大规模海水淡化的最新技术是反渗透（RO）。另外 使用热技术、电渗析反转等的技术，在临床上仍有明显的缺点 与科珀斯克里斯蒂地区可用的原水资源一起使用，仅适用于利基地区 应用。由于这些原因，RO是本可行性研究中考虑的唯一脱盐技术 分析 然而，在预处理方面，有各种可用的技术。尽管如此，情况还是很好 了解反渗透工艺需要高质量的给水，以最大限度地减少污垢，最大限度地 膜寿命，最大限度地减少跨膜压降，基本上提供高效 治疗因此，一个强大、可靠、有效的预处理系统至关重要。因此 本文主要关注预处理方案，具体目标如下: 简述各种预处理工艺的优缺点； 说明初始预处理选择过程背后的方法和原理，以及 制定最有利的预处理工艺短名单； 和 展示四个入围者之间的成本比较（资本、运营和维护，以及20年现值） 并说明预处理替代方案如何影响总体成本。 需要注意的是，本文中讨论的预处理工艺是常用的 在饮用水处理和反渗透预处理方面越来越多地被考虑。 备选方案1和2被归类为常规处理，备选方案3被归类为双膜处理 系统，备选方案4是一个- 就地、联合取水/预处理方法。因为 RO系统的概念设计对于所有四个备选方案都是相同的，因为备选方案1、2、， 三是基于共同认缴方法和共同认缴成本的资本成本差异 备选方案1、2和3仅受各自固有预处理系统的影响 概念设计。另一方面，备选方案4因摄入方法不同而有所不同。因此 这种分析不仅可以比较预处理方法，还可以考虑成本 公海取水口与河岸过滤之间的比较。 包括10个参考文献、表格和图表。

The state-of-the-art in large-scale seawater desalination is reverse osmosis (RO). Other technologies using thermal techniques, electrodialysis reversal, etc., still have significant drawbacks for use with the raw water sources available in the Corpus Christi area and are only applicable in niche applications. For these reasons, RO was the sole desalination technology considered in this feasibility analysis. In terms of pretreatment, however, there are a variety of available technologies. Nonetheless, it is well understood that the RO process requires a high quality feedwater to minimize fouling, maximize membrane life, minimize pressure drop across the membranes, and to basically provide efficient treatment. For these reasons, a robust, reliable, and effective pretreatment system is essential. Thus, the main focus of this paper is on the pretreatment alternatives, with specific objectives as follows: to briefly describe advantages and disadvantages of various pretreatment processes; to illustrate the methodology and rationale behind the initial pretreatment selection process and the development of the short-list of most advantageous pretreatment processes; and, to present cost comparisons (capital, O&M, and 20-year present worth) between the four shortlisted processes and to illustrate how pretreatment alternatives may impact overall costs. It should be noted that the pretreatment processes discussed in this paper are commonly used in drinking water treatment and are increasingly being considered for providing RO pretreatment. Alternatives 1 and 2 are classified as conventional treatment, Alternative 3 is classified as a dual membrane system, and Alternative 4 is an in-situ, combined intake/pretreatment approach. Because the conceptual design of the RO system was the same for all four alternatives, and because Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are based on a common intake method and common intake cost, the capital cost differences between Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are influenced only by the pretreatment system inherent to each conceptual design. Alternative 4, on the other hand, is different by virtue of the intake method. Therefore, this analysis not only allows for a comparison between pretreatment methods, but also allows for a cost comparison between open sea intakes versus bank filtration. Includes 10 references, tables, figures.