Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Influence of condensation surface on solar distillation

R. Bhardwaj a,b,⁎, M.V. ten Kortenaar b, R.F. Mudde a
a
Delft University of Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Transport Phenomenon Group, Julianalaan 136, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands
b
Dr. Ten B.V., Rondweg 11M/N, 8091 XA Wezep, The Netherlands

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Reflection is demonstrated as the critical

phenomenon effecting water production.
• Surface tension is demonstrated as the
critical property for choosing a material.
• Thermal resistance offered by conden-
sation layer does not affect the water
production.
• Wiping of condensation surface does not
increase the water production.

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

Article history: Glass has been the preferable choice of material for its use as a condensation surface in solar distillation as it gives
Received 19 February 2013 higher water production than other materials. However, it is not certain which property and subsequently which
Received in revised form 5 June 2013 phenomena are responsible for higher production of water. In this paper, we study the influence of different con-
Accepted 8 July 2013
densation surfaces on the total water production in solar water distillation. From our results, we conclude that the
Available online 7 August 2013
contact angle is the most important parameter for choosing the material of condensation surface inside a solar
Keywords:
water distiller. Subsequently, we also conclude that the reflection of solar irradiation from the surface is the
Solar distillation most important phenomenon affecting the differences in water production from solar distillation.
Water production © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Condensation surface
Contact angle
Reflection

1. Introduction
Solar water distillation uses solar radiation to drive evaporation of
water and its subsequent condensation for production of clean drinking
water [1,2]. More than 780 million people suffer from the absence of
a reliable source of drinking water [3]. A solar distillation device or
solar still can alleviate the need of clean drinking water for a majority
of this population, which has an abundance of solar energy available
⁎ Corresponding author at: Delft University of Technology, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Transport Phenomenon Group, Julianalaan 136, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31 15 278 2418.
E-mail addresses: R.Bhardwaj@tudelft.nl (R. Bhardwaj), marnix@drten.nl
(M.V. ten Kortenaar), R.F.Mudde@tudelft.nl (R.F. Mudde).
[4,5]. However, solar still as a technology for water purification has
faced challenges in its implementation for the past several decades [4,5].
One of the major challenges for putting solar still in practice is to
work with the undesirable properties of glass as a material for mass
production for solar stills [5–7]. Glass is heavy, brittle and has high
replacement costs. On the other hand, plastic is light weight, relatively
unbreakable, easy to transport and easy to process. Historically, plastic
solar stills have been commercially more successful than glass solar
stills and have sold over 400,000 units [8]. Still, due to higher amount
of water production among other materials, glass has been the superior
choice of material for its use as condensation surface inside a solar
still [6].
Factors like the type of material, roughness, inclination, shape, trans-
mittance, wiping and vibration of the condensing surface were found to

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.07.006
38 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45
have a significant impact on the production of water from the solar still
[2,4,6,8–20]. The effect of condensing surface was covered in more de-
tail by Tleimat and Howe [6], Ghoneyem and Ileri [12], Tiwari and Tiwari
[14] and Dimri et al. [15]. The use of mechanically modified plastic
against glass lowered the production of water by 18% [6]. The produc-
tion of water from a solar still was found to be directly proportional to
the thickness and thermal conductivity of condensing surface. The pro-
duction of water decreased by 7% with an increase in glass thickness
from 2 mm to 6 mm. The use of copper metal against plastic increased
the production of water by 18% [15]. Further, the production of water
was found to be highest for an inclination angle of 15° in summers
and 45° in winters [14]. Other studies for the optimization of glass
cover inclination were also performed [16,17,13,18]. Furthermore, re-
newal of surface through vibration or wiping also increased the produc-
tion of water [9,10,20]. Menguy et al. [9] reported a 25% increase in
production of water by wiping the condensation surface of a spherical
solar still. Eldalil [20] reported an increase in water production by 72%
with the combined effect of modified absorbing surface and vibratory
condensation surface.
Still, there are two underlying issues which need to be resolved
completely. First, which phenomenon relating to the condensation sur-
face critically effects the production of water? And second, which mate-
rial property significantly affects this phenomenon. An answer to these
questions will explain why the use of glass in a solar still results in a
higher production of water than other materials. Consequently, it will
also suggest if the properties of plastic material can be tailored to
match the properties of glass, and further use it as a condensing surface
in a solar still.
This study examines the effect of condensing surface on the water
production from a solar still. To study this effect, all the major phenom-
ena (shown in Fig. 1 were tested and analyzed. Subsequently, the most
important phenomenon and relating material property were identified
and presented.
2. Theory
Fig. 1 shows the phenomena associated with the condensation sur-
face of a solar still. These phenomena were first explained in detail by
Dunkle [1]. On a broader level, heat transfer and vapor condensation
have been extensively studied by Rose [21] and Beysens [22]. Further-
more, the effect of reflection of sunlight has been studied within green-
houses by Pollet and Pieters [19], Briscoe and Galvin [23], Pieters et al.
[24] and Cemek and Demir [25]. Finally, the role inclined surface has
been studied in the solar stills by Tiwari and Tiwari [14,16,17], Ghoneyem
and Ileri [12], Aybar [13] and Artley et al. [18] and for greenhouses by
Pollet and Pieters [26,19], Gbiorczyk et al. [27] and Montero et al. [28].
The following sections summarize these effects and their relationship
with the solar still.
Fig. 1. (a) A schematic of a typical solar still. The incoming solar radiation heats up water, resulting in subsequent evaporation and condensation of vapors. (b) Thermal resistance diagram
for heat transfer at the surface. R and h represent the thermal resistance and heat transfer coefficient respectively. Subscripts I, S and E represent internal, surface and external properties.
(c) Phenomena associated with the condensation surface in a solar still.
2.1. Reflection from the condensing surface
The phenomenon of reflection of light off a surface with condensing
droplets has been studied previously [19,23,24,26,25]. Of the total solar
radiation incident on the top of the solar still, a considerable part might
get reflected. The reflection happens at two surfaces. First, at the con-
densation surface and then at the condensing droplet attached to the
bottom of the condensation surface. The amount of reflection depends
on the refractive indices of materials and the shape or mode of condens-
ing droplet [23]. The mode of condensation depends on the contact
angle of the condensation surface [22]. Filmwise condensation mode
occurs at surfaces with low contact angles resulting in flat droplet for-
mation. Dropwise mode occurs on surfaces with high contact angles
resulting in hemispherical droplets. For materials having contact angles
greater than 48°, the transmittance from the condensation surface was
given by Briscoe and Galvin [23]. Pollet and Pieters [26,29] applied this
study for greenhouse materials and reported a decrease of transmit-
tance upto 25% when using plastic instead of glass.
2.2. Heat transfer from the condensing surface
The heat and mass transfer within the solar still have been previous-
ly investigated by Dunkle [1], Tiwari [2] and Lof et al. [30]. After reflec-
tion from the surface, the majority of the transmitted radiation is
absorbed at the bottom of the solar still. The bottom of the still is usually
a black material with a layer of water above its surface. The heat from
the black bottom is then transferred to the water above it. Furthermore,
the heat from the water is brought to the condensation surface in the
form of vapor via internal convection. The vapor condenses and trans-
fers its heat to the condensation surface. Finally, the condensation sur-
face conducts it to outside environment via external convection. The
overall heat transfer q, from vapors inside the solar still to the environ-
ment outside is given as q = UΔT = ΔT/R. Where ΔT is the overall tem-
perature difference from the vapor side to the environment. It is the
driving force for the heat transfer. U is the overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient and represents the ability to allow transfer heat. R = 1/U − is
the overall thermal resistance and represents the ability to resist heat
transfer. Furthermore, the value of the overall thermal resistance for
the solar still is represented as [1]:

 !−1
1 1 1 xm x f
R¼ þ þ where hS ¼ þ ð1Þ
hI hS hE Km K f
where h, K and x represent the heat transfer coefficient and thermal
conductivity and thickness of the condensation surface respectively.
Subscripts I, S, E represent internal, surface and external phenomena.
Subscripts m and f represent the thickness of the materials and the
 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45
water film. Additionally, the overall heat transfer coefficient and effi-
ciency η of the processes are calculated as [1]:
 
mC p ðT v −T s Þ þ mΔH vap mΔHvap
U¼ and η ¼
AΔTt qr At
where, m represents the mass of water condensed for a particular time
duration t, A is the area of surface, Cp and ΔHvap are the heat capacity and
the latent heat of condensation of water respectively. T represents tem-
perature and subscripts v and s represent vapor and surface respective-
ly. qr represents radiation heat flux.
2.3. Filmwise and dropwise condensation
The contribution of condensation towards overall heat transfer is ex-
tensively studied [21,22,31,32]. The comparison of hS versus U identifies
the importance of thermal resistance of surface in limiting the overall
heat transfer. Consequently, it explains the importance of thermal resis-
tance of condensation surface on the production of water. The thermal
resistance of the surface is a combination of thermal resistance offered
by condensation surface and water film or droplets attached to it.
Thus, such a comparison will clarify two things. First, the role of conduc-
tivity of surface material on the overall production of water. Second, the
importance of filmwise versus dropwise condensation in improvement
of the overall water production.
2.4. Droplet growth and dripping
Depending on the contact angle of the surface the condensed water
will form tiny hemispherical droplets or large flat droplets [21,22,25].
The growth of condensed water layer takes place in three stages [22].
It starts with formation of droplets by heterogeneous nucleation,
followed by growth of droplets in isolation and finally growth of droplet
by coalescence. The first two stages are marked by low surface coverage
of the material and the last phase happens when the surface coverage
typically exceeds 30%. The final growth stage leads to a self-similar or
self-repeating growth pattern in time. In this pattern, the average vol-
ume of water condensed on the condensation surface at time t is statis-
tically identical to the average droplet pattern later at time t + x. Where
x is any value above zero. Consequently, out of all the regimes, the
condensation rate in the third regime reaches a maximum value and
remains constant.
As the droplet increases its size, it becomes heavier and flowable on
the inclined surface [33,34]. For a pendant drop, there is a critical vol-
ume at which the droplet starts to slide and further detach from the sur-
face. The critical volume depends on the contact angle of the surface and
Fig. 2. (a) Thermal still setup for replicating the effect of solar still inside the laboratory. (b) Parameters and material properties which were varied in the thermal still to measure their
effects on phenomena described in Fig. 1. All these parameters are tested in the absence of sunlight. Only the effect of contact angle on reflection is studied in the sunlight.
39
the angle of inclination which the surface makes with the horizontal
[33,34]. Further, Chen et al. [34] reported that the volume of droplet
hanging from a surface decreases, with increase in contact angle of
material and increase in the angle of inclination of the condensing sur-
ð2Þ face. Inside a solar still, detachment of hanging droplets is undesirable
and should be prevented [11–13].
3. Materials and methods
The experiments were designed to observe and measure the effect
of parameters and material properties on phenomena described previ-
ously in Fig. 1. The parameters and material properties which affect
the condensation phenomenon are shown in Fig. 2(b). These are incli-
nation angle α, contact angle Θ, thermal conductivity k, time and wiping
frequency. To test the parameters, experiments were conducted in a
controlled lab environment and in the sunlight. The experimental setup
for test in the sunlight is referred to as solar still and the experimental
setup for the tests inside the laboratory testing is referred to as thermal
still. Both these stills are explained in the following section.
3.1. Solar still setup
The experimental setup consisted of two hollow cuboid shaped
boxes with an open ceiling. The base of the boxes had an area of
0.27 × 0.27 m2 and the four walls of the boxes were 0.12 m in height.
Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA or perspex) with a thickness of
8 mm was used for construction of the boxes. A Styrofoam material of
20 mm thickness was used for insulation of the PMMA boxes. Alumi-
num foil was pasted to the inside surfaces of the insulation. Each of
the PMMA boxes contained a black sponge with an area of 0.25 ×
0.25 m2 and a thickness of 0.02 m. The ceiling of the first box had a poly-
ethylene terephthalate (PET) surface and the ceiling of the second
box had a glass surface. Both the ceiling had a dimension of 0.28 ×
0.28 m2 and a thickness of 2 mm. At the start of the experiment,
350 ml of water was absorbed in pieces of black sponge and kept in
each box. The boxes were then sealed with a transparent ceiling and
kept in the sunlight for a duration of 7.5 h i.e. from 11:00 to 18:30.
After 18:30 the experimental setup was in shade and the experiment
was stopped. During the time of experiment, the amount of water con-
densed on the ceiling was collected after the end of each hour. Addition-
ally, thermocouple probes were placed to measure the temperature of
sponge inside individual boxes. Furthermore, for the ceiling, transparent
surfaces of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA or perspex) and polycar-
bonate (PC) were also used. Table 1 gives a summary of materials and
their dimensions used for construction of the solar still. The solar still
setup is solely used to test the effect of reflection while using different
40 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45

Table 1 polyvinyl chloride (PVC), PET, glass and aluminum (Al) as test materials.
Design values for materials used in solar still and the dimensions of different components Out of these materials, only glass, PMMA and PET were used in experi-
of the solar still.
ments in the sunlight. The thickness of all surface materials was 2 mm.
Component Material Thickness (mm) Finally, a NESLAB GP 600 hot water circulating bath and an in-house
Insulation Styrofoam 20 temperature controller are used as auxiliary equipment. The water in
Top condensation surface Glass, PET, PC, PMMA 2 the thermal still was maintained at a depth of 0.025 m or 1.96 l at the
Solar still PMMA (Perspex) 8 start of each experiment. The thermocouples were placed at locations
Dimensional component Value
as shown in Fig. 2(a). The real time image of the setup is included in
the Supplemental info.
Area of condensation surface 0.27 × 0.27 m2
Table 3 lists the measured contact angles of materials used as con-
Depth of water ⁎ 20 mm
densation surfaces in the experiments. A KRUSS, Easy Drop Contact
⁎ Dimensions are measured from the bottom of the solar still.
Angle Microscope was used for measuring the contact angle. The sessile
drop method was used to estimate the contact angle by the microscope.
Note that contact angle for Al plate is represented as ~20° as the sessile
transparent materials. The remaining effects described in Fig. 1 are test- method was unable to identify the contact shape accurately below this
ed on thermal still detailed in the following section. angle.

3.2. Thermal still setup 3.2.3. Measurement procedure

3.2.1. General description
The experimental setup consists of three equipment; 1. Thermal still,
2. Temperature controller, and 3. Hot water bath as shown in Fig. 2(a).
The thermal still forms the heart of the process in which all the mea-
surements were taken. The temperature controller and hot water bath
were used for regulating and maintaining the temperature of water,
TW. Additionally, thermocouples TV, TS and TA were positioned to mea-
sure vapor, surface and ambient temperatures respectively. During op-
eration, hot water from the water bath flows through a coil placed
inside the thermal still. The heat input increases the temperature of
the water resulting in the formation of vapor. The vapor rises and subse-
quently condenses on the underside of condensation surface. The con-
densate from the condensation surface was collected batchwise in the
bottom section of the thermal still. Fig. 2(b) shows the parameters
and the material properties that were tested on the thermal still for dif-
ferent phenomena described in Fig. 1(b).
3.2.2. Test section and materials
Table 2 describes the materials used for constructing the thermal
still along with their dimensions. The thermal still is made of PMMA of
8 mm thickness. The heating coil is made of a copper tube with internal
diameter of 12.7 mm and length of 0.25 m. The heat transfer area of the
heating coil is 0.01 m2. The ceiling or the condensation surface at the top
has a thickness of 2 mm and an area of 0.28*0.28 m2. The area of the
condensation surface was kept constant even when the inclination
angle α, was changed from 30° to 90°. This modification was achieved
by adding another support surface as shown with a dotted line in
Fig. 2(b). Consequently, the height of the thermal still was 0.44 m and
0.33 m when the inclination angle, α was 90° and 30° respectively.
The condensation surface was replaced with Teflon, polyethylene (PE),
Table 2
Design values for materials used in thermal still and the dimensions of different compo-
nents of the thermal still.
Component Material Design parameter
Heating coil Copper Heat transfer area
Top condensation surface Teflon, PE, PVC, Thickness
PET, glass, Al plate
Thermal still PMMA (Perspex) Thickness
The measurement procedure is described on the basis of the setup
shown in Fig. 2.
1. The water inside the hot water bath (equipment 3) was heated to a
definite temperature before connecting to the thermal still (equip-
ment 1). The value of the definite temperature was set to 5 °C
above the temperature desired to be achieved in the thermal still.
This method was adopted to limit the time it takes for water in equip-
ment to reach desirable levels.
2. The temperature in the controller (equipment 2) was set to a desired
value (usually 60 °C) and then connected to the thermal still. The hot
water bath follows the controller and circulates hot water through
the coil placed inside the thermal still. This procedure raises and
maintains the temperature of the still to the desired value.
3. The condensed water from the underside of the condensation surface
was collected after a decided batch time (usually two hours). A typ-
ical example for measurement of temperatures for a two-hour exper-
iment is included in the Appendix.
Care was taken to limit the vapor coming out of the thermal still.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Reflection of sunlight from glass and PET surfaces
Fig. 3(a) shows solar stills with PET (right) ceiling and glass (left)
ceiling. The PET is visually shinier than glass. The small condensed drop-
lets formed on the surface of PET makes it optically more reflective than
the surface of glass. The condensation droplets on the glass surface
are puddled shaped. The puddle shaped condensation surface allows
much more light to pass through. A larger amount of light leads to larger
input of solar energy. At equilibrium, energy coming in should match
the energy going out. A larger amount of energy loss from the ceiling
indicates a greater condensation volume and hence greater efficiency
of the solar still.
Fig. 3(b) shows that the temperature of water in the solar still with a
glass ceiling is higher than that measured for a PET ceiling. A larger glass
Value
temperature results in a larger temperature gradient for condensation
0.01 m2 heat transfer. The experiment was performed for a duration of 7.5 h
2 mm
between 11:00 and 18:30 on June 2, 2013. The measurements of con-
8 mm densed water were taken at the end of each hour starting at 12:00.

Dimensional component Value

Area of condensation surface 0.28 × 0.28 m2 Table 3

Depth of water ⁎ 25 mm Contact angle measurement for materials using contact angle microscope. The droplet
Height of bottom of condensation surface ⁎ α = 90° 0.16 m volume used was 5 μl. Standard deviation from five measurements was ±2.50°.
Height of top of condensation surface ⁎ α = 30° 0.44 m
Material Teflon PE PVC PC PET Glass Aluminum
0.33 m
Contact angle (°) 105 90 83 81 71 30 ~20
⁎ Dimensions are measured from the bottom of the thermal still.
 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45
Fig. 3. (a) Reflection of sunlight from condensation surface of a solar still with glass and PET material. (b)Measurement of water temperature in solar stills for a duration of 7.5 h of sun-
shine. (c) Measured volume of water condensed in the two stills at the end of each hour. (d) Normalized volume in ml/m2 at different times. Secondary axis represents the solar irradiation
received at the location in MJ/m2. (e) Instantaneous efficiency calculated at the end of every hour of the measurement.
The data for incoming radiation was obtained from the Royal Dutch
Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Location coordinates: longitude
(east): 4.444, latitude (North):51.955 and elevation: −4.80 m. Fig. 3(c)
shows the measured amount of water condensed after each hour of ex-
periment. The overall water condensed in the solar still having a glass
ceiling is ~27% higher than the water condensed in the solar still with
PET ceiling. Similar trends are observed for normalized volume and effi-
ciency shown in Fig. 3(d) and (e).
The amount of condensate volume collected during the first hour
of experimentation for the solar still with glass surface is considerably
higher than PET. This is because of large amount of water still hanging
at the PET surface at the end of first hour. The water stays attached to
the PET surface due to its higher contact angle. The water has condensed
on the PET surface but has not slid down towards the collection area.
Additionally in Fig. 3 (e), the efficiency of the solar still remains consid-
erably high even during the end of the sunshine hours. This is because
the water temperature in the still is high enough to drive condensation
even at less solar irradiation.
The increase in the volume of water condensed for glass against PET
is similar to the increase in the energy transmitted through glass against
plastic reported earlier by various authors [23,24,26,19,25]. These stud-
ies concluded that, for materials covered with a layer of condensate, the
transmittance of radiation decreases with an increase in contact angle of
the material. Additionally, for the same material, the transmittance can
decrease to a maximum of 25% for plastics and 20% for glass. The per-
centage decrease was taken relative to the transmitted radiation in the
dry state of these materials. It was also concluded that the inclination
angle does not have a significant impact on the transmittance of incom-
ing radiation. The latter study was carried out keeping the angle of inci-
dence of incoming radiation normal to the inclined surface.
Furthermore, separate experiments were performed in a solar simu-
lator to test the efficiency of solar still in controlled conditions. The effi-
ciency of the still was calculated as 28.5% based on an incoming radiation
of 800 W/m2 for a duration of three hours. An Atlas Suntest XXL solar
simulator with a chamber area of 3000 cm2 was used to perform the
test. Moreover, a solar still with glass and plastic ceiling shows similar
trend for the temperature profiles inside the controlled conditions of a
41
solar simulator. The amount of condensate achieved in several tests
shows variation of less than 10% for different transparent materials. A
possible reason for this limited variation can be due to the angle of irra-
diation of artificial light inside the solar stills, which is much different
from angle of irradiation in sunlight. The irradiation angle in solar simu-
lator is normal to the inclined surface, whereas the irradiation angle for
sunlight is dependent on the location of experimentation and the time of
the day. Furthermore, the equipment could only operate at a minimum
irradiation of 800 W/m2. It could not replicate the variation in intensity
of irradiation as expected in the sunlight. The results of the experiments
are not a good representation of experiments in sunlight and hence are
not included here.
Furthermore, the effect of reflection is extended to four transparent
surfaces viz. PET, PC, PMMA and glass. Fig. 4(b) shows the effect of con-
tact angle on the water production inside a solar still. The experiment
was performed simultaneously with four different transparent mate-
rials and the temperature profiles are included in the Supplemental
information.
This section concludes the tests performed on the solar still. The
following sections would cover the tests in laboratory in the absence
of sunlight. From our findings in this section, we can conclude that
the transmittance of light through a surface with condensed droplets
plays an important role in determining the production of water from a
solar water distiller. A more detailed study on the effect of inclination
angle and incidence angle on the transmittance of light through differ-
ent condensing surfaces for greenhouse ceilings has been performed
by [26,19]. Additionally, the effect of inclination angle in solar stills has
been studied and optimized for maximizing the incoming solar irradia-
tion by several authors [13,14,16–18]. A combination of these studies
along with the effect of different materials at different inclination angles
can be taken forward for future research.
4.2. Effect of heat transfer on the production of water
Heat transfer through the condensing surface has two components
viz. heat transfer through the condensing surface material and heat
42 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45
Fig. 4. (a) Reflection from transparent materials on a winter day. (b) Volume of water evaporated as measured from the black sponge place at the bottom of the solar stills.
transfer through the water film attached to the surface. These are
discussed in the following sections.
4.3. Effect of thermal conductivity of material on the heat transfer
Table 4 shows that for the given geometry, the calculated heat trans-
fer coefficient of the condensation surface, hS is much larger than the
calculated values of the overall heat transfer coefficient, U. The value
of U is ~6 (J. s−1. m−2. K), based on the experimental measurements
discussed in Section 4.3. The value is calculated using Eq 2. A compari-
son of the values suggests that the contribution of condensation surface
towards the overall thermal resistance is much smaller than the thermal
resistance offered by internal and external convection. The thickness of
the water film is taken as 0.2 mm, a reasonable assumption based on
similar cases found in literature [35]. However, even at higher film
thicknesses, the rate of overall heat transfer will remain independent
of the heat resistance offered by the water film. A practical description
of the effect of growing water film is shown below.
4.3.1. Effect of growing water film on the heat transfer
To check whether there is a change in production of water inside a
thermal still for dropwise and filmwise condensation with time; exper-
iments were performed on glass and PET surfaces. Fig. 5 shows droplet
growth with respect to time for PET and glass surface materials. The
angle of inclination α was 90°, the water temperature was set at 60 °C.
The experiment was conducted for a duration of 30 min for both glass
and PET and further for five hours only for glass. The images in
Fig. 5(a) were captured using an Olympus i-SPEED 2 camera and have
a dimension of 1.2 cm by 0.8 cm (L×B). Filmwise condensation has a
wide spread of droplet with larger radius compared to ordered hemi-
spherical droplets formed in dropwise condensation.
Fig. 5(b) and (c) show that for both PET and glass, the condensation
volume achieved at different times almost coincides. Further, the trends
show a linear increase in the condensation volume at 23 ± 1 ml/h for
the given setup and conditions. These results suggest that the droplet
growth and hence water production increases linearly with time. Con-
sequently, the rate of droplet growth does not depend on the time for
PET and glass surfaces. A Supplementary Video S1 shows growth on
PET and glass surface 10 min after the condensation started on the sur-
faces. Another Supplementary Video S2 shows the droplet growth on
Table 4
Calculated values of heat transfer coefficient of the condensation surface, hs.
Material Teflon PE
K (Js−1 m−1 K) 0.25 0.4
hS (Js−1 m−2 K)⁎ 119.83 187.10
⁎ Thickness, xm of the water film is assumed to be 0.2 mm for each case. Thickness of all the materials was 2 mm.
PET and glass surface immediately after a droplet has slid down from
the condensing surface.
The above results show that the mode of condensation, the conden-
sation surface material and the thickness of water film do not affect the
overall heat transfer through a condensation surface. Hence, the water
production in a solar still does not depend on these parameters. Further,
the difference in volumes achieved in the experiments described in
Section 4.1 is not a result of different thermal conductivity of materials
but of the difference in the contact angle of water on these materials.
However, the contact angle itself is responsible for several phenomena
such as variation in the mode of condensation, dripping and reflection.
The next question is, which of these phenomena limit the condensation
from the thermal still? Furthermore, does time and inclination angle
also have an effect on overall production of water?
4.4. Effect of contact angle, inclination angle and dripping on the production
of water
Fig. 6 shows the effect of contact angle, θ and inclination angle, α
on the condensation volume, V and the overall heat transfer coefficient,
U. The experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory condi-
tions. The time duration and water temperature were set at two hours
and 60 °C respectively. The results show that, for a given inclination
angle α, the values of V varied within 5% of the mean value over the
entire range of contact angle. The mean of condensation volume when
α = 90° showed an approximate increase of 8.5% over the mean vol-
ume obtained when α is 30°. Additionally, Fig. 6(c), (d) show a set of
points viz. α = 90°*. The points shown by α = 90°* represent normal-
ized values of V and U calculated after considering an additional area.
The additional area for heat transfer is available when α = 90° from
the contribution of side walls. This area is represented by shaded region
with a down arrow in Fig. 6(b). The values of U for each point were cal-
culated by using Eq. (2).
At first look, Fig. 6(a) suggests that a higher inclination angle favors a
greater water production. However, by taking the additional area avail-
able for heat transfer into consideration, the calculated values of V and
U for α = 90° are less than those calculated for α = 30°. In either
case, the overall difference in values of both U and V, stays within 5%
of the mean of all measured values. This observation leads to the conclu-
sion that the effect of using different materials and angle of inclination
PVC PC PET Glass Aluminum Water
0.19 0.2 0.24 1.05 250 0.58
91.99 96.67 115.23 444.53 2834.25
 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45
Fig. 5. (a) Gradual increase of droplet radius for dropwise and filmwise condensation on PET and glass materials. Droplets on PET are more regular shaped than on glass, at which droplets
are puddle shaped. (b) Condensation volume collected and measured for glass surface up to five hours. (c) Amount of condensation volume collected from PET and glass surfaces within
the first 30 min. The linear trendlines are included to give an indication.
is not significant inside a thermal still. The thermal still here refers to
experiments done in the lab in the absence of solar irradiation.
Additionally, Fig. 6 shows that the effect of dripping lies within ±5%
of the mean value, when inclination angles are 30° and 90°. The effect of
dripping on an inclined surface is expected to be more severe on the
production of water than when inclination is 90°. At α = 90° all the
water from the condensation surface will result in the collection plate
even if there is dripping from the surface. However, dripping when
α = 30° will lead the water to drop out of the collection plate. The rea-
son for marginal effect of dripping is the use of small size condensation
surface for the experiments. The small area of condensation surface
does not support large droplet formation during coalescence on an in-
clined surface. A more significant dripping is expected when surfaces
with higher dimensions are used.
4.5. Effect of wiping on PET and glass
Glass and PET materials were periodically wiped for 1, 2, 6 and 10
times within a period 30 min to test the effect of wiping. The test
were conducted with water temperature set at 60 °C and the inclination
of the surface at α = 90°. Wiping was performed manually through a
rubber wiper positioned on top of the condensing surface as shown in
Fig. 7(c). Fig. 7(a) shows that the volume of condensate and the overall
heat transfer reduce with increase in wiping frequency but the decrease
is larger for dropwise condensation than the filmwise condensation. The
mean values of collected volume of condensate and the calculated over-
all heat transfer coefficient for glass surface were approximately 20%
and 17% larger than those obtained for PET surface. Wiping of condensa-
tion surface has three consequences. It renews the surface for droplet
43
nucleation and further growth. It decreases the thermal resistance
offered by the condensation water film. It further limits dripping and
light reflection losses associated with condensation surface [9]. Out of
these, the latter two effects improve production of water when wiping
frequency is increased. However, the first effect diminishes the produc-
tion of water with increase in wiping frequency. Among these factors,
the effect of light reflection was not tested.
The droplet grows much slower in the initial nucleation stage than
the later stages of drop migration and coalescence [22]. This effect dom-
inates over other effects and shows that wiping does not improve the
production of water in the thermal still. Instead, it will have a negative
effect on the condensation volume due to slower droplet growth in
the nucleation stage. Fig. 7 shows that an increase in the wiping of
glass and PET surfaces causes a decrease in the production of water.
Additionally, note that higher values of U are obtained for Fig. 7(b)
than those obtained in Fig. 6(b). The difference was due to higher
starting water temperature (60 °C) for all the wiping experiments
than used otherwise (40 °C). This procedure reduced the time taken
to achieve steady state conditions for wiping experiments. The tem-
perature profile for wiping experiments is given in the Supplemental
information.
5. Conclusions
The contact angle is the most important parameter for choosing the
material of condensation surface inside a solar water distiller. In wetted
condition, materials such as glass with low contact angles (hydrophilic)
allow more solar irradiation to pass through them than materials such
as PET, which have high contact angles (hydrophobic). Consequently,
44 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45

Fig. 6. (a) Volume of condensate collected from the thermal still for different materials used as condensation surface. These materials are represented on x axis with different contact
angles. α is the inclination angle which the condensation surface makes with the horizontal. (b) Inclination angle of 90° introduces additional condensation area shown by the shaded
region. (c),(d) Estimated values of volume, V and heat transfer coefficient, U based on the raw measurement shown in (a). The linear trendlines are included to give an indication.
* Estimated values after considering the additional heat transfer area present when α = 90°.

hydrophillic materials support larger production of water than hydro-
phobic materials when used as a condensation surface inside a solar
still. Reflection of light plays a dominating role in governing the overall
production of water from a solar still. Other phenomena such as
dropwise/filmwise condensation, inclination angle and wiping did not
have a significant effect on the production of water from a solar still.
Finally, neither the thermal conductivity of the material, nor the thermal
conductivity of growing water film is of influence on the overall water
productivity from the solar still.
In the future, the role of dripping can be examined for larger dimen-
sions of the condensation surface. The effect of dripping is expected to be
more severe on hydrophobic plastics than on hydrophilic plastics. Also,
the effect of dripping can be examined for different inclination angles.
Additionally, effect of using different materials on condensation yield at
different inclination of condensing cover can also be examined. Overall,
a condensation surface made by making a transparent plastic material
hydrophilic can lead to a flexible, easily transportable and long-lasting
material for high amount of water production from the solar still.

Fig. 7. (a) Volume of water collected and measured after multiple wiping conducted on flat glass and PET surfaces in 30 min. (b) Calculated values of overall heat transfer coefficient U,
based on collected amount of condensation volume. The linear trendlines are included to give an indication. TW = 60 °C; α = 90°. (c) Wiping on the setup was done manually on a thermal
still with an inclination angle of 90°.
 R. Bhardwaj et al. / Desalination 326 (2013) 37–45 45

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http:// [9] G. Menguy, M. Benoit, R. Louat, A. Makki, M. Schwartz, New solar still design and ex-
perimentation (The wiping spherical still), Private communication Group d'Etudes
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.07.006. Thermiques et Solaires, 43Universit Claude Bernard, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex,
France (111918), 1980, pp. 267–275.
[10] N.K. Dhiman, Transient analysis of a spherical solar still, Desalination 69 (1988) 47–55.
Nomenclature
[11] S.M. ElSherbiny, H.E. Fath, Solar distillation under climatic conditions of Egypt,
A area (m2) Renew. Energy 3 (1993) 61–65.
C specific heat capacity (J/kg °C) [12] A. Ghoneyem, A. Ileri, Software to analyze solar stills and an experimental study on
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C) the effects of the cover, Desalination 114 (1997) 37–44.
[13] H. Aybar, Mathematical modeling of an inclined solar water distillation system,
K thermal conductivity (W/m °C) Desalination 190 (2006) 63–70.
m mass of condensate (kg) [14] A.K. Tiwari, G.N. Tiwari, Annual performance analysis and thermal modelling of
q heat transfer (W/m2) passive solar still for different inclinations of condensing cover, Desalination (2007)
1358–1382.
R overall thermal resistance (m2 °C/W) [15] V. Dimri, B. Sarkar, U. Singh, G. Tiwari, Effect of condensing cover material on yield of
T temperature (°C) an active solar still: an experimental validation, Desalination 227 (2008) 178–189.
t time (s) [16] G.N. Tiwari, J.M. Thomas, E. Khan, Optimisation of glass cover inclination for maxi-
mum yield in a solar still, Heat Recov. Syst. CHP 14 (1994) 447–455.
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C) [17] A.K. Singh, G. Tiwari, P.B. Sharma, E. Khan, Optimization of orientation for higher
V volume (ml) yield of solar still for a given location, Energy Convers. Manag. 36 (1995) 175–181.
x thickness (m) [18] L.E. Artley, F. Tena, M.P. Utrillas, R. Pedros, J.A. Martinez-Lozano, The optimisation of
the angle of inclination of a solar collector to maximise the incident solar radiation,
Hvap enthalpy of vaporization (J/kg°C)
Renew. Energy (1999) 291–309.
[19] I. Pollet, J. Pieters, Effect of inclination angle on the light transmittance of condensate
covered homogeneous thin transparent materials, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 73
(2002) 435–439.
Greek letters and symbols [20] K.M. Eldalil, Improving the performance of solar still using vibratory harmonic effect,
α angle of inclination (°) Desalination 251 (2010) 3–11.
Δ difference [21] J.W. Rose, Condensation heat transfer, Heat Mass Transf. 35 (1999) 479–485.
[22] D. Beysens, Dew nucleation and growth, C. R. Phys. 7 (2006) 1082–1100.
[23] B.J. Briscoe, K.P. Galvin, The effect of the surface fog on the transmittance of light, Sol.
Energy 46 (1991) 191–197.
Subscripts [24] J. Pieters, J. Deltour, M. Debruyckere, Light transmission through condensation on
glass and polyethylene, Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 85 (1997) 51–62.
E external [25] B. Cemek, Y. Demir, Testing of the condensation characteristics and light transmis-
f film sions of different plastic film covering materials, Polym. Test. 24 (2005) 284–289.
I internal [26] I. Pollet, J. Pieters, Condensation and radiation transmittance of greenhouse cladding
materials, Part 3: results for glass plates and plastic films, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 77 (2000)
m material 419–428.
S surface [27] K. Gbiorczyk, P. Sonneveld, G. Bot, B. von Elsner, The effect of roof inclination on the
condensation behaviour of the plastic films used as greenhouse covering materials,
Acta Hort. (ISHS) 633 (2004) 127–136.
References [28] J. Montero, P. Munoz, A. Anton, N. Iglesias, Computational fluid dynamic modelling
of night-time energy fluxes in unheated greenhouses, Acta Hort. (ISHS) 691 (2005)
[1] R. Dunkle, Solar water distillation: the roof type still and a multiple effect diffusion 403–410.
still, International Developments in Heat Transfer ASME, Proceedings of International [29] I. Pollet, J. Pieters, PAR transmittances of dry and condensate covered glass and plastic
Heat Transfer University of Colorado Part V, 1961, p. 895. greenhouse cladding, Agr. Forest. Meteorol. 110 (2002) 285–298.
[2] G. Tiwari, Present status of solar distillation, Sol. Energy 75 (2003) 367–373. [30] G.O.G. Lof, J.a. Eibling, J.W. Bloemer, Energy balances in solar distillers, AIChE J. 7
[3] Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update, Technical Report, UNICEF, (1961) 641–649.
WHO, 2012. [31] J.W. Rose, Dropwise condensation theory and experiment: a review, Proc. Inst.
[4] H. A-hinai, Thermodynamic and economic considerations in solar desalination, Mech. Eng. A J. Power Energy 216 (2002) 115–128.
Desalination 129 (2000) 63–89. [32] C. Yamali, H. Merte Jr., A theory of dropwise condensation at large subcooling
[5] J. Burch, K.E. Thomas, An overview of water disinfection in developing countries including the effect of the sweeping, Heat Mass Transf. 38 (2002) 191–202.
and the potential of solar thermal water pasteurization, National Renewable Energy [33] B. Briscoe, K. Galvin, The sliding of sessile and pendent droplets the critical condition,
Laboratory, 1998. Colloids Surf. 52 (1991) 219–229.
[6] Howe Tleimat, Comparison of plastic and glass condensing covers for solar distillers, [34] Y. Chen, M. Bacich, C. Nardin, A. Sitorus, M.M. Weislogel, The shape and stability of
12 (1969) 293–304. wall-bound and wall-edge-bound drops and bubbles, Microgravity Sci. Technol. 17
[7] M.K. Phadatare, S.K. Verma, Influence of water depth on internal heat and mass (2005) 14–24.
transfer in a plastic solar still, Desalination 217 (2007) 267–275. [35] S. Memory, J. Rose, Free convection laminar film condensation on a horizontal tube
[8] H.R. Hay, Plastic solar stills: past, present and, future, 14 (1973) 393–404. with variable wall temperature, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 34 (1991) 2775–2778.