Mathematical Modelling and Performance Review of Desalination Technology Based Renewable Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to provide a comprehensive overview and review of the utilization of renewable energy in desalination technology.The study classifies the various methods employed in desalination systems, which encompass both thermal and membrane techniques.The analysis of desalination methods incorporates the concepts of energy, exergy, and economic considerations.A crucial aspect of this study is developing a mathematical model encompassing thermal and membrane desalination methods.The advancement and progress of desalination technology are elucidated and integrated using renewable energy sources.The findings of this review indicate that the thermal desalination method consumes more energy than the membrane method, particularly during the water evaporation process.The wave-based reverse osmosis (RO) technique exhibits a lower production cost among the different methods.This is followed by the solar-powered multi-effect distillation (MED) system, the solarpowered multi-stage flash (MSF) system, and the wind-powered mechanical vapor compression (MVC) system.The mathematical models developed in this study could predict both membrane and thermal desalination systems' performance, thereby assisting readers in modeling and planning environmentally friendly and sustainable desalination technology based on renewable energy sources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".