See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334170400

Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison between

Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration

Article in IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry · June 2019

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476

CITATION READS

1 395

4 authors, including:

Hayet Cherif Montassar Jendoubi

Centre de Recherche et des Technologies des Eaux Centre de Recherche et des Technologies des Eaux
10 PUBLICATIONS 91 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hamza Elfil
Center of Water Researches and Technologies (CERTE)
89 PUBLICATIONS 913 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hayet Cherif on 12 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSR-JAC)
e-ISSN: 2278-5736.Volume 12, Issue 6 Ser. I (June. 2019), PP 64-76
www.iosrjournals.org

Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation:

Comparison between Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration
Hayet Cherif1,*, Montassar Jendoubi1, Youssra Hmidi1, Hamza Elfil1
1
Laboratory of Natural Water Treatment, Water Researches and Technologies Center, B.P. 273, Soliman 8020,
Tunisia
*Corresponding Author: Hayet Cherif

Abstract: Different waters resources (well, dam, desalinated and blended water) were characterized and their
suitability for citrus trees irrigation purposes were evaluated. Results showed that well and dam waters were
classified as C4S1 and C5S1 doubtful and unsuitable for irrigation. However, desalinated and blended waters
were classified C1S1 and C2S1 excellent and good waters qualities. Well and dam waters sodium, chloride,
bicarbonate and nitrate concentrations exceeded FAO recommendations for sensitive crops like citrus as well
as sodium absorption rate (SAR). The performance study of RO desalination plant with a capacity of 120 m 3/d
and a feed water of 3.71 g/L showed that optimum values were 68% for conversion rate, 91% for retention rate
and 0.58 KWh/m3 for consumes energy with a water produced cost of $0.246/m 3. The nanofiltration was
suggested to reduce brine amount and environmental impact. Compared reverse osmosis performance to
simulated nanofiltration performance showed that brine amount can be reduced by 12%. The conversion rate
can be increased to 80% and the energy consumption can be reduced by 35% with a retention rate of 83% using
nanofiltration.
Keywords: irrigation water salinity; growth; citrus; nanofiltration; reverse osmosis; brine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Date of Submission: 11-06-2019 Date of acceptance: 27-06-2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction
Besides the scarcity of water resources, intense agricultural and urban development has caused a high
demand for groundwater resources [1]. The economic and social level does not cease to increase as well as the
requirement of the quality of the agricultural products in order to win competitive markets requires a large
supply of high-quality water. Tunisia use large amounts of water for agricultural sector (82% of available water)
[2]. It has 411.4 thousand hectares of irrigated land. Tree crops come first, with an area of 152.6 thousand ha
(37% of the total surface), vegetables second (30%), followed by forages (16%), cereals (16%), and other
industrial crops (1%) [3]. Citrus which is one of the most relevant crops worldwide with a yearly average
production of 90.106 Mg in the last decade and, the second largest fruit crop after apples in Mediterranean
countries [4], covers actually in Tunisia an area of 27000 ha and 7 million trees. 18630 ha are developed in Cap
Bon (Nabeul Government) [5]. Water resource in Tunisia that have a salinity of less than 1.5 g/L are distributed
as follows, 72 % of surface water resources, 8% of shallow groundwater and 20% of deep groundwater [6].
However, the salinity of irrigation water can have for reaching effects on citrus production. A TDS values
exceed 1.2 g/L can severely damage citrus tree growth and fruit production [7]. Zarzo et al.[8] reported that
irrigation of citrus trees with desalinated water led to increase in production by 10 to 50% depending on the
water quality used prior water desalination. Saline irrigation water decrease the fruit yields about 13% for each
1.0 ms/cm increase in electrical conductivity of the saturated-soil extract (ECe) once soil salinity exceeds a
threshold (ECe) of 1.4 ms/cm. Chloride toxicity appears to be the main reason for reduction in its fruit yield [9].
Gradual accumulation of chloride, sodium and boron to toxic levels are equally or even more important effect
compared to the osmotic effects [10]. The specific irrigation water quality can be accomplished by introducing
desalination [11]. In the world only 2% of total desalinated water production is used for agriculture. The highest
proportion of desalinated water use in agriculture occurs in Spain (22%). 13% is used in Kowait, 1.5% in Italy,
1.3% in USA, 0.4% in Bahrain, 0.1 % in Qatar and only 0.5% of the desalination capacity for the Saudi Arabic
is used for agriculture purposes [12].Reverse osmosis was reported to be the preferred desalination technology
for agriculture uses because of the cost reductions driven by improvements in membranes in recent years [13].
Disposal of the RO retentate stream from desalination plants has a negative environmental impact using the
disposal options; evaporation ponds, deep wells, surface water bodies and municipal sewers [11]. Desalination
facilities with sea discharge always being the preferred option. When discharge to the ocean or sea is not
possible brine water was discharged to the deep well injection like the case of Austria (12% of total brine water)
[12]. Few studies exist regarding the injection of brine following desalination, and their environmental impacts
DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 64 |Page
 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

[14, 15, 16, 17, and 18]. Limited efforts have been made to characterize and assess the impacts of the brine
discharge on the environment. Taking into account the limited water resources and higher salinity of irrigation
water in Tunisia, efforts have been made to improve water quality by farmers. Some small capacities of
desalination units are installed and blended water is used for irrigation purposes. The objective of this paper is to
evaluate several water resources qualities used in citrus producing farm in North-East Tunisia (well water, dam
water, desalinated water and blended water). Toxic components effects and the waters suitability for irrigation
purposes were investigated as well as the benefit of using desalination. Then technical economic evaluation of
RO desalination plant were carried out in order to help the farmer to minimize specific consumes energy and
production water cost. Brine waters generated by RO plant and disposed in deep well injection were
characterized and environmental effects were considered. New configuration of desalination system was
proposed which consists of replacing reverse osmosis by nanofiltration to minimize brine amount and increase
water production flow rate. Simulation results carried out by IMS-Design simulator was used to evaluate
consumes energy, conversion rate and quality of desalinated and brine waters using nanofiltration and compared
to experimental results using reverse osmosis desalination system.

II. Material And Methods

Case study
This study was carried out in citrus producing farm in North Tunisia (Nabeul Government). At the aim
to improve water irrigation quality, farmer have been installed RO plant to desalinate well water and used
blended water to irrigate 6 ha of citrus trees. The water production line is described in Fig.1. The well water
with salinity near than 4g/L is desalinated by RO plant with the capacity of 120 m 3/d. The pretreatment step
contains three cartridge filters, sand filters and injection of fouling inhibitor. The treatment was conducted using
two parallel vessel pressures and each vessel pressure contains two housing elements with an active area of
37.16 m2.
Several water resources water samples were collected from well, permeate of RO, dam, and irrigation
tank to evaluate their suitability for citrus trees irrigation and toxic components effects. Brine water generated
by RO and from the deep well injection was also sampled to evaluate environmental impact. Samples were
carried out three times during March to August, 2017 to take account a variability of water quality according to
the season. Each sample was poured into plastic bottles after rinsing several times with the same water. These
bottles were tightly closed, labeled and transported from the citrus farms to the laboratory of Natural Water
Treatment located in Soliman, Tunisia, for analysis.

Water analysis
The electrical conductivity, pH and temperature were performed by a Proline type conductivity meter
and pH-meter in situ. Calcium, magnesium, chloride and bicarbonate were analyzed by the titrimetric method.
Sodium and potassium were analyzed by flame photometer. Sulphate and total dissolved salt were analyzed by
gravimetric method. Nitrate and COD were analyzed according to NF T 90 012 [19] and APHA [20] standard
methods respectively. Finally Ammonium was analyzed by steam distillation using NaOH (30%) followed by
back titration of boric acid distillate using sulfuric acid (0.1 M).

Evaluation criteria of irrigation water quality

Sodium concentration plays an important role in evaluating irrigational quality of water. A high
concentration of sodium is undesirable as sodium is adsorbed on the exchange sites causing soil aggregates to
disperse and reducing its permeability [21]. In water having high concentration of bicarbonate there is tendency
for calcium and magnesium to precipitate as carbonates [22]. The combination of EC (salinity hazard) and
alkalinity hazard SAR calculated by equation1 was used to evaluate the suitability of water for irrigation based
in table n° 1 [11].

Table n° 1 : Irrigation water Classes according to the salinity level and SAR [11]
Water class Conductivity (ms/cm) TDS (g/L) Water class SAR
C1 Excellent 0 - 0.25 0.175 S1 low sodium hazard 0 - 10
C2 Good 0.25-0.75 0.175 - 0.525 S2 medium sodium hazard 10 - 18
C3 Permissible 0.75 - 2 0.525 - 1.4 S3 High sodium hazard 18 - 26
S4 Very high sodium hazard not
C4 Doubtful 2-3 1.4 - 2.1 > 26
suitable for irrigation
C5 Unsuitable >3 2.1

Sodium percent SSP is another important parameter to study the sodium hazard [23]. Also residual
sodium carbonate (RSC) is an index used to determine the bicarbonate hazard as well as to distinguish between

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 65 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

the different water classes for irrigation purposes. The calculations of parameters RSC, SSP and ESP were
achieved using the following equations in milliequivalents per liter (meq/L).
[ Na  ]
SAR  Equation 1 [24]
[Ca 2 ]  [ Mg 2 ]
2

2 
RSC  ([CO3 ])  [ HCO3 ])  ([Mg 2 ]  [Ca 2 ]) Equation 2 [24]

[ Na  ] Equation 3 [24]
SSP  100 ( )
([ Ca 2 ]  [ Mg 2 ]  [ K  ]  [ Na  ])
100 ( 0,0126  0,01475 SAR )
ESP  Equation 4 [24]
1  ( 0,0126  0,01475 SAR )
The conductivities, TDS, toxic elements (sodium, chloride, nitrogen), bicarbonate which caused
clogging in irrigation system, SAR, RSC, SSP and ESP of different water resources were compared to FAO
guidelines for interpretation of irrigation water quality illustrated in table n° 2 [11,19 and 25].

Table n° 2 : Guidelines for interpretations of irrigation water quality [19, 25]

Potential irrigation problem Units Degree of restriction in use
None Slight to moderate Severe
Salinity
ECw ms/cm < 0.7 0.7 - 3 >3
TDS mg/L < 450 450 - 2000 > 2000
Specific ion toxicity
SAR (Surface irrigation) <3 3-9 >9
[Na+] (Sprinkler irrigation) <3 >3
meq/L
[Cl-]) - Surface irrigation) <4 4 - 10 > 10
- Sprinkler irrigation <3 >3
Boron [B] [11] mg/L < 0.7 0.7 - 3 >3
Ions affects susceptible crops
[NO3-N] mg/L <5 5 - 30 > 50
[HCO3-] (Sprinkling only) < 1.5 1.5 - 8.5 > 8.5
meq/L
RSC <0 0-1 >1
SSP < 60 60 - 80 > 80
ESP 2 - 10 10 - 40 > 40
pH 6.5 - 8.4

In order to classify these several waters based on salinity hazard, analyses results were saved in Excel
files and used as data input, After that Riverside and Wilcox diagrams were plotted using water software quality
hydrochemistry diagrams developed by hydrogeology laboratory in Avignon university version 6.58.

Technical-economic evaluation of RO desalination plant

Performance evaluation of desalination system
Irrigation with desalinated water has the potential to be a more water-efficient and economically viable
alternative to brackish water irrigation [26]. RO is particularly appealing because recent advances in membrane
technology allow modular construction of desalinating facilities to meet small to large-volume desalination
needs [27]. As described below, farmer used a reverse osmosis unit with two parallel vessels and four elements
with the area of 37.16 m2 to desalinate well brackish water. In order to evaluate the performance of this plant,
the conversion rate Y and retention rate T R were calculated for each difference pressure ΔP using the following
equations:
P  PR
P  F  P Equation 5 [28]
p
2
with PF: Feed membrane pressure (bar)
PR: Retentate membrane pressure (bar)
PP: Permeate pressure (bar)
Qp
Y  Equation 6 [28]
QF
Qp is the permeate water flow rate and QF is the feed water flow rate (m3/h)
Cp Equation 7 [28]
T  1
R
CF

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 66 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

With Cp: permeate water salinity (g/L)

CF: feed water salinity (g/L)
After analyzing the samples taken from RO plant, the experimental results were used as the data input
to IMS-design software developed by Hydranautics Nitto Group Company in order to simulate a process. The
experimental data analyzed in 23 March was used as data input for model calibration because the brine water
was not recycled to the feed point of plant and only well water was desalinated at this day. Selected membrane
was ESP1 based in active area, flow rate and maximum pressure of RO elements installed in the farmer. For
each ΔP permeate recovery rate, permeate TDS and brine water TDS were deduced by simulation. Membrane
selectivity TR was calculated using output simulated results. Optimum conversion rate was obtained for a ΔP in
which, maximum retention rate and minimum permeate TDS were reached. The Specific Consumption Energy
(SEC) defined as the electrical energy needed to produce a cubic meter of permeates. It’s assumed equal to the
pump word devised by pump efficiency [29] and it was calculated by this equation:
QF * P
SEC  Equation 8 [30]
Q p pump mo tor
In our case; ɳ pump= 0.8 and ɳ motor is close to 1.

Water cost production

In water desalination cost estimates seem to be very much site specific and the cost per cubic meter
ranges from installation to installation. This variability is due to the water cost depends upon many factors,
unique in each case, most important of which are the desalination system the feed water salinity, the energy
source, the capacity of the desalting plant, and other site related factors [31].
Several assumptions were made for the economic analyses. The project life time was 15 years, the
membrane age was 8 years, interest rate was 5% [32], actualization rate was 5%, the system availability was
90%, and the electrical cost was set at 0.58 KWh/m3. Electricity consumption was calculated for the recovery
rate of the RO process of 68%. Indirect charged, replacements of membrane, maintenance and operating costs
were also considered in calculations. The table n° 3 [32, 33] lists detailed calculation of Water Production Cost
(WPC) which is based on the following equation:
C total Equation 9[32]
WPC 
f Qp ,d 365
- Ctotal is the total annual cost defined by the sum of annual fixed charges, operational and maintenance costs.
- f is the plant availability
- Qp,d is the daily permeate flowrate (m3/d).

Table n°3 : Hypothesis and correlation for water production cost estimation
Annual fixed charges [32] Annual operational and maintenance costs
Cfixed = a.CC Membrane replacement
CC: capital cost 6 % of membrane cost

i 1  i 
n Chemicals : $ 0.018 /m3 [32]
Amortization factor: a
1  i n  1
i: annual interest rate
n: life time of the plant
CC= DCC+ICC Electrical energy fees
ICC = 0.1 DCC $ 0.053/KWh + 2% annual increasing rate
D: direct ; I: Indirect [33]
DCC : Civil works, intake and pretreatment, pumps, Operating and spares fees: $0.033 /m3 [32]
vessels and membranes cost Labor: $ 0.015 /m3 [33]
(Real Data of RO plant) Brine disposal cost: $ 0.015 /m3 [32]

Brine environmental impact and management

Desalination technology has been associated with potential environmental impacts. At the aim to assess
the impact of the brine discharge on the deep well injection disposed brine water were characterized and
environmental effects were considered by comparison of ions, COD and nitrogen ammonia to Tunisian
Standards 106.002 [34]. Replacement of RO membrane ESP1 with ESNA1-LF-LD nanofiltration with the same
active area was proposed to minimize brine amount and increase water production. After that salinity, ions,
conversion rate, TDS permeate and TDS brine using nanofiltration was carried out by IMS-Design software.
Retention rate, SAR, RSC, SSP and ESP also specific energy consumption were calculated and compared to
reverse osmosis experimental results. Nanofiltration produced water quality was compared to FAO requirements
for sensitive crops such as citrus.
DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 67 |Page
 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

III. Result and discussions

Physicochemical characteristics of different water resources used in citrus producing farm
As shown in figure n°1 different resources of water were available in the citrus farm for irrigation purposes;
well, dam and desalinated water.

S1 S3
High pressure pump Desalinated water S2
Well water RO RO Dam water
Pretreatment

Carthridge+sand Filters
Brine water S5
Blending
Deep well water
water tank

S6 S4
Irrigation water

Figure n°1: Water production line of citrus irrigation water

The well water mixed sometimes with recycling brine is the feed water of the desalination plant. The
desalinated water is collected in a tank and mixed with the dam water to be finally used for citrus irrigation. The
table n°4 summarized the results of experimental analyses and deduced evaluation criteria of different waters
qualities.

Table n° 4: different water resources qualities using in citrus producing farm

Water type Well water Dam water Desalinated water Water Irrigation:
mixture of dam and
Min Max Min Max Min Max
desalinated water
T °C 20.1 29.3 28.4 28.8 20.3 29 27.8
pH 6.87 7.1 7.56 8 6.12 6.31 6.95
Conductivity at 25°C
4.784 5.63 4.12 5.57 0.476 1.182 1.46
(ms/cm)
TDS (g/L) 3.71 4.21 3.15 4.26 0.37 0.905 1.13
Ca2+ (meq/L) 17 26 17.30 25.20 1.90 6.39 7.80
Mg2+ (meq/L) 14 15 6.25 9.83 0.79 5.60 4.67
Na+ (meq/L) 22 23 21.80 26.07 1.65 2.61 6.09
K+ (meq/L) 3 4 2.35 3.56 0.44 0.77 0.51
Cl- (meq/L) 30 33 26.00 32.00 3.45 10.00 10.99
SO42- (meq/L) 17 18 11.56 17.96 1.04 2.48 5.42
HCO3-(meq/L) 8 11 8.03 11.97 0.85 1.64 1.00
N03- (mg/L) 180 206.6 172 174.5 27 45 50
SAR 5.69 5.14 6.35 6.22 1.06 1.42 2.44
RSC -22 -29 -16 -23 -2 -10 -11
SSP 39.9 34.32 45.7 40.31 34.5 16.9 31.94
ESP 6.66 5.59 7.5 7.34 0.83 0.311 2.28

The waters temperatures fluctuated from 20°C to 29.3°C according to the season. The pH of different
water resources (well, dam, desalinated and blended) were in the normal range of FAO guideline (6.5-8.4).
Electrical conductivity in this study varied from 4.78-5.63 for well water, from 4.12-5.57 for dam water and
from 0.47–1.18 ms/cm for desalinated water. The higher values of desalinated water conductivity were obtained
in the case of recycled brine to the feed RO plant. The citrus irrigation water conductivity which is the blended
dam and desalinated water was 1.46 ms/cm.
According to the salinity level (tablen°4) and the FAO guideline of irrigation water interpretation
(tablen°1) desalinated water was good and excellent for irrigation purposes. Blended water was good. However
the dam water which was habitually used in Tunisia was doubtful and unsuitable for irrigation class as well as
the well water.
El Yassin [35] reported that the growth of trees on all rootstock was depressed by increasing salinity in
the root zone. The fruit yield reduction was associated primarily with a decrease in the number of fruits per tree
rather than to differences in weight per fruit.
Brito et al. [36] assessed the growth of citrus under saline water irrigation using five salinity levels
(0.8, 1.6, 2.4, 3.2 and 4 ms/cm) of irrigation water applied to 12 genotypes and they conclude that salinity
reduces citrus growth and the water potential in soil. They observed also that Troyer Citrange showed linear

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 68 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

decreases between 3.3 and 6% in stem diameter with 1 ms/cm increase in EC of water. Aboutalbi and
Hasanzadeh [37] considered that citrus tolerance ability EC was 1.1 to 3.2 ms/cm and plant age is very
important factor in reaction of crops to salinity.
The citrus growth depends to water salinity but also to the salinity of the soil. Ayers and Wetscot [38]
associated the potential growth yield of Citrus to water and soil salinities (table n°5).

Table n°5: Evolution of orange potential yield crop growth according to water and soil conductivity [38]
Crop Yield potential
Orange potential yield 100 % 90 % 75 % 50 %
Water conductivity at 25 °C (ms/cm) 1.1 1.6 2.2 3.2
Soil conductivity at 25 °C (ms/cm) 1.7 2.3 3.2 4.8

Grattan et al. [39] described the yield potential of orange based on osmotic effects only as:
Yr  100  13 .1ECe  1.3 Équation 10 [39]
Where ECe is the soil salinity in ms/cm
Specific ion toxicities due to sodium, chloride or boron would reduce the yield potential even more [40].
The FAO recommended for irrigation water 3 and 4 meq/L (table n° 2) as limit sodium and chloride
concentrations respectively to avoid damage sensitive crops such as citrus. In our case only desalinated water
satisfied these conditions (table n° 4). Ashutosh et al. [9] noted that the presence of NaCl during embryogenesis
affects the growth regulators balance. Boman and Stover [41] denounced that with sufficient levels of calcium in
the soil solution, it is unlikely that 115 mg/L sodium will produce injury to citrus. In our case study, sodium
concentration was higher for both well water (509-530 mg/L) and dam water (501-599 mg/L). Chloride is
considered as the most common toxic ion in irrigation water. Since, chloride is not adsorbed by the soil colloids;
therefore, it travels easily with soil water, is absorbed by the crop, moves into the transpiration stream, and
accumulates in the leaves. If the chloride concentration in the leaves exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injury
symptoms develop, such as leaf burn or drying of leaf tissue [42]. Levy and syverstsen [43] explained that
chloride is not mobile in most plants; toxicity will appear on the margins and tips of older leaves first. The first
shows up as chlorosis (yellowing) or bleaching in between the veins of the oldest leaves, as chorophyll is lost
from the tissue. The maximum chloride concentration in the irrigation water before damage occurs is 152 mg/L.
As shown in table n° 4 the chloride concentration of the well water (1050-1172), the dam water (923-1136) and
the irrigation water which is the mixture of desalinated and dam water (390 mg/L) was very high and can
damage the citrus trees. For desalinated water the chloride concentration is only raised for the case where the
feed of the desalination unit is the mixture of well water and brines (355 mg/L). Visual injury to leaves
(Chlorisis and necrosis) can became apparent when sodium concentration in the leaves reach 0.1-0.25 % dry wt
and yellowing or bleaching in between veins can appear on citrus leaves when chloride concentration in the leaf
reach exceed 1% on dry weight base [39].
Evaluation waters resources criteria for citrus trees irrigation purposes showed that the RSC for all
waters were negative as well as the SSP (Table 4) were in the common FAO recommendations (table n° 2). As a
consequence salts precipitation in the soil were excluded. However the SAR of well and dam waters were high
than 3 this is due to higher values of sodium concentrations which can cause a soil sodicity. Based in table n° 1,
Riverside (figure n°2) and Wilcox diagrams (figure ° 3) the well and dam waters were classified as C4S1 and
C5S1 doubtful and unsuitable for irrigation however, desalinated and blended waters were classified C 1S1 and
C2S1 excellent and good waters qualities.

Figure n°2: Riverside diagram

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 69 |Page
 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

Figure n°.2: Wilcox diagram

Other ions affect susceptible crops like bicarbonate for sprinkling irrigation which can cause clogging
of irrigation system and nitrate. The well water and dam water bicarbonate concentration were high than 8.5
mg/L as well as the nitrate concentration were very high than 50 mg/L recommended by FAO (table n°2). These
values of nitrate may indicate contamination from excessive use of fertilizers. Nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium are major nutrients for the crop. However, those nutrients can give negative effects such as nutrient
imbalances, groundwater contamination, reduces fruit set for crops, delays in maturation and decreases in food
nutrients quality [44].

Desalination system performance and produced water cost

The performance evaluation was carried out for brackish water reverse osmosis membranes ESP1
designed to produce water for citrus irrigation purposes. The effect of pressure for the same feed water
temperature, salinity and composition on the efficiency of RO system was investigated. Results showed that the
conversion rate increased function the pressure but the selectivity of membrane increased then stabilized at a
certain value of ΔP (figure n° 4).

100%

80%
Rate (%)

60%

40%

20% Conversion rate

Retention rate

0%
3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
ΔP (bar)

Figure n° 3: Evolution of conversion rate and the selectivity of RO membrane according to difference
pressure, TDSF 3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF 20.1°C

The less value obtained of permeate TDS was 346 mg/L for the difference pressure of 10.9 bar (figure n° 5).

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 70 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

Figure n°4 : Evolution of desalinated and water TDS according to difference pressure, TDS F3.71g/L, pHF
6.87, TF 20.1°C

At this ΔP the optimum values of conversion rate was 68%, the retention rate was 91%, the brine
concentrations was 10214 mg/L and the specific energy consumption was 0.58 kWh/m 3.
An economic analysis was carried out to estimate the total water cost in these optimum conditions
using hypothesis and equations described in Table 3 and $18484 direct capital cost of the plant which included
the cost of two RO pressure vessels and four elements ($ 4484). The total cost to produce 120 m 3/d of water
from a feed salinity of 3710 mg/L and a water quality of 346 mg/L was $ 0.246 /m 3. The cost was in good
agreement with the desalination cost brackish water for small plant capacities (200 to 1400 m3/d) in Tunisia
which vary from $ 0.240 / m3 to $ 0.492 /m3 [33] as well as the high capacities RO desalination plant drinking
water located in the south of Tunisia (Kerkenah, Gabes, Zarziz and Djerba) which vary between $ 0.12/m 3 and $
0.28/m3 [45].
Ioannis et al. [27] concluded that reverse osmosis desalination costs vary from $ 0.26 to $ 0.54 /m3
according to the salinity and for a capacities varying from 5000 to 60000 m 3/d. Sarai Atab et al. [46] founded
that the total cost to produce 24000 m3/d of water from a feed salinity of 15000 mg/l and a water quality of less
than 400 mg/L was £ 0.11/m3 with in investment cost of £ 14.4 million for the drinking water, and for irrigation
obtained product less than 1600 mg/L was £ 0.9/m3 with an investment cost of £11.3 million. As a conclusion
the variability of the cost depend in various parameters: feed water quality, conversion rate, retention rate and
investment cost of plant which is related to plant design, interest rate, and cost of electricity and it should be
evaluated for such case study.
Uses desalination water improved crops growth and a trees productivity, and it will be a good alternative for
agriculture purposes. However brine generated by RO plant should be managed and minimized.

Characterization of disposal brine, environmental risks evaluation and projected solution

The management of brine from inland brackish desalination plants can be significant problem in case
they are placed far from the coast. In our case study brine water was injected in a deep well located far from the
feed well water of the desalination unit. The amount of rejected brine was 32% of the feed water and the salts
concentration of this brine was 10214 mg/L. chemical analyses of both brine product by RO and disposal in a
deep well were carried out and the results were illustrated in table n° 6.

Table n °6: Environmental impact of brine injection in deep well

Concentration (mg/L) Brine water Deep well injection brine water Tunisian Standard 106.02
Ca2+ 716 724 500
Mg2+ 671 214 200
Na+ 1383 650 300
K+ 392 150 50
SO42- 2374 1255 600
Cl- 2730 1491 600
COD 240 200 90
NH 4+ 15.83 8.05 1

Compared results to the Tunisian water discharge standards showed that all chemicals parameters
exceeded limit values of NT 106.02. As a consequence the salinity of groundwater will be increased and the
agriculture problems will be accentuated with the addition of environmental impact.

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 71 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

Replacement of reverse osmosis membranes by nanofiltration (NF) membranes was suggested to

produce maximum volume of irrigation water and the new desalination system configuration was simulated. The
ESNA1- LF-LD membrane was used and the performance of unit was carried out by IMS-Design Software.
The conversion rate of nanofiltration unit was high than reverse osmosis plant for all applied pressure
(figure n° 6) and the nanofiltration consumes energy was less than reverse osmosis (figure n° 7).

90%
Nano-Filtration
Reverse Osmosis
75%
Conversion rate (%)

60%

45%

30%

15%

0%
0 3 6 9 12 15
ΔP (bar)
Figure n° 5: Evolution of conversion rate using nanofiltration and reverse osmosis desalination systems, TDS F
3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF 20.1°C

0.8
0.7
0.6
SEC (kwh/m3)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Reverse Osmosis
Nano-Filtration
0.1
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conversion rate (%)

Figure n°6: Comparison between nanofiltration and reverse osmosis specific consumes energy function of
conversion rate, TDSF 3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF 20.1°C

A conversion rate of 80% was obtained for a difference pressure of 9.4 bar. This process maximized
the volume of produced water, consumed less energy and minimized brine amount. Compared results to
optimum values obtained for RO desalination plant, the nanofiltration allowed to minimize 12% of brine amount
and obtained brine concentration was10800 mg/L near than obtained by RO plant (figure n° 8) and to win 35%
of consumes energy (figure n°7).

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 72 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

1200 100%

Desalinated water TDS (mg/L)

1000
80%

Retention rate(%)
800
60%
600
40%
400
RO TDS permeate
Nano-Filtration TDS permeate 20%
200
Nano-Filtration retention rate
RO retention rate
0 0%
0 3 6 9 12 15
ΔP(bar)
Figure n° 7: Evolution of permeate TDS and retention rate using nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
desalination systems, TDSF 3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF 20.1°C

Liikanen et al. [47] confirmed that the environmental impact minimization was mostly related to
recovery of the process and energy consumption if the nanofiltration installation was used. Ghermandi et al. [48]
demonstrated that the investigated solar desalination technology with nanofiltration membranes has the potential
to enlarge the portfolio of crops that are currently available to the local farmers, by enabling the cultivation of
salt-sensitive cash crops.
Comparing rejection percent in two above-mentioned methods, it could be concluded that, in reverse
osmosis process, the rejection ability were rather better than nanofiltration process (fgure n°8). The
nanofiltration retention rate at the pressure 9.4 bar was 83% (figure n° 9).

100 RO
NF
80

60

40

20

0
ΔP (bar) Conversion rate Retention rate SSP (%) Energy (10-2
(%) (%) KWh/m3)

Figure n°8: Comparison between reverse osmosis and nanofiltration performance, TDS F 3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF
20.1°C, optimum parameters

Mulyanti and Susanto [49] assumed that the NF ability to remove salinity parameter varies from 75 %
to 95 % depending on the membrane in use. The TDS permeate obtained by nanofiltration was 0.635 g/L (figure
n°10), worse than reverse osmosis but acceptable for citrus trees irrigation (<1.2 g/L, [7]).

7
RO
6
NF
5
4
3
2
1
0
TDS sodium chloride bicarbonate SAR RSC
permeat (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L)
(g/L)

Figure n°9 : Comparison between reverse osmosis and nanofiltration permeate salts concentrations, TDS F
3.71g/L, pHF 6.87, TF 20.1°C, optimum parameters
DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 73 |Page
 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

NF offers several advantages such as low operation pressure, high flux, high retention of multivalent
anion salts and an organic molecular above 300,relatively low investment and low operation and maintenance
costs. Whereas the rejection of monovalent ions is moderate to low.The rejection by NF of sodium chloride
(NaCl) varies from 0 % to 70% [50]. The sodium concentration of NF permeate and chloride was also
simulated, as shown in Fig.10 sodium and chloride concentrations was higher (6 meq/L) compared to those
obtained by RO, this is due to higher feed water concentrations of these elements. Compared results to FAO
guidelines (table n°2) showed that it can be caused a slight to moderate potential irrigation problem. Calculated
criteria of water irrigation quality SAR, RSC and SSP (figures n° 9 and 10) using NF were 2.38, -1.02 meq/L
and 59 % respectively less than recommended by FAO guidelines (table n°2). Bicarbonate concentration was
also less than limit concentration which can cause clogging in irrigation system (<1.5 meq/L) (figure n°10). As a
consequence except sodium and chloride toxic elements using the nanofiltration membranes was benefic, not
caused soil destruction and the cost of produced water were minimized as well as the amount of the brine and
environmental impact (maximum irrigation water, less energy consumes and good quality).
The Tunisian state subsidized the desalination plant which achieves a conversion rate higher than 75%.
Therefore farmers can obtain a grant of 50% from the state to sale a nanofiltration desalination plant. Integration
NF process with other processes potentially produces higher water quality and improved the retention of
monovalent ions [51]. Brine can be used for producing halophyte biomass for forage [52, 53], hydroponic
agriculture [54] and fish farming [55].

IV. Conclusion
The evaluation of several water resources qualities used in citrus producing farm in North Tunisia Cap-
Bon proved that desalinated water was the most suitable for irrigation purposes. The technical-economic study
of RO plant installed in the farm revealed that the amount of produced waters was 68 % of feed water with a
specific consumes energy of 0.58 kWh/m3 and a water cost production of $ 0.24/m3.The brine rejection was
32% of feed water with a concentration of 10.2 g/L. Disposal brine waters extracted from the deep well injection
was characterized and the salts, nitrogen ammonia and COD concentrations exceeded the 106.002 Tunisian
standards. Replacement of RO membranes by nanofiltration membranes were suggested and simulated results
showed that the amount of brine water was reduced to 20%, the specific energy consumes was reduced by 35 %
and a produced water quality was acceptable for citrus trees irrigation with a precaution to monovalent ions
(chloride and sodium). A perspective of this work was using hybrid system (NF-RO) for minimizing a brine
amount and using generated brine from desalination unit for producing halophyte culture and fish farming.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Adel Echadely from AGRILAP Company for giving us waters samples from
citrus farm well, dam and RO plant.

Nomenclature
ECe Soil conductivity (ms/cm)
RO Reverse osmosis
NF Nanofiltration
SAR Sodium absorption rate
RSC Residual sodium carbonate (meq/L)
SSP Sodium percent (%)
ESP Exchangeable sodium percentage (%)
FAO Food agriculture organization
P Pressure (bar)
T Temperature (°C)
TDS Total dissolved salts (g/L)
Y Conversion rate (%)
F Feed
TR Retention rate (%)
Cp Permeate salinity (g/L)
SEC Specific energy consumption (kWh/m3)
ɳ efficiency
WPC Water production cost ($/m3)
Q Flowrate (m3/d)
Ctotal Total annual cost
Ecw Water conductivity (ms/cm)
Yr Yield potential of orange
COD Carbon oxygen demand (mgO2/L)
f Plant availabilty

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 74 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

References
[1]. A. Abbasnia, N. Yousefi, A. H. Mahvi, R. Nabizadeh, M.Radfard, M. Yousefi, M. Alimohammadi,Evaluation of groundwater
quality using water quality index and its suitability for assessing water for drinking and irrigation purposes: Case study of Sistan and
Baluchistan province (Iran), Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Journal 0 (2018) 1-19,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1458596.
[2]. P. Doungmanee, The nexus of agricultural water use and economic development level, Kasetrat Journal of Social Sciences 37
(2016) 38-45.
[3]. H. Jeder, A. ben khlifa, M. Sghaier, Economic analysis of water demand in public irrigation systems in Tunisia, using FSSIM
model, New Medit, 4 (2014).
[4]. A. Quiñones, C.P.Folgado, U.C. Bacab, B.M. Alcántara, F. Legaz,Water productivity and fruit quality in deficit drip irrigated citrus
orchards, Irrigation Systems and Practices in Challenging Environments , Chapter 3, Book, InTech, 2012.
[5]. M. Haas, Record citrus crop highlights market constraints, Global Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service, Report TS1704, 2017.
[6]. N. Mahdhi, M. Sghaier, M.S. Bachta, Water use and technical efficiencies in private irrigated perimeters in South-Eastern of
Tunisia, Emir.J.Food Agric. 23 (2011) 440-451.
[7]. M. Zekri, B. Gruber, B. Boman, Saline irrigation water: impacts on citrus production, Citrus Industry (2013)10-12.
[8]. D. Zarzo, E. Campos, P. Terrero, Spanish experience in desalination for agriculture, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (1–3) (2013) 53–56.
[9]. A.A Murkute, S. Sharma, S.K Singh, Citrus in terms of soil and water salinity, A review, Journal of scientific &Industrial Research
64 (2005) 393-402.
[10]. Y.Levy and J. Syvertsen. Irrigation water quality and salinity effects in citrus trees, Horticultural Reviews 30 (2004) 37-82.
[11]. C.A. Quist-Jensen, F.Macedonio, E. Drioli, Membrane technology for water production in agriculture: desalination and wastewater
reuse, Desalination 364 (2015) 17-32.
[12]. S.B. Manh Hoang, D. Zarzo, F. Olewniak, E. Campos, B. Bolto, O. Barron, Desalination techniques - A review of the opportunities
for desalination in agriculture, Desalination 364 (2015) 2–16.
[13]. O.O. Aliku, Desalination: A Means of Increasing Irrigation Water Sources for Sustainable CropProduction, Chapter3, Book,
InTech,2017,
[14]. T.Younos, Environmental Issues of Desalination, Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 132 (2005)11-18.
[15]. J. Martínez Beltrán, S. Koo-Oshima, Water desalination for agricultural applications, Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation
on Water Desalination for Agricultural Applications 26–27 April 2004, Rome.
[16]. J. Glater and Y. Cohen, brine disposal from land based membrane desalination plants: a critical assessment, Draft for Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, Desalination Research and Innovation Partnership; Improving Energy Usage, Water Supply
Reliability, and Water Quality Using Advanced Water Treatment Processes, July 2003.
[17]. A. Mushtaque, W. H. Shayya, D. Hoey, J. Al-Handaly, Brine disposal from reverse osmosis desalination plants in Oman and the
United Arab Emirates, Desalination 133 (2001) 135-147.
[18]. Y. Mogheir, N. Al Bohissi, Optimal Management of Brine from Seawater desalination Plants in Gaza Strip:Deir AL Balah STLV
Plant as Case Study, Journal of Environmental Protection 6 (2015) 599-608, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2015.66054.
[19]. NF T 90 112, Essai des eaux- dosage des nitrates et des nitrites- methode automatique par spectrometrie d’absorption moléculaire,
Association Française de Normalisation 1987.
[20]. APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th Ed.,American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC. 1995
[21]. J.Arshid, T.Aasimah, A.R.Yousuf, M.Akbar, H.N. Aabid, Geochemistry and irrigation quality of groundwater along River Jhelum
in South Kashmir, India. Recent Res. In Sci. and Tech. 3 (2011) 57-63.
[22]. A.Sutharsiny, S. Pathmarajah, M.Thushyanthy and V. Meththika, Characterization of Irrigation Water Quality of Chunnakam
Aquifer in Jaffna Peninsula,Tropical Agricultural Research 23(2012) 237-248.
[23]. N. A. Bhat, A. A. Bhat, S. Nath, B. P. Singh , D. B. Guha, Assessment of Drinking and Irrigation Water Quality of Surface Water
Resources of South-West Kashmir, India. J Civil Environ. Eng. 6 (2016).
[24]. S.Bunani, E.Yörükoğlu, Ü. Yüksel, N. Kabay, M.Yüksel, G.Ser, Application of reverse osmosis for reuse of secondary treated
urban wastewater in agricultural irrigation, Desalination 364 (2015) 68-74.
[25]. R.S. Ayers, D.W. Westcot, Water quality for agriculture, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29, FAO, Rome, 1985.
[26]. A. Ghermandi, R. Messalem, the advantages of NF desalination of brackish water for sustainable irrigation: The case of the Arava
Valley in Israel, Desalination and Water Treatment, 10 (2009) 101-107.
[27]. K. Tanji. Desalination of brackish waters and seawater, status in California and the USA, Draft report. FAO. Rome, 2003.
[28]. J.C.Charpentier, J.P. Dal Pont, J.F. Joly, M.O. Simonnot, techniques opérations unitaires, techniques séparatives sur membrane,
Ed.T.I, J2842(2012)
[29]. Z.Aihua, D. Ch Panagiotis., C.Yoram, Energy consumption optimization of reverse osmosis membrane water desalination to feed
salinity fluctuation. Ind Eng.Chem. Res., 48(2009) 9581-9589.
[30]. Li. Mingheng, Optimal plant operation of brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) desalination, Desalination 293(2012) 61-68.
[31]. I. C. Karagiannis, P. G. Soldatos, Water desalination cost literature: review and assessment, Desalination 223 (2008) 448–456.
[32]. Z.Triki, M.N. Bouaziz, M. Boumaza, Techno-economic and environmental analysis of an integrated solar vacuum membrane
distillation system for the treatment of reverse desalination brine, Desalination and Water Treatment 83(2017)193-203.
[33]. Tunisian Institute for strategic studies, Tunisian hydraulic system on the horizon 2030, strategic study, January 2014.
[34]. N.T 106.002 : Protection de l’environnement rejets d’effluents dans le milieu hydrique, (1989).
[35]. A. Al-Yassin, Influence of salinity on citrus: a review paper, Journal of Central European Agriculture 5 (2004) 263-272.
[36]. M.E.B. Brito, K. S. A. de Brito, P. D. Fernandes, H.R. Gheyi, J. F. Suassuna, W. D. S. S. Filho, A. S. de Melo , D. A. Xavier,
Growth of ungrafted and grafted citrus rootstooks under saline water irrigation, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(2014)
3600-3609.
[37]. A. Aboutalbi and H. Hasanzadeh, Salinity and Citrus rootstooks and interstocks, International Journal of Plant, Animal and
Environmental Sciences, IJAES 4 (2014).
[38]. R.S. Ayers , D.W. Westcot. Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage, Paper N°29 Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Rome, 1976.
[39]. S.R Grattan, F.J Diaz, F.Pedero, G.A. Vivaldi Assessing the suitability of saline wastewaters for irrigation of citrus spp: Emphasis
and specific ion interactions. Agricultural Water Management 157(2015) 48-58.
[40]. H. Cherif, H.Saidi , H. Elfil ,Impact of Treated Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation Purposes in Tunisia on Crops Growth, Human
Health and Soil. CPQ Nutrition, 1(2018). 01-20.

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 75 |Page

 Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison Between Reverse Osmosis and

[41]. B.J. Boman, E.W. Stover, Outline for managing irrigation of Florida citrus with high salinity water. ABE 332. University of Florida
IFAS Extension 2008.
[42]. M.A. Bhat, Sh.A. Wani, V. K. Singh, J. Sahoo, D. Tomar, R. Sanswal, An Overview of the Assessment of Groundwater Quality for
Irrigation, J Agri Sci Food Res 9 (2018).
[43]. Y.Levy, J. Syvertsen. Irrigation water quality and salinity effects in citrus trees. Horticultural Reviews 30 (2004) 37-82.
[44]. K. Kaboosi, R. Esmailnezhad, reclaimed wastewater quality assessment for irrigation and its mid-time reuse effects on paddy
growth and yield under farmer management,The Open Agriculture Journal 12 (2018) 64-73.
[45]. A. Nouicer, K. Fethi, F. Jemai, Etat des lieux et perspectives de développement du dessalement et des énergies renouvelables,
Conférence Internationale sur le Dessalement d’Eau par les Energies Renouvelables, Gammarth, Juin 2012.
[46]. M. Sarai Atab , A. J. Smallbone , A.P. Roskilly, An operational and economic study of a reverse osmosis desalination system for
potable water and land irrigation, Desalination 397 (2016) 174-184.
[47]. R. Liikanen,J.Y. Kuivila,J. Tenhunen,R. Laukkanen, Cost and environmental impact of nanofiltration in treating chemically pre-
treated surface water, Desalination 201(2006) 58-70.
[48]. A. Ghermandi, S. Naoum, F. Alawneh, R. Offenbach, E. Tripler, J. Safi, M. Safi, R. Messalem, Solar-powered desalination of
brackish water with nanofiltration membranes for intensive agricultural use in Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel,
Desalination and Water Treatment (2017).
[49]. R. Mulyanti, H. Susanto, Wastewater treatment by nanofiltration membranes, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science
142 (2018).
[50]. G.R. Salbarde, K.D. Bhuyar, Design, fabrication,application and advantages of nanofiltration unit, International Journal of
Inoovations in Engineering and Technology (IJIET) 5(2015) 42-50.
[51]. M. Talaeipou, J. Nouri, A. H. Hassani , A. H. Mahvi, An investigation of desalination by nanofiltration, reverse osmosis and
integrated (hybrid NF/RO) membranes employed in brackish water treatment, Journal of Environmental Health Science &
Engineering (2017) 15-18.
[52]. K. Sarpong, A. Amiri, M. Smith, O. J. Idowu , C. E. Brewer, Halophyte Biochar for Water Desalination Brine Concentrate
Management, AICHE Annual Meeting, November 13-18, San Francisco CA (2016).
[53]. A. Singh, S. Sharma, M.T. Shah, Successful Cultivation of Salicornia brachiata - A Sea Asparagus Utilizing RO Reject Water: A
Sustainable Solution, Int. J. Waste Resour.8 (2018).
[54]. M. Qurie, J. Abbadi, L. Scrano, G. Mecca, S.A. Bufo, M. Khamis, R. Karaman, Inland treatment of the brine generated from reverse
osmosis advanced membrane wastewater treatment plant using epuvalisation system, Int J Mol Sci. 14 (2013) 13808-13825.
[55]. A.S. Sánchez, I.B.R. Nogueira, R.A. Kalid, Uses of the reject brine from inland desalination for fish farming, Spirulina cultivation,
and irrigation of forage shrub and crops, Desalination 364 (2015) 96-107.

Cherif.H. " Brackish Water Desalination for Citrus Trees Irrigation: Comparison between
Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration." IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry (IOSR-JAC) 12.6
(2019): 64-76.

DOI: 10.9790/5736-1206016476 www.iosrjournals.org 76 |Page

View publication stats