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

net/publication/322370391

Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries: A Review

Article  in  Journal of Scientific Research · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 2,617

4 authors:

A H M Saadat Md Saiful Islam

Jahangirnagar University University of Toyama
48 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Parvin Fahmida Ayesha Sultana

Jahangirnagar University University of Toyama
29 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

waste water treatment in Bangladesh View project

Preparation of Poly(ethylene terephthalate)-Based Proton-Exchange Membranes Through the Ultraviolet-Induced Graft Copolymerization of Allyl Methacrylate for
Applications in Fuel Cells View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayesha Sultana on 25 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available Online JOURNAL OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Publications J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) www.banglajol.info/index.php/JSR

Review Article
Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries: A Review

A. H. M. Saadat1*, M. S. Islam1, M. S. Islam2, F. Parvin1, A. Sultana2

1
Department of Environmental Sciences, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka-1342, Bangladesh
2
Department of Environmental Biology and Chemistry, Graduate School of Science and
Engineering for Research, University of Toyama, Gofuku 3190, Toyama 930–8555, Japan

Received 9 July 2017, accepted in final revised form 12 October 2017

Abstract
Fresh water is rapidly being exhausted due to natural and anthropogenic activities. The
more and more interest is being paid to desalination of seawater and brackish water in order
to provide fresh water. The suitability of these desalination technologies is based on several
criteria including the level of feed water quality, source of energy, removal efficiency,
energy requirement etc. In this paper, we presented a review of different desalination
methods, a comparative study between different desalination methods, with emphasis on
technologies and economics. The real problem in these technologies is the optimum
economic design and evaluation of the combined plants in order to be economically viable
for the developing countries. Distillation plants normally have higher energy requirements
and unit capital cost than membrane plants and produces huge waste heat. Corrosion,
scaling and fouling problems are more serious in thermal processes compare to the
membrane processes. On the other hand, membrane processes required pretreatment of the
feed water in order to remove particulates so that the membranes last longer. With the
continuing advancement to reduce the total energy consumption and lower the cost of water
production, membrane processes are becoming the technology of choice for desalination in
developing countries.
Keywords: Desalination technologies; Economics; Membrane technology; Salinity;
Thermal distillation.
© 2018 JSR Publications. ISSN: 2070-0237 (Print); 2070-0245 (Online). All rights reserved.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jsr.v10i1.33179 J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018)

1. Introduction

Water is a vital resource for the existence of living being on the earth surface and is
necessary for economic and social development [1]. Only about 0.5% of the overall global
water is available as fresh water while seawater accounts for about 97% of them. In many
parts of the world, huge amount of fresh water are required for agricultural, industrial and

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
78 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

domestic uses. Now a day, nearly 25% of the humankind is suffering from inadequate
fresh water supply [2]. A major study, the Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture discovered that one in three people today face water shortages
[3]. The world population is increasing with time which will cause severe water shortages
over the next years. The majority of this water shortages burden will fall on people who
live in remote rural areas and rapidly expanding urban areas. Most countries in the Near
East and North Africa suffer from acute water scarcity, as do countries such as Mexico,
Pakistan, South Africa, and large parts of China and India [4]. Lack of accessibility, water
quality deterioration, and decline of financial resources, allocation and fragmentation of
water management will be the world water challenges for the 21st century [5]. Water
scarcity will hamper the economic development, devastates human health, leads to
environmental degradation, and foments political instability. The annual water availability
of 1000 m3 per capita constitutes the limit below which it will not be possible to guarantee
an acceptable living standard as well as economic development [6]. Thus, it is now very
important to find out the alternative sources of fresh water in order to cope up with the
increasing demand. As a result, a solution such as salt-water desalination has emerged as
the keys to sustaining future generations across the globe.
Desalination is a general term for the process that removes dissolved solids and
produce fresh water from feed waters such as seawater, brackish water, and inland water
and increasingly to reclaim recycled water. It describes a range of processes which are
used to reduce the quantity of dissolved solids in water. Fresh water is defined as
containing less than 1000 mg/L of salts or total dissolved solids (TDS) [7]. In recent
years, increased attention has been drawn to the promise and prospects of desalination
technology for alleviating the growing water scarcity. At its simplest, the technology
might substantially reduce water scarcity by making the almost inexhaustible stock of
seawater and the large quantities of brackish groundwater that appear to be available into
new sources of freshwater supply [8]. Factors that have the largest effect on the cost of
desalination are feed water quality (salinity levels), product water quality, energy costs as
well as economies of scale [9,10]. Seawater desalination is being applied at 57% of
installed capacity worldwide, followed by brackish water desalination accounting for 23%
of installed capacity [11,12]. Table 1 outlines the global desalting capacity by feed water
sources [13].

Table 1. Global installed desalination capacity by feed water sources [13].

Feed water sources Desalination capacity (%)
Wastewater 6
River water 8
Brackish water 19
Sea water 67

Desalination processes fall into two main categories, thermal processes or membrane
processes. They are subdivided into different types. The three most applied desalination
technologies are: Multi-stage Flash (MSF), Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Multi-Effect
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 79

Distillation (MED). It was found that during 2013, among the worldwide installed
desalination capacity, 65% was based on RO, while MSF accounts for 22% and MED for
only 8% [14]. Energy and capital costs are the two largest components of financial cost
for both thermal and membrane seawater desalination processes. Future trends in energy
costs will also play an important role for the expansion of desalination technologies.
Significant increases in energy prices could make desalination technologies less attractive
[15,16].
The objectives of this report are to present an overview of current technologies using
for desalination of brackish and seawater to produce fresh water and to find out the best
technologies for developing countries considering the cost, removal efficiency and other
salient features. Discussion of detailed design concepts and processes of desalination and
the advantages and disadvantages of these technologies are beyond the scope of this
report. Numerous studies have been carried out throughout the world in an attempt to find
the suitable technologies but no study has been found specially designed for developing
countries.

2. History of Desalination

The notable increase in the use of desalination over the past 50 years is to a great extent
the result of a long history of research and development efforts. Early research on
desalination was conducted during World War II to satisfy freshwater needs in remote
locations, and the United States and other countries continued that work after the war [17].
The desalination technologies are commercially available from 1960 and most of these
were based on thermal processes. Later multi-stage flash distillation (MSF) processes
became popular and the Arabian Gulf was the main area of many commercial plants set
up [18]. In the late 1960s, membranes entered the desalination market and were initially
used for brackish water treatment. Desalination became a totally commercial enterprise
and developments in both thermal and membrane technology by the 1980s which led to an
exponential growth in world desalination capacity. The worldwide distribution of
desalination capacities is given in Tables 2 and 3 [19].

Table 2. Top 10 countries employing desalination technologies [19].

Capacity Market share
Sl. No. Country total
(million m3/d) (%)
1 Saudi Arabia 9.9 16.5
2 USA 8.4 14.0
3 UAE 7.5 12.5
4 Spain 5.3 8.9
5 Kuwait 2.5 4.2
6 China 2.4 4.0
7 Japan 1.6 2.6
8 Qatar 1.4 2.4
9 Algeria 1.4 2.3
10 Australia 1.2 2.0
80 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

For the drinking water purposes, many other countries of the world have begun to utilize
desalination as a suitable technology but no other region of the world has implemented
desalination on as large a scale as the Middle East. In Europe, Spain and Italy are using
the major percentages of desalination capacity [20]. Spain has been using desalination
since 1964 to provide drinking water in the Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, and along
the southern and eastern coasts [21-23].

Table 3. Top 10 countries employing seawater desalination technologies [19].

Capacity Market share
Rank Country total
(million m3/d) (%)
1 Saudi Arabia 7.4 20.6
2 UAE 7.3 20.3
3 Spain 3.4 9.4
4 Kuwait 2.1 5.8
5 Qatar 1.4 3.9
6 Algeria 1.1 3.1
7 China 1.1 2.9
8 Libya 0.8 2.3
9 USA 0.8 2.2
10 Oman 0.8 2.2

3. Overview of Desalination Technologies

The total global desalination capacity is expected to reach about 100 million m3/d by 2015
[25]. The global capacity is increasing day by day because of the significant reduction in
desalination cost as a result of significant technological advances [26]. In some specific
areas, desalination is now able to successfully compete with conventional water resources
and water transfers for potable water supply (e.g., construction of dams and reservoirs or
canal transfers) [27]. With the increasing capacity, a variety of desalting technologies has
been developed over the years and, based on their commercial success are shown in the
Table 4 [24]. Depending on the source water and the desalination technology used,
specific elements may vary in their importance in the overall system. For example, inland
brackish groundwater desalination facilities will use wells and pumps to bring the source
water to the facility, and these systems may need little or no pretreatment. In contrast,
seawater reverse osmosis (RO) desalination may use more elaborate intake structures,
depending on the specific site conditions, and may require extensive pretreatment.

Table 4. Commercially available desalination technologies [24].

Thermal Membrane Others
Multi-stage flash distillation Reverse osmosis Solar humidification
Multi-effect distillation Electrodialysis Freezing distillation
Vapor compression Forward Osmosis (FO) Ion exchange
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 81

3.1. Thermal (distillation) process

This method mimics the hydrological cycle in that salty water is heated producing water
vapor that in turn condensed to form fresh water free of salts. The fresh water is
mineralized to make it suitable for human consumption. The important factors to be
considered for this method of desalination are the proper temperature relative to its
ambient pressure and enough energy for vaporization for energy minimization and the
control of scale formation.

3.1.1. Multi-stage flash distillation (MSF)

Multi-stage Flash distillation (MSF) accounts for the major portion of desalinated
municipal drinking water produced in the world and is used primarily for desalting
seawater [24]. MSF units are widely used in the Middle East (particularly in Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait) and they account for over 22% of the world’s
desalination capacity [14,15]. The principles of MSF involve evaporation and
condensation of water. These steps are coupled in order to recover the latent heat of
evaporation for reuse by preheating the incoming water (Fig. 1). To improve the problems
with scale formation on heat transfer tubes, a key design feature of MSF systems is bulk
liquid boiling [20]. Every stage of an MSF unit functions at a successively lower pressure
to maximize water recovery. The low to moderate temperature and pressure steam way
out the turbine is used to drive the desalination process [1,28,29]. A performance ratio
often applied to thermal desalination processes is the gained output ratio, defined as the
mass of water product per mass of heating steam. A typical gained output ratio for MSF
units is 8 [1,15,30]. A 20-stage plant has a typical heat requirement of 290 kJ/kg product
[1].
The advantages of using multi-stage flash distillation for desalination include the
quality of the water produced which containing less than 10 mg/L TDS. The salinity of the
feed water does not have much impact on the process or costs of MSF. It can be combined
with other processes, e.g., using the heat energy from an electricity generation plant.
Besides, some disadvantages of using multi-stage flash distillation for desalination consist
of the cost of installation and operation along with the high level of technical knowledge.
The recovery ratio is low; therefore, more feed water is required to produce the same
amount of product water. Scaling and corrosion are serious concerns because the
evaporator components are directly exposed to the feed water.
82 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

Fig. 1. The Schematic diagram of Multi-Stage Flash Distillation process [20]. The Fig. is used with
the permission of Sandia National Laboratories and was copyrighted 2003.

3.1.2. Multi-effects distillation (MED)

Multi-Effects Evaporation (MEE), also referred to as Multiple Effects Distillation (MSF),

is a desalination method was developed early on and plants were installed in the 1950s. It
was a successful attempt in the field of desalination technologies but lost favor and was
replaced with MSF due to problems with scaling on the heat transfer tubes [31]. Now a
day it is not extensively used but due to the better thermal performance compared to MSF
it has gained attention. In MED, vapor from each stage is condensed in the next
successive stage thereby giving up its heat to drive more evaporation. Seawater is then
sprayed over these hot tubes to evaporate the water. This vapor is then streamed to the
next effect. To avoid mixing the boiler chemicals with the pure distillate, the distillate
from the first effect does not join the main distillate stream. The brine is collected at the
base of each effect, which is either circulated to the next effect or transported out of the
system (Fig. 2). To increase the performance, each stage is run at a successively lower
pressure. The top boiling temperature in low temperature plant can be as low as 55°C
which helps reduce corrosion and scaling, and allows the use of low-grade waste heat. The
MEE process can have several different configurations according to the type of heat
transfer surface (vertical climbing film tube, rising film vertical tube, or horizontal tube
falling film) and the direction of the brine flow relative to the vapor flow (forward,
backward, or parallel feed) [31].
The better thermal performance compared with MSF is the main advantage of using
multi-effect distillation for desalination. It can operate at a low operating cost when waste
heat is used for the distillation process. Lower quality feed water than reverse osmosis
(RO) can be used for this process. High operating costs when waste heat is not available
for the distillation process and corrosion and scale formation are the main drawbacks of
this process.
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 83

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of multi-effect distillation evaporator desalination process (horizontal

tube-parallel feed configuration) [20]. The Fig. is used with the permission of Sandia National
Laboratories and was copyrighted 2003.

3.1.3. Vapor compression (VC) distillation

Vapor compression involves evaporating the feed water, compressing the resulting vapor,
and then using the pressurized vapor as a heat source to evaporate additional feed water.
The compression of the vapor is done either with a mechanical compressor (mechanical
vapor compression, MVC) or a steam ejector (thermal vapor compression, TVC). MVC
systems generally range up to about 3,000 m3/day in size with only a single stage, while
TVC systems may range in size to 20,000 m3/day having several stages. This difference
arises from the fact that MVC systems have the same specific power consumption
(power/unit water produced) regardless of the number of stages, while the thermal
efficiency of TVC systems is increased by adding additional stages [32]. Thus, the main
advantage of adding effects to an MVC system is simply increased capacity. In Fig. 3
mechanical vapor compression, MVC is given.
For the most part, VC processes are practical for small to medium scale installations
[24]. The plants are very compact and can be designed to be portable and it does require
minimal pre-treatment. The capital cost of the plant is reasonable and operation is simple
and reliable. The plants can produce high quality of water from lower quality feed water
than RO. But the disadvantages are the requirement of large, expensive steam
compressors, which are not readily available. Scaling and corrosion are serious concerns
because the evaporator components are directly exposed to the feed water.
84 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of single mechanical vapor compression distillation process [20]. The
Fig. is used with the permission of Sandia National Laboratories and was copyrighted 2003.

3.2. Membrane process

In membrane processes, a membrane separate two phases allows transporting of one or

more components readily than that of other components. The driving force for transport
can be a pressure gradient, a temperature gradient, a concentration gradient or an electrical
potential gradient. There are mainly two types of membrane process usually used for
desalination: reverse osmosis (RO) and electrodialysis (ED). Besides, forward osmosis
(FO) is also used in some cases.

3.2.1. Reverse osmosis (RO)

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a membrane separation process where water from a pressurized
saline solution is separated from the dissolved salts by flowing through a water-permeable
membrane (Fig. 4). The liquid flowing through the membrane is encouraged to flow
through the membrane by the pressure differential created between the pressurized
feedwater and the product water, which is at near-atmospheric pressure. The remaining
feedwater continues through the pressurized side of the reactor as brine. No heating or
phase change takes place. The major energy requirement is for the initial pressurization of
the feedwater. The operating pressure for brackish water systems ranges from 15- 25 bar
and for seawater systems from 54 to 80 bars (the osmotic pressure of seawater is about 25
bar) [24]. The United States ranks second worldwide in desalination capacity, primarily
relying on RO to treat brackish and surface water [1].
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 85

Fig. 4. Block diagram of reverse osmosis operations–optional pressure recovery devices not
depicted [20]. The Fig. is used with the permission of Sandia National Laboratories and was
copyrighted 2003.

Reverse osmosis can remove from brines not only dissolved solids, but also organic
material, colloidal material, and some microorganisms. RO is typically used for brackish
water with salt concentrations ranging from 100 to 10,000 ppm. Low pressure membranes
have decreased the pressure requirements for some reverse osmosis (RO) operations by up
to 50 percent, the efficiency of reverse osmosis (RO) operations will undoubtedly increase
and costs decrease as membranes are improved. It can handle a large range of flow rates,
from a few liters per day to 7.5×105 L/day for brackish water and 4.0×105 L/day for
seawater. The capacity of the system can be increased at a later date if required by adding
on extra modules. The use of chemicals for cleaning purposes is low. On the other hand,
RO membranes are expensive and have a life expectancy of 2-5 years. If the plant uses
seawater there can be interruptions to the service during stormy weather. This can cause
re-suspension of particles, which increases the extent of suspended solids in the water.
Pre-treatment of the feed water is required in order to remove particulates so that the
membranes last longer. RO membranes are sensitive to pH, oxidizers, a wide range of
organics, algae, and bacteria and of course particulates and other foulants [1]. Therefore,
pretreatment of the feed water is an important consideration and can a significant impact
on the cost of RO [30], especially since all the feed water, even the 60% that will
eventually be discharged, must be pretreated before being passed to the membrane.

3.2.2. Electrodialysis (ED)

Electrodialysis is a mature process which is applied since more than 50 years on a large
industrial scale for the production of potable water from brackish water sources [33]. In
electrodialysis (ED) system, a direct current is passed through the water, which drives the
ions (not the water) through membranes to electrodes of opposite charge [24]. Unlike RO
86 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

or distillation, ED is only capable of removing ionic components from solution since the
driving force for the separation is an electric field. ED utilizes electromotive force applied
to electrodes adjacent to both sides of a membrane to separate dissolved minerals in water.
The separation of minerals occurs in individual membrane units called cell pairs. A cell
pair consists of an anion transfer membrane, a cation transfer membrane, and two spacers.
The complete assembly of cell pairs and electrodes is called the membrane stack (Fig. 5).
The number of cells within a stack varies depending on the system. Since the resistance in
the stack changes from top to bottom, the separation is typically carried out is a series of
small steps. This makes the process more economical and easier to control [1]. Like RO,
the energy required to separate the ions from solution increases with concentration, thus
ED is generally limited to brackish waters containing only a few thousand ppm of
dissolved solids [1].
ED system separates without phase change which results in relatively low energy
consumption. When brackish water is desalted by ED system, the product water needs
only limited pre-treatment, typically only chlorination for disinfection. This system is
particularly suitable for separating non-ionized from ionized components because ED
system removes only ionized species. Another advantage is that the osmotic pressure is
not a factor in ED system, so the pressure can be used for concentrating salt solutions to
20% or higher. Though ED system is suitable for separating ionic substances, it cannot
remove the organic matter, colloids and suspended solids. Selection of materials for
membranes and stack is another important issue to ensure compatibility with the feed
stream.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of electrodialysis (ED) desalination process [20]. The Fig. is used with
the permission of Sandia National Laboratories and was copyrighted 2003.
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 87

3.2.3. Forward osmosis (FO)

Forward (or direct) osmosis (FO) is a membrane separation process where water
transports across a semi-permeable membrane that is impermeable to salt utilizing an
osmotic pressure gradient. This process may have the ability to desalinate saline water
sources at a reduced cost and at high recovery with the use of osmotic driving forces
which can be significantly greater than hydraulic driving forces in RO [34]. In the FO
process, the osmotic pressure gradient generated by a highly concentrated solution (known
as ―draw‖ solution) to allow water to diffuse through a semi-permeable membrane from a
saline feed water, which has a relatively lower concentration (Fig. 6). Consequently, a less
concentrated draw solution is being produced which may be further treated to extract
freshwater. With the use of a suitable draw solution, very high osmotic pressure driving
forces can be generated to achieve high recoveries that, in principle, can lead to salt
precipitation. The saline feed water is fed to the FO unit, which, in principle, can
incorporate spiral wound or hollow fiber membrane modules. The feed water and draw
solution flow tangent to the membrane in a cross-flow mode. Through osmosis, water
transports from the seawater across the salt rejecting membrane and into the draw
solution. To yield potable water, the diluted draw solution is sent to a separation unit,
comprising a distillation column or a membrane gas separation unit. The separated draw
solution is recycled back to the FO unit. The FO process is characterized by relatively low
fouling potential, low energy consumption, simplicity, and reliability [36].

Fig. 6. Forward osmosis process schematic [35]. The Fig. is reproduced with the permission from
publisher.

3.3. Alternative technologies

Besides the commercially available desalination technologies, a number of other

processes have been developed to desalinate seawater. These processes could not reach
88 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

the level of commercial success that MSF, MED, and RO have, but they may become
valuable under special circumstances or with further development. These important
processes include solar humidification and membrane distillation.

3.3.1. Solar humidification (SH)

The solar humidification is a thermal water desalination method. It is based on

evaporation of sea water or brackish water and consecutive condensation of the generated
humid air, mostly at ambient pressure. This process mimics the natural water cycle, but
over a much shorter time frame. The basic design of a solar still, which is similar to a
greenhouse, is shown in Fig. 7. Through the transparent glass, solar energy enters to the
device and produce heat which evaporates the water inside it. The basin for salt water is
typically black in color to increase the efficiency of absorbing the solar energy. The
evaporated water then condenses on the cooler glass panels and the condensed droplet run
down the panels and collected for use.
The advantages of the solar humidification process are its relative simplicity to
operate and service and obviously its ability to use solar or other renewable power as its
source of energy, hence operating costs are very low. However, the efficiency of this type
of plants is less than 50% which make them non-viable for use [28]. A general rule of
thumb is that about 1 m2 of ground will produce only 4 liters per day of freshwater [24].
Accordingly, to produce large amount of fresh water, it is important to use very
inexpensive materials of construction to minimize capital costs because huge area is
needed. Even so, the installation costs of solar stills tend to be considerably higher than
other methods [24]. In addition, the stills are vulnerable to weather damage.

Fig. 7. The basic design of a solar distillation unit [20]. The Fig. is used with the permission of
Sandia National Laboratories and was copyrighted 2003.
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 89

3.3.2. Membrane distillation (MD)

Membrane distillation (MD) is a thermally driven separation program in which separation

is enabled due to phase change and becoming an emerging technology [20]. The state of
art process of MD that separate mass flows by a membrane, mostly use a static pressure
difference as the driving force between the two bounding surfaces, a difference in
concentration (dialysis) or an electric field (ED). Selectivity of a membrane is produced
by its pore size in relation to the size of the substance to be retained, its diffusion
coefficient or electrical polarity. However, the selectivity of membranes used for
membrane distillation (MD) is based on the retention of liquid water with-at the same
time- permeability for free water molecules and thus, for water vapor. These membranes
are made of hydrophobic synthetic material (e.g. PTFE, PVDF or PP) and offer pores with
a standard diameter between 0.1 to 0.5 µm. The schematic of a MD is given in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. MD configurations, (a) direct contact MD, (b) air gap MD, (c) sweep gas MD, and (d)
vacuum MD [37]. The Fig. is reproduced with the permission of publisher.

The use of MD is advantageous over some other separation processes because it

requires lower operating temperatures and pressures than conventional distillation,
reduced chemical interaction between membrane and process solutions, reduced vapor
spaces compared to conventional distillation processes. The primary limitation arises from
the defining phenomenon itself: the process solutions must be aqueous and sufficiently
dilute to prevent wetting of the hydrophobic micro-porous membrane. This limits MD to
applications in desalination [37].

4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Desalination Technologies

Over the years desalination technologies for water production have been increased as a
result of technological advances as well as for the demand of fresh water supply. At the
same time, the costs of obtaining and treating water from conventional sources have risen
due to the increased levels of treatment required to comply with more stringent water
quality standards [38]. For the production of fresh water from the saline water, a choice
90 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

among the commercially available desalination technologies largely depends on how the
process applies in some specific conditions, together with both technical and economic
considerations [39]. All the individual technologies have their relative pros and cons and
are summarized in the following Table 5 [40].

Table 5. The relative pros and cons identified for the seawater desalination technologies [40].
Recovery and total
Process Pros Cons
dissolved solids
MSF 25–50% recovery in Lends itself to large capacity Large capital investment
high temperature designs required
recyclable MSF Proven, reliable technology with Energy intensive process
plant long Larger footprint required
operating life (land and material)
Flashing rather than boiling Corrosion problems if
<50 mg/L TDS reduces incidence of scaling materials of lesser
Minimal pre-treatment of feed quality used
water required Slow start-up rates
High quality product water Maintenance requires
Plant process and cost entire plant to shut-down
independent of salinity High level of technical
level knowledge required
Heat energy can be sourced by Recovery ratio low
combining
with power generation

MED 0–65% recovery Large economies of scale High energy

possible Minimal pre-treatment of feed consumption
water required High capital and
<10 mg/L TDS Very reliable process with operational cost
minimal requirements High quality materials
for operational staff required as process is
Tolerates normal levels of susceptible to corrosion
suspended and Product water requires
biological matter cooling and blending
Heat energy can be sourced by prior to being used for
combining with power potable water needs
generation
Very high-quality product water

VC ~50% recovery Developed process with low Start-up require auxiliary

possible consumption heating source to
<10 mg/L TDS of chemicals generate vapor
Economic with high salinity Limited to smaller sized
(>50,000 mg/L) Smaller plants
economies of scale (up to 10,000 Compressor needs higher
m3/d) levels of maintenance
Relatively low energy demand
Lower temperature requirements
reduce potential of scale and
corrosion
Lower capital and operating
costs
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 91

Portable designs allow flexibility

RO 30–60% recovery Lower energy consumption Higher costs for

possible for single Relatively lower investment cost chemical and membrane
pass (higher No cooling water flow replacement
recoveries are Simple operation and fast startup Vulnerable to feed water
possible for multiple High space/production capacity quality changes
pass or waters with Removal of contaminants other Adequate pre-treatment a
lower salinity) than salts achieved necessity
<500 mg/L TDS for Modular design Membranes susceptible
seawater possible Maintenance does not require to biofouling
and <less 200 mg/L entire plant to shutdown Mechanical failures due
for brackish water to high pressure
Appropriately trained
personnel recommended
Membrane life
expectancy around 5–7
years

ED 85–94% recovery Energy usage proportional to Leaks may occur in

possible salts removed not volume treated membrane stacks
140–600 mg/L TDS Higher membrane life of 7–10 Bacterial contaminants
years Operational at low to not removed by system
moderate pressures and post-treatment
required for potable
water use

5. Comparison of Salient Features of Different Desalination Technologies

A wide range of technical parameters to be evaluated includes energy requirement,

efficiency and performance ratio, scale and fouling, corrosion, thermal discharge and
operating temperature, quality o feed water etc. On the other hand, the economic analysis
is based on cost determining factors such as capital, energy, labor, chemicals, materials,
and consumables [39-42]. Numerous analyses and comparisons have been carried out to
assess competing technologies and economics.

5.1. Energy requirement

Energy requirement is the primary concern of choosing the suitable desalination

technologies [43]. The energy requirements for the MSF, MED, and VC are virtually
independent of salt concentration, while the energy requirements for the membrane
processes are highly dependent on concentration [20]. Therefore, RO process has gained
much popularity and had developed direct competition with distillation processes.
Although the most efficient process is not always the most cost-effective design but the
energy consumption must be considered especially for the area where there is a shortage
of available energy supplies [20]. A summarization of the energy consumption by
different desalination technologies are given in the following Table 6.
92 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

Table 6. The Energy consumption by different Desalination technologies (kJ/kg fresh water – divide
by 3.6 for kWh/m3) [20].
Desalination
Energy Consumption References
Technologies
MSF 299 [43]
230 [29]
MED 152 [45]
VC 25-43 [25]
14-29 [32]
RO 61 [44]
27 [29]
14-20 [46]
14 (7.2**) [47]
18-24 [48]
ED 0.4-1.8 [49]

From the Table 6, it is apparent that the energy consumption of the thermal processes
(MSF, MED and VCD) is much higher than the membrane processes (RO and ED). RO is
a newer technology with recent improvements in energy recovery. But it is important to
consider that RO consumes energy in the form of electricity whereas MSF uses heat more
directly. The conversion of thermal energy to electrical energy is only about 35%
efficient. Therefore, on a fuel basis, RO consumes 9-30 times the theoretical energy
requirement [20].

5.2. Removal efficiency and performance ratio

Removal efficiency of RO and NF are best among all of the process. The removal
efficiency of the MED and MSF are lower compare to RO and VC. Similar result for the
performance ratio was also found in the literature [59]. Fig. 9 represents the performance
ratio of different desalination technologies. From this Fig., it was found that the
membrane process has higher performance ratio compare to the thermal process. Reverse
osmosis stands for the highest performance ratio (from 30-100 Kg/2326 kj) and multi
stage filtration has the lowest performance ratio and amounts to 6.4 Kg/2326 kj.

Fig. 9. Performance ratio of different desalination technologies [50]. The Fig. is reproduced with the
permission from publisher.
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 93

5.3. Corrosion, scaling and fouling

The disadvantages of maximum desalination plant are the sensitivity to fouling e.g. by
suspended solids, and to damage by oxidized compounds such as chlorine or chlorine
oxides. Pretreatment is usually needed to ensure a stable performance of the module;
optimization of the pretreatment is one of the most critical aspects [1]. Scaling (due to
CaCO3, CaSO4, and BaSO4 etc.) is another possible problem, which depends on the
recovery ratio of, permeate production and feed. Corrosion, scaling and fouling problem
are more serious in thermal process compare to the membrane process.

5.4. Quality of feed water

The quality of feed water determines the degree of pretreatment necessary for the process
and determines the costs needed in this step. Considering the feed water quality, in RO,
the quality of feed water should be very good, because the feed water not being pre-
treated satisfactorily causes most failures in RO systems. In RO, pretreatment of feed
water is required, often stricter in order to remove particulates so that the membranes last
longer. In ED, additional measures may be required for disinfection and removal of
particles. In case of MSF, MED and VCD, it is not necessary to pretreat the feed water.
As a result, the cost of thermal process is lower compare to the membrane process.
The comparison of all salient features of different desalination technologies are
shown in Table 7. The technologies that bear the best salient features are marked by
shaded area.

Table 7. Comparison of all salient features of different desalination technologies [43].

Salient features
Thermal Discharge
Performance Ratio

Scale and Fouling

Water Recovery

Quality of Feed
Efficiency and
Requirement

Corrosion
Energy

Water

MSF 4 2 3 4 4 2 3
Technologies

MED 4 2 4 4 4 2 3
VC 4 3 4 4 4 2 3
ED - 3 2 1 0 4 2
RO 2 4 3 3 0 3 4
Index value 0: none, 1: low, 2: medium, 3: high, and 4: extreme

6. The Economics of Desalination

Cost is the major factor in implementing the desalination technologies. The cost analysis
of desalination technologies are usually aims to estimate the production cost per unit of
fresh water, and calculates the contribution of each cost item to the total cost. This
94 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

analysis helps to consider the best technologies. In general, cost factors associated with
implementing a desalination plant are site specific and depend on several variables
including feed water quality, plant capacity, site characteristics, costs associated with
water intake, pretreatment, and Regulatory requirements which associated with meeting
local/state permits and regulatory requirements [51-54]. Large capacity plants require high
initial capital investment compared to low capacity plants. But due to the economy of
scale, the unit production cost for large capacity plants can be lower [52,53]. Table 8
summarizes a comparative study of desalination process costs.

Table 8. The cost of per unit produced freshwater from different desalination technologies [55].
Desalination
Cost of water produced freshwater (US$/m3)
technologies
MSF 0.9–1.5
(Cost reduces with cogeneration and capacity [56] but 4 if fossil fuel price
is US$ 100/barrel oil [57])
Solar pond: 0.8–5.5* [58]
Solar collector: 2.5–9.0* [58]

MED ~1, lower with cogeneration and use of TVC; 0.83 for Jubail II plant [59-
60]
Solar pond: 0.5–3.7* [58]
Solar collector: 0.7–9.3*[58]
RO SW: 0.99; 0.53 at Ashkelon plant
BW: 0.2–0.7 [58-59,62]
Solar PV: BW: 5–7
SW: 9–12 €/m3 [63]

ED BW: 0.6 [64]

SW: seawater; BW: brackish water
* Based on models and experiments

RO and ED are usually used for both seawater and brackish water whereas others are
only for seawater desalination. In comparison with seawater desalination, brackish water
desalination cost is lower due to low TDS concentration in feed water for brackish water
requires less energy for treatment compared to high TDS feed water (seawater). Low TDS
allows for higher conversion rates and the plant can operate with less dosing of antiscalant
chemicals. The pre-treatment of surface waters such as tidal waters will be costlier
compared to brackish groundwater because of the potential existence of more
contaminants in these waters. The capital cost of MSF/MED is generally costlier than RO
and hence the number of operating RO plants is increasing worldwide [26]. This trend
towards selective use of RO over a thermal process reflects the flexibility and simplicity
of bidding requirements for the RO process. In compare with MSF and MED, the RO and
ED process cost is less and also capable to desalinate both brackish and seawater. Keeping
this in consideration, it is better to use RO or ED to desalinate water.
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 95

7. Conclusion

It is quite difficult to decide that which method is best suited for desalination in
developing countries because all the desalination technologies have their specific
advantages and disadvantages. Distillation plants normally have higher energy
requirements and unit capital cost than membrane plants. Corrosion, scaling and fouling
problem are more serious in thermal process compare to the membrane process. Huge
amount of waste heat is produced in the distillation processes. On the other hand,
membrane processes do not destroy biological substances, unlike distillation processes
and pretreatment is of the feed water is required in order to remove particulate so that the
membranes last longer. However, in cease of MSF, MED and VC, it is not necessary to
pre-treat the feed water. The unit capital cost in desalinate brackish water is lower
compare to desalinate seawater and the cost is lower in RO and EDR. Therefore, as in
developing country, the main problem is with energy sources and brackish water, so it is
wise to use RO or EDR to desalinate the water.

References

1. R. Semiat, Water Int. 25(1), 54 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060008686797

2. G. Fiorenza, V. K. Sharma, and G. Braccio, Energy Conv. Manag. 44(14), 2217 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00247-9
3. CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture) Water for Food, Water
for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (London, UK:
Earthscan and Colombo, Sri Lanka; IWMI, 2007).
4. U. N. Water, Coping with Water Scarcity—Challenge of the 21st Century, Campaign Material
for World Water Day, March, 22 (2007).
5. M. A. Eltawil, Z. Zhengming, and L. Yuan, Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Systems:
Technologies and Economics-state of the Art - Twelfth International Water Technology
Conference (Alexandria, Egypt, 2008).
6. WHO (World Health Organization). Desalination for Safe Water Supply: Guidance for the
Health and Environmental Aspects Applicable to Desalination (Public Health and the
Environment World Health Organization, Geneva, 2007).
7. M. Radmor, J. Strauss, J. Bishop, G. Piatt, K. DeGroat, D. Fargo, D. Eisemann, and C.
Mulligan, Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap (No. BR-DWPR-95),
Bureau of Reclamation Denver Co. (2003).
8. A. Zander, M. Elimelech, D. Furukawa, P. Gleick, K. Herd, K. L. Jones, P. Rolchigo, and W.
W. Wood, National Research Council, The National Academies (2008).
9. I. Alatiqi, H. Ettouney, and H. El-Dessouky, Desalination 126(1), 15 (1999).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(99)00151-4
10. M. H. Dore, Desalination 172(3), 207(2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.07.036
11. U. Ebensperger and P. Isley, Review of the Current State of Desalination Water Policy
Working Paper 2005-008 (Georgia State University. Environmental Policy Program, Water
Policy Centre, 2005).
12. M. Schiffler, Desalination 165, 1(2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(04)00207-3
13. ESCWA (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia). Role of Desalination in
Addressing Water Scarcity. ESCWA Water Development Report 3. United Nations Publication
(United Nations, New York, 2015).
http://www.escwa.un.org/information/ publications/edit/upload/sdpd-09-4.pdf
14. S. Miller, H. Shemer, and R. Semiat, Desalination 366, 2 (2015).
96 Review Article: Desalination Technologies for Developing Countries

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.11.034
15. H. M. Ettouney, H. T. El-Dessouky, R. S. Faibish, and P. J. Gowin, Chem. Eng. Prog. 98(12),
32 (2002).
16. S. Chaudhry, Unit Cost of Desalination. California Desalination Task Force, California Energy
Commission (Sacramento, California, 2003).
17. H. Cooley, P. H. Gleick, and G. H. Wolff, Desalination, with a Grain of Salt: a California
Perspective. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and
Security (2006).
18. K. V. Reddy and N. Ghaffour, Desalination 205(1), 340 (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.03.558
19. M. Nair and D. Kumar, Desalination Water Treat. 51(10-12), 2030 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.734483
20. J. E. Miller, Review of Water Resources and Desalination Technologies. Sandia National Labs
Unlimited Release Report SAND-2003-0800 (2003).
21. P. Palomar and I. J. Losada, Desalination 255(1), 97 (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.01.008
22. J. A. Reverter, S. Talo, and J. Alday, Desalination 138(1), 207 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00266-1
23. S. Rybar, M. Vodnar, F. L. Vartolomei, R. L. Méndez, and J. B. L. Ruano, Experience with
Renewable Energy Source and SWRO Desalination in Gran Canaria - SP05-100 International
Desalination Association World Congress (2005).
24. O. K. Buros, The ABCs of Desalting Topsfield, MA: International Desalination Association,
(2000). pp. 30.
25. G. W. Intelligence, Market Profile and Desalination Markets, 2009–2012 Yearbooks and GWI
website (2013).
26. N. Ghaffour, T. M. Missimer, and G. L. Amy, Desalination 309, 197 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.10.015
27. K. Quteishat, Desalination and Energy Saving and Recovery - Middle East Waste & Water
Congress (Dubai—UAE, May 2008).
28. K. S. Spiegler, Y. M. El-Sayed, and A. D. Primer, Balaban Desalination Publications (Santa
Maria Imbaro, 1994).
29. M. A. Darwish and N. M. Al-Najem, Appl. Therm. Eng. 20(5), 399 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-4311(99)00032-0
30. H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M. Ettouney, and Y. Al-Roumi, Chem. Eng. J. 73(2), 173 (1999).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(99)00035-2
31. M. Al-Shammiri and M. Safar, Desalination 126(1), 45 (1999).
32. F. Mandani, H. Ettouney, and H. El-Dessouky, Desalination 128(2), 161 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00031-X
33. H. Strathmann, Desalination 264(3), 268 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.04.069
34. J. R. McCutcheon, R. L. McGinnis, and M. Elimelech, J. Membr. Sci. 278(1), 114 (2006).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.10.048
35. R. Semiat and D. Hassan, Energy Issues in Desalination Processes - First UK-Israeli Workshop
and Research Event on the Application of Membrane Technology in Water Treatment and
Desalination (St Hilda's College, Oxford, 2008)
36. T. Y. Cath, S. Gormly, E. G. Beaudry, M. T. Flynn, V. D. Adams, and A. E. Childress, J.
Membr. Sci. 257(1), 85 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.08.039
37. K. W. Lawson and D. R. Lloyd, J. Membr. Sci. 124(1), 1 (1997).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00236-0
38. A. D. Khawaji, I. K. Kutubkhanah, and J. M. Wie, Desalination 221(1), 47 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.067
39. A. D. Khawaji, J. M. Wie, and A. A. Al-Mutairi, Technical and Economic Seawater MSF and
RO Desalination Processes for Madinat Yanbu Al-Sinaiyah - Proceedings of the IDA World
Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse (Manama, Bahrain, March 2002).
 A. H. M. Saadat et al. J. Sci. Res. 10 (1), 77-97 (2018) 97

40. M. A. Eltawil, Z. Zhengming, and L. Yuan, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13(9), 2245 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.011
41. M. A. Darwish, M. A. Jawad, and G. S. Aly, Desalination 76, 281 (1989).
https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(89)87051-1
42. N. M. Wade, Desalination 93(1), 343 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(93)80113-2
43. L. Wagner, Water Desalination-Tap into the Liquid Gold. Analyst (2007).
44. R. V. Wahlgren, Water Res. 35(1), 1 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00247-5
45. V. Dvornikov, Desalination 127(3), 261 (2000).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00015-1
46. M. Wilf and K. Klinko, Desalination 138(1), 299 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00278-8
47. P. Glueckstern, A. Thoma, and M. Priel, Desalination 139(1), 217 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00313-7
48. R. Rautenbach and K. Voßenkaul, Sep. Purif. Technol. 22, 193 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(00)00130-1
49. M. Demircioǧlu, N. Kabay, E. Ersöz, I. Kurucaovali, Ç. Şafak, and N. Gizli,
Desalination 136(1), 317 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00194-1
50. A. Malek, M. N. A. Hawlader, and J. C. Ho, ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Devt. 9(2), 41 (1992).
51. Cost Estimating Procedures, In: Desalting Handbook for Planners (Chapter 9), United States
Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Desalination and
Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 72, Edtion 3rd (2003). pp.
187–231.
52. LBG-Guyton Associates. Brackish Groundwater Manual for Texas Regional Water Planning
Groups. LBG-Guyton Associates (2003). pp. 31.
53. T. M. Younos, The Feasibility of using Desalinations to Supplement Drinking Water Supplies
in Eastern Virginia. VWRRC Special Report SR25-2004. Blacksburg, VA: (Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech., 2004) pp. 114.
54. T. Younos and J. Contemp. Water Res. Edu. 132(1), 39 (2005).
55. J. Bundschuh, N. Ghaffour, H. Mahmoudi, M. Goosen, S. Mushtaq, and J. Hoinkis, Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 43, 196 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.102
56. T. Winter, D. J. Pannell, and L. M. McCann, The Economics of Desalination and its Potential
Application to Australia- 2002 Conference (46th), (Australian Agricultural and Resource
Economics Society, Canberra (No. 125611) 2002).
57. A. N. A. Mabrouk, A. S., Nafey, and H. E. Fath, Desalin. Water Treat. 22(1-3), 56 (2010).
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2010.1537
58. C. Li, Y. Goswami, and E. Stefanakos, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 19, 136 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.059
59. Global Water Intelligence, Water Desalination Report 45(17), (2009)
60. Y. Zhou and R. S. Tol, Water Resour. Res. 41(3), (2005).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003749
61. Global Water Intelligence, Water Desalination Report 45(2), (2009).
62. B. Sauvet-Goichon, Desalination 203(1), 75 (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.03.525
63. M. Papapetrou, C. Biercamp, and M. Wieghaus, Roadmap for the Development of Desalination
Powered by Renewable Energy: Promotion for Renewable Energy for Water Production
through Desalination (Fraunhofer Verlag, 2010).
64. H. Shih, Desalination 182(1), 461 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.02.038

View publication stats