Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells

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

Clean water photovoltaic sensor for solar disinfection

in developing countries
M. Vivar a,n, M. Fuentes b, R. García-Pacheco a, I. de Bustamante a
a
IMDEA Water, Alcalá de Henares 28805, Spain
b
Grupo IDEA, Universidad de Jaén, Jaén 23071, Spain

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the limitations for the widespread use of solar water disinfection technologies in developing
Received 10 June 2013 regions is the lack of low-cost clean water sensors. A new type of low-cost sensors using photovoltaic
Received in revised form solar cells that provide information about received irradiance, temperature, UV irradiance and sunshine
8 July 2013
duration is presented. A key aspect of the design is the UV irradiance measurement. Two identical cells
Accepted 12 July 2013
are used, one of them with a low-cost UV-blocking filter on top, so the total UV irradiance can
Available online 17 August 2013
be calculated as the difference between the two solar cells outputs. The first cell would be measuring
Keywords: UV–vis–NIR and the second only vis–NIR. The UV filter material was explored and a low-cost
Solar water disinfection architectural film was selected. Materials costs for the first prototype were of approximately 4€ excluding
Photovoltaic
labour. Initial testing also included experiments with real polluted water and Escherichia coli, showing
Low cost
the feasibility of the new design.
SODIS
UV & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Sunshine duration

1. Introduction consist of containers or plastic bottles that are fully black-painted

One of the most appropriate methods for drinking water
treatment (WT) in developing countries, especially in small com-
munities or remote areas, is solar disinfection [1,2]. Solar technol-
ogies for water disinfection are clean, simple, easy to operate and
maintain, suitable for domestic use, do not require electricity and
have low cost. But they are environment dependent and can be
used only in areas with high solar irradiance conditions all over
the year. Another drawback is that in some cases, such as solar
distillation, the efficiency is limited. On the other hand, most of the
developing countries are located in areas with high irradiance
(Fig. 1), in the so-called ‘sun-belt’ zone, where the use of solar
technologies is feasible.
Solar water disinfection can convert the sun energy into heat to
increase the water temperature for pasteurisation or distillation,
or it can use directly the germicide effect of UV radiation [4], or a
combination of both. Main solar technologies include solar dis-
tillation, solar pasteurisation and the SODIS method with plastic
bottles. Solar distillation is based on water evaporation and
condensation, but the efficiency is very low as it requires higher
solar energy doses for longer periods of time to treat the water
than those of any of the other solar technologies [2]. If the water is
not evaporated but the temperature increase is only to about
70 1C, then it reaches pasteurisation temperature. These systems
and then exposed to the sun, waiting for the water temperature to
reach 70 1C (Fig. 2a). Simple reflectors made with aluminium foils
or metallic materials are often used to accelerate the process.
Finally, if a combination of UV radiation and temperature is used
then the solar disinfection (SODIS) process [1] is followed, using
clear plastic bottles directly exposed to the sun for a certain
number of hours (Fig. 2b). The combination of UV and heat
disinfects the water after a period of exposure.
One of the main drawbacks or limitations to the widespread
use of these solar disinfection methods in developing countries is
that the user has no information about when the water is safe to
drink. There is a lack of low-cost sensors for natural solar
disinfection to detect when the water is clean, i.e. if the treated
water has received enough radiation and/or if it has reached the
pasteurisation temperature. This lack of information reduces their
‘usability’ in remote regions. The SODIS process gives some guide-
lines and estimates that the water is safe to drink after 6 h of
exposure if it was a sunny day, or between 2 and 3 days if it is
cloudy, but sensors are not available. Scientific research has been
conducted for many types of low-cost simple sensors that can
provide some aid to detect when the water is clean, both for solar
UV disinfection (SODIS) and solar water pasteurisation.
1.1. SODIS sensors

Most of the approaches are based on UV detectors, monitoring

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 830 59 62. UV radiation and in some cases temperature, not measuring other
E-mail addresses: marta.vivar@gmail.com, marta.vivar@imdea.org (M. Vivar). parameters such as sunshine duration or global irradiance.

0927-0248/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2013.07.021
550 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Fig. 1. World map showing the solar global irradiation received over the year [3]. Most developing countries are located in areas with high irradiance conditions.
Fig. 2. Solar disinfection methods in developing countries: (a) solar pasteurisation [2] and (b) SODIS process [1].
In general, commercial sensors developed for both UV monitoring
and artificial UV disinfection exist [5,6], but either they are too
expensive for their use in developing countries or they are not
suitable for natural sunlight due to spectrum differences (UVA in
sunlight disinfection vs. UVC in artificial disinfection). Main find-
ings on sensors suitable for natural solar disinfection in developing
countries are summarised now.
In 1999, G. Smestad [7] patented a UV light detector for liquid
disinfection units, consisting of two solid state photodetectors
with different spectral responses, the first one generating in the
ultraviolet–visible–infrared spectrum, and the second generating
in the visible–infrared, so the UV light intensity could be calcu-
lated by differentiation of the two signals. The device connected
the two parallel photodiodes output in reverse, and included the
circuitry to monitor the UV level, which could activate a solenoid
valve and/or alarm. The system monitored UV radiation and the
sensor required power for the associated circuitry. The patent was
assigned to WaterHealth International for its use in developing
countries.
From this initial low cost UV photodetector intended for solar
water disinfection till today there has been little research on this
topic. Recent findings correspond to publications and patents from
2011 onwards. UVA dosimetric indicators (Fig. 3a) using azo dyes
such as Methylene Blue or Acid Orange AO24 are other options
that are currently being developed. These sensors are based on the
complete discolouration of the dye when it degrades after receiv-
ing the solar radiation dose for inactivation of pathogens [8–10].
When the indicator is in dark and in the presence of oxygen, it is
reoxidised back to Methylene Blue, constituting a reversible
system. They measure only UVA radiation.
Another possibility is to use a passive average UV exposure
sensor, consisting of an uncured ring of ultraviolet curable sealing
photochromic material [11] placed around the neck and cap region
of a plastic bottle, patented by Lantis et al. [12]. The main
disadvantage is the inaccuracy of the measurement as it is based
on colour change. UV sensors based on colour changes have been
traditionally used for skin sun exposure applications [13–15],
giving an overall indication of the UV content and the health
hazard associated with sun exposure. In general this type of
detector does not provide sufficient data for solar disinfection as
it measures only an average UV dose with high uncertainty.
Finally, the Austrian company Helioz GmbH [16] has designed
and patented another UV radiation sensor for SODIS, the WADIS
sensor [17], consisting of a UV detector that monitors UV radiation.
The integrated UV value is compared to a characteristic curve to
determine the water disinfection degree, adjusted by a factor
depending on the liquid temperature, which is also measured. It
requires a battery, which is fed by solar cells. It is currently under
development, and it measures UV radiation and temperature.
1.2. Solar water pasteurisation (SWP) sensors
One type of SWP indicator is based on melting of a wax from
solid to liquid and then changing shape or location, such as the
water pasteurisation indicator (WAPI) shown in Fig. 3b [2,18]. The
WAPI is a polycarbonate tube containing a wax at the top that
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Fig. 3. (a) UVA dosimetric indicator showing the discolouration when the UV dose required for pathogen inactivation has been received [7] and (b) WAPI indicator, showing
the wax location before and after reaching pasteurisation temperature [8].
melts at 69 1C. It is placed inside a water container under SWP, and
when the water reaches pasteurisation temperature the heat will
melt the wax, that will move from the top to the bottom of the
tube, indicating that pasteurisation has been completed.
Another pasteurisation indicator is based on materials with
different thermal expansions that could interact and make a
change in geometry [2], such as a bi-metal disc that due to
different thermal expansions of the two metals will change its
shape. These sensors are currently under development.
In general, the main parameters to be monitored in solar
disinfection technologies are sunshine duration (SODIS), global
irradiance (SODIS, solar pasteurisation), UV irradiance (SODIS) and
water temperature (SODIS, solar pasteurisation). Sunshine dura-
tion is measured from data given by a pyrheliometer or a
pyranometer. Costs of commercial equipment are up to 14,000€
for the pyrheliometer and the suntracker, and up to 500–3000€ for
the pyranometer. Global irradiance is measured by a pyranometer.
On the other hand, UV irradiance requires a dedicated UV radio-
meter, with costs between 250€ and 6000€. Finally, water tem-
perature is obtained by a liquid-immersion temperature sensor,
which can be up to 90€. These current costs are too high and not
affordable for this type of applications in developing areas.
The objective of this work is to design a low-cost clean water
sensor for solar disinfection technologies in developing countries.
This article presents a new design, manufacturing and testing of a
clean water sensor based on photovoltaic solar cells, showing that
this type of sensors are feasible and of low cost.
2. PV solar cells as clean water sensors
The proposed solution is to use photovoltaic solar cells as clean
water sensors for solar disinfection to reduce the cost. They can be
used to measure both irradiance [19] and cell temperature [20].
First, the generated short-circuit current (ISC) increases linearly as
a function of the received irradiance. Therefore, a solar cell can be
used to measure the total irradiance received during the day.
Second, the open-circuit voltage (VOC) of the solar cell decreases
linearly with temperature, and is generally used as an indicator of
the cell temperature. This means that the cell can be also used as a
thermometer, and even to estimate if the water on top of an
encapsulated cell has reached a certain temperature or not, and for
how long.
Sensors based on calibrated solar cells have been widely used
in photovoltaics to monitor the performance of PV plants. These
solar cells are called ‘reference cells’ and their characteristics and
551
calibration are defined in the international standard IEC 60904
[19]. From their generated photocurrent, which depends on the
number of photons and their spectral distribution, solar irradiance
is calculated. But the measured solar irradiance depends on the
spectral response of the cell, which extends from the UV to the
NIR, so it does not measure the broadband solar irradiance as a
pyranometer does. So they cannot be used as radiometers to
measure the total weather data accurately, but to measure the
solar irradiance that is available to a PV module for energy
conversion, as both the reference cell and the PV module have
the same spectral response [21].
Meybray et al. from NREL have recently reviewed the difference
between using pyranometers and reference cells when monitoring
PV plants performance [21], giving a comparison between pyran-
ometers and reference cells when they are used for measuring the
efficiency of PV at reference conditions and when they are used as
radiometers. When used for measuring the efficiency of PV
modules, the reference cell matches the spectral response of the
PV module, so it is more accurate. The pyranometer measures the
broadband spectrum (UV–FIR) and the response needs to be
corrected for PV. On the contrary, a pyranometer is ideal to
measure the weather (entire spectrum) but the reference cell will
be considered insufficient (only UV–NIR). Medbray et al. also
compare other parameters such as the angle of incidence effect,
temperature response and time response. Finally, they suggest,
like other authors in the literature, such as Haeberlin et al. [22] or
Dunn et al. [23], the use of reference cells instead of pyranometers
[24] to monitor PV plants performance because they are a matched
reference device that provides a better and more realistic estima-
tion of the expected energy output of a PV plant.
An example of a well-developed sensor based on reference cells
is the ESTI sensor, designed and developed at the European Solar
Test Installation (Joint Research Centre—JRC, Ispra, Italy) to moni-
tor PV plants within the 1994 German program ‘A Thousands
Roofs’ [25]. It consists of a monocrystalline solar cell encapsulated
in glass/EVA/ polyester–aluminium–tedlar. The cell is cut into two,
with one half used to measure ISC and the other half to measure
VOC. The electronic system is laminated inside the sensor. The ESTI
sensor is then calibrated for irradiance and cell temperature. Fig. 4
shows an image of a recent Suntech ESTI type reference cell
calibrated by PV Evolution Labs.
In summary, a photovoltaic solar cell can measure global
irradiance and cell temperature (and from the latter estimate
water temperature), with current costs that can be down to 0.1–1
€/cell. As the main monitoring parameters required in solar
disinfection are sunshine duration, global irradiance, UV irradiance
552 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Fig. 4. Suntech ESTI type reference cell calibrated by PV evolution labs, showing
the two halves of the silicon solar reference cell (in this case multicrystalline) used
as a sensor, encapsulated using the same materials as those for a PV module [11].
and water temperature, it is still needed to study if a photovoltaic
solar cell could be used to calculate sunshine duration and UV
irradiance.
2.1. Sunshine duration calculation from a photovoltaic solar cell
In a parallel work [26] the authors studied if a photovoltaic
solar cell can measure sunshine duration (SD). Sunshine duration
is defined by the World Metereological Organisation (WMO) [27]
as the number of hours for which the direct solar irradiance is
above 120 W/m2. This is the ‘pyrheliometric method’ as it requires
a pyheliometer to measure direct irradiance. The WMO also
specifies a ‘pyranometric method’, using only global irradiance
measured by a pyranometer and a dedicated algorithm, developed
by Slob and Monna in 1991 [27]. Other pyranometric methods
well-reviewed in the literature are the Hinssen–Knap [28,29] and
the Olivieri [30]. All these algorithms are based on climatic
parameters such as the global horizontal irradiance, the latitude,
longitude, turbidity, temperature, etc. They can be used to calcu-
late numeric limits for ‘cloudless conditions’ and then compare the
real data in sub-periods of approximately 1 min to calculate
sunshine duration. These SD calculation methods are very accurate
but they require expensive equipment such as a pyrheliometer,
a sun tracker or a pyranometer, which are affordable for a
meteorological weather station but not for day-to-day applications
in developing countries.
As a photovoltaic solar cell can measure global irradiance, the
study [26] consisted first in implementing the three pyranometric
algorithms (Slob and Monna, Hinssen–Knap and Olivieri), and then
using the global irradiance data from a silicon solar cell to calculate
sunshine duration. Direct irradiance data from a pyrhelio-
meter and global irradiance data from a pyranometer were also
used to calculate sunshine duration as a reference. A one-year
dataset from the University of Cyprus was used. The objective was
to analyse if the SD calculated by a solar cell in relation to a
pyranometer is well-correlated or not.
Main conclusions were that the silicon solar cell is capable of
measuring sunshine duration on a daily basis with an uncertainty
similar to that obtained with a pyranometer. Fig. 5 shows the
differences between the daily SD calculated for the three algo-
rithms using the solar cell and the SD calculated from the
pyrheliometer. It shows again how the three algorithms under-
estimate sunshine duration in comparison to the pyrheliometer
and how the Olivieri algorithm is the most suitable for the
measurement of sunshine duration with a photovoltaic solar cell.
2.2. UV irradiance measurement from a photovoltaic solar cell
A photovoltaic solar cell can be used to measure global
irradiance as stated previously, with a spectral response that
10
SD Si cell - SD Pyrheliometer (h/day)
5
-5
-10
-15
Slob Hinssen Olivieri
Fig. 5. Box plot of SD Si cell—SD Pyrheliometer (h/day) for the three pyranometric
algorithms, Slob, Hinssen and Olivieri, showing that a solar cell is suitable for
sunshine duration calculation and that the Olivieri algorithm gives better adjust-
ment for measuring SD with a photovoltaic solar cell.
includes UV, vis and NIR. But we would also like to measure
directly only the UV irradiance. As the cell measures UV, vis and
NIR, one possibility would be to use an optical filter that blocks all
the light except the UV, but these specific filters are too expensive
for this type of applications.
The proposed solution to measure directly UV with a PV solar
cell is to use two solar cells and a low-cost UV-blocking filter for
one of the cells, which blocks just the UV part of the spectrum
(Fig. 6). The first cell would measure the global solar irradiance
(comprising UV, vis and NIR), and the second cell would be under
the low-cost UV filter, measuring the global solar irradiance except
the UV (vis and NIR). By differentiating the response of the two
cells, we would have just the UV component of irradiance, which
follows the concept developed by G. Smestad in 1999 [7] of using
two photodetectors configured to operate in two different spectral
ranges and calculating the UV by their difference. This would be a
low-cost solution since the solar cell is currently affordable due to
the booming of the PV industry and the plummeting of silicon
technologies costs, with a cost of 0.1–1€ per cell depending on the
technology, and the UV filter could be an inexpensive UV filter
from photography or from the glass protection and safety films
industry, with costs under 10€/m2.
3. New clean water PV sensor: design, manufacturing and
initial characterisation
Photovoltaic solar cells are capable of measuring global irra-
diance, cell temperature, sunshine duration and UV irradiance.
With this background, a new clean water PV sensor for the SODIS
technology was designed, manufactured and characterised. Solar
disinfection using UV and temperature requires more parameters
to be monitored than that of solar pasteurisation. For solar
pasteurisation, a simplification of the sensor could be easily
conducted [31].
3.1. Design
The final design of the clean water PV sensor consists of two
units, each basic unit comprising two single encapsulated PV cells
of the same technology (Fig. 7). The first is the ‘reference unit’,
with one of the cells including the UV-blocking filter on top. This
unit can measure global irradiance, UV irradiance and sunshine
duration. A second two-cell unit is placed under the clear plastic
bottle (‘water unit’), measuring global irradiance through the
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563 553

UV Vi s NIR UV Vis NIR

UV-blocking filter
Vis NIR

UV
UV Vis NIR Vis NIR

Global Irradiance Global Irradiance -UV

Fig. 6. Low-cost UV irradiance sensor using two photovoltaic solar cells, the first measuring global irradiance (UV, vis, NIR) and the second with an inexpensive UV blocking
filter on top, measuring global irradiance except the UV (vis, NIR). By differentiating both signals we measure UV irradiance directly.

UV Vis IR

Water Temp.

Reference Bottle

Global Global -UV Global under Cell Temp.

bottle
Fig. 7. New clean water PV sensor for SODIS process [1] design including one unit as a reference, measuring global irradiance, UV irradiance and sunshine duration, and
another unit under the plastic bottle, measuring irradiance through/on the water and water temperature.

bottle (and so getting some information on water turbidity and
irradiance that is really used in the disinfection process), and cell
temperature. If the cell that is measuring temperature was of
sufficient area, water temperature above it could be directly
estimated. If it is not the case, a low-cost temperature sensor
electrically insulated with silicone and placed on the bottle cap
can be used to measure water temperature.
In summary, the sensor is composed of four cells, two directly
under the sun as a reference and two under the plastic bottle, plus
a temperature sensor on the bottle cap. This configuration allows
the measurement of all the relevant parameters to solar
disinfection, including: global irradiance, UV irradiance, sunshine
duration, global irradiance under the bottle and water tempera-
ture. All these information should help to determine whether the
water disinfection process has finished and the water is safe to
drink or not.
3.2. Manufacturing
A first sensor that can be used in SODIS but adapted to solar
water pasteurisation has been manufactured. Detailed design
554 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563

aspects such as size and materials are described below, followed visible light transmittance and 29% UV rejection. With the SCL SR
by the final manufacturing process. PS4 film on top, the window achieved 81% total solar transmittance,
89% visible light transmittance and 95% UV rejection. The glass UV
filter manufacturer did not provide any information about spectral
3.2.1. Size
transmittance. Fig. 8c shows the transmittance of both the glass
SODIS uses transparent PET bottles. In general, the most
filter and the film on 1 mm quartz. It can be observed that the
common sizes for PET bottles used in SODIS are small bottles of
Hama glass filter transmittance in the UV is higher than that of the
1–2 L [32]. The main design issue for the sensor based on solar
film. It cuts at a lower wavelength of 329 nm, allowing UV light to
cells was that the bottle is round and the conventional cells that
pass through, with a final overall UV blockage of 59%. The UV film
were going to be used in this first sensor were flat, so for the water
on clear slide rejects 90% of the total UV with a cut-off wavelength
unit of the sensor (the one placed underneath the bottle) optical
of 383 nm, vs. the 95% UV rejection given by the manufacturer. It
losses between the flat cells and the round bottle had to be
reaches 88% visible light transmittance vs. the 90% visible transmit-
minimised. Thin, elongate solar cells were used for this purpose,
tance provided by the manufacturer. These differences are mainly
and the most appropriate size for the sensor solar cells from the
due to the different types of glass used as a support for the film. As a
bottle dimensions was calculated. Calculation details can be found
reference, the quartz slide blocks only 8% of the total UV. The
in [31], where different bottles sizes ranging from 1.5 L to 2 L were
architectural film was finally selected as a low-cost UV filter.
analysed, and their diameters as well as the elongate flat parts on
Finally, it needs to be considered that the objective is not
which the sensor was located were studied. Finally, cells 4–6 mm
measuring the total UV irradiance accurately but the UV irradiance
in width and up to 36 mm long were found to be suitable.
that is available to the water purification process, i.e. the UV
irradiance that reaches the water within the bottle, including the
3.2.2. Materials transmission losses when the light crosses the PET bottle. Fig. 9
Materials selection can be divided into the solar cell and the shows the transmittances of the PET bottle, cutting at 325 nm and
rest of the encapsulation into a complete module, plus the low cost therefore using only the UVA light (320–400 nm), and the clear
UV filters. Regarding the solar cells, they were monocrystalline slide plus the UV film, cutting at 383 nm.
silicon solar cells from the Institute of Solar Energy (IES-UPM) in
Madrid, Spain. The cells were LGBC solar cells originally manu-
factured by BP Solar, with an initial size of 6 mm
116 mm. UV Vis
Average efficiency of the cells was 16.8% at STC and the VOC 100
temperature coefficient was  2.3 mV/1C. The cells were cut to a
length of 30 mm, so the final solar cell size for the sensor was
80
6 mm
30 mm. The encapsulation was based on a 1 mm glass
cover consisting of a microscope slide of clear glass, clear silicone
Transmittance [%]

(Wacker Silgel 612) and a black back cover of Tedlars, which are 60
standard materials in PV modules. Black Tedlars was selected to
avoid unwanted reflections on the cells serving as sensors.
For the low-cost UV filter, the possibilities explored were using a 40
conventional UV filter from photography, consisting of a 62 mm
diameter and 1.78 mm thickness UV filter from Hamas, or an Clear slide
20 Clear slide + SLC film
architectural window film for glass protection and safety provided
PET bottle
by the Portuguese company Impersol Lda, the SCL SR PS4 Llumar
0.1 mm thickness film [33,34] (Fig. 8a and b). Transmittance of both 0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
filters were analysed by using a UV–vis spectrophotometer.
Wavelength [nm]
A quartz 1 mm slide was also used as a reference. Data given by
the film manufacturer were for a 3.75 mm thickness clear window Fig. 9. Transmittance of the clear slide used to encapsulate the solar cell, the PET
glass without film that had 83% total solar transmittance, 90% bottle and the UV blocking film on clear slide.

UV Vis
100

80
Transmittance [%]

60

40

Quartz
20 Hama
Clear slide + SLC film

0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Wavelength[nm]
Fig. 8. Low cost UV filters: (a) photographic UV filter from Hama; (b) SCL SR PS4 Llumar UV film from Impersol; and (c) transmittance of the two UV filters tested, with the
film filter with a higher rejection of the UV content.
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
3.2.3. Manufacturing
Fig. 10 presents the final design for each of the units of the
sensor, showing the solar cells connected to the tabs and the black
Tedlar backsheet. Fig. 10a shows a top view and Fig. 10b a side view,
showing the encapsulant and the clear glass. It also shows the UV
filter location in one of the cells for the case of the reference unit.
The manufacturing process started with the cut of the original
solar cells of 6 mm
116 mm to the required size of 6 mm
30 mm.
The cell was cut only in length. It was conducted at the facilities of
CENTESIL (Centro de Tecnología de Silicio Solar) in Madrid, using an
automatic dicing saw. After cutting, cells were measured in an indoor
solar simulator (AM1.5G) at STC of IES-UPM labs, obtaining the ISC in
order to match the cells for the sensor units. Next step was to wire
the cells to the connection tabs (Fig. 11a), which was done by
soldering in the hot plate using solder paste (Sn–Ag). Once the cells
were soldered, the Tedlars was prepared and the cells placed on the
top for encapsulation. Encapsulation used a clear silicone of two
components, Wacker Silgel 612, in a ratio of 1.5:1. It was mixed,
vacuumed to remove possible air bubbles, poured into the Tedlar and
Fig. 10. Design of the units of the sensor, showing the two solar cells with the bus
bars soldered to the tabs, the black Tedlar backsheet, the encapsulant, the glass
cover and the UV filter: (a) top view of the designed unit and (b) side view.
Fig. 11. Cells after each step of the manufacturing process of the sensor units: (a) solar cells cut to 6 mm
30 mm and soldered to the tabs, (b) encapsulated cells with clear
silicone and glass cover, (c) cells fixed to the box with shunt resistor and external wires connected, and (d) final sensor unit.
555
cells, and covered with the glass cover (Fig. 11b). Curing was at room
temperature (24 h at 25 1C).
After the encapsulation, wires were soldered to the tabs and
then connected to screw terminals, where the external wires 0.5 m
each were connected (Fig. 11c). Then the units were fixed into
small boxes that protect the wiring and have sufficient room for
including the electronics of the sensor in the future. Silica was
added to avoid moisture. Shunt resistors of 0.1 Ω 1% were
connected to the cells that will be measuring ISC. Fig. 11d shows
the final sensor unit. The UV filter film was not included at this
point as it was required that the cells should be calibrated first so
they have the same reference.
3.3. Initial characterisation
Initial calibration consisted of an initial exposure to sunlight to
reduce initial photon degradation effects and to stabilise the cells
and an outdoor calibration. It was conducted at University of Jaén
(Jaén, Spain). Initial exposure consisted in exposing the solar cell
for a total of 5 kW h/m2 open-circuited according to the IEC 61215
‘Crystalline Silicon Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules: Design
Qualification and Approval’ [35].
For the outdoor calibration the specifications of the international
standard ‘IEC-60904-2—Photovoltaic Devices, Part 2: Require-
ments for Reference Solar Cells’ [19] were followed. With the solar
cells on the tracker (Fig. 12), the ISC of three of the cells was
measured, as well as the VOC and temperature of the fourth cell.
The global irradiance on the normal plane was measured by a
pyranometer placed on the tracker. Main reference parameters of
the sensor were obtained, which, when converted into standard
testing conditions (STC), 1000 W/m2 and 25 1C, were
I nSC;Cell1 ¼ 54:78 mA
I nSC;Cell2 ¼ 55:22 mA
I nSC;Cell3 ¼ 56:23 mA
V nOC;Cell4 ¼ 594:12 mV
556 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563

4. Testing corresponding to sunny and cloudy weather, and good agreement

After the initial calibration, the performance of the clean water
sensor was tested. Four types of tests were conducted, including
an initial test measuring global irradiance over the span of a day
and calculating sunshine duration, tests measuring the UV irra-
diance with the new UV sensor, a test with tap water and
preliminary experiments with polluted water. The objective of
these tests was to determine if the new sensor provides useful
data to help the water quality monitoring. Main parameters were
analysed: global irradiance, sunshine duration, global irradiance
under the bottle, UV irradiance and water temperature. In the
preliminary experiment with polluted water, these parameters
were compared with the reference values given in the literature
for the SODIS process to determine whether the water was clean
or not and with the water microbiological analysis.
4.1. Global irradiance and sunshine duration
To verify the performance of the sensor as sunshine duration
recorder, the sensor was subjected to different days of exposure
under natural sunlight and its output compared with that of a
reference global horizontal pyranometer. Fig. 13 shows the perfor-
mance of the sensor cells when used to measure global horizontal
irradiance in comparison with the reference data from the
pyranometer. Two different climatic conditions are represented,
is shown between the global measured by the PV cells and the
reference global irradiance given by the pyranometer.
From the global horizontal irradiance measured by Cell 1,
sunshine duration was calculated and the result compared with
the sunshine duration calculated by the pyrheliometer and pyrano-
meter from the weather station. For both the pyranometer and the
cell, the selected method was the Olivieri. Table 1 shows the results
for different days of testing, with the cell and the pyranometer
performing similarly and in all cases underestimating the sunshine
duration in relationship to the pyrheliometric SD value. But in
summary, the sensor can be used to measure both global horizontal
irradiance and sunshine duration.
4.2. UV irradiance
The UV irradiance is measured by the sensor using two cells,
one of them with the UV film attached on the front surface
(Fig. 14a). Tests consisted of measuring the UV output from the
new sensor and then comparing with the UV output from a
reference global UV sensor (Fig. 14b). A good correlation between
the two UV signals is observed, with the UV sensor measuring
approximately 87% of the total UV irradiance measured by the
reference UV radiometer. This difference is explained first because
the reference global UV sensor measures total UV, including UVA
and UVB, and the new sensor measures only the UVA part of the
UV spectrum, according to the cut-off wavelength of the filter (see
Section 3.2.2). Another reason for differences between the sensors
is the use of a clear glass in the UV reference sensor and a standard
glass in the encapsulated cell of the sensor, which have different
overall transmittances.
Finally, the supporting material of the UV film is PET and not
glass, which limits the light transmittance. One could think that
this is not a good solution for a low-cost UV sensor, but it is
necessary to consider the system requiring the sensor, in this case

Table 1
Daily totals of SD for several days using the pyrheliometric method and
the Olivieri algorithm for the pyranometer and the cell; and differences with
pyrheliometric SD.

Date SD – SD – Olivieri SD – Olivieri Difference Difference

Pyrhel Pyran (h) Cell 1 (h) Pyran (h) Cell 1 (h)
(h)

13/04/2013 8.45 6.57 6.57  1.88  1.88

14/04/2013 8.47 6.55 6.55  1.92  1.92
Fig. 12. Sensor units under calibration on the tracker at the outdoor solar facilities 23/04/2013 9.65 6.12 6.12  3.53  3.53
at University of Jaén, measuring ISC,Cell_1, ISC,Cell_2, ISC,Cell_3, VOC,Cell_4 and TCell_4 under 24/04/2013 9.7 8.85 8.68  0.85  1.02
natural sunlight (irradiance measured by the pyranometer in the tracker).

Fig. 13. Global horizontal irradiance measured by the pyranometer and global horizontal irradiance measured by the sensor cells for two different days: (a) 13 April 2013,
sunny weather; and (b) 24 April 2013, with partially cloudy weather.
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Fig. 14. (a) Two photovoltaic solar cells used to measure UV irradiance, one of them with a UV-blocking filter on top, allowing UV irradiance measurement by differentiation
and (b) UV irradiance measured by the sensor and by the global UV sensor used as a reference, showing the correlation between the two datasets (4 June 2013), and
indicating the potential of the low-cost UV sensor based on PV cells and UV blocking architectural window films.
Fig. 15. Set-up of experiment with bottle filled with tap water and the sensor
underneath to measure irradiance in the bottom of the bottle and water tempera-
ture (17 April 2013).
SODIS bottles. They use the same material as that of the sensor,
PET, and therefore the UV recorded by the PV sensor will be
actually the same as that of the SODIS bottles used. This UV value
will be more useful and accurate to detect clean water. The PV
sensor solution adopts the same principle as that of solar cells
used as global irradiance sensors in power plants of the same
technology, predicting more accurately the real performance of
the PV plants. In summary, it is concluded that the UV measure-
ment using this method is feasible for solar disinfection
technologies.
4.3. Global irradiance under the bottle and water temperature
This third group of tests consisted of using a PET bottle filled
with tap water and the two cells of the clean water PV sensor
underneath, and then to expose the bottle to the sunlight along
the day. Fig. 15 shows the set-up of the experiment, where a bottle
of 1.5 L (86 mm water depth) has been placed horizontally and
north–south orientated, with the sensor below, and with the
special bottle cap with the temperature sensor inserted and a
small tap for future experiments to take samples.
Weather conditions during the experiment corresponded to a
sunny day, as indicated in Fig. 16a by the global horizontal
irradiance. Fig. 16a also gives the irradiance that reaches the
557
bottom of the bottle. It can be observed that during the central
hours of the day the irradiance under the bottle increases rapidly,
to irradiance values up to three times the global irradiance
measured by the reference. There is a concentration effect at the
bottom of the bottle on the cell, due to the circular shape of
the bottle and the clear water that act as a lens, concentrating the
sunlight onto a smaller area, in this case measured by the cell.
During the span of the day, the cumulative global irradiance is
23.2 MJ/m2 and the cumulative irradiance at the bottom of the
bottle is 22.9 MJ/m2, practically the same due to the concentration
factor. Without this concentration, the irradiance at the bottom of
the bottle should have been approximately 2.8 MJ/m2 as most of
the sunlight should have been absorbed in the water. This might
mean that the circular shape of the bottle is actually permitting
transmission of most of the light during the concentration effect
and not absorption, which can have two different effects in the
water purification process when the water is clear in comparison
with a flat bag of water of the same depth. First, we could think
that this effect would accelerate the process, as it seems that we
get more light to the bottom of the bottle. But this means that the
sunlight is not being absorbed through the bottle, so the first
layers of water might not be affected by the UV disinfection, so it
might be the opposite effect, and it decreases the rate of inactiva-
tion. On the other hand, the concentration is accumulating solar
irradiance in a smaller area, which will heat up faster. This heat
can be transferred by conduction to the rest of the bottle and
contribute to increasing the water temperature, improving the
water disinfection. This concentration effect is due to the low
turbidity of the water and it is expected to decrease with higher
turbidity values. It requires further analysis to determine if it has
any significant effect in the water purification process.
Fig. 16b presents ambient temperature, water temperature and
cell temperature. Water temperature measured by the low-cost
sensor gets to a maximum of about 35 1C and then stabilizes.
During the concentration period, the cell temperature also
increases, to a maximum of 75 1C, following the concentration
profile.
4.4. Solar water disinfection of water with Escherichia coli
The last test used SODIS bottles to purify water polluted with a
real microorganism, E. coli bacteria, and evaluated the sensor
performance by comparing the sensor information with the water
microbiological analysis.
Prior to the experiment itself, a literature review on the main
parameters of the solar disinfection process, including UV dose,
558 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Fig. 16. (a) Global irradiance and global irradiance on the cell below the bottle, showing a concentration effect that increases the irradiance during the central hours of the
day, up to 3.9
(17 April 2013) and (b) Cell temperature, following the concentration effect; water temperature, increasing till 35 1C; and ambient temperature along the
time of the experiment (17 April 2013).
global irradiance dose, water temperature, etc., was also con-
ducted in order to identify the most appropriate parameter or
combination of parameters to standardise the clean water detec-
tion criteria on solar water purification.
4.4.1. Literature review on required dose for microorganisms
inactivation under natural sunlight
The main criteria for clean water in solar disinfection should be
known in order to develop a suitable sensor. In general, SODIS
establishes the main criteria as a combination of time and weather
parameters, consisting of 6 h in a sunny day or between 2 and
3 days if it is cloudy. But more specificity requires studying the
other main parameters: UV irradiance, global irradiance and water
temperature; the main scientific literature on real sunlight water
disinfection (not simulated light) was reviewed in order to extract
the main values of these parameters. This issue of determining the
radiation required for complete inactivation of microorganisms
was already reported by Bandala et al. [9] in 2011 when develop-
ing clean water sensors for SODIS based on azo dyes.
This review was divided into three groups of pathogens that
might be present in water: bacteria, viruses and protozoa. Table 2
summarises the main retrieved data from the different research
studies. As it can be observed, the group of the enteric bacteria is
the most studied one, in comparison with the works conducted
specifically with viruses or protozoa. The table gives three main
parameters: UV dose, solar irradiation dose, and water tempera-
ture, not always provided or monitored at the same time in all the
studies. Most of the works conducted under real sun used a system
to control the water temperature, and only few of them allowed
the temperature to follow the natural profile under the sun, which
is more realistic when calculating inactivation rates and corre-
sponding doses [36–40]. But the temperature-controlled experi-
ments provide information about the effect of temperature and
the calculation of doses of UV and global irradiance at different
temperatures [41,42]. Overall, there is the feeling that only one
parameter is not sufficient to define a clean water criterion when
using solar disinfection and UV, and a combination of parameters
including time, UV dose, global irradiance, water temperature and
their distributions along the day is needed [38,1,43].
In general, the works show that the synergistic effects of
temperature and UV are relevant only when the water tempera-
ture is over 45 h [41]. Enteric bacteria and viruses require smaller
doses of UV and global irradiance than protozoa (in these works,
Cryptosporidium parvum), which are more resistant to solar disin-
fection. Another general observation is the no-regrowth of bacteria
(E. coli) in the water treated naturally with sunlight during periods
ranging from 5 days to 2 weeks after treatment. Finally, compar-
ison between UV doses and global irradiance between the differ-
ent research works is really difficult due to the disparity of
equipment used (varying in spectral ranges) and the different
set-ups adopted in the experiments. However, it is necessary to
analyse the studies and understand the main findings and the
previous mentioned limitations to establish a clean water criterion
for solar disinfection.
The first studies on solar water disinfection under real sun were
conducted by Acra et al. [44] in 1984, when they tested water with
enteric bacteria from both pure culture and real water in Pyrex
flasks, giving times for 99.9% destruction of coliform bacteria and
E. coli but not UV dose or global irradiance or temperature
information. In following works they started to measure UV dose,
finding similar values for E. coli and Str. faecalis [41]. In 1991,
Wegelin et al. [41] in Switzerland continued with the research on
solar disinfection and studied the required doses for inactivating
the E. coli and S. faecalis bacteria and the viruses Bacteriophage f2,
Rotavirus and Encephalomyocarditis virus under real sun at con-
trolled temperature. The main findings were the synergistic effects
of temperature and UV radiation for temperatures over 45 1C,
increasing the inactivation rate of microorganisms, and the
required dose for E. coli, 2000 kJ/m2 of solar radiation in the
spectral range of 350–450 nm, equivalent to 5 h of mid-latitude
midday summer sunshine in Switzerland. This value, increased to
one more hour, is the one used by EAWAG (Swiss Federal Institute
of Aquatic Science and Technology) in the dissemination of SODIS
technology around the world [43]. Inactivation doses for the
analysed viruses were similar except for the Encephalomyocarditis
virus that was approximately double. Vibrio cholerae was first
studied under real sun by Sommer et al. in 1997 [36], using
transparent plastic bags instead of plastic bottles. In principle, bags
are more effective than bottles because of their reduced water
depth, but they are also less manageable and reliable in develop-
ing regions. Dose for 99.9% inactivation was 195 kJ/m2 of UVA
radiation.
In 2006 and 2008, Berney et al. [42] and Boyle et al. [37]
respectively, conducted a thorough group of tests each, the former
with quartz containers and controlled temperature at 37 1C, and
the latter with PET bottles and natural profile temperature. Berney
et al. obtained inactivation doses of 1530 kJ/m2 (350–450 nm) for
E. coli, 2431 kJ/m2 (350–450 nm) for Salmonella enteric serovar
Typhimurium, 1194 kJ/m2 (350–450 nm) for Shigella flexneri, and
305 kJ/m2 (350–450 nm) for Vibrio cholerae. These values are in
agreement with the previous published works, as they are
Table 2
Main waterborne pathogens (bacteria, viruses and protozoa) and their inactivation parameters (UV, solar irradiation, temperature) under natural sunlight from different studies.

Microorganism Container Microorganism Initial microorganism Time to 99.9% UV dose required Solar irradiation Temperature (1C) References Year
source density (CFU/ml) (min) (kJ/m2) required (kJ/m2)

Enteric bacteria
Coliform bacteria Pyrex Real water – 85 – – – Acra et al. [44] 1984
Coliform bacteria Pyrex Pure culture – 80 – – –
E. coli Pyrex Pure culture – 75 – – –
– – – –

M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
P. aerugenosa Pyrex Pure culture 15
S. flexneri Pyrex Pure culture – 30 – – –
S. typhi Pyrex Pure culture – 60 – – –
S. enteritidis Pyrex Pure culture – 60 – – –
S. paratyphi B Pyrex Pure culture – 90 – – –
E. coli Quartz Pure culture 103–104 – 306 (320– 2040 (350–450 nm) 15.5 MJ/m2 20 Wegelin et al. [41] 1994
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
E. coli Quartz Pure culture 102–107 – 78 (320–405 nm) 520 (350–450 nm) 4 MJ/m2 50
(400–1100 nm)
2 7
E. coli Quartz Real water 10 –10 – 285 (320– 1900 (350–450 nm) 14.4 MJ/m2 20
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
E. coli Quartz Real water 102–107 – 75 (320–405 nm) 500 (350–450 nm) 3.8 MJ/m2 50
(400–1100 nm)
Str. faecalis Quartz Pure culture 104 – 209 (320– 1390 (350–450 nm) 10.6 MJ/m2 20
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
4
Vibrio cholerae Plastic bag Pure culture 10 140 195 – Max reached 55 1C Sommer et al. [36] 1997
natural temperature
2
E. coli PET Real water – – – 9 MJ/m 30 SODIS manual 2002
E. coli PET Real water – – – 1.8 MJ/m2 50
E. coli Quartz Pure culture 107 182 (90%) 230 (320– 1530 (350–450 nm) 11.6 MJ/m2 37 Berney et al. [42] 2006
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
Salmonella enterica serovar Quartz Pure culture 107 187 (90%) 365 (320– 2431 (350–450 nm) 18.5 MJ/m2 37
Typhimurium 405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
7
Shigella flexneri Quartz Pure culture 10 136 (90%) 179 (320– 1194 (350–450 nm) 9.1 MJ/m2 37
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
Vibrio cholerae Quartz Pure culture 107 24 (90%) 46 (320–405 nm) 305 (350–450 nm) 2.3 MJ/m2 37
(400–1100 nm)
Campylobacter jejuni PET Pure culture 106 2.1 (90%) 14.5 (295– 2 days exposure, 8 h each, Natural temperature Boyle et al. [37] 2008
385 nm) 30.6 MJ/m2 average per day
6
Yersinia enterocolitica PET Pure culture 10 78.6 (90%) 89.9 (295– 2 days exposure, 8 h each, Natural temperature
385 nm) 30.6 MJ/m2 average per day
6
E. coli PET Pure culture 10 33.4 (90%) 125.6 (295– 2 days exposure, 8 h each, Natural temperature
385 nm) 30.6 MJ/m2 average per day
Staphylococcus epidermidis PET Pure culture 106 12 (90%) 52.9 (295– 2 days exposure, 8 h each, Natural temperature
385 nm) 30.6 MJ/m2 average per day
E. coli PET Real water – – – 9.78 MJ/m2 Above 45 1C for 5 h Marques et al. [40] 2013
natural temperature

Viruses
Bacteriophage f2 Quartz Pure culture 104–1010 – 321 (320– 2140 (350–450 nm) 16.3 MJ/m2 30 Wegelin et al. [41] 1994
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
Rotavirus Quartz Pure culture 104–1010 – 372 (320– 2480 (350–450 nm) 18.9 MJ/m2 30

559
405 nm) (400–1100 nm)
560 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563

between the doses calculated for temperatures of 20 1C and 50 1C

Gómez-Couso et al. 2009

2007
Year

by Wegelin et al. The work from Boyle et al. represents the first
detailed study using PET bottles with natural temperature. They

Méndez-Hermida
analysed the solar disinfection process for E. coli and Staphylococ-

et al. [38]
cus epidermidis as well as for two other bacteria that were not
References

studied before: Campylobacter jejuni and Yersinia enterocolitica.

[39]
Both bacteria were also inactivated by solar disinfection, although
Y. enterocolitica was more resistant than the other bacteria.
Finally, in 2012, Marques et al. [40] conducted different tests
along the year with water from a polluted river, analysing
max temp 1X – 42 max

thermotolerant coliform bacteria and E. coli. They achieved com-

plete inactivation for a cumulative global irradiance of 9776 kJ/m2
temp 1.89X – 50.7
Natural temperature

Natural temperature

(full spectrum), with water temperature above 45 1C for at least

Temperature (1C)

5 h. The most recent review on SODIS technology has been written

by McGuigan et al. [1] in 2012, giving a summary of the water-
borne microbial species that are now known to be inactivated by
SODIS, showing how there is limited work done with viruses and
30

protozoa. Only the works from Méndez-Hermida et al. in 2007

[38] and Gómez-Couso et al. in 2009 [39] have analysed under real
sunlight the solar inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts,
with much higher UV dose required than for enteric bacteria or
viruses.
From all the findings of the reviewed works in Table V and
required (kJ/m2)
Time to 99.9% UV dose required Solar irradiation

considering the criteria given in the SODIS manual [43], a

 double dose

37–50 MJ/m2

proposed combination of parameters measured by the clean water

PV sensor to decide when the water is clean was presented. The
limits were established so most of the inactivation doses for both
enteric bacteria and viruses were covered. These are the proposed
–

clean water criteria for the sensor when the water turbidity is
below 30NTU:
731.5 (6 h, 5%
viability)

 sunshine duration 46 h;
(kJ/m2)

 cumulative global irradiation with water temperature above

–

30 1C 49 MJ/m2;
 cumulative global irradiation with water temperature above
30 1C at the bottom of the bottle 4 4.5 MJ/m2;
 cumulative UV with temperature above 30 1C 4375 kJ/m2.
(min)

–
Initial microorganism

4.4.2. Preliminary test with SODIS bottles and E. coli

density (CFU/ml)

After the literature review, a preliminary test was conducted

with a real microorganism in the water, E. coli, to test the
suitability of the new sensor. The test was conducted at the
104–1010

facilities of IMDEA Agua (Alcalá de Henares, Spain).

106

The E. coli used was previously isolated from a real wastewater

–

and preserved as a suspension in 100 mL of buffered peptone

Microorganism

water at 4 1C. 1 mL of the bacterial cell preparation was added to a

Pure culture

Pure culture

1500 mL SODIS PET bottle rinsed and disinfected by artificial UV

Natural

irradiance for 1 h, and then filled with filtered Milli-Q water

source

(0.22 μm). The bottle was prepared following SODIS guidelines,

first filling up to 75% of capacity, then shaking for 20 s, and finally
filling up completely. A total of 8 bottles were prepared, 6 for the
Glass with CPC
(1X, 1.89X)

sunlight exposure (one per hour), and 2 for control (one in the lab
Container

and one outdoor in the shade).

Quartz

The SODIS bottles were set up N–S oriented under natural

Glass

sunlight for 6 h along with the sensor monitoring global irradi-

ance, UV irradiance, irradiance under the bottle and cell and water
Encephalomyocarditis virus

temperature in the lid, plus a small weather station measuring

global horizontal irradiance, UV irradiance and ambient tempera-
Table 2 (continued )

ture (Fig. 17a). Data were recorded automatically at 30 s-intervals.

Microorganism

Each hour, one bottle was removed for microbiological analysis.

Microbiological analysis was conducted following the standard
C. parvum

C. parvum
Protozoa

method for detection and enumeration of Escherichia coli and

coliform bacteria in drinking water by membrane filtration tech-
nique using chromgenic coliform agar (CCA) [45]. Samples were
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563 561

Fig. 17. (a) Set up of experiment with PET bottles filled with water containing E. coli and sensor unit 2 underneath one of them to measure irradiance in the bottom of the
bottle and water temperature, along with sensor unit 1 measuring sunshine duration, global irradiance and UV irradiance and b) climatic conditions during the experiment,
including global horizontal irradiance and total UV irradiance (21 May 2013).

Fig. 18. (a) Irradiance on the cell below the bottle, showing a concentration effect that increases the irradiance during the central hours of the day and (b) cell temperature,
above 15 1C of ambient temperature and water temperature, with a peak due to concentration directly onto the sensor, over the span of the experiment (21 May 2013).

initially filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter. The samples

were previously diluted if necessary to obtain between 20 and 200
colonies per filter, with dilution factors up to 104 using sterilised
Milli-Q water. Each sample was filtered three times and then
transferred to Petri dishes with a Chromogenic Coliforms Agar
(CCA, Scharlau 1-695) prepared with the Coliform CV Selective
Supplement (Scharlau). Petri dishes were incubated at 36 1C7 1
for 18–24 h and after plate counts were determined, enumerating
E. coli as deep blue to violet colonies (CFU/100 mL).
Climatic conditions during the experiment are shown in
Fig. 17b, showing the global irradiance and the UV irradiance in
the horizontal plane. Overall, it was a sunny day but windy, with
fast clouds passing-by and dropping the irradiance to low levels
each time a cloud crossed the sun. From the sensor, Fig. 18a shows
the irradiance below the bottle in comparison with the global
irradiance. A concentration effect can be observed again on the
cell, although this time it is lower (maybe due to the different Fig. 19. Inactivation curves of E. coli under natural sunlight in log reduction units,
orientations of the bottle, bottle cap facing north instead of south, showing reduction in bacteria population with increased solar exposure (21 May
or the presence of bacteria in the water). 2013). Sample corresponding to the 6th hour presents an increase in bacterial
population, possibly due to different exposure conditions as it is the only bottle not
Regarding temperatures (Fig. 18b), the ambient temperature
directly on the ground but over the sensor, more exposed to the wind and with less
was 20 1C on average, varying due to a very windy day with cool reflected irradiance from the ground, leading to reduced temperature and reduced
air. The solar cell temperature was about 15 1C above ambient irradiance exposure. Control samples, both in the laboratory and in the shade
temperature, but it does not follow the concentration profile due outdoor, do not show inactivation. Error bars represent triplicate measurement.
to the fast clouds passing by, so the thermal inertia of the cell
cannot follow the rapid changes. Finally, the water temperature of sun exposure within the bottle, reaching at a certain moment a
the bottle with the sensor was of 24 1C on average, not reaching peak concentration that reaches almost 100 1C.
30 1C at any moment. The observed peak is probably caused by Fig. 19 presents the results corresponding to the microbiologi-
concentration effect. During this experiment the temperature cal analysis of the SODIS bottles exposed to the real sun and the
sensor inside the bottle is facing south, so it is not protected from control samples kept in dark. We observe how the E. coli is being
562 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
Table 3
Proposed clean water criteria based on sunshine duration, global irradiation, global
irradiation through the bottle and UV irradiation; and calculated values for the
conducted experiment (21 May 2013), not meeting the criteria for clean water.
Parameter Clean water criteria Experiment of
21 May 2013
Sunshine duration 46 h 5.08
Cumulative global irradiation with water 49 MJ/m2 0
temperature above 30 1C
Cumulative global irradiation with water 44.5 MJ/m2 0 focus future research. First, UV films should be thoroughly
temperature above 30 1C at the
bottom of the bottle
Cumulative UV with temperature 4375 kJ/m2 0
above 30 1C
Cumulative global irradiation – 17.3 MJ/m2
Cumulative global irradiation at – 13.4 MJ/m2
the bottom of the bottle
Cumulative UV – 528 kJ/m2
inactivated, reducing the bacteria population with solar exposure.
The sample corresponding to the 6th hour presents an increase in
bacterial population, possibly due to different exposure conditions
as it is the only bottle not directly on the ground but over the
sensor, more exposed to the wind and with less reflected irra-
diance from the ground, leading to reduced temperature and
reduced irradiance exposure. A slower inactivation would explain
this different result. Other possible causes would be re-growth of
bacteria but it would be unlikely due to the same climatic
conditions. More work should be done on this issue to determine
the cause of the difference. After 5 h under natural sunlight, the
reduction of E. coli in the ground bottles is 96%. From the water
microbiological analysis, the water was still ‘not clean’.
From the sensor monitored data, main parameters required to
decide if the water is clean or not according to the proposed
criteria for clean water detection were calculated. Table 3 shows
the obtained parameters against the proposed criteria, where none
of the clean water criteria values are met. Sunshine duration
achieved is roughly 5 h due to the fast clouds, while cumulative
global irradiation is 17.3 MJ/m2, cumulative global irradiation is
13.4 MJ/m2 and cumulative UV is 528 kJ/m2, but all below 30 1C
water temperature. With these data, the decision would be ‘not
clean water’, which agrees with the microbiological data. However,
it would be necessary to conduct extensive experiments to
validate the proposed criteria, and it would be also interesting to
establish a new set of clean water criteria using the same
parameters but for the case of lower temperatures.
In summary, the low-cost sensor is capable of monitoring
several parameters relevant to SODIS, including sunshine duration,
global irradiation, water temperature and UV irradiation, plus an
additional parameter which is the irradiance through the bottle.
This set of information can be used to determine whether the
water is clean or not after the solar disinfection according to a
proposed criterion that has to be further analysed, improved and
validated.
5. Conclusions
A new low-cost clean water sensor based on photovoltaic solar
cells has been developed for addressing one of the problems
related to the low reliability of solar water technologies in
developing countries: the lack of sensors detecting when
the water is safe to drink. The new design is capable of measuring
the main parameters that are relevant to solar disinfection:
global irradiance, sunshine duration, UV irradiance and water
temperature.
One of the key aspects of the design is the UV irradiance
measurement. Two identical cells were used, one of them with a
low-cost UV-blocking filter on top, so the total UV irradiance could
be calculated as the difference of the two solar cells outputs. The
first cell would be measuring UV–vis–NIR and the second only vis–
NIR. The UV filter material was explored and a low-cost architec-
tural film was selected. Initial materials cost for the first prototype
was approximately 4€, excluding labour.
From the initial testing, different areas can be identified to
explored, as the UV film used for the initial sensor was 95% UV-
blocking, but there are 99% UV-blocking filters that could improve
the performance of the sensor without compromising on the low
cost. Second, the effect of the concentration should be further
investigated in order to understand the possible advantages or
limitations. Third, the proposed clean water criteria using the
sensor main parameters should be validated and/or optimised or
modified according to the experimental findings via extensive
testing. And finally, cost and reliability should be fully explored.
One of the main issues of the new sensor is that although they are
inexpensive (solar cells can be as low as 0.1€/cell), it requires a
data monitoring system, i.e., that a low cost datalogger is also
required. This is already being investigated in collaboration with
the University of Jaén, where a low-cost datalogger with high-
resolution has been already developed using Arduino [46], with a
total cost of the first prototype of only 60€ (equivalent commercial
dataloggers can be up to 3000€).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Instituto de Energía Solar
(IES-UPM, Madrid, Spain), the Centro Tecnológico del Silicio
(Madrid, Spain) and the company Impersol Lda (Lisbon, Portugal),
for providing access to their laboratory facilities and help with the
manufacturing of the new sensor.
References
[1] K.G. McGuigan, et al., Solar water disinfection (SODIS): a review from bench-
top to roof-top, Journal of Hazardous Materials 235–236 (2012) 29–46.
[2] C. Ray, R. Jain (Eds.), Springer, New York, ISBN 978-94-007-1103-7, 2011.
[3] 〈http:/www.meteonorm.com〉, 2013 (last accessed 22 May).
[4] M. Boyle, et al., Bactericidal effect of solar water disinfection under real
sunlight conditions, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74 (10) (2008)
2997–3001.
[5] G.J. McGeorge, P. De Vries. Method and Apparatus for verifying ultraviolet
sterilization, US Patent 8292100, 2001.
[6] D.M. Brown, K. Matocha, P.M. Sandvik, L. Lombardo, Ultraviolet sensors for
monitoring energy in the germicidal wavelengths, US Patent Application
Number 2004/0200975, 2004.
[7] G.P. Smestad, Ultraviolet light detector for liquid disinfection unit, US Patent
6429438, 2002.
[8] R. Copperwhite, C. McDonagh, S. O'Driscoll, A camera phone-based UV-
dosimeter for monitoring the solar disinfection (SODIS) of water, IEEE Sensors
Journal 12 (2012) 1425–1426.
[9] E.R. Bandala, et al., Application of azo dyes as dosimetric indicators for
enhanced photocatalytic solar disinfection (ENPHOSODIS), Journal of Photo-
chemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 218 (2011) 185–191.
[10] J.A. Byrne, et al., Photocatalytic enhancement for solar disinfection of water: a
review, International Journal of Photoenergy 2011 (2011) 12, pp. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2011/798051.
[11] K. Goudjil, Photochromic ultraviolet detector, US Patent 5581090, 1996.
[12] R. Lantis, J.P. Phelan, A. Phelan, Method and apparatus for solar-based water
disinfection, US Patent 8292100, 2012.
[13] J.M. Questel, C.D. Sololowski, Sunlight dosage indicator, US Patent 6734440,
2004.
[14] S.A. Jackson, J.R. Mercer, E. Atrazheva, K. Hudda S. Wang, Radiation indicator
device, US Patent 6504161, 2003.
[15] B. Ferren, W.D. Willis, Ultraviolet radiation exposure sensor, US Patent
6818904, 2004.
[16] Helioz GmbH, 〈http:/www.helioz.org〉 (last accessed 08.07.201.
[17] M. Wesian, Device and method for determining the degree of disinfection of a
liquid, US Patent Application Number 2012/0318997.
 M. Vivar et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 117 (2013) 549–563
[18] R.H. Metcalf, The Microbiology of Solar Water Pasteurization, With Applica-
tions in East Africa, California State University, Sacramento, 2006. (accessed
17.01.2013).
[19] International Standard IEC 60904—Part 2: ‘Requirements for Reference Solar
Cells’, UNE-EN, international standard, 1989.
[20] International Standard IEC 60904-5: ‘Photovoltaic Devices. Part 5. Determina-
tion of the Equivalent Cell Temperature (ECT) of Photovoltaic (PV) Devices by
the Open-Circuit Voltage Method’, UNE-EN, international standard, 1989.
[21] J. Meydbray, K. Emery, S. Kurtz, Pyranometers and reference cells, what's the
difference? NREL Journal Article, NREL/JA-5200-54498, (April 2012) 5, pp.,
http://www.osti.gov/bridge.
[22] H. Haeberlin, et al., Comparison of pyranometer and si-reference cell solar
irradiation data in long term PV plant monitoring, in: Proceedings of the 13th
EU PV Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, Nice, France, 1995.
[23] L. Dunn, M. Gostein, K. Emery, Comparison of pyranometers vs. reference cells
for evaluation of PV array performance, in: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Austin, TX, June 3–8, 2012.
[24] J. Meydbray, et al., Pyranometers and reference cells, what makes the most
sense for pv power plants?, NREL/JA-5200-56718, (October 2012) 10, pp.,
http://www.osti.gov/bridge.
[25] M. Lundqvist, C. Helmke, H.A. Ossenbrink, ESTI-LOG PV plant monitoring
system, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 47 (1997) 289–294.
[26] M. Vivar et al., Estimation of sunshine duration from the global irradiance
measured by a photovoltaic silicon solar cell Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, (submitted for publication).
[27] Measurement of Sunshine Duration. Part I: Measurement of Meteorological
Variables’, World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Guide to Meteorologi-
cal Instruments and Methods of Observation, 8th ed, Secretariat of the World
Meteorological Organisation, 2008, Update 2010.
[28] Y.B.L. Hinssen, W.H. Knap, Comparison of pyranometric and pyrheliometric
methods for the determination of sunshine duration, Journal of Atmospheric
and Ocean Technology 24 (2007) 835–846.
[29] Y.B.L. Hinssen, Comparison of Different Methods for the Determination of
Sunshine Duration, KNMI Scientific Rep WR‐2006‐06, 72 pp.
[30] E. Vuerich et al., Updating and Development of Methods for Worldwide
Accurate Measurements of Sunshine Duration’, TECO‐2012, Brussels, Belgium,
16–18 October 2012.
[31] M. Vivar, Clean Water PV Sensors, Universidad de Alcalá y Universidad Rey
Juan Carlos, May 2013. (Master thesis).
563
[32] J. Bundschuh, J. Hoinkis (Eds.), IWA Publishing, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
group, London, UK, ISBN 9780415620895, 2012.
[33] SCL SR PS4 Llumar film technical datasheet, provided by Impersol Lda 〈www.
impersol.pt〉, 2013.
[34] SCL SR PS4 Llumar film reference installation guide, provided by Impersol Lda,
2013.
[35] International Standard IEC 61215: Crystalline Silicon Terrestrial Photovoltaic
(PV) Modules. Design Qualification and Approval.
[36] B. Sommer, et al., SODIS—an emerging water treatment process, Journal of
Water SRT-Aqua 46 (3) (1997) 127–137.
[37] M. Boyle, et al., Bactericidal effect of solar water disinfection under real
sunlight conditions, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74 (10) (2008)
2997–3001.
[38] F. Méndez-Hermida, et al., Disinfection of drinking water contaminated with
cryptosporidium parvum oocysts under natural sunlight and using the
photocatalyst TiO2, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology
88 (2–3) (2007) 105–111.
[39] H. Gómez-Couso, et al., Effect of the radiation intensity, water turbidity and
exposure time on the survival of cryptosporidium during simulated solar
disinfection of drinking water, Acta Tropica 112 (1) (2009) 43–48.
[40] A.R. Marques, et al., Efficiency of PET reactors in solar water disinfection for
use in Southeastern Brazil, Solar Energy 87 (2013) 158–167.
[41] M. Wegelin, et al., Solar water disinfection: scope of the process and analysis
of radiation experiments, Journal of Water SRT-Aqua 43 (3) (1994) 154–169.
[42] M. Berney, et al., Efficacy of solar disinfection of Escherichia coli, Shigella
flexneri, Salmonella typhimurium and Vibrio cholerae, Journal of Applied
Microbiology 101 (4) (2006) 828–836.
[43] ‘Solar Water Disinfection—A Guide for the Application of SODIS’, SANDEC,
Eawag, Duebendorf, 2002, SANDEC Report No 06/ 02, ISBN: 3-906484-24-6.
[44] A. Acra, Z. Raffoul, Y. Karahagopian, Solar disinfection of drinking water and
oral rehydration solutions: guidelines for household application in developing
countries, Publisher Illustrated Publications for UNICEF, Paris, 10 pp, 1984.
[45] ISO 9308-1:2000, Water Quality – Detection and Enumeration of Escherichia
coli and Coliform bacteria—Part 1: Membrane filtration method, Spanish
standard, 2000.
[46] M. Fuentes, et al., Design of a real low cost portable datalogger for renewable
energy applications using arduino. case of photovoltaic systems, Energy,
(submitted for publication).