2012 Fertiliser Drawn Forward Osmosis Desalination - The Concept

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168
DOI 10.1007/s11157-011-9259-2
REVIEW PAPER
Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis desalination: the concept,

performance and limitations for fertigation
Sherub Phuntsho Ho Kyong Shon
Seungkwan Hong Sangyoup Lee
Saravanamuthu Vigneswaran Jaya Kandasamy
Published online: 11 December 2011

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract With the worlds population growing

rapidly, pressure is increasing on the limited fresh
water resources. Membrane technology could play a
vital role in solving the water scarcity issues through
alternative sources such as saline water sources and
wastewater reclamation. The current generation of
membrane technologies, particularly reverse osmosis
(RO), has significantly improved in performance.
However, RO desalination is still energy intensive and
any effort to improve energy efficiency increases total
cost of the product water. Since energy, environment
and climate change issues are all inter-related, desalination for large-scale irrigation requires new novel
technologies that address the energy issues. Forward
osmosis (FO) is an emerging membrane technology.
However, FO desalination for potable water is still a
challenge because, recovery and regeneration of draw
solutes require additional processes and energy. This
article focuses on the application of FO desalination
for non-potable irrigation where maximum water is
required. In this concept of fertiliser drawn FO

(FDFO) desalination, fertilisers are used as draw
solutions (DS). The diluted draw solution after desalination can be directly applied for fertigation without
the need for recovery and regeneration of DS. FDFO
desalination can make irrigation water available at
comparatively lower energy than the current desalination technologies. As a low energy technology,
FDFO can be easily powered by renewable energy
sources and therefore suitable for inland and remote
applications. This article outlines the concept of FDFO
desalination and critically evaluates the scope and
limitations of this technology for fertigation, including
suggestions on options to overcome some of these
limitations.
Keywords Forward osmosis (FO) Desalination
Fertiliser draw solution Fertigation Irrigation
1 Introduction
S. Phuntsho H. K. Shon (&) S. Vigneswaran
J. Kandasamy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Post Box 129,
Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
e-mail: Hokyong.Shon-1@uts.edu.au
S. Hong S. Lee
School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural
Engineering, Korea University, 1, 5-ka, Anam-Dong,
Sungbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-713, Republic of Korea
The world population, has crossed 7 billion in 2011

(UNFPA 2011) and is projected to reach 9 billion by
2050 (UN 2009). Therefore, one of the most crucial
challenges of the twenty-first century is to meet the
increasing demand for potable water and food supply
to meet this enormous population growth (Ward and
Pulido-Velazquez 2008). However, food availability
may soon be limited by water availability and
123
148
therefore, optimum management of global water

resources also presents a crucial challenge (Jury and
Vaux 2005; McDonald et al. 2011). Current estimate is
that, more than one-third of the worlds population
lives in water-stressed countries and it may possibly
rise to nearly two-third by 2025 (Service 2006).
Climate change due to anthropogenic activities has
further created uncertainty regarding water availability and food productivity by altering the global
hydrological cycle (McDonald et al. 2011).
It has also been estimated that about 60% of the
food needed to feed the increased population will
come from irrigated production (Plusquellec 2002).
Even as water scarcity becomes a significant issue,
water use for agricultural purposes is not sustainable in
many parts of the world (Jury and Vaux 2005). For
example in Australia, river water from the MurrayDarling Basin has been long over-allocated for
consumptive use seriously impacting on the fragile
river ecosystem (Goss 2003; MDBA 2010; Cosier
et al. 2010). The need to protect the environment while
managing the very limited resources is becoming
increasingly urgent in drought stricken countries such
as Australia. Fresh water resources are therefore
essential for both drinking water supplies and food
production in order to support life on earth.
Although measures such as water conservation,
infrastructure repair, improved catchment and distribution system could help alleviate water stress to a
certain degree nevertheless, these measures only help
improve the existing water sources, not create new
water resource (Elimelech and Phillip 2011). In the
face of climate change and the increasing global water
crisis, the prospects of scientific solutions playing a
crucial role are demanding (Jury and Vaux 2005)
including making water available from nonconventional sources such as saline water. One such area is
through the application of membrane technologies for
water purification (Shannon et al. 2008). The current
generation of membrane technologies, particularly
reverse osmosis (RO), have significantly improved the
scope for the use of saline water and impaired
wastewater effluent as an alternate source of water to
augment fresh water or to reduce pressure on freshwater resources. Desalination technologies are therefore seen as a promising alternative in alleviating
water scarcity in arid and densely populated regions of
the world (Service 2006; McGinnis and Elimelech
2007).
123
While the performance of membrane technology in

terms of energy need has significantly improved in the
last decade or so, it still remains energy intensive in
nature, particularly for desalination with the RO
process (McGinnis and Elimelech 2007; Greenlee
et al. 2009). Fouling still proves to be a major
challenge for membrane application (Greenlee et al.
2009; Phuntsho et al. 2011a) and, any attempt to
further reduce energy for desalination also proportionately increases the capital and operational costs of
the plant (Semiat 2008). Moreover, the law of
thermodynamics sets a minimum limit on work energy
required to desalinate water which is equal to
0.75 kWh/m3 of desalted water at zero recovery and
about 1.06 kWh/m3 at 50% recovery for sea water
(Semiat 2008). However, practically, the most efficient RO desalination plant with energy recovery
system has been reported to consume about
2.13.2 kWh/m3. The unit energy consumption for
RO desalination increases with recovery rates (Elimelech and Phillip 2011; Subramani et al. 2011). The
total energy would of course increase if the energy for
pre-treatment and post-treatment systems are
accounted. Since energy and climate change issues
are inter-related (Semiat 2008), addressing global
water scarcity problems requires an extensive investment in research to identify robust and innovative
methods of purifying water at lower energy consumption and cost (Shannon et al. 2008). Any low energy
desalination technologies could have a significant
impact for drought stricken countries such as Australia, where saline water is abundant in the form of
seawater along the coastal areas and brackish groundwater in the inland areas.
Forward osmosis (FO), based on the principles of a
natural osmosis, is now an emerging technology for
desalination. The FO process works on the principle of
the natural osmotic process, driven by the osmotic
gradient between two solutions of different osmotic
concentrations when they are separated by a semipermeable membrane. Figure 1 shows the basic principles of various osmotic processes. When saline feed
water and the highly concentrated solution (referred to
as draw solution or DS) are separated by a semipermeable membrane, water moves from the saline
water (lower solute concentration) to the concentrated
DS (higher solute concentration), while retaining the
solutes on both sides of the membrane. The main
feature of this process is that the water transport across
149
Fig. 1 The principles of

osmotic processes: forward
osmosis (FO), pressure
retarded osmosis (PRO) and
reverse osmosis (RO).
Source (Cath et al. 2006)
a semi-permeable membrane in the FO process does

not require hydraulic pressure, therefore, the energy
consumption is significantly less (unlike the RO
process) (Moody 1977; McCutcheon et al. 2005;
McGinnis and Elimelech 2007; Elimelech and Phillip
2011). Moreover, due to the absence of hydraulic
pressure, the severity of the fouling problem in the FO
process is also less likely to be a major issue. Fouling
in the FO process is observed to be physically
reversible; hence, chemical cleaning may be only
seldom required in the FO process (Lee et al. 2010; Mi
and Elimelech 2010).
Unfortunately, FO technology still suffers from
some major technological barriers, because of which
its commercial application has been limited. The first
such barrier is the lack of membrane suitable for the
FO process, and the second is the lack of suitable DS.
However, significant progress has been made in FO
membrane fabrication recently, with thin film composites having comparatively higher water flux than
the existing commercial FO membranes. The separation and recovery of the DS require an additional
processing unit, which consumes energy and therefore
still remains a significant challenge for drinking water
applications. The success of FO desalination for
potable purpose will entirely depend on how easily
and efficiently the draw solute can be separated from
the water (Phuntsho et al. 2011b). The limitations of
this technology are discussed later in more detail.
The FO process is more suitable if the diluted draw
solution after desalination by FO process, can be
directly used without further processing. This includes
fertiliser drawn forward osmosis (FDFO) desalination,
where the diluted fertiliser draw solution after desalination can be directly used for beneficial purpose
such as for fertilised irrigation or fertigation. Such
applications offer the advantage of not having to
separate and recover draw solutes; therefore, energy
consumption will be significantly lower than desalination for potable water by the RO process. This
article explains the concept of FDFO desalination and
evaluates the scope and limitations of this technology
for fertigation. The article begins with a brief explanation of the concept of FDFO desalination, followed
by a discussion on the opportunities for applications,
and a brief review on the performance of the fertiliser
draw solutions. The article also critically assesses
some of the limitations of this particular FO desalination technology, and suggests alternatives in overcoming these specific limitations.
2 The concept of the FDFO process for direct

fertigation
Although desalination using the natural osmotic
process is a novel concept, its application for potable
water using seawater or brackish water still remains a
significant challenge. Separation of diluted draw
solutes from desalted water for recovery and regeneration is not an easy task, requiring an additional
processing unit and therefore consuming extra energy.
So far, only few draw solutes have been found to be
promising candidates for use as DS for potable water
desalination, such as NH3-CO2 solution and magnetic
nanoparticles. NH3-CO2 can be separated by heating
at approximately 60C, using low grade heat
(McCutcheon et al. 2005, 2006; McGinnis and
Elimelech 2007). Such processes could be economical
only when low grade heat is available from sources
such as waste heat from thermal power plants.
Magnetic nanoparticles have been reported to generate
high osmotic pressure and the particles could be
separated by a magnetic separation process (Ge et al.
2011). However, none of these processes are yet to be
tested on a large-scale level. For FO desalination to
123
150
prove more competitive over conventional RO desalination processes for potable water production, it is
essential that the separation process have low capital
cost, low energy consumption, and very low operating
cost. However, finding an ideal DS meeting these
requirements is still a big challenge; therefore, the
commercial application of FO desalination for potable
water still requires more research work.
The FO process is certainly more suitable if the
draw solution after dilution can be used directly as it is,
and does not require separation and recovery of draw
solutes. One such case is for desalination or purifying
water for emergency relief supplies during disasters,
using nutrients such as concentrated sucrose (Kravath
and Davis 1975; Cath et al. 2006). It has also been used
for emergency potable water supplies in situations
where there is little storage capacity available, such as
in life boats or small crafts. FO also has been
investigated for application in the concentration of
industrial wastewater using seawater as DS (Anderson
1977), concentration of anaerobic digester concentrate
using RO concentrate as DS (Holloway et al. 2007),
sucrose concentration using NaCl as DS (GarciaCastello et al. 2009), dewatering of pres liquor derived
from orange production using NaCl as DS (GarciaCastello and McCutcheon 2011) and, drinking water
augmentation with a hybrid FO system using seawater
as DS and impaired water as feed water (Cath et al.
2010).
Another promising area of application is desalination for irrigation using fertilisers as DS (Moody
1977). When fertilisers are used as DS, the diluted DS
after desalination can be directly used for fertigation;
therefore, there is no need to worry about its separation
and recovery (Phuntsho et al. 2011b). Fertigation is the
application of fertiliser nutrients (dissolved form or
suspended form) to the crops with irrigation water
instead of broadcast application separately. Since
fertilisers are extensively used in agricultural production, such a process would provide nutrient-rich water
for direct fertigation from any saline water source.
The concept of using fertiliser as an osmotic
extractor for agricultural water reclamation was first
reported by Moody and Kessler (1976). Although the
potential for such application is immense, works on
this particular concept did not receive attention until
recently, mainly due to the lack of suitable membrane
for the FO process. Figure 2 provides the general
process layout of the FDFO desalination for
123
fertigation. In the FO process, two different solutions

are used: saline water as the feed water on one side of
the membrane, and highly concentrated fertiliser
solution as the DS on the other side of the membrane.
The two solutions are continuously kept in contact
with the membrane through a crossflow system in
order to minimise the influence of concentration
polarisation (CP) effects. Due to the osmotic gradient
across the semi-permeable membrane, water flows
from the feed solution with lower concentration
towards the highly concentrated fertiliser draw solution, in the process desalting the saline feed water.
Depending on the osmotic pressure of the concentrated DS, it is possible to achieve high recovery rates
of the feed water (McCutcheon et al. 2005; Martinetti
et al. 2009). After extracting the water by the FO
process, the fertiliser DS becomes diluted, with the
extent of dilution depending on the feed water salinity.
The final fertiliser solution can be used directly for
fertigation if it meets the water quality standards for
irrigation in terms of salinity and fertiliser/nutrient
concentration. If the final fertiliser concentration
exceeds the nutrient limit, then further dilution may
be necessary before applying it for fertigation.
3 Advantages of FDFO and opportunities

for specific applications
3.1 Low energy desalination process
The FO process is solely based on the difference in
concentration gradient between the two solutions, with
no hydraulic pressure necessary for driving the water
through the membrane. The only energy required in
the FO process is for maintaining the crossflow of the
feed and draw solutions in contact with the membrane
surfaces and providing adequate shear force to minimise the CP effects that are intrinsic to any membrane
filtration process.
Table 1 shows the comparative energy requirement
for different desalination technologies (as available in
the literature). Different figures have been reported on
the total energy requirement for each desalination
technology and some of the selected figures are shown
in Table 1. It is clear from this table that the FO
desalination process using NH3-CO2 as DS requires
comparatively lower energy than any other existing
151
Fig. 2 The conceptual

process layout diagram of
the fertiliser drawn forward
osmosis desalination for
direct fertigation. Modified
from Phuntsho et al. (2011b)
desalination technologies even after considering the

recovery process for the draw solutes from the diluted
DS. The total energy required has been estimated at
0.84 kWh/m3 which includes 0.5 kWh/m3 of energy
for NH3-CO2 recovery and 0.24 kWh/m3 electrical
energy for running the pumps (including the pumps for
the distillation process). This total energy when
compared to other current desalination technologies
on an equivalent work basis, can be saved between 72
and 85% of energy (McGinnis and Elimelech 2007).
Although, the performance of NH3-CO2 as DS could
vary from the fertiliser draw solutions, nevertheless
the figures in Table 1 provide a fair indication that, the
energy required for FDFO will also be substantially
lower given the fact that the recovery of draw solutes
from the diluted draw solution is not necessary. The
only energy required will be to keep the fluid in
contact with the membrane, using pumps and the
crossflow system. The energy for FDFO desalination
for irrigation is also lower than the theoretical energy
required based on limiting energy in thermodynamics
for separating salt and water from seawater. Energy
consumption by the RO process increases with an
increase in recovery rates, whereas in the FO process,

recovery rates depend on the highest osmotic pressure
a draw solute can generate in solution, and therefore
has no significant relation to external energy input.
The existing desalination technologies are no doubt
energy intensive in nature. This is the main reason why
desalination is still limited to drinking water supplies
and other commercial/industrial uses, rather than for
irrigation purposes where the water requirement is
comparatively large. However, if low energy desalination technologies are made available, it would have
a significant impact on the agriculture sector especially for those countries where drought is frequent but
have abundant saline water in the form of seawater in
the coastal areas and brackish groundwater in the
inland areas (Phuntsho et al. 2011b). Since FO
desalination requires low energy, this technology
could be easily powered by renewable energy, such
as wind and solar energy, making FO technology with
no carbon foot print. Renewable energy, especially
solar energy, is abundant in most remote communities
in Australia, therefore can be easily tapped for such
uses.
123
152
Table 1 Comparison of energy requirements for seawater

desalination with the existing desalination technologies
Desalination technology
Total equivalent work

energy (kWh/m3)
Multi stage flash (MSF) distillation
1058a, 5.66b
Multi effect distillation (MED)
658a, 40.05b
MED-low temp/electrical
56.5a, 3.21b
Reverse osmosis (RO)
46b
RO with energy recovery
34a, 3.02b, 2.13.2c
Ammonia-carbon dioxide forward

osmosis desalination (low temp,
1.5 M feed) with draw solute
recovery process. It includes
energy for pumping of feed and
draw solutions and pumping
required during the distillation
process
0.84b
Adapted from a (Semiat 2008), b (McGinnis and Elimelech

2007) and c (Elimelech and Phillip 2011; Subramani et al.
2011). The data for FO for direct fertigation has been adopted
from McGinnis and Elimelech (2007) by removing the energy
required for draw solution separation by distillation process
3.2 Fertigation or fertilised irrigation

Fertilisers and water for irrigation are essential
components for improving agricultural productivity.
Agriculture is by far the largest consumer of potable
water, accounting for about 80% of water consumption worldwide, and substantially more in the USA
(Jury and Vaux 2005). In Australia, irrigation usage is
72% of the total water consumption (Khan 2008).
Therefore, even small savings from agricultural water
use through improved efficiency might make substantial quantities of water available for the community and the environment (Ward and PulidoVelazquez 2008; McDonald et al. 2011). Since,
freshwater sources are becoming scarcer every year,
low energy desalination processes (such as FO) could
be an effective method for augmenting water for
irrigation. Besides making irrigation water available at
lower energy from saline water sources, FDFO
desalination provides nutrient-rich water for fertigation. Fertigation is the application of irrigation water
with fertilisers, either in dissolved solution or in
suspended form. Fertigation has several advantages in
comparison to the application of water and fertilisers
separately, such as minimum loss due to leaching,
optimising the nutrient balance by supplying the
123
nutrients directly to the root zone, control of nutrient

concentration in the soil solution, savings in labour
and energy, and flexibility in timing fertiliser application in relation to crop demand (Papadopoulos and
Eliades 1987). Such technology is also handy for those
farms already adopting fertigation, as it can be easily
integrated within their existing fertigation system.
Fertigation is more efficient and cost-effective for
supplying water and nutrients to the crops simultaneously, instead of conventional broadcast application
(Hanson et al. 2006). Fertigation can also be advantageous for application in mixtures with other micronutrients, chemical pesticides (as in chemigation),
and/or fungicides (by fungigation), all in the correct or
necessary proportions, thereby eliminating separate
application modes for those chemicals (McBeath et al.
2007).
3.3 Potential application in the context
of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB)
in Australia
Australia is considered as the driest continent on Earth
in terms of overall runoff per unit area and rainfallrunoff ratio, with one of the highest river flow
variability in the world (Khan 2008). However,
Australia is surrounded by three oceans and four seas
and has one of the longest marine boundaries in the
world; therefore, the sources of saline water are
abundant. Australia also has 25,780 GL of groundwater, with about 28% having a salinity higher than
1,200 mg/L of TDS (total dissolved solids), and as
such, saline groundwater is abundant within the MDB
(ANRA 2009).
The MDB, consisting of 23 river valleys and an area
of more than one million km2, covers about 14% of the
Australian land mass (MDBA 2010). The basin is a
highly significant factor in Australias ecological
health, as it is home to the countrys most diverse
and rich natural environments. The basin is also
critical to the Australian economy and food security,
as it supports 39% of the national agricultural
production and supplies water to three million residents (MDBA 2010). Although MDB receives 6% of
Australias annual rainfall, about 75% of Australias
total irrigated land is concentrated here (MDBA
2010). However, the basin suffers from major environmental issues considered to be of national significance (Goss 2003; MDBA 2010; Cosier et al. 2010).
One of the major issues is the reduced volume of

water that flows in the river system due to overallocation of water for consumptive use (such as
agricultural and other economic uses) significantly
affecting the fragile river ecosystem within the basin
(Goss 2003). Over-allocation of river water within the
basin for consumptive use has been widely documented and agreed not only within the scientific
communities but also across the wider community
(Goss 2003; MDBA 2010; Cosier et al. 2010). It is
genuinely believed that there is an urgent need to
lower the water allocation in order to maintain
adequate environmental flows for the sustainable river
ecosystem (MDBA 2010; Cosier et al. 2010). With
further water use restriction in the future becoming
imminent with the Basin Action Plan being proposed
(MDBA 2010), alternative sources of water must be
explored if the agricultural production within the
region is to survive, which Australia significantly
depends upon. The groundwater source within the
basin is plenty; however, this groundwater cannot be
used directly for irrigation because of high salinity.
The other major environmental issue facing the
MDB is the increased river water salinity caused
primarily by the intrusion of saline groundwater from
153
the basin (Ife and Skelt 2004). The basin is also a

naturally saline environment, a result of the weathering of rocks and cyclic salts deposited over many
years. Salinity in Australia has damaged natural
resources and infrastructure, and is also impacting
terrestrial biodiversity (Goss 2003). The allocation of
river water for extensive consumptive use has significantly reduced the river flow volume and further
exacerbated the river salinity problem.
Since 1988, the Australian Federal Government has
funded and installed a number of salt interception
schemes (SIS) for controlling river water salinity. The
SIS consists of large-scale groundwater pumping
stations and drainage projects that intercept brackish
groundwater flows and dispose them generally
through open pond evaporation (Fig. 3a). This has
significantly reduced the salinity downstream of the
MDB (Goss 2003); however, groundwater is simply
lost through evaporation and therefore does not enable
the sustainable use of groundwater.
As such, a sustainable SIS in the MDB is required,
which not only serves for salt interception but also
allows sustainable use of saline groundwater. One way
of doing this is by making full use of the brackish
groundwater for irrigation as an alternative source to
Fig. 3 Cross sectional view

of the a existing salt
interception scheme (SIS)
installed (18 in total) along
the Murray and Darling
Rivers and b the alternate
SIS scheme which integrates
FDFO desalination for the
sustainable use of brackish
groundwater for irrigation
123
154
river water. The use of groundwater will also reduce

the pressure on the river water and make more water
available for environmental flows in the river system.
However, direct irrigation of groundwater is impractical due to the high salinity content, with the salinity
in some places as high as seawater. The high salinity
content in the water can have a deleterious effect on
the productivity of agricultural crops (Cheeseman
1988). Therefore, the brackish groundwater has to be
desalted first in order to make the brackish water fit for
irrigation purpose.
Since current desalination technologies are energy
intensive, technology such as low energy FDFO
desalination could play a significant role in providing
a sustainable SIS in the MDB (Phuntsho et al. 2011b).
FDFO desalination can be integrated to the current SIS
to make sustainable use of the brackish groundwater
for irrigation as shown in Fig. 3b. Although, FDFO
desalination can be applied to any other areas, there
are few specific reasons that have merit for this
particular case. The agricultural farms in the MDB
have already access to water from the rivers but the
amount of water they can withdraw for irrigation will
be significantly reduced (up to 40%) in the future in
order to make more water available for environmental
flows. Therefore, FDFO can be used to augment the
additional water required for irrigation once the water
restriction is imposed. The existing water can be
combined together with the FDFO product water for
fertigation especially if FDFO product water requires
further dilution to make fertiliser concentration
acceptable for irrigation. Such approaches offer
multiple advantages, including: making water available for irrigation; sustainable use of groundwater; and
reducing dependence on river water for irrigation,
thereby making adequate water available in the river
for environmental flows while still serving the original
purpose of salt interception.
The above application was specific to MDB in
Australia however; FDFO desalination technology has
potential application in any parts of the world
particularly in the arid and semi-arid countries where
water scarcity is frequent and where saline water exists
in abundance. This technology could be useful as a
means to augment additional irrigation water required
during the drought season or scanty rainfall season.
The limited existing water resources can be used for
providing additional dilution water for FDFO product
water.
123
4 Choice of fertiliser and the performance

of fertilisers draw solutions
Different draw solutions have been used in the FO
process, including compounds such as ammonium
chloride (Achilli et al. 2010), potassium chloride,
ammonium sulphate and calcium nitrate (Achilli et al.
2010), potassium sulphate (Hancock and Cath 2009),
ammonium bicarbonate (McCutcheon et al. 2006;
Hancock and Cath 2009; Achilli et al. 2010; Yip et al.
2010) etc. Although such chemicals were used for
different reasons, some of these compounds are in fact
used as fertilisers as well. While most literatures have
reported using only one or two draw solutions in their
studies (the most popular being sodium chloride
solution), only the articles by Achilli et al. (2010)
and Phuntsho et al. (2011b) contain a comprehensive
list of different inorganic draw solutions.
The choice of fertiliser DS will be guided by many
factors. The main factors include fertiliser economics
and its performance as draw solute for FDFO process.
Fertiliser economics relates to the availability and the
cost of the fertilisers. The fertiliser must also have its
physicochemical properties suitable for use as draw
solute in FO process such as solubility, pH compatible
to FO membrane used, types of species formed in the
solution, amount of water a unit mass of fertiliser can
extract which depends on the molecular weight and the
osmotic pressure of the fertiliser DS, etc. Finally, the
choice also would be guided by the nutrient requirements for the particular target crop. Moody and Kessler
(1976) showed that FDFO can extract up to 80 kg of
water with a kilogram of fertiliser from brackish water
(salinity 3,200 mg/L), and 14 kg of water per kilogram
of fertiliser from seawater. Phuntsho et al. (2011b)
observed that most soluble fertilisers can be used as DS
for FO desalination but the fertiliser solution should
have pH compatible to the FO membrane used. The
existing commercial CTA FO membrane has a limited
pH range between 4.0 and 8 while the recently reported
thin film composite membrane have been reported to
have significantly higher pH range (Wang et al. 2010b;
Yip et al. 2010). Phuntsho et al. (2011b) estimated that
each kilogram of fertiliser can extract between 11 and
29 litres of water from seawater (salinity of 35,000 mg/
L), and 90215 L of water from brackish water
(salinity of 5,000 mg/L). At lower feed salinity,
fertilisers can extract even more water. The water
extraction capacity also depends on the molecular
300
Ca(NO3)2
(NH4)2SO4
NH4Cl
250
Osmoc pressure (atm)
Fig. 4 Osmotic pressure of

some of the selected
fertilisers commonly used
around the world for
agriculture. Osmotic
pressure was predicted using
OLI Stream Analyser 3.2
(OLI Inc. US)
155
KCl
(NH4)2HPO4
200
NH4H2PO4
NaNO3
150
NH4NO3
KNO3
CO(NH2)2
100
KH2PO4
50
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Ferlizer concentraon (M)
weight of the fertiliser compound and the osmotic

pressure of the fertiliser. The fertiliser compound with
lower molecular weight and higher osmotic pressure
can extract significantly more water than high molecular weight fertilisers. The osmotic pressures of some
of the commonly used fertilisers in the world for crop
production are shown in Fig. 4.
In many early studies with the FO process, the
actual flux observed was very low due to concentration
polarisation (CP) effects (described more in separate
section). The degree of CP effects varies depending on
the properties of DS used, membrane properties, and
the operational hydrodynamic conditions of the FO
process (Gray et al. 2006). In order to account for the
CP effects, the performance of DS is assessed in terms
of performance ratio, defined as the ratio of actual flux
to theoretical flux calculated as a percentage. This
ratio indicates the percentage of the effective bulk
osmotic pressure difference that is effectively generating water flux across the FO membrane (McCutcheon et al. 2006; Phuntsho et al. 2011b). The
performance of each fertiliser DS varies considerably.
Table 2 provides the data for a few selected fertiliser
DS. Amongst the nine listed fertilisers, potassium
chloride has been reported to have the highest pure
water flux, with more than 22 LMH (L/m2/h) at 2 M.
Potassium chloride also showed the highest
performance ratio. Higher water flux has been

observed at higher fertiliser concentrations. The
performance ratio of the selected fertiliser solutions
ranges from 9 to 16%. Diammonium phosphate (DAP)
and monoammonium phosphate (MAP) have comparatively much lower water flux amongst all the selected
fertiliser draw solutions.
The mixture of ammonium bicarbonate and ammonium hydroxide in specific proportions produces a
mixture of ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate and ammonium carbamate solution (McCutcheon et al. 2005; Cath et al. 2006). These DS have been
widely studied because it can be easily recovered and
regenerated after FO desalination by heating at low
temperature (McCutcheon et al. 2005; Cath et al. 2006).
The compounds formed in these mixtures are fertiliser
compounds and, therefore their performance as DS is
worth discussing here. Ammonium carbamate is highly
soluble and therefore has the ability to generate high
osmotic pressure. This particular DS has been found to
have performance ratio of up to 20% (McCutcheon et al.
2006) and the water flux was observed to be comparable
to some of the fertiliser draw solutions indicating that
this DS can also be suitably used for FDFO process.
The performance of fertiliser DS is also assessed in
terms of the maximum recovery rate at which it can be
operated in the FO desalination process, using both
123
156
Table 2 Performance of the selected fertilisers as FO draw solution

Name of
fertilisers
p at 2 M
(atm)
Jw
(LMH)
PR
(%)
SRSF
(m moles/L)
64.9
15.037
14.95
92.1
19.408
13.60
19.253
14.16
pH at
2 Ma
Max.
solubility
(M)
Ammonium nitrate
4.87
101.9
Ammonium sulphate
5.46
5.80
Ammonium chloride
4.76
7.35
87.7
With BW (0.086 M)
With SW
Vol.
(L)a
Max.
recovery
rate (%)a
Vol.
(L)
Max.
recovery
rate (%)a
189.34
129.87
100
15.236
100.0
1.03
103.95
98.1
12.659
86.9
62.27
215.34
98.5
29.069
89.3
Calcium nitrate
4.68
22.04
108.5
18.079
10.75
1.80
90.55
100
11.498
100.0
Sodium nitrate
5.98
10.95
81.1
20.54
16.34
48.63
134.62
100
17.691
100.0
Potassium chloride
MAP
6.80
3.93
4.82
4.56
89.3
86.3
22.812
15.66
16.48
11.71
35.03
15.95
154.89
100.39
97.8
97.4
21.011
13.672
84.8
81.8
DAP
8.12
7.13
95.0
14.01
9.52
2.50
115.78
98.2
14.392
87.6
Potassium nitrate
5.99
4.03
64.9
15.94
15.85
109.65
111.89
95.7
13.700
70.3
Osmotic potential assumed for seawater (SW) is 28 atm (0.6 M sodium chloride solution) and brackish water (BW) 3.93 atm
(0.086 M sodium chloride solution or 5,000 mg/L of sodium chloride solution). PR: performance ratio. p: osmotic pressure. SRSF
(Js/Jw): specific reverse solute flux
MAP mono-ammonium phosphate, DAP diammonium hydrogen phosphate
a
pH values as measured at 2.0 M. Solubility and speciation data were adapted from OLI Stream Analyzer speciation results. Data
adopted from (Phuntsho et al. 2011b) and rest calculated by the authors
brackish water (5,000 mg/L or 0.086 M sodium chloride solution) and seawater. The calculations were
made based on the maximum osmotic pressure that a
particular fertiliser can generate in solution, based on
its maximum solubility. The osmotic pressure was
predicted using OLI Stream Analyzer 3.1 software.
Table 2 also shows the theoretical maximum recovery
rate at which the FO can be operated for particular
types of feed water. The movement of water across the
membrane towards the DS will occur until the osmotic
equilibrium is reached between the DS and the feed
solution (FS) (Phuntsho et al. 2011b) irrespective of the
rate of water transport across the membrane. Theoretically, 100% recovery is possible if the fertiliser draw
solution can generate osmotic pressure higher than the
maximum solubility of the sodium chloride solution
(6.15 M) with an osmotic pressure of 404 atm. For
example, ammonium nitrate (being highly soluble in
water) can easily generate osmotic pressure in excess
of 404 atm. Similarly, calcium nitrate and sodium
nitrate can also generate osmotic pressure in excess of
404 atm; therefore, the use of these fertilisers as DS for
FO desalination can theoretically achieve a 100%
recovery rate. Other fertilisers, such as ammonium
123
sulphate, can achieve about 94 and 87% recovery rates

with brackish water and seawater, respectively. Most
fertiliser DS listed in Table 2 can in fact achieve more
than 90% recovery rate with brackish water except for
potassium nitrate, with only about 85% due to its low
solubility (4.03 M). The recovery rates with seawater
for all fertilisers are higher than 80%, except with
potassium nitrate.
However, it must be noted that 100% recovery is not
practical since at higher concentration, the feed solution
could start to precipitate and cause scaling on the feed
side, further impacting the water flux. Precipitation may
occur earlier because in practice, the saline water from
the natural sources can include many other dissolved
elements such as Ca, Mg, etc. which have different
solubility rates. The energy required to keep the fluid
flowing will also rise because of the increase in the
viscosity of the feed water at higher concentration.
Reverse movement of draw solutes (specific reverse
solute flux or SRSF) also occurs by natural diffusion
during the FO process, which is not actually desirable
(implications of reverse solute are described more in
the other section). The performance of fertiliser draw
solutions, in terms of SRSF, varied widely depending
on the type of fertilisers used (as shown in Table 2)

(Phuntsho et al. 2011b). Ammonium sulphate, calcium
nitrate and MAP were observed to show comparatively
much lower SRSF than any other fertilisers selected for
this study. However, ammonium nitrate and potassium
nitrate had the highest SRSF. In general, the ammonium compounds of sulphate and phosphate, and
calcium nitrate containing monovalent elements, performed well in terms of SRSF since lower RSF is
preferred for any FO process. NH4HCO3 certainly has
reported higher RSF (Achilli et al. 2010). The extent of
reverse solute diffusion could depend on many factors,
such as types of species formed in the solution and their
properties (e.g. charge, valency, hydrated size, etc.)
including other factors such as solution pH and
membrane properties (Phuntsho et al. 2011b). Therefore it is important to consider all these factors while
selecting a suitable fertiliser as DS for FDFO desalination process.
5 Limitations and options for fertiliser drawn

desalination
Ideally, the FO process offers several novelties for
desalination in comparison to conventional membrane
processes such as RO. However, FO still faces several
technological barriers because of which it has not been
able to compete on a commercial scale with other
desalination technologies. While some of the shortcomings elaborated below are applicable to the FO
process in general, some are specific to FDFO
desalination processes.
5.1 FO membranes
One of the major technical barriers to the commercial
application of the FO process has been the lack of
suitable FO membrane that could produce high water
flux comparable to the RO process based on the
theoretical bulk osmotic pressure gradient (Wang et al.
2010b; Yip et al. 2010; Tiraferri et al. 2011). The
existing membranes are dense semi-permeable membranes that were originally designed for pressuredriven membrane processes such as RO (Cath et al.
2006). These pressure-based membranes have an
asymmetric structure with a thin selective active layer
supported on thick layers of porous polymer and fabric
(Cath et al. 2006). Initially, the performance of the FO
157
process using these asymmetric membranes was

observed to be very low (Kravath and Davis 1975;
Lee et al. 1981). This lower than expected water flux
has been later explained to be due to the phenomenon
known as internal and external concentration polarisation (ICP and ECP) during the mass transport
process, which significantly reduces the effective
osmotic driving force between the two solutions
(Lee et al. 1981; Gray et al. 2006; McCutcheon and
Elimelech 2007). The asymmetric structure of the
membrane makes the CP effect even worse due to the
presence of ICP on the porous support layer side of the
membrane. Since the ICP phenomenon occurs inside
the membrane support layer, it cannot be easily
mitigated simply by providing hydrodynamic shear
forces like in pressure-driven membrane processes.
Until now, commercial FO membranes, made up of
cellulose triacetate supported on embedded polyester
screen mesh manufactured by Hydration Technologies
Inc. (HTI, USA) have been widely used in FO studies.
The FO membrane is also manufactured by Catalyx
Inc. (Anaheim, California), although no literature is
currently available about the performance of this
particular membrane (Wang et al. 2010b).
The ideal FO membrane should have high water
permeability and salt rejection, should be thin without
a porous support layer to remove the ICP effects, and
should also have good mechanical strength. However,
providing a thin membrane without support layers is a
big challenge since it does not provide adequate
mechanical strength to carry the water flow inside the
membrane module. However, several breakthroughs
have been reported on membrane synthesis recently.
The thin film composite (TFC) FO membranes are
reported to have much higher water flux and salt
rejection than the existing CTA FO membrane (Wang
et al. 2010b; Yip et al. 2010; Wei et al. 2011). TFC
membranes have been long used for RO desalination
because of its excellent properties such as high salt
rejection, high chemical resistance and high mechanical strength (Yip et al. 2010). However, the thick and
dense support layer used for TFC-RO is not suitable for
FO process as it causes severe ICP. The innovative
claim for this TFC has been the modification of the
support layer which is significantly thinner and also
highly porous making it more suitable for FO process.
In particular, the hollow fibre thin film composite FO
membrane (Wang et al. 2010b) is a significant
breakthrough since flat sheet membranes are more
123
158
complicated for the design of spiral-wound modules

accommodating two different and independent flows in
the module separately. Recently, two companies have
already announced the commercialisation of TFC FO
membranes and the membranes are expected to be
available in the market very soon (GWI 2011a, b). With
the commercialisation of TFC FO membranes eminent, the future prospects of FO process and its
applications are certainly high.
Other works on FO membranes include, the synthesis
of nanofiltration-like FO membranes using layer-bylayer (LbL) assembly (Saren et al. 2011), double
skinned FO membrane (Wang et al. 2010a), polyamide
hollow fibre FO membrane (Setiawan et al. 2011) etc.
most of which reported a substantially better performance than the existing commercial CTA FO membrane in terms of water flux and salt rejection. Carbon
nanotube is another promising candidate for FO membrane, which has been found to have a water flux higher
than the theoretical water flux (Jia et al. 2010).
Since the FO process has comparatively lower
water flux than the RO process using the current
commercially available FO membranes, it should be
acknowledged that the membrane surface area
required will be significantly higher than RO plants
depending on the capacity of the plant. Therefore, the
capital cost of the FO desalination plant is likely to be
comparatively higher than the RO plant, on the basis
of current membrane performance and modular
design. However, with further research, the performances of FO membranes and their modular designs
are expected to be improved in the future.
5.2 Low water flux due to concentration
polarisation and dilutive effects
External concentration polarisation (ECP) in a pressurebased membrane process is a phenomenon where the
concentration of the solution at the membrane surface
increases from that of the bulk solution. This phenomenon reduces the water flux and is well-understood and
modelled (Elimelech and Bhattacharjee 1998). The CP
effect particularly ECP is largely mitigated by providing
horizontal crossflow shear and turbulence on the membrane surface instead of the dead end filtration process.
However, the FO process is unique since two
independent solutions flow in contact with the membrane on each side of the membrane surface. The
existing membranes are asymmetric in structure, with a
123
thin active rejecting layer on top of a thick porous

support layer. Besides ECP, ICP, a closely-related
phenomenon to ECP, occurs within the porous support
layer of the membrane in the FO process. In ICP, the
solute concentrations at the transverse boundaries
within the porous support layer reduce the osmotic
pressure gradient across the active layer of the membrane, therefore resulting in a corresponding reduction
in water flux (Gray et al. 2006). ICP is intrinsic to the FO
process and is found to be critical because it occurs
within the membrane support layer; therefore, it cannot
be mitigated simply by altering hydrodynamic conditions (as in the case of ECP). In fact, it has been found
that ICP, particularly dilutive ICP, is the key factor
responsible for reducing the performance of water flux
in the FO process (Gray et al. 2006).
Another phenomenon that is also intrinsic to the FO
process is the dilutive CP (dilutive ECP or ICP,
depending on the orientation of asymmetric FO
membrane). The concentration of the draw solution
at the membrane surface is lower than the bulk
concentration because of the dilution of the DS when
the water diffuses across the membrane towards the
DS from the feed solution. This dilution phenomenon
reduces the osmotic pressure of the DS on the
membrane surface and therefore, reduces the net
driving force across the membrane, significantly
lowering the water flux. The models for concentrative
ECP or ICP and dilutive ECP or ICP in the FO process
have been comprehensively discussed elsewhere
(McCutcheon and Elimelech 2007; Tan and Ng
2008). However, with the improvement in the membrane design and by identifying more suitable draw
solutions through more research, it may be possible to
mitigate the CP effect to a certain extent. The ideal
membrane should have a symmetric structure or a very
thin support layer to minimise the ICP effects. Double
skinned FO membrane has also been investigated to
remove the ICP effects during the FO process,
although this has been found to slightly increase the
water resistance (Wang et al. 2010a).
Another aspect of the FO process is that the DS will
be diluted as it travels along the length of the
membrane module, which further reduces the net
osmotic pressure along the length of the membrane
module, and therefore decreases the water flux. With
low water flux, the osmotic equilibrium of DS and FS
may not be able to be reached in a single stage FO
process; therefore, they may have to process through
159
multiple FO stages. This indicates that the total

membrane area required may increase, which may
result in the initial capital cost remaining slightly
higher.
fertilisers containing monovalent ions. As such, the

selection of fertiliser as DS requires careful consideration of the reverse solute flux of the fertiliser in order
to minimise the adverse environmental impact.
5.3 Issues with salt rejection and reverse

movement of draw solutes
5.4 Challenges in meeting irrigation water quality

standards and their options
In the FO process, solutes are present on both sides of

the membrane surface. Therefore, movement of solutes occurs in both directions. Since none of the
synthetic membranes are ideal membranes, the solute
rejection is therefore not 100% (Phillip et al. 2010).
Solute rejection in fertiliser driven FO processes is
even more important because solute movement can
occur in both directions: forward movement of feed
salt measured in terms of salt rejection rate, and
reverse movement of draw solutes by diffusion.
Reverse solute movement is particularly important
because fertiliser DS contains nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) elements, which can be detrimental for
further management of concentrated brine. N and P
elements can cause eutrophication and algal blooms of
water bodies if they are released to the environment
indiscriminately (Hails 2002). The presence of NaCl
salt in the FDFO product water will also mean the
potential to cause sodium toxicity to the plants.
The extent of feed salt rejection and reverse
diffusion of draw solutes will depend on membrane
properties as well as the draw solute properties. The
existing CTA FO membrane has low working pH
range, low pure water permeability and low salt
rejection which are a cause of concern for FO process
(Yip et al. 2010). However, these issues are not going
to be significant once new generation of FO membranes is available in the market. Depending on the
solute properties (such as diffusivity, ionic charge,
hydrated diameter, etc.), the reverse solute flux varies
considerably for each fertiliser. However, DS with
divalent ions or ions with larger hydrated size, showed
much lower reverse solute flux than the DS containing
monovalent ions or ions with smaller hydrated size
(Hancock and Cath 2009; Achilli et al. 2010; Phuntsho
et al. 2011b). The DS containing larger hydrated ionic
sizes or divalent ions (such as SO42?, PO43?, Ca2?)
showed comparatively lower reverse solute flux
(Achilli et al. 2010; Phuntsho et al. 2011b). Therefore,
fertilisers such as MAP, DAP, and calcium nitrate,
showed much lower reverse solute flux than the other
As long as the fertiliser is soluble and generates

osmotic pressure higher than the saline feed water, any
draw solutions can extract water from saline water
(Phuntsho et al. 2011b). The recovery rate of such FO
desalination processes would vary depending on the
water salinity, fertiliser solubility and the osmotic
potential of the DS. Although water flux and recovery
rate can be increased by increasing the DS concentration in the FO process, there is an ultimate limit to
which the osmotic process can continue occurring. In
such a case, each DS can extract water only up to the
concentration where its osmotic potential equals that
of the feed water (i.e. osmotic equilibrium), irrespective of their performance in terms of water flux or
reverse solute flux. Beyond this point, the DS cannot
be further diluted since the osmotic pressure of the
diluted DS is equivalent to that of the saline water. At
this osmotic equilibrium, depending on the feed
salinity, the fertiliser concentration may be still too
high for direct fertigation. Fertilisers are also salts and
can increase the concentration of ionic species or
enhance the conductivity to the irrigation water.
Moreover, the fertiliser nutrient concentration may
also exceed the required limit and therefore could
prove to be a problem for some of the more sensitive
crops.
Table 3 shows the assessment of the final nutrient
concentrations of the nine selected standard fertilisers
when operated with feed water of different salinities.
The osmotic pressures were calculated using OLI
Stream Analyzer software (OLI Inc.) It is clear from
the table that there is a limit to which a particular type
of DS could achieve its final concentration and this
will depend on the TDS or the osmotic pressure of the
feed water. The lower the salinity or TDS of the feed
water, the lower will be the final DS concentration of
the fertiliser DS.
For example, when ammonium nitrate is used as the
DS with seawater as the feed solution, the final
ammonium nitrate concentration after FO desalination
would be 0.802 M, which contains an actual N
123
160
Table 3 Final concentration of fertiliser draw solution at osmotic equilibrium with feed water after desalination
Type of fertiliser DS
Type of feed solution

Seawater feed or 0.60 M sodium chloride solution
feed (p = 27.4 atm)
BW feed or 0.086 M sodium chloride solution feed

(p = 3.93 atm)
M at 27.4 atm
M at 6.8 atm
g/L of N
g/L of N
g/L of P
g/L of K
g/L of P
Ammonium nitrate
0.802
22.456
0.0962
2.69
Ammonium sulphate
0.585
16.380
0.0728
2.04
Ammonium chloride
0.629
8.806
0.0868
1.22
Calcium nitrate
0.539
15.092
0.0673
1.88
Sodium nitrate
0.651
9.114
0.0874
1.22
Potassium chloride
MAP
0.624
0.623
8.722
19.297
0.0866
0.0866
1.21
2.68
DAP
0.515
14.420
15.952
0.0654
1.83
2.03
Potassium nitrate
0.706
9.884
0.0884
1.24
24.397
27.603
g/L of K
3.39
3.46
The fertiliser concentration is also expressed in terms of the actual nutrient concentrations of NPK
MAP mono-ammonium phosphate, DAP diammonium hydrogen phosphate
concentration of 22.5 g/L. Likewise, ammonium sulphate, calcium nitrate and diammonium phosphate
(DAP) could contain 16.4, 15.1 and 14.5 g/L of N
nutrient, respectively. The lowest N concentration was
observed for monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and
ammonium chloride, with only little more than 8 g/L
with seawater feed. The P concentration also remained
high, with 19.3 and 16.0 g/L for MAP and DAP,
respectively. The potassium (K) nutrient was by far the
highest amongst the major nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium (NPK) nutrients, with 24.4 and 27.6 g/L
for potassium chloride and potassium nitrate, respectively. Although the required nutrient concentration
for fertigation would vary depending on many factors
such as types of crops to be irrigated, cropping
seasons, soil nutrient conditions, etc. (Oliver and
Barber 1966), this concentration is too high for direct
fertigation. For example, the required nutrient concentration varies from 50 to 200 mg/L for N,
1260 mg/L for P, and 15250 mg/L for K, depending
on the types of crops and growing seasons (Phocaides
2007). Therefore, the data in Table 3 with seawater as
feed, indicate that a significant amount of water is
required to further dilute the final fertiliser DS before
fertigation.
However, the assessment with brackish water
(5,000 mg/L sodium chloride solution) as the feed
solution could result in significantly lower nutrient
123
concentration in the final DS, as also shown in

Table 3. The nutrient concentration in the final
fertiliser DS also depends on the type of fertiliser
used as the DS and the salinity of the feed water. Based
on the results, FDFO desalination is more suitable for
brackish water.
If the nutrient concentration does not meet the
fertigation standard, the DS must be further diluted to
make the desalted water fit for fertigation. Dilution
could be easily done if the site has access to a limited
source of potable water for irrigation, such as in the
Murray-Darling Basin once the government applies
further caps on river water use. However, this is a
challenge for sites without access to any sources of
potable water for irrigation. Since maintaining the
required nutrient concentration is essential for fertigation, an additional process could be integrated with
the FO unit. Although such a unit requires energy, it is
nevertheless essential for maintaining a low final
nutrient concentration and acceptability for direct
fertigation. Therefore, such unit must have low energy
consumption so that the total energy cost of the
irrigation water remains comparatively lower than the
conventional desalination processes making the desalination feasible for irrigation purpose. There are
several possible options which can be used as additional process either as pre-treatment or post-treatment
system and they are all described below.
5.4.1 Pre-treatment of feed water to achieve lower

nutrient concentration in the final FDFO
product water
One of the options for additional process is the
integration of the nanofiltration (NF) process, as a pretreatment unit mainly for reducing the TDS of the feed
water. Besides other uses, NF has been used as pretreatment for seawater RO desalination since NF has
several advantages such as low operating pressure and
energy cost, high flux, high retention of multivalent
anion salts and relatively low investment and low
operation and maintenance costs (Lu et al. 2002;
Hassan et al. 1998). NF is operated at optimum
pressure of 810 bars (Van der Bruggen and Vandecasteele 2002) which is significantly lower than the RO
process. NF could reject more than 5080% of
monovalent ions and 6099% of divalent ions (Bartels
2007). Brackish groundwater could contain significant
concentrations of divalent ions such as Ca2?, Mg2?,
?
SO2?
4 , etc., in addition to monovalent ions such as Na
and Cl . Therefore, NF can considerably reduce the
161
TDS and the osmotic pressure of the feed water.

Moreover, the reduction in the multivalent ions would
also eliminate the scaling potential of the FO feed
water and therefore FDFO can operate at much higher
recovery rates. This in turn can achieve much lower
nutrient concentration that is acceptable for direct
fertigation in the FDFO desalination process. The
process layout for this option is presented Fig. 5.
5.4.2 Post-treatment options to achieve lower
nutrient concentrations in the final FDFO
product water
Alternatively, NF can also be used for post treatment
of the diluted DS instead of pre-treatment as shown in
Fig. 6. Recovery and recycling of draw solutes by NF
process have been evaluated by Tan and Ng (2010)
and more recently by Zhao et al. (2011). NF can
significantly remove multivalent ions from the final
diluted fertiliser DS and therefore it may be suitable
for fertilisers containing multivalent ions such as
calcium nitrate, MAP, DAP, ammonium bicarbonate,
Fig. 5 FDFO desalination

process integrated with
nanofiltration (NF) pretreatment process for
reducing the total dissolved
solids (TDS) of the feed
water
123
162

process integrated with
nanofiltration (NF) posttreatment process. The NF
permeate containing
reduced concentration of
fertiliser nutrient can be
used directly for irrigation
while the concentrate can be
recycled back as DS to
extract more water by FDFO
desalination process
sulfate of ammonia, etc. Tan and Ng (2010) observed

that, two stages NF post treatment can recover draw
solutes (MgSO4 and Na2SO4) that meet WHO drinking water quality standards and similar results were
reported by Zhao et al. (2011). Therefore, NF permeate will contain significantly reduced concentration of
fertiliser nutrient which can then be either used
directly for fertigation. Since, NF post treatment could
reject high percentage of multivalent ions, only a
certain percentage of FDFO product water has to be
post-treated with NF and the rest can be diluted using
the NF permeate to achieve the required nutrient
concentration. The NF concentrate can be recycled
back as DS for FDFO desalination process to extract
more water from the feed water. The other advantage
of the post-treatment is that, NF can operate more
efficiently since the final diluted DS contains only
dissolved fertiliser and any foulants present in the feed
water could have removed during FDFO process.
However, a detail comparative study of these two
options could provide a more useful insight on the
advantages of the options.
Another potential post treatment alternative is by
using fertilisers with thermolyte properties such as
ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate and
ammonium carbamate. In such case, certain amount of
thermolyte draw solutes from the final FDFO product
123
water can be recovered and recycled for reuse of the

DS. The DS can be prepared containing thermolyte
solutions such as mixture of ammonium bicarbonate
or ammonium carbonate or ammonium carbamate
(McGinnis 2002; McCutcheon et al. 2005, 2006;
McGinnis and Elimelech 2007) which can be further
mixed with other essential fertilisers in specific
proportions to meet specific crop requirements. These
ammonium compounds would provide N nutrient
while other macro nutrients such as P or K can be
provided by mixing together other fertilisers. The final
diluted DS containing a mixture of thermolyte solutions and other fertilisers after FDFO desalination can
then be heated up to 60C to recover certain percentage of ammonium compounds in the form of ammonia-carbon dioxide which can be regenerated and
recycled back as concentrated DS to further extract
water. This recovery concept was first developed by
McGinnis (2002) and later reported in many other
studies. Since the final product water still needs to
contain certain amount of ammonia N nutrients, only
certain fraction of the final diluted DS may be required
to undergo ammonia-carbon dioxide recovery and
regeneration process. The final product water after
recovering and recycling ammonia-carbon dioxide
will contain significantly lower nutrient concentration
which can be directly used for fertigation. Since only
163

process using DS containing
mixtures of ammonium
bicarbonate or ammonium
carbamate with other
essential fertilisers. Certain
percentage of ammonium
bicarbonate/ammonium
carbamate compound can be
recovered and recycled by
heating up 60C to extract
more water. The final FDFO
product water will contain
significantly lower fertiliser
nutrient concentration
acceptable for direct
fertigation
certain percentage of ammonium compound is

required to be removed from the diluted DS for
recovery and recycling, the diluted DS may not be
required for heating up to 60C since ammonium
bicarbonate decomposition starts at about 35C (Gokel 2004) and therefore the amount of energy required
is expected to be much lower than recovering 100% as
required for drinking water. Figure 7 shows the
concept of the FDFO desalination process with
ammonia-carbondioxide recovery and recycling
process.
increase the osmotic potential of the DS and hence

lower the concentration of essential nutrient elements
in the final DS. However, such mixtures should be
compatible with the membranes, as well as meet the
fertigation requirements. Agricultural chemicals are
often applied through an irrigation system, and as
such, terms such as chemigation, fungigation, etc. are
popular with the fertigation system.
5.4.3 Blending of fertilisers containing different

nutrients to provide improved nutrient
distribution
The other alternative is the use of impaired wastewater

effluent from the wastewater treatment plant (if the
farms have access to such a source). Wastewater
effluent can be used for dilution of fertiliser solution,
either directly if the effluent meets the irrigation water
quality standards, or after further treatment by the FO
process. Figure 8 shows the conceptual process diagram of FDFO desalination using impaired water as
the source of water for further dilution. The concept
here is to use a two-stage FO process as a multiple
barrier for simultaneous wastewater treatment and
desalination of seawater through osmotic dilution
(Cath et al. 2010). The first stage FO process is to
desalinate the brackish water using fertiliser as the DS
and the diluted fertiliser DS goes to the second stage
FO unit to extract water from the impaired water
source. The second stage FO unit could offer dual
advantages of treating wastewater effluent to the
One of the other ways of achieving lower final nutrient

concentration could be by using DS containing
multiple elements or ionic species. It is evident from
Table 3 that the presence of more numbers of different
elemental species in the DS can provide adequate
osmotic pressure at lower fertiliser concentration. At
lower fertiliser concentration, the actual nutrient
concentration will also be correspondingly lower.
Therefore, blending together two or more fertilisers in
solution to provide multiple nutrient elements, or
mixed with other soluble agricultural chemicals such
as pesticides/insecticides, fungicides, etc., could
reduce the final nutrient concentration in the DS.
The presence of other ionic or non-ionic species could
5.4.4 Hybrid FO system to achieve lower nutrient

concentrations in FDFO product water
123
164

process using 2 stage FO
process with additional
dilution water from a
secondary wastewater
effluent and limited river
water source
required irrigation standard, while at the same time,

providing further dilution to the fertiliser solution so
that it can be applied directly for fertigation. Alternatively, saline water can be used as the DS in the first
stage of the FO unit to extract water from the impaired
water. The diluted saline water can then be used as the
feed water in the second stage FO unit, with concentrated fertiliser as the DS. Either way, the recovery rate
could increase and achieve a low final fertiliser
concentration in the DS. In the second option, the
amount of fertiliser lost due to reverse solute flux
would be less than the first option since the fertiliser is
used as the DS only once, whereas in the first option,
the fertiliser is used as the DS twice.
Similarly, FDFO has the potential to be integrated
with the membrane bioreactor (MBR). The application
of osmotic MBR (OMBR) has been recently studied
(Achilli et al. 2009; Xiao et al. 2011). Other than the
salinity increase in the mix liquor due to salt rejection
and reverse draw solute diffusion, the performance of
OMBR was excellent with quite stable flux without
significant fouling and scaling issues (Xiao et al.
2011). Using CTA FO membrane, OMBR was found
to reject more than 99% of organic carbon and 98% of
ammonium-nitrogen, suggesting a better compatibility than conventional membrane bioreactors (Achilli
et al. 2009). Because the water quality for irrigation is
much lower than the drinking water, the potential
application for OMBR with FDFO is quite significant.
123
There are two possible combinations for the Osmotic

MBR or OMBR with FDFO as in the case above with
wastewater effluent. As a pre-treatment, the saline
water can be used as the DS to extract from the
wastewater by OMBR in the process diluting the
saline water. This diluted saline water can be further
used as feed water for FDFO process in the process
achieving much lower nutrient concentration in the
final diluted fertiliser DS. Alternatively, OMBR can
be used as post treatment in which case, OMBR
process can use the diluted fertiliser DS after FDFO
desalination as the DS to extract water from the
wastewater.
5.4.5 Other issues and challenges
Fouling is one of the significant issues in any
membrane process and therefore FO performance
can also be influenced by fouling problems. Most
available literature on FO fouling shows that, the rate
of water flux decline due to membrane fouling is
significant and quite similar to RO process. Moreover,
in FO process, the reverse diffusion of draw solutes is
most likely to enhance membrane fouling depending
on the types of draw solutes used and the complexity it
forms with the feed foulant (Lay et al. 2010; Lee et al.
2010). However, in the absence of high pressure
unlike RO process, membrane fouling in FO process
has been mostly characterised by reversible fouling
(Lee et al. 2010; Mi and Elimelech 2010). Fouling

studies suggest that, fouling in FO could be controlled
through careful design and optimisation of operating
parameters (Lee et al. 2010). However, there is still a
lack of long term data on FO fouling potential and
mechanism in FO process and therefore, quite a
significant research efforts are required in this area.
Biofouling could be another significant issue which
needs consideration in FO process and currently there
is no literature available on FO biofouling. Membrane
processes are constantly in contact with the water
medium and therefore micro-organisms growth and
biofilm formation could be inevitable as they are not
influenced by the hydrodynamic conditions or the
operating pressure. In FDFO desalination process in
particular, fertiliser DS contains nutrients containing
N and P which could likely enhance biofouling as
nutrients are considered precursors to biofouling
(Melo and Bott 1997). Unlike organic fouling which
is noticed within a short duration of membrane
operation, biofouling usually occurs after a long-term
membrane operation. Biofouling is caused by the
microbial action however, still very little is known
about the fundamental nature of the biofouling process
(Ivnitsky et al. 2010). Organic fouling in NF or RO
processes is usually prevented through pre-treatment
of feed water however, biofouling occurs even with
very low organic concentration (Flemming 2002). FO
process is expected to be operated at high recovery
rates and therefore scaling could also become an issue
to FO desalination process.
6 Concluding remarks
Membrane-based desalination technology can play a
vital role in solving the water scarcity issues. The
current generation of membrane technologies, particularly reverse osmosis (RO) desalination, have significantly improved however, RO desalination still
remains energy intensive in nature and any efforts
towards improving the energy efficiency further
increases the total cost of the water. Due to energy
issues, desalination for large-scale purposes (such as
irrigation) using the current technologies is still not
seen as a viable option. Therefore, new technologies
that address energy issue could extend the scope of
desalination and to large-scale water use applications
such as irrigation, where water consumption accounts
165
up to 80% of the total fresh water consumption in the

world.
Forward osmosis (FO) process is a promising and
an emerging low energy desalination technology. FO
desalination for potable water however still suffers
from lack of an ideal draw solutes that can be easily
recovered and regenerated without significant energy
consumption. Although, few promising draw solutes
such as thermolyte solutions of ammonia-carbondioxide and magnetic nanoparticles have been investigated recently, their performances are yet to be proven
on commercial scale and more research works are
needed. However, the novelty offered by FO process
can be advantageously used in desalination for nonpotable purpose such as irrigation. In such case, the
diluted draw solution (DS) can be used directly
without the need for the recovery and regeneration
of draw solutes from the diluted DS if it meets the
irrigation water quality standards. When fertilisers are
used as the draw solutes in the fertiliser drawn FO
(FDFO) desalination, the diluted fertiliser solution
after desalination can be directly applied for fertigation, thereby avoiding the need for separation and
recovery of the draw solution. The energy required for
fertiliser driven FDFO desalination is expected to be
comparatively lower than the current state of the art
RO desalination technologies. Since FDFO is a low
energy process, this particular technology can also be
easily powered by the renewable energy, such as solar
and wind energy, which exits abundant in many arid
countries including Australia.
FDFO technology is suitable for locations in the
inland and remote areas where agricultural farms are
usually located such as in Australia where drought and
water scarcity are frequently experienced and where
the sources of saline water are abundant. Most soluble
fertilisers can be used as draw solutions, and therefore
extract water from saline water with very high
recoveries. Since fertilisers are extensively used for
agricultural production, FDFO desalination does not
create additional environmental issues related to
fertiliser usage. In fact, the FDFO desalination could
add more value to irrigation water; therefore, providing more opportunities for improving the efficiencies
of water and fertiliser uses. Such technology could
provide irrigation water through alternative sources
such as saline groundwater and wastewater
effluent. Significantly, it could potentially solve
the over-allocation issues of the Murray-Darling Basin
123
166
by providing nutrient-rich water from saline

groundwater.
However, FO technology still requires further
research and progress if it is to compete with existing
technologies such as RO desalination technology. But
significant progress has been already made in membrane synthesis recently, especially with thin film
composites and also the promising performances
offered by nanotechnology. These new generations
of FO membranes are expected to solve most of the
issues that have plagued the performance of the FO
process using the current commercial FO membranes,
and therefore the future prospects for FO desalination
are quite promising. Further research is also underway
to identify more suitable draw solutions that can be
applied efficiently for potable water desalination.
However, one of the contentious issues with the
FDFO is the challenge in meeting the irrigation water
quality standards in terms of nutrient concentrations
limiting the direct use of FDFO product water for
fertigation. Estimations indicate that, the final nutrient
concentration would exceed the required limit when
the feed water has high salinity content such as
seawater indicating that FDFO could be more suitable
for low salinity water such as brackish water. Fortunately, several options are available that could be
integrated with the FDFO desalination process in order
to keep the final nutrient concentration low. This
includes options such as integrating nanofiltration
process as a pre-treatment unit to reduce the feed water
salinity since NF can reject up to 50% of monovalent
ions and almost complete multivalent ions while
achieving high water flux at low hydraulic pressure.
NF can also be used as a post-treatment unit to
concentrate and recycle certain percentage of the
diluted draw solution while the permeate containing
significantly lower nutrient concentration used direct
for fertigation and the concentrate can be recycled as
DS to extract more water. Another potential option is
to use FDFO process with wastewater effluent treatment through multiple FO stages, while achieving
effluent treatment and nutrient dilution simultaneously. FDFO can also be similarly combined with
osmotic MBR to provide additional water for dilution.
Another promising option is to use a mixture of
thermolyte fertiliser solutions mixed with other fertilisers as DS in FDFO process. Certain percentage of the
final diluted DS can be heated to temperature not
higher than 60C to recover and recycle ammonia-
123
carbondioxide solutions ultimately reducing the final

N concentration in the product water. Lower nutrient
concentration in the final DS could also be achieved by
using a DS containing multiple elemental or ionic
species through methods such as blending of fertilisers
with two or more fertilisers, and mixing with other
agrochemicals such as pesticides, fungicides, etc. that
could enhance the osmotic pressure of the DS and keep
the final nutrient concentration low.
Although, FDFO offers a very promising concept of
making water available from saline sources, more
researches and long term performances data are
required to make this technology viable and attractive.
In the meantime, RO desalination technology will
continue to dominate the desalination process for
some time to some especially for potable water as this
technology is already well established in the market.
To make FO process competitive with RO technology,
more research needs to focus particularly on minimising concentration polarisation effects that are the main
limitations of FO process.
Acknowledgments This study was funded by the National
Centre for Excellence in Desalination Australia (NCEDA).
References
Achilli A, Cath TY, Marchand EA, Childress AE (2009) The
forward osmosis membrane bioreactor: a low fouling
alternative to MBR processes. Desalination 239(13):
1021
Achilli A, Cath TY, Childress AE (2010) Selection of inorganicbased draw solutions for forward osmosis applications.
J Memb Sci 364(12):233241
Anderson DK (1977) Concentration of dilute industrial wastes
by Direct osmosis. Dissertation. University of Rhode
Island
ANRA (2009) National water availability. Australiannatural
resources data website. http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/
water/availability/index.html#groundwater. Accessed 26
March 2011
Bartels C (2007) Nanofiltration technology and applications. In:
Wilf M (ed) The guide to membrane desalination technology. Balaban desalination Publications, Italy
Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M (2006) Forward osmosis:
principles, applications, and recent developments: review.
J Memb Sci 281(2006):7087
Cath TY, Hancock NT, Lundin CD, Hoppe-Jones C, Drewes JE
(2010) A multi-barrier osmotic dilution process for
simultaneous desalination and purification of impaired
water. J Memb Sci 362(12):417426
Cheeseman J (1988) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance in plants.
Plant Physiol 87:547550

Cosier P, Flannery T, Harding R, Karoly D, Possingham H,
Purves R, Saunders D, Thom B, Williams J, Young M,
Grafton Q, Kowalick I, Miller C, Stubbs T, Verity F,
Walker K (2010) Sustainable diversion in the MurrayDarling basin: an analysis of the options for achieving a
sustainable diversion limit in the Murray-Darling basin.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientist. http://
www.wentworthgroup.org. Accessed 12 July 2011
Elimelech M, Bhattacharjee S (1998) A novel approach for
modeling concentration polarization in crossflow membrane filtration based on the equivalence of osmotic pressure model and filtration theory. J Memb Sci 145(2):
223241
Elimelech M, Phillip WA (2011) The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology, and the environment. Science
333(6043):712717
Flemming HC (2002) Biofouling in water systemscases, causes
and countermeasures. Appl Microb Biotechnol 59(6):629640
Garcia-Castello EM, McCutcheon JR (2011) Dewatering press
liquor derived from orange production by forward osmosis.
J Membr Sci 372(12):97101
Garcia-Castello EM, McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2009)
Performance evaluation of sucrose concentration using
forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 338(12):6166
Ge Q, Su J, Chung T-S, Amy G (2011) Hydrophilic superparamagnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization,
and performance in forward osmosis processes. Ind Eng
Chem Res 50(1):382388
Gokel GW (2004) Deans handbook of organic chemistry, 2nd
edn. pp 2.42.5
Goss KF (2003) Environmental flows, river salinity and biodeversity conservation: managing trade-offs in the MurrayDarling basin. Aust J Bot 51:619625
Gray GT, McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation. Desalination 197(13):18
Greenlee LF, Lawler DF, Freeman BD, Marrot B, Moulin P
(2009) Reverse osmosis desalination: water sources, technology,
and
todays
challenges.
Water
Res
43(9):23172348
GWI (Global Water Intellegence) (2011a) FO takes a gaint step
forward. Water Desalination Report 46(45)
GWI (Global Water Intellegence) (2011b) Thin film membrane
in the work. Water Desalination Report 47(33)
Hails RS (2002) Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature 418(6898):685688
Hancock NT, Cath TY (2009) Solute coupled diffusion in
osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ Sci
Technol 43(17):67696775
Hanson BR, Simunek J, Hopmans JW (2006) Evaluation of
urea-ammonium-nitrate fertigation with drip irrigation
using numerical modeling. Agric Water Manag 86(12):
102113
Hassan AM, Al-Sofi MAK, Al-Amoudi AS, Jamaluddin ATM,
Farooque AM, Rowaili A, Dalvi AGI, Kither NM, Mustafa
GM, Al-Tisan IAR (1998) A new approach to membrane
and thermal seawater desalination processes using nanofiltration membranes (Part 1). Desalination 118(13):3551
Holloway RW, Childress AE, Dennett KE, Cath TY (2007)
Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester
centrate. Water Res 41(2007):40054014
167
Ife D, Skelt K (2004) Murray-darling basin groundwater statussummary report: 19902000. Murray Darling Basin
Commission, Canberra
Ivnitsky H, Minz D, Kautsky L, Preis A, Ostfeld A, Semiat R,
Dosoretz CG (2010) Biofouling formation and modeling in
nanofiltration membranes applied to wastewater treatment.
J Membr Sci 360(12):165173
Jia Y-x, Li H-l, Wang M, Wu L-y, Hu Y-d (2010) Carbon
nanotube: possible candidate for forward osmosis. Sep
Purif Technol 75(1):5560
Jury WA, Vaux H (2005) The role of science in solving the
worlds emerging water problems. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 102(44):1571515720
Khan S (2008) Managing climate risks in Australia: options for
water policy and irrigation management. Aust J Exp Agric
48:265273
Kravath RE, Davis JA (1975) Desalination of seawater by direct
osmosis. Desalination 16(1975):151155
Lay WC, Chong TH, Tang CY, Fane AG, Zhang J, Liu Y (2010)
Fouling propensity of forward osmosis: investigation of the
slower flux decline phenomenon. Water Sci Technol
61(4):927936
Lee KL, Baker RW, Lonsdale HK (1981) Membranes for power
generation by pressure-retarded osmosis. J Membr Sci
8(2):141171
Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S (2010) Comparison of
fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse
osmosis (RO). J Membr Sci 365(12):3439
Lu X, Bian X, Shi L (2002) Preparation and characterization of
NF composite membrane. J Membr Sci 210(1):311
Martinetti CR, Childress AE, Cath TY (2009) High recovery of
concentrated RO brines using forward osmosis and membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 331(12):3139
McBeath TM, McLaughlin MJ, Armstrong RD, Bell M, Bolland
MDA, Conyers MK, Holloway RE, Mason SD (2007)
Predicting the response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to
liquid and granular phosphorus fertilisers in Australian
soils. Aust J Soil Res 45(6):448458
McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2007) Modelling water flux in
forward osmosis: implications for improved membrane
design. AIChE 53(7):17361744
McCutcheon JR, McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2005) A novel
ammoniacarbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination 174(2005):111
McCutcheon JR, McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2006) Desalination by ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis:
influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on
process performance. J Membr Sci 278(2006):114123
McDonald RI, Green P, Balk D, Fekete BM, Revenga C, Todd
M, Montgomery M (2011) Urban growth, climate change,
and freshwater availability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
108(15):63126317
McGinnis RL (2002) Osmotic desalination process. U. P.
Pending. PCT/US02/02740 (2002)
McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2007) Energy requirements of
ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination.
Desalination 207(13):370382
MDBA (2010) Guide to the proposed Basin Plan: overview.
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), Canberra,
Australia. http://www.mdba.gov.au/bpkid/guide/. Accessed 21 May 2011
123
168
Melo LF, Bott TR (1997) Biofouling in water systems. Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci 14(4):375381
Mi B, Elimelech M (2010) Organic fouling of forward osmosis
membranes: fouling reversibility and cleaning without
chemical reagents. J Membr Sci 348(12):337345
Moody CD (1977) Forward osmosis extractors: theory, feasibility and design optimisation. Dissertation. School of
renewable natural resources. The University of Arizona,
Arizona
Moody CD, Kessler JO (1976) Forward osmosis extractors.
Desalination 18(1976):283295
Oliver S, Barber SA (1966) An evaluation of the mechanisms
governing the supply of Ca, Mg, K, and Na to soybean roots
(Glycine max)1. Soil Sci Soc Am J 30(1):8286
Papadopoulos I, Eliades G (1987) A fertigation system for
experimental purposes. Plant Soil 102:141143
Phillip WA, Yong JS, Elimelech M (2010) Reverse draw solute
permeation in forward osmosis: modeling and experiments. Environ Sci Technol 44(13):51705176
Phocaides A (2007) Handbook on pressurized irrigation techniques. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome
Phuntsho S, Listowski A, Shon HK, Le-Clech P, Vigneswaran S
(2011a) Membrane autopsy of a 10 year old hollow fibre
membrane from Sydney Olympic Park water reclamation
plant. Desalination 271(13):241247
Phuntsho S, Shon HK, Hong SK, Lee SY, Vigneswaran S
(2011b) A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward
osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: evaluating the
performance of fertilizer draw solutions. J Membr Sci
375(2011):172181
Plusquellec H (2002) Is the daunting challenge of irrigation
achievable?, vol 51. Wiley, Londan, pp 185198
Saren Q, Qiu CQ, Tang CY (2011) Synthesis and characterization of novel forward osmosis membranes based on
layer-by-layer assembly. Environ Sci Technol 45(12):
52015208
Semiat R (2008) Energy issues in desalination processes.
Environ Sci Technol 42(22):81938201
Service RF (2006) Desalination freshens up. Science 313(5790):
10881090
Setiawan L, Wang R, Li K, Fane AG (2011) Fabrication of novel
poly(amide-imide) forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with a positively charged nanofiltration-like selective layer. J Membr Sci 369(12):196205
Shannon MA, Bohn PW, Elimelech M, Georgiadis JG, Marinas
BJ, Mayes AM (2008) Science and technology for water
purification in the coming decades. Nature 452(7185):
301310
Subramani A, Badruzzaman M, Oppenheimer J, Jacangelo JG
(2011) Energy minimization strategies and renewable
energy utilization for desalination: a review. Water Res
45(5):19071920
123

Tan CH, Ng HY (2008) Modified models to predict flux
behavior in forward osmosis in consideration of external
and internal concentration polarizations. J Membr Sci
324(12):209219
Tan CH, Ng HY (2010) A novel hybrid forward osmosis
nanofiltration (FO-NF) process for seawater desalination:
draw solution selection and system configuration. Desalination Water Treat 13(2010):356361
Tiraferri A, Yip NY, Phillip WA, Schiffman JD, Elimelech M
(2011) Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes to support layer formation and
structure. J Membr Sci 367(12):340352
UN (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revision
Highlights. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.210. Population Division,
United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/esa/
population/publications/wpp2008/wpp2008_highlights.
pdf. Accessed 15 July 2011
UNFPA (2011) State of world population 2011. Information
and External Relations Division, United Nations Population Fund. http://foweb.unfpa.org/SWP2011/reports/ENSWOP2011-FINAL.pdf
Van der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C (2002) Modelling of the
retention of uncharged molecules with nanofiltration.
Water Res 36(5):13601368
Wang KY, Ong RC, Chung T-S (2010a) Double-skinned forward osmosis membranes for reducing internal concentration polarization within the porous sublayer. Ind Eng
Chem Res 49(10):48244831
Wang R, Shi L, Tang CY, Chou S, Qiu C, Fane AG (2010b)
Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber
membranes. J Membr Sci 355(12):158167
Ward FA, Pulido-Velazquez M (2008) Water conservation in
irrigation can increase water use. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
105(47):1821518220
Wei J, Qiu C, Tang CY, Wang R, Fane AG (2011) Synthesis and
characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite forward
osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 372(12):292302
Xiao D, Tang CY, Zhang J, Lay WCL, Wang R, Fane AG (2011)
Modeling salt accumulation in osmotic membrane bioreactors: implications for FO membrane selection and system
operation. J Membr Sci 366(12):314324
Yip NY, Tiraferri A, Phillip WA, Schiffman JD, Elimelech M
(2010) High performance thin-film composite forward
osmosis membrane. Environ Sci Technol 44(10):3812
3818
Zhao S, Zou L, Mulcahy D (2011). Brackish water desalination
by a hybrid forward osmosisnanofiltration system using
divalent draw solute. Desalination (in press)

2012 Fertiliser Drawn Forward Osmosis Desalination - The Concept

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012 Fertiliser Drawn Forward Osmosis Desalination - The Concept

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis desalination: the concept,

Published online: 11 December 2011

Abstract With the worlds population growing

required. In this concept of fertiliser drawn FO

The world population, has crossed 7 billion in 2011

therefore, optimum management of global water

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

While the performance of membrane technology in

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Fig. 1 The principles of

a semi-permeable membrane in the FO process does

2 The concept of the FDFO process for direct

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

fertigation. In the FO process, two different solutions

3 Advantages of FDFO and opportunities

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Fig. 2 The conceptual

desalination technologies even after considering the

increase in recovery rates, whereas in the FO process,

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Table 1 Comparison of energy requirements for seawater

Total equivalent work

Multi stage flash (MSF) distillation

Multi effect distillation (MED)

Reverse osmosis (RO)

RO with energy recovery

34a, 3.02b, 2.13.2c

Ammonia-carbon dioxide forward

Adapted from a (Semiat 2008), b (McGinnis and Elimelech

3.2 Fertigation or fertilised irrigation

nutrients directly to the root zone, control of nutrient

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

One of the major issues is the reduced volume of

the basin (Ife and Skelt 2004). The basin is also a

Fig. 3 Cross sectional view

river water. The use of groundwater will also reduce

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

4 Choice of fertiliser and the performance

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Osmoc pressure (atm)

Fig. 4 Osmotic pressure of

Ferlizer concentraon (M)

weight of the fertiliser compound and the osmotic

performance ratio. Higher water flux has been

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

Table 2 Performance of the selected fertilisers as FO draw solution

sulphate, can achieve about 94 and 87% recovery rates

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

on the type of fertilisers used (as shown in Table 2)

5 Limitations and options for fertiliser drawn

process using these asymmetric membranes was

complicated for the design of spiral-wound modules

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

thin active rejecting layer on top of a thick porous

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168

multiple FO stages. This indicates that the total

fertilisers containing monovalent ions. As such, the

5.3 Issues with salt rejection and reverse

5.4 Challenges in meeting irrigation water quality

In the FO process, solutes are present on both sides of

As long as the fertiliser is soluble and generates

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2012) 11:147168