IWT/
Articles/
2607004581
  • Open Access
  • Article

Water Footprint Assessment of Seawater Desalination: A Methodological Approach and Case Studies

  • Jianmei Xu,   
  • Jing Sun,   
  • Kening Wang,   
  • Guorong Xu,   
  • Kexin Han,   
  • Huichao Su *,   
  • Chungang Xie *

Received: 17 Jun 2026 | Revised: 06 Jul 2026 | Accepted: 08 Jul 2026 | Published: 21 Jul 2026

Abstract

Growing concerns have been raised regarding the potential environmental impacts of seawater desalination. While numerous studies have employed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate impacts, these efforts have primarily focused on quantifying the carbon footprint (CF) of seawater desalination; a tailored methodology for water footprint (WF) quantification remains notably lacking. To address this gap, this study presents a comprehensive WF assessment method for desalination plants, including system boundary definition, process-level inventory analysis, a quantification framework, and results interpretation. The methodology was applied to case studies on Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant. From a water scarcity footprint (WSF) perspective, the RO seawater desalination system consumes only 0.0366 m3 of freshwater to produce 1 m3 of product water. Furthermore, two methods assessed the water degradation footprint (WDF). The critical dilution volume method yielded a WDF of 0 m3 H2O eq for both plants, indicating no dilution was needed. Using the equivalency factor method, the acidification and eutrophication footprints for RO brine were 2.74 × 10−3 kg SO2 eq/m3 and 9.81 × 10−4 kg PO43− eq/m3, respectively. Additionally, analysis showed that electricity and steam consumption are the main drivers of water scarcity in RO and MED plants, respectively, with slight seasonal variations. This study resolves long-standing ambiguities in WDF accounting by clarifying the distinct application conditions of the critical dilution volume method and the equivalency factor method, while providing transparent, step-by-step calculation procedures often omitted in previous studies; practically, it offers industrial managers and environmental regulators a robust tool to precisely identify water-intensive hotspots.

References 

  • 1.

    Zhang, X.M.; He, J.J.; Shan, T.; et al. A comprehensive review on the characteristics and kinetics of freshwater separation by hydrate-based method: Current progress, challenges and perspectives. Desalination 2024, 576, 117279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2023.117279.

  • 2.

    Gopu, A.P.; Sureshkumar, C.; Samundeeswari, R.; et al. Strategic siting of desalination plants and design of an optimal water distribution network. Desalination Water Treat. 2026, 325, 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101620.

  • 3.

    Ali, A.S.; Bounahmidi, T. Photovoltaic thermal desalination review. Desalination Water Treat. 2026, 325, 101669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2026.101669.

  • 4.

    Ma, M.L.; Feng, T.; Li, Z.Y.; et al. Synergistic optimization of reverse osmosis and disinfection processes in seawater desalination systems: Operational experience from a tropical desalination plant. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 323, 101392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101392.

  • 5.

    Tayeh, Y.A. A comprehensive review of reverse osmosis desalination: Technology, water sources, membrane processes, fouling, and cleaning. Desalination Water Treat. 2024, 320, 100882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100882.

  • 6.

    Ghazi, Z.M.; Rizvi, S.W.F.; Shahid, W.M.; et al. An overview of water desalination systems integrated with renewable energy sources. Desalination 2022, 542, 116063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.116063.

  • 7.

    Aboulkacem, C.; Sigue, S.; Lachheb, A.; et al. Seawater desalination and water reuse using FO-RO hybrid system: Short review. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 324, 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101487.

  • 8.

    Ihm, S.; Al-Waznani, E.S.B.; Li, S. The performance of nanofiltration membranes in seawater and desalination brine applications: Saudi Water Authority experience. Desalination Water Treat. 2024, 320, 100793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100793.

  • 9.

    Katibi, K.K.; Azimov, A.M.; Nawi, N.M.; et al. An insight into real-time monitoring and predictive modelling of ultrafiltration pretreatment for flow rate and fouling mitigation in seawater desalination. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 323, 101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101386.

  • 10.

    Asrar, N.; Mubashir, M.; AlSahary, A.B.; et al. Non-Metallic Materials for Sustainable Desalination Systems: Performance, Durability, and Industrial Validation. Desalination Water Treat. 2026, 326, 101765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2026.101765.

  • 11.

    Ayaz, M.; Namazi, M.A.; Din, M.; et al. Sustainable seawater desalination: Current status, environmental implications and future expectations. Desalination 2022, 540, 116022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.116022.

  • 12.

    Zolghadr-Asli, B.; McIntyre, N.; Djordjevic, S.; et al. The sustainability of desalination as a remedy to the water crisis in the agriculture sector: An analysis from the climate-water-energy-food nexus perspective. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 286, 108407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108407.

  • 13.

    He, Z.F.; Lai, C.Y.; Huang, H.Y.; et al. Empowering remote communities: A portable, self-powered integrated desalination system. Desalination 2025, 614, 119179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2025.119179.

  • 14.

    International Desalination and Reuse Association (IDRA). Desalination & Reuse Handbook 2024–2025; International Desalination and Reuse Association (IDRA): Danvers, MA, USA, 2025.

  • 15.

    Prakash, N.; Chaudhuri, A.; Das, S.P. Multi-stage roto-dynamic RO system for desalination. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 324, 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101499.

  • 16.

    Malatji, M.; Mashifana, T.P.; Siwela, J.; et al. An update on the use of forward osmosis desalination technology for water treatment: Current trends and future research outlooks. Desalination Water Treat. 2026, 326, 101744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2026.101744.

  • 17.

    Bibi, W.; Asif, M.; Iqbal, F.; et al. Hybrid vacuum membrane distillation-multi effect distillation (VMD-MED) system for reducing specific energy consumption in desalination. Desalination Water Treat. 2024, 317, 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100064.

  • 18.

    Adityawarman, D.; Lugito, G.; Kawi, S.; et al. Advancements and future trends in nanostructured membrane technologies for seawater desalination. Desalination 2025, 597, 118390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2025.118390.

  • 19.

    Tayyeban, E.; Deymi-Dashtebayaz, M.; Dadpour, D. Multi objective optimization of MSF and MSF-TVC desalination systems with using the surplus low-pressure steam (an energy, exergy and economic analysis). Comput. Chem. Eng. 2022, 160, 107708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022.107708.

  • 20.

    Tu, W.H.; Zhao, Y.; Chan, W.P.; et al. Reclaimed seawater discharge—Desalination brine treatment and resource recovery system. Water Res. 2024, 251, 121096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121096.

  • 21.

    Rouane, D.B.; Errouhi, A.A.; Mghaiouini, R. Seawater desalination: A review of technologies, environmental impacts, and future perspectives. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 324, 101578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101578.

  • 22.

    Abelsson, C.; Fuglesang, A. Subsea desalination—significant energy savings and greatly reduced environmental impact. Desalination Water Treat. 2023, 309, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2023.29877.

  • 23.

    Alluhaidan, A.S.; Prabu, P.; Basheer, S.; et al. Integrated hybrid membrane system for enhanced water treatment and desalination for environmental preservation. Desalination Water Treat. 2024, 320, 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100722.

  • 24.

    Xevgenos, D.; Marcou, M.; Louca, V.; et al. Aspects of environmental impacts of seawater desalination: Cyprus as a case study. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 211, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.26916.

  • 25.

    Al-Saidi, M.; Saadaoui, I.; Ben-Hamadou, R. Governing desalination, managing the brine: A review and systematization of regulatory and socio-technical issues. Water Resour. Ind. 2023, 30, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2023.100225.

  • 26.

    Almasoudi, S.; Jamoussi, B. Desalination technologies and their environmental impacts: A review. Sustain. Chem. One World 2024, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scow.2024.100002.

  • 27.

    Nasrollahi, M.; Motevali, A.; Banakar, A.; et al. Comparison of environmental impact on various desalination technologies. Desalination 2023, 547, 116253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2023.116253.

  • 28.

    Alhaj, M.; Tahir, F.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Life-cycle environmental assessment of solar-driven Multi-Effect Desalination (MED) plant. Desalination 2022, 524, 115451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2022.115451.

  • 29.

    Bai, X.; Ren, X.; Khanna, N.Z.; et al. Comprehensive water footprint assessment of the dairy industry chain based on ISO 14046: A case study in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.021.

  • 30.

    Corominas, L.; Byrne, D.M.; Guest, J.S.; et al. The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: A best practice guide and critical review. Water Res. 2020, 184, 116058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116058.

  • 31.

    Lee, K.; Jepson, W. Environmental impact of desalination: A systematic review of Life Cycle Assessment. Desalination 2021, 509, 115066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2021.115066.

  • 32.

    Aziz, N.; Hanafiah, M.M. Application of life cycle assessment for desalination: Progress, challenges and future directions. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115948.

  • 33.

    Wang, Y.; Morosuk, T.; Cao, W. Carbon Footprint of Seawater Desalination Technologies: A Review. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2024, 146, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063845.

  • 34.

    Liu, S.; Song, D.; Han, M.; et al. Multi-dimensional low-carbon assessments of wind-driven seawater desalination system via hybrid life cycle modelling. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 106, 107475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107475.

  • 35.

    Cabrera, P.; Carta, J.A.; Matos, C.; et al. Reduced desalination CF on islands with weak electricity grids: The case of Gran Canaria. Appl. Energy 2024, 358, 122564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122564.

  • 36.

    Pandit, R.R.; Deshmukh, S.S.; Khatod, K.J.; et al. Efficiency, cost, and carbon footprint considerations in analysing hybrid solar thermal-photovoltaic desalination systems. Desalination Water Treat. 2026, 325, 101606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101606.

  • 37.

    Leon, F.A.; Martín, A.R.; Alvarado, Y.F.; et al. Proposal to determine the carbon and ecological footprint of seawater reverse osmosis desalination in the Canary Islands plants considering the energy mix. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 230, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.27353.

  • 38.

    Kabiri, S.; Meratizaman, M. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and environmental (4E) and carbon footprint analysis of coupling the various energy recovery devices with seawater and brackish water reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 210, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.26548.

  • 39.

    Hoekstra, A.Y.; Martinez-Aldaya, M.; Mekonnen, M. Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009; Water Footprint Network: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2009.

  • 40.

    Matuštík, J.; Kočí, V. What is a footprint? A conceptual analysis of environmental footprint indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124833.

  • 41.

    Yerli, C. Reducing grey water footprint input and Blue-Green water footprint output of silage maize in biochar applications under irrigation with different water sources. Desalination Water Treat. 2025, 321, 101051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101051.

  • 42.

    Zhang, W.L. Calculation model and management system of WRCC based on grey water footprint calculation. Desalination Water Treat. 2023, 313, 266–278. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2023.30026.

  • 43.

    Wang, A.L.; Wang, S.S.; Liu, T.F.; et al. Spatial-temporal evolution analysis and deep learning inversion of water-carbon-three-dimensional ecological footprint of urban agglomeration in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. Desalination Water Treat. 2023, 290, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2023.29424.

  • 44.

    Ahmad, M.; Al-Sa’ed, R.; Steen, P. Enhancing the governance of industrial wastewater using cleaner production and water footprint principles: A case study of two dairy companies in Palestine. Desalination Water Treat. 2022, 275, 339–349. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2022.29136.

  • 45.

    Su, F.; Shang, H.Y. Social water cycle and sustainable consumption in the perspective of water footprint—taken the low water consumption patterns of Zhangye city as case. Desalination Water Treat. 2018, 122, 170–175. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2018.22713.

  • 46.

    Goudouva, G.T.; Zorpas, A.A. Water footprint determination by quarry operation in island regions. Desalination Water Treat. 2017, 86, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20814.

  • 47.

    Mohammed, S.; Darwish, M. Water footprint and virtual water trade in Qatar. Desalination Water Treat. 2017, 66, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20221.

  • 48.

    Charchousi, D.; Tsoukala, V.K.; Papadopoulou, M.P. How evapotranspiration process may affect the estimation of water footprint indicator in agriculture. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 53, 3234–3243. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.934118.

  • 49.

    Papadopoulou, M.P.; Charchousi, D.; Tsoukala, V.K.; et al. Water footprint assessment considering climate change effects on future agricultural production in Mediterranean region. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 2232–2242. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1049408.

  • 50.

    Hadji, A.; Merzouk, N.K.; Merzouk, M.; et al. Study of a modified multiple effect distillation (MED) brackish water system for a minimal water footprint. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 213, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2021.26715.

  • 51.

    Ding, Y.X.; Sun, D.G.; Tao, S.Y.; et al. Comprehensive water footprint assessment of RO and MED desalination plants in China based on ISO method. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 120399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2025.120399.

  • 52.

    Zhang, X.L.; Jiang, J.J.; Yuan, F.; et al. Estimation of water footprint in seawater desalination with reverse osmosis process. Environ. Res. 2022, 204, 112374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112374.

  • 53.

    Meneses, M.; Pasqualino, J.C.; Céspedes-Sánchez, R.; et al. Alternatives for Reducing the Environmental Impact of the Main Residue from a Desalination Plant. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010, 14, 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00225.x.

  • 54.

    Zhou, J.; Chang, W.C.; Fane, A.G. Environmental life cycle assessment of reverse osmosis desalination: The influence of different life cycle impact assessment methods on the characterization results. Desalination 2011, 283, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.066.

  • 55.

    Muñoz, I.; Fernández-Alba, A.R.G. Reducing the environmental impacts of reverse osmosis desalination by using brackish groundwater resources. Water Res. 2008, 42, 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.08.021.

  • 56.

    Bai, X.; Ren, X.; Khanna, N.Z.; et al. A comparative study of a full value-chain water footprint assessment using two international standards at a large-scale hog farm in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.085.

  • 57.

    Ene, S.A.; Teodosiu, C.; Robu, B.; et al. Water footprint assessment in the winemaking industry: A case study for a Romanian medium size production plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.018.

  • 58.

    ISO 14046:2014; Environmental Management—Water Footprint—Principles, Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

  • 59.

    Li, X.; Zhu, L.; Dong, Y.; et al. Water footprint assessment of wool products with a low-water footprint baseline, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.013.

  • 60.

    ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

  • 61.

    ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

  • 62.

    ISO/TR 14073:2017; Environmental Management—Water Footprint—Illustrative Examples on how to Apply ISO 14046. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.

  • 63.

    Mikosch, N.; Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, F. Addressing water quality in water footprinting: Current status, methods and limitations. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01812-9.

  • 64.

    Ridoutt, B.G.; Pfister, S. A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0533-8.

  • 65.

    Aldaya, M.M.C.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard; World Bank Group: Washington, D.C., DC, USA, 2011.

  • 66.

    Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011.

  • 67.

    Schomberg, A.C.; Bringezu, S.; Flörke, M. Extended life cycle assessment reveals the spatially-explicit water scarcity footprint of a lithium-ion battery storage. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00012-9.

  • 68.

    Dekamin, M.; Barmaki, M.; Kanooni, A. Selecting the best environmental friendly oilseed crop by using Life Cycle Assessment, water footprint and analytic hierarchy process methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1239–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.089.

  • 69.

    Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; et al. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 22, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-0164-y.

  • 70.

    Hauschild, M.Z.; Stig, R.K.R.; Olsen, I. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.

  • 71.

    Deepa, R.; Anandhi, A.; Alhashim, R. Volumetric and Impact-Oriented Water Footprint of Agricultural Crops: A Review. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 130, 108093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108093.

  • 72.

    Pradinaud, C.; Núñez, M.; Roux, P.; et al. The issue of considering water quality in life cycle assessment of water use. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1473-5.

  • 73.

    Zhu, J.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; et al. Water footprint calculation and assessment of viscose textile. Indust. Textila 2020, 71, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.35530/IT.0034-3665.2020.004.

  • 74.

    Alrashidi, A.; Aleisa, E.; Alshayji, K. Life cycle assessment of hybrid electrodialysis and reverse osmosis seawater desalination systems. Desalination 2024, 578, 117448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2024.117448.

Share this article:
Download PDF
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Xu, J.; Sun, J.; Wang, K.; Xu, G.; Han, K.; Su, H.; Xie, C. Water Footprint Assessment of Seawater Desalination: A Methodological Approach and Case Studies. Innovations in Water Treatment 2026, 1 (1), 5.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.