The following is a systematic comparison of MVR evaporators and multi-effect evaporators from three dimensions: energy consumption, investment, and operation and maintenance, combined with technical principles, operating characteristics, and industry applications.
I. Energy Consumption Comparison
| Dimension | MVR Evaporator | Multi-effect evaporator |
| Energy type | It mainly consumes electrical energy (to drive the compressor) and consumes virtually no live steam (only a small amount is added during the start-up phase). | It mainly consumes live steam (for boiler heating) and cooling water, and relies on continuous input from an external heat source. |
| Energy efficiency | It has an extremely high energy efficiency (>90%), theoretically saving more than 90% of steam consumption, and its primary energy utilization rate is higher than that of an eight-effect evaporator. | The energy saving rate increases with the number of effects (e.g., five-effect energy saving is about 70%), but the increase slows down after five-effect energy saving, and there is a marginal decrease. |
| Factors affecting energy consumption | Electricity consumption depends on the secondary steam temperature rise requirement and compressor efficiency (typically 20-80 kWh per ton of water). | Steam consumption is related to the number of effects. The more effects there are, the less live steam is used, but heat loss still exists. |
| Applicable conditions | It has significant advantages when electricity prices are low; it is suitable for scenarios that require heat recovery and the handling of heat-sensitive materials. | It is economical when steam is inexpensive and readily available; it is suitable for large-scale treatment of low-concentration solutions. |
Conclusion: MVR (Multi-Effect Evaporator) consumes significantly less energy than multi-effect evaporators in long-term operation, especially in scenarios with reasonable coal-to-electricity prices and high environmental requirements. While multi-effect evaporators improve efficiency through multi-stage heat utilization, they still require continuous steam replenishment, resulting in higher overall energy consumption.
II. Investment Comparison
| Dimension | MVR Evaporator | Multi-effect evaporator |
| Initial investment | The cost is relatively high, with high cost of core equipment such as compressors, complex control systems, and a large initial investment threshold. | The initial investment is relatively low, with equipment mainly consisting of heat exchangers and evaporators, and no high-cost compressors. |
| Long-term investment | It has low long-term operating costs, significant energy savings, and a short investment payback period (especially in areas with high steam prices). | Long-term operating costs are high, steam and cooling water consumption is large, investment increases with the number of effects, and maintenance costs are high. |
| System complexity | The system has a compact structure, a small number of devices, a small footprint, and a high degree of automation. | The system is complex, requiring multiple evaporators connected in series, occupies a large area, and has high requirements for operating space. |
| Scalability | Modular design, flexible expansion, suitable for projects with limited space. | Expansion requires increased efficiency, leading to a simultaneous increase in investment and space requirements, but also resulting in low flexibility. |
Conclusion: MVRs have high initial investment but superior long-term economics, suitable for projects with ample budgets and a focus on optimal life-cycle costs; multi-effect evaporators have lower initial investment, suitable for traditional industrial scenarios with limited funds and large processing volumes.
III. Operation and Maintenance Comparison
| Dimension | MVR Evaporator | Multi-effect evaporator |
| Operational stability | It operates stably, has a high level of automation, is easy to maintain, but has high requirements for water quality (it needs to prevent scaling and corrosion). | It is complex to operate and requires professional personnel to control the multi-effect temperature difference and pressure. It has strong resistance to fluctuations and can adapt to complex materials. |
| Maintenance costs | Maintenance costs are low, mainly focusing on compressor maintenance and heat exchange surface cleaning, resulting in a low failure rate. | Maintenance costs are high; multi-stage equipment is prone to scaling and corrosion, requiring regular cleaning and replacement of parts, resulting in high labor costs. |
| Environmental adaptability | Suitable for scenarios with high environmental protection requirements and limited space (such as urban sewage treatment, food and pharmaceutical industries). | Suitable for industrial areas with sufficient steam and easy access to cooling water (such as petrochemical, sugar refining, and seawater desalination). |
| Material adaptability | Suitable for high-concentration, high-boiling-point-elevation, and heat-sensitive materials (such as juice, pharmaceuticals, and high-salt wastewater); its corrosion-resistant design allows it to handle corrosive solutions. | Suitable for large-scale low-concentration solutions, it is highly adaptable to complex components and fluctuating loads, and is widely used in chemical, food, and wastewater treatment industries. |
Conclusion: MVR is simple to operate and maintain, and environmentally friendly, but has high requirements for feed water quality; multi-effect evaporation is complex to operate and maintain but has wide adaptability, especially suitable for materials with complex compositions or large fluctuations.
Comprehensive Recommendations:
1. Prioritize MVR:
Scenario: High-concentration wastewater, heat-sensitive materials, high environmental requirements, limited space, long-term operation.
Conditions: Low electricity price, sufficient budget, pursuit of low operating costs.
Typical industries: Chemical purification, food concentration, lithium extraction from salt lakes, high-salinity wastewater treatment.
2. Prioritize Multi-effect Evaporation:
Scenario: Large-scale low-concentration solutions, low steam cost and sufficient supply, short-term or intermittent operation.
Conditions: Limited initial budget, readily available cooling water, and guaranteed professional operation and maintenance.
Typical industries: Seawater desalination, sugar refining, petrochemicals, and traditional chemical concentration.
3. Combined process considerations:
For high-concentration or complex processes, a combination of MVR and multi-effect filters can be used, balancing energy saving and cost, such as integrating concentration and crystallization in papermaking wastewater treatment.
Final decision recommendation: Based on a comprehensive assessment of specific concentrations, energy consumption budgets, environmental standards, space conditions, and maintenance capabilities, it is recommended to conduct small-scale or pilot-scale verification before large-scale application.
No. 81, Fengfei Road, Beiguan Industrial Park, Jiaozhou City, Qingdao Province, China
Copyright © 2025 Qingdao Conqinphi Environmental Technology Group Co., Ltd.All Rights Reserved.
