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

net/publication/359903919

Comparison of two types of energy recovery devices: Pressure exchanger and

turbine in an island desalination project case

Article  in  Desalination · July 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2022.115752

CITATION READS

1 121

10 authors, including:

Chengpeng Wang Daiwang Song

The Institute of Seawater Desalination & Multipurpose Utilization, MNR, Tianjin 16 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   
39 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Qingfen Ma
Hainan University
15 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

supersonic separation View project

desalination View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chengpeng Wang on 18 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Comparison of two types of energy recovery devices: Pressure exchanger

and turbine in an island desalination project case
Chengpeng Wang a, Puyu Meng c, Shenghui Wang a, d, *, Daiwang Song a, Yexiang Xiao b,
Yin Zhang a, Qingfen Ma d, Sihan Liu a, Kaijie Wang c, Yan Zhang c
a
The Institute of Seawater Desalination and Multipurpose Utilization, MNR, Tianjin 300192, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering & Department of Energy and Power Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
c
Key Laboratory of Highway Construction Technology and Equipment of Ministry of Education, Chang'an University, Xi'an 710064, Shanxi, China
d
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering College, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, Hainan, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Quantitative comparison of PX and tur­

bine ERDs was innovatively carried out
in engineering application.
• The equipment selection and process
design of two types of ERDs were
introduced in the same process param­
eters, respectively.
• The EECE, energy consumption and
noise were analyzed from the collated
operation data in a long-term.
• The investment and operation costs of
two types of ERDs were analyzed, and
their characteristic also were
summarized.

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

Keywords: Energy recovery device (ERD) is a crucial part in the seawater desalination system. The past decade has seen a
Seawater desalination growth in attempts to carry out the structure and working principle of different types of ERDs, yet fewer
Energy recovery device quantitative comparisons have been made on two mainstream ERDs: pressure exchanger (PX) and turbine ERD.
Pressure exchanger
In this study, the effective energy conversion efficiency (EECE), energy consumption, and noise of two types of
Effective energy conversion efficiency
Energy consumption
ERDs applied in an island in China are obtained by collecting and collating their long-term operation data. The
Investment cost results showed that the EECE of PX ERD was 93.9%, 15.5% higher than that of turbine ERD. The energy con­
sumption of PX ERD is 3.03 kWh/m3, slightly lower than that of turbine ERD, about 0.34 kWh/m3. The gap
between EECE and energy consumption is caused by the different structures and working principles of two types
of ERDs. Moreover, the operating noise of turbine ERD is better than that of PX due to its high rotation speed.
This study also makes an economic analysis on the investment and operation cost of the whole system, and gives
the engineering application suggestions and selection guidance of ERDs.

* Corresponding author at: The Institute of Seawater Desalination and Multipurpose Utilization, MNR, Tianjin 300192, China.
E-mail address: wang_sh04@126.com (S. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115752
Received 24 January 2022; Received in revised form 19 March 2022; Accepted 29 March 2022
0011-9164/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

1. Introduction (HTC) [14], Hydraulic Pressure Booster (HPB) [10,12,15]. The ERDs of
rotor type mainly include pressure exchanger (PX) [11,13,16–21], iSave

List of abbreviations and symbols OP outlet pressure

HPPs high-pressure pipelines
ERD energy recovery device LPPs low-pressure pipelines
PX pressure exchanger ball valve
RO reverse osmosis butterfly valve
EECE effective energy conversion efficiency check valve
HTC Hydraulic Turbochargers local pressure gauge
HPB Hydraulic Pressure Booster electromagnetic flowmeter
HP high pressure pressure sensor
LP low pressure product specification level
SROS secondary RO system exhaust valve
PROS primary RO system frequency converter
IP inlet pressure

Water scarcity is one of the most serious problems of global [1–3].
The rapid population growth and technological development put addi­
tional pressure on some countries and regions [2,4]. Seawater desali­
nation has increasingly become an indispensable technology to alleviate
the water crisis [5–7]. Compared with thermal seawater desalination,
membrane seawater desalination has the advantages of high efficiency,
simple equipment, and convenient maintenance. It is becoming more
and more popular now. However, in the early days, the membrane
method had high energy consumption, and the emergence of energy
recovery devices (ERDs) made the membrane method's energy con­
sumption continue to drop dramatically [8,9].
Seawater desalination ERDs can be divided into three categories
according to energy recovery methods: centrifugal ERD, rotor ERD and
plunger ERD. The ERDs of centrifugal type mainly include Francis
Turbine [10,11], Pelton Wheel [11–13], Hydraulic Turbochargers
[11], Salino [11]. The type of plunger ERDs mainly include: DWEER
[10,22,23], Saltec [11], Osmorec [11], and Isobarix [11].
Nowadays, the newly-built seawater desalination projects of reverse
osmosis (RO) in the world usually use PX ERD of rotor type, and turbine
ERD of centrifugal type [24,25]. PX ERD directly uses high pressure (HP)
brine and low pressure (LP) seawater for pressure transmission, no
excessive energy loss, and the effective energy conversion efficiency
(EECE) can reach more than 95% [10]. However, due to the mechanical
energy loss of turbine ERD, its EECE is about 80% [26,27]. Researchers
have studied the working principle, operation cost, and energy con­
sumption of the two types of ERDs. Timur et al. [28] compared the in­
vestment cost and energy consumption cost of PX and turbine ERDs. The
seawater desalination project using PX ERD has more economic ad­
vantages than that using turbine ERD after calculation. Kadaj et al. [11]
concluded in terms of energy consumption of HTC and PX ERDs that the

Fig. 1. Process flow chart of seawater desalination project in island.

2
C. Wang et al.
Table 1
Main design parameters of PROS.
Parameters Value Unit
Feed seawater flow rate 55.0 m3/h
Fresh water recovery rate 41.0 % water recovery rate of SROS is higher than 90%, and the total dissolved
Produced water flow rate 26.4 m3/h
HP brine flow rate 32.4 m3/h
Membrane inlet pressure (IP) 4.9 10^6 Pa
Brine pressure 4.8 10^6 Pa
HP pump head 310.0 m
reduction of unit energy consumption of ERD depends on the EECE.
Guirguis [10] elaborated the development history and working principle
of PX and turbine ERDs, and verified the correctness of its theoretical
EECE combined with several seawater desalination projects. Peñate
et al. [29] briefly summarized the different energy recovery technolo­
gies used in large-scale seawater desalination projects. Based on the
thermal economic analysis method, the energy consumption of Pelton
Wheel ERD in the energy recovery system was compared.
However, few quantitative studies on the application of PX and
turbine ERDs in seawater desalination engineering. In this research, the
structure, working principle, process design, and equipment selection of
them applied to seawater desalination projects on a China island are
briefly introduced. Then, according to the long-term operation data, the
important performance parameters are analyzed, such as EECE, energy
consumption, noise, and so on. The investment and operation costs of
the two types of ERDs are finally compared. It aims to provide a refer­
ence for the design and construction of island seawater desalination
projects.
2. Case of project application
2.1. Overall process design
The desalination project with the capacity of 1000 m3/d, including
two arrays of 500 m3/d membrane modules and one array of 500 m3/
d standby module, is set on a China island. The process flow of desali­
nation is shown in Fig. 1. The design technology was the double mem­
brane treatment, which was consisted of pretreatment, ultrafiltration,
secondary RO system (SROS), post-treatment, and so on [30]. The LP
seawater enters the inclined tube sedimentation tank through the sub­
mersible pump for coagulation and sedimentation. After filtering by self-
cleaning filter and ultrafiltration device, it enters the primary RO system
(PROS) for desalination, one part of the primary RO product enters the
SROS for further desalination. The secondary RO product water is mixed
with the other part of the primary RO product water, tempered, steril­
ized, and sent to the water supply pipe network by the water supply
pump. The product water meets one Chinese Industrial Standard: the
Standards for Drinking Water Quality (GB/T 5749-2006).
The silt density index of the effluent of the ultrafiltration system is
Fig. 2. Typical flow chart of RO system.
3
Desalination 533 (2022) 115752
less than 3, the turbidity is less than 0.1 nephelometric turbidity unit,
and the total suspended solid is guaranteed to be less than 1 mg/L. The
average water recovery rate of ultrafiltration system is higher than 90%,
PROS and SROS desalination rate is not less than 99.2% and 99%. The
solid of mixed water is below 100 mg/L.
2.2. Design of PROS
PROS includes HP systems, membrane modules, pressure vessels,
security filters, and other valve control devices. The HP system structure
is relatively complex, and its structure and process to design will be
described in detail in Section 3. The membrane modules of PROS adopt
8040 RO seawater membranes with a type of SW8040LE-400. There are
126 membranes and 21 membrane pressure vessels. The arrangement
and combination of stage and section of the membrane modules are
arranged in one level and one section, and there are three groups in
total, two of them are used and the other one to be used. The matched
pressure vessel is R8040BS1000S - 6W, and a total of 21 is required. The
model of the security filter is FCLH02P4K100 - 6L, and its flow com­
ponents are resistant to seawater corrosion. There are three sets in total,
which are also used for two and one standby as well as membrane
components. PROS design parameters are shown in Table 1.
3. Design of HP system
3.1. Process design
3.1.1. The process design of PX ERD
PX ERD is mainly composed of shaftless ceramic rotor, distribution
plate, sealing plate, and connector with multiple longitudinal grooves,
forming sealing area, HP area, and LP area [17–19]. When the rotor
rotates around the HP area driven by the HP brine, the LP seawater fills
the flow channel, and the HP brine enters the flow channel to directly
transfer the pressure to the LP seawater. Meanwhile, the LP seawater
becomes HP seawater, and the HP brine becomes LP brine. When the
rotor rotates around the LP area, the flow channel is filled with LP brine,
and the LP seawater enters the flow channel to complete the process of
displacing the LP brine. The rotor continues to rotate and circulate, and
the device continues to pressurize and depressurize [21,31,32].
A typical flow chart of PROS using PX is shown in Fig. 2a. Four
important ports of the PX ERD are denoted by A, B, C, and D, which
mean the LP seawater inlet, HP seawater outlet, HP brine inlet, and LP
brine outlet, respectively. The flow rate of A, B is equal, as well as C and
D. The HP brine from the RO membrane modules transmits pressure to
the LP seawater flowing into the device through the PX ERD. The
pressurized LP seawater flows through the circulating booster pump for
further pressure, and enters the RO membrane modules together with
other HP seawater pressurized by the HP pump. The process of LP
seawater entering the PX ERD and being pressurized by HP brine realizes
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

(a) PX ERD

(b) Turbine ERD

Fig. 3. Process flow chart of the PROS (see list of abbreviations and symbols for the meaning of symbols).

energy recovery [17]. drainpipe of LP brine is equipped with a one-way valve.

The designed process flow of PROS using PX ERD is described in
Fig. 3a. The principle of PX ERD process design is to supercharge by
flow, to monitor the flow and pressure index in each processing pipeline,
each branch is equipped with a pressure meter, flow meter, and pressure
sensor to monitor the flow and pressure of the HP pump in and out of
water in real-time, and ensure the stability of membrane modules
operation. The flow rates of LP seawater inlet, HP seawater outlet, inlet,
and outlet of the circulating booster pump, HP brine inlet, and LP brine
drainage of PX ERD are consistent, so the flow meter is set at the LP brine
end for monitoring. The pressure gauge and pressure sensor are set at the
outlet side of PX ERD to monitor the pressure of PX ERD and circulating
booster pump to ensure the pressure of the inlet membrane modules. In
addition, to prevent PX ERD from cavitation on the LP brine side, the
3.1.2. The process design of turbine ERD
The turbine ERD adopts the structure design of turbine and pump
coupling shaft, and it is composed of end cover, thrust bearing, double
volute, central bearing, rotor assembly, and end cover [12,16,21]. The
working principle of turbine ERD is transferring energy from the turbine
section to the pump section through the central shaft. The hydraulic
energy of the HP brine needs to undergo two energy conversions to
transfer the hydraulic energy to the LP seawater. Specifically, the HP
brine discharged from the RO membrane modules directly impacts the
turbine section of the turbine ERD to convert hydraulic energy into
mechanical energy of the shaft, and then transmits the shaft power to the
pump section. The rotation of the impeller on the pump section converts

4
C. Wang et al.
Table 2
Main parameters configuration of HP pump and circulation booster pump.
Technical parameters of Limited data/ Rated Rated Pump
equipment m3/h head/m speed/rpm efficiency/%
HP pump 56.25 524 1500 90
Circulation booster pump 33.75 35 1500 64
the mechanical energy into hydraulic energy to pressurize the LP
seawater to enter the RO system [16,33,34].
A typical flow chart of PROS using turbine ERD is shown in Fig. 2b.
The four ports of turbine ERD are consistent with PX ERD. As shown in
Fig. 2b, these ports labeled by A, B, C, and D have the same meaning as
those of PX ERD shown in Fig. 2a. The flow rates of A, B are equal, as
well as C and D. The HP brine of the primary RO membrane modules
enters the turbine section of the turbine ERD. After the LP seawater is
pressurized, the HP seawater enters the membrane modules for desali­
nation [16]. Turbine ERD realizes energy recovery and utilization
through the above process.
Like PX ERD, the PROS system using turbine ERD is described
separately, as shown in Fig. 3b. The turbine ERD process design prin­
ciple is different from the PX ERD partial flow pressurization, which is to
increase the overall membrane flow. From the inlet end of the HP pump
to the inlet RO membrane modules, the flow rate is consistent, and the
flow rate from the brine discharge of the membrane modules to the brine
discharge of the turbine LP is also consistent. Therefore, the matching
instrument and valve set in this process are more streamlined. There are
flow meters, pressure gauges, and low voltage switches at the inlet of the
HP pump, and pressure gauges and pressure sensors at the outlet of the
HP pump. The HP seawater outlet side and the HP brine inlet side of the
ERD have pressure gauges and pressure sensors, and the HP brine
discharge side has pressure gauges and flow meters. Like PX ERD, to
prevent cavitation of LP brine side on the turbine ERD, the drainage pipe
of low pressure concentrated brine is equipped with a one-way valve.
In Section 4.3, the quantity and unit price of the above instruments
with two types of ERDs PROS are calculated. The difference between the
two types of ERDs can be seen from the process. PX ERD needs to be
installed in parallel with the HP pump to achieve the purpose of energy
saving by reducing the flow of the HP pump, and the booster pump is
equipped in the PX ERD system to compensate for the pressure loss
across the membrane and the piping loss, which is necessary to boost
and feed the LP seawater into the RO membrane modules [35]. How­
ever, the turbine ERD usually needs to be installed in series with the HP
pump. The purpose of energy-saving and consumption reduction is
achieved by reducing the head required by the HP pump, and no addi­
tional booster pump is required.
3.2. Equipment selection
3.2.1. PX equipment selection
The HP system equipped with PX ERD mainly includes PX ERD, HP
Pump, and circulating booster pump, and the process is shown in Fig. 3a.
According to the flow rate of brine in the HP system, the model of PX
ERD should be selected. When one ERD cannot meet the requirements,
multiple devices should be selected in parallel. In engineering applica­
tions, the mode of PX ERD is PX-180S [36], whose overcurrent
component is resistant to seawater corrosion [33]. The HP pump is in
parallel with the PX ERD and circulating booster pump to provide power
to the PROS. The HP pump must meet the inflow requirements of the RO
Table 3
Main parameters configuration of PX ERD.
Technical Allowable flow range/ Design flow/m3/ LP seawater IP/10^6
parameters m3/h h Pa
Design value 23–41 33.75 0.17
5
Desalination 533 (2022) 115752
Mechanical Pump IP/ Pump outlet pressure Motor
efficiency/% 10^6 Pa (OP)/10^6 Pa power/kW
93 0.17 4.9 45
92 4.8 4.9 11
membrane. The HP pump with dual-phase steel 2205 is APP 24/1500.
The function of the circulating booster pump is to make up for the
pressure loss of HP seawater through RO membrane and PX ERD, so that
the seawater is pressurized by PX ERD and seawater pressurized by HP
pump reach pressure balance. The circulating booster pump used in the
project is made of the same material as HP pump, and the model is HP-
1254. The parameters of PX ERD, HP pump, and circulating booster
pump are uniformly configured, as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
3.2.2. Turbine equipment selection
The HP system with turbine ERD mainly includes a multistage cen­
trifugal pump and turbine ERD, and the process is shown in Fig. 3b. In
engineering applications, turbine ERD and centrifugal pump are used in
series. According to the flow requirements, the model of HTC-AT 225 is
selected as the operation device of turbine RED, and the bearing mate­
rial is PEEK [31]. The multi-stage centrifugal pump adopts domestic
ROMP 235 – 18C, dual-phase Steel 2205 is used for both turbine ERD
and multi-stage centrifugal pump. The specific parameters configuration
of turbine ERD and multi-stage centrifugal pump are shown in Tables 4
and 5.
4. Engineering operation and evaluation
The photos of the post-installation PROS using PX and turbine ERDs
are shown in Fig. 4. The system has been running for two years since
December 2019. The overall performance of the system, including EECE,
energy consumption, and noise were evaluated from the long-term
running data. Considering the large tested data and the limited space,
all the arithmetic averages are reflected in the following evaluation.
4.1. Effective energy conversion efficiency (EECE)
The measurement method of EECE is formulated by two Chinese
Industrial Standards: the ERD in RO (HY/T 108-2008) and the General
Technical Specification for ERDs in RO System (GB/T 30299-2013). The
test processes are as follows:
I. Determine the measuring points of the flow meter and pressure
gauge of the high-pressure pipelines (HPPs) and low-pressure
pipelines (LPPs) at the seawater inlet and outlet of ERD and the
HP brine inlet.
II. Using the pressure gauge measures the pressure of the HPPs and
LPPs in the inlet of ERD, and the pressure of the HPPs in the outlet
of ERD, namely PHP in, PLP in, and PHP out.
III. The ultrasonic flowmeter is used to measure the flow of seawater
inlet LPP, brine inlet HPP and seawater outlet HPP, that is QLP in,
QHP in, and QHP out.
During the normal operation of the system, the average value of daily
operation data will be calculated as the daily collected value. An average
of 20 sets of data is collected every month for a total of 24 months.
HP seawater OP/10^6 HP brine IP/10^6 LP brine OP/10^6 EECE/
Pa Pa Pa %
4.9 4.8 0.1 96.70
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

Table 4
Main parameters configuration of multi-stage centrifugal pump.
Technical parameters Rated flow/m3/h Rated head/m Rated speed/rpm Efficient/% IP/10^6 Pa OP/10^6 Pa Shaft power/kW Motor power/kW

Design value 55 310 2980 74.2 0.1 3.2 65 75

Table 5
Main parameters configuration of turbine ERD.
Technical Pump section Turbine section Design efficiency/ Rated pressurization of seawater/10^6
parameters % Pa
Rated flow/m3/ IP/ OP/ Rated flow/m3/ IP/10^6 OP/10^6
h 10^6 10^6 h Pa Pa

Design value 55 3.2 4.9 32.4 4.8 0.1 62 1.7

(a) Using PX ERD (b) Using turbine ERD

Fig. 4. Photos of PROS.

7 50 6 PHP in QHP out PHP out 50 1.0 50

QHP in PLP in QLP in

6
5
0.8
40 40 40
5
4

0.6
QHP out(m3/h)

PHP out(MPa)

QHP in(m3/h)

QLP in(m3/h)
PHP in(MPa)

PLP in(MPa)

30 3 30 30

3
0.4

2
2
20 20 20
0.2
1
1

0 10 0 10 0.0 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Frequency

Fig. 5. Inlet and outlet flow and pressure of PX ERD.

Considering the randomness of the collection and the accuracy of the where E is the EECE of the ERDs. PHP out is the HP brine OP, 10^6 Pa. QHP
calculation, one month's collected data is randomly selected and brought 3
out is the HP brine flow rate, m /h. PHP in is the HP seawater pressure,
into the equation for calculation. The measured data are shown in Figs. 5 10^6 Pa. QHP in is the HP inlet seawater flow rate, m3/h. PLP in is the LP
and 6. Considering the error of measured data, it is necessary to carry inlet seawater pressure, 10^6 Pa. QLP in is the LP inlet seawater flow, m3/
out an arithmetic average and put it into the EECE equation for calcu­ h.
lation. The calculation equation is as follows: Substitute the arithmetic means into Eq. (1), the EECE of PX ERD is
PHP out × QHP out close to 93.9%, and the EECE of turbine ERD is about 78.4%. The EECE
E= × 100% (1)
PHP in × QHP in + PLP in × QLP in of the two types of ERDs is quite different, mainly because of their

6
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

7 50 6 PHP in QHP out PHP out 50 1.0 50

QHP in PLP in QLP in

6
5
0.8
40 40 40
5
4
QHP out(m3/h) 0.6

PHP out(MPa)

QHP in(m3/h)

QLP in(m3/h)
PHP in(MPa)

PLP in(MPa)
4

30 3 30 30

3
0.4

2
2
20 20 20
0.2
1
1

0 10 0 10 0.0 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Frequency

Fig. 6. Inlet and outlet flow and pressure of turbine ERD.

Table 6
Voltage and current data of PX and turbine ERDs.
Equipment Parameters PX ERD Turbine ERD

Mean 1 Mean 2 Mean 3 Standard deviation Mean 1 Mean 2 Mean 3 Standard deviation

Circulating booster pump Voltage U1/V 407.017 405.472 405.291 0.775 – –

Current I1/A 8.4576 9.2535 9.2978 0.386 – –
Power factor cos∅1 0.80 – –
Operating power P1/kW 5.0639 – –
HP pump Voltage U2/V 406.680 405.581 405.588 0.516 406.875 405.688 406.181 0.487
Current I2/A 81.406 92.283 92.452 5.168 92.383 93.415 93.104 0.432
Power factor cos∅2 0.90
Operating power P2/kW 56.139 65.368
Measured water production value QP/m3/h 20.2 20.2 20.2 0 19.5 19.4 19.6 0.082

different working principles. PX ERD has no mechanical loss, while
turbine ERD has a mechanical loss [28] (described in Section 3.1.2).
Since the overall efficiency is the product of each energy conversion
efficiency, namely “hydraulic energy to mechanical energy to hydraulic
energy”, it will be lower in principle compared to the single energy
conversion device, that is to say, “hydraulic energy to hydraulic energy”
[34,37].
4.2. Energy consumption
The measurement procedure of energy consumption is formulated by
one Chinese Industrial Standard: the Test and Evaluation Methods of RO
Equipment for Seawater Desalination (GB/T 32359-2015). The main
instrument is the single-phase energy meter in the measurement of the
energy consumption of production water. It is used to measure the
current and voltage of the inlet booster pump and HP pump in the
seawater desalination HP system. The measured values are substituted
into the equation for calculation, and the operation power of power

Table 7
Comparison of accessory pipelines of system instrument valve.
Equipment PX ERD Turbine ERD

Quality Unit prices Total prices Quality Unit prices Total prices

HP pump 1 $42,937.03 $42,937.03 1 $28,481.01 $28,481.01

Circulating booster pump 1 $15,506.33 $15,506.33 0 $0.00 $0.00
Turbine ERD 0 $0.00 $0.00 1 $26,898.73 $26,898.73
Frequency converter 1 $656.65 $656.65 1 $2373.42 $2373.42
1 $1582.28 $1582.28 0 $0.00 $0.00
PX ERD 1 $40,316.46 $40,316.46 0 $0.00 $0.00
HP flowmeter 1 $3587.03 $3587.03 0 $0.00 $0.00
LP flowmeter 2 $1503.16 $3006.33 2 $1503.16 $3006.33
Back pressure valve 1 $500.00 $500.00 1 $356.01 $356.01
HP manual ball valve (with round handwheel) 5 $1473.89 $7369.46 3 $1333.07 $3999.21
LP manual ball valve (with round handwheel) 3 $1473.89 $4421.68 3 $1473.89 $4421.68
Butterfly valve 1 $443.04 $443.04 1 $443.04 $443.04
Check valve 2 $1270.25 $2540.51 1 $872.94 $872.94
Concentrate check valve 1 $450.00 $450.00 1 $450.00 $450.00
Local pressure gauge 5 $45.09 $225.47 5 $45.09 $225.47
Pressure sensor 3 $139.24 $417.72 3 $139.24 $417.72
Total cost $123,959.97 $71,945.57

7
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

equipment is calculated as shown in Eq. (2). Table 8

√̅̅̅ Background noise correction unit: dB.
Pi = 3 × Ui × Ii × cos∅i × 1000 (2)
The measured device noise and The amount of correction subtracted
background noise are the difference in from the measured sound pressure
where Pi means the operating power of the i-th device, kW. Ui means the sound pressure level level
operating voltage of the i-th device, V. Ii means the operating current of
Invalid measurement
the i-th device, A. cos∅i means the power factor of the i-th device,
<6
6–8 1.0
generally the value provided by the device nameplate or manual. If the 9–10 0.5
equipment is not provided, take 0.92. >10 0
In addition to the above data, an ultrasonic flowmeter is used to
measure the water produced per hour, expressed by Qp (m3/h). The
calculation equation is as follows: Table 9
∑ / Approximate value of average sound absorption coefficient α.
P= Pi Qp (3)
Room features Average sound absorption
coefficient α
where P means the energy consumption of water produced by the de­
∑ The room is almost empty, the walls are smooth and 0.05
vice, kWh/m3. Pi means the total operating power of the power hard, and the material is concrete, brick, plaster, or
equipment in the installation, kW. tile veneer.
The voltage and current used by the ERDs related equipment are The room is partly empty and the walls are smooth. 0.1
collected during the normal operation of the equipment and used to Furnished room, rectangular industrial plant. 0.15
An irregularly shaped room with furniture, an 0.2
calculate the water-energy consumption of the equipment. Three days
irregularly shaped machine room or an industrial
per month were randomly selected for the collection, and data were plant.
collected every 60 min every day, and continuous detection lasted for A room with decorative furniture, a machine room, or 0.5
20 h. The arithmetic average was carried out on the values tested each an industrial plant with a small amount of sound-
month. Due to the limited space, three groups were randomly selected absorbing material on the ceiling, or wall.
The ceiling and walls of the room are equipped with 0.35
for calculation. The data is listed in Table 6. sound-absorbing materials.
Substitute the arithmetic means into the equations yields the The ceiling and walls of the room are equipped with a 0.50
following result. The energy consumption using PX ERD is 3.03 kWh/ lot of sound-absorbing materials.
m3, while the energy consumption using turbine ERD is 3.37 kWh/m3.
Although the EECE of the two types of ERDs differs by 15.5% in Section
II. When measuring noise, it is necessary to ensure the normal
4.1, the calculation results of the energy consumption are not significant
operation of the device;
difference. After consulting the literature [38], the energy consumption
III. Noise is measured at the distance of 1 m from ERD and 1.55 ±
is analyzed for the entire system, and the PX ERD transmits pressure
0.075 m from the ground;
through a multi-channel rotating cylinder, and there is a loss of energy
IV. When measuring noise, at least four positions should be selected
consumption; while the turbine ERD only uses a single channel for
for measurement, and the place with the largest noise should be
pressure conversion and transfer.
selected as the noise measurement position.

4.3. Investment cost
To better quantify the system equipped with PX and turbine ERDs,
the price and quantity of equipment, instruments, valve control, and
other components in the system are compared, as shown in Table 7.
Quantitative comparison of two types of ERDs shows that the seawater
desalination project using PX ERD is $52,014.4 higher than that using
turbine ERD. According to the electricity price stipulated by a China
island ($0.28/kWh), ignoring the cost of depreciation and maintenance
and other follow-up problems, the PX ERD project cost needs to run for
3 years to be equal to the turbine ERD project cost. Although the re­
covery efficiency of turbine ERD is lower than that of PX ERD, it still
plays an indispensable role in the field of seawater desalination energy
recovery [13,39]. While selecting ERD for an SWRO project application,
it is required to investigate the cost of capital, installation cost, main­
tenance cost, ease of operation, reliability, availability, and long-term
supply sources of spare parts in addition to EECE and energy con­
sumption [40,41].
4.4. Noise
The measurement method of noise is formulated by two Chinese
Industrial Standards: the ERD in RO (HY/T 108-2008) and the General
Technical Specification for ERDs in RO System (GB/T 30299-2013).
In the noise measurement of ERD, the following points should be
noted:
I. Before using the sound level meter, the instrument needs to be
calibrated;
In addition, to ensure the accuracy of noise measurement, the in­
fluence of background noise and environmental noise should be elimi­
nated in the measurement. Thus, one Chinese Industrial Standards:
Acoustics-Noise emitted by machinery and equipment-Measurement of
emission sound pressure levels at a work station and at other specified
positions-Survey method in situ (GB/T 17248.3-1999) is used to correct
the background noise, as shown in Table 8.
The environmental noise correction value K2A is to correct the in­
fluence of the sound reflection from the room boundary, such as the
wall, floor, ceiling, and the reflected object near the measured sound
source. Its size is mainly determined by the ratio of the measurement
surface area S and the sound absorption area A of the test room, and the
location of the sound source in the test room does not matter. The
environmental noise correction value K2A is given by Eqs. (4) and (5).
Finally, the background noise correction value and the environmental
noise correction value are subtracted from the measured sound pressure
level, which is the actual noise value of the ERD.
K2A = 10lg[1 + 4(S/A) ] (4)
S = 2πa2 (5)
where A means the equivalent sound absorption area of the room at 1
kHz frequency, m2. S means measure surface area, m2. a means the
distance from the measuring point to the nearest main sound source of
the equipment under test. If the location of the nearest sound source is
not clear, the shortest distance from the measurement point to the
equipment under test is taken, m.
Likewise, to eliminate the influence of environmental noise on the

8
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

Table 10 4.5.2. Number of pipelines

The noise data of PX and turbine ERDs. The system design scheme with PX ERD has many pipelines, while
Noise factors PX ERD Turbine ERD the system design scheme with turbine ERD has a small number of
pipeline connections, as shown in Fig. 4. The HPPs of them are 6 and 4
Initial noise 103.9 102.4 103.2 85.4 86.6 86.8
Noise after the device is 48.9 49.5 51.3 42.5 43.6 43.2 respectively, and the LPPs are 3 and 1 respectively. The reduction in the
turned off number of pipe fittings helps to reduce the leakage risk, and the system
Background noise correction 0 0 0 0 0 0 operation is safer and more stable.
value
Environmental noise 5.41 4.25
correction value
4.5.3. Vibration
The vibration detection instrument adopts a domestic XimaAS-68A
vibrator. It is found that the vibration of PX ERD is 2.0–4.0 mm/s,
measured value as far as possible, it is given the average sound ab­ while that of turbine ERD is 0.4–1.5 mm/s. The major reason why the
sorption coefficient of α by quoting one Chinese Industrial Standards: value of PX ERD is higher than that of turbine ERD is the high rotation
Methods of measuring and evaluating noise of pumps (JB/T 8098-1999), speed of the former. It is well-known fact that the noise level is directly
as shown in Table 9. Moreover, the value of A (m2) is given by Eq. (6). proportional to the 6th power of the rotation speed. The same is also true
for vibration [42].
A = α⋅Sv (6)

where α means a-weighted average sound absorption coefficient given in
Table 9. Sv means the total area of the test room boundary, such as walls,
ceilings, and floors, m2.
The relative humidity of the equipment is 86.2%, and the tempera­
ture is room temperature. The domestic sound level meter NL-20 was
used to record the noise values of the two types of ERDs during normal
operation and shutdown. In this paper, three groups of measured noise
values of two types of ERDs are listed respectively. The noise values are
listed in Table 10.
After the tested noise is substituted into equations, the following
results are obtained. When the device is turned off, the ambient noise
ranges from 40 dB to 50 dB. During normal operation of the device, the
noise range of PX ERD is 94–99 dB, and its sound is sharp. The noise
range of turbine ERD is 80–88 dB, and its noise is relatively low. The
rotation speed of PX ERD is higher than that of turbine ERD, and the
noise level is directly proportional to the 6th power of the rotation speed
[42]. Moreover, the friction pair contact and flow channel switching of
PX ERD are more direct, so the noise is higher than that of turbine ERD
[20,43].
4.5. Other aspects
4.5.1. Equipment and valve control components
The PX process is composed of an HP pump, circulating booster
pump, and PX ERD, it is a distributed design scheme. However, the
turbine process is composed of HP pump and turbine ERD, it is an in­
tegrated design scheme. The application of the turbine is shown in Fig. 7.
The motor, HP pump, and turbine ERD share the base and are fixed with
supporting bolts. Its structure is compact and more stable. In addition,
the number of various valve control is reduced, more convenient
operation.
5. Comparison summary
The preceding chapters compare and analyze the two types of ERDs
in terms of operating principle, process flow, equipment selection, EECE,
energy consumption, noise, and investment cost, using a 1000 m3/
d seawater desalination project on an island in China as an example.
According to the findings, the EECE and investment cost of PX ERD are
much greater than those of turbine ERD. In terms of energy consump­
tion, PX ERD consumes less energy than turbine ERD. Of course, the
noise and vibration measurements in this paper are simply for reference.
The ERD's running rotational speed is a significant factor influencing
noise and vibration [42].
Generally, while building a seawater desalination project, several
aspects such as investment cost, power cost, interest rate, and loan
duration must be considered. The cost of capital is generally a factor in
ERD selection, that is why turbine ERD is becoming increasingly popu­
lar. In addition, turbine ERD has a flow scale impact. Its EECE improves
as the flow increases, whereas the energy consumption decreases [44].
Aside from the cost of capital, the operational environment has a sig­
nificant effect on the selection of ERD. The PX ERD system can maintain
significant backpressure for long-distance brine discharge, whereas the
foam flow created by the turbine ERD system must be removed by
gravity or pump [45]. It can be concluded that EECE is not the sole
purpose in selecting a suitable ERD, and other aspects impacting the
regular operation of ERDs should be thoroughly considered [46].
There is no special comparison study between medium-sized and
large-scale seawater desalination projects in this research, and only a
small and medium-sized seawater desalination project is investigated as
a case in this paper. The pros and cons of the two types of ERDs are
outlined to further analyze them in conjunction with the available
literature. It makes it easier for managers and operators to make better
judgments. The number of special symbols ★ is used to indicate the
degree of advantages and disadvantages. ★ the more, the more

Fig. 7. Integrated machine design of turbine ERD.

9
C. Wang et al. Desalination 533 (2022) 115752

Table 11 Declaration of competing interest

Comparison of PX and turbine ERDs [5,15,16,28,39,44–46].
Aspects Features PX Turbine The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Configuration Compact structure ★★★★ ★★★
Accessory equipment ★★★ ★★★★★ the work reported in this paper.
Application Low environmental requirements ★★★ ★★★★★
Without limiting the flow, multiple ★★★★★ ★★ Acknowledgements
parallel modes can be used
Easy installation, operation, and
The financial support from the National Key Research and Devel­
★★ ★★★★
maintenance
Suitable for large-scale seawater ★★★★★ ★★★★ opment Program of China (No. 2017YFC0403502), the Natural Science
desalination system Foundation of Tianjin (No. 17JCQNJC04900), the Special Fund for Basic
High flow control requirements ★★★★★ ★★★ Scientific Research Business of Central Public Research Institutes (Nos.
Performance High EECE ★★★★★ ★★★
K-JBYWF-2017-T15, K-JBYWF-2017-T16, K-JBYWF-2018-ZT01, K-
Less energy consumption ★★★★★ ★★★
High noise ★★★★★ ★★★ JBYWF-2018-T08, KJBYWF-2019-ZD01, R-JBYWF-2021-T02 and K-
Quick start ★★ ★★★★ JBYWF-2021-T07), the Key Technologies Research and Development
Investment Convenient operation and maintenance ★★★ ★★★★ Program of Tianjin (No. 18YFZCSF00310), the Key Research and
Low cost of equipment investment ★★★ ★★★★★ Development Project of Hainan Province (ZDYF2021SHFZ057) and the
Small space occupied by equipment
Tianjin Science and Technology Program (No. 18ZXSZSF00190) is
★★★ ★★★★

advantages. The comparison table is shown in Table 11.
6. Conclusions
In the present investigation, two types of ERDs, PX and turbine ERDs,
were quantitatively compared. The structure, working principle, device
selection, and PROS process design of ERDs are briefly described. The
EECE, energy consumption, noise, operation cost analysis, and economic
evaluation are also carried out. This article provides certain references
and guidance for ERD design and application of seawater desalination
engineering.
The essential conclusions of the research can be generalized in the
following aspects:
(1) The primary RO desalination rate of the two ERDs is not less than
99.2%. The EECE of PX ERD is close to 93.9%, and the EECE of
turbine ERD is about 78.4%. The difference between them mainly
depends on the different working principles.
(2) The successful implementation of PX and turbine ERDs in RO
seawater desalination has effectively reduced the operating en­
ergy consumption and operating cost. The former has high EECE,
and the energy consumption is 3.03 kWh/m3. The EECE of the
latter is lower than that of the former, and the energy consump­
tion is 3.37 kWh/m3. After comparing the energy consumption of
two types of ERDs, the project cost of PX ERD needs to run for
three years to be equal to that of turbine ERD.
(3) In terms of noise, the noise of PX ERD in the operation of PROS is
slightly higher, the noise range is 94–99 dB. While the noise of
turbine ERD is lower than the former, and the noise range is
80–88 dB. The difference is mainly caused by the high rotation
speed of PX ERD.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Chengpeng Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing-Original Draft.
Puyu Meng: Data Curation, Writing-Review & Editing.
Shenghui Wang: Funding acquisition, Supervision.
Daiwang Song: Supervision, Project administration.
Yexiang Xiao: Methodology, Supervision.
Yin Zhang: Editing.
Qingfen Ma: Methodology.
Sihan Liu: Data Curation.
Kaijie Wang: Data Curation.
Yan Zhang: Data Curation.
deeply appreciated.
References
[1] H.C. Chen, Y.R. Chen, K.H. Yang, C.P. Yang, K.L. Tung, M.J. Lee, J.H. Shih, Y.
C. Liu, Effective reduction of water molecules' interaction for efficient water
evaporation in desalination, Desalination 436 (2018) 91–97, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2018.02.013.
[2] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy,
technology, and the environment, Science 333 (2011) 712–717, https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1200488.
[3] M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, Four billion people facing severe water scarcity,
Sci. Adv. 2 (2016), e1500323, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
[4] U. Yermiyahu, A. Tal, A. Ben-Gal, A. Bar-Tal, J. Tarchitzky, O. Lahav, Rethinking
desalinated water quality and agriculture, Science 318 (2007) 920–921, https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1146339.
[5] S.A. Urrea, F.D. Reyes, B.P. Suárez, A. Juan, Technical review, evaluation and
efficiency of energy recovery devices installed in the Canary Islands desalination
plants, Desalination 450 (2019) 54–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2018.07.013.
[6] N. Voutchkov, Energy use for membrane seawater desalination–current status and
trends, Desalination 431 (2018) 2–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.10.033.
[7] N. Liu, Z. Liu, Y. Li, L. Sang, Development and experimental studies on a fully-
rotary valve energy recovery device for SWRO desalination system, Desalination
397 (2016) 67–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.06.026.
[8] S. Adham, A. Hussain, J.M. Matar, R. Dores, A. Janson, Application of membrane
distillation for desalting brines from thermal desalination plants, Desalination 314
(2013) 101–108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.003.
[9] D. Song, Y. Wang, S. Xu, J. Gao, Y. Ren, S. Wang, Analysis, experiment and
application of a power-saving actuator applied in the piston type energy recovery
device, Desalination 361 (2015) 65–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2015.01.035.
[10] M.J. Guirguis, Energy Recovery Devices in Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination
Plants With Emphasis on Efficiency and Economical Analysis of Isobaric Versus
Centrifugal Devices 1502237, University of South Florida, 2011.
[11] E. Kadaj, R. Bosleman, Energy recovery devices in membrane desalination
processes, in: Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Handbook, Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2018, pp. 415–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815244-
7.00011-8.
[12] A.E. Sani, Design and synchronizing of pelton turbine with centrifugal pump in RO
package, Energy 172 (2019) 787–793, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.01.144.
[13] I. Moch, The case for and feasibility of very high recovery sea water reverse
osmosis plants, Int. Desalin. Water Reuse Q. 10 (2000) 44–51.
[14] J. Lozier, E. Oklejas, M. Silbernagel, The hydraulic turbocharger™: a new type of
device for the reduction of feed pump energy consumption in reverse osmosis
systems, Desalination 75 (1989) 71–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(89)
85006-4.
[15] Fluid Equipment Development Company, Comparison of FEDCO HPB Pressure
Booster and ERI Pressure Exchanger, 2009, March.
[16] B. Huang, K. Pu, P. Wu, D. Wu, J. Leng, Design, selection and application of energy
recovery device in seawater desalination: a review, Energies 13 (2020) 4150,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164150.
[17] N.M. Eshoul, B. Agnew, M.A. Al-Weshahi, M.S. Atab, Exergy analysis of a two-pass
reverse osmosis (RO) desalination unit with and without an energy recovery
turbine (ERT) and pressure exchanger (PX), Energies 8 (2015) 6910–6925, https://
doi.org/10.3390/en8076910.
[18] I.B. Cameron, R.B. Clemente, SWRO with ERI's PX pressure exchanger device-a
global survey, Desalination 221 (2008) 136–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2007.02.050.

10
C. Wang et al.
[19] A.M.K. El-Ghonemy, Waste energy recovery in seawater reverse osmosis
desalination plants. Part 1, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 18 (2013) 6–22, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.022.
[20] E. Xu, G. Wang, M. Fan, L. Xie, Research progress of the rotary energy device,
Membr. Sci. Technol. 38 (2018) 144–151, https://doi.org/10.16159/j.cnki.
issn1007-8924.2018.03.020 (Chinese).
[21] Z. Liu, N. Liu, Y. Li, B. Han, H. Wu, Progress of pressure energy recovery devices in
reverse osmosis seawater desalination system, J. Beijing Univ. Technol. 40 (2014)
1408–1417.
[22] D. Song, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Jiang, C. Wang, S. Wang, Z. Jiang, H. Li,
Demonstration of a piston type integrated high pressure pump-energy recovery
device for reverse osmosis desalination system, Desalination 507 (2021), 115033,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.115033.
[23] Z. Sun, Y. Wang, J. Zhou, Z. Xu, S. Xu, Development and operational stability
evaluation of new three-cylinder energy recovery device for SWRO desalination
system, Desalination 502 (2021), 114909, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2020.114909.
[24] M. Wilf, C. Bartels, Optimization of seawater RO systems design, Desalination 173
(2005) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.206.
[25] A. Subramani, M. Badruzzaman, J. Oppenheimer, J.G. Jacangelo, Energy
minimization strategies and renewable energy utilization for desalination: a
review, Water Res. 45 (2011) 1907–1920, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2010.12.032.
[26] S. Alimirzazadeh, T. Kumashiro, S. Leguizamón, E. Jahanbakhsh, A. Maertens,
C. Vessaz, T. Kiyohito, F. Avellan, GPU-accelerated numerical analysis of jet
interference in a six-jet Pelton turbine using Finite Volume Particle Method,
Renew. Energy 148 (2020) 234–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.11.131.
[27] A.E. Sani, Design and synchronizing of Pelton turbine with centrifugal pump in RO
package, Energy 172 (2019) 787–793, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.01.144.
[28] R.S. Timur, A. Corum, H.E. Okten, A. Coban, G. Demir, T. Bozbura, Comparative
cost analysis of pressure exchanger (PX) and turbine type energy recovery devices
at seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plants, J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 12 (2011)
1186–1194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.environment economics.2011.12.003.
[29] B. Peñate, L. García-Rodríguez, Energy optimisation of existing SWRO (seawater
reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery turbines): technical and
thermoeconomic assessment, Energy 36 (2011) 613–626, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.056.
[30] C. Wang, D. Li, S. Wang, S. Liu, D. Song, Comparison of the application of two types
of energy recovery devices in seawater desalination projects, Water Purif. Technol.
07 (2021) 113–118, https://doi.org/10.15890/j.cnki.jsjs (Chinese).
[31] ERI, Doosan - ERI Technical Presentation, 2011.
[32] T. Takahashi, M. Shinoda, T. Takita, A. Goto, A next-generation isobaric energy
recovery device with pistonless and no-leakage concepts for swro desalination, in:
11
View publication stats
Desalination 533 (2022) 115752
International Desalination Association World Congress, 2013. IDAWC/TIAN13-
008.
[33] S. Senthil, S. Senthilmurugan, Reverse osmosis–pressure retarded osmosis hybrid
system: modelling, simulation and optimization, Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.027.
[34] A. Goto, M. Shinoda, T. Takemura, Mixing control in an isobaric energy recovery
device of a seawater reverse osmosis desalination system, in: ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1115/
FEDSM2017-69384. FEDSM2017-69384.
[35] J. Kim, K. Park, D.R. Yang, S. Hong, A comprehensive review of energy
consumption of seawater reverse osmosis desalination plants, Appl. Energy 254
(2019), 113652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113652.
[36] M.A. Sanz, R.L. Stover, S.A. Degrémont, Low energy consumption in the Perth
seawater desalination plant, in: IDA World Congress–Maspalomas. Gran Canaria-
Spain, 2007, pp. 21–26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296769620_
Energy_efficiency_in_Perth%27s_desalination_plant.
[37] Y. Li, J. Du, D. Zheng, C. Qin, Q. Zhu, Review of tesla turbine operating
performance research, World Sci-Tech R&D 43 (2021) 649–663, https://doi.org/
10.16507/j.issn.1006-6055.2021.09.006.
[38] Fluid Equipment Development Company, ERD Efficiency-Whats Systems Builders
and Consultants, 2020, February.
[39] V.G. Antonia, P. Ark, L.T. Jose, Optimizing water recovery and energy
consumption for seawater RO systems, GE Water Process Technol. 510 (2005) 1–5.
[40] A.M. Farooque, A.T.M. Jamaluddin, A.R. Al-Reweli, P.A.M. Jalaluddin, S.M. Al-
Marwani, A.S.A. Al-Mobayed, A.H. Qasim, Comparative Study of Various Energy
Recovery Devices Used in SWRO Process, Saline Water Desalination Research
Institute, Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC), 2004.
[41] A.J. Schunke, G.A.Hernandez Herrera, L. Padhye, T.A. Berry, Energy recovery in
SWRO desalination: current status and new possibilities, Front. Sustain. Cities 2
(2020) 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.00009.
[42] Y. Tian, Z. Bao, Analysis on the difference of pumps with different speeds to
achieve the same flow and head, Water Supply Drain. 45 (2009) 99–101, https://
doi.org/10.13789/j.cnki.wwe1964.2009.07.029 (Chinese).
[43] S. Wu, Z. Li, X. Wang, P. Chen, Research on performance evaluating index of
energy recovery device for reverse osmosis desalination, Water Supply Drain. 39
(2013) (2013) 146–150, https://doi.org/10.13789/j.cnki.wwe1964.2013.07.001
(Chinese).
[44] K. Liang, Q. Ma, H. Lu, H. Fang, P. Yang, J. Fan, The research and application
progress of the isobaric ERD technique for SWRO desalination plant, Desalin.
Water Treat. 202 (2020) 14–26.
[45] B. Liberman, The importance of energy recovery devices in reverse osmosis
desalination, in: The Future of Desalination in Texas 2, 2003, pp. 1–9.
[46] S.A.Tyler Nading, Selecting the Best Energy Recovery Device at RO Plants, CH2M
HILL International, Inc., Honolulu, HI, USA, 2013.