidification desalination
system. The system is a closed water (brine recirculation), and open-air
configuration.
To enhance the performance of HDH desalination system, many
modifications have been made. A novel HDH system driven by forced
convection was invented by Brendel [13,14]. In this configuration, a
forced convection was used to extract water from the dehumidifier and
injected to the dehumidifier under balanced temperature profiles.
Thermal balancing by extracting air or water from the humidifier and
injected to the dehumidifier and vice versa has been investigated ex-
tensively by several researchers [15–21], all in an attempt to improve
the performance of HDH system. From the above-cited work, we found
that there is a need to systematically improve the cycle performance of
HDH system by modifying the cycle. Therefore, the objective of this
paper is to experimentally and analytically analyze the performance of
a basic open-water open-air (OWOA) cycle and improve the cycle
performance through a modified closed-water open-air cycle (CWOA).
The modified closed-water open-air is achieved by incorporating heat
recovery options.
2. System description and mathematical modeling
2.1. The basic cycle: open water open air (OWOA) HDH system
The basic cycle is an open-air and open-water loop as shown in
Fig. 1. The seawater is passed through the dehumidifier and then heated
in the heater before it is sprayed in the humidifier. A portion of sprayed
hot saline water evaporates into the air stream, while the rest is rejected
through the bottom of the humidifier, as a rejected brine. Air flows in a
counter-flow direction through the packing material placed in the hu-
midifier, where the air is heated and humidified through the direct
contact with the sprayed hot water. The hot and humid air then flows to
the dehumidifier where water vapor present in the humidified air
condenses to produce fresh water, and the cold air is ducted out of the
dehumidifier.
2.2. The modified closed-water open-air (CWOA) HDH system
The modified closed water open-air HDH System, as illustrated in
Fig. 2, is similar to the basic cycle of open water open-air loop, except
that the modification is made in the water loop. In Fig. 2, the saline
water enters the dehumidifier and absorbs heat from the hot and humid
air. A portion of the preheated saline water is admitted into a tank as a
make-up water, while the rest is discharged. The saline water in the

162
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Fig. 1. Open-air open-water HDH system.

tank is then heated and sprayed in the humidifier where part of it
evaporates and the unevaporated seawater is collected, ducted and re-
circulated back to the tank, to close the water loop.
The comparison of various basic and modified basic cycles of HDH
system in terms of gained output ratio, as reported in the literature [9],
is presented in Table 1.
In both of these figures, T, Twb and Tdb are the water temperature,
wet bulb temperature and dry-bulb temperature of the air, respectively.
2.3. Mathematical modeling
In order to achieve objectives of the present study, a thermo-
dynamic cycle analysis has been performed to assess the performance of
two HDH cycles. In performing the analysis, the following assumptions
have been made [10]:
• The system involved operates under steady-state conditions.

Fig. 2. Modified closed-water open-air HDH system.

163
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Table 1 ṁ fw hfg
Comparison of HDH cycles [9].
GOR =
Qiṅ (10)
Cycle GOR Another metric used in this study is water-to-air mass-flow rate ratio
CAOW - air heated cycle 0.78
(MR), and the modified heat capacity ratio, which are defined as [16]:
CAOW - multi-stage air heated cycle (4-stages) 0.85 ṁ w
CAOW - modified air heating 3.5 MR =
CAOW - water heated cycle 2.5
ṁ a (11)
CWOA - water heated cycle 2.6
CWOA - modified air heating 3.5 ΔHmax, cold
HCR =
ΔHmax, hot (12)

• Heat losses to the surroundings are neglected
• Pumping and fan powers are negligible compared to thermal energy
input.
• Properties are evaluated at atmospheric pressure, while the prop-
erties of sea water are based on work of Sharqawy et al. [21].
• Moist air leaves both the humidifier and dehumidifier at 90% re-
lative humidity.
• The feed water salinity is 35 g/kg.
• Kinetic and potential energy terms are neglected in the energy
balance equations.
The presented model is based on a thermodynamic analysis where
mass and energy balances are applied on each cycle components that
are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2.
Dehumidifier mass and energy balance equations are:
ṁ fw = ṁ a (ωin − ωout )
ṁ w (h w, out − h w, in ) = ṁ a (ha, in − ha, out ) − ṁ fw hfw
Heater energy balance equation (for the basic cycle) can be written
as:
̇ = ṁ w (h w, out − h w, in)
Qin
The heater mass and energy balance equations (for the modified
cycle) gives,
ṁ w − yṁ b
x=
ṁ w
where x presents the fraction of mass flowrate, which is used as a
makeup, and y is the fraction of rejected brine mass flow rate that is
recirculated to the tank (heater).
̇ + yṁ b hb + xṁ w h w, in
ṁ w h w, out = Qin
The humidifier mass and energy balance equations are:
ṁ b = ṁ w − ṁ fw
ṁ w h w, in − ṁ b hb = ṁ a (ha, out − ha, in)
The effectiveness of the dehumidifier is given as [10,20]:
ha, in − ha, out h w, out − h w, in
εdeh = max ,
ha, in − ha, out , ideal h w, out , ideal − h w, in
Similarly, the effectiveness of the humidifier is expressed as [10,20]:
ha, out − ha, in h w, in − h w, out
εhum = max , to the National Instrument (NI) data acquisition system (IN cDAQ-9174
ha, out , ideal − ha, in h w, in − h w, out , ideal
The ideal enthalpy of outlet air is taken at the temperature of inlet
water, while the ideal enthalpy of outlet water is measured at the inlet
air temperature [20].
The most important performance indicator of HDH system is the
gain-output ratio (GOR), which is defined as the energy performance
index of a HDH system. It is defined as the ratio of latent heat of va-
porization of fresh water to the amount of heat utilized to produce it,
which is expressed as:
The above set of equations were solved using Engineering Equation
Solver (EES) software, which solves the equations simultaneously
through an iterative process.
3. Experimental work
To achieve objectives of the current study, experimental investiga-
tion of the performance of a modified CWOA HDH system was con-
ducted. An experimental set-up equipped with a data acquisition system
to record readings from thermocouples on a real-time basis was as-
sembled. The data obtained from the experimental program are ana-
lyzed and compared with the model results.
3.1. Set-up description
The system under consideration is a modified water heated closed-
(1)
water open-air (CWOA) system. The humidifier and dehumidifier units
(2) are made of a plexiglas material, which is in the form of vertical rec-
tangular ducts. The dehumidifier has cross-sectional dimensions of
30.5 cm × 30 cm and a height of 122 cm. Three condensers made from
copper tubes and aluminum fins are installed inside the dehumidifier
for an effective condensation of water vapor. The make-up tank
(3)
(62×36×43 cm3) equipped with four electrical heaters (1.2 kW,
1.2 kW, 1.2 kW and 2 kW) is filled with raw water having a salinity of
2500 ppm. Glass wool blanket batts insulation is used to cover the tank
from all sides to minimize heat loss to the ambient. The humidifier has
cross-sectional dimensions of (122 × 30.5 × 30 cm3). Three structured-
(4)
type packing-material (cellulose pads) having a total height of 65 cm is
installed inside the humidifier. To eliminate the problem of carrying
over of water droplets with air, a drift eliminator followed by a loofah
packing was used. Also, to avoid the growth of biological fouling, the
fill material was periodically cleaned after every two weeks and re-
(5) placed with the new ones, after continuously operating the experiments
for about two months. A photograph of the actual setup showing the
main components of the system, is shown in Fig. 3.
(6) The system is operated at an atmospheric pressure, which is as-
sumed to be 101.325 kPa. The hot water tank is insulated to reduce heat
(7)
loss and ensure steady and constant water temperature. The feed water
is pumped through the dehumidifier using a small centrifugal pump,
and ball valves are used to regulate the water flow rate. K-type ther-
mocouples are installed at the inlet and outlet of the air and water
(8) streams to measure the dry- and wet-bulb temperatures, and water
temperatures in the system. The thermocouple junction for wet-bulb
temperature measurements is wrapped by a wet wick supplied by water
from a gravity feeding syringe. All the measuring sensors are connected
(9)
module). While all measured values are monitored and stored on a
computer using a Lab View code. Water flow rates are measured using
in-line flow meters, a glass tube rotameter (Omega FL50000) of ± 5%
accuracy having a range of 4–36 LPM. Air at room temperature is blown
through the humidifier and packing material by an axial flow air fan
installed at the humidifier entrance. The fan provides three different air
flowrate of 0.055, 0.066 and 0.08 kg/s. The measured quantities (dis-
tillate mass flowrate, dry bulb, wet bulb, and water temperatures) were
used in Eqs. (8)–(12) to calculate the humidifier and dehumidifier

164
S.M. Zubair et al.
Fig. 3. A photograph showing main components of the experimental set-up.
effectiveness values, gained output ratio, mass flowrate ratio, and the
modified heat capacity ratio of the system. In order to calculate the
distillate mass flowrates; 900 cm3 of condensate is collected and mea-
sured using a graduated measuring cylinder. The sample collection time
is recorded for each data set. The condensate mass flowrates are then
calculated by dividing the mass of collected distillate by the respective
time duration.
3.2. Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty is usually evaluated in the calculated results ob-
tained from experimental investigations. Since we used temperature
sensors and flowmeters to measure the conditions of operating para-
meters, it is essential to evaluate the effect of these measured values on
Fig. 4. Impact of mass ratio on gain output ratio at a different total heat input.
165
Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175
the system performance parameter, GOR. EES provides tools to perform
the sensitivity analysis on the measured values.
It is important to note that K-type thermocouples and flowmeters
(FL50000) have an uncertainty of values of ± 0.1 °C and ± 5%, re-
spectively. An uncertainty of ± 0.5% was calculated for air mass flow
rate. The graduated cylinder used to measure the amount of produced
freshwater has an accuracy of ± 12 ml. The uncertainty for the ex-
perimental GOR is then calculated. The results of uncertainty analysis
for the component effectiveness, and the experimental GOR are pre-
sented in appendix A.
4. Results and discussion
The first step in any reliable model development is the model va-
lidation. An experiment was performed to validate the mathematical
model developed in this study. The experimental performance of the
modified CWOA HDH system is evaluated by calculating the gain
output ratio of the system. Also, the variation of system performance
with the operating conditions is investigated by changing the operating
parameters, which includes the mass flow rate ratio (MR) of water-to-
air and total heat input to the system. The mass flow rate ratio is ob-
tained by varying the water flow rate only, while the volumetric flow
rate of air is kept constant by fixing the fan speed.
Fig. 4 illustrates the validation results obtained for the system GOR
at different mass ratio and total heat input. As observed in this figure,
the gain output ratio increases with the mass flow rate ratio, which has
a direct relationship with water flow rate. Increasing the feed water
flow rate generates more vapor in the humidifier, and consequently
more condensate from the dehumidifier, resulting in higher system
GOR, which has a direct relationship to fresh water flow rate. The
system GOR is also found to decrease with increasing total heat input.
This is because the energy input to the system has an inverse re-
lationship with GOR, as presented in Eq. (10). The presented model is
observed to be in a good agreement with the experimental data as the
maximum model deviation is calculated to be within ± 5% of the ex-
perimental values. Results also showed that the system has an experi-
mental and theoretical maximum GOR of 0.4 and 0.42, respectively, at
the mass flow rate ratio of 1.81. The low experimental GOR value is due
to the poor humidifier effectiveness (25 to 54%), as shown in Fig. 5,
which directly translates to low evaporation rates, and consequently
low system GOR values. Next, we defined the limits for components
effectiveness, where the system performance will be explored within
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Fig. 5. Variation of humidifier effectiveness with MR at a heat input of 5.6 kW.

Table 2
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system.
Dehumidifier effectiveness (%) Ranges of humidifier effectiveness (%)
50 40–60
60 and 70 40–53
80 and 85 40–47
and outside the defined limits of the component effectiveness values.
After model validation against the experimental results, the limits
for components effectiveness values were defined. These limits are
defined by considering the basic condition that the temperature of brine
recirculated back to the heater (Tw4) should be greater than that of
make-up water coming from the dehumidifier (Tw2). To determine the
limits, we consider MR ranging from 1 to 3, with a step change of 0.5.
The main findings from the determination of components effectiveness
limits are summarized in Table 2. The detailed analysis of components
effectiveness limits, is presented in Appendix B.
By considering the above limits for components effectiveness, the
performance of both the basic cycle (no brine recirculation) and mod-
ified cycle (with brine recirculation) is investigated, it is shown in
Fig. 6. It shows the variation of GOR of the system with the mass flow
rate ratio for the basic cycle. This figure is based on the upper and lower
limits of components effectiveness, The GOR of the system is observed
to increase with MR until it reaches a peak and then decreases with a
further increase in MR. This is because the sprayed feed water was
flooding the circulating air which results in a reduction in water vapor
carried by air, and thus a reduction in system GOR. Another reason for
this behavior may be attributed to the fact that the maximum effec-
tiveness of the humidifier changes from the effectiveness of water to the
effectiveness of air, which indicates lower water temperatures at the
inlet of the humidifier, therefore lowers the evaporation rate and GOR
of the system. Another observation can be seen from this figure, the
GOR increases with an increasing effectiveness of both the humidifier
and dehumidifier. This is due to the fact that higher effectiveness im-
plies high evaporation and condensation rate, and consequently higher
GOR.
Fig. 7 shows the influence of mass ratio on GOR at different com-
ponents effectiveness values for zero brine recirculation (basic cycle)
and different percentages of brine recirculation (modified cycle). The
GOR of the system is noticed to jump from a maximum of 0.35 (zero
recirculation) to a value of approximately 0.7 (100% brine recircula-
tion), representing about 100% improvement in the system energy
performance. The effect of percentage brine recirculation is also pre-
sented in the figure, where we noticed an increase in system GOR due to

ε ε

ε
ε ε
ε ε
ε ε
ε

Fig. 6. Impact of mass ratio on gain output ratio at different components effectiveness values (basic cycle): (a) εdeh = 0.50, and εdeh = 0.85.

166
S.M. Zubair et al.
ε
ε
Fig. 7. Effect of MR on GOR for zero brine recirculation (basic cycle) and different percentages of brine recirculation (modified cycle).
an increase in the quantity of brine recirculated. This is mainly due to
an increase in overall temperature of the sprayed water, which gener-
ated more vapor and consequently higher GOR. This happened because
the recirculated brine is expected to contain a considerable amount of
heat, which is higher than that associated with make-up water. It can be
seen from the figure that it reaches a maximum value and then drops at
some percentage of the brine recirculation. This can be explained by the
fact that the maximum effectiveness definition changes from water to
air at those points, leading to a drop in GOR of the system.
This figure also shows the extreme limits of effectiveness of the
components. The system performance for other components effective-
ness values within the limits at different percentage of brine re-
circulation, are illustrated in Fig. 8. It is obvious that both the humi-
difier and dehumidifier effectiveness influences GOR of the system.
However, the effect of dehumidifier effectiveness on GOR is noticed to
be greater than that of humidifier effectiveness, as reported in [9]. For
instance, an increase in the dehumidifier effectiveness from 50% to
85% at 43% humidifier effectiveness showed about 74% improvement
in GOR of the system. It is important to note that a higher dehumidifier
effectiveness translates to higher condensation rate of the water vapor.
In all cases, the system performance is seen to improve with an increase
in brine recirculation. The recirculated brine is associated with a con-
siderable amount of heat, which contributes to the feed mass flow rate
entering the humidifier. This explains the reduction in performance as
the percentage of circulated brine reduced from 95% to 10%, i.e., as the
system moves from the modified cycle towards the basic cycle. The
enhancement in the system performance for the modified cycle justifies
the idea of modification; that is, brine recirculation as a heat recovery
process.
Figs. 9 and 10 explore GOR of the system at different components
effectiveness values that fall outside the valid range of components
effectiveness values. The summary of limiting cases for components
effectiveness are tabulated in Table 2. The main difference between the
results presented in Fig. 8 and Figs. 9 and 10 is that in Figs. 9 and 10,
the system has moved outside the range of effectiveness that fulfills the
basic condition at which mixing is justifiable. This created a common
point of intersection where all the curves cross. At the point of inter-
section and beyond, the brine recirculation will no longer have more
influence on GOR of the system. This is because, at this point, a sort of
balancing occurs and the system becomes insensitive to the circulation.
The point of intersection can be used as an indicator to determine the
range of MR that gives better system performance for the modified
cycle (brine recirculation). These points can also give the range of MR
167
Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175
ε ε
at which the modified cycle begins to shift towards the basic cycle (0%
circulation).
The impact of moving the dehumidifier effectiveness outside its
limiting cases on the system performance, is presented in Figs. 9 and 10.
Fig. 9 is noticed to exhibit a similar behavior, except that the point of
intersection occurred at different mass flowrate and heat capacity rate
(HCR) ratios. As the dehumidifier effectiveness decreases, the point of
intersection is observed to occur at lower MR. At the point of inter-
section and beyond, the performance of basic cycle begins to surpass
that of the modified cycle. This shows that this region is sensitive to the
dehumidifier effectiveness. The energy associated with makeup water is
attained at the dehumidifier, which makes the dehumidifier effective-
ness more dominant factor for the basic cycle as compared to the
modified cycle that utilizes less makeup water and more brine re-
circulation. Fig. 9(d) demonstrates the fact that the system has returned
to its working range (limiting case for components effectiveness) as the
point of intersection, is observed to disappear.
Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of moving the humidifier effectiveness
outside its limiting cases (humidifier effectiveness is fixed at 80%),
which does not fulfill the valid range for which mixing is justifiable. The
points of intersection also occurred in this figure as well because of the
violation of the conditions that warrant brine recirculation. Similar to
Fig. 9, these points are also noticed to move from higher MR to lower
MR as the dehumidifier effectiveness decreases. This supports the fact
that point of intersection marks the region of dominance of the basic
cycle, which is proportional to the dehumidifier effectiveness.
A comparison between the modified closed-water open-air (CWOA)
cycle and other basic HDH cycles is presented in Table 3. It can be
noticed that the modified CWOA cycle yield the best performance in
terms of GOR for the same system operating conditions. The compar-
ison is done under the following conditions: the heat input is 4.5 kW,
water inlet temperature is at 24 °C with a mass flow rate of 0.07 kg/s.
air inlet temperature is at 26 °C and its relative humidity is taken to be
95% at the inlet and outlet of dehumidifier and humidifier, respec-
tively. The humidifier effectiveness and dehumidifier effectiveness are
taken to be 50% and 80%, separately.
4.1. Desalinated water production cost
In this section, cost of fresh (desalted) water from the basic open-air
open-water (OAOW) cycle, and the modified closed-water open-air
(CWOA) cycle with the options of brine recirculation, is estimated. In
this regard, design and operational variables are considered. The main
S.M. Zubair et al.
Fig. 8. Influence of mass ratio on gain output ratio at different components effectiveness for different percentages of brine recirculation (modified cycle).
factors influencing fresh water production cost by HDH system includes
fixed capital - mainly equipment, and operating costs - mainly energy
costs [22]. The plant fixed charges are treated as a function of both the
capital investment and plant depreciation factor. The plant depreciation
factor depends on variables such as the plant life expectancy, invest-
ments, amortization, and financial parameters [23]. The capital in-
vestment cost (Cc) involves the purchase cost of major equipment,
auxiliary equipment, construction, management, and miscellaneous.
Table 4 summarizes the capital investment cost for the HDH system.
These values are adopted from [22,24]. It is worth mentioning that the
freshwater cost analysis was performed following the method presented
in [24,25], and considering the following assumptions in the economic
analysis [24]:
• The unit cost of electricity (COE) is 0.04–0.09 $/kWh.
• The annual operator salary (PS) is 6000 $/year, with the plant using
168
Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175
a single operator for a small plant according to the proposed design.
• The annual maintenance cost is estimated to be 1.5% of the capital
cost.
• The yearly cost of management is taken to be 20% of the labor cost.
• No pretreatment costs.
• The interest rate (i) is 5%.
• The plant life expectancy (n) is 20 years.
• The plant availability (f) is 90%.
• The land costs may be ignored assuming outdoor location and op-
erating in a rural (deserted) area.
The other assumptions made in estimating freshwater flow rate and
specific work consumption used in the cost analysis are: heat input of
4.5 kW, water inlet temperature of 21 °C and mass flow rate of 0.07 kg/
s. Air inlet temperature of 26 °C, at a relative humidity of 50%. Air
leaves both the humidifier and dehumidifier at 90% relative humidity.
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Fig. 9. effect of mass ratio on gain output ratio at different components effectiveness for different percentages of brine recirculation (modified cycle).

The following expressions were used in estimating the production cost SW

EPC ($ / yr ) = COE ($ / kWh) × (kWh/ m3) × f × Product (m3/ day )
of the desalinated water; 3600
The amortization charges can be expressed as: × 365 (15)

i (i + 1)n The annual labor cost (LC): This can be written as,
α=
(i + 1)n − 1 (13)
LC ($ / yr ) = L ($ / m3) × f × Product (m3/ day ) × 365 (16)
where α is the amortization factor, i is the interest rate, and n is the 3
amortization years (life of the system). where L is the specific cost of operating labor ($/m ), which can be
The annual capital cost (CF): This cost can be obtained by multi- calculated from;
plying capital costs by amortization factor. It can be expressed as
Operator salary ($ / yr )
L ($ /m3) = ⎛⎜
⎞ ⎟

CF ($ / yr ) = Cc ($) × α (1/ yr ) (14) ⎝ Product (m3/ day ) × 365(day / yr ) ⎠ (17)

The annual electric power cost (EPC): It can be expressed as, The total annual cost (CT), is some of the above cost elements,

169
S.M. Zubair et al.
Fig. 10. Impact of mass ratio on Gain output ratio at different components effectiveness for different percentages of brine recirculation (modified cycle).
CT ($ / yr ) = CF ($ / yr ) + PC ($ / yr ) + LC ($ / yr )
Now, the unit product cost (CP) can be written as,
CT ($ / yr )
CP ($ / m3) = ⎛⎜
3/ day ) × 365(day / yr )
⎞ ⎟
⎝ f × Product ( m ⎠ (19)
The results obtained from the cost analysis of the two HDH systems
considered in the current study, are presented in Table 5 and Fig.11.
The effect of variation in feed water inlet temperature on both the cost
of freshwater production and the specific energy consumption (SEC) for
the modified CWOA and basic OAOW cycles, are presented in Table 5. It
is expected that seawater temperature changes over the year because of
variations in the seasonal climatic changes (winter to summer) over the
years. Therefore, it is important to estimate the cost of freshwater for
Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175
(18) any given season.
It is important to emphasize that effective condensation of pure
water from the humidified air occurs at a low seawater temperature,
leading to high productivity and low cost of freshwater production.
Also, the effective condensation of freshwater equally leads to better
heat recovery, which lowers the SEC of the system. It should be noted
that water production cost varies weakly with seawater inlet tempera-
ture. Furthermore, the SEC and cost of freshwater production by the
basic OAOW system is about three fold higher than that of the modified
CWOA cycle.
The impact of energy cost on the distilled water production cost for
both the basic OAOW and modified CWOA cycles with the options of
brine recirculation, is illustrated in Fig. 11. It is important to know how
the cost of electricity moves the cost of desalted water since the price of
170
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Table 3
Comparison between various HDH cycles.

Water-heated Air-heated

MR Modified CWssOA OAOW CAOW CAOW OAOW

0.45 0.3324 0.2382 0.4301 0.5866 0.3768

0.5842 0.4009 0.2938 0.4551 0.5493 0.332
0.7184 0.4662 0.3525 0.4829 0.5143 0.3037
0.8526 0.5284 0.414 0.514 0.4814 0.2841
0.9868 0.5875 0.4777 0.5487 0.4505 0.2697
1.121 0.6437 0.543 0.5875 0.4214 0.2585
1.255 0.6972 0.5696 0.5997 0.3941 0.2495
1.389 0.7041 0.5648 0.5878 0.3684 0.242
1.524 0.7044 0.5611 0.5763 0.3441 0.2357
1.658 0.705 0.5581 0.5653 0.3213 0.2082
1.792 0.7058 0.5558 0.5547 0.2997 0.1579
1.926 0.7068 0.477 0.5445 0.2753 0.1213
2.061 0.7078 0.4066 0.4656 0.2302 0.09317
2.195 0.7088 0.357 0.4001 0.1296 0.07083 Fig. 11. Influence of electricity cost on the fresh water cost.
2.329 0.7099 0.3193 0.3531 0.1163 0.03899
2.463 0.711 0.2894 0.3172 0.1045 0.02843
2.597 0.7121 0.265 0.2884 0.09409 0.01909 Table 6
2.732 0.7132 0.2446 0.2648 0.08476 0.01077 Comparison of the current systems with reverse osmosis (RO) desalination system.
2.866 0.7143 0.2273 0.245 0.07639 0.00334
3 0.7153 0.2123 0.2281 0.06883 −0.00334 Cost of water production Desalination system Authors Ref

3
(0.71–0.83) $/m RO Jamil et al. [26]
Table 4 0.70 €/m3 RO Romero et al. [27]
Capital investment cost for HDH plant [23,25]. 1.3 $/m3 RO Fiorenza et al. [28]
1.39 $/m3 RO Wade [29]
Item description Price (US $) 2.45 $/m3 RO El-Emam and [30]
Dincer
Control devices 80 2.37 $/m3 RO Darwish et al. [31]
Packed bed humidifier 133 (0.12–0.13) $/m3 HDH-RO Jamil et al. [32]
Dehumidifier 70 (4.10–6.55) $/m3 Basic OAOW HDH cycle Present study –
Finned tube coil heat exchangers 120 (0.79–2.25) $/m3 Modified CWOA HDH Present study –
Electric heater 48 cycle
Pipes, fittings 35
Water tanks 260
Pumps and blowers 345 competitive with RO desalination plant when small-scale water pro-
Flowmeters 230
duction is a priority.
Accessories 33
Miscellaneous 573
5. Concluding remarks

Table 5 An experimental and thermodynamic analysis of basic open-air

Effects of increasing inlet water temperature on water production cost of HDH plant. open-water (OAOW) and the modified closed-water open-air (CWOA)
HDH desalination systems has been performed. The following sig-
Feed water Modified CWOA Basic OAOW
temperature (°C) nificant conclusions are drawn from this study:
SEC Water SEC Water production
(kWh/
m3)
production cost
($/m3)
(kWh/
m3)
cost ($/m3)
• A theoretical model has been validated against the experimental
data. The model was found to be in a good agreement with the
18 17.53 2.083 55.2 6.726
experimental results, it was found that the maximum percentage
20 20.23 2.186 63.6 6.608 error from the model is within 5% of the experimental data.
22
24
24.5
28.2
2.31
2.461
69.5
81.3
6.489
6.365
• The limits of humidifier and dehumidifier effectiveness have been
defined based on the temperatures of brine recirculation and the
26 33.4 2.647 97.7 6.234
make-up water.
•
28 38.6 2.881 124.7 6.088
GOR of the system increases with MR. However, optimum MR exists
where a further increase in MR leads to a reduction in the system
electricity varies from one location to another. As expected, an increase GOR.
in the cost of electricity increases the cost of freshwater production for • The system GOR increases as the components effectiveness in-
both the cycles. However, it is noted that the cost of water production creases, which is mainly due to the better evaporation and con-
by the modified CWOA cycle has been reduced, considerably, when densation processes. However, the dehumidifier effectiveness was
compared to that of basic OAOW cycle. This is mainly due to energy found to be more influential compared to the humidifier effective-
recovered from the brine recirculation, which shows that energy cost is ness.
one of the most important cost factors in a desalination plant. • The behavior as well as the pattern of the system at 95% and 90%
Table 6 presents a unit product cost comparison between the current rejected brine recirculation is very similar to that of 100% (the
and reverse osmosis desalination systems. It is evident from the eval- modified cycle). However, from 80% to 10% rejected brine re-
uated results that the cost of freshwater production from the basic circulation, the system mimic that of basic cycle, because the effect
OAOW HDH process is higher than the RO plant. However, the cost of of makeup starts to outplay the effect of recirculated brine.
freshwater production from modified CWAO HDH system can be very • For cases outside the limits of components effectiveness (where
mixing is not justifiable), the point of intersection exists, which is an

171
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

indication that the brine recirculation has no influence on GOR, production.

because, a sort of balancing occurs and the system becomes in-
sensitive to the rejected brine recirculation.
• The point of intersection moved from higher-to-lower MR as the
dehumidifier effectiveness decreases. This point marks the region of
the dominance of basic cycle over the modified cycle.
• There is a weak relationship between the product cost and inlet
water temperature of seawater.
• Cost of electricity greatly influences the cost of freshwater
• The product cost calculated by current analysis for basic OAOW
HDH cycle and modified CWOA HDH cycle is 4.1 to 6.55 $/m3 and
0.79 to 2.25 $/m3, respectively.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support provided by King Fahd
University of Petroleum & Minerals through the project IN151001.

Appendix A. Uncertainty analysis

Table 1A
Uncertainty values for the effect of changing heat input at MR = 2.27.

Q (kW) MR εhum εdeh GOR (experimental)

5.6 2.27 ± 0.11 0.41 ± 0.003 0.81 ± 0.013 0.37 ± 0.003

4.4 2.27 ± 0.11 0.44 ± 0.003 0.81 ± 0.015 0.40 ± 0.004
3.2 2.27 ± 0.11 0.56 ± 0.004 0.85 ± 0.018 0.28 ± 0.005

Table 2A
Uncertainty values for the effect of changing heat input at MR = 1.36.

Q (kW) MR εhum εdeh GOR (experimental)

5.6 1.36 ± 0.07 0.54 ± 0.004 0.78 ± 0.015 0.33 ± 0.003

4.4 1.36 ± 0.07 0.55 ± 0.004 0.83 ± 0.015 0.32 ± 0.004
3.2 1.36 ± 0.07 0.57 ± 0.004 0.78 ± 0.025 0.23 ± 0.005

Table 3A
Uncertainty values for the effect of varying air mass flow rate.

Q (kW) MR εhum εdeh GOR (experimental)

5.6 2.27 ± 0.11 0.38 ± 0.002 0.77 ± 0.016 0.35 ± 0.003

5.6 1.89 ± 0.10 0.41 ± 0.003 0.79 ± 0.018 0.28 ± 0.003
5.6 1.56 ± 0.08 0.53 ± 0.003 0.85 ± 0.013 0.24 ± 0.003

Appendix B. Limits of components effectiveness

Table B1
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system at MR = 1.0.

MR ɛdeh ɛhum Tw2 (°C) Tw4 (°C) Observation

1 0.5 0.40 24 31 MR = 1, ɛdeh = 0.5, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.6

1 0.5 0.47 25 30
1 0.5 0.53 26 29
1 0.5 0.60 27 28
1 0.6 0.40 25 32 MR = 1, ɛdeh = 0.6, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.53
1 0.6 0.47 26 31
1 0.6 0.53 28 30
1 0.7 0.40 26 32 MR = 1, ɛdeh = 0.7, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.53
1 0.7 0.47 28 32
1 0.7 0.53 29 31
1 0.8 0.40 27 33 MR = 1, ɛdeh = 0.8, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.47
1 0.8 0.47 29 32
1 0.85 0.40 28 33 MR = 1, ɛdeh = 0.85, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.47
1 0.85 0.47 30 33

172
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

Table B2
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system at MR = 1.5.

MR ɛdeh ɛhum Tw2 (°C) Tw4 (°C) Observation

1.5 0.5 0.45 24 32 MR = 1.5, ɛdeh = 0.5, 0.45 < ɛhum < 0.67
1.5 0.5 0.47 24 32
1.5 0.5 0.53 25 31
1.5 0.5 0.60 26 30
1.5 0.5 0.67 28 28
1.5 0.6 0.40 24 33 MR = 1.5, ɛdeh = 0.6, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.6
1.5 0.6 0.47 26 32
1.5 0.6 0.53 27 31
1.5 0.6 0.60 29 30
1.5 0.7 0.40 25 33 MR = 1.5, ɛdeh = 0.7, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.53
1.5 0.7 0.47 27 33
1.5 0.7 0.53 29 32
1.5 0.8 0.40 26 34 MR = 1.5, ɛdeh = 0.8, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.47
1.5 0.8 0.47 29 33
1.5 0.85 0.40 27 34 MR = 1.5, ɛdeh = 0.85, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.47
1.5 0.85 0.47 30 33

Table B3
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system at MR°=°2.0.

MR ɛdeh ɛhum Tw2 (°C) Tw4 (°C) Observation

2 0.5 0.40 23 34 MR = 2, ɛdeh = 0.5, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.86

2 0.5 0.47 23 33
2 0.5 0.53 24 32
2 0.5 0.60 24 32
2 0.5 0.67 25 31
2 0.5 0.73 26 30
2 0.5 0.80 27 30
2 0.5 0.87 27 29
2 0.6 0.40 23 34 MR = 2, ɛdeh = 0.6, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.8
2 0.6 0.47 24 33
2 0.6 0.53 25 33
2 0.6 0.60 26 32
2 0.6 0.67 26 32
2 0.6 0.73 28 31
2 0.6 0.80 29 30
2 0.7 0.40 24 34 MR = 2, ɛdeh = 0.7, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.73
2 0.7 0.47 25 34
2 0.7 0.53 26 33
2 0.7 0.60 27 33
2 0.7 0.67 28 32
2 0.7 0.73 30 31
2 0.8 0.40 24 35 MR = 2, ɛdeh = 0.8, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.67
2 0.8 0.47 26 34
2 0.8 0.53 27 34
2 0.8 0.60 29 33
2 0.8 0.67 31 33

Table B4
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system at MR = 2.5.

MR ɛdeh ɛhum Tw2 (°C) Tw4 (°C) Observation

2.5 0.5 0.40 22 34 MR = 2.5, ɛdeh = 0.5, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
2.5 0.5 0.47 23 34
2.5 0.5 0.53 23 33
2.5 0.5 0.60 24 33

173
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

2.5 0.5 0.67 24 33

2.5 0.5 0.73 24 32
2.5 0.5 0.80 25 32
2.5 0.5 0.87 25 31
2.5 0.5 0.93 26 30
2.5 0.5 1.00 27 30
2.5 0.6 0.40 23 34 MR = 2.5, ɛdeh = 0.6, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
2.5 0.6 0.47 23 34
2.5 0.6 0.53 24 34
2.5 0.6 0.60 24 33
2.5 0.6 0.67 25 33
2.5 0.6 0.73 25 33
2.5 0.6 0.80 26 32
2.5 0.6 0.87 27 31
2.5 0.6 0.93 28 31
2.5 0.6 1.00 29 30
2.5 0.7 0.40 23 35 MR = 2.5, ɛdeh = 0.7, 0.4 < ɛhum < 0.87
2.5 0.7 0.47 24 34
2.5 0.7 0.53 24 34
2.5 0.7 0.60 25 34
2.5 0.7 0.67 26 33
2.5 0.7 0.73 27 33
2.5 0.7 0.80 28 33
2.5 0.7 0.87 29 32
2.5 0.8 0.40 24 35 MR = 2.5, ɛdeh = 0.8, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
2.5 0.8 0.47 24 35
2.5 0.8 0.53 25 35
2.5 0.8 0.60 26 34
2.5 0.8 0.67 27 34
2.5 0.8 0.73 29 34
2.5 0.8 0.80 30 33

Table B5
Components effectiveness valid for recirculation system at MR = 3.

MR ɛdeh ɛhum Tw2 (°C) Tw4 (°C) Observation

3 0.5 0.40 22 35 MR = 3, ɛdeh = 0.5, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1

3 0.5 0.47 22 34
3 0.5 0.53 23 34
3 0.5 0.60 23 34
3 0.5 0.67 23 33
3 0.5 0.73 24 33
3 0.5 0.80 24 33
3 0.5 0.87 24 32
3 0.5 0.93 25 32
3 0.5 1.00 25 31
3 0.6 0.40 22 35 MR = 3, ɛdeh = 0.6, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
3 0.6 0.47 23 35
3 0.6 0.53 23 34
3 0.6 0.60 24 34
3 0.6 0.67 24 34
3 0.6 0.73 24 33
3 0.6 0.80 25 33
3 0.6 0.87 25 33
3 0.6 0.93 26 32
3 0.6 1.00 27 32
3 0.7 0.40 23 35 MR = 3, ɛdeh = 0.7, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
3 0.7 0.47 23 35
3 0.7 0.53 24 35
3 0.7 0.60 24 34
3 0.7 0.67 25 34
3 0.7 0.73 25 34
3 0.7 0.80 26 34

174
S.M. Zubair et al. Desalination 436 (2018) 161–175

3 0.7 0.87 27 33
3 0.7 0.93 28 33
3 0.7 1.00 29 32
3 0.8 0.40 23 35 MR = 3, ɛdeh = 0.8, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
3 0.8 0.47 24 35
3 0.8 0.53 24 35
3 0.8 0.60 25 35
3 0.8 0.67 26 35
3 0.8 0.73 26 34
3 0.8 0.80 27 34
3 0.8 0.87 28 34
3 0.8 0.93 30 33
3 0.8 1.00 32 33
3 0.85 0.40 23 35 MR = 3, ɛdeh = 0.85, 0.4 < ɛhum < 1
3 0.85 0.47 24 35
3 0.85 0.53 24 35
3 0.85 0.60 25 35
3 0.85 0.67 26 35
3 0.85 0.73 27 35
3 0.85 0.80 28 34
3 0.85 0.87 29 34
3 0.85 0.93 31 34

References
[1] G.P. Narayan, M.H. Sharqawy, E.K. Summers, J.H. Lienhard V, S.M. Zubair,
M.A. Antar, The potential of solar-driven humidification-dehumidification desali-
nation for small-scale decentralized water production, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14
(4) (2010) 1187–1201.
[2] J.H. Lienhard V, M.A. Antar, A. Bilton, J. Blanco, G. Zaragoza, Solar desalination,
book chapter 9, Annual Review of Heat Transfer, Begell House, Inc., New York, NY,
2012, pp. 277–347.
[3] A. Giwa, N. Akther, A. Al Housani, S. Haris, S.H. Hasan, Recent advances in hu-
midification dehumidification (HDH) desalination processes: improved designs and
productivity, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 57 (2016) 929–944.
[4] G.P. Narayan, R.K. McGovern, G.P. Thiel, J.A. Miller, J.H. Lienhard V,
M.H. Sharqawy, S.M. Zubair, M.A. Antar, Status of Humidification
Dehumidification Desalination, IDA World Congr. Desalin, Water Reuse, 2011.
[5] N. Niroomand, M. Zamen, M. Amidpour, Theoretical investigation of using a direct
contact dehumidifier in humidification–dehumidification desalination unit based
on an open air cycle, Desalin. Water Treat. 54 (2) (Jan 2014) 305–315.
[6] J.F. Klausner, Y. Li, M. Darwish, R. Mei, Innovative diffusion driven desalination
process, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 126 (2004) 219–225.
[7] B. Dawoud, Y.H. Zurigat, B. Klitzing, T. Aldoss, G. Theodoridis, On the possible
techniques to cool the condenser of seawater greenhouses, Desalination 195 (1–3)
(2006) 119–140.
[8] H.M. Ettouney, Design and analysis of humidification dehumidification desalination
process, Desalination 183 (3) (2005) 341–352.
[9] G.P. Narayan, M.H. Sharqawy, J.H. Lienhard V, S.M. Zubair, Thermodynamic
analysis of humidification-dehumidification desalination cycles, Desalin. Water
Treat. 16 (2010) 339–353.
[10] M.H. Sharqawy, M.A. Antar, S.M. Zubair, A.M. Elbashir, Optimum thermal design of
humidification-dehumidification desalination systems, Desalination 349 (Sep 2014)
10–21.
[11] A. Aburub, M. Aliyu, D.U. Lawal, M.A. Antar, Experimental investigations of the
performance of a cross-flow humidification-dehumidification desalination system,
Twentieth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC20, Hurghada, 18–20
May, 2017.
[12] A. Aburub, M. Aliyu, D.U. Lawal, M.A. Antar, Experimental investigations of a
cross-flow humidification dehumidification desalination system, IWTJ. 7 (3) (2017)
198–208.
[13] T. Brendel, Solare Meewasserental sungsanlagen mit mehrstufiger verdungtung
(PhD thesis), Ruhr University Bochum, 2003.
[14] T. Brendel, Process to Distil and Desalinate Water in Contra-flow Evaporation
Humidifier Unit With Progressive Removal of Evaporated Fluid, (2003) German
Patent #DE10215079 (A1).
[15] R.K. McGovern, G.P. Thiel, G.P. Narayan, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard V,
Performance limits of zero and single extraction humidification-dehumidification
desalination systems, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 1081–1090.
[16] G.P. Narayan, J.H. Lienhard V, S.M. Zubair, Entropy generation minimization of
combined heat and mass transfer devices, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 (10) (2010)
2057–2066.
[17] K.H. Mistry, J.H. Lienhard V, S.M. Zubair, Effect of entropy generation on the
performance of humidification-dehumidification desalination cycles, Int. J. Therm.
Sci. 49 (9) (2010) 1837–1847.
[18] G.P. Narayan, K.M. Chehayeb, R.K. McGovern, G.P. Thiel, S.M. Zubair,
J.H. Lienhard V, Thermodynamic balancing of the humidification-dehumidification
desalination system by mass extraction and injection, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 57
(2) (Feb 2013) 756–770.
[19] G.P. Narayan, M.G. St. John, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard V, Thermal design of the
humidification-dehumidification desalination system: an experimental investiga-
tion, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 58 (1–2) (Mar. 2013) 740–748.
[20] K.M. Chehayeb, G.P. Narayan, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard V, Use of multiple ex-
tractions and injections to thermodynamically balance the humidification-dehu-
midification desalination system, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 68 (Jan 2014) 422–434.
[21] M.H. Sharqawy, J.H. Lienhard V, S.M. Zubair, Thermophysical properties of sea-
water: a review of existing correlations and data, Desalin. Water Treat. 16 (1–3)
(Apr 2010) 354–380.
[22] A. Eslamimanesh, M.S. Hatamipour, Economical study of a small-scale direct con-
tact humidification-dehumidification desalination plant, Desalination 250 (2010)
203–207.
[23] A.E. Kabeel, T.A. Elmaaty, E.M.S. El-Said, Economic analysis of a small-scale hybrid
air HDH-SSF (humidification and dehumidification-water flashing evaporation)
desalination plant, Energy 53 (2013) 306–311.
[24] D. Lawal, M. Antar, A. Khalifa, S. Zubair, F. Al-Sulaiman, Humidification-dehumi-
dification desalination system operated by a heat pump, Energy Convers. Manag.
161 (2018) 128–140.
[25] H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Fundamentals of salt-water desalination, 1st ed.,
ELSEVIER, 2002, p. 514.
[26] M.A. Jamil, B.A. Qureshi, S.M. Zubair, Exergo-economic analysis of a seawater
reverse osmosis desalination plant with various retrofit options, Desalination 401
(2017) 88–98.
[27] V. Romero-Ternero, L. Garcia-Rodriguez, C. Gomez-Camacho, Thermoeconomic
analysis of a seawater reverse osmosis plant, Desalination 181 (2005) 43–59.
[28] G. Fiorenza, V.K. Sharma, G. Braccio, Techno-economic evaluation of a solar
powered water desalination plant, Energy Convers. Manag. 44 (2003) 2217–2240.
[29] N.M. Wade, Technical and economic evaluation of distillation and reverse osmosis
desalination processes, Desalination 93 (1993) 343–363.
[30] R.S. El-Emam, I. Dincer, Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of seawater
reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery, Energy 64 (2014)
154–163.
[31] M.A. Darwish, M.A. Jawad, G.S. Aly, Comparison between small capacity me-
chanical vapor compression (MVC) and reverse osmosis (RO) desalting plants,
Desalination 78 (1990) 313–326.
[32] M.A. Jamil, S.M. Elmutasim, S.M. Zubair, Exergo-economic analysis of a hybrid
humidification dehumidification reverse osmosis (HDH-RO) system operating
under different retrofits, Energy Convers. Manag. 158 (2018) 286–297.

175