21

Comparative Cost of UF vs. Conventional Pretreatment

for SWRO Systems

P. Glueckstern and M. Priel,
Mekorot Water Co., Tel-Aviv
Abstract
Surface seawater intended for desalination by RO need extensive pretreatment to control
membranes fouling. Currently, conventional pretreatment is applied, consisting mainly on in-
line flocculation followed by media filtration.
This kind of pretreatment usually yields satisfactory results, provided a well-designed
seawater intake system usually a submarine type is used. However, considering long-term
in order membranes performance stability, membranes manufacturers usually limit the
operating flux to avoid frequent chemical membranes cleaning.
Recently, Mekorot in cooperation with other partners, namely: Hydranautics, USA, Ben
Gurion University, Royal Scientific Society Jordan and Sultan University, Oman, has
concluded a three year research supported by the MEDRC, to test and evaluate the
comparative field performance of capillary UF technology versus conventional pretreatment
at two seawater sites: Eilat (Red Sea) and Ashdod (Mediterranean). Details of this research
including operational results were reported at the EDS conference in Toulouse (July 2002).
It is well known that the new backwashable microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes
technology widely used for treatment of polluted surface water has superior quality
performance. The main reason for not adopting this technology for pretreatment in SWRO
systems until lately, stems mainly from economic reasons and to some extent to lack of
operational experience with seawater. Following the recent experience in pilot units and the
continuously cost reduction, on account of the technological improvements and worldwide
competition by several membranes manufacturers, this option is now seriously considered for
application in seawater systems.
In the presentation, the comparative economics of conventional versus membrane
pretreatment for large SWRO systems will be analyzed, assuming several design approaches
and projections of future cost reduction in membrane pretreatment systems.

1. Introduction
Due to advancement in MF and UF technologies, their implementation for water filtration was
dramatically expended in the last several years, and several hundreds of systems are in
operation for municipal drinking water systems worldwide [1].
In the recent years, these new backwashable MF and UF technologies are widely considered
as pretreatment in RO plants operating with polluted surface water such as river water,
agriculture and municipal wastewater [2,3].

22
Continuous cost reduction in MF and UF membranes cost and especially their reduced cost
in large systems [3], makes this option attractive also for pretreatment in large SWRO
systems operating on surface feedwater, originating from an open intake source.
Recent studies [4,5], indicate that the still higher investment in these technologies (in
comparison with the conventional in-line flocculation followed by media filtration), is
partially, and in some cases fully, compensated by cost reduction in their successive RO
systems, by enabling higher permeate flux rate and higher permeate recovery.
Mekorot had started to investigate the actual performance of backwashable UF capillary
technology back in 1997 by conducting field testing at two sites where a polluted brackish
source and a seawater source were desalinated. The first study was conducted in the
framework of EU-Joule multi-institutional, multi-national research program [2] and the
second one - in a research program supported by the MEDRC [6].
The MEDRC study included inter alia field evaluation of hybrid membrane systems,
consisting of UF pretreatment and an RO seawater unit. The study was conducted by the Red
Sea (Eilat site) and by the Mediterranean (Ashdod site). Details of the study, including
operational results were reported at the last EDS conference in Toulouse, July 2002 [6].
The aim of the present paper is to analyze the comparative cost of UF vs. conventional
pretreatment for implementation in large SWRO systems.

2. Design and Cost Basis
Based on the performance of the Ashdod seawater pilot plant tests and economic data from
various sources, and from the 10,000 m
3
/d Eilat SWRO plant in particular, an economic
analysis of the comparative desalination cost of water from conventionally versus UF
pretreated SWRO plant was evaluated.
The main design and economic assumptions used for the above analysis are summarized in
Table 1.
The comparative investment cost and unit water cost of a 90,000 m
3
/d (30 Mm
3
/y) SWRO
plant are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
Flow diagrams and energy balance for the two compared 90,000 m
3
/d SWRO plants are
shown in Table 1Figure 1 and Table 1Figure 2 .

23
Table 1 Main design data and economic parameters used in the comparative economic
analysis
Seawater solid contents -TDS, mg/l 40,000
Seawater temperature,
0
C
- range
- average

16 30
22
Pretreatment type CONVENTIONAL
media filtration
ULTRAFILTRATION
(UF)
Filtration rate, UF flux 8 m
3
/m
2
-hr 97 l/m
2
-hr
Water losses 4.4% 8.1%
RO product recovery 45% 50%
RO membrane flux 13.5 l/m
2
-hr 15.5 l/m
2
-hr
SWRO plant capacity 90,000 m
3
/day
Number of units 8 7
Train capacity 11,250 m
3
/day 12,857 m
3
/day
Product Chloride content < 240 mg/l Cl < 200 mg/l Cl
Chemicals costs 4.82 cents/m
3
2.70 cents/m
3

Energy Consumption 3.57 kWh/m
3
3.56 kWh/m
3

Economic Parameters:
- Fix charges
- Electric power price
- Plant insurance
- RO & UF membranes replacement
for progressive and future projection

10%
4.5 cents/kWhr
0.3%
14.3%/year
10.0%/year

24
Figure 1 SWRO desalination plant 90,000 m
3
/day, 30 M
m
3
/year ULTRAFILTRATION pretreatment -
Principle flow diagram

Figure 2 SWRO desalination plant 90,000 m
3
/day, 30
M m
3
/year CONVENTIONAL pretreatment -
Principle flow diagram


Table 2 A 90,000 m
3
/day SWRO plant - comparative investment costs
Pretreatment type Conventional UF
INVESTMENT, K $
- Infrastructure 15,500 15,000
- Pretreatment System
- Media Filt./ UF (excl. membr.) 9,000 12,200
- UF membranes 4,400
- Total Pretreatment System 9,000 16,600
- RO System
- RO System excl. membranes 35,700 32,000
- RO Membranes 4,200 3,700
- Total RO System 39,900 35,700
- Total excl., membranes 60,200 59,200
- UF & RO Membranes 4,200 8,100
- Total incl., membranes 64,400 67,300
System Capacity, m
3
/day 90,000 90,000

25
Annual Production, M m
3
/year 30.0 30.0
Specific Investment, $/m
3
-day 716 748
$/m
3
-year 2.15 2.25
Table 3 A 90,000 m
3
/day SWRO plant - comparative annual and unit water costs

K $/year
cent/m
3

Pretreatment type CONV. UF CONV. UF
Capital
- 10% of investment incl. membranes 6,440 6,730 21.49 22.46
- 0.3% insurance 193 202 0.64 0.67
Total capital cost 6,633 6,932 22.13 23.13
Fixed O&M cost
- Labour for 22 oper. @ 40 K$/Year 880 880 2.94 2.94
- Spare parts and oper. matherials
@ 1% of inv. excl.mem. 602 592 2.01 1.98
- Membrane replacement @ 14.3% / year 601 1,158 2.00 3.86
- Overhead @ 5% 104 132 0.35 0.44
Total fixed O&M cost 2,187 2,762 7.30 9.22
Variable O&M Cost
- Energy @ 0.045 $/kWh 4,814 4,808 16.06 16.04
- Chemicals 1,445 809 4.82 2.70
- Overhead @ 5% 313 281 1.04 0.94
Total variable O&M cost 6,571 5,898 21.93 19.68
Total 15,391 15,591 51.35 52.02

3. Analysis of results
3.1. Base Case
The base-case assumes a higher specific RO permeate flux and recovery ratio for the UF
design, but is quite conservative regarding all other parameters, such as membranes
replacement cost and plant availability.
The total investment in the 90,000 m
3
/d SWRO plant is estimated as some 64.4 M$ for the
case where conventional media filtration is used and 67.3 M$ for the plant using UF
pretreatment (see Table 2).
The unit water cost calculated at the economic parameters defined in Table 1, amounts to
approx. 52 cent/m
3
with the UF pretreatment ( Table 3).
Comparative cost breakdown of investment and unit water cost are shown in Table 4 and
Table 5, respectively.
From the investment cost breakdown, shown in Table 4, it is quite evident that the much
higher investment in the UF pretreatment, 184 $/m
3
-d vs. 100 $/m
3
-d, is partially balanced by
the reduced investment in the RO plant (397$/m
3
-d vs. 443 $/m
3
-d). This lower investment is
obtained by operation at a higher RO membrane flux (15.5 l/m
2
-hr vs. 13.5 l/m
2
-hr).

26
Operation at a higher RO membrane flux is made possible due to the higher filtrate quality,
but this is still pending on an approval of the membranes manufacturer.
The unit water cost breakdown (see Table 3) shows that the cost components contributing to
the higher cost in systems where UF is employed versus systems with conventional
pretreatment, are the capital and the fixed O&M cost, including UF and RO membranes
replacement cost. As all other cost components (labor & maintenance) being quite similar, the
additional UF membranes replacement cost makes the difference.
Table 4 Comparative investment costs in UF filtration Vs. conventional MEDIA
filtration for the 90,000 m
3
/day SWRO plants
Filtration method MEDIA UF UF Vs. MEDIA
M $ $/m
3
-day M $ $/m
3
-day M $ %
Infrastructure 15.5 172 15.0 167 -0.5 -3.2%
Pretreatment 9.0 100 16.6 184 7.6 +84.4%
RO System 39.9 443 35.7 397 -4.2 -10.5%
Total Investment 64.4 716 67.3 748 4.1 +4.5%
Table 5 Comparative unit water cost breakdown of UF filtration Vs. conventional
MEDIA filtration for the 90,000 m
3
/day SWRO plants
Filtration method MEDIA UF UF Vs. MEDIA
K $/year cent/m
3
K $/year cent/m
3
cent/m
3
%
Capital cost 6,630 22.13 6,932 23.13 1.00 +4.5%
Fixed O&M cost 2,187 7.30 2,762 9.22 1.92 +26.3%
Variable operating cost
including 5% operational overhead
- Energy 4,814 16.06 4,808 16.04 -0.02 -0.1%
- Chemicals cost 1,445 4.82 809 2.70 -2.12 -44.0%
- Total variable op. cost 6,571 21.93 5,898 19.68 -2.25 -10.3%
Total 15,391 51.35 15,591 52.02 0.67 +1.3%

The considerably higher fix O&M cost of about 1.9 cent/m
3
is partially compensated by the
somewhat lower variable O&M cost, consisting of energy and chemicals costs. The UF
system consumes similar specific energy (see Figure1 and Figure 2) much lower cost - about
44% - of chemicals (see Table 3).
3.2. Subjective approaches regarding selecting the membrane pretreatment for
SWRO systems
Depending on the customers, designers and manufacturers conditions and requirements,
several approaches can be used when selecting the appropriate pretreatment for the plant:
3.2.1. Very conservative approach
In this approach no credit regarding better feed water quality is given. In this case the RO
system is designed with a conservative flux of about 8 gfd (13.5 l/m
2
-hr). Availability, RO

27
replacement and UF membrane replacement cost figures are not reduced in anticipation for
future cost reduction.
3.2.2. Progressive approach
In a case where both the customer and the system supplier have confidence in the improved
performance of the integrated membrane system for desalination of seawater, relying mainly
on comprehensive field testing, many of the potential credits are taken into account. In this
approach it is reasonable to assume a considerably reduced RO and UF replacement cost
(10% instead 14.3% per year) and to assume future UF membranes cost to be reduced by
50%
1
.
3.2.3. Progressive approach at sites with extreme changes in seawater quality
At locations where conventional pretreatment cannot yield the quality needed for plant
operation during the whole year, due to occasional severe seawater quality deterioration, and
longer downtime because of need of more frequent chemical cleaning of the RO membranes,
a lower plant availability of 310-320 operating days, instead of 333 has to be taken in account.
3.2.4. Other factors
Other factors have to be considered:
Systems availability, especially for implementation in the locations where seawater is
of poor quality, or where land at seashore sites is scarce or where land cost is very
high.
The salinity of the product.
These factors can be economically assessed only for specific site conditions.
The land required for a SWRO plant operating at a high RO membrane flux using membrane
pretreatment is only 50% or less of the area needed for a system using a conventional
pretreatment, while the product salinity is considerably lower (see Figure 3 ).

1
Average replacement cost

28
Figure 3 SWRO permeate salinity Vs. seawater temperature and RO
membrane flux

Thus, if for example a product salinity of 150 mg/l Chloride is required, the SWRO with the
conventional pretreatment would require a second stage desalination of about 40% (36,000
m
3
/day) while for the SWRO using UF pretreatment, a second stage of only 27% (24,000
m
3
/day) is needed.

3.3. Comparative results of cost according to the various approaches
The resulting unit water costs according to the various assumptions/approaches are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 6 Comparative results of the various approaches
Pretreatment method Case/Approach Availability
%
Investment
K $
Unit Water Cost
cents/m
3

BASE 67,300 52.02
VERY CONSERVATIVE 71,500 53.85
PROGRESSIVE 59,700 50.03
ULTRAFILTRATION
FUTURE PROJECTION
91.2
59,700 47.23
BASE 91.2 51.35
REDUCED AVAILABILITY 87.7 52.55
CONVENTIONAL
REDUCED AVAILABILITY 84.9
64,400
53.54

29
4. Selection of preferred pretreatment UF Vs. CONVENTIONAL
The selection of the preferred pretreatment is pending, to a great extent, on the specific site
conditions, on subjective approach philosophy and on the perspective of the UF technology.
For reasonable good site conditions, including seawater quality and conservative or even very
conservative approach to the expected benefits of UF vs. conventional pretreatment, the lower
investment and lower unit water cost will justify the conventional option as the right decision.
On the other hand, for sites limited in size and inferior seawater quality affecting plant
availability, the UF will be seriously considered, especially if a progressive approach to the
benefits of feed quality is adopted.

5. Near and long term projections
The current cost per m
2
of UF membranes in this study is still much higher than the cost of
RO membranes (30-40 $/m
2
vs. 12-15 $/m
2
), but is being continuously reduced. By assuming
a 50% cost reduction, the total UF pretreatment may eventually become equal to the
conventional media filtration followed by cartridge micron filters polishing. This
development will significantly reduce the unit water cost - by about 9% comparing to the
estimated base case cost (Figure 4).
A summary of the resulting unit water costs at the evaluated different approaches and
scenarios is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Breakdown of unit water cost of CONVENTIONAL and UF
pretreatment (90,000 m3/day SWRO) at various operating and economic
assumptions

30

6. Conclusions
At present, the conventional pretreatment is in most cases the preferred technology for
pretreatment, because of its lower investment cost but also because of lack of
experience of implementing UF to pretreat seawater.
By adopting a more progressive approach after extensive pilot testing, and especially
after further cost reduction, the UF/MF pretreatment method will most probably get
more and more acceptance for application in large SWRO systems using surface
seawater, originating from an open intake source.
Beside the above analysis, it has to be emphasized that in addition to the
considerations of all relevant site conditions, international tenders for both options are
essential to explore real market prices, especially in the atmosphere of the
continuously rapid technological developments and cost reduction of MF and UF
technology.

7. References
1. W. T.Bates, Capillary UF as RO pretreatment, Presented at the International Water
Conference, Pittsburg, PA. USA, October 1999 (IWC-99-22).
2. P. Glueckstern, P. Priel, A. Thoma and Y. Gelman Desalination of brackish
fishponds effluents, EDS conference. Paris, France, 2000.
3. E. William, P. Mehul, A. Kevin, Selecting microfiltration equipment for a water
purification mega project. Presented at the IWW conference, held in Muelheim on the
Ruhr, Germany, Sept. 2002.
4. M. Wilf and K. Klinko, Effect of new pretreatment methods and improved membrane
performance on design of RO seawater systems, IDA World Congress on Desalination
and Water Reuse, Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1997, Vol. 1,357.
5. P. Glueckstern and M. Priel, Advanced concepts of large seawater desalination
systems in Israel, Desalination, 119 (1998) 33-45
6. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, M. Wilf, Field evaluation of capillary UF technology as a
pretreatment for large seawater RO systems, Desalination, 147 (2002) 55-62.