See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235952900

A comparative study of RO and MSF

desalination plants

Article in Desalination August 1996

DOI: 10.1016/S0011-9164(96)00097-5

CITATIONS READS

16 2,670

1 author:

Ibrahim Al-Mutaz
King Saud University
120 PUBLICATIONS 572 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Desalination and Water Treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibrahim Al-Mutaz on 18 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original documen
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 DESALINATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 106 (1996) 99-106

A comparative study of RO and MSF desalination plants

Ibrahim S. Al-Mutaz
Chemical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University,
PO Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
Fax: +966 (1) 467-4254; E-mail: F45kOll@SAKWOO

Received 1.5 July 1995; Accepted 25 October 1995

Abstract
The total capacity of operating and projected desalination plants in Saudi Arabia is 725.4 mgd (2.74 Mm3/d).
Reverse osmosis (RO) only accounts for about 10% of the total desalted capacity. However, there is a recent
trend toward the use of more RO in seawater desalination either for new plants or in connection with the present
multi-stage flash (MSF) plants. MSF is preferred for large-scale dual-purpose seawater desalination plants. For
single-purpose plants RO becomes a competitive choice, especially for moderate capacity. Power generation,
desalting capacity and fkel cost strongly influence the selection of the desalination process. Process schemes also
play an important role in this regard. MSF plants coupled with gas or steam turbines, RO with or without energy
recovery and ROh4SF hybrid are examples of possible process schemes. In Saudi Arabia the first MSF plant was
started in Al-wajh and Duba in 1928 with a capacity of 60,000 gpd (227.1 m3/d). The first seawater RO plant in
Saudi Arabia was installed in 1979. Recently numbers of RO and MSF plants were in production in different
locations in Saudi Arabia. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of RO and MSF processes will be
given as well as a detailed comparison between them. Plant production and capacity and energy consumption will
be considered with reference to Saudi Arabia.

Keywords: Reverse osmosis; Multi-stage flash desalination

1. Introduction the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf as well as

Desalination in Saudi Arabia started in 1907.
The first MSF plant was built in Doba and Al-
Wajh in 1928 with a capacity of 60,000 gpd
(227.1 m3/d). In 1974 the Saline Water Conver-
sion Corporation (SWCC) was established to
carry out the necessary feasibility and prelimi-
nary studies for installing desalination plants in
maintaining the operating ones. It is planned to
supply fresh water to coastal and inland cities
and towns from the sea with ground waters as
back-up. At present there are 22 desalination
plants in operation with a design total capacity of
489.6 mgd (1.854 Mm3/d). Table 1 shows the
total desalination projects in Saudi Arabia in
operation or under construction operated by the

001 l-9164/96/$15.00 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII SO01 l-9164(96)00097-5
100 I.S. Al-Mutaz/ DesalinarionIO6 (1996) 99-106

Table 1
Major Saudi desalination plants

Plant Start-up mgd Installed capacity Type Chemical

year treatment

Water, m3/d Power, MW

In operation:
Hag1 II 1989 1.ooo 3,785 - -
Duba III 1989 1.ooo 3,785 - - -
Al-Wajh II 1979 0.125 473 - - -
Al-Wajh ext. 1 1986 0.218 825 - - -
Al-Wajh ext. 2 1989 0.273 1,032 - - -
Urn Lujj II 1986 1.ooo 3,785 - RO -
Rajigh I 1982 0.318 1,204 - - -
Aziziah I 1987 1.ooo 3,870 - - -
Al-Birk I984 0.500 1,952 - RO -
Farasan I 1979 0.114 430 - - -
Farasan ext. I 1984 0.284 1,075 - - -
Jeddah II 1978 10.000 10,000 71 DP, NSF, LT Acid
Jeddah III 1979 20.000 75,700 200 DP, MSF, LT Acid + add.
Jeddah IV 1982 50.000 189.250 500 DP, MSF, LT Acid
Jeddah RO (1) 1989 13.000 48,827 - RO Acid
Medinah-Yanbu I 1980 25.000 95,000 250 DP, MSF, CT Acid
Shoaibah I 1989 48.000 181,800 250 DP, MSF, CT Additive
Assir I 1989 20.000 75,700 45 DP, MSF, CT Additive
Al-Khafji II 1986 4.920 18,624 - SP, MSF, CT Additive
Al-Khoar II 1983 51.126 193,536 500 DP, :&SF, CT Additive
Al-Jubail I 1982 30.653 116,035 238 DP, MSF, CT Additive
AI-Jubail II 1983 211.036 798,864 812 DP, MSF, CT Additive

Under construction:
Medina-Yanbu II - 60.000 227,200 150 DP, MSF, CT Additive
Jeddah RO (2) - 15.000 56,800 - RO
AI-Jubail RO - 24.000 90,900 - RO Acid
Al-Khobar II - 74.000 280,000 467 - Additive
Shoaibah II - 120.000 455,000 515 DP, MSF, CT Additive

Source: Saline Water Conversion Corporation, Annual Report, Riyadh, 1992.

SWCC [ 11. The total capacity of those plants will
be 725.4 mgd (2.747 Mm3/d). In a few years the
SWCCs total production of desalted water will
be 811 mgd and 5200 MW.
Saudi Arabia is the worlds largest producer
of desalted water based on the 1992 statistics. It
has more than 30% of the total world desalting
units producing more than 4000 m3/d and more
than 24% of the world desalting units producing
more than 100 m3/d [2]. Most of the Saudi desa-
lination plants are MSF, and these have a capaci-
ty of more than 33% of the total world MSF
desalting capacities. Saudi MSF plants accounted
for more than 19% of the total number of NSF
units.
RO has about 17.8% of the total desalting
Table 2
Major Saudi RO desalination plants [3]

Plant Capacity, Membrane Membrane material, module Contracting Product Typical salinity, mg Completion
m3/d typea and manufacturer agencyb water TDS/l date

Water RO
source product

Brackish water:
Manfouha 27,300 HF PA (B-9), DuPont MOAW Portable 1470 200 1980
Manfouha II 36,400 HF PA (B-9), DuPont MOAW Portable 1470 200 1980
Malez 18,200 HF PA (B-9), DuPont MOAW Portable 1470 200 1980 $
Shemessy 27,300 HF PA (B-9), DuPont MOAW Portable 1470 200 1980
Salbukh 38,400 HF PA (B-9), DuPont MOAW Portable 1470 200 1979 8
Buwayb 45,000 SW CA, ROGA, 8 1505, UOP MOAW Portable 1400 200 1980 Na
Majmaah 3,800 SW Hydranautics MOAW Portable 1978
Jubail 15,000 SW CD&T, Hydranautics RCJY Portable 270&4400 365 1980 $-
Dhahran 3,500 HF PA Aramco Portable 2700 300 1982 &
Berri 6,800 HF Aramco Boiler feed- 1977 g
3.
water 2
Shedgum 5,300 HF PA (B-9), DuPont Aramco Boiler feed- 1800 9-11 1979
water %
Makkah 15,000 HF MODA Portable 1983 2
1979 %
Riyadh 4,500 SW MODA Portable *
Seawater: ?
Jeddah 12,000 SW PA(TFC), 1501 PA, UOP swcc Portable 42,000 < 1,000 1979 %
Al-Birk 2,300 HF Aramid: (B-lo), (B-9): DuPont swcc Portable 40,00&58,000 980 1982
Umm Lujj II 4,400 SW PA(TFC),lSOl PA,8600 PA, UOP swcc Portable 41,392 < 200 1985
Bahrain 38,000 HF Aramid: (B-lo), (B-9): DuPont swcc Portable 45,000 450 1991
Jeddah I 57,000 CTA, HOLLOSEP, HM9255, FI, swcc Portable 43,000 <l,OOO 1990
YOYOBO
Yanbu 5,000 HF Aramid: (B-lo), (B-9): DuPont RCJY Portable 51,000 < 500 1981
Jeddah 2,300 HF MODA Portable 1983
Ras Tanura 2,300 Aramco Portable 1983

aHF, hollow fiber; SW, spiral wound; PA, polyamide; CA, cellulose acetate; CD&T, cellulose diacetate and triacetate.
bMOAW, Ministry of Agricultural and Water; RCJY, Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu; MOUA, Ministry of Urban Affairs; MODA, Ministry of
Defense and Aviation. 0
102 I.S. AlNutaz / Desalination 106 (1996) 99-106
capacity of plants producing more than
4000 m3/d and about 32.6% of those producing
more than 100 m3/d according to the 1992 sta-
tistics [2]. In 1970 RO plants were commercially
used in seawater desalting. The first large munic-
ipal RO desalting plant with a 470 m3/d
(150,000 gpd) capacity was in Greenfield, Iowa
(USA) and was built in 1973. The largest seawa-
ter RO plant is in Bahrain with a capacity of
38 mgd; it was built by the SWCC of Saudi
Arabia. Table 2 shows the major Saudi RO plants
131.
2. RO MSF process description
The RO process consists of three main steps:
(1) pretreatment, (2) membrane passage, and
(3) posttreatment. In the posttreatment step prod-
uct water passes through a decarbonation system,
a pH adjustment system, and chlorine injection to
comply with the required quality and use of the
product water.
The purpose of the pretreatment step is to
avoid any risk of clogging, fouling or scaling of
the membrane. Pretreatment is an important as-
pect of RO systems. All RO devices required
pretreatment to remove the suspended solids,
sealants, foulants, and colloidal matter.
Hassan [4] described three of the major Saudi
RO plants outlining the pretreatment and post-
treatment used. They are summarized below.
2. I. Disi~fe~ii~~
Chlorine is often used to disinfect feed water.
To eliminate the danger of membrane damage by
chlorine, copper sulfate is sometimes used. How-
ever, residual chlorine must be removed. Sodium
bisulfate may be used to dechlorinate the feed
water.
In the Umm Lujj and Jeddah RO plants, feed
water is disinfected with a dose of 0.5 ppm and
1 ppm of chlorine and copper sulfate, respective-
ly. About 4 ppm of chlorine is added to feed
water in the Al-Birk RO plant at the intake and
l-l .12 ppm after the filters. Then 6 ppm of sodi-
um bisulfite is added to remove the residual
chlorine. Umm Lujj and Jeddah RO plants use
UOP thin-film composite (TFC) spiral wound
(SW) type membranes while Al-Birk has a
DuPont poly~id {PA) with the hollow-one fiber
(HFF) configuration.
2.2. Coagulation-flocculation-jiltration
Ferric chloride, Manifold 537C, alum and
polymers are the typical coagulants used at the
prefilter stage. A gravity filter with different sand
particle sizes is then used. To obtain a satisfacto-
ry silt density index, a fine cartridge filter is used
after sand filtration.
Umm Lujj uses no coagulants. Magniflo~
537C is used in the Al-Birk RO plant at a rate of
l-2 ppm. In the Jeddah RO plant, alum
(O-10 ppm) and polymer (O-l ppm) are used.
2.3. Softening and ~nt~sc~l~~g
Sulfuric acid is used to prevent carbonate
scale. About 120 ppm, 70 ppm and 50 ppm of
sulfuric acid are used in Umm Lujj, Jeddah and
Al-Birk RO plants. Sodium hexameta-phosphate
is dosed at a rate of 2-4 ppm in Jeddah and
Umm Lujj RO plants.
2.4. Posttreatment
Calcium hydroxide with a concentration of
30-40 ppm is added to the product water to ad-
just the alkalinity. Chlorine is also added to elim-
inate the presence the microorganisms during
storage and distribution.
In the membrane passage section, high recov-
ery RO can be achieved by a high pressure oper-
ation which is made possible by the high pressure
capabilities of Aramids HFF membranes. These
membranes significantly reduce the effect of
concentration polarization since they have rela-
tively low fluxes [5].
PA and CA are widely used in the production
of membranes for the RO industry. Aramid poly-

b) PRRW_EL BRINE
Fig. 1. Arrangement of reverse osmosis modules.
merS are replacing CA polymers in membrane
manufac~ring because they resist mechanicat
changes, as well as chemical and biological at-
tack [6]. Since CA membranes are susceptible to
chemical attack, they must be used within a nar-
row pH range to prevent hydrolysjs. Permasep
B-10 permeat~rs {DuPont Corp., ModeI, etc.)
operating at 55-70 Kg/cm2 (@N-l000 psig)
pressures in seawater applications have per-
formed longer than 4 y without replacement.
Several types of RO membranes are comma-
cially available. These are prepared either as flat
sheets or as hollow fibers from CA ester or aro-
matic PAS. There are different ways of packing
RO membranes. Of these, three configurations
have been produced commerciaI~y: spiral wound,
tubular, and hollow Fine fiber.
RO plants are formed by cornb~n~~ga large
number of membrane modules arranged in paral-
103
STF!iINi
fef or in series. Fig. t shows a possible arrange-
ment of RO modules,
Fig, 2 shows the MSF process which has three
distinct sections: heat rejection, heat recovery and
brine heater. The feed water (WT) passes through
the heat rejection and heat recovery sections.
On leaving the first (warmest) rejection stage,
the feed stream is split into two parts - reject
seawater (CW) which passes back to the sea and
a make-up stream (F) which is then combined
with the recycle stream (R). The combined
stream (W) now passes through a series of heat
exchangers, its temperature rising as it proceeds
towards the heat input section of the plant. Pass-
ing through the brine heater the brine temperature
is raised from TF, at the inlet of the brine heater
to a maximum varue of TB, approximately equal
ta the saturation temperature at system pressure.
The brine then enters the first heat recovery
104 1.X AMiiitaz I desalination 106 (I996) 99-106
Recovev
Fig. 2. Simplified MSF process flow.
stage through an orifice, thus reducing the pres-
sure. As the brine was already at its saturation
temperature for a higher pressure, it will become
superheated and flashes to give off water vapor.
This vapor passes through a wire mesh (demister)
to remove any Lztrained brine droplets and on to
a heat exchanger (as shown in the figure) where
the vapor is condensed and drips into a distillate
tray. The process is then repeated all the way
down the plant as both brine-and distillate enter
the next stage which is at a lower pressure. The
concentrated brine is divided into two parts as it
leaves the plant, the blow-down (BD) which is
pumped back to the sea and a recycle stream (R)
which returns to mix with the make-up stream
(F).
3. Economical and technical, comparison
MSF plants often use low pressure steam as
an energy source. The energy consumption in
MSF plants depends on the distillate flow rate
and plant performance ratio. Typically 3.7 kWh
are consumed in large MSF plants per 1 m3 of
produced water.
RO plants are operated by electrical power to
derive the high pressure pumps and other plant
auxiliaries, mainly the pretreatment processes.
RO power consumption depends mainly on water
recovery and working pressure. Typically
Reject seawater
7 c:4
Section Rejection Section
Recycle Brine
R
9.7 kWh of electric power is consumed in a 30%
recovery RO plant per 1 m3 of produced water
without energy recovery. If an energy recovery
turbine of 80% efficiency is used, the energy
requirement will fall to 6.5 kWh/m3 [7].
Assuming an average operating value for RO
and MSF, Der Mast (81 evaluated the capital
costs of these processes per plant capacity as
illustrated in Fig. 3. These assumptions are:
.
For RO:
Raw seawater TDS: 35,000 mg/l
Maximum feed pressure: 1000 psi
Conversion factor: 35%
Membrane life: 5 y
No energy recovery
Electrical energy consumption: 8.5 kWh/m3
l
For MSF:
Raw seawater TDS: 350 mg/l
Maximum brine temperature: 96C
Performance ratio: 8
Electrical power: 4 kWh/m3
Scale inhibitors for scale control
Recycle type plant
Dual-purpose plant
Based on the values for a plant of 100,000 t/d,
the capital and product costs are $190,000,000
and $1.55/t for MSF and $170,000,000 and
$1.24/t for RO.
 I.S. Al-h4utaz / Desalination IO6 (1996) 99-106
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500 I j 1
1400 \
I reduce water costs to fuel cost variations.
1300.
10 20 30 40 50 ) 70 80
Plant capacity, 000 m3/day
Fig. 3. Total capital costs [S].
Darwish et al. [9] found that for a 6 mgd
plant, the MSF capital and product cost are
$84,350,000 and $2.332/m3 and the RO capital
and product costs are $41 ,OOO,OOOand $1.448/
m3, respectively. They also listed some technical
differences between RO and MSF which can be
summarized by the following:
1. Seawater intake in MSF is twice that of
RO.
2. Energy consumption per cubic meters in
MSF is about three times that of RO.
3. Volume and area required for MSF are
large compared to those required for RO.
4. Pumping energy in RO is about 25% of
that required for MSF. A possible decrease in
pumping consumption in RO might be while
using energy recovery systems.
5. RO has no thermal energy consumption, In
6 mgd MSF about 89 MW of thermal energy is
consumed. This can be very expensive if not
extracted from the steam turbine.
6. Heavy foundation and extensive civil work
is required by MSF due to its heavy weight.
Wade et al. [lo] examined the economics of
MSF coupled to gas turbine or back pressure
steam turbine power plants and compared their
costs with seawater RO for typical operating
conditions. Also an RO/MSF hybrid was com-
105
pared as the four possible schemes. They found
that RO achieved the lowest water cost of the
four schemes considered at the base conditions.
The economic advantages of RO may be lost if
the membrane replacement rate exceeds about
25% of the installed membrane capacity per year
[lo]. They also mentioned that if low-cost fuel is
available such as associated natural gas, dual-
purpose MSF plants are the optimum choice.
However, the introduction of RO with MSF will
90 100 The hybrid RO/MSF plant offers, in fact,
additional advantages such as a decreased post-
treatment cost and improved water quality by
blending distillate and RO permeate as well as
greater flexibility and more efficient operation in
dual-purpose plants [ 11j. Hybrid plants allow a
better match between power and water require-
ments. Awerbuch [ 121 found a significant reduc-
tion in capital and operating costs in hybrid RO1
MSF seawater desalination plants for a given
water production.
Finally, the benefits of RO vs MSF can be
stated as:
l RO flexibility to meet various water and pow-
er ratios while maintaining maximum process
efficiency
l fewer corrosion problems in RO than MSF
l lower energy consumption in RO than MSF
In conclusion, at the present low fuel cost
MSF will continue to be the optimum choice for
large desalting plants. For moderate capacities,
RO offers low water cost. RO would be the cor-
rect selection if fuel costs are increased. In any
case an ROLMSF hybrid plant is worth consider-
ing. It gives the lowest possible water cost if the
MSF dual plant is associated with a gas turbine.
References
PI Saline Water Conversion Corporation, Annual
Report, 1993.
PI K. Wangnick, 1992 IDA worldwide desalting
plants inventory, Report No. 12, IDA and Wang-
nick Consulting, April 1992.
106 IS. Al-Mutaz / Desalination 106 (1996) 99-106
[3] A.M. El-Rehaili, AWWA, [vol. #] (1991) 72.
[4] A.M. Hassan et al., Performance evaluation of
SWCC SWRO plants, Proc., 4th World Congress
on Desalination and Water Reuse, Kuwait, 1989.
[5] S. Sourirajan and T. Matsuura, eds., Reverse
Osmosis and Ultrafiltration, Symp. Ser. 281,
ACS, Washington, DC, 1985.
[6] H.W. Pohland, Desalination, 32 (1980) 157.
[7] N.M. Wade, Comparison of MSF and RO in
dual-purpose plants, Paper presented at Saline
Water Conversion Corporation, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, 1986.
[8] V.V. Der Mast and S. May, Comparison of
View publication stats
desalination processes, Saudi Arabia Bechtel
Company, June 1994.
[9] M.A. Darwish, M.A. Jawad and G.S. Aly, Desa-
lination, 76 (1989) 281.
[lo] N.M. Wade, R. Heaton and D.G. Boulter, Desali-
nation, 55 (1985) 373.
[11] B. Ericsson and B. Hallmans, Desalination, 55
(1985) 441.
[12] L. Awerbuch, S. May, R. Soo-Hoo and V.V. Der
Mast, Desalination, 76 (1989) 189.
[ 131 D. Brandt and R. Battey, Dual-purpose desalting
RO vs. MSF: An economic comparison, 10th
Annual Conference - SW, Honolulu, 1982.