Table 3.
A comparison of the results of the current and previous studies
| Classification | Authors | Improvement | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rotating disc distiller | Essa et al. (2020) | 124% | 54.5% |
| Drum distiller | Abdullah et al. (2021a) | 296% | 79% |
| Abdullah et al. (2019b) | 350% | 85.5% | |
| Solar distiller with moving wick | Abdullah et al. (2021b) | 300% | 82% |
| Abdullah et al. (2019a) | 315% | 84% | |
| Haddad et al. (2017) | 14.72% and 51.1% in summer and winter, respectively | 65% | |
| Solar distiller with water fan driven by a wind turbine | Omara et al. (2017) | 17% | 39.8% |
| Kabeel et al. (2012) | 25% | 38% | |
| Solar distiller with a rotating shaft | Kumar et al. (2016) | 39.49% | 30.57% |
| Solar distiller with vibratory harmonic effect | Eldalil (2009a, b; 2010) | 132% | 60% |
| Vertical solar still | Diab et al. (2022) | 660.45% | 84.05% |
| Current study | Effect of basin water depth on the performance of vertical discs’ solar still – Experimental investigation | 617.4% | 77.2% |