Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Improving the yield of fresh water in conventional solar still using low
cost energy storage material
D.G. Harris Samuel a, P.K. Nagarajan b, Ravishankar Sathyamurthy a,⇑, S.A. El-Agouz c,⇑, E. Kannan a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Hindustan University, Kelambakkam, Padur, Chennai 603103, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.A. Engineering College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Mechanical and Power Engineering Department, Tanta University, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As there is a larger need for drinking water, expensive methodologies are employed in order to get por-
Received 9 June 2015 table drinking water. This work aims at improving the yield of freshwater from a conventional solar still
Accepted 21 December 2015 using the different low-cost energy storage material. Theoretical and experimental studies are carried out
to analyze the performance of a single slope solar still. From this study, it is observed that the yield of
freshwater from the solar still with spherical ball salt storage achieves the maximum yield of 3.7 kg/
Keywords: m2 as compared to a conventional single slope solar still with sponge and without any storage material
Increased surface area of water
as 2.7 and 2.2 kg/m2 respectively. The deviations between theoretical and experimental values for with
Low cost
Spherical ball heat storage
spherical ball salt storage, with sponge and conventional solar still are found as 16.1%, 9.7% and 4.0%
Sponge respectively. Payback period of the present solar still is found as 4.3 months as it is quicker than other
Payback period conventional single slope solar still. Finally, single slope solar still with spherical ball heat storage gives
low cost of water.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in geometry of solar still appeared to be important phenomenon

In earlier centuries, the possible method of getting safer porta-
ble water was by using a conventional boiler to heat the water to
saturation limit and condensing the steam or vapor to freshwater.
Desalination in membrane process is converting waste or salt
water into useful one, by pumping the input water which con-
sumes 20% of electrical energy. Furthermore, pretreatment of sal-
ine water is required in order to avoid fouling effect on the
membrane surface.
Solar desalination appears to be the easiest and cheapest
method of producing potable water. During the 19th century, basin
type solar stills were designed and fabricated to get freshwater
from saline water using solar energy. Many review papers have
addressed only on the prospective design configuration. Basin type
solar still is one of the breakthroughs of the 20th century, as many
researchers carried out experiments to augment the freshwater
yield. For augmentation purpose, many used integrating method-
ologies such as flat plate collector, parabolic trough collector tech-
niques which are unaffordable from the economic aspect for
people living in the rural areas. During the 21st century, change
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: raviannauniv23@gmail.com (R. Sathyamurthy),
elagouz2011@yahoo.com (S.A. El-Agouz).
on improving the yield [1–11].
Storing energy is one of the best techniques used to recover the
heat from any thermal applications. Energy can be stored in either
form – like changing the phase transformation of material (as in
the case of latent heat thermal energy storage – LHTES) or change
the internal energy of a material (as in the case of sensible heat
thermal energy storage – SHTES). These techniques can be utilized
in order to improve the efficiency of thermal systems. Phase
change materials (PCM’s) like organic, inorganic and eutectic sub-
stances can be used as latent heat storage material. Gravels, mild
steel scraps, sponges can be used as sensible heat storage
[12,13]. Most of the researchers carried out investigations on
exergy and energy analysis of various latent heat and sensible heat
thermal energy system. Thermal conductivity plays a vital role for
practical application such as solar still desalination, solar thermal
collectors, and solar PV/T collector’s. PCM’s are substances that
are capable of storing energy and release a larger amount of heat
when compared to sensible heat thermal energy storage. Also, as
the material changes they are having a higher latent heat of fusion
and lower melting point. PCM is having a greater impact on the
applications such as solar desalination [14,15], heat exchangers
[16], thermo-electric coolers [17], net zero energy buildings [18]
and solar water heaters [19], and it is having ability to reduce
the temperature fluctuation and enhance the thermal energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.074
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
126 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134
Nomenclature
A area (m2)
AFC annual first cost (Rs.)
C specific heat capacity (J/kg K)
CRF capital recovery factor (–)
h heat transfer Co-efficient (W/m2 K)
hfg latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
i rate of interest (%)
I total radiation (W/m2)
k thermal conductivity (W/m2 K)
L thickness (m)
n number of years
p partial pressure (N/m2)
Q heat transfer (W)
T temperature (°C)
t time step (s)
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
u wind velocity (m/s)
Y salinity (g/kg)
SFF Sinking Fund Factor
storage. Many reviewers have reported that thermal conductivity
and latent heat of fusion are the essential properties of PCM based
paraffin wax [20].
Murugavel and Srithar [21] experimentally investigated a dou-
ble slope solar still with different energy storage material with
indefinite shape. The results show that the use of sensible heat
storage material inside the basin increases the fresh water produc-
tion by 45% with ¾00 quartz rock. The materials used in the basin
were mild steel scraps, ¼00 quartzrock, washed stones and red
bricks.
Velmurugan et al. [22–25] investigated a solar still with mini
solar pond, fins, pebbles and sponges for improving the yield.
Results show that the yield is improved by 47% with sponge and
57% with fins than conventional solar still.
Srivastava and Agrawal [26] investigated a solar still with por-
ous fins. Porous fins were held vertically in the basin dividing the
basin into ‘n’ separate basins each with filling space for water
and black cloth. The modified porous fins reduce the water temper-
ature by 25% than the conventional solar still. The yield modified
solar still was found to be 7 and 4 kg/m2, and increased by 30%
and 45% than conventional solar still for summer and winter con-
ditions respectively. For the same conditions, the maximum
achievable during noon is observed to be 1.2 and 0.6 kg/m2 h with
modifications. Distillate output also depends on the depth of water
in the basin, which is found that the increase from 4 cm to 6 cm
have no effect on the change of output from the modified solar still.
Furthermore, when the water depth is decreased from 4 to 3 cm,
the increase in the distillate was found about 22.2%.
Omara et al. [27] experimentally investigated a solar still with
corrugated fins. Comparative results show that evaporation
depends on saline water temperature. In that case, the solar still
with fins the saline water temperature is higher than the corru-
gated during the forenoon and during the afternoon the corrugated
solar still water temperature is higher. Also, comparing the yield of
a finned and corrugated absorber, the fresh water yield increased
by 5% and 25%, respectively, than a conventional solar still.
Srivastsava and Agrawal [28] experimentally analyzed the solar
still with modifications such as boosting mirrors and low inertia
floating absorbers. The absorber was of blocks with thermocol
pieces attached to jute cloth for floating effect. Since the absorber
was floating only a small amount of water will be evaporated from
the floating absorber. Thermocol pieces float in water and due to
CF Cash flow (Rs.)
Greek symbols
a absorptivity
e emissivity
s transmissivity
r Stefen Boltzmann constant (5.67  108 W/m2 K4)
Subscripts
a ambient
av average
b basin
c convection
e evaporation
equ equivalent
g glass
p payback
r radiation
w water
its weight a wavery motion arises in the basin, and the cloth was
wetted. Mirrors on the side walls of the solar still boost the solar
intensity to heat and evaporate the water. The results showed that
modified still evaporation entirely depends on floating absorber
temperature. Due to the porosity and higher heat absorption with
a low mass of floating material, water from the surface was quickly
evaporated, and the temperature was increased by 16.66%.
Rajaseenivasan et al. [29,30] investigated the utilization of
sensible heat storage material on a single and double basin dou-
ble slope solar still. Productivity thus not only depends on the
specific heat capacity and also on size of material. The size of
material inside the basin increases the free surface area inside
the basin for better evaporation of saline water. From the review
of Harris Samuel et al. [31] it is identified that the use of sensible
heat energy storage with specified dimensions will improve the
yield of solar still. Also, the use of latent heat energy storage
materials such as molten salt in cuboidal boxes and cylindrical
containers will increase the surface area of water as well as act
as excellent heat storage. Similarly, the yield of fresh water is
greatly affected by keeping latent heat storage material at the
bottom of the basin as this reduces the temperature of water dur-
ing the sunshine hours for charging the material (phase change
from solid to liquid).
This paper communicates the theoretical and experimental
analysis of a conventional single slope solar still using low cost
energy storage material improving the yield of fresh water. Exper-
iments are carried out with spherical ball heat storage as it
increases the surface area of water and act as excellent energy stor-
age. Also, experiments are carried out with different sponge mate-
rials for better capillary action and evaporation from the surface
layer of water. Furthermore, a detailed economic analysis was car-
ried out to analyze the payback period, selling price of water, cost
of fresh water produced of present and previous model solar still.
2. Theoretical approach
2.1. Energy balance on basin surface
The energy balance of the basin surface is given be,
Heat energy absorbed by basin surface through transmit-
tance = Heat transfer between basin and water + Heat lost by
conduction
 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134 127

The basin temperature is determined as, The values of partial pressure equation are given in Appendix A.
The evaporative heat transfer coefficient between water and
IðtÞsg sw ab ¼ h1 ðT b  T w Þ þ U b ðT b  T a Þ ð1Þ
glass is given as [34],
" #
IðtÞsg sw ab þ h1 T w þ U b T a pw  pg
Tb ¼ ð2Þ he;wg ¼ 16:27  103  hc;wg   ð11Þ
h1 þ U b Tw  Tg
h1 = 109 W/m2 K [33] and the overall heat transfer coefficient Ub
[34] given as, The radiative heat transfer coefficient between water and glass
is given as [33],
1 1 L1 1 h   2 i 
¼ þ þ ð3Þ hr;wg ¼ eeffectiv e r ðT w þ 273:15Þ2 þ T g þ 273:15 T w þ T g þ 546
U b hc;ga k1 hc;bw
ð12Þ
where L1 is the thickness of insulation layer, k1 is the thermal con-
ductivity of insulation, Ub is the overall heat transfer coefficient, hc,- where
ga is the heat transfer coefficient in respect to glass and ambient !
1
and hc,bw is the interaction of heat transfer coefficient between eeffectiv e ¼ ð13Þ
water and basin. Table 1 describes the physical parameter used
1
eg þ e1w  1
for theoretical analysis.
and
2.2. Energy balance on water surface h3 ¼ hc;ga þ hr;ga ð14Þ

The temperature of water is determined as, Convective heat transfer coefficient from solar still to ambient is
calculated as [35],
f ðtÞ h at
i h at i
Tw ¼ 1  eMequ þ T w;j eMequ ð4Þ hc;ga ¼ 5:7 þ 3:8u ð15Þ
a
where ‘‘f (t)” and ‘‘a” values are determined as mentioned in Appen- Radiative heat transfer coefficient is estimated as [33],
dix A. h 2 i 
hr;ga ¼ eeffectiv e r T g þ 273:15 þ ðT a þ 273:15Þ2 T g þ T a þ 546
M equ ¼ mw  C pw þ mes  C pes ð5Þ
ð16Þ
The specific heat capacity of saline water is given by [22,35],
2.5. Estimation of yield from solar still
C pw ¼ s1 þ s2 T w þ s3 T 2w þ s4 T 3w ð6Þ

where s1, s2, s3 and s4 value are appended in Appendix A. Yield of fresh water from the solar still is calculated as [34],
 
hewg Aw T w  T g
2.3. Energy balance on glass surface mew ¼ ð17Þ
hfg
The glass temperature is determined as,
IðtÞag ¼ h3 ðT g  T a Þ  h2 ðT w  T g Þ ð7Þ 3. Experimental approach and procedure

IðtÞaw þ h2 T w þ h3 T a 3.1. Experimental approach

Tg ¼ ð8Þ
h2 þ h3
The experimental setup consists of a basin with an area of 1 m2
where and a glass area of 1.1 m2. The glass is placed at the top of the solar
h2 ¼ hc;wg þ he;wg þ hr;wg ð9Þ still with an inclination of 13° so that the water droplets formed on
the smooth surface glides down and gets collected in the distilled
water collector placed at the end of the glass surface. Flow control
2.4. Estimation of heat transfer coefficients valve is provided at the inlet for the water fed to basin. The water
mass is controlled by feeding water into the basin after evapora-
The convective heat transfer coefficient between water and tion from the surface of water. Drain pipe with control valve is pro-
glass is estimated as [33], vided at the bottom of the solar still for the easy removal of excess
"  #1=3 saline water and during the cleaning process. In our experiment
  ðT w þ 273:15Þ pw  pg
hc;wg ¼ 0:884 Tw  Tg þ ð10Þ two different approaches are employed for improving the yield of
ð268900  pw Þ solar still namely, (i) use of sensible heat energy storage with
low cost and (ii) use of sponge inside the basin for capillary effect.
Both the methods are used to increase the surface of water with
Table 1 solar intensity for instant evaporation from the surface. Fig. 1
Parameters for theoretical analysis. shows the schematic diagram of a conventional single slope solar
Parameter Value Parameter Value
still with spherical ball salt heat storage. The thermal conductivity
and specific heat capacity of salt are more in comparison with
Ab 1m 2
sg 0.9 [41]
Ag 1 m2 sw 0.95 [41]
other sensible or latent heat storage materials. Some latent heat
mw 18 kg Y 40 g/kg storage mediums such as paraffin wax [36,37], lauric acid, gubu-
mes 2 kg Ub 14 W/m2 K [34] lar’s salt are very expensive. As salt appears to be an excellent sen-
ab 0.9 [41] h1 109 W/m2 K [33] sible heat storage, it is encapsulated in spherical balls of diameter
aw 0.05 [41] k 0.033 W/m K
62.3 mm made of plastic material (Fig. 2). Each ball is filled with
ag 0.05 [41] L1 0.001 m
127 g of rock salt and placed at a distance of 200 mm in the
128 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a conventional solar still with spherical ball (Encapsulated) salt heat storage.
Fig. 2. Experimental photograph of a conventional solar still with spherical ball
(Encapsulated) salt heat storage.
longitudinal and transverse direction. Velmurugan et al. [22–25]
investigated a similar conventional solar still with fins and fitted
with sponges to increase the surface area of water. The replace-
ment of corroded fins and spoiled sponges are frequently carried
out to maintain the quality of water condensed in the glass. Sponge
loses its porosity due to the trapping of salt in the pores, and the
bad odor from the sponges will affect the quality of condensed
water. The experiments are carried out in the North–South orien-
tation while the glass is inclined facing the south direction and is
inclined at an angle of 13° with the horizon in our experiment.
Fig. 3 shows the solar still with sponge as material for increas-
ing the surface area of water. The dimension of each sponge is
0.1 m  0.075 m  0.075 m and a total of 15 sponges were used
in the experiment. The temperatures of various element of solar
still like water, glass, and basin is measured using a PT-100 (RTD
sensor) with an error of ±1%. Environmental parameters such as
solar intensity and wind velocity are measured using TES1333R
solar power meter with a range of 0–2000 W/m2 and AM 4836C
cup type wind anemometer with a range of 0–40 m/s respectively.
The error of solar power meter and anemometer are ±5% and ±2.5%
respectively. Digital weighing machine is used to measure the
water collected every 1 h with an error of ±2.5%.
3.2. Experimental procedure
Each experiment is conducted in one day, during which the fol-
lowing measurements had been recorded:
Fig. 3. Experimental photograph of a conventional solar still with sponges.
 The flow rate of water is adjusted at the required values accord-
ing to the running case.
 The temperatures of absorber, side of the glass cover, water, and
ambient air are measured.
 Yield of fresh water.
 Total solar radiation intensity.
 The wind velocity of the air is measured.
 The experimental data are collected at an interval of 1 h, start-
ing from about 7 to 24 h.
4. Results and discussion
Test rig external ambient conditions are very important. Aver-
age temperature of the ambient air is 35.4 °C. The average wind
velocity during the experimental conditions is in the ranges of
1.6–1.75 m/s and radiation is 628 W/m2 (March, 2015). The com-
plete experiment is conducted in a domestic area of Chennai, India.
Throughout this work, the comparison between conventional solar
still and modified solar still with spherical balls and sponges is
studied. The water storage in the stills is mw = 18 kg. Table 2 shows
the design of experiment sand properties of the sponges and salt
ball for this study.
4.1. Conventional single slope solar still
Fig. 4(a) shows the theoretical and experimental variation of the
basin, water and glass temperature of a conventional single slope
 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134 129

Table 2 increasing the surface area of water as well as by adding sensible

Design of experiments for this study. heat energy storage material. The methods employed in increasing
Types Thermal Solar still with the surface area includes introducing fins, pebbles, rocks, PCM
conductivity sponge encapsulated balls and sponges. PCM encapsulated balls are more
Geometrical specification (m) Diameter 0.0623 0.1  0.075  0.075 expensive. The major drawback of including sponges as material
Volume (m3) 1.25  104 4.98  104 for increasing the surface area is deterioration of sponge leading
Number of specimens 15 15 to poor water quality and subsequent frequent maintenance.
Surface area of water (m2) 0.85 0.89
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 6 0.674
Fig. 4(b) shows the variation in theoretical and experimental tem-
Mass (kg) 2 0.2 perature of different elements of solar still at different time inter-
Water mass in still (kg) 18 val. It is also observed that the temperature of the water in all the
cases is higher during the maximum intensity of solar radiation.
The maximum water temperature found in the case of conven-
tional solar still with spherical balls is 87 °C, which is higher than
solar still. It is observed that the water temperature during the
the solar still with sponge storage and without any heat storage.
morning hours is less than the basin temperature and during the
The variation of theoretical and experimental hourly yield from
evening hours water gained more heat than the basin surface dur-
solar still with spherical ball heat storage is shown in Fig. 5(b). It
ing the experimental days. The higher temperature of the water
can be observed that the maximum hourly yield from the solar still
during the afternoon is due to the effect of salt in the water which
of experimental and theoretical values is about 0.77 and 0.83 kg/h
acts as thermal heat storage that quickly evaporates the water dur-
respectively. The heat that is stored in the upper surface layer of
ing off shine period and cloudy condition. The maximum tempera-
balls dissipates to the lower surface and thus increases the temper-
ture of the water in the basin is recorded as 77 °C, which is within
ature of the water. The increase in surface area of water in the
±3% of theoretical values. Fig. 5(a) shows the variation of theoretical
basin of solar still is shown in Table 2.
and experimental hourly yield from single slope solar still. The
evaporation from top liner of the water increases as the solar inten-
sity increases. The peak solar intensity was observed as 1017 W/m2 4.3. Conventional single slope solar still with sponges
on 25/03/2015 at 2 PM. During the experimental days, the solar
intensity profile on the consecutive days is similar Fig. 5(a–c). Similarly, the solar still with sponges are experimentally and
theoretically investigated for their performance. It can be observed
4.2. Conventional single slope solar still with spherical ball heat that the temperature of water, basin and glass are more similar to
storage that of solar still with spherical ball heat storage Fig. 4(b) and (c).
As it is observed from Fig. 5(c), the maximum hourly yield from
Temperature of the water is the critical parameter in solar still the solar still is found to be 0.6 kg/h which is 22% lower than the
performance. The increase in temperature of water is achieved by solar still with spherical ball heat storage. It is also observed that

Fig. 4. Theoretical and experimental hourly variation of basin, water and glass temperature (a) conventional single slope solar still, (b) solar still with spherical ball heat
storage and (c) with sponges.
130 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134
Fig. 5. Theoretical and experimental hourly variation of solar intensity and hourly yield of (a) conventional single slope solar still, (b) solar still with spherical ball heat
storage and (c) with sponges.
the capillary rise in the sponge is reduced due to the decrease in
the depth of water in the basin and below to that of the midsection
of sponge material. The capillary rise would be higher as the evap-
oration from the liner of water and sponge is more as depth of
water is more than half the height of sponge.
Separate studies are carried out with different chemically col-
ored dye sponge on solar still. Fig. 6 shows the variation of accu-
mulation of salt and rust in the sponge while using yellow and
green sponge in the solar still. It can be observed that from Fig. 6
(a–c) when using yellow dye sponge the accumulation of salt and
rust is increased at the end of day 14. The similar case is been
observed from Fig. 6(d–f) while using green dye sponge. Similarly,
for thermal analysis the hourly ambient temperature and wind
velocity are used as tabulated in Table 3.
The deviation between experimental and theoretical values of
accumulated yield is tabulated in Table 4. It is observed that the
deviation between experimental and theoretical value for conven-
tional single slope solar still with spherical ball heat storage is only
9.7%, whereas for conventional solar still and solar still with
sponges are found as 4% and 16.1% respectively. Table 5 compares
the accumulated yield of solar still with and without modifications.
It is observed that the continuous usage of sponge material inside
the basin reduced the yield of fresh water.
Fig. 7 shows the percentage increase in yield from present and
previous studies. The average solar intensity in the present model
is 627 W/m2 as the intensity on March, April and May are higher
for Chennai City. Similarly, for comparison the average intensity
of previous model are analyzed for its performance in increase in
yield of fresh water. It is observed that the percentage increase
in yield from solar still with spherical ball heat storage is 135.6%
from the reference value. Similarly the yield from single slope sin-
gle basin with sponge, fin and PCM improves by 65.6%, 78.9% and
97.4% respectively.
5. Economic analysis
The economic analysis on different configurations of conven-
tional solar still was presented by Kabeel et al. [38] and Mukejee
and Tiwari [39]. From the literature it is identified that the capital
recovery factor is the important factor in economic analysis as it is
a function of annual rate of interest and number of year which the
system will perform. The total annual cost of solar still depends in
the annual first cost, maintenance and salvage cost.
The annual first cost is given as,
Annual first costðAFCÞ ¼ CRF  Initial investment ð18Þ
where capital recovery factor (CRF) is mathematically given as,
n
ið1 þ iÞ
CRF ¼ n ð19Þ
ð1 þ iÞ  1
 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134 131

Fig. 6. Use of sponge on different testing days with yellow sponge (a) day 3, (b) day 7, (c) day 14 and green sponge, (d) day 3, (e) day 7 and (f) day 14. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 3 Annual maintenance cost ¼ 0:15  Annual first cost ð20Þ

Variation of hourly wind velocity and ambient temperature during the experiments.
The annual salvage cost is expressed as,
Time (h) U (m/s) Tamb (°C)
3rd day 7th day 14th day 3rd day 7th day 14th day Annual salvage cost ¼ S  SFF ð21Þ
7 2 1.4 2 32 32 32 where
8 1.4 1.8 1.9 32 32 32
9 2.7 2.8 3 33 33 33 S  10% of initial investment ð22Þ
10 1.8 1.9 1.4 34 35 34
11 0.6 0.5 0.8 36 35 36
i
12 0.4 0.9 1 37 36 37 SFF  Sinking fund factor; SFF ¼ n ð23Þ
13 1 1 1.2 38 37 38 ð1 þ iÞ  1
14 0.7 0.9 1 39 38 39
15 0.9 1 1.2 39 38 39
16 1.3 1 0.9 39 38 38
Annual cost ¼ ðFirst cost þ Annual Maintenance  Salvage valueÞ
17 1.8 1.6 1.8 38 38 37 ð24Þ
18 1.2 1 1.5 37 37 36
19 1.2 1.1 1.1 36 36 35
20 2.3 2.1 2.1 36 35 34 Cost of fresh water ð$=lÞ ¼ Annual cost=Total annual yield ð25Þ
21 2.6 2.3 2.2 35 35 33
22 2.8 2.5 2.8 34 35 33 Cost of energy ð$=kW hÞ ¼ Annual cost=Total annual useful energy
23 2.8 2.8 2.9 34 34 32
24 2.6 2.4 2.7 33 32 32 ð26Þ
Average 1.6 1.6 1.75 35.6 35.3 35 Table 6 shows the average costs of distilled water for different
types of solar stills. The results obtained show that best water pro-
duction cost for single slope solar still with spherical ball heat stor-
age is around 0.01 $/l. Whereas, the cost of fresh water produced is
where n is number of discounted years, which is assumed as increased from 0.01 $/l to 0.014 $/l while using sponge material
10 years and r is in the interest per year, which is assumed as 12% inside the solar still. Similarly, the annual yield is increased from
in this analysis. 876 l to 1351 l by the use of spherical ball heat storage.
Also, annual maintenance and annual salvage cost plays a vital Fig. 8 shows payback period of present and previous model
role. The annual maintenance cost is expressed as, solar still at different selling price of distilled water. It can be seen

Table 4
Variation of accumulated and experimental yield from different configuration.

Types Date Accumulated yield (kg/m2) Deviation between theoretical

and experimental (%)
Experimental Theoretical
Solar still without any heat storage 25/03/2015 2.4 2.5 4.0
Solar still with spherical ball heat storage 26/03/2015 3.7 4.1 9.7
Solar still with sponge 27/03/2015 2.6 3.1 16.1
132 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134

Table 5
Variation of accumulated yield, average solar intensity, average ambient temperature and average wind velocity during the experimentation.

S. No. Solar still Yield (kg/m2) Average solar Average Average wind
intensity (W/m2) temperature (°C) velocity (m/s)
3rd day 7th day 14st day
1 Conventional single slope solar still 2.4 2.3 2.3 627 35.3 1.7
2 Solar still with sponge 2.3 2.0 1.7 626 35.1 1.6
3 Solar still with spherical ball (encapsulated) salt heat storage 3.7 3.6 4 630 35.6 1.6

140

% increase in fresh water yield

120
Percentage increase in fresh

Iav= 623W/m2
100 In the present study Iav= 627 W/m2
water yield (%)

80 Iav= 527 W/m2

60

Present study
Iav= 533 W/m2

Present study
Present study
40

20
Iav= 600 W/m2
0
With sensible Stepped solar With sponges Without any With sponge With fins With PCM With
heat storage still with [24] heat storage [22] spherical ball
[13] sponge, fin heat storage
and pebbles
[23]

Fig. 7. Percentage increase in yield from different solar still.

Table 6
Comparison of yield and cost of water from different solar still.

No. Type of solar still Reference Yield Initial CRF Annual Annual SFF Annual Annual Annual Cost of
article (l/day) investment first cost maintenance salvage yield (l) cost (Rs.) fresh
cost (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) water ($/l)
1 Single slope solar still Present 2.4 4500 0.176 796.42 119.46 0.06 25.64 876 890.25 0.015
without any heat storage study
2 Single slope solar still with Present 3.7 4500 0.176 796.42 119.46 0.06 25.64 1350.5 890.25 0.01
spherical ball heat storage study
3 Solar still with sponge Present 2.6 4500 0.176 796.42 119.46 0.06 25.64 949 890.25 0.014
study
4 Stepped solar still with Velmurugan 1.65 8000 0.176 1415.87 212.38 0.06 45.58 602.25 1582.66 0.04
sponge with fin sponge and et al. [23]
pebbles
5 Solar still with sponges Velmurugan 2.26 8000 0.176 1415.87 212.38 0.06 45.58 824.9 1582.66 0.029
et al. [24]
6 Solar still with PCM – 3.1 12,000 0.176 2123.80 318.57 0.06 68.38 1131.5 2374.00 0.032
7 Solar still with PV/T Tiwari et al. 12 51,000 0.176 9026.19 1353.92 0.06 290.61 4380 10089.50 0.035
collectors [32]
8 Solar still with sensible Murugavel 1.68 16,000 0.176 2831.74 424.76 0.06 91.17 613.2 3165.33 0.078
heat storage et al. [13]
9 Solar still with fins Velmurugan 2.81 8000 0.176 1415.87 212.38 0.06 45.58 1025.65 1582.66 0.023
et al. [22]

1$ = Rs. 66 as on 23.10.2015.

that the cost of fresh water increased from Rs. 5 to Rs. 20 decreased where CF is the cash flow and expressed in terms of CF = yearly
the payback period. It can be observed that the accumulated yield yield x selling price of fresh water.
of the present model with spherical ball heat storage has quicker
payback period as compared to other model solar still. When the 6. Conclusions
cost of fresh water produced increased from Rs. 5 to Rs. 20 the pay-
back period with spherical ball heat storage reduced to 2 months. From the experimental and theoretical studies the following
For these calculations the same average solar intensity is taken into conclusions are arrived:
consideration in respect with the annual first cost, salvage and
maintenance cost. The payback period from solar still (in months)  The daily yield was maximum with spherical ball salt energy
is mathematically expressed as [40], storage and found as 3.7 kg/m2, whereas from the single slope
  solar still with and without sponges are found as 2.4 and
CF
ln CFðAFCiÞ 2.6 kg/m2 respectively.
np ¼ ð27Þ
ln ð1 þ iÞ
 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134 133

90
Rs. 5/kg
80 Rs. 6/kg

Payback period in months

70 Rs. 7/kg
Rs. 8/kg
60
Rs. 9/kg
50 Rs. 10/kg
Rs. 15/kg
40
Rs. 20/kg
30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Type of solar still as shown in Table. 4

Fig. 8. Variation of payback period of present and previous model solar still at different selling price of distilled water.

 From the experimental study it is observed that sponges are to s1 ¼ 4206:8 þ 6:6197Y þ 1:2288  102 Y 2
be replaced every 14 days as rust and salt from saline water gets
accumulated on the pores and thus reducing the capillary effect.
s2 ¼ 1:1262 þ 5:4178  102 Y  2:2719  106 Y 2
Bad odor was circulating inside the solar still.
 The deviations between theoretical and experimental results
are found as 16.1%, 9.7% and 4% for solar still with spherical ball s3 ¼ 1:2026  102  5:5366  104 Y þ 1:8906  106 Y 2
heat storage, with sponge and conventional single slope solar
still. s4 ¼ 6:8874  107 þ 1:517  106 Y  4:4268  109 Y 2
 The simple payback period of the present model solar still with
low cost energy storage is quicker and it is found as 4.3 months. where Y is the salinity level in water
 Single slope solar still with spherical ball heat storage gives low
pw ¼ eð25:314T w þ273:15Þ
5144

cost of water
 
7. Future work 25:314T 5144
g þ273:15
pg ¼ e :
It is identified that the use of flat plate collectors in solar still
desalination increases the temperature of water for better evapora-
References
tion. Instead of using flat plate or parabolic collectors and inclined
solar still can be integrated to conventional or any other solar still [1] Sathyamurthy R, Kennady HJ, Nagarajan PK, Ahsan A. Factors affecting the
which can improve the yield as well as reduce the fouling effect on performance of triangular pyramid solar still. Desalination 2014;344:383–90.
[2] Sathyamurthy R, Samuel DGH, Nagarajan PK, El-Agouz SA. A review of different
the inner and outer surfaces of tube collectors. Even in evacuated
solar still for augmenting fresh water yield. J Environ Sci Technol
tube collectors it uses glass material which is not easy to handle. 2015;6:244–65.
From all the above, an inclined solar still with baffles [42] can be [3] Nagarajan PK, Subramani J, Suyambazhahan S, Sathyamurthy R. Nanofluids for
integrated to any solar still for getting yield from both the solar still solar collector applications: a review. Energy Procedia 2014;61:2416–34.
[4] Sathyamurthy R, Nagarajan PK, El-Agouz SA, Jaiganesh V, Khanna PS.
at minimal cost as it could be the future works [43–45]. Experimental investigation on a semi-circular trough-absorber solar still
with baffles for fresh water production. Energy Convers Manage
2015;97:235–42.
Acknowledgements [5] Yadav S, Sudhakar K. Different domestic designs of solar stills: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:718–31.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sathamurthy (late) and [6] Nagarajan PK, Vijayakumar D, Paulson V, Chitharthan RK, Ramanarayanan YN,
Sathyamurthy R. Performance evaluation of triangular pyramid solar still for
Mrs. Santharani Sathyamurthy for their constant encouragement.
enhancing productivity of fresh water. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2014;5
Also, the author would like acknowledge Hindustan Institute of (2):764–71.
Technology and Science for grant of fellowship Ref: – HITS/Regr/ [7] Sathyamurthy R, Nagarajan PK, Kennady H, Ravikumar TS, Paulson V, Ahsan A.
Ph.D./13 and Ref: – HITS/D(R)/IOC/VIII/2013 dated 7/08/2013 of Enhancing the heat transfer of triangular pyramid solar still using phase
change material as storage material. Front Heat Mass Transfer (FHMT)
Director (Research)/HITS. 2014;5:1–5.
[8] Sathyamurthy R, Nagarajan PK, Subramani J, Vijayakumar D, Ali KMA. Effect of
water mass on triangular pyramid solar still using phase change material as
Appendix A storage medium. Energy Procedia 2014;61:2224–8.
[9] Ravishankar S, Nagarajan PK, Vijayakumar D, Jawahar MK. Phase change
2 3 2 3 material on augmentation of fresh water production using pyramid solar still.
IðtÞs s a þ U T IðtÞa þ h T þ h T Int J Renew Energy Dev 2013;2:115–20.
f ðtÞ ¼ IðtÞsg aw þ 4 5þ4 5
g w b b a g rgs s cga a
    [10] Sathyamurthy R, El-Agouz SA, Dharmaraj V. Experimental analysis of a
1 þ Uh1b 1 þ hh32 portable solar still with evaporation and condensation chambers.
Desalination 2015;367:180–5.
[11] Nagarajan PK, Vijayakumar D, Paulson V, Chitharthan RK, Ramanarayanan YN,
  Sathyamurthy R. Theoretical characterization of ethylene glycol nano fluid for
h1 U b h2 h3
a¼ þ automobiles. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2014;5(2):772–7.
h1 þ U b h2 þ h3 [12] Murugavel KK, Sivakumar S, Ahamed JR, Chockalingam KK, Srithar K. Single
basin double slope solar still with minimum basin depth and energy storing
C The seawater specific heat at constant pressure CP = J/kg K materials. Appl Energy 2010;87(2):514–23.
134 D.G. Harris Samuel et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 112 (2016) 125–134
[13] Murugavel KK, Chockalingam KK, Srithar K. An experimental study on single
basin double slope simulation solar still with thin layer of water in the basin.
Desalination 2008;220(1):687–93.
[14] El-Sebaii AA, Al-Ghamdi AA, Al-Hazmi FS, Faidah AS. Thermal performance of a
single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium. Appl Energy 2009;86
(7):1187–95.
[15] Radhwan AM. Transient performance of a stepped solar still with built-in
latent heat thermal energy storage. Desalination 2005;171(1):61–76.
[16] Lazaro A, Dolado P, Marín JM, Zalba B. PCM–air heat exchangers for free-
cooling applications in buildings: experimental results of two real-scale
prototypes. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50(3):439–43.
[17] Riffat SB, Omer SA, Ma X. A novel thermoelectric refrigeration system
employing heat pipes and a phase change material: an experimental
investigation. Renew Energ 2001;23(2):313–23.
[18] Arce P, Castellón C, Castell A, Cabeza LF. Use of microencapsulated PCM in
buildings and the effect of adding awnings. Energy Build 2012;44:88–93.
[19] Prakash J, Garg HP, Datta G. A solar water heater with a built-in latent heat
storage. Energy Convers Manage 1985;25(1):51–6.
[20] Shukla A, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Solar water heaters with phase change
material thermal energy storage medium: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13(8):2119–25.
[21] Murugavel KK, Srithar K. Performance study on basin type double slope solar
still with different wick materials and minimum mass of water. Renew Energ
2011;36(2):612–20.
[22] Velmurugan V, Gopalakrishnan M, Raghu R, Srithar K. Single basin solar still
with fin for enhancing productivity. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49
(10):2602–8.
[23] Velmurugan V, Kumar KN, Haq TN, Srithar K. Performance analysis in stepped
solar still for effluent desalination. Energy 2009;34(9):1179–86.
[24] Velmurugan V, Deenadayalan CK, Vinod H, Srithar K. Desalination of effluent
using fin type solar still. Energy 2008;33(11):1719–27.
[25] Velmurugan V, Mandlin J, Stalin B, Srithar K. Augmentation of saline streams in
solar stills integrating with a mini solar pond. Desalination 2009;249(1):143–9.
[26] Srivastava PK, Agrawal SK. Winter and summer performance of single sloped
basin type solar still integrated with extended porous fins. Desalination
2013;319:73–8.
[27] Omara ZM, Hamed MH, Kabeel AE. Performance of finned and corrugated
absorbers solar stills under Egyptian conditions. Desalination 2011;277:281–7.
[28] Srivastava PK, Agrawal SK. Experimental and theoretical analysis of single
sloped basin type solar still consisting of multiple low thermal inertia floating
porous absorbers. Desalination 2013;311:198–205.
[29] Rajaseenivasan T, Murugavel KK. Theoretical and experimental investigation
on double basin double slope solar still. Desalination 2013;319:25–32.
[30] Rajaseenivasan T, Murugavel KK, Elango T. Performance and exergy analysis of
a double-basin solar still with different materials in basin. Desalination Water
Treat Ahead-of-Print 2014:1–9.
[31] Harris Samuel DG, Nagarajan PK, Arunkumar T, Kannan E, Sathyamurthy R.
Enhancing the solar still yield by increasing the surface area of water—a
review. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.1228.
[32] Kumar S, Tiwari A. Design, fabrication and performance of a hybrid
photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) active solar still. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51(6):1219–29.
[33] Shukla SK, Sorayan VPS. Thermal modeling of solar stills: an experimental
validation. Renew Energ 2005;30:683–99.
[34] Zurigat YH, Abu-Arabi MK. Modeling and performance analysis of a
regenerative solar desalination unit. Appl Therm Eng 2004;24:1061–72.
[35] Srithar K, Mani A. Comparison between simulated and experimental
performance of an open solar flat plate collector for treating tannery
effluent. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2003;30:505–14.
[36] Arunkumar T, Denkenberger D, Velraj R, Sathyamurthy R, Tanaka H,
Vinothkumar K. Experimental study on a parabolic concentrator assisted
solar desalting system. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:665–74.
[37] Arunkumar T, Velraj R, Denkenberger D, Sathyamurthy R, Vinothkumar K,
Porkumaran K, et al. Effect of heat removal on tubular solar desalting system.
Desalination 2016;379:24–33.
[38] Kabeel AE, Hamed AM, El-Agouz SA. Cost analysis of different solar still
configurations. Energy 2010;35:2901–8.
[39] Mukherjee K, Tiwari GN. Economic analyses of various designs of conventional
solar stills. Energy Convers Manage 1986;26(20):155–7.
[40] Ranjan KR, Kaushik SC. Economic feasibility evaluation of solar distillation
systems based on the equivalent cost of environmental degradation and high-
grade energy savings. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 2013:1–8.
[41] Aghaei Zoori H, Farshchi Tabrizi F, Sarhaddi F, Heshmatnezhad F. Comparison
between energy and exergy efficiencies in a weir type cascade solar still.
Desalination 2013;325:113–21.
[42] Sathyamurthy R, Samuel DH, Nagarajan PK. Theoretical analysis of inclined
solar still with baffle plates for improving the fresh water yield. Process Saf
Environ Prot 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2015.08.010.
[43] Arunkumar T, Velraj R, Ahsan A, Khalifa AJN, Shams S, Denkenberger D, et al.
Effect of parabolic solar energy collectors for water distillation. Desalination
Water Treat 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1119746.
[44] Arunkumar T, Velraj R, Denkenberger D, Sathyamurthy R, Vinoth Kumar K,
Ahsan A. Productivity enhancements of compound parabolic concentrator
tubular solar stills. Renew Energ 2016;88:391–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2015.11.051.
[45] Sathyamurthy R, Harris Samuel DG, Nagarajan PK, Arunkumar T. Geometrical
variations in solar stills for improving the fresh water yield-a review.
Desalination Water Treat 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2015.1136241.