Table 7 Technical comparison of the proposed system with MSF and RO systems.
Feature | Conventional MSF | Industrial RO | Proposed Loop-Configured MSF system |
|---|---|---|---|
Scale | Large-scale (e.g., > 4,000 m³/day)50 | Medium to large-scale (e.g., > 1200 m³/day)55 | Small-scale (0.1 m³/day) |
Desalination Mechanism | Thermal (flashing/condensation) | Membrane separation (pressure-driven) | Thermal (flashing/condensation) |
Top Brine Temperature (TBT) | 90–120°C56 | Ambient (with pressurization) | < 95 °C (Below boiling point) |
Last-stage brine temperature | ~ 40 °C (Higher vacuum percentage, significantly lower SEC) | Not applicable | > 65 °C (Lower vacuum requirement and higher SEC, easier sealing & maintenance) |
Energy Source | High-grade steam or thermal | High-pressure pumps (electric) | Low-grade thermal (solar/geothermal) |
Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) | 55–80 kWh/m³ thermal57 2.5–3.5 kWh/m³ electrical58 | 3.7–8 kWh/m³ electrical59 | 626 kWh/m³ thermal 4.8 kWh/m³ electrical |
GOR | 6.5–860 | Not applicable | 1 |
Recovery Ratio | 20–35%61 | 35–45% typical62 | > 96% (Minimum Liquid Discharge) |
Fouling/Scaling Risk | High (requires frequent cleaning) | Membrane fouling, scaling | Low (no internal tube surfaces, no membrane) |
Maintenance Complexity | High (Scaling, fouling, corrosion, steam ejector, frequent chemical cleaning, trained operators) | Medium–high (membrane replacement, post/pre-treatment, pressurization) | Low (simple looped design, no ejectors, no internal tubes and low scaling risk), suitable for off-grid use |
Suitability for Remote Areas | Poor | Moderate (with renewable-electric support) | High |
