Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Durability studies of solar reflectors: A review

A. García-Segura a,n, A. Fernández-García a, M.J. Ariza b, F. Sutter c, L. Valenzuela a
a
CIEMAT-PSA, Ctra. Senés, km 4, P.O. Box 22, 04200 Tabernas, Almería, Spain
b
Universidad de Almería, CITE II A, Física Aplicada, 04120 La Cañada de San Urbano, Almería, Spain
c
DLR, German Aerospace Center, Institute of Solar Research, Plataforma Solar de Almería, Ctra. Senés, km 4, P.O. Box 39, 04200 Tabernas, Almería, Spain

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

Article history: Reflectors are a vital part of a concentrating solar thermal power plant. One of their most important
Received 12 August 2015 characteristics is their durability, which entails the maintenance of their optical properties throughout
Received in revised form their service lifetime, aimed at 10–30 years or more. The assessment of their optical durability involves
11 February 2016
the design of two types of aging tests, outdoor exposure testing under real ambient conditions and
Accepted 26 April 2016
accelerated exposure testing in weathering chambers under simulated conditions. After exposure to
different stress factors for certain periods of time, the optical performance of reflectors is evaluated
Keywords: mainly in terms of reflectance, but also regarding qualitative parameters such as their visual appearance
Concentrating solar power and degradation patterns. The ultimate goal of a durability study is to conceive meaningful accelerated
Solar reflector testing procedures that simulate real outdoor degradation in a short time and provide service lifetime
Durability
estimates for a certain type of reflector at a specific site. To achieve this, more research on service lifetime
Accelerated exposure testing
prediction should be conducted and the standardization of accelerated testing procedures and reflec-
Outdoor exposure testing
tance evaluation methods should become widespread, to obtain comparable representative results. In
this article, the most significant durability studies performed on the three main types of solar reflectors
(glass-based, aluminum and silvered-polymer) and prospective approaches for improving future
endeavors are discussed.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
2. Material and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
2.1. Reflector materials: structure and composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
2.2. Durability testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
2.3. Evaluation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

Abbreviations: AENOR, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (Spain); AET, accelerated exposure testing; ASRM, advanced solar reflective mirror; ASTM,
American Society for Testing and Materials (USA); BEC, Boeing Engineering and Construction Company (USA); CASS, copper accelerated acetic acid salt spray; CEA LITEN,
Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives-Laboratoire d'Innovation pour les Technologies des Énergies Nouvelles (France); CENER, Centro Nacional de Energías
Renovables (Spain); CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (Spain); CR, central receiver; CSIRO, Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (Australia); CSP, concentrating solar power; DLR, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (Germany); DNI, direct normal irradiance; DSET,
desert sunshine exposure testing facility; EDX, energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; EMMA, equatorial mount with mirrors for acceleration; FTIR-ATR, Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy-attenuated total reflection; IBAD, ion-beam-assisted deposition; IEA, International Energy Agency; IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission; ISO,
International Organization for Standardization; ITW, Illinois Tool Works (USA); NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (USA); NSS, neutral salt spray; OET, outdoor
exposure testing; OPAC, Optical Aging Characterization (Spain); PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PMMA, polymethylmethacrylate; PNL, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (USA);
PSA, Plataforma Solar de Almería (Spain); PTC, parabolic-trough collectors; PVD, physical vapor deposition; SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation (USA); SEM,
scanning electron microscopy; SERI, Solar Energy Research Institute (USA); SERS, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy; SLP, service lifetime prediction; SNL, Sandia
National Laboratories (USA); SolarPACES, Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems; SPS, surface photovoltage spectroscopy; SSR, solar spectrum reflectometer; STAAC,
standard anodized aluminum coilcoated; STAAP, standard anodized aluminum coated piece-by-piece; STE, solar thermal electricity; UAWS, ultra, -accelerated weathering
system; UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Mexico)
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 34 950 387 800; fax: þ34 950 365 015.
E-mail addresses: agarcia@psa.es (A. García-Segura), afernandez@psa.es (A. Fernández-García), mjariza@ual.es (M.J. Ariza), florian.sutter@dlr.de (F. Sutter),
loreto.valenzuela@psa.es (L. Valenzuela).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.060
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
454 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467

3.1. Glass-based reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

3.2. Aluminum reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
3.3. Silvered-polymer reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
4.1. Reflector materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
4.2. Test conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
4.3. Evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

1. Introduction durability, cost, environmental concerns, etc. [21]. First, improved

Energy supply may be the biggest economic issue that human
beings face in our present-day society. Since many of the energy
resources currently exploited are being depleted, renewable
energies are becoming a worthwhile solution [1]. This has been
thoroughly studied worldwide, to the extent to that many coun-
tries have been developing numerous renewable-energy programs
in the past few years [2–4] and specifically in the field of solar
energy [5–10]. Among them, solar thermal electricity (STE) from
concentrating solar power (CSP) plants seems to play a decisive
role in the renewable energy mix [11], apart from photovoltaic
technologies [12] and solar thermal collectors [13]. In fact, the
number of scientific publications on solar energy has experienced
a significant increase over the last three decades, the United States
being the leading country [14]. According to the STE technology
roadmap published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in
2014, STE is expected to represent about 11% of total electricity
generation by 2050, and 79% of all electricity will be provided by
renewable sources [15].
Good examples of concentrating solar technologies are
parabolic-trough collectors (PTC) and central receiver (CR) solar
thermal power plants. PTC (Fig. 1a) reflectors track the sun on one
axis, concentrating the solar rays on receiver tubes, thereby
increasing the enthalpy of a heat-transfer fluid, which finally
enters a conventional power cycle. This solar facility is the most
deployed CSP technology to date [16,17]. Another example of line-
focus technology is linear Fresnel reflectors (Fig. 1b), which con-
stitute a promising alternative of reflectors in CSP, as reported by
several reviews [18,19]. CR systems are classified as point-focus
technology. They consist of heliostats that track the sun on two
axes and focus direct beam radiation on a single point receiver
(sometimes also incorporating a secondary reflector on the tower
where the absorbed energy drives a conventional power cycle,
Fig. 2a) [20]. Energy concentration and theoretical efficiency with
this technology are both good, offering promising possibilities for
future cost reduction [15]. Other examples of point-focus systems
are parabolic dishes (Fig. 2b) and solar furnaces where, as may be
seen, solar reflectors are also present.
Several arguments support the major role of reflectors in a CSP
plant. Firstly, reflectors are the immediate components of a col-
lector that solar energy encounters in its pathway. Secondly, the
optical performance of reflectors directly affects the overall effi-
ciency of the process. Furthermore, solar reflectors constitute a
large percentage of the total collector surface in a solar power
plant (0.58–1.02 ha of reflective surface per MWe produced) [17].
The European Union has declared materials to be a key
enabling technology to help society lead into a resource-efficient,
low carbon economy. Under these initiatives, a materials roadmap
includes a comprehensive CSP reflector materials research and
development program, in which solar reflectors must comply with
several requirements regarding their optical performance,
reflectance is pursued, especially good specular reflectance prop-
erties in the solar spectral range [22]. The current maximum in
this parameter for silvered reflectors is 94%, and target perfor-
mance in the following decades (2020–2030) is set at 95–96% [21].
This high specularity must be maintained throughout the life cycle
of CSP plants and the service lifetime of reflectors (expected to be
from 10 to 30 years in severe outdoor environments [23] or even
more than 30 years [24]), hence the importance of tracking their
optical performance within the different durability studies. A 25%
reduction in reflector cost from 2010 values is intended [21]. The
2010 price of the most commonly used 4-mm silvered-glass
reflectors was approximately 25 €/m2. Further improvements in
reflectors include the development of low-lead prototypes with
long-term protection against corrosion, protective coatings, low-
iron glass, high-temperature stability for secondary concentrator
applications, and more complete accelerated aging testing [21,25].
In fact, an IEA roadmap milestone for 2018 is the development of
light-weight, low-cost reflector optics [15]. The strategic research
agenda (2020–2025) of the European Solar Thermal Electricity
Association also suggests the baseline short-to-long term research
for STE technology. Several reflector research priorities are iden-
tified: develop light-weight and durable reflective surfaces,
enhance anti-soiling properties of reflectors to reduce water con-
sumption, and increase the reflectance of glass-based reflectors by
increasing the transmissivity of glass [26].
The three types of CSP reflector materials are typically second-
surface silvered-glass reflectors, first-surface aluminum reflectors
and first-surface silvered-polymer films. While silvered-glass
reflectors are employed in most commercial STE plants, alumi-
num reflectors and silvered-polymer films are considered inno-
vative products, developed and marketed as alternatives. The
reason for such variation in reflectors is to meet the demands of
the different collector configurations. Thus, the type and design of
the reflector material implemented are defined by shape, weight,
breakability, thickness and cost requirements, as well as optical
performance and in some cases freedom of design, depending on
the specific CSP technology.
The aim of this article is to review the significant number of
solar reflector durability studies found in the literature. Results
obtained during more than three decades are classified by the
three main types of reflectors because their degradation
mechanisms are different and the durability tests applied to them
may differ considerably. Particularly, the objectives of this review
are
 To compile a number of the most relevant research investiga-
tions on durability of solar reflectors over the last decades in a
chronological order and for the three main types of reflectors.
 To summarize, compare and discuss the results given in these
studies according to three main focuses (reflector materials, test
conditions and evaluation criteria of optical performance).
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467 455

Nomenclature ρs([280–2500] nm, 15°, 15°, 12.5 mrad) solar-weighted specular

reflectance (dimensionless)
Symbols
ρs([280–2500] nm, 8°, h) solar-weighted hemispherical reflec-
tance (dimensionless)
RH relative humidity (%) ρλ([280–2500] nm, 8°, h) spectral hemispherical reflectance
T temperature (°C) (dimensionless)
Tamb ambient temperature (°C) ρλ(λ, 15°, 15°, 12.5 mrad) monochromatic specular reflectance
θ incidence angle (°) (dimensionless)
λ wavelength (nm) φ acceptance angle (mrad)

 To provide some general conclusions on the most suitable material characteristics, durability testing modes and types of
procedures for studying the durability of solar reflectors, as well evaluation methods.
as suggest some future prospects to improve them.

2.1. Reflector materials: structure and composition

Second-surface silvered-glass reflectors are normally composed

2. Material and methods
This section provides a brief overview of the three main points
to be considered in a solar reflector durability study: reflector
of a 1-to-4-mm glass substrate coated with a reflective silver layer,
protected with a layer of copper and several protective paints on
the back (see Fig. 3a). For environmental reasons, in the past few
years, two significant changes have been made in the classic wet
chemistry glass-based reflector manufacturing process to attain a
copper-free back layer and lead-free paint coatings [27,28]. The
protective and supportive copper layer has been replaced by a
cation solution containing tin (normally SnCl2) and an anion
solution consisting of hydroxyl ions (for example, NaOH), forming

Fig. 1. Examples of line-focus technology for CSP plants using different types of Fig. 2. Examples of reflectors in point-focus systems displayed at the PSA.
reflectors exhibited at the PSA. (a) PTC test loop and (b) Fresnel facility. (a) Secondary reflectors of a CR tower, and (b) Parabolic dish collector.
456 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467

a water-insoluble precipitate on the silver surface that prevents

corrosion [27]. These layers are then painted or coated with a
polymer, so that the silver layer is protected from corrosion and
abrasion. Commercial paints formerly used were heavily leaded
(10–20% lead by weight) because lead pigments are known to be
active corrosion inhibitors, but nowadays the lead content has
been drastically reduced (typically to 1%) or completely replaced
by other antioxidant pigments [27]. The durability of these new
reflector concepts in outdoor applications is still subject to con-
firmation, as these configurations were originally conceived for
interiors [23,28]. Another concern that silvered-glass reflectors
have experienced during their development in solar applications is
the iron content in the glass substrate. It is known that the pre-
sence of iron in glass causes significant absorption of radiation,
provoking a decrease in transmittance and subsequent optical
losses [29]. Thus, glass may absorb little of the solar energy
spectrum if its Fe2O3 content is low. This type of glass (Fe2O3
content around 0.02%) is called “water white” (low-iron) glass
[30]. Glass-based reflectors can be classified as thick (around 3–
5 mm) or thin (around 1 mm) glass, both featuring similar dur-
ability. Fig. 4a and b shows examples of a heliostat with silvered
thick-glass reflectors attached to a frame in its support structure,
and of a PTC with silvered thin-glass reflectors, which are glued to
a metal sheet in its structure.
Aluminum reflectors are usually based on a polished aluminum
layer deposited on a substrate and some protective coatings on the
reflective layer to improve their durability (see Fig. 3b). For
instance, a SiO2 layer has been proven to protect against abrasion
and corrosion, but its suitability is still subject to demonstration
due to economic considerations for their definitive development
[33]. In any case, a hard transparent protective layer is

Fig. 4. (a) CR tower heliostat field and (b) Reflector facets of a PTC, both present at
the PSA (Almería).

indispensable for first-surface aluminum reflectors. As mentioned

Fig. 3. Basic composition of (a) a silvered-glass reflector [31] and (b) an enhanced
aluminum reflector [32].
above, SiO2 or Si2O3 films, for example, are excellent protective
coatings because they adhere strongly to the metallic film and
then harden rapidly with surface oxidation when exposed to air.
Although all silicon oxides exhibit stronger absorption bands
below 300 nm, this does not affect the reflection by reflectors in
the solar spectrum [34]. An additional advantage of these first-
surface reflectors is that they do not require the use of an
expensive glass like the low-iron glass of second-surface solar
reflectors. Not only glass is a suitable substrate. Other flexible
substrates, such as aluminum, stainless steel, or other previously
electropolished metal sheets may also be used, as they can be
shaped into many different forms for various applications (e.g.
small-sized PTCs) [34]. The only problem is that the aluminum
substrate might need to be pretreated to make the protective film
adhere to its surface, and that is often detrimental to the optical
performance of the metal surface, because diffusion and absorp-
tion may increase [35]. Sputtering (or other deposition techniques)
of aluminum and SiO2 is also an important issue [36]. On one
hand, the evaporation or deposition rate of the aluminum film is
crucial, because it affects reflectance. In general, experimental
results show low specular reflectance at very low deposition rates.
Moreover, high SiyOx layer evaporation rates and low oxygen
pressure in the vacuum chamber strongly influence the composi-
tion and optical properties of this protective coating, thus greatly
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
Fig. 5. (a) Aluminum reflector with composite material structure exposed at the
PSA and (b) Metallized polymer reflector described in [37].
affecting the reflectance of these first-surface reflectors [34].
Fig. 5a shows an aluminum reflector.
Silvered-polymer film reflectors have been produced for several
decades [38]. They basically comprise a silver layer deposited on a
substrate and protected by polymer layers. These reflectors are
flexible, light films that can be glued to rigid substrates with a
wide variety of shapes. Since the polymeric substrate limits the
temperature during the deposition of silver, temperatures
exceeding 60–80 °C are not recommended, even though silver can
bear temperatures up to 100 °C with no agglomeration and
therefore no loss in specular reflectance [39]. After several years of
research, the durability of silvered-polymer films was significantly
improved using the ion-beam-assisted deposition (IBAD) techni-
que for depositing a transparent, alumina protective top coat over
the silver layer [40]. This new technique achieved better adhesion
of the alumina to the silver, reduced crack-causing stress in the
alumina and the alumina also provided stronger protection against
degradation of silver [40]. Although tunneling degradation was
found [38], resistance of the interface was strengthened by
annealing at 80 °C for 65 h without affecting specular reflectance.
An example of a silvered-polymer reflector is shown in Fig. 5b [37].
2.2. Durability testing
Candidate reflector types are first optically characterized and
then exposed to accelerated aging for certain periods of time to
assess their optical durability [23]. Solar reflectors can be tested
either in accelerated weathering chambers or at outdoor exposure
sites, also known as accelerated exposure testing (AET) and out-
door exposure testing (OET), respectively.
457
OET is regarded as the most suitable experimental procedure
for evaluating solar reflector durability and performance, since real
environmental conditions are tested. Prospective locations for STE
plants must be representative and have suitable conditions,
especially in terms of direct normal irradiance (DNI) [17]. There are
other factors that also influence the selection of a site for the
deployment of a solar facility, namely water resources, land cost,
road access, proximity to grid, presence of natural reserves, etc.
Furthermore, other requirements, such as reflector durability
studies at the specific plant location [41] and soiling/cleaning
considerations [42], should be fulfilled. Nevertheless, OET may not
be practical for several reasons. First, very long periods of time are
necessary to obtain conclusive results, with the possibility that
commercial reflectors may undergo changes in structure, chemical
composition or configuration in the meantime. Second, the wide
variability in outdoor conditions depending on the specific site
makes it harder for a durability study to compare different
reflectors and extrapolate their lifetimes to other locations.
Therefore, OET in itself is insufficient for a complete solar reflector
durability study.
Indoor testing can make up for some of the disadvantages of
OET. In fact, AET appears to be an easy, time-saving way to test the
durability of reflectors. However, accelerated aging does not
ensure reproducible results that correlate with outdoor testing,
unless it is an accomplished and reliable test. Furthermore, only a
few factors can be tested at the same time in a weathering
chamber, thus not simulating the synergistic effects of real
operation conditions. Another difficulty in durability testing (both
in AET and in OET) is that manufacturers do not usually provide
information about the exact composition of the reflector materials,
and thus, it is hard to interpret results and draw general conclu-
sions on the validity of tests for other similar materials. In spite of
these drawbacks, the most typical and well-accepted accelerated
weathering tests were reported and gathered in 2014 [43].
Service lifetime prediction (SLP) would be the next step in a
durability study after OET and AET, but it is still regarded as a
difficult and challenging task. Only a few examples approaching
this problem can be found in the literature, such as the general
durability test methodology for SLP developed by the IEA-Solar
Heating and Cooling Programme's Task 27, Performance of Solar
Façade Components [51], or the reliability-based SLP methodology
for coating systems [52]. Correlation of OET and AET results
requires perfect understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
degradation and the environmental factors that actually have an
effect on the reflector durability. Meaningful AET procedures
would permit the simulation of OET conditions and the estimation
of a realistic service lifetime for a certain reflector at a specific site.
Another important issue that must be addressed is standardi-
zation of solar reflector accelerated durability tests. Table 1 shows
the standardized AETs currently applied to solar reflectors. Dif-
ferent authors may employ different combinations of test condi-
tions. Obtaining representative and comparable testing methods
would be the foremost aim of potential standards. To fill this gap,
testing norms and standards from other industrial areas with
similar applications (either material types or operating condi-
tions), such as the automotive and building industries, could be
adapted to solar reflectors. This big task has been under study by
AENOR (the Spanish standardization organization) subcommittee
AEN/CTN 206/SC 117 “Thermoelectric Solar Energy Systems” since
2010. This work team is the most advanced in the subject and also
contributes to standardization activities of two international
organisms: International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Tech-
nical Committee TC 117 “solar thermal electric plants” and Solar
Power and Chemical Energy Systems (SolarPACES) task III working
groups.
458 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467

Table 1
Standardized AETs applied to solar reflectors.

Name of the test Conditions Total time (h) Reference

Damp heat a) T ¼85 °C, RH ¼ 85% 1000 [44]

b) T ¼65 °C, RH¼ 85% 2000
Humidity or condensation T ¼40 °C, RH¼ 100% 480 [45]
QUV or UV þWater UV on (4 h, T ¼ 60 °C); UV off (4 h, T¼ 50 °C, RH ¼ 100%) 2000 (250 cycles) [46]
Salt spray (NSS) T ¼35 °C, RH ¼ 100%, [NaCl]¼50 g/l, pH¼ [6.5–7.2] 480 [47]
Salt spray (CASS) T ¼50 °C, RH¼ 100%, [NaCl]¼50 g/l, [CuCl2]¼ 0.26 g/l, pH¼ [3.1–3.3] 120 [47]
Acid rain or Kesternich Gas on (8 h, T ¼ 40 °C, RH¼ 100%, {0.33,0.67}% SO2); Gas off (16 h, T ¼ 23 oC, RHo 75%) No agreement [48]
Thermal cycling T ¼[  40,85]°C 200 cycles [49]
Thermal cycling þ condensation 4 h, T ¼  40°C; 4 h, T ¼85 °C; 13 h, T ¼40 °C, RH ¼ 100%; 4 h, T¼  40°C, RH¼ 100% 300 (10 cycles) [49]
Humidity freeze T ¼[  40,65]°C þ 20 h, T ¼65 °C, RH ¼ 85%; 4 h, T ¼  40°C 500 (400 cycles) þ1000 (40 cycles) [44]
Weather-Ometer (WOM) Xenon-arc lamp on, Dry Cycle (102 min, T ¼ 65 °C, RH¼ [40,60]%); Water Spray No agreement [50]
(18 min)

2.3. Evaluation methods
Reflectance is the most important optical parameter for eval-
uating reflector efficiency in solar energy applications, and it is a
major criterion to assess their degradation [34]. Solar reflectance is
the fraction of the incident solar energy which is reflected by the
surface of a solar reflector. Concentrating solar systems require
reflectors to focus the solar radiation in the specular direction onto
the receiver. Therefore, the key parameter that quantifies the
optical quality of a reflector material for STE applications is the
solar-weighted specular reflectance. However, the calculation of
this parameter over the whole solar spectrum is a challenging task,
and therefore, both hemispherical and specular reflectance is
normally characterized.
The best standardized technique for calculating spectral
hemispherical reflectance, ρλ([280–2500] nm, 8°, h), uses spec-
trophotometric measurements with an integrating sphere to
determine the hemispherical reflectance at each different wave-
length, λ, over the whole solar spectrum. An integrating sphere
consists of a perfectly diffuse reflector, that is, after the incident
rays (normally at an incidence angle, θ, of 8°) have been reflected
by the reflector sample, a material contained in the integrating
sphere called “spectralon” scatters the reflected rays in all direc-
tions. The average reflectance, ρs([280–2500] nm, 8°, h), is then
determined using a solar spectrum standard. For European and
North American latitudes, the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) G173-03 [53] is recommended, as documented
by ASTM Standard E903 [54]. The wavelength range typically
considered for the solar-weighted reflectance is 280–2500 nm
because it is the representative range included in this solar spec-
trum standard.
Only the fraction of a reflected beam that reaches the receiver
aperture is actually collected due to specular reflectance. A
representative collection angle (or acceptance angle, φ) of con-
centrating solar systems φ ¼12.5 mrad is used to track specular
reflectance [22,55,56]. It can be expressed as monochromatic
specular reflectance, ρλ(λ, 15°, 15°, 12.5 mrad), or solar-weighted,
ρs([280–2500] nm, 15°, 15°, 12.5 mrad), where λ is the wavelength,
θi ¼15° is the direction of the incident radiation, and θr ¼ 15° is the
direction of the reflected radiation. Note that all the specific ter-
minology and symbols related to STE plants have been published
in a standard of the aforementioned AENOR subcommittee [57].
Although the optical characterization of solar reflectors for STE
applications is done using the specular reflectance, it is important
to track hemispherical reflectance as well for a better under-
standing of the degradation mechanisms taking place. Reflector
aging can cause either scattering, consisting in an increase in dif-
fuse reflectance with unchanged hemispherical reflectance, but a
decrease in specular reflectance, or in absorption, which provokes
a decrease in both specular and hemispherical reflectance.
Therefore, both reflectance properties do have a physical meaning
and may be altered by different factors. For instance, specular
reflectance measurements have been said to be more sensitive to
detecting deterioration of the reflector than hemispherical
reflectance [39]. Actually, in some cases the total specular reflec-
tance loss of reflectors is calculated as the sum of the hemi-
spherical and diffuse reflectance losses [58], taking into account
that the first parameter represents the absorption losses and the
second one the losses due to scattering. Furthermore, losses in
hemispherical reflectance can result from physical and chemical
changes in the reflective layer, because of corrosion, agglomera-
tion, diffusion into the substrate, etc. [39], whereas losses in
specular reflectance can stem from surface irregularities without
any chemical change in the metal, from surface particles, from any
absorption by the reflecting metal, or from chemically induced
changes in the optical properties of the material [39].
Like the standardization of AETs, characterization of solar
reflector optical performance is currently being developed by a
group of experts in SolarPACES Task III: “Solar Technology and
Advances Applications”, with the aim of providing the solar
community with an official reflectance measurement guideline.
The first version of this guideline is already available [59], but
further improvements are expected, mainly in the standardization
of specular reflectance measurement [60]. Measurement protocols
in this guideline are being adopted by official standardization
organizations, such as AENOR.
In addition, evaluation of reflector optical performance and
possible degradation mechanisms can be studied with advanced
analysis techniques. Confocal optical microscopy, scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis
(EDX), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy-attenuated
total reflection (FTIR-ATR) are some examples of advanced tech-
niques used in the bibliography to study possible defects on the
outer reflector surface and its layered structure.
3. Results
This section includes a summary of the most significant results
of the durability studies that reviewed in this work. Results are
grouped according to the three main types of reflectors.
3.1. Glass-based reflectors
The first research works dealing with the durability of glass-
based reflectors were performed by the Solar Energy Research
Institute (SERI) [58,61] and by Texas Tech University [62] in the
United States at the beginning of the 1980s. They tested outdoors
at nine different sites (Crosbyton airport, Oologah, Liberal, Pasa-
dena, Torrance, Richland, Goldstone, Table Mountain, and Point
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
Vicente) for no more than 1.5 years. The samples tested included
second-surface silvered-glass reflectors with back painting from
different commercial manufacturers. The loss of reflector optical
quality was monitored by their change in specular reflectance,
expressed either as a solar-weighted value [58,61] or as an average
over the range of incidence angles from 10° to 40° [62]. Hemi-
spherical reflectance was only determined in [58]. Loss of specular
reflectance was significant (55%) under certain specific conditions,
such as the presence of a cooling tower drift in the exposure site
surroundings [61]. High optical degradation from 30% to 50%
decrease in solar-weighted specular reflectance was found at three
locations (Torrance, Pasadena, and Point Vicente) after about one
year of exposure [58].
Other contemporaneous studies were done by the Pacific
Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for the SERI. They focused on AET
following two methodologies, dry heat and humid heat, both at a
temperature of T¼ 80 °C and either at an ambient relative
humidity of RH ¼40% (dry heat test) [63] or at RH ¼ 100% (humid
heat test) [63,64]. Different configurations of silvered-glass
reflectors were exposed for 14 and 28 days in [63] and [64],
respectively. Degradation was evaluated as solar-weighted hemi-
spherical reflectance losses. Commercial back-painted reflector
samples provided by two manufacturers (B and C, names not
revealed) showed good optical performance, with losses below
2.2% in both tests [63,64]. However, replicates of ion-coated silver
reflectors backed with several metals, such as Al or Cu (by Illinois
Tool Works, ITW), attained losses of over 30% after 14 days of the
dry heat test, while after the humid heat tests, this decrease was
below 10% [64]. No degradation was found in reflectors without
back painting and with an electroless nickel overcoating (by
MacDermid Incorporated) after 58 days of exposure to humid heat
[64].
Other institutes continued research on glass-based reflectors in
the eighties. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
studied the degradation of two types of silvered-glass reflectors by
removing the paint and copper layers. Various AETs were per-
formed in flasks containing either distilled or deoxygenated water
at T ¼90 °C, resulting in a decrease in solar-weighted specular
reflectance of 45% after 24 h [65].
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) started their
valuable contributions in silver-glass reflectors for solar applica-
tions in the 1990s. A silvered-glass sample protected by a 5.2 mm-
thick alumina top coating deposited by IBAD exhibited degrada-
tion in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance of 1.5% when
subjected to OET in Golden (Colorado) for 1.75 years [66]. Further
studies were undertaken in the first decade of the new century.
Both thick (by Flabeg) and thin (by Naugatuck) silvered-glass
reflectors were exposed to AET (at T ¼60 °C and RH ¼{60,75}%)
and real-time outdoor conditions at various sites (Cologne,
Almería, Sacramento, Phoenix, Fort Davis, Golden, Dagget, and
Miami). After more than 36 months in the climatic chambers and
over 6 years of outdoor testing, a maximum solar-weighted
hemispherical reflectance degradation of 6% appeared in the
thin-glass reflectors, and less than 3% in the thick-glass [27,67].
Moreover, an experimental durability test of thin-glass reflectors
(by manufacturers such as Glaverbel and Naugatuck) was designed
which considered seven experimental factors (reflector type, back
protection, adhesive, substrate, edge protection, substrate clean-
ing, and back cleaning), and a total of 81 samples were tested [28].
Damp heat (T ¼85 °C and RH ¼85%) and weathering-chamber
(T ¼60 °C and RH ¼60%) tests showed reductions in solar-
weighted hemispherical reflectance of 2.2–5.6% and of 0.5–7.6%,
respectively, after more than 36 months. In this research, a 1.75-
year OET was also performed in Golden on a thin-glass reflector,
which showed degradation in monochromatic specular reflectance
of 4.4%.
459
More results on this type of reflector were provided during the
2000s by a research group headed by Brogren at Uppsala Uni-
versity (Sweden). An evaporated-on-glass silver reflector pro-
tected by paint was subjected to 400 damp-heat cycles and did not
show any significant degradation [68]. Each cycle consisted in
increasing T from 40 to 80 °C and RH from 50 to 85% for 5 h, and
samples were subjected to 1000 W/m2 for half this time. The
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) also contributed
in this field by providing results of a Kingston glass reflector which
was exposed in Mexico City for 16 years and lost solar-weighted
specular reflectance of up to 37% [33,36].
At the current decade, prominent European groups, such as
Centro Nacional de Energías Renovables (CENER) and Commissariat à
l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives-Laboratoire d'Inno-
vation pour les Technologies des Énergies Nouvelles (CEA LITEN)
performed several studies on glass reflectors. The CENER tested a
total of 113 samples corresponding to 11 different glass-adhesive
construction types with four different accelerated methods (see
Table 1 for test conditions): 200 thermal cycles, UV exposure,
5 kWh/m2 (280–320 nm) and 15 kWh/m2 (280–385 nm), damp
heat, and salt mist, T ¼35 °C and [NaCl]¼5% [69]. None of these
tests showed any significant evidence of degradation after 1000 h.
Other studies performed by CEA LITEN focused on thin-glass
reflectors, showing high specular reflectance losses of 16–20% at
θ¼8° after constant T ¼200 °C for 600 h. The same test at
T¼ 100 °C did not decrease optical performance after 5000 h
[70,71].
In the last few years, glass-based reflector durability studies
have been performed by the Optical Aging Characterization (OPAC)
Group, a joint research cooperation between the Spanish institu-
tion Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tec-
nológicas-Plataforma Solar de Almería (CIEMAT-PSA) and the Ger-
man Aerospace Center, DLR. In the first study published by this
group, commercial samples from six manufacturers of silvered
thick-glass reflectors were subjected to a number of accelerated
aging tests, namely UV exposure on both sides of the samples
(2000 kWh/year/m2 for 26 days), humidity test and neutral salt
spray (NSS) for 480 h each (see Table 1), 375 cycles of cleaning
abrasion, and 26 days of UV radiation on the back side of the
samples followed by 20 thermal cycles of 24 h, ranging T from  10
to 70 °C and RH from ambient humidity to 90%. They all withstood
degradation in satisfactory condition, not exceeding 2% of solar-
weighted specular reflectance loss in any case [72]. The same
reflector types were tested for their endurance to solar radiation in
three aging chambers at different λ ranges for nearly 3 months and
under real outdoor conditions for 5.5 months [29]. The highest
decrease in solar-weighted specular reflectance (3.3%) was when
the front side of Reflector Type 1 was exposed to 1000 W/m2 of
the whole solar spectrum (280–3000 nm), whereas the worst
outdoor performance occurred when the front of Reflector Type 5,
which was weathered at the PSA (Almería, Spain), showed the
maximum change in solar-weighted specular reflectance (4.3%)
[29].
One of these studies focused on the performance of silvered
thick-glass reflectors under sandstorm conditions. Different com-
binations of dust concentration and wind speed were tested for
1 h inside a sandstorm chamber, and significant losses of solar-
weighted specular reflectance were observed. The least favorable
condition (loss of 25.8%) was at the highest wind speed (18 m/s)
and the lowest dust concentration (100 mg/m3), thus the effect of
wind speed on optical degradation was proven to be more
important than the effect of dust concentration in the studied
ranges [73].
Another study conducted Kesternich tests on all types of
commercially available solar reflectors including second-surface
silvered ones (thin, thick, and laminated glass). After 50 cycles
460 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
(Table 1), none of the reflector types exhibited significant solar-
weighted hemispherical reflectance degradation, and solar-
weighted specular reflectance losses were from 1% to 1.5% [74].
Both thick- and thin-glass reflectors with different configura-
tions were further studied under the most common AET condi-
tions (Table 1): damp heat, NSS, QUV, thermal cycling, copper
accelerated acetic acid salt spray (CASS), and their combinations.
No monochromatic specular reflectance degradation over 2.5% was
observed after a total of 2000 h of any accelerated testing for
either thick- or thin-glass reflectors [43]. On the other hand, a 10%
loss in specular reflectance was observed in a thick-glass sample
after 3000 h of NSS. However, this reduction in specularity
occurred without silver degradation, contrary to previous two-
year outdoor experiments at the PSA and at the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO (Newcastle,
Australia) over three years, where edge corrosion and pitting
corrosion spots had been reported on the reflective layer of silv-
ered thick- and thin-glass reflectors, respectively [31].
Finally, a total of nine reflector types (both for cooled and
uncooled secondary concentrators) were tested in accelerated
aging, eight of which were silvered-glass reflectors [75]. Typical
thin-glass reflectors used in cooled secondary concentrators were
subjected to a series of tests (constant temperature, thermal
cycling, humidity test, and damp heat) for three months and also
in a salt-spray chamber for 20 days. Several combinations of back-
painted layers were studied. One of the samples had as much as an
11.0% decrease in solar-weighted specular reflectance, while for
another it was only 1.6%. Thick-glass reflectors underwent a 9.5%
reduction in solar-weighted specular reflectance after less than
three months of similar aging under uncooled conditions, while
for a laminated silvered-glass one (with thin glass on the back, also
known as “sandwich”) it only decreased 1.0% under the same
conditions. Aging of a water-cooled secondary concentrator was
also performed in a central tower plant at the PSA for around 14
months. The most relevant result was that reflectors presented
silver-layer corrosion along 35% of their edges.
3.2. Aluminum reflectors
The interest in developing solar reflectors based on aluminum
reflective layers also started at the beginning of the 1980s. Boeing
Engineering and Construction Company (BEC) reported the first
durability test under accelerated and outdoor conditions for two
types of coated aluminized reflectors (made by National Metaliz-
ing and Dunmore) in 1980 [76]. Accelerated OET equipment con-
sisted of a device called an equatorial mount with mirrors for
acceleration (EMMA) that provided an acceleration factor of about
eight suns over a one-year exposure period, while real-time OET
was performed in the Desert Sunshine Exposure Testing facility
(DSET) located in Sonora (USA), where the reflectors were exposed
to one sun at 45° elevation. The Dunmore reflector exhibited
better optical performance after about 0.5 years of exposure on
EMMA (with almost no degradation), in contrast to the National
Metalizing samples, which showed a remarkable loss in mono-
chromatic specular reflectance under the same exposure
conditions (41%).
Several aluminized solar reflector candidates were tested by
Texas Tech University in 1981 [62]: Plexiglas aluminized acrylic (by
Rohm and Haas), RAM aluminized acrylic (by RAM Products),
Kinglux CH/40 rolled aluminum (by Kingston Industries), and
Alzak rolled aluminum (by Alcoa). They were exposed in Crosby-
ton airport for one year and a similar decrease in specular reflec-
tance was reported in all cases (8.8–12.7%).
First-surface reflectors manufactured by evaporation of a thin
aluminum film over glass with a SiyOx protective layer were stu-
died under accelerated conditions in the mid-90s by Almanza et al.
at the UNAM (Mexico) [33,36]. After typical weathering tests
(humidity tests, thermal cycling, constant temperature, saltwater
immersion, Kesternich test), only a few samples showed evidence
of some corrosion patterns. For example, edge corrosion appeared
after 504 h in a humidity test at room temperature and 100% RH
using 3 M silvered-tape to protect the samples edges, and local
corrosion was noticed after 72 h in saltwater immersion (T ¼[13–
16]°C and [NaCl] ¼ 5%) [33,36]. One sample did exhibit more than
10% loss in its solar-weighted specular reflectance after 336 h in a
humidity test (at 50 °C and 60% RH). The same research group also
tested two new types of aluminum reflectors under similar aging
conditions: on one hand, first- and second-surface integrated
reflectors with a SiO2/Al/Soda-lime glass/Al/Epoxic paint layered
structure, and on the other hand, a first-surface composite
reflector with a double reflective layer and a SiO2/Al/SiO2/Al/Soda-
lime glass structure [33,36]. No significant degradation effects
were found after 400 h in any of the above-mentioned
accelerated tests.
The research group at Uppsala University studied the durability
of different solar reflectors, choosing lacquered aluminum, ano-
dized aluminum, and vacuum evaporated aluminum foil as the
aluminum-based subjects, among others [35]. After a maximum
period of 7 years of outdoor exposure in Älvkarleby (Sweden), they
found a solar-weighted specular reflectance loss of 47% and 13%
decrease in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance for the
anodized aluminum reflector. In subsequent durability studies
both AET and OET were performed on different configurations of
commercially available anodized aluminum reflectors and evapo-
rated or lacquered aluminum foils [68]. After a 2000-h damp-heat
cycling test, one polymer-protected evaporated aluminum reflec-
tor exhibited a decrease in solar-weighted specular reflectance of
72%, whereas its solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance
decreased by 3%. However, the most degraded reflector after nine
months of OET was a thin-film coated anodized aluminum (19%
reduction in solar-weighted specular reflectance and 8% decrease
in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance), regardless of
another anodized aluminum sample that had been weathered
outside for 18 years and lost 67% specularity. The same test pro-
cedure was applied to a laminated reflector consisting of a
polymer-coated highly reflective aluminum foil on a rigid steel
sheet [77]. After 2000 h of damp heat test, its solar-weighted
specular and hemispherical reflectance decreased 35% and 7%,
respectively, whereas it did not suffer from any degradation after
1 year of outdoor exposure in Älvkarleby.
More attempts were made by the NREL Group in the 2000s to
study the durability of aluminum reflectors. Two standard ano-
dized sheet aluminum reflectors (standard anodized aluminum
coated piece-by-piece, STAAP, and standard anodized aluminum
coilcoated, STAAC) and two standard high specular aluminum
reflectors with metal-oxide layers and an antioxidation polymer
coating (Miro 2 and Miro 2þ , manufactured by Alanod), were
outdoor-weathered for up to three years at different sites:
Cologne, Almería, Sacramento, Phoenix, Fort Davis, Golden, Dag-
get, Miami [78]. High specular degradation of 35% to 40% was
found for the two anodized reflectors, of which the STAAC was less
durable. Only the Miro 2 þ was accelerated-tested by three dif-
ferent methods (humid heat, NSS, and QUV), but no significant
degradation occurred, even after one year of exposure. Later,
similar Miro 2 high-specular aluminum reflector designs were
exposed for up to five years at some of the above-mentioned sites,
and changes in hemispherical reflectance were not very high,
however, specular degradation effects were not reported [27,67].
On the other hand, monochromatic specular reflectance losses of
up to 60% were reported for this Miro 2-type reflector after aging
in a weathering chamber at 60 °C and 60% RH for nearly 2.5 years
[27].
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
An enhanced first-surface aluminum reflector protected by a
sol–gel coating, also manufactured by Alanod, was tested by the
DLR in collaboration with the CIEMAT-PSA and NREL at the
beginning of the present decade [55]. The layered structure of this
reflector, which is shown in Fig. 3b, is comprised of a SiO2 sol–gel
protective coating on top of several refractive metal-oxide coatings
over a thin layer of high-purity aluminum deposited by physical
vapor deposition (PVD) over an anodized aluminum substrate.
After more than five years of outdoor exposure at the Tabernas
Desert (PSA), the maximum monochromatic specular reflectance
degradation was 3.7% [79]. OET was also conducted for three years
at other locations as well (Golden, Phoenix, Miami). The highest
loss in monochromatic specular reflectance was 1.9% and no solar-
weighted hemispherical reflectance decrease was found [55].
Several accelerated tests, such as damp heat, NSS, QUV, wind
tunnel, and their combinations were also conducted on this
reflector type [43,55,79]. Samples without the sol–gel protective
coating exhibited an important decrease in their monochromatic
specular reflectance of up to 14% after 2000 h of damp heat test or
NSS exposure, but no degradation after 2000 h of QUV or
NSS þQUV [43]. Negligible degradation effects were found in the
protected reflector after more than 36 months in weathering
chambers (T ¼60 °C and RH ¼ 60%; T¼ 85 °C and RH ¼85%) [55].
Furthermore, a 10-year simulation in a wind tunnel predicted a
loss in monochromatic specular reflectance of up to 6.8% in sam-
ples with the protective coating [79]. Finally, SLP studies were
done on the unprotected and the sol–gel protected aluminum
reflectors based on real outdoor data provided by Almería (PSA),
Florida, Golden (NREL), and Arizona. In the first reflector type,
monochromatic specular reflectance was down 25% after 10 years
of exposure in Almería, while the protected type had better optical
performance, with a 9% loss in specularity under the same outdoor
conditions [32].
The Spanish-German OPAC Group (CIEMAT-PSA and DLR) has
been working on various configurations of reflectors with alumi-
num as the reflective layer for the last few years. An aluminum
reflector with a methacrylate front cover was included in simu-
lated solar radiation tests as a witness and reference of higher
degradation than thick-glass reflectors. Samples were weathered
on their front and back sides at two different wavelength ranges
(270–450 nm and 290–765 nm) and two levels of irradiation
(500 W/m2 and 2200 W/m2) for 2000 h. The highest decrease in
solar-weighted specular reflectance (2.1%) was found on the front
of the reflector when exposed to 500 W/m2 in the 270–450 nm
range [29]. In addition, a wide variety of commercially-available
anodized and coated aluminum reflectors was subjected to 1200-h
Kesternich tests [48]. Heterogeneous results were reported. Very
little or no degradation appeared in the coated aluminum and
methacrylate aluminum film reflectors, moderate solar-weighted
hemispherical and specular reflectance losses (8% and 10%,
respectively) were found in the polycarbonate aluminum film
reflector, and a strong decrease in solar-weighted specular reflec-
tance occurred in the two categories of anodized aluminum
reflectors (74% and 50%, respectively) [74]. Moreover, a lacquered
PVD aluminum reflector (Mirosun by Alanod) was tested under
AET conditions in a series test to simulate water-cooled secondary
concentrators (constant temperature, thermal cycling, humidity
test, and damp heat) for about 3 months, and also in a salt-spray
chamber for 20 days [75]. Solar-weighted specular reflectance
losses did not exceed 1% and 2% in any of the tests.
3.3. Silvered-polymer reflectors
As well as the glass-based and aluminum reflectors discussed
above, silvered-polymer reflectors have also been thoroughly
studied since the early 1980s [80]. Several companies and research
461
institutes, such as the BEC and Texas Tech University, have been
very active in testing the durability of this type of reflector. The
BEC tested a silverized, UV-stabilized polymeric reflector known as
OCLI in the EMMA facility, which remained undegraded after one
year of exposure [76]. After another one-year outdoor test at the
DSET, a 7% loss in monochromatic specular reflectance was
reported. The second institution exposed a Scotchcal 5400 reflec-
tor by 3 M in Crosbyton airport for one year with a larger decrease
in specular reflectance (9.5%) [62].
A number of silver/polymer multilayer combinations were tes-
ted by SERI in the mid-80s [39]. The two main configurations used
were extruded polymeric films, metallized and glued onto a sub-
strate (Polymer/Ag/PMMA backing/Adhesive/Substrate), and cast
polymer films on a metallized substrate (Polymer/Ag/Substrate). In
most cases, both AET and OET were conducted. A test was per-
formed in a weathering chamber at 60 °C and 80% RH for about one
month and up to 8% solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance loss
was observed for a Teflon FEP (fluorinated ethylene propylene)
reflector manufactured by Sheldahl. Another silvered-polymer
reflector with a stainless-steel substrate and ECP-300XP (a poly-
mer manufactured by 3 M) as the protective polymer was weath-
ered in a QUV chamber for nearly two months, and was highly
degraded, with an 8% decrease in solar-weighted hemispherical
reflectance and a 16% change in monochromatic specular reflec-
tance. Other reflector types were exposed in Golden for one year,
leading to losses in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance of 4%
to 15% for a polycarbonate reflector and 4–20% in monochromatic
specular reflectance for a poly-methylmethacrylate (PMMA) ECP-
244 reflector by 3 M.
An ECP-305 silvered PMMA film was developed by the 3 M
Company and NREL and compared with other polymer reflector
prototypes (ECP-300A by 3 M and an experimental silver reflector)
in a durability study in 1994 [37]. After more than 20 months of
aging in the weathering chamber at 60 °C and 80% RH, ECP-305
reflector showed a 5.4% loss in solar-weighted hemispherical
reflectance, whereas this parameter decreased by 7% after 25 days
of exposure in a solar simulator at 80 °C and 75% RH. In contrast,
exposure of an ECP-300A reflector in the solar simulator had a
much larger decrease in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance
after only 10 days (33%). However, the experimental silver reflector
only lost 3% of solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance after
nearly 42 days in the solar simulator. Outdoor exposure of ECP-305
in Colorado, Florida, and Arizona for 2.5 years provided very small
reductions in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance (from 1%
to 2%), whereas ECP-300A exposed in Colorado for six years
exhibited a 7% loss in this optical parameter.
A following NREL study tested a silvered-polymer reflector
protected by an optically transparent alumina top coating depos-
ited by IBAD, using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as the sub-
strate [40]. No degradation was found after almost five months in
the solar simulator at 80 °C and 80% RH or after seven months of
OET in Golden. Similar results were found in the weathering
chamber at 60 °C and 80% RH, except for one sample that had a 9%
loss in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance after 1.5 months
of exposure. A similar reflector material was studied after that,
introducing nine different sample structures and five alternative
samples with coatings added by various deposition techniques
[66]. Accelerated tests were performed in the solar simulator and
the weathering chamber, but no degradation was observed except
for a reflector with 4.5 mm alumina coating, which was aged in the
weathering chamber for 1.5 months and underwent a 10% reduc-
tion in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance. Another reflector
sample containing 2 mm alumina coating exhibited a decrease of
3% in this optical performance parameter after being exposed in
Golden for one year.
462 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
In the 2000s, a silvered UV-stabilized PET film with a metallic
back-protective layer bonded to an aluminum substrate called
SolarBrite 95 was developed by Alcoa. This new reflector was
weathered in two different weathering chambers (T ¼60 °C and
RH ¼75%) for three months, showing losses in solar-weighted
hemispherical reflectance of over 17% [67]. After two years of
exposure in eight different locations (Cologne, Almería, Sacra-
mento, Phoenix, Fort Davis, Golden, Dagget, Miami), the total
hemispherical reflectance degraded slightly over 2%. In addition,
NREL also tested another similar metallized polymer reflector
consisting of 89 mm Polymer Film Superstrate (PMMA)/0.1 mm
Reflective Layer (Ag)/Adhesive/Substrate (6061 Al sheet) [81]. This
material was just subjected to real-time outdoor testing and after
4.1 years of exposure in Golden, 7% of hemispherical reflectance at
λ¼ 400 nm was lost, whereas this optical parameter decreased by
13% after the same period of aging time in Sacramento. More
recently, the optical durability of candidate solar reflectors was
studied, including three types of silvered-polymer reflectors and
one advanced solar reflective mirror (ASRM) manufactured by
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) [27]. The
silvered-film reflector improved jointly by ReflecTech and NREL
endured the outdoor exposure in Phoenix, Golden, and Miami for
2.5 years without any degradation, as well as the equivalent 10-
year weathering in the ACUVEXs accelerated OET, consisting of a
commercial 10-mirror Fresnel-reflector tracking array. However,
after nearly 8 months of accelerated aging in a weathering
chamber at 60 °C and 60% RH, its solar-weighted hemispherical
reflectance dropped 23%. On the other hand, the ASRM reflector
withstood both AET and OET without significant degradation for
over three and five years, respectively.
One of NREL's more recent studies on silvered-polymer
reflectors focused on different models of ReflecTech reflector
films (commercially available and further-improved prototypes)
[82]. Accelerated UV radiation in an ultra-accelerated weathering
system, UAWS (at T ¼30 °C and T ¼60 °C, 50  acceleration factor)
produced no significant degradation in solar-weighted hemi-
spherical reflectance after more than seven months. The SLP was
calculated based on accelerated tests such as humidity, solar
simulator, ACUVEXs, UAWS, and QUV. As a result, minimum life-
time estimates were given for several worldwide locations and the
figures were apparently promising, suggesting an SLP between 38
years for Dagget (USA) and 66 years for Hohhot (China).
The UNAM also gathered durability results for this type of
reflector over 16 years of outdoor exposure in Mexico City [33,36].
FEK-244 manufactured by 3 M and a Mexican PMMA reflector had
solar-weighted specular reflectance losses of 14% and 13%,
respectively. Other samples were weathered only two years and
therefore were less degraded. That was the case of ECP-305 (by
3 M) and ReflecTech samples, with a 3% loss in solar-weighted
specular reflectance for the first reflector and no degradation for
the second.
Finally, the OPAC Group recently made a contribution to
accelerated studies on the effect of acid atmospheres on the dur-
ability of solar reflectors, including silvered-polymer [74]. A silv-
ered thin-film on a glass substrate was subjected to a Kesternich
test for 50 days, but no degradation was observed.
4. Discussion
The comparison of the results of the different durability studies
analyzed in this review is not a trivial issue, owing to the wide
variability of reflector materials, test conditions and optical per-
formance evaluation criteria used. Therefore, these three aspects
have been identified as crucial in the performance and evaluation
of durability studies of solar reflectors, and this section includes a
summary and overall discussion of the results from these three
points of view.
4.1. Reflector materials
The most commonly employed reflectors in commercial STE
plants are silvered-glass reflectors. Glass is a very stable material
(both physically and chemically) which represents a hard barrier
against degradation of the reflective silver layer. Thus, the main
challenge in glass-based reflectors is to protect their back. Some
silvered thick- and thin-glass reflectors have proven to be durable
in European outdoor applications [43]. Commercial back-painted
silvered-glass reflectors by two unknown manufacturers and
reflectors without back painting and with a nickel overcoating by
MacDermid Inc. exhibited good optical performance after humid-
heat exposure for up to two months [63,64]. Among these com-
mercial silvered-glass reflectors, thick (by Flabeg) and thin (by
Naugatuck) glass reflectors showed no significant degradation
after more than 36 months in weathering chambers and over six
years of outdoor exposure at several sites (Cologne, Almería,
Sacramento, Phoenix, Fort Davis, Golden, Dagget, and Miami) [27,
67]. Moreover, thin-glass reflectors by Glaverbel apparently fea-
tured better endurance to degradation in optical performance than
Naugatuck candidates, according to weathering chamber results;
however, after exposure in the damp heat test, Naugatuck reflec-
tance losses were lower than Glaverbel. Therefore, Glaverbel did
not show the best overall performance. Both of them contained a
multilayer or epoxy back-protection, which may be one of the
reasons for their good performance [28]. Other studies also
reported the suitability of various commercial types of silvered
thick-glass reflectors, which were subjected to a great number of
accelerated aging tests for up to 1.5 months [72]. By comparison
with traditional thick- and thin-glass reflectors, another prototype
consisting of a 2-mm glass front cover and a 0.5-mm glass back
cover (“sandwich”) appeared to be an improvement over the other
two types of silvered-glass reflectors [75].
Aluminum reflectors have also been deployed in STE systems as
a promising and interesting option for solar applications. The
crucial aspect of their durability is front layer resistance to abra-
sive conditions, such as contact-cleaning methods, sand particles
carried by the wind, etc., and also their ability to avoid penetration
by corrosive agents. Samples of first-surface thin aluminum film
over glass with a protective SiyOx layer have generally exhibited
good durability after being weathered in multiple accelerated tests
[33,36]. On the other hand, commercial thin-film coated anodized
aluminum reflectors showed very poor optical performance after
nine months of outdoor aging in Älvkarleby (Sweden). Moreover, a
polymer-protected evaporated aluminum model dramatically
failed after less than three months of damp heat testing [68]. Two
standard anodized sheet aluminum materials by Alanod were also
studied outdoors in Cologne for up to three years, where strong
degradation of specular reflectance was observed [78]. Another
standard highly specular aluminum reflector with a metal-oxide
layer and an antioxidation polymer coating (also by Alanod) did
demonstrate good performance after outdoor exposure at three
sites (Phoenix, Miami, and Golden) for up to five years, unlike its
aging in a weathering chamber for nearly 30 months [27]. An
enhanced first-surface aluminum reflector protected by a SiO2 sol–
gel coating was thoroughly studied in several durability tests and
negligible degradation effects were observed after more than 36
months in a weathering chamber and about five years of outdoor
exposure in the Tabernas Desert in Almería (PSA) [55,79]. Different
samples of both anodized and coated aluminum reflectors were
also tested for two months in a Kesternich cabinet. The best optical
performance was found for the coated aluminum and the
methacrylate aluminum film reflectors, whereas the two anodized
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
aluminum configurations were the most degraded [74]. All things
considered, a protective SiyOx layer (and to a restricted extent, a
polymer coating) seems to improve the optical durability of alu-
minum reflectors, whereas it can be concluded that their anodi-
zation may not improve the stability of their optical properties.
New technologies such as first-surface polymer reflectors have
entered the market, which have evolved over the past years,
providing flexible, lighter, cheaper reflectors [38,83,84]. The most
difficult task in these reflectors is to find a proper combination of
protective front polymer layers that makes them resistant enough
to degradation of the silver layer and of the polymer layer itself. As
a good example, ECP-305 silvered-polymer film by 3 M showed
considerably better optical reflectance than the previous material,
ECP-300A, after outdoor exposure in Golden, Florida, and Arizona,
and after accelerated aging in a solar simulator [37]. Other
reflector prototypes, which were protected by an alumina top
coating deposited by IBAD or other techniques, proved not to be
bad candidates, with some exceptions [40,66]. Metallized UV-
stabilized polymer reflectors did not exhibit good durability,
either after accelerated exposure, or after being subjected to real-
time outdoor conditions, particularly in Golden and Sacramento
s
[67,81]. Furthermore, although ReflecTech PLUS is considered to
possess a hard surface [85], its hemispherical reflectance was
significantly reduced after eight months in a weathering chamber,
whereas an ASRM was barely degraded after three years of AET
and five years of OET at Phoenix, Golden, and Miami [27].
In brief, it is easy to find reasons why glass-based reflectors are
still regarded as the most durable materials for solar applications.
It has been pointed out that aluminum reflectors may be con-
sidered a reference of stronger degradation than thick-glass
reflectors [29] and silvered-polymer reflectors are still under
development [86]. Therefore, silvered-glass reflectors have not yet
been displaced by other material configurations that have
emerged in the last three to four decades, because of their high
reflectance parameters and highly reliable durability. Rather on
the contrary, the new reflector candidates have been added to the
already known and effective glass reflectors, to the point of their
current coexistence.
4.2. Test conditions
A key issue of discussion is the number and variety of condi-
tions in the accelerated aging tests. It is important to remark that
synergistic effects are not always suitable, as stated in [87], where
it was necessary to isolate temperature effects to avoid over-
accelerated degradation of reflectors. Apart from this, it has been
suggested that degradation of solar reflectors might not be linearly
dependent on the different stress factors, but would rather have a
certain threshold below which no effective degradation appears
[68,77,88].
According to Masterson et al., six environmental stresses are
believed to mainly contribute to reflector degradation: humidity,
temperature, mechanical loading, thermal cycling, UV radiation,
and environmental pollutants [34,63]. Other authors have parti-
cularly stated that environmental stress factors causing the most
severe degradation (loss in reflectance) may be UV radiation,
temperature, and moisture [27]. These three factors are possible to
be reproduced in weathering chambers, where the material sam-
ples can be exposed to constant or cyclic tests.
However, most of the accelerated experiments reported took
into account only temperature and humidity, and some of them
included UV radiation. Fig. 6 gives a general overview of the test
conditions covered by the durability studies in terms of T and RH
for glass, aluminum and polymer reflectors. All the experiments
were performed at temperatures between 85 °C and room tem-
perature and from 40 to 100% relative humidity. Within these
463
Fig. 6. Temperature and relative humidity ranges explored in the articles dealing
with AETs reviewed. Blue squares are for glass-based reflectors, black circles are for
aluminum and red triangles are for silvered-polymer reflectors. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
ranges, medium to high T and RH were studied most, as expected
for AET. Temperatures below 60 °C were studied mainly at
RH ¼100%, while relative humidity below 60% was rarely studied.
Looking at the number of tests applied to all types of reflectors for
the assessment of their durability or resistance to corrosion, only
one temperature (mostly at 60 °C) and relative humidity in single
weathering-chamber tests were studied in [27,28,55,67]. Other
studies tested samples in two different weathering chambers,
usually selecting two combinations: (i) a solar simulator at
T¼ 80 °C, RH ¼80% and a weathering chamber at T ¼60 °C,
RH ¼80% or (ii) a dry-heat chamber at T ¼80 °C, RH ¼40% and a
humid-heat chamber at T ¼80 °C, RH ¼100% [37,40,63–66,78]. In
some references humidity was not controlled [82] and only
constant-temperature tests were performed [70,71]. Other dur-
ability studies focused exclusively on sunlight radiation tests and
were performed either in accelerated-radiation chambers [29] or
in outdoor-accelerated EMMA [76].
The real operating temperature of a solar reflector is an
important issue to be discussed. In solar reflectors for outdoor
applications, both atmospheric temperature and material absorp-
tance are key factors affecting their service temperature. This
temperature may not rise beyond 60 °C in primary concentrators,
but operating temperatures of secondary concentrators are about
400 °C for 2D-concentrating systems and 800 °C for 3D-
concentrating systems [75]. As a result, the temperature range of
AETs must be extended, depending on the type of application.
Although some authors recommend temperatures as close as
possible to the operating temperature to reproduce real degrada-
tion of the reflector materials [43], experimental conditions of
accelerated durability tests must be almost as aggressive as the
real conditions.
Additional factors to be considered in solar reflector durability
studies are sandstorms and environmental pollutants. Several
authors have already reported durability tests of different types of
reflectors in sandstorm chambers [86,89–97], but the number of
experimental parameters are very high (wind velocity, impact
angle, sand concentration, sand particle properties, etc.) and fur-
ther research is still needed to assess AETs typical values. Further
accelerated aging tests which simulate aggressive industrial
environments are also necessary according to Brogren et al. [68].
Although chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, and hydroxides have been
464 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
pointed out as corrosive pollutants [31,41,56,68,77,80,87], there is
a general lack of AETs reproducing these degradation factors.
More OET experiments are also necessary. Several examples in
the literature have made lack of measurements and information
gathered from outdoor exposure experiments evident
[43,58,79,86,88]. According to Sutter et al. [43], less outdoor data is
available for thick- and thin-glass reflectors than for aluminum. As
mentioned above, 13 papers reported on outdoor aluminum
reflector tests (covering 27 different reflector materials), whereas
only 10 OETs were done with glass-based reflectors and another 10
with silvered-polymer (exposing 19 different reflector materials in
both cases). The most significant and quantitative OET results on
changes in losses in solar-weighted specular and hemispherical
reflectance over time are depicted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
The types of reflectors are marked with different colors and
symbols and the exposure sites appear next to their reference
numbers. When similar results were found at two different sites in
the same country, it is indicated by “2 tests” next to the reference.
The variety of exposure locations and test duration found in the
literature is also displayed in these two Figures. Most studies did
not perform OET for more than seven years, or even exceed two
years of exposure, which is especially noticeable in Fig. 7. Only two
of the studies [33,68] provided specular reflectance degradation
for samples that had been exposed for 16 years or more. In gen-
eral, higher losses were found for specular reflectance (up to 67%)
than for hemispherical reflectance (maximum of 20%).
To date, only a few studies in this field have really deployed
complete durability testing of solar reflectors with a wide range of
AETs [33,34,72,75], and some others to a lesser extent
[31,43,68,69]. Some of the durability studies reviewed here man-
aged to somehow reproduce the degradation phenomena that
occur outdoors [27,28,43,65,67,75,89], while some other studies
encountered difficulties in reproducing degradation mechanisms
[29,31,43,55,68,78,79]. There are also studies which emphasize the
need for better AET and OET correlations [40,67,86,92,94]. This
goal was particularly pursued in some projects [32,81,82]. Expo-
sure conditions were usually held constant in the accelerated tests
for certain coefficients. After that, SLP was calculated from a
damage function, using the desired outdoor conditions and the
Fig. 7. Loss in solar-weighted specular reflectance over exposure time from
reflector data reported after OETs. Blue squares are glass-based reflectors, black
circles are aluminum and red triangles are silvered-polymer reflectors. Each
reference number is preceded by its exposure site: Spain (SPA), United States (USA),
Mexico (MEX) and Sweden (SWE). (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 8. Loss in solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance over exposure time from
reflector data reported after OETs. Blue squares are glass-based reflectors, black
circles are aluminum and red triangles are silvered-polymer reflectors. Each
reference number is preceded by its exposure site: United States (USA), Sweden
(SWE) and Germany (GER). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
coefficients found previously [82]. The main problem with this
method is that equivalent real outdoor lifetime results are criti-
cally important to comparison and validation, but they were not
provided by the authors, mainly because their estimations were
rather unrealistic and therefore almost impossible to fulfill (even
over 40 years). Furthermore, it is difficult in lifetime testing of
highly durable reflectors to actually validate such long exposure
times with meaningful results, because many manufacturers fre-
quently stop producing those commercial reflector materials and
constructions before the test is over and the results are published
[28], or because the predicted lifetime of reflectors exceeds the
average duration of a research project [98].
All in all, most of the studies reviewed came to useful conclu-
sions about reflector degradation. However, additional AETs that
simulate more relevant outdoor conditions and their interactions
are still required. In addition, real outdoor degradation conditions
must be studied more in greater depth. Actually, accelerated tests
are a necessary condition, although they are not sufficient alone, in
the assessment of solar reflector durability, mainly because real
degradation processes are not completely understood [88]. A great
need for the standardization of AETs has also been mentioned by
authors such as López-Martín et al. [73], who recommended
application of the SLP and durability assessment framework out-
lined in [99]. Shared testing and evaluation procedures are very
important because it would develop into a standard degradation
test for solar reflectors [73]. This undertaking is currently being
approached by the AENOR subcommittee mentioned in Section
3.2 above.
4.3. Evaluation criteria
Due to the optical nature of solar reflectors, the main evalua-
tion criterion for assessing their durability is reflectance. However,
this general optical parameter can be measured using different
definitions and methods [59]. As may be concluded from the
results presented above, solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance
and both solar-weighted and monochromatic specular reflectance
are the optical parameters most commonly used to evaluate
reflector degradation. It should be remembered that the main
difference is that hemispherical reflectance includes the diffuse
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
part of reflection while specular reflectance does not, but both of
them can be measured using either the whole solar spectrum or
monochromatic radiation, and at different incidence angles.
Many of the papers reviewed usually showed results for only
one optical performance parameter, either hemispherical or
specular reflectance. For example, [27,66,67,82] only gave solar-
weighted hemispherical reflectance, whereas specular reflectance
was said to have been analyzed but was not actually shown. Jor-
gensen et al. [41,81,87] considered hemispherical reflectance a
meaningful, single measure of optical performance, but only a
qualitative description of the test results was provided in these
publications. More examples of durability studies that only used
solar-weighted hemispherical reflectance as the most relevant
optical performance parameter can be found in the literature
[28,37,40,63,64]. The main reason why in older publications most
authors only referred to hemispherical reflectance may be that the
instruments for its measurement over the whole solar spectrum
have been in existence for a long time, unlike the commercial
equipment available for determining specular reflectance with
suitable φ, which typically only measures at certain wavelengths
or ranges.
Other authors have measured specular reflectance using dif-
ferent experimental methods. The main problem is that some of
them did not show all the experimental conditions that were used.
For instance, some authors only gave θ, either at 8° [70,71] or over
the range of incidence angles from 10° to 40° and then averaged
[62], but λ and φ were not provided. This lack of measuring con-
ditions is not conducive to comparison with other studies. Con-
cerning wavelength, an early paper reported monochromatic
specular reflectance at 633 nm [76], whereas many recent studies
have measured this parameter at 656 nm or 660 nm
[32,43,79,100]. The specular parameter most reported is solar-
weighted specular reflectance, which is the specular reflectance
for the whole solar spectrum. It can be determined using different
methods, such as a solar spectrum reflectometer (SSR) [33,36], a
Cary spectrophotometer [33,65], the Pettit equation
[29,31,72,73,75], or as the difference between the hemispherical
and the diffuse components [61,69]. For example, in some research
articles by the OPAC Group [31,75] the solar-weighted specular
reflectance was calculated by multiplying ρs([280–2500] nm, 8°, h)
by the ratio of ρλ(660 nm, 8°, h)–ρλ(660 nm, 15°, 15°, 12.5 mrad),
according to Pettit equation proposed in [101]. This calculation for
determining the solar-weighted specular reflectance, which
assumes that the ratio of specular to hemispherical reflectance at a
certain λ (in this case at 660 nm) is constant over the whole solar
spectrum, is widely accepted. However, this assumption is only
valid for highly specular reflectors such as silvered-glass. In these
reflectors, it can be assumed that scattering is essentially inde-
pendent of wavelength over the whole solar spectrum and that the
beam has a Gaussian shape [37]. However, it is well-known that
these two conditions are not fulfilled after the aging tests due to
scattering and absorption effects on the corroded reflector surface.
Therefore, degradation of the reflective layer cannot be monitored
by using this equation. Finally, most of those studies chose
φ ¼12.5 mrad because it is considered the most appropriate for
PTCs [22], but this parameter should also be varied for other
technologies.
Not many studies reported both hemispherical and specular
reflectance, but several examples may be found in the literature
[35,39,55,58,68,74,77]. The above-mentioned insufficient reported
measurement conditions used to determine reflectance could be
avoided if characterization of solar reflector optical performance
was standardized. One proposal for the future would be to
establish quantitative criteria to determine degradation, not only
in terms of one but several parameters: specular and
465
hemispherical reflectance loss, number and size of corrosion pits,
and edge corrosion penetration length [43].
Another major point to take into consideration is the analysis of
degradation of the reflector materials, and not only in their optical
properties. In general, the bibliography reviewed evaluated signs
of degradation in different ways. A large number of articles
reported on a qualitative assessment of sample failures or defects
with visual inspection and microscopic examination
[28,31,32,39,43,63–65,68–70,73–75,77,79,91,93,94,100,102–105].
The surface roughness of weathered reflectors was particularly
investigated in sand erosion studies, which used either a profil-
ometer [68,77,85,92–94] or more sophisticated techniques (sur-
face-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, SERS, and surface photo-
voltage spectroscopy, SPS) [65]. SEM (and additionally EDX) ana-
lyses were also widely used to follow the morphological and
chemical evolution of the reflector layers and examine their sur-
face topography, [31,32,61,62,65,70,102,105]. Spectroscopy tech-
niques (especially FTIR-ATR) were applied to monitor chemical
degradation of the reflector surface coatings, [70,71,98,102,104].
Finally, colorimetric analyses focusing on the change in coating
color were rarely performed [71,104]. It may be concluded that the
more advanced analysis methods for evaluating reflector degra-
dation have not been as commonly applied as the qualitative
visual, probably because of their complexity and cost, as well as
the highly qualified staff their performance requires.
5. Conclusions
Once the main results of solar reflector durability studies have
been analyzed and the foremost implications and recommenda-
tions for their improvement have been discussed, some conclu-
sions may be drawn. As observed in this review of the literature, a
great amount of work has been done on this topic in the last four
decades, covering a wide range of different reflector materials and
providing noteworthy conclusions. Among the wide variety of
durability studies, three critical parameters have been identified in
this field: reflector materials, aging conditions and evaluation
criteria for assessing degradation. Regarding the reflector type, it
may be said that glass-based reflectors still prove to be the most
durable in solar applications, although a great deal of effort has
been put into the development of alternative reflectors, especially
aluminum. There is a general lack of standardized aging conditions
and evaluation criteria. A whole standardized methodology for
accelerated testing is needed for the comparison of different
reflectors, and the assessment of reflector optical performance
should also be subject to standards to uniformly evaluate their
degradation. Furthermore, outdoor exposure testing is essential
(for as long a time as possible) to better correlate the real-time
reflectance loss with the reflectance loss in accelerated testing and
to predict (by extrapolation) the reflector service lifetimes under
certain environmental conditions. In conclusion, despite the
enormous effort that has been made to date, there is still more
room for improvement in the field of solar reflector durability.
Acknowledgments
The research work leading to this article received funding from
the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-
2013) under grant agreement no. 609837 (Scientific and Techno-
logical Alliance for Guaranteeing the European Excellence in
Concentrating Solar Thermal Energy, STAGE-STE). It also received
funding from the Spanish government in the framework of the
DETECSOL project (Ref. ENE2014-56079-R), Programa Estatal de
466 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación orientada a los Retos de la
Sociedad (National Program of Research, Development and Inno-
vation oriented to Society's Challenges) of the Ministerio de Econ-
omía y Competitividad (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compe-
titiveness) with ERDF funds.
References
[1] Baños R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(4):1753–66.
[2] Jäger-Waldau A. Photovoltaics and renewable energies in Europe. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1414–37.
[3] Montoya FG, Aguilera MJ, Manzano-Agugliaro F. Renewable energy produc-
tion in Spain: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:509–31.
[4] Kousksou T, Allouhi A, Belattar M, Jamil A, El Rhafiki T, Arid A, et al.
Renewable energy potential and national policy directions for sustainable
development in Morocco. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:46–57.
[5] Solangi KH, Islam MR, Saidur R, Rahim NA, Fayaz H. A review on global solar
energy policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2149–63.
[6] Kadir Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab, Rafeeu Yaaseen, Adam Nor Mariah. Prospective
scenarios for the full solar energy development in Malaysia. A review on
global solar energy policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3023–31.
[7] Pavlović TM, Radonjić IS, Milosavljević DD, Pantić LS. A review of con-
centrating solar power plants in the world and their potential use in Serbia.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3891–902.
[8] Py X, Azoumah Y, Olives R. Concentrated solar power: current technologies,
major innovative issues and applicability to West African countries. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:306–15.
[9] Poullikkas A. Economic analysis of power generation from parabolic trough
solar thermal plants for the Mediterranean region: a case study for the island
of Cyprus. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2474–84.
[10] Ummadisingu A, Soni MS. Concentrating solar power – technology, potential
and policy in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:5169–75.
[11] Mills D. Advances in solar thermal electricity technology. Sol Energy
2004;76:19–31.
[12] Asim N, Sopian K, Ahmadi S, Saeedfar K, Alghoul MA, Saadatian O, et al. A
review on the role of materials science in solar cells. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16:5834–47.
[13] Amri A, Jiang ZT, Pryor T, Yin CY, Djordjevic S. Developments in the synthesis
of flat plate solar selective absorber materials via sol–gel methods: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:316–28.
[14] Manzano-Agugliaro F, Alcayde A, Montoya FG, Zapata-Sierra A, Gil C. Sci-
entific production of renewable energies worldwide: an overview. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:134–43.
[15] IEA. Technology roadmap: solar thermal electricity; 2014.
[16] Serrano-Aguilera JJ, Valenzuela L, Parras L. Thermal 3D model for direct solar
steam generation under superheated conditions. Appl Energy 2014;132:370–82.
[17] Fernández-García A, Zarza E, Valenzuela L, Pérez M. Parabolic-trough solar
collectors and their applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1695–721.
[18] Kumar V, Shrivastava RL, Untawale SP. Fresnel lens: a promising alternative
of reflectors in concentrated solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;44:376–90.
[19] Xie WT, Dai YJ, Wang RZ, Sumathy K. Concentrated solar energy applications
using Fresnel lenses: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2588–606.
[20] Ávila-Marín AL, Fernández-Reche J, Téllez FM. Evaluation of the potential of
central receiver solar power plants: configuration, optimization and trends.
Appl Energy 2013;112:274–88.
[21] European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 1609
final. Materials roadmap enabling low-carbon energy technologies; 2011.
[22] Meyen S, Fernández-García A, Kennedy CE, Lüpfert E. Standardization of
solar mirror reflectance measurements: round robin test. In: Proceedings of
SolarPACES 2010, concentrating solar power and chemical energy systems,
Perpignan; 2010.
[23] Kennedy CE, Terwilliger K, Milbourne M. Development and testing of solar
reflectors technical report No. NREL/CP-520-36582. Golden: NREL; 2004.
[24] Pitchumani R. Concentrating solar power program. Sunshot grand challenge
and peer review; 2014.
[25] Atkinson C, Sansom CL, Almond HJ, Shaw CP. Coatings for concentrating
solar systems – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:113–22.
[26] European Solar Thermal Electricity Association, ESTELA. Solar thermal elec-
tricity: strategic research agenda 2020–2025; 2012.
[27] Kennedy CE, Terwilliger K. Optical durability of candidate solar reflectors. J
Sol Energy Eng Trans ASME 2005;127(2):262–9.
[28] Kennedy CE, Terwilliger K, Jorgensen GJ. Further analysis of accelerated
exposure testing of thin-glass mirror matrix. In: Proceedings of ES2007-
36182, Long Beach, California; 2007.
[29] Cantos-Soto ME, Fernández-García A, Matteudi M, Rönnelid M, Martínez-
Arcos L. Solar reflectors degradation caused by simulated solar radiation. In:
Proceedings of SolarPACES 2012, concentrating solar power and chemical
energy systems, Marrakech; 2012.
[30] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 4th ed.. New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 2013.
[31] Sutter F, Fernández-García A, Heller P, Anderson K, Wilson G, Schmücker M,
et al. Durability testing of silvered-glass mirrors. Energy Proc 2015;69:1568–77.
[32] Sutter F, Ziegler S, Schmücker M, Heller P, Pitz-Paal R. Modelling of optical
durability of enhanced aluminum solar reflectors. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2012;107:37–45.
[33] Almanza R, Hernández P, Martínez I, Mazari M. Development and mean life
of aluminum first-surface mirrors for solar energy applications. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2009;93:1647–51.
[34] Almanza R, Jiefeng C, Correa G, Mazari M. Further option for solar con-
centrators: aluminum first surface mirrors. Sol Energy 1995;54(5):333–43.
[35] Nostell P, Roos A, Karlsson B. Ageing of solar booster reflector materials. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 1998;54:235–46.
[36] Almanza R, Martínez I. Solar mirrors. In: Rugescu R, editor. Solar power. InTech;
2012. p. 79–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/28524 [ISBN: 978-953-51-0014-0].
[37] Schissel P, Jorgensen GJ, Kennedy C, Goggin R. Silvered-PMMA reflectors. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 1994;33:183–97.
[38] Price H, Lüpfert E, Kearney D, Zarza E, Cohen G, Gee R, et al. Advances in
parabolic trough solar power technology. J Sol Energy Eng Trans ASME
2002;124(2):109–25.
[39] Czanderna AW, Schissel P. Specularity and stability of silvered polymers. Sol
Energy Mater 1986;14:341–56.
[40] Kennedy CE, Smilgys RV, Kirkpatrick DA, Ross JS. Optical performance and
durability of solar reflectors protected by an alumina coating technical report
No. NREL/TP-471-21413. Golden: NREL; 1996.
[41] Wendelin T, Jorgensen GJ. An outdoor exposure testing program for optical
materials used in solar thermal electric technologies technnical report No.
NREL/TP-471-5865. Golden: NREL; 1994.
[42] Sarver T, Al-Qaraghuli A, Kazmerski L. A comprehensive review of the impact
of dust on the use of solar energy: history, investigations, results, literature,
and mitigation approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:698–733.
[43] Sutter F, Fernández-García A, Wette J, Heller P. Comparison and evaluation of
accelerated aging tests for reflectors. Energy Proc. 2014;49:1718–27.
[44] IEC 62108:2007. Concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) modules and assemblies –
design qualification and type approval. Geneva: IEC; 2007.
[45] ISO 6270-2:2005. Paints and varnishes – determination of resistance to
humidity – Part 2: procedure for exposing test specimens in condensation-
water atmospheres. Geneva: ISO; 2005.
[46] ISO 11507:2007-02. Paints and varnishes – exposure of coatings to artificial
weathering – exposure to fluorescent UV lamps and water. Geneva: ISO;
2007.
[47] ISO 9227:2012-05. Corrosion tests in artificial atmospheres – salt spray tests.
Geneva: ISO; 2012.
[48] DIN 50018:2013-05. Prüfung im Kondenswasser-Wechselklima mit schwe-
feldioxidhaltiger Atmosphäre (Testing in a saturated atmosphere in the pre-
sence of sulfur dioxide). Berlin: DIN; 2013.
[49] IEC 61215:2005. Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules –
design qualification and type approval. Geneva: IEC; 2005.
[50] ISO 11341:2004. Paints and varnishes – artificial weathering and exposure to
artificial radiation- exposure to filtered xenon-arc radiation. Geneva: ISO; 2004.
[51] Köhl M. Performance, durability and sustainability of advanced windows and
solar components for building envelopes. Task27: Solar building façade
components – final report – B3. PTJ Jülich: Fraunhofer Institute for Solar
Energy Systems; 2007.
[52] Martin JW. A systems approach to the service life prediction problem for
coating systems. In: Proceedings of corrosion 97 research topical symposia,
Part 1: advanced monitoring and analytical techniques, Part 2: corrosion-
resistant coatings; 1997. p. 235–58.
[53] ASTM G173 03. Standard tables for reference solar spectral irradiances:
direct normal and hemispherical on 37° tilted surface; 2003.
[54] ASTM E903  82. Standard test method for solar absorptance, reflectance,
and transmittance of materials using integrating spheres; 2012.
[55] Sutter F, Fernández-García A, Heller P, Kennedy C, Meyen S, Pitz-Paal R,
Schmücker M. A new method to characterize degradation of first surface
aluminum reflectors. In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2010, concentrating solar
power and chemical energy systems, Perpignan; 2010.
[56] Wendelin TJ, Jorgensen GJ, Goggin RM. Outdoor testing of advanced optical
materials for solar thermal electric applications technical report No. NREL/
TP-441-4801. Golden: NREL; 1992.
[57] UNE 206009. Solar thermal electric plants: terminology; 2013.
[58] Dake LS, Lind MA, Maag CR. A comparison of the effect of outdoor exposure
on the optical properties of solar mirrors and transparent encapsulant
materials technical report No. PNL-4074 UC-62. Richland: Pacific Northwest
Laboratory; 1981.
[59] Meyen S, Montecchi M, Kennedy CE, Zhu G, Gray M, Crawford J, et al.
Parameters and method to evaluate the solar reflectance properties of
reflector materials for concentrating solar power technology. In: Proceedings
of SolarPACES official reflectance guideline version 2.5; 2013.
[60] Montecchi M, Delord C, Raccurt O, Disdier A, Sallaberry F, García de Jalón A,
et al. Hemispherical reflectance results of the SolarPACES reflectance round
robin. Energy Proc 2015;69:1904–10.
[61] Dake LS, Lind MA. The optical losses of solar mirrors due to atmospheric
contamination at Liberal, Kansas and Oologah, Oklahoma, technical report
No. PNL-4073 UC-62. Richland: Pacific Northwest Laboratory; 1981.
 A. García-Segura et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 453–467
[62] Bethea RM, Barriger MT, Williams PF, Chin S. Environmental effects on solar
concentrator mirrors. Sol Energy 1981;27(6):497–511.
[63] Dake LS, Lind MA. The effect of exposing two commercial manufacturers'
second-surface silver/glass mirrors to elevated temperature, mechanical
loading, and high-humidity environments technical report No. PNL-4282
UC-62. Richland: Pacific Northwest Laboratory; 1982.
[64] Lind MA, Chaudiere DA, Dake LS, Stewart TL. Electroless nickel and ion-
plated protective coatings for silvered glass mirrors technical report No. PNL-
4257 UC-62. Richland: Pacific Northwest Laboratory; 1982.
[65] Vitko Jr J, Benner RE, Shelby JE. Corrosion of thin silver films in an aqueous
environment. Sol Energy Mater 1983;9:51–67.
[66] Kennedy CE, Smilgys RV, Kirkpatrick DA, Ross JS. Optical performance and
durability of solar reflectors protected by an alumina coating. Thin Solid
Films 1997;304:303–9.
[67] Fend T, Hoffschmidt B, Jorgensen GJ, Küster H, Krüger D, Pitz-Paal R, et al.
Comparative assessment of solar concentrator materials. Sol Energy
2003;74:149–55.
[68] Brogren M, Karlsson B, Roos A, Werner A. Analysis of the effects of outdoor
and accelerated ageing on the optical properties of reflector materials for
solar energy applications. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2004;82:491–515.
[69] Sallaberry F, Mateu E, Erice R, Astiz R, García de Jalón A, Ramírez L, et al.
Towards the standarisation of accelerated ageing tests procedures for solar
power concentrator reflectors. In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2009, con-
centrating solar power and chemical energy systems, Berlin; 2009.
[70] Delord C, Bouquet C, Couturier R, Raccurt O. Characterization of glass mirrors
durability for CSP. In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2012, concentrating solar
power and chemical energy systems, Marrakech; 2012.
[71] Raccurt O, Delord C, Bouquet C, Couturier R. Correlation between solar
mirror degradation and colorimetric measurement of protective back layer.
Energy Proc 2014;49:1700–7.
[72] López-Martín R, Cantos-Soto ME, Fernández-García A, Alguacil-Algarrada M,
Sutter F. Competitive examination of solar reflectors durability under
accelerated aging. In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2012, concentrating solar
power and chemical energy systems, Marrakech; 2012.
[73] López-Martín R, Caron S, Sutter F, Meyen S, Fernández-García A. Accelerated
aging of solar reflectors under sandstorm conditions. In: Proceedings of
SolarPACES 2011, concentrating solar power and chemical energy systems,
Granada; 2011.
[74] Fernández-García A, Díaz-Franco R, Martínez L, Wette J. Study of the effect of
acid atmospheres in solar reflectors durability under accelerated aging
conditions. Energy Proc 2014;49:1682–91.
[75] Fernández-García A, Cantos-Soto ME, Röger M, Wieckert C, Hutter C,
Martínez-Arcos L. Durability of solar reflector materials for secondary con-
centrators used in CSP systems. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2014;130:51–63.
[76] Berry M, Dursch H. Exposure testing of solar collector plastic films. Sol
Energy Mater 1980;3:247–61.
[77] Brogren M, Helgesson A, Karlsson B, Nilsson J, Roos A. Optical properties,
durability, and system aspects of a new aluminium-polymer-laminated steel
reflector for solar concentrators. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2004;82:387–
412.
[78] Fend T, Jorgensen GJ, Küster H. Applicability of highly reflective aluminium
coil for solar concentrators. Sol Energy 2000;68:361–70.
[79] Sutter F, Heller P, Fernández-García A, Kennedy C, López-Martín R, Meyen S,
Pitz-Paal R. Methods for service life time estimation of aluminum reflectors.
In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2011, concentrating solar power and chemical
energy systems, Granada; 2011.
[80] Schissel P, Czanderna AW. Reactions at the silver/polymer interface: a
review. Sol Energy Mater 1980;3:225–45.
[81] Jorgensen GJ. A phenomenological approach to obtaining correlations
between accelerated and outdoor exposure test results for organic materials.
J Test Eval 2004;32(6):494–9.
[82] DiGrazia MJ, Gee R, Jorgensen GJ, Bingham C. Service life prediction for
s
ReflecTech mirror film. In: Proceedings of WREF 2012, World Renewable
Energy Forum; 2012.
[83] Jorgensen GJ. Reflective coatings for solar applications technical report No.
NREL/TP-471-5536. Golden: NREL; 1993.
467
[84] Kennedy CE, Jorgensen GJ. State-of-the-art low-cost solar reflector materials
technical report No. NREL/TP-471-7022. Golden: NREL; 1994.
[85] Sansom CL, Comley P, Bhattacharyya D, Macerol N. A comparison of polymer
film and glass collectors for concentrating solar power. Energy Proc
2014;49:209–19.
[86] Karim M, Naamane S, El Amrani El Hassani I, Delord C, Belcadi S, Tochon P,
et al. Towards the prediction of CSP mirrors wear: methodology of analysis
of influencing parameters on the mirrors surface degradation: application in
two different sites in Morocco. Sol Energy 2014;108:41–50.
[87] Jorgensen GJ, Kennedy C, King D, Terwilliger K. Optical durability testing of
candidate solar mirrors technical report No. NREL/TP-520-28110. Golden:
NREL; 2000.
[88] Fend T, Jorgensen GJ, Böhmer M, Krämer T, Rietbrock P. First surface alu-
minium mirrors: an assessment for solar outdoor applications. In: Pro-
ceedings of EuroSun98, solar European congress, Portoroz; 1998.
[89] Brucks A, Holze C. Sand abrasion testing: characterization of abrasive resis-
tance of optical surfaces in arid operational areas using standard and
adapted methods. In: Proceedings of SolarPACES 2010, concentrating solar
power and chemical energy systems, Perpignan; 2010.
[90] Holze C, Brucks A. Accelerated lifetime modeling on the basis of wind tunnel
analysis and sand storm aging. Energy Proc 2014;49:1692–9.
[91] Sansom CL, Comley P, King P, Almond HJ, Atkinson C, Endaya E. Predicting
the effects of sand erosion on collector surfaces in CSP plants. Energy Proc
2015;69:198–207.
[92] Völker C, Philipp D, Masche M, Kaltenbach T. Development of a test method
for the investigation of the abrasive effect of sand particles on components of
solar energy systems. In: Proceedings of the 29th European PV solar energy
conference and exhibition, Amsterdam; 2014.
[93] Bouzid S, Bouaouadja N. Effect of impact angle on glass surfaces eroded by
sand blasting. J Eur Ceram Soc 2000;20:481–8.
[94] Karim M, Naamane S, Delord C, Bennouna A. Study of the surface damage of
glass reflectors used in concentrated solar power plants. Energy Proc
2015;69:106–15.
[95] Zhifeng W, Xiaobin L, Xiliang Z. Accelerated weathering testing conditions
for glass reflective mirrors for CSP plants in China. In: Proceedings of
SolarPACES 2006, concentrating solar power and chemical energy systems,
Sevilla; 2006.
[96] Wang Z, Liu L, Li X, Zhao L. An experimental method for analyzing envir-
onmental effects of blowing sands on glass abrasion. Proc Environ Sci
2010;2:207–17.
[97] Karim M, Naamane S, Delord C, Bennouna A. Laboratory simulation of the
surface erosion of solar glass mirrors. Sol Energy 2015;118:520–32.
[98] Köhl M. Durability of solar energy materials. Renew Energy 2001;24:597–
607.
[99] Köhl M, Carlsson B, Jorgensen GJ, Czanderna AW. Performance and durability
assessment: Optical materials for solar thermal systems. Amsterdam: Else-
vier; 2004.
[100] Sutter F, Wette J, López-Martín R. Corrosion of aluminum solar reflectors. In:
Proceedings of SolarPACES 2012, concentrating solar power and chemical
energy systems, Marrakech; 2012.
[101] Pettit RB. Characterizing solar mirror materials using portable reflectometer
report No. SAND82-1714. Albuquerque: Sandia; 1982.
[102] Schütz E, Berger F, Barillon R, Audebert P, Chambaudet A. Behaviour of
painted mirrors during exposure tests to salt spray. Appl Surf Sci
1997;120:106–18.
[103] Coyle RT, Barrett JM, Call PJ. Durability of silver-glass mirrors in moist acid
vapors. Sol Energy Mater 1982;6:351–73.
[104] Edfouf Z, Guerguer M, Raccurt O. Glass and polymeric mirrors ageing under
different Moroccan weathers, an application for CSP plants. Energy Proc
2015;69:1508–18.
[105] Shelby JE, Vitko Jr J, Farrow RL. Characterization of heliostat corrosion. Sol
Energy Mater 1980;3:185–201.