DESALINATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153

www.elsevier.conglocate/desal

Fifteen years of R&D program in seawater desalination at KISR

Part I. Pretreatment technologies for RO systems

S. Ebrahim*, M. Abdel-Jawad, S. Bou-Hamad, M. Safar

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Water Desalination Department, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait
Tel. + 965 4878122/4; Fax + 965 4879238; e-mail: sebrahim@safat, kisr.edu, kw

Received 20 November 2000; accepted 29 November, 2000

Abstract

Reverse osmosis (RO) has been established as a reliable process for seawater desalination. The reliability of the
RO technique depends upon the extent of the pretreatment that must be designed to reduce the suspended and colloidal
materials in the feedwater. During the last 15 years of research and development work at the Doha Research Plant
(DRP), the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) has evaluated various types of pretw~atmenttechnologies
for RO systems. These included: conventional pretreatrnent (CP), microfiltmtion (MF) and the beachwell (BW) intake
systems. This paper gives brief description of these pretreatment technologies which were implemented at DRP and
discusses their performances

Keywords:Reverse osmosis; Seawater desalination; Prea'eatment technologies

1. Introduction performance of an RO system will only be as

Pretreatment o f the seawater feeding the
membrane in the desalination process is the most
critical step in designing the plant. Currently,
available RO membranes are generally not
robust enough to operate directly on surface feed
seawater. Feedwater usually contains particles
that can adversely affect the performance and
lifetime o f the RO membrane. Therefore, the
good as the feedwater is properly pretreated
before feeding it to the system. Most RO systems
include some level of feedwater pretreatment
designed to
• Prevent fouling of the membranes;
• Maintain performance (i.e., salt rejection and
recovery) of the system; and
• Extend the lifetime of the membranes.

Different pretreatment systems are used for

*Corresponding author.

Presented at the International Conference on Seawater Desalination Technologies on the Threshold of the New
Millennium, Kuwait, 4-7 November 2000.

0011-9164/01/$- See front matter © 2001 Elsevier ScienceB.V. All fights reserved
PII: S0011-9164(01)00146-1
142 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153
RO plants. Generally, they are divided into con-
ventional (i.e., disinfection, flocculation/coagu-
lation and filtration processes), and non-conven-
tional (i.e., microfiltration, ultrafiltration and
beachwell).
Conventional pretreatment is widely used for
seawater RO plants, but is costly and space-
consuming. Dual-media filtration is a complex
process and depends on the physico-chemical
characteristics of the particles to be removed, the
filter grains and the filtration system as a whole.
Most important, the quantity and quality of the
filtrate are not steady.
The beachwell intake system has been
identified as a reliable technique to replace the
conventional surface seawater pretreatment. This
system can deliver a continuous flow of naturally
filtered seawater and has almost steady physical
characteristics (i.e., temperature and water
quality). In addition, elimination of the coagu-
lation, filtration and backwash systems reduce
the amount of chemicals needed and power
consumed. Nevertheless, it has the drawback of
site dependency and limitation of water quantity.
Membrane separation (i.e., MF, UF) is also
used for pretreatment of feedwater. MF is a
successful filtration technique applied to surface
seawater, brackish water, and industrial and
urban seawater. It relies on the membrane
separation technique that requires low pressure
to force good quality filtered water through the
membrane, thus rejecting harmful contaminates,
including micro-organisms.
Since 1984, KISR has carried out an intensive
R&D program to assess the technical viability
and economic feasibility of desalting seawater
using RO technology. The program has included
evaluation of conventional and non-conventional
(MF and beachwell) pretreatment techniques.
2. Conventional pretreatment
The conventional pretreatment method is
widely applied for seawater reverse osmosis
(SWRO) desalination process to prevent memb-
rane fouling. Feed seawater is pretreated by the
conventional method to lower the silt density
index (SDI), remove excessive turbidity or
suspended solids, and adjust and control the pH.
Additional pretreatment is carried out to inhibit
or control the formation of scale and disinfect or
prevent biological and slime growth and
contamination of equipment. Type and size of
the conventional pretreatment system vary
depending on the nature of the feedwater to be
treated and type of membrane used in the RO
system. Cost of the conventional pretreatment
system also depends on the type and size of the
pretreatment system.
At DRP, a conventional pretreatment system
(common pretreatment) was used to treat surface
seawater needed to feed to three different RO
lines. The average values for the main con-
stituents of the surface seawater feed to the CP
are presented in Table 1.
Each of the three lines was divided into two
stages as follows:
RO Line 1
First stage Spiral wound, UOP-PA 1501
Second stage Spiral wound, UOP-PA 8600
RO Line 2
First stage Hollow fine fiber, DuPont B-10
Second stage Hollow fine fiber, DuPont B-9
RO Line 3
First stage Plate and frame, Enro +Schleicher
& Schuell + FilmTec
Second stage Spiral wound, Hydronautics 8040B
Each line had its own additional pretreatment
system, in addition to common pretreatment~ and
was designed to produce 1,000mVd of fresh
water. The common pretreatment and RO
Lines 1 and 2 were in operation from 1984 until
August 1990. Membranes of the first stage of
RO Line 1 were replaced in July 1989 by a new
 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153 143

Table 1
Average seawater quality at Doha

Parameter Concentration*,mg/1
TDS at 180°C 47,000 -~ 2,000
Total alkalinity, as CaCO3 175 ± 15
Carbonate 14 ± 8
Bicarbonate 185 ± 18
Carbon dioxide 14 ± 4
Sulfate 3,400 ± 300
Chloride 24,000 ± 700
Calcium 570 ± 45
Magnesium 1,700 ± 150
Sodium 12,300 ± 20
Potassium 470 ± 20
Total iron 0.08 ± 0.08
PH 8.2 ± 0.1
SDI value, % >6.5 ±

* Average concentration of 12 samples.

8" spiral wound configuration system from
FilmTec (FT-30). Modules of RO Line 2 were
also replaced in December 1988 by the new
version o f hollow fiber DuPont (B-10T). With
regard to RO Line 3, the plant was shut down in
March 1988 due to technical and economic
reasons related to the plate and frame configu-
ration system.
2.1. Description o f common pretreatment system
The chlorinated surface seawater is delivered
to the common pretreatment system at the Doha
East Power Station via a reinforced fiberglass
pipe at a pressure o f 2-3 bar (Fig. 1). If the
chlorine content is below the required level,
chlorine gas is added. The removal of suspended
and colloidal particles from the untreated water
is carded out by flocculation and filtration. The
process o f flocculation may be divided into two
separate stages that merge into one another:
destabilization (coagulation and flocculation)
and agglomeration.
Destabilization means charge compensation
of the usually negative colloidal particles, thus
leading to the formation of microflakes. This is
achieved by mixing the untreated water with the
flocculant using a substantial amount of energy.
The flocculant, in this case FeC1SO4 (ferric
chloride sulfate), is added to the untreated water
at the inlet to the destablization tank. The energy
required for mixing is applied by the agitator.
Dwell time for the water is approximately 15 s at
maximum flow. The ideal pH value for destabi-
lization and flocculation is set by adding H2SO4
(sulfuric acid), also at the inlet to the destabili-
zation tank.
In the agglomeration stage, energy is used to
combine the destabilized particles or micro-
flakes. At this stage, mieroflakes are formed by a
series of processes such as chemical trans-
formations, electrokinetic effects and adsorption
phenomena. Excess turbulence leads to a
144 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153

Polyelectrolyte
dosing
Ferric chloride
sulphate dosing

Acid dosing

the Destabilization FlocculaUon stage

tank
Filtration stage

J
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram for the common pretreatment system at DRP.

disintegration of flakes that have already formed.
These processes take place in the cascade
configuration of tanks. To assist with agglome-
ration, the discharge of tanks is provided with a
dose of polyelectrolytic solution that has an
interlacing effect on the flakes that have formed.
The energy necessary for coagulation is applied
by three agitators. To optimize the application of
energy, the speed of the agitators in the agglome-
ration basins is adjustable. Furthermore, the last
agitator, in the direction of flow, is fitted with a
torque-measuring instrument. The dwell time of
the water in the agglomeration tanks is approxi-
mately 10min at maximum flow. The pretreated
water leaves the last tank via a pipe and is taken
to the filter station.
The purpose of filtration is to remove the
flakes from the water. This is achieved by passing
the pretreated water through four parallel multi-
layer filters. The filters are of the open gravity
type. The mixture of water and flakes flows
downstream through the filter material, where
various types of filter materials are placed on top
of one another. The size of grains is finer in the
direction of flow so that the particles to be
filtered out will be deposited uniformly over the
entire height of the filter so it is possible to avoid
a large increase in pressure loss due to surface
filtration. The layer distribution in the filters is as
follows:
Grain size, m m Filter height, m
Supporting layer various 0.3
Silica sand 0.7-1.2 1
Hydroanthracite 1.4-2.5 0.7
The mixture of water and flakes is distributed
evenly over the filter layer and leaves the filters
via the pure-water discharge valves and the pure-
water pipe. Flow through the filters is maintained
 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153
constant by the two filter outlet controls. The
filtering velocity is 10 m/h at maximum flow.
The filters can be backwashed using the
filtered water and air supplied by a compressor.
The time and sequence of water and air can be
adjusted at will. The pretreated water emerging
from the multi-layer filters is collected in the
pure-water pipe and fed to the intermediate tank
before it is delivered to the storage tank. Before
entering the storage tank, chlorine gas can be
added, if chlorine content is less than the
minimum level. The volume of filtrate being
pumped is controlled in the intermediate tank.
The filtrate in the storage tank is fed to the three
RO lines.
2.2. Chemical dosing systems for the RO Lines
Before the filtered water coming from the CP
enters the first stage of each RO line, further
treatment is carded out separately to obtain the
quality feedwater specified by the manufacturers
of the RO modules. The pretreatment systems
for RO Lines 1, 2 and 3 consist of:
RO Line 1
• Sodium hydrogen sulfite dosing system to
remove residual chlorine in the feed.
• Two parallel activated carbon filters to ensure
the complete removal of residual chlorine and
to act as a holding tank for the sodium
hydrogen sulphite reaction with chlorine.
• Antiscalant dosing system to prevent sulfate
scaling.
• Acid dosing system to prevent carbonate
scaling.
• Two cartridge filters (micron filters) to filter
out particles larger than 5 lxrn. These two filters
are located just before the high-pressure
pumps.
RO Line 2
• Acid dosing system to prevent carbonate
scaling.
145
• Polyelectrolyte dosing system and three inline
coagulation filters to further reduce the silt
density index (SDI) of the feed to less than
3.0.
• Sodium hydrogen sulphite dosing system to
remove residual chlorine in the feed.
• Three cartridge chlorine in the feed larger
than 5 lain. Two filters are always in operation
and the third is on standby basis.
RO Line 3
• Acid dosing system to prevent carbonate
scaling.
• Antiscalant dosing system to prevent sulfate
scaling.
• Sodium hydrogen dosing system to remove
residual chloride.
• Two cartridge filters to filter out particles
larger than 25 gm.
2.3. Performance evaluation
During the period from August 1984 until
December 1989, CP operated with availability of
more than 97%. The mean values for monthly
parameters are presented in Table 2.
Most of the time, the system was successfully
controlled to give the designed quantity of
filtrate with SDI value of 3.6; but, in some cases,
it failed to produce acceptable quality and the
required quantity of filtered seawater.
The causes for these failures can be attributed
to several factors, mainly: clogging of dual
media filters, effect of pH, dosing rate of
FeCISO4, dosing rate of polyelectrolyte, energy
input, and climatic conditions (i.e., temperature,
dust storm, wind).
During the reported period (August 1984-
December 1989), a total of 21,828,201m 3 of
filtrate was produced by the CP. Only 70% was
used as feed for RO lines, whereas the remaining
30% was used to backwash the multi-layer filters
146 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153

Table 2 3. Microfiltration technique

Mean parameters for seawater feed and filtrate for the
period from August 1984 to December 1989
Parameter Average
Seawater feed flow rate, m3/h 493.11
Pressure of seawater feed, bar 2.06
Temperature of seawater feed, °C 26.24
SDI of seawater feed, % min 6.47
pH of seawater feed 8.14
SDI of seawater filtrate, % min 3.6
pH of seawater filtrate 6.21
Acid dosing (H2SO4)rate, mg/1 82.24
FeCISO4 dosing rate (Fe3+),mg/1 3.04
Polyelectrolyte dosing rate, mg/1 0.62
C12content in seawater feed, mg/1 0.15
C12content in filter inlet, mg/1 1.7
CI2 content after storage tank, rag/1 0.16
and to reorganize and resettle the filter media
(infiltration), and very small quantity was wasted
due to overflow. More details of the performance
of this system is presented in [1].
2.4. Conclusions
The conventional pretreatment system used at
DRP succeeded in providing feedwater for the
RO lines with SDI less than 4.0. The availability
o f this system was more than 97% during the
operated period; however, this system was very
difficult to control. Several factors obstructed the
continuous full utilization of this system. Among
these factors were: instability of SDI value, high
rate of chemical consumption (i.e. acid, flocculant
and flocculant-acid), frequent backwashing and
high rate of water consumption for this purpose,
dangerous hazard resulting from acid storing and
handling, and relative high operating cost
resulting from excess consumption of chemical,
filtrate and energy.
Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF)
are two attractive pretreatment techniques that
are increasingly being used in drinking water,
seawater and wastewater applications. Several
projects have shown that MF and UF are capable
of consistently reducing turbidities to <0.1 NTU,
regardless of the influent turbidity level. UF and
MF have also been shown to be very effective
for the removal of total coliform (TC) bacteria,
Giardia and Cryptosporidium. UF is also very
effective in removing viruses.
It is expected that MF will compete strongly
with conventional pretreatment in terms of relia-
bility and total operating costs. It is consequently
believed that MF will be more widely applied to
RO feedwater pretreatment. The main aspects of
cost reduction are expected to include:
1. Reduction in capital cost:
• No standby capacity
• Reduction in the size of chemical dosing
systems
• Elimination off'me filters in the RO system
2. Reduction in operating costs:
• Less membrane replacement cost (due to
lengthened membrane useful life)
• Less chemical consumption cost (no
chemicals are needed for disinfection,
coagulation and dechlorination)
• Elimination of cartridge filters cost (no
cartridge filters are needed before the RO
step)
• Less RO system down-time
• Less maintenance cost for the high pressure
pump and the measuring instruments
• Less labor cost (less manpower is needed
to operate the conventional pretreatment
system and to clean the membranes and
maintain the system)
At DRP, a study was carded out to investigate
the viability of MF as a pretreatment technique
for SWRO plants. Details of this study are
presented in [2].
 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153 147

3.1. Description o f the microfiltration unit After passing through a coarse strainer, raw
surface seawater is fed to a break tank and
The MF 0VIemcor 20M10 CMF) unit is a
injected with 2.5ppm of sodium bisulfite
skid-mounted MF machine designed to remove
(NaI-ISO3) to remove any traces of chlorine.
impurities larger than 0.2 lain from feedwater. It
From the break tank, the feed stream is fed to the
is designed to operate in the direct filtration mode.
shell side of the two MF modules where
The machine consists of filtration modules,
filtration takes place.
circulation pump, associated valving, pipework,
The microfiltration system uses an air
instrumentation and a control system, all mounted
backwash stream to clean the hollow fiber
in a stainless steel frame. Fig. 2 shows a
membranes. Backwash is automatically controlled
schematic diagram of the unit.
by a PLC. Air at high pressure is injected into
The unit has two microfiltration modules made
the center of the hollow fibers and bursts through
from polypropylene, and each has a nominal
the membranes, removing the foulants that have
membrane filtration area of 10m2. A feed pump
accumulated on the membrane.
drives the raw seawater into the filtration modules
Direct flow microfiltration, incorporating the
form a buffer tank. The process valves are fitted
air backwashing technique, is an energy-efficient
with pneumatic actuators. A programmable logic
system. Unlike UF, this system requires rela-
controller (PLC) mounted in the control cabinet,
tively low shear rates as the membrane is
controls the pilot solenoid valves and pump
primarily kept clean by the air backwash. The
operation. The PLC also monitors various control
high porosity of the membrane (70% porosity)
switches and other inputs, and illuminates the
also allows operation at very low pressures of
appropriate indicator lamps during machine
typically less than 10m head. The unit capacity
operation.
is 6m3/h.

Feed transfer
pump

Feed pump I~ Backwash drain

Drain ~ ....

Fig. 2. Schematicdiagram ofmicrofiltration system.

148 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153
3.2. Performance evaluation
During the course of operation, several tests
and modifications were made to optimize the
performance of the unit. These included chlorine
dosage, backwash interval, cleaning cycles and
feed temperature [2].
It was found that the SDI value varied
between 0.24 and 3%, with an average value of
2.42, knowing that the SDI of the seawater feed
was over 6.5%. The average filtrate flowrate was
3.2mVh. The optimal backwash interval was
10 min at a variable feed flowrate. The MF unit
was capable of producing good quality water
suitable as a feed for RO systems.
3.3. Conclusions
With regard to the MF system, the overall
performance of the MF system revealed that it is
capable of treating surface seawater to produce
good quality water on a continuous basis that is
suitable to feed an RO system without further
treatment (average SDI value of 2.42% and
optimal backwash frequency every 10 min).
4. Beachwell intake system
Beachwell seawater intake has been identified
as a promising technique to replace conventional
surface seawater pretreatment. Beachwell water
intake systems have been successfully used with
minimum pretreatment to feed RO plants in
several countries. The beachwell system, com-
prised of wells, well casings, a screen, sub-
mersible pumps, riser, pump starters, chemical
dosing systems and interconnecting pipes, can
replace a conventional surface seawater pretreat-
ment system that usually includes a pipeline or
channel to convey surface seawater to the pump
pit, a coarse filtration system to prevent the
intrusion of fish and large objects, seawater
transfer pumps, a chlorine dosing system, p H
adjustment and coagulant dosing systems,
destabilization and agglomeration tanks and
stirrers, sand and dual-media filters, filtered-
water transfer pumps, a filter backwash system, a
treated-water storage tank, a dechlorination
system, scale inhibitor dosing systems (i.e. acid
and threshold scale inhibitors), and cartridge
filters. The usage of a beachwell seawater intake
system reduces not only the capital costs (i.e., the
surface seawater intake and pretreatment sys-
tems), but also costs for membrane degradation,
operation, and manpower. In addition, elimination
of the coagulation, filtration and backwash
systems reduces the amount of chemicals needed
and the power consumed.
At DRP, a study was carried out to assess the
viability of using the beachwell intake system as
a feed for SWRO plants. The detailed outcome
of this study is presented in [3].
4.1. Description o f the beachwell system
Several test holes were drilled near the beach
at the Doha site to find out the most suitable
strata and depth of the well with the right quality
as seawater intake. Enough quantity and seawater
quality was found at 30m depth and 30m from
the beach side. This water was free from
hydrogen sulfide and had low carbonate and
bicarbonate content, which is suitable as feed for
SWRO plants.
The beachwell consists of a well pump, well
casing, screens, submersible pumps, risers, pump
starters, a complete dosing system and inter-
connecting pipes. A block diagram of the system
is shown in Fig. 3. The feedwater is filtered
naturally through the beachwell filtration sand
system. The system capacity is 90 mVh.
4.2. Performance evaluation
During the course of operation, the beachwell
water temperature remained relatively steady
 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153
VALVE
CABLE
I VALVE
EN
LE IK)MP
Fig. 3. Cross-sectionof beachwellseawaterintake system.
(ranging from 26 to 28.5°C), whereas the surface
seawater temperature at DRP fluctuated between
11.7 and 33°C. The average beachwell water
temperature was 27.29°C, which is higher than
the average temperature of the pretreated surface
seawater for the same period (i.e. 24.27°C).
At the start, the beachwell water pH was
found to be one unit less than that of the surface
seawater, and ranged from 7.2 to 7.7. Sulfuric
acid was added, therefore, to the surface seawater
at the rate of 23 ppm to reduce the pH to appro-
ximately 6.8 to achieve optimum operating con-
ditions. The average conductivity of the pretreated
surface seawater was 58,000 lxS/cm, whereas that
of beachwell water was 53,6401aS/cm for the
same period.
The dissolved oxygen content of the pretreated
149
seawater ranged between 0.1 and 7.8 ppm. Most
measurements, however, were between 3.5 and
4.5ppm. The dissolved oxygen content in the
beachwell water was generally less than 1 ppm.
Highly dissolved oxygen content was noticed
when there were leaking pipe joints or after
shutdowns of the submersible pump.
The SDI of the beaehwell water was high
immediately after the well was drilled, but
decreased to less than 1% after nine months of
continuous pumping. This delay in obtaining low
SDI values is believed to be due to inadequate
well development. The recorded SDI values of
the beachwell water for the first 15 months
ranged from 0.5 to 5.35%, with a mean value of
1.89%. The SDI values of the pretreated surface
seawater for the same period ranged from 1.3 to
6.31%, with a mean value of 3.43%. Eliminating
the first four months of operation, the SDI of the
beachwell water ranged from 0.51 to 4.27% with
a mean value of 1.45%. The corresponding pre-
treated surface seawater SDI values for the same
period were 2.9-3.46%, with a mean value of
3.08%. It was noticed that the SDI of the beach-
well water consistently remained about 1% after
reaching this value. This is considered to be the
most valuable merit of the beachwell water as
RO feedwater.
4.3. Conclusions
Beachwell seawater intake provided high-
quality feedwater free from contaminants and at
a reasonably steady temperature (i.e. 27.3°C
average) throughout the study duration. The SDI
values were always lower than those of the
conventionally pretreated surface seawater and
remained consistent at about 1% after it reached
this value. Moreover, feedwater derived from the
beachwell did not require pH adjustment with
recovery of less than 40%, whereas the
conventionally pretreated surface seawater
required 23 ppm of H2SO4 dosing.
150 S. Ebrahim et aL / Desalination 135 (200]) 141-153
5. Technical and economic comparison
between three pretreatment systems
At DRP, an experimental study was carried
out to evaluate the performance of three pretreat-
ment systems (i.e. conventional, MF, beachwell)
on a comparative basis. Details of this study are
outlined in [4]. The study used in-line coagulation
and flocculation followed by pressurized filtration
systems. A schematic diagram of this system is
shown in Fig. 4.
The system consisted of four l m ~ glass-
reinforced plastic (GRP) filter tanks, feed and
backwash pumps, filtrate tank (pipes and valves),
three chemical dosing tanks equipped with
pumps and agitators for H2SO4, FeC1SO4 and
NaHSO3 and four sand filters.
The buffer tank was fed with seawater from
the intake of the Doha East Power Station.
Acid SBS Anti-Scalant
to RO System
Fig. 4. Schematicdiagram of in-line conventionalsystem.
H2SO4 and FeCISO4 were dosed into the
seawater stream before entering the buffer tank.
The feed pump delivered seawater to two sand
filters connected in parallel where the water was
filtered and fed to the RO unit.
NaHSO3 was dosed to insure the complete
removal of residual chlorine. The SDI is conti-
nuously monitored. The system has a capacity of
8mVh.
5.1. Performance evaluation
The in-line pretreatment system was operated
for one year along with the MF and beachwell
systems. Performance parameters obtained from
the three systems were compared against each
other. The temperature of the beachwell water
varied between 24.5 and 25°C during winter and
summer, respectively, giving almost a steady
I
Del. Pump ..............
_.21 12 i
 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153 151

feed temperature; whereas variation of surface
seawater temperature, fed to the MF and in-line
system, was comparatively large, between 18
and 32°C for winter and summer, respectively.
The values of the SDI o f the filtrate from the
conventional pretreatment were not steady and
varied between 2.5 and 4%. The SDI of the
beachwell water remained steadily below 2%
after one month of continuous pumping. This
delay in getting low SDI values within a
reasonable time is believed to be due to pumping
some sand particles into the system. Recorded
SDI values o f beachwell water ranged between
0.3 and 2.5%, with an average value of 1.2%. It
was also noticed that the SDI o f this system
remained almost consistently at about 1.2% after
reaching this value.
The SDI values of the filtrate from the MF
system were acceptable throughout the operation
period. The SDI varied between 0.24 and 3%
and the average SDI value was 2.02%, knowing
that the SDI of the seawater feed was over 6.5%.
Table 3 shows average physical and chemical
parameters values of the three systems.
No significant reduction in the COD and
BOD values were noticed in the filtrate o f the
conventional pretreatment system, whereas these
values were reduced substantially in the filtrate
of the MF system and the beachwell water.

Table 3
Average physical and chemical analysis of the seawater feed and filtrate of the pretreatment systems

Filtrate
Analysis, ppm Seawater feed Conventional Beachwell intake Microfiltration
pH 8.34 7.2 77 8.3
Total alkalinity 145 99 144 144
p-value 193 1.93 0 1.14
TDS 42,555 40,706 42,860 40,928
Na+ 13,493 13,098 14,015 13,224
K÷ 443 440 346 468
Ca+ 515 507 597 468
Mg+ 1,570 1,553 1,451 1,582
A1÷ 1.16 1 0.9 1
F- 1.53 1.5 1.9 1.6
CI- 22,185 22,108 22,294 22,250
SO42- 3,154 3,180 3,154 3,239
Fe2÷ 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.025
Sr2+ 7.41 7 11 7.5
Ba2+ 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Cu2÷ 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
HCO3 143 100 143 142
CO2 1.91 13 7.6 2
PO4 0.025 0.025 0.284 0.025
NH3 0.43 0.39 1 0.034
SDI >6.5 3.3 1.2 2.02
Total count, 861 1,861 56.91 x 105 964
colonies/100 ml
COD 400 524 228 221
BOD 6 10 1.7 3
152 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153

5.2. Economic comparison 5.3. Conclusions

An economic assessment study was carded
out to assess the three systems. Table 4 shows
the unit cost o f the three systems for a capacity
o f 27,276 m3/d [2].
The study revealed that the total unit water
costs produced by beachwell, MF and conven-
tional system were 11.082, 12.264 and 28.153
fils/m3, respectively (1000 ills = US$3.33). The
beachwell system gives substantial cost savings
and is the most cost-effective among the three
available techniques for seawater pretreatment. If
for some reason the beachwell system is
technically not feasible, such as appropriate
locations in sufficient number are not available,
the MF system, which is found to be almost
equally cost-effective as the beachwell system, is
the next cost-effective system for seawater
pretreatment.
• Conventional pretreatment of surface seawater
produces unsteady feeAwater quality and
quantity, and, therefore, it is considered not
reliable for a RO pretreatment system.
• Results indicate that the MF and beachwell
systems are suitable for pretreating surface
seawater feed for RO plants.
• Results indicate that the beaehwell system is
capable of producing excellent quality water
(SDI less than 2%) suitable as RO feed. The
microfiltration process is also comparable
with the beachwell system.
• Based on actual operational data for one year,
it is concluded that the beachwell system is
the most reliable source of feedwater for RO
plants, with no standby capacity and no
chemical dosing being required, followed by
the microfiltration system.

Table 4
Comparison of unit cost of seawater pretreatmentby alternative systemsfor 1995 (plant capacity27,276 mVd)

Cost component Unit cost, fils/ms

Conventionalsurface Beachwell Mierofiltration
A Capital cost (depreciation) 10.365 2.917 3.537
Feed pumps 0.119 -- 0.119
Chlorine dosing plant 0.015 -- --
Structure - intake 0.387 0.387 0.387
Structure - outfall 0.387 -- 0.387
Pretreatment plant 9.457 2.530
Beachwell -- -- --
Mierofiltrationplant __ m 2.644

B Operatingcost 17.788 8.165 8.727

Electricity 9.648 6.426 7.090
Chemicals 4.662 -- 1.637
Filters 3.478 1.739 --

Total unit cost (A+B), fils/m3. 28.153 11.082 12.264

*1000 ills = US$3.33

 S. Ebrahim et al. / Desalination 135 (2001) 141-153
• The techno-economic evaluation revealed that
the total unit costs produced by beachwell,
MF and conventional surface systems were
11.082, 12.264 and 28.153 fils/m3, respec-
tively.
• The conventional surface seawater treatment
is the highest in cost. In addition, it is the
most complicated method for seawater pre-
treatment. Hence, it should not be considered.
• MF and beachwell systems are comparable in
cost (12.264 and 11.082 fils/m3) for small to
medium size RO plants. For large RO plants,
MF process is the favorable treatment.
6. Conclusions
• Proper pretreatment is the most critical factor
for successful long-term performance of a
SWRO.
• Since 1984, KISR has carried out an intensive
R&D program to assess the technical viability
and economic feasibility of desalting SWRO
technology with special emphasis on pretreat-
ment of the seawater feed.
• The program included evaluation of three
pretreatment techniques: conventional, micro-
filtration and beachwell.
• In designing new commercial seawater RO
desalination plants, a beachwell intake system
should be considered as a first priority for
small to medium size plants. If this system is
technically not feasible, a MF system should
be considered as an alternative pretreatment
method.
153
• A conventional surface pretreatment system
is not recommended due to its economics and
operating drawbacks. It can be considered as
a pretreatment for a seawater RO plant only if
beachwell and MF systems are not feasible.
• In selecting a seawater pretreatment system
for RO, MF or beachwell should be evaluated
for biological content prior to the final
selection of the system.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the financial
contribution of the Ministry of Electricity and
Water (MEW) and the Kuwait Foundation for
the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS). The
authors wish, also, to acknowledge the assistance
of their colleagues in the Water Desalination
Department (WDD) and the Techno-Economics
Division (TED) at the Kuwait Institute for
Scientific Research (KISR).
References
[1] S.H. Ebrahim, M.M. Abdel-Jawad and M. Safar,
Desalination, 102 (1995) 179.
[2] S. Ebrahim, S. Bou-Hamed, M. Abdel-Jawad and
N. Burne, Desalination, 109 (1997) 165.
[3] M. Abdel-Jawad and S. Ebrahim, Desalination, 99
(1994) 57.
[4] S. Bou-Hamad, M. Abdd-Jawad, S. Ebrahim, M.
AI-Mansour and A. AI-Hijji, Desalination, 110
(1997) 85.