MINI REVIEW

published: 03 April 2020

doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00009

Energy Recovery in SWRO

Desalination: Current Status and
New Possibilities
Andrew James Schunke 1 , German Alberto Hernandez Herrera 2*, Lokesh Padhye 1 and
Terri-Ann Berry 2
1
The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 2 Environmental Solutions Research Centre, Unitec Institute of
Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Reverse osmosis (RO) technology requires high energy input in order to extract
freshwater from seawater. Improvements in RO technology have led to seawater RO
(SWRO) becoming the dominant form of large scale desalination around the world.
However, the specific energy consumption (SEC) of SWRO remains substantially higher
than that for surface water treatment and indirect potable recycling, making SWRO
less cost effective than other alternatives for producing potable water. Furthermore,
where non-renewable energy sources are used to supply SWRO energy demand, higher
levels of greenhouse gas are emitted compared with lower energy alternatives. The
purpose of this paper is to review the RO process configurations currently available and
their impact on reducing SWRO energy consumption. This paper highlights the main
factors contributing to SWRO energy consumption and presents some of the commonly
Edited by:
Feni Agostinho, adopted approaches to reducing SEC in SWRO plants. The use of energy recovery
Paulista University, Brazil devices (ERDs) in SWRO is explored and the relative effectiveness of the various types
Reviewed by: of ERDs in reducing SEC presented.
Maddalena Ripa,
Autonomous University of Keywords: desalination, energy recovery devices, RO process configurations, hybrid process configurations,
Barcelona, Spain specific energy consumption
Fábio Sevegnani,
Paulista University, Brazil

*Correspondence: INTRODUCTION
German Alberto Hernandez Herrera
hhernandez@unitec.ac.nz Population growth and urbanization of cities worldwide is placing ever-greater stress on existing
water supplies. Climate change effects on rainfall patterns and drought in certain parts of the world
Specialty section: has added further pressure to the problem of global water shortage. Around 4 billion people are
This article was submitted to affected by water shortage for at least 1 month every year, with this number predicted to increase in
Urban Resource Management, the coming decades (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016).
a section of the journal
Seawater desalination is increasingly relied upon as a means of producing sustainable drinking
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
water supply for cities where existing freshwater supplies are limited. By 2016, there were 18,983
Received: 20 November 2019 commercial-scale desalination plants supplying over 95 million m3 day−1 to cities worldwide
Accepted: 11 March 2020
[Global Water Intelligence (GWI), 2016], with desalination projects increasing in number and
Published: 03 April 2020
size by 5–6% internationally since 2010 (Voutchkov, 2018). Reverse Osmosis (RO) is gaining
Citation: prominence as a desalination technology, accounting for 65% of production capacity worldwide
Schunke AJ, Hernandez Herrera GA,
(Abdelkareem et al., 2018; Bhojwani et al., 2019). RO involves the application of external energy
Padhye L and Berry T-A (2020) Energy
Recovery in SWRO Desalination:
(typically high pressure pumping) to drive water through a semi-permeable membrane, from less
Current Status and New Possibilities. dilute (feed) to more dilute (permeate) solution.
Front. Sustain. Cities 2:9. Seawater RO (SWRO) offers several advantages over other desalination methods including
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00009 high efficiency and selectivity, easy control and scale-up, flexibility, and suitability for integrated

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

applications (Ramato et al., 2019; Urrea et al., 2019). However, transfer hydraulic energy from the concentrate directly into
SWRO desalination requires significantly more energy than the feed, as the two streams come into direct contact (with
alternative forms of potable water treatment. While conventional minimal mixing). As a result of the single energy conversion,
surface water treatment requires 0.2–0.4 kWh m−3 , and efficiency loss is reduced when compared with centrifugal ERDs.
indirect potable reuse (IPR) requires 1.5–2.0 kWh m−3 , SWRO There are two main types of isobaric chamber: rotary-driven
desalination needs between 3.5 and 4.5 kWh m−3 to produce and piston-driven:
product water (Kim and Hong, 2018; Voutchkov, 2018). Most
• Rotary-driven ERDs comprise a central rotor operating on
of the energy consumed by conventional desalination uses
a hydrodynamic bearing where the low pressure feed and
fossil fuels, therefore contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
high pressure concentrate are introduced. The rotor is filled
In 2015, Australia emitted 1,193 kt CO2 e from desalination
with low pressure feed, sealed, then high pressure concentrate
processes (Heihsel et al., 2019), which represents <1% of total
is introduced, pressurizing the low pressure feed, pushing it
emissions from electricity. Various attempts to address these
out toward the RO membrane skid. After the rotor is re-
issues have included operational changes and the use of energy
sealed, the resulting low pressure concentrate is displaced by
recovery devices (ERDs) (Park et al., 2020), improvements in
incoming low pressure feed water and the process repeats.
membrane technology (Hailemariam et al., 2020), the use of
PX (Pressure Exchange) is the most widely used rotary ERD
integrated/hybrid membrane systems (Ang et al., 2015) and
in modern SWRO plants, due to its compact size, durability,
renewable energy sources (Shemer and Semiat, 2017; Khan M.
modular design, and efficiency (Farooque et al., 2004; Kadaj
A. M. et al., 2018).
and Bosleman, 2018; Urrea et al., 2019).
The metric Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) compares
• Piston-driven ERDs follow a similar process of hydraulic
energy efficiency in SWRO plants which comprises (1) seawater
energy exchange, with the transfer of energy between
intake, including low pressure pumps; (2) screening and
concentrate and feed occurring inside hydraulic cylinders,
pre-treatment; (3) RO system, including membranes and
with the alternating pressurization / depressurization process
high pressure pumps (HPP) (∼65% of SEC); (4) permeate
controlled by a switcher valves. Piston-driven ERDs are less
system, including post-treatment, storage and pumping to the
compact and modular than PX devices and require higher
distribution network; and (5) concentrate (brine) disposal. SEC
capital outlay and maintenance due to the need for control
can range between 3 and 6.7 kWh m−3 , depending on feed
actuators and valving (Guirguis, 2011).
conditions, product water requirements and plant efficiency
(Zhou et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019). HPP typically require ERD efficiency (change in feed pressure divided by change
between 55 and 70 bar pressure to increase feedwater pressure in concentrate pressure) for various ERDs has been found to
above osmotic pressure of seawater (Khan S. U. et al., 2018). The be Turbine 75%, Turbocharger 80%, Pelton Wheel 85%, while
energy consumed by HPP has historically been a significant factor isobaric chambers are around 95–97% (Kim et al., 2019; Urrea
in the overall energy consumption and operational cost of SWRO et al., 2019). SEC has been reported for SWRO plants where
desalination (Karabelas et al., 2018; Zarzo and Prats, 2018). various ERDs are installed as: Francis Turbines > 6 kWh m−3 ,
The overall aim of this article is to assess the applicability Pelton Wheels 3.5–5.9 kWh m−3 , piston-driven ERDs 3.5–4.6
and energy considerations of a variety of process configurations kWh m−3 , and PX 3.0–5.3 kWh m−3 (Kim et al., 2019; Urrea
which include hybrid systems. This article will further discuss the et al., 2019). The PX is most effective at recovery rates up to 50%
factors affecting SEC and focus on solutions involving the use (Urrea et al., 2019). Energy savings with ERDs can be in the range
of ERDs and RO process configurations, as well as the potential of 25–40% compared with standard SWRO systems (Peñate and
of hybrid configurations. Table 1 provides an overview of the García-Rodríguez, 2011).
various energy reduction methods discussed. Rotary driven ERDs such as the PX are generally the preferred
device due to compactness and durability, and with efficiencies of
95–97%, there appears to be limited scope for substantial further
ENERGY RECOVERY DEVICES development in ERD technology.

The high pressure pumping required to overcome the osmotic

pressure in saline feedwater results in a saline concentrate stream RO PROCESS CONFIGURATIONS
which is highly pressurized. ERDs are commonly used to recover
this hydraulic energy and transfer it to the feed stream, reducing Several process configurations of SWRO have been developed
both the amount of energy otherwise required by the HPPs and to achieve improvements in both energy efficiency and
the size of HPP required (Guirguis, 2011). The earliest ERDs used water quality.
in SWRO plants were centrifugal-type devices such as the Francis Single pass RO (Figure 1A) is the conventional and most
Turbine, Pelton Wheel and Turbocharger (Urrea et al., 2019). widely adopted configuration due to its simplicity, ease of
These devices convert the hydraulic energy of the concentrate operation, and comparatively low cost. Single pass RO produces
into mechanical energy to drive a piston or pump, which transfers permeate with a TDS (total dissolved solids) concentration
hydraulic energy back into the feed. between 300 and 500 mg L−1 and has a recovery rate of up to 50%
Since around 2000, isobaric chamber ERDs have replaced (Kim and Hong, 2018). Where higher quality product water is
centrifugal devices in most new SWRO plants. Isobaric ERDs required, additional RO pass may be required. However, ongoing

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

TABLE 1 | (A) Partial Two Pass RO (B) Split Partial Single Pass (SSP) RO (C) Split Partial Second Pass (SPSP) RO.

Technology or Advantages Disadvantages SEC kWh m−3 Energy References

process (Total SWRO) reduction (%)*

Francis turbinesa Common/proven application Double energy conversion 6.2–6.7 0 Gude, 2018; Urrea et al.,
2019
Pelton wheela Common/proven application Double energy conversion 3.5–5.9 27% Kim et al., 2019; Urrea et al.,
2019
Piston-ERDa Single energy conversion Additional capital and maintenance 3.5–4.6 37% Guirguis, 2011; Zhou et al.,
cost for control actuators and 2017; Urrea et al., 2019
valving; potential for slight increase
in feed salinity during pressure
exchange.
PXa Single energy conversion; Potential for slight increase in feed 3–5.3 36% Farooque et al., 2004;
compact; durable; modular salinity during pressure exchange Guirguis, 2011; Kim et al.,
design. 2019; Urrea et al., 2019
Single pass ROa Conventional; easier to Standard permeate quality (TDS 3.9–4.5 35% Kim and Hong, 2018; Kim
operate; recovery rate up to 300–500 mg L−1 ) et al., 2019
50%.
Two pass ROa Improved permeate quality Increased energy and chemical 4.0–4.8 32% Efraty, 2012; Peñate and
(TDS 100–200 mg L-1) usage García-Rodríguez, 2012;
Ghaffour et al., 2015
Partial two pass ROa Improved permeate quality Increased energy and chemical 4–4.6 33% Du et al., 2015; Kim and
(TDS 100–200 mg L−1 ) usage Hong, 2018
Split Partial Single Lower capital cost than two Slight reduction on TDS from single N/A Warsinger et al., 2016;
Pass RO (SSP)3 pass pass Werber et al., 2017
Split Partial Second High energy efficiency for Higher capital and operational cost 3.6–3.8 43% Hermony et al., 2014; Du
Pass RO (SPSP)a improved permeate quality et al., 2015
FO hybridsb,c Passive transfer; reduced Not commercially proven; highly N/A Valladares Linares et al.,
fouling; potential energy concentrated draw solution; high 2014; Altaee et al., 2018;
savings and higher recovery membrane cost. Awad et al., 2019
rates.
PRO hybridsb,c Potential to reduce energy Not commercially proven; N/A Zhang et al., 2014; Li, 2017;
consumption and capital cost, susceptible to fouling; requires Altaee et al., 2018; Wan and
and increase recovery rates; pre-treatment. Reliance on Chung, 2018; Wang et al.,
reduced salinity in co-location with dilute waste 2019
concentrate at outfall. stream.

a Commercial implementation, b Pilot phase, c Modeling only.

*Energy reduction calculated with reference to SWRO with Francis Turbine, as FT is the oldest ERD technology and is generally the minimum standard on operational SWRO plants.

development of high-selective membranes may provide a more SSP, Figure 1C), or passing through a second RO system (split
cost-effective solution to second pass. partial second pass, SPSP, Figure 1D).
Two pass RO involves a second RO unit in series which SSP has been reported to reduce fouling and increase SWRO
further treats permeate from the first to achieve improved quality. operation as well as decrease energy consumption and improve
The additional energy (and cost) required to run the second RO permeate quality by up to 15% compared with conventional
makes this option generally unfeasible (Ghaffour et al., 2015). single pass (Warsinger et al., 2016). With SPSP, the front
Partial two pass RO (Figure 1B) involves feeding a portion permeate (lower TDS) bypasses the second-pass RO, while the
of the first pass permeate through the second RO, while the rear permeate is fed into the second-pass, after which the two
remaining permeate bypasses the RO, blending with the second permeates are mixed. SPSP is reported to have the lowest SEC
pass permeate. The SEC is dependent on the ratio of permeate of the two pass configurations (Du et al., 2015).
treated to permeate bypassed (Du et al., 2015). Additional RO configurations involve passing RO concentrate
Split partial RO configurations involve the extraction of through a second RO unit have been designed to achieve
permeate from different points along the membrane module. increased recovery and reduced concentrate volume, reducing
The front (upstream) elements produce higher quality permeate plant size requirements. However, SEC is increased due to high
than rear (downstream) elements. Split partial RO therefore takes pressure requirements of the second pass (Du et al., 2015).
advantage of the lower salinity front permeate by directing it Energy savings can also be gained by grouping the RO plant
straight to the product stream, while the higher salinity rear components into three banks (high pressure feed; membrane;
permeate is treated further, either by diluting with seawater feed energy recovery), referred to as “three center RO.” This
and recycling back through the RO unit (split partial single pass, configuration has been adopted in large RO plants in Australia,

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

FIGURE 1 | (A) Single Pass RO (B) Partial Two Pass RO (C) Split Partial Single Pass (SSP) RO (D) Split Partial Second Pass (SPSP) RO (E) FO-RO (F) RO-PRO.

Israel and Middle East and provides reduced energy demand for the draw solution. FO membranes when compared with RO
diurnal flows (Voutchkov, 2018). However, three center design operate under little to no hydraulic pressure, therefore reducing
will not provide benefit where SWRO supplies only a small energy consumption. The absence of pumping results in reduced
portion of total demand and therefore required to operate in suspension of solids particles, which decreases the likelihood of
batch mode (constant flow), as is the case for desalination plants fouling (Valladares Linares et al., 2014; Awad et al., 2019).
utilized to supplement existing freshwater supplies. A major barrier to FO is the recovery of the highly
SPSP is the preferred configuration where product quality concentrated draw solution and the associated energy
requirements are higher, demanding second pass RO. Further requirement (Awad et al., 2019). The need for a high flux,
investigation is required to verify the comparative benefits of high salt reject membrane to be developed also needs to be
three center RO. addressed (Valladares Linares et al., 2014). Conventional RO
membranes are unsuitable for FO due to the high internal
HYBRID PROCESS CONFIGURATIONS concentration polarization caused by the high concentration of
draw solution, which can result in inorganic fouling (Zheng,
The integration of well-established RO technology with the 2017).
emerging technologies of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) and The draw solution must be carefully selected to ensure the
forward osmosis (FO) to optimize seawater desalination has concentration and osmotic pressure are higher than the feed,
been the focus of much research (Awad et al., 2019). PRO and and such that freshwater can be readily recovered from the draw
FO both have potential applications in SWRO desalination, by solution. Draw solution compounds range from metal salts to
introducing a more dilute waste stream into the process. electromagnetic particles, however currently no suitable standard
solution exists for different applications (Altaee et al., 2018).
Forward Osmosis Although the use of FO with SWRO desalination has yet
FO involves the passive transfer of water molecules across a to achieve commercial viability (Altaee et al., 2018; Awad
semi-permeable membrane from a more dilute feed to a less et al., 2019), FO can be used as pre-treatment for SWRO
dilute draw solution. FO relies on the osmotic pressure gradient desalination, with the potential to reduce energy consumption
between two solutions, rather than introducing hydraulic and increase recovery rates when compared with conventional
pressure to drive water in the opposite direction. The diluted SWRO processes. This FO-RO (FO followed by RO) process
draw solution is treated further to recover freshwater from involves osmotic dilution by FO of a selected draw solution, with

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 4 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

seawater as the feed, followed by a RO stage which is used as and Chung, 2018). Energy recovery potential was also found to
the draw solution recovery unit to produce freshwater and return be proportional to feed salinity (Li, 2017). In addition to the
regenerated draw solution back through (Figure 1E). potential cost savings associated with energy reduction, recycling
The highly selective FO membrane, combined with the draw a portion of the RO concentrate via PRO (“closed loop” RO-
solution recovery and regeneration process, maintains purity PRO) can substantially reduce capital cost due to reduction in
of the draw solution. This minimizes the degree of fouling of seawater intake, pre-treatment and brine discharge units (Wan
the RO membrane, which is subject to high hydraulic pressures and Chung, 2018). Another advantage of RO-PRO is that RO
and would otherwise suffer from flux decline and the resulting concentrate is diluted back to seawater levels, reducing discharge
increase in pumping and energy (Altaee et al., 2018). Reduced impacts on marine ecology (Prante et al., 2014).
fouling also leads to increased membrane life. Some drawbacks Several barriers to commercial viability of RO-PRO have been
with FO pre-treatment include the additional capital cost for identified. PRO is susceptible to excessive fouling, requiring
the extra membrane (FO) pumping and chemicals required pre-treatment (Thelin et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2014). Larger
when compared with conventional RO. Previous studies have membrane areas are required to allow operation at lower recovery
shown that energy consumption is not favorable for seawater rates (Prante et al., 2014; Li, 2017). Finally, there is a reliance
salinity below 35 g L−1 , and FO pre-treatment may only reduce on availability of a dilute waste stream, usually requiring the
energy demands when inefficient or no ERDs are installed desalination plant to be collocated with a municipal wastewater
(Altaee et al., 2018). plant or other dilute waste stream (Wan and Chung, 2016).
FO may also be used in conjunction with RO desalination PRO has the potential to harvest osmotic energy, reducing
using seawater as the FO draw solution which is diluted by an overall energy requirements, however further research is needed
introduced low concentration feed (e.g., river water or treated at pilot or operational scale to quantify and compare the benefits.
effluent). The diluted seawater is then pumped through RO to
produce freshwater as per conventional SWRO desalination.
The main benefit of this FO-RO arrangement is that osmotic CONCLUSION
dilution of seawater means less hydraulic energy is required to
drive the feed through the RO membrane. One of the main SWRO is currently the dominant form of commercial
drawbacks is the availability of a low concentration FO feed, desalination treatment. However, the energy needed for
such as treated effluent, which may be achieved by co-location high pressure pumping makes SWRO an expensive option
of desalination with a wastewater treatment plant. for producing potable water when compared with common
FO has the potential to reduce pumping and energy alternatives such as surface water treatment and IPR.
requirements, however further research is necessary at pilot or Major advances in the development of ERDs are such that
operational scale to quantify and compare benefits. they are now commonplace in SWRO plants, with the latest
(isobaric) devices operating at around 97% efficiency, enabling
Pressure Retarded Osmosis some plants to achieve SEC of 3 kWh m−3 (around double that of
PRO technology was first developed in Israel in the 1970’s IPR and 10 times that of conventional surface water treatment).
(Sakai et al., 2016), initially as an energy generation technology Although ERDs are proving essential to making SWRO more
utilizing seawater, without RO desalination. The first operational energy efficient and affordable, future developments in ERD
PRO power plant commenced in Norway, however the plant technology will provide limited benefits in further reducing
was shut down in 2014 due to unsatisfactory performance SWRO energy consumption.
(Altaee et al., 2017). Studies have shown that single pass RO generally required
PRO can be integrated into the SWRO process as RO-PRO less energy than the various two pass RO options. A second
(RO followed by PRO, Figure 1F). Highly saline RO concentrate pass RO is needed where product water quality standards are
contains high osmotic energy. PRO utilizes a semi-permeable more stringent. For the two pass RO configurations, Spit Partial
membrane to separate freshwater from a solvent via passive Second Pass RO was found to consume the least energy. It
transfer of water. The increase in osmotic pressure on the draw is noted however that these findings only suggest how SWRO
side is harvested using an ERD. This energy can be used to offset plants can be optimized within the currently reported range
energy required for high pressure pumping. of SEC.
While several studies have demonstrated that RO-PRO is RO hybrid configurations, whereby SWRO is integrated
technically viable, practical application remains limited by with pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) or forward osmosis
performance and economic benefits yet to be validated (Wan (FO) technology, have the potential to make substantial
and Chung, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Mega-ton Water System reductions in overall energy requirement: FO by reducing
in Japan is one of the only operational scale plants to date, the pump energy required for RO; PRO by harvesting and
where a 12-months trial reportedly showed the potential for 10% converting osmotic energy from the RO concentrate to offset
reduction in SEC (Kurihara and Takeuchi, 2018). RO pumping. While theoretical research suggests RO hybrid
Several theoretical studies have demonstrated that RO-PRO configurations can significantly reduce SEC, there remains a
can achieve energy savings over RO (Wan and Chung, 2016, dearth of case studies at operational scale to support the
2018; Li, 2017) provided that plant recovery ratio is limited commercial viability of RO hybrids. Barriers observed include
and the PRO unit has ample membrane area (Li, 2017; Wan PRO’s susceptibility to fouling and scaling, the vast areas of

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 5 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

membrane required, and the availability of a suitable dilute AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

waste stream.
Further research and investigation is required, particularly AS and LP designed the work. AS and GH wrote the paper. AS
at operational scale to validate the energy saving potential and T-AB contributed to the structure and editing of the paper.
suggested by theoretical studies previously undertaken into FO
and RO. Ongoing research into membrane performance and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the potential to develop a high fouling resistant membrane
are two ways in which RO-PRO hybrid could become a The authors would like to thank Chester Consultants Limited for
commercial reality. their support throughout this project.

REFERENCES Hermony, A., Sutzkover-Gutman, I., Talmi, Y., and Fine, O. (2014). Palmachim
Seawater desalination plant—seven years of expansions with uninterrupted
Abdelkareem, M. A., El Haj Assad, M., Sayed, E. T., and Soudan, B. (2018). Recent operation together with process improvements. Desalin. Water Treat. 55,
progress in the use of renewable energy sources to power water desalination 2526–2535. doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.940207
plants. Desalination 435, 97–113. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.018 Kadaj, E., and Bosleman, R. (2018). “Energy recovery devices in
Altaee, A., Alanezi, A. A., and Hawari, A. H. (2018). Emerging Technologies for membrane desalination processes,” in Renewable Energy Powered
Sustainable Desalination Handbook – Chapter 2: Forward Osmosis Feasibility Desalination Handbook: Application and Thermodynamics, 415–444.
and Potential Future Application for Desalination. (Oxford: Butterworth- doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815244-7.00011-8
Heinemann) doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815818-0.00002-3 Karabelas, A. J., Koutsou, C. P., Kostoglou, M., and Sioutopoulos, D. C. (2018).
Altaee, A., Zaragoza, G., Drioli, E., and Zhou, J. (2017). Evaluation the potential Analysis of specific energy consumption in reverse osmosis desalination
and energy efficiency of dual stage pressure retarded osmosis process. Appl. processes. Desalination 431, 15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.006
Energy. 199, 359–369. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.031 Khan, M. A. M., Rehman, S., and Al-Sulaiman, F. A. (2018). A hybrid
Ang, W. L., Mohammad, A. W., Hilal, N., and Leo, C. P. (2015). A review on the renewable energy system as a potential energy source for water desalination
applicability of intergrated/hybrid membrane processes in water treatment and using reverse osmosis: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 97, 456–477.
desalination plants. Desalination 363, 2–18. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.049
Awad, A. M., Jalab, R., Minier-Matar, J., Adham, S., Nasser, S., and Judd, S. J. (2019). Khan, S. U., Khan, S. U., Danish, S. N., Orfi, J., Rana, U. A., and
The status of forward osmosis technology implementation. Desalination 461, Haider, S. (2018). “Nuclear energy powered Seawater Desalination,”
10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2019.03.013 in Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Handbook–Application and
Bhojwani, S., Topolski, K., Mukherjee, R., Sengupta, D., and El-Halwagi, Thermodynamics, ed V. G. Gude (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann), 225–264.
M. M. (2019). Technology review and data analysis for cost assessment doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815244-7.00006-4
of water treatment systems. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2749–2761. Kim, J., and Hong, S. (2018). A novel single-pass reverse osmosis configuration
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.363 for high-purity water production and low energy consumption in seawater
Du, Y., Xie, L., Zhang, S., and Xu, Y. (2015). Optimization of reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination 429, 142–154. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.12.026
networks with split partial second pass design. Desalination 365, 365–380. Kim, J., Park, K., Yang, D. R., and Hong, S. (2019). A comprehensive review
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2015.03.019 of energy consumption of seawater reverse osmosis desalination plants. Appl.
Efraty, A. (2012). Closed circuit desalination series no-6: conventional Energy 254:113652. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113652
RO compared with the conceptually different new closed circuit Kurihara, M., and Takeuchi, H. (2018). SWRO-PRO System in “Mega-ton Water
desalination technology. Desalin. Water Treat. 41, 279–295. System” for energy reduction and low environmental impact. Water 10, 48–63.
doi: 10.1080/19443994.2012.664741 doi: 10.3390/w10010048
Farooque, A. M., Jamaluddin, A. T. M., Al-Mobayed, A. S. A., and Qasim, A. H. Li, M. (2017). Reducing specific energy consumption of seawater
(2004). Comparative study of various energy recovery devices use in SWRO desalination: staged RO or RO-PRO? Desalination 422, 124–133.
process. TR.3807/EVP 02005. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2007.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.08.023
Ghaffour, N., Bundschuh, J., Mahmoudi, H., and Goosen, M. F. A. (2015). Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Four billion people facing severe
Renewable energy-driven desalination technologies: a comprehensive review water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2:e1500323. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500323
on challenges and potential applications of integrated systems. Desalination Park, K., Kim, J., Yang, D. R., and Hong, S. (2020). Towards a low-energy seawater
356, 94–114. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.024 reverse osmosis desalination plant: a review and theoretical analysis for future
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) (2016). IDA Desalination Yearbook 2016–2017, directions. J. Membrane Sci. 595:117607. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117607
Water Desalination Report. Available online at: https://www.globalwaterintel. Peñate, B., and García-Rodríguez, L. (2011). Energy optimisation of existing
com/ (accessed August 25, 2019). SWRO (seawater reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery
Gude, V. G. (2018). Sustainable Desalination Handbook—Plant Selection, Design turbines): technical and thermoeconomic assessment. Energy 36, 613–626.
and Implementation. Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.056
book/9780128092408/sustainable-desalination-handbook#book-description Peñate, B., and García-Rodríguez, L. (2012). Current trends and future prospects
(accessed July 28, 2019). in the design of seawater reverse osmosis desalination technology. Desalination
Guirguis, M. J. (2011). Energy Recovery Devices in Seawater Reverse Osmosis 284, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.09.010
Desalination Plants with Emphasis on Efficiency and Economical Analysis of Prante, J. L., Ruskowitz, J. A., Childress, A. E., and Achilli, A. (2014). RO-PRO
Isobaric versus Centrifugal Devices. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. desalination: an integrated low-energy approach to seawater desalination. Appl.
Hailemariam, R. H., Woo, Y. C., Damtie, M. M., Kim, B. C., Park, K-D., Energy 120, 104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.013
Choi, J-S., (2020). Reverse osmosis membrane fabrication and modification Ramato, A. T., Noviello, Y., Di Profio, G., Macedonio, F., Ali, A., Drioli,
technologies and future trends: a review. Adv. Coll. Interface Sci. 276:102100. E., et al. (2019). Integrated membrane distillation-reverse electrodialysis
doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2019.102100 system for energy efficient seawater desalination. Appl. Energy 253:113551.
Heihsel, M., Lenzen, M., Malik, A., and Geschke, A. (2019). The caron doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113551
footprint of desalination–an input-output analysis of seawater reverse Sakai, H., Ueyama, T., Irie, M., Matsuyama, K., Tanioka, A., Saito, K., et al. (2016).
osmosis desalination in Australia for 2005–2015. Desalination 454, 71–81. Energy recovery by PRO in sea water desalination plant. Desalination 389,
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2018.12.008 52–57. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.025

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 6 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9

Schunke et al. Energy Recovery in SWRO Desalination

Shemer, H., and Semiat, R. (2017). Sustainable RO desalination— Werber, J., Deshmukh, A., and Elimelech, M. (2017). Can batch or semi-
energy demand and environmental impact. Desalination 424, 10–16. batch processes save energy in reverse-osmosis desalination? Desalination 402,
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.09.021 109–122. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2016.09.028
Thelin, W. R., Sivertsen, E., Holt, T., and Brekke, G. (2013). Natural organic Zarzo, D., and Prats, D. (2018). Desalination and energy consumption.
matter fouling in pressure retarded osmosis. J. Membrane Sci. 438, 46–56. What can we expect in the near future? Desalination 427, 1–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.020 doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.046
Urrea, S. A., Reyes, F. D., Suárez, B. P., and de la Fuente Bencomo, J. A., Zhang, M., Hou, D., She, Q., and Tang, C. Y. (2014). Gypsum scaling in pressure
(2019). Technical review, evaluation and efficiency of energy recovery devices retarded osmosis Experiments, mechanisms and implications. Water Res. 48,
installed in the Canary Islands desalination plants. Desalination 450, 54–63. 387–395. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.051
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2018.07.013 Zheng, H. (2017). Solar Energy Desalination Technology—Chapter 1—
Valladares Linares, R., Li, Z., Sarp, S., Bucs, S. S., Amy, G., and Vrouwenvelder, J. S. General Problems in Seawater Desalination (Amsterdam:Elsevier).
(2014). Forward osmosis niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805411-6.00001-4
Water Res. 66, 122–139. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.021 Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Duan, Y., Tian, J., and Xu, S. (2017). Capacity flexibility
Voutchkov, N. (2018). Energy use for membrane seawater desalination—current evaluation of a reciprocating-switcher energy recovery device for SWRO
status and trends. Desalination 431, 2–14. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.033 desalination system. Desalination 416, 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.
Wan, C. F., and Chung, T. S. (2016). Energy recovery by pressure retarded osmosis 04.026
(PRO) in SWRO–PRO integrated processes. Appl. Energy 162, 687–698.
doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.067 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
Wan, C. F., and Chung, T. S. (2018). Techno-economic evaluation of various absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
RO+PRO and RO+FO integrated processes. Appl. Energy 212, 1038–1050. potential conflict of interest.
doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.124
Wang, Q., Zhou, Z., Li, J., Tang, Q., and Hu, Y. (2019). Investigation of the Copyright © 2020 Schunke, Hernandez Herrera, Padhye and Berry. This is an open-
reduced specific energy consumption of the RO-PRO hybrid system based access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
on temperature-enhanced pressure retarded osmosis. J. Membrane Sci. 581, License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
439–452. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.03.079 provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
Warsinger, D. M., Tow, E. W., Nayar, K. G., Maswadeh, L. A., and Lienhard, J. original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
H. (2016). Energy efficiency of batch and semi-batch (CCRO) reverse osmosis practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
desalination. Water Res. 106, 272–282. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.029 with these terms.

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 7 April 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 9