HACPTER TWO

Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
Today, 4.3 billion people are thought to experience acute physical water scarcity
for at least one month out of the year. Reverse osmosis (RO) and other large-scale
desalination processes, such as multi-stage flash (MSF), both need centralized
installations and specialized infrastructures, making them only available in wealthy
nations. In terms of driving power, solar still (SS) has an advantage over large-
scale approaches since it does not require any electricity to be applied throughout
the operation. It may be used to rural locations like islands and coastal regions that
have good solar insolation as well as impoverished economies (M.M. Mekonnen et
al., 2016 , G. Liu, et al., 20108 , M. Ye, et al.,2019).

This chapter represents the theoretical framework of the study, in which we deal
with the theoretical analysis of terminology through what was dealt with in
previous studies related to the subject of the study (improving the desalination
system of tubular CPC using phase change materials), as follows:

2.2. Tubular Concentrated Water Desalination System

2.2.1. Water Desalination

Desalination, also known as desalinization, is a method for obtaining fresh water

by removing minerals from salt water (H. Sakakibara, et al., 2017).

Freshwater is defined as water with fewer than 1000 milligrams of dissolved

particles per liter, most frequently salt. Although the availability of freshwater
resources across the world varies widely by area, it is estimated that 97% of the
world's water supply is found in the seas, which are salty, and that a very tiny
quantity of salty water is also present in saline lakes. Consequently, "freshwater"
makes up the remaining water inventory (3%) and about 1% of it is thought to be
suitable for human consumption See Figure (2.1) ,( Groupo Cunado,2017) .

Fig (2.1) : Total Global Water

Pressure is used in this filtering method to push water through a membrane. Salts
are removed from fresh water in saltwater desalination facilities by applying
pressure to the seawater that is 60 to 70 times greater than atmospheric pressure.
Freshwater, a pure solvent, flows to the opposite side of the membrane while salt
stays on the other (E.T. Sayed, et al.,2019). The water flows from a region with a
high concentration of solutes to one with a low concentration (G. Xie, et al ,2018) .

Even though osmosis was discovered in the 1700s, it wasn't until the 1960s that
researchers were able to desalinate water using the technique. This process is the
opposite of regular osmosis, as its name implies, in which a solvent travels without
the use of additional pressure from a region with low solute concentration to an
a region with a lot of solutes (T. Arunkumar, et al , 2018). The reverse osmosis
process, concentrated salty water disposal, stabilization of the permeate, freshwater
storage, and distribution are the various steps that this technology has been
implemented in. Seawater supply, pretreatment system, reverse osmosis process,
and stabilization of the permeate are the other steps (S.M. Saleh, et al.,2017).

The high cost of producing water has always been the main issue with the
widespread usage of saltwater desalination (S.W. Sharshir, et al.,2017) . Seawater
desalination technological advancements are reducing the cost of the once-
expensive last resort option, making it a more financially viable choice. Thousands
of membrane components are often integrated into a highly automated and
effective water treatment system at a big saltwater desalination plant (S.
Shanmugan, et al.,2020) .

The price of desalinated water is mostly determined by productivity, energy

consumption, salt separation efficiency, production costs, and the longevity of the
membrane components. All of these places have seen technological and production
advancements during the past 20 years, making ocean water supply more
accessible. dramatic material advances for the membrane elements (G.B.
Balachandran, et al.,2020) .

During the past 20 years, improvements in energy efficiency of RO feed pumps,

along with a decrease in pressure losses due to the membrane components, have
allowed us to use less electricity to desalinate saltwater, see Figure (2.2). (W.
Chen, et al,2020) .
 Fig (2.2) : Semi-periable Membrane

2.2.2. Water Desalination System Evolution

The G created the initial kind of desalination machine. and J. Glasgow, Scotland,
and Weir in 1885 (Weir, W.V.2014). This business, afterwards known as Weir
Westgarth, almost held a monopoly on the construction of desalination units until
World War II.

Desalination facilities had been set up for civil use all over the world in the years
that had followed. The first desalination plant in the countries of the Arabian Gulf
was built in Jeddah in 1907 by a Dutch firm (Al-Mutawa, et al ,2014). The same
plant was replaced in 1928 on King Abdulaziz Al Saud's command with two Weir
Westgarth units, totaling 135 m3/day in installed capacity (Al-Mutawa, et al ,2014).
(replacing the original unit).

Other desalination facilities were also up in Kuwait and Qatar in 1953. In more
specifics, 10 units in Kuwait and 5 units in Qatar with a combined capacity of
4545.5 m3/day and 682 m3/day, respectively, were erected. Another 10 identically
sized units were erected at Shuwaikh (Kuwait) in 1955(Al-Mutawa, et al ,2014) .
Desalination facilities grew all over the world from that point on, giving rise to
several businesses including Krupp in Germany, Westinghouse in the United
States, and SIR (Società Italiana Resine) in Italy (Rognoni, M.,2010).

The other widely used method is RO, which uses semipermeable membranes. Jean-
Antoine Nollet made the first recorded observation of the osmosis phenomena in
1748, but for over two centuries it went unnoticed (Amio Water Treatment
Ltd,2021). Researchers Sidney Loeb and Srinivasa Sourirajan launched the initial
investigations in the United States in 1956 at the Universities of California and
Florida, respectively. The first membrane was created in 1959, but the first
prototype plant, with a capacity of 19 m3/day, wasn't put into operation until 1965
(Rognoni, M,2010) .

The invention of asymmetric membranes, which exhibit a variable porosity

travelling from one face to the other and permit a larger water flow through them,
improved this approach (Amio Water Treatment Ltd,2021) . The high power
consumption required to create freshwater in contrast to other systems and the
short lifespan of semipermeable membranes were the original causes of the
sluggish proliferation of RO (Rognoni, M,2010) . Due to its lower osmotic
pressure than saltwater, brackish water was the subject of the earliest uses.

The Middle East and North Africa account for 47.5% of the world's desalination
plant capacity. Seawater serves as the primary raw water supply, and reverse
osmosis (RO) is the most widely used desalination process. A number of solutions
are being researched to lower the energy need for producing freshwater (Jones,
E ,et al ,2019).
Desalination may now be carried out utilizing a variety of methods. In general, a
desalination plant uses a variety of procedures to produce freshwater, with the
desalination unit being the one with the highest energy cost. Typical components
of a desalination plant are (El-Ghonemy, A.M.K,2018) :

 Intake, which consists of pipelines and pumps to draw water from a source
(the sea or brackish water).
 Pre-treatment, which includes filtering raw water to eliminate impurities
and adding chemicals to lessen corrosion and salt precipitation inside the
desalination unit.
 Desalination, which involves removing freshwater from saltwater.
 After treatment, adjust pH by adding specific salts to satisfy the demands of
the intended usage.

The desalination procedure is the most energy-intensive method of treating water,

as was previously mentioned. This issue has received a lot of attention in literature
because of this. A categorization is needed before looking at the individual
solutions. Three basic types were proposed by (Alkaisi, et al ,2017) : evaporation
and condensation, filtration, and crystallisation. Figure (2.3) below illustrates an
improvement to Alkaisi's categorization by including the newest technologies
under study.
 Fig (2.3) : The classification of desalination technologies by working principle.

Adopt by (Alkaisi, et al ,2017).

The earliest desalination methods to be historically developed and employed for

the production of civil freshwater were evaporation and condensation. The plan is
to give seawater energy such that it will vaporize, then condense that vapour. This
energy can be produced mechanically or by utilizing the heat from a thermal
process (such as fuel or waste heat) ( see Figure (2.4)). (Zimerman,Z,1996, Bahar,
R ,et al., 2004, Xu, T,2005, Talaeipour, M.,2017) .

Fig (2.4): The timeline of desalination technologies.

By taking into account the kind of energy, another helpful categorization may be
obtained. Figure (2.5) illustrates the basic requirements for running the operation.
For certain renewable energy sources to supply the desalination process, this factor
is crucial (Ma, Q.; Lu, H ,2011). Here, four types of energy are specifically
examined:

 Thermal energy;
 Mechanical energy;
 Electrical energy;
 Chemical energy.

Fig (2.5) : The classification of desalination technologies by main energy input.

Adopt by ((Ma, Q.; Lu, H ,2011).

Geothermal or solar thermal energy sources may provide the first category. The
technologies included in it include MSF, MED, TVC, MD, SC, HDH, and SSD.
The following three strategies in particular are intended to directly benefit from
sun radiation (Ullah, I , et al.,2019) .

MVC, RO, NF, SRF, and HY are among the group technologies that need
mechanical energy input. These techniques are all characterized by the presence of
pumps and compressors, which account for a significant portion of the process'
overall energy consumption.

There are few examples in the last two categories. The creation of an electric field
between two electrodes that are separated by anion and cation membranes is
necessary for electro dialysis and capacitive deionization desalination (selective
membranes that allow positive and negative ions to cross, respectively). In this
instance, electricity is the sole available supplier of energy.

2.3. Tubular Concentrated System

Membrane distillation is a recently developed technique. Basically, the procedure

uses porous membranes that are permeable to vapor but hydrophobic not to the
phase of liquid. A membrane divides a warm or hot solution from a cooler chamber
that holds a gas or a liquid. Because the process is non-isothermal, the partial
pressure gradient caused by the temperature difference across the membrane
causes water vapor molecules to migrate through the membrane pores from the
warmer to the cooler compartment, or from the high partial pressure side to the low
partial pressure side, as shown in Fig. (2.6).

Salt water is the hot feed option when it comes to desalination. While salts and
other nonvolatile stay on the heated side of the membrane, pure water vapour flows
through the membrane pores. The water vapor is subsequently condensed either
directly or indirectly and removed as pure water. The membrane serves as a
physical support at the liquid-vapor interface rather than aiding in the separation
through selectivity (L. Basini, et al , 1987).

Fig(2.6) : Process diagram for direct contact membrane distillation.

Membrane distillation has the following benefits: creation of a high purity

distillate's lack of restrictions brought by osmotic pressure effects, Most
importantly, the distillation process is economically appealing since it happens at
low temperatures. Additionally, quite significant fluxes may be produced by a
relatively modest temperature differential between the two liquids separated by the
membrane. Because droplet entrainment is prevented, the permeate is of higher
quality than the result of a normal distillation. The threat of membrane wetness is
this method's main flaw. Different membrane distillation methods are taken into
consideration for the once it has gone through the barrier, recovering the water
vapour (L. Basini, et al , 1987, D. W. Gore, 1982, S. I. Andersson et al.,1985, R.
W. Schofield, et al.,1985, E. Drioli and W. Yonglie,1985, F. Banat and J.
Simandl,1995 ). They include vacuum membrane distillation (VMD), air gap
membrane distillation (AGMD), and direct contact membrane distillation
(DCMD) gas membrane distillation with sweeping.

2.3.1. Thermal Treatment for Water Desalination

Evaporation and freezing comprise the major components of the thermal treatment
for water desalination:

Multi-stage evaporation is used in the water desalination process. Multiple-effect

distillation (MED), vapour compression distillation, and flash (MSF) distillation
(VCD).

2.3.1.1. Multi-stage Flash Distillation

The MSF idea along with concurrent technological advancement occurred at a time
when dry countries' thirst for water was growing. The typical desalination
evaporation technique often involves an MSF distillation process, which is based
on the idea of flash evaporation. In contrast to the method of increasing the
temperature, the MSF desalination process evaporates by lowering the pressure. As
seen in Figure (2.7). The savings of this technique are obtained through
regenerative heating, where the seawater flashing in each flash chamber or stage
gives up part of its heat to the saltwater travelling through that flash chamber or
stage through the flashing procedure. The heat of condensation that is generated by
the condensing water vapor at each stage steadily raises the temperature of the
entering saltwater (A. D. Khawaji, et al,2008). Heat input, heat recovery, and heat
rejection parts make up the MSF plant. Typically, these MSF facilities run at peak
brine temperatures of 90 to 120 C. Efficiency may rise at working temperatures
beyond 120°C, but there is also a risk of scale development and rapid corrosion of
metal surfaces.
 Fig(2.7) : Diagram of a multi-stage flash distillation unit through evaporation.

Adopt by (A. Al-Karaghouli, et al ,2009).

In this procedure (Fig. 2.7), the pressure should be kept below the seawater's
heated inflowing saturation temperature at each stage. The salt solutions enter the
flash chamber and immediately begin to boil rapidly and furiously. The pressure of
the brine is reduced to the equilibrium vapor pressure necessary for boiling at the
brine's temperature by baffles and orifices placed between stages. Boiling
continues until saltwater is reached. At this point, the temperature has reached the
boiling point. the undistracted . For lower pressure stages, brine moves from one to
the next , additional flashing Consequently, the salt solution may be repeatedly
evaporated without increasing the heat. In this manner, each evaporator stage is
equipped with demisters to reduce brine droplet carryover through the distillate (A.
Al-Karaghouli, et al ,2009). Finally, cooler saltwater running through the
condenser tubes cools and condenses the flashing water vapor to create distillate.
Consequently, fresh water is acquired. Currently, 2-10 ppm dissolved solids are
common in the desalinated water generated by the MSF process in industry.
2.3.1.2. Multiple-effect Distillation

A notable large-scale thermal process with substantial promise for water cost
reduction is multiple-effect distillation (MED). The MED process employs the idea
of lowering the ambient pressure in a variety of effects, which are a kind of
evaporators. With the help of this procedure, the salt solution can boil several times
without the need for extra heat after each instance (K. C. Ng, et al.,2015) .

The salt solution is heated to the boiling point, followed by a series of iterations of
condensation and evaporation at progressively lower pressures and temperatures.
In comparison to an MSF plant, the MED plant uses much less energy. The entire
available temperature range and the lowest permitted temperature difference set a
cap on the overall number of impacts (A.G. Olabi, et al , 2020). See Figure (2.8).

Fig(2.8) : Diagram of a multi-effect desalination unit.

Adopt by (A. Al-Karaghouli, et al ,2009).

2.3.1.3. Vapor Compression Distillation

Mechanical and thermal vapor compression desalination are two related processes
that are included in vapor compression distillation (VCD), where the heat used to
evaporate seawater is produced by compressing vapor (Y. Li, et al.,2019) . By
lowering the pressure, VCD plants benefit from the idea of lowering the boiling
point temperature.

Most often, the mechanical vapor compression desalination method powered by

electricity. The VCD units come in a variety of designs to encourage heat
exchange and evaporation of the salt solution. The evaporator is vacuumed out by
the compressor, which then compresses the vapor it removes and condenses it
inside a tube bundle. Spraying the salt solution onto the heated tube bundle's
exterior causes it to boil and partially evaporate, creating additional vapor (Y.
Zhao, et al.,2018) .

A venturi opening at the steam jet of the steam-jet type of VCD unit generates and
removes water vapor from the evaporator, resulting in a reduced ambient pressure,
during the thermal vapor compression desalination process. The steam jet
compresses the water vapor that has been removed. In places like resorts,
businesses, and drilling sites where fresh water is scarce, VCD units are frequently
employed (A. Al-Othman, et al.,2019).
Fig (2.9): Diagram of a mechanical vapor compression (a) and diagram of a thermal vapor
compression (b) for desalination.

Adopt by ((A. Al-Othman, et al.,2019).

2.3.2. Freezing

Before the water has frozen, the mixture is typically washed and rinsed to remove
the salts in the remaining water or adhering to the ice, and then the ice is melted to
produce fresh water. In the freezing process, the salts are removed from salty water
by the formation of ice crystals, which contain no salt (. C.-S. Luo, et al.,2010).
The cooling of the salt solution feed, partial crystallization of ice, separation of ice
from saltwater, melting of ice, refrigeration, and heat rejection are all parts of the
freezing process (M. S. Rahman, et al.,2006) .

The advantages of freezing desalination are in the lower theoretical energy

requirement, minimal potential corrosion, and little scaling or precipitation (Fig.
2.10). Typically, it contains the triple point freezing process, secondary refrigerant
freezing process, eutectic freezing process, hydrate freezing process, and direct
contact freezing process. The challenge of handling mechanically frozen ice and
water combinations is a drawback of freezing arduous to transfer and process (P.
M. Williams, et al., 2015).

Fig (2.10) : Schematic diagram of a direct contact freezing process for desalination.

Adopt by (P. M. Williams, et al., 2015).

2.4. Reverse Osmosis

Desalinated water can flow through semi-permeable membranes when Pressure is

raised above the osmotic pressure, leaving concentrated salts behind. Since
precipitated salts and other materials can cause the membranes to become fouled,
there is a limit to how much pressure can be applied (K. G. Nayar, et al,.2019) .
The feed-water quality (salinity, turbidity, and temperature) has an impact on the
osmotic pressure, which makes RO plants more energy-intensive. RO systems are
suitable for saltwater with dissolved solids levels of about 35000 ppm. A pre-
treatment of the feed-water is necessary in areas with greater total dissolved solids
concentration (like the Arabian Gulf) or higher surface temperatures (International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),2012) . Physical or chemical filtering and
clarifying might be used for the pre-treatment. Coagulation chambers, flocculation
chambers, or dissolved air flotation chambers for the ocean. Membrane filtration
techniques like ultrafiltration and microfiltration, which remove bigger particles
and colloids, can be used to filter and clarify liquids. These membrane processes
could make chemical pre-treatment unnecessary (A. Al-Karaghouli and L. L.
Kazmerski,2013) , see Figure ( 2.11).

Fig (2.11) : : Schematic of Reverse Osmosis Desalination process.

Adopt by (International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),2012).

The incoming water will then be pressured by the pump station. According on the
feed water quality, the necessary pressure level will range between 17 and 27 bars
for brackish water and 55 and 82 bars for saltwater (A. Al-Karaghouli and L. L.
Kazmerski,2013). RO uses membranes to separate freshwater from saline or
brackish feed-water for the primary desalination process. RO membranes come in
three main varieties: completely aromatic polyamide, thin-film composite, and
cellulosic. Most membrane modules used in desalination since the 1970s and up to
the early 1990s were constructed of cellulose tri-acetate fiber and featured a hollow
fiber design. a Dow Chemical Company-developed piece of technology (J.
Johnson and M. Busch,2009).

This arrangement began to lose favor in the 1990s in favor of polyamide spiral
wrapped modules, a distinct configuration. Module with spiral wounds consists of
many components, including a permeate spacer, feed (brine) spacer, permeate tube,
and seal carrier between modules, and is produced using a thin film composite
constructed from polyamide, polysulphone, or polyuria polymers (M. Shatat, et
al.,2013) . Over the past 20 years, all of these components have advanced, enabling
increases in the membrane's active area and greater working pressures, which
boosted recovery and enhanced rejection.

The standardization of the spiral wound membrane module may be used to

partially explain the expansion of membrane desalination technology in the early
1990s. The technology of membranes was also substantially enhanced by the use
of thin film composite membranes (TFC) in lieu of cellulose acetate. To meet with
new regulations for freshwater delivery, manufacturers are now creating
membranes with high boron rejection (near to 90%) (Helfer, F. et al.,2014) .

With around 60% of installed capacity, RO is now the desalination technique that
is most often used. In maritime and domestic applications, RO production capacity
ranges from 0.1 m3/day to 395.000 m3 in apps for businesses (Kim, N , er al.,2020)
principal factor in its high implementation is a process that uses less energy than
thermal ones. This has been made possible by advances such as the creation of
effective membranes, changes in system design that employ one pass and more
components per pressure vessel (8 instead of 7) as well as the use of isobaric
chambers for energy recovery (Laqbaqbi, et al.,2017). Despite the fact that RO
necessitates considerable water pre-treatment, the aforementioned qualities
allowed for a significant decrease in the specific energy consumption of
desalination, to as little as 1.5 kWh/m3 in small to medium capacity facilities
(Maia, C.B. et al.,2019).

By utilizing a draw solution with a greater osmotic pressure than the saltwater
feed, which draws water over a semipermeable membrane from the feed solution,
FO uses natural osmosis to dilute the seawater feed stream. as a draw (O. Mahian
et al.,2017) . Then, using a low heat source (40 oC), solutes are removed from the
diluted draw solution and recycled. Usually, a combination of ammonia and carbon
dioxide gas is utilized as the solute. For the membrane phase of the process,
specific energy consumption of less than 0.25 kWh/m3 has been documented. The
draw solution regeneration process requires heat energy, therefore FO is not
thought to be more efficient than RO (A. Fuwad, et al.,2019) .

2.5. Phase change materials as TESMs

Phase change materials (PCMs) are among the most effective and frequently
employed TESMs. When the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening,
PCMs finish charging. During the dawn times, more energy can be stored in PCMs
and released at nightfall (Swellam W, et al.,2019).

The temperature differential between the water in the basin and the inside surface
of the glass cover determines how well the salt water distiller (SS) works
primarily. TESMs can be utilized to store extra energy during the charging time at
sunrise. In recent years, PCMs, particularly paraffin wax, have been frequently
employed to store energy during the transition of the aggregate state from solid to
liquid in SS desalination (E.W. Tow, et al.,2018) .

2.5.1. Properties of PCMs

There are several uses for PCMs, including water heating, desalination, and space
heating. The performance of the system is significantly impacted by the thermo
physical characteristics of the TESMs. Here, the primary thermo-physical
characteristics of PCMs will be described (S.W. Sharshir et al.,2017 D. Singh, G.
Tiwari,2017 G. Xie, et al.,2018, R. Sathyamurthy, et al.,2019) :

 Melting point: PCMs must have a melting point near the operational
temperature range of the system.
 Latent heat of fusion: PCMs with high latent heat of fusion have the ability
to store more energy. • Specific heat (Cp): PCMs with high specific heat of
fusion have the ability to store more energy.
 Thermal conductivity: PCMs with high thermal conductivity have
enhanced heat charging and discharging rates which is required for
enhancing thermal performance.
 Density: PCMs should have high energy storage density which results in
decreasing the volume.
 Super cooling: super cooling should be lower in PCMs through the freezing
process.
 Cost and availability: PCMs should be abundantly available and have
cheap price.
  Thermal stability: PCMs should be thermally stable even after large number
of heating and cooling cycles.
 Chemical stability: PCMs should be chemically stable.
 Volume change: Volume change of PCMs related to phase change process
must be smaller.
 Non-toxic: PCMs should not be harmful to the operators health and the
environment.
 Non-corrosive: PCMs must be non-corrosive.
 Flammability: PCMs must be non-explosive and non-flammable.
 Vapor pressure: PCMs must have small vapor pressure in the operating
temperature range.

2.5.2. Solar still with PCMs as a TESM

In a study , Naim et al. (2003) increased the output of an SS by storing solar energy
during the day and releasing it at night using a particular kind of thermoelectric
medium (TESM). To increase the heat transmission of the basin water and to store
heat energy during the day for release at night, aluminium turnings were added to a
combination of paraffin oil, water, and water to form the TESM.

El-Sebaii (2009) created theoretical models to enhance the SS beneath the basin
during summer and winter days with and without PCM. The authors investigated
the impact of PCM quantity on the daily, nightly, and production and the SS's
effectiveness at various brine depths. The findings showed that, with PCM,
daytime efficiency was around 85.3% and that, during the summer day, the SS
productivity was around 9 L/m2/d. However, when the SS is utilised without the
PCM, productivity was around 5 L/m2 d. On days with lower brine water depths
during the winter, the SS with PCM is very beneficial.
In order to enhance the efficiency of an SS and boost the output of fresh water,
Kabeel and Abdelgaied (2016) employed PCMs (paraffin wax) as a heat storage
medium. To test how the still performed with and without PCMs, two SSs were
created and constructed. The first is a traditional solar still (CSS), and the second is
an altered solar still (SS) (CSS with PCMs). According to the experimental results,
freshwater yield for SS with and without PCMs was 7.54 L/m 2 and 4.51 L/m2,
respectively. This means that productivity increased by 67.18% when PCM is
applied. Furthermore, With and without PCMs, the price per L of freshwater was
around 0.24 and 0.252 $, respectively.

In practice, Kabeel et al. (2013) examined the impact of utilising a double passes
air solar collector with PCMs on the SS yield as seen in Fig. 1a. To compare the
still's performance with two SS that were developed and producedPCMs are not
present. CSS is used in the first, while PCMs and hot air injection from a solar air
heater are still used in the second one, which has been modified. As shown in Fig.,
the findings showed that the freshwater yield for the double passes solar air
collector integrated with SS, PCM, and SS was 9.36 L/m 2 /d while the yield for the
CSS was 4.5 L/m2 /d. By employing PCMs and forced hot air bubbles, production
was boosted by 108%, as shown in Figure 1b.

According to Ramasamy and Sivaraman (2013) , Paraffin wax (PCM), which is

dependable, secure, and inexpensive, is coupled with an SS and filled with a heat
tank. When the temperature of the basin plate is higher than the temperature of the
PCMs during the daytime hours of sunlight, the heat is transferred to the PCMs,
which then store the energy as sensible heat until melting point. Latent heat storage
will allow for the storage of more energy after melting. The SS with PCM
produced 0.36 litres per hour throughout the night, whereas CSS produced nothing.
Fig (2.12) : a. Photo of the conventional SS and SS with PCMs, b. the accumulated distillate
for conventional and modified SS.

Adopt by (A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied,2016).

A study by Ansari et al (2013) has shown that the energy generated by the Solar
System (SS) during the day is stocked in PCMs (paraffin wax) under the basin
liner for use at night. After 6:00pm, freshwater productivity of PCMs with Tm =
56°C increases continuously to reach its highest value at 12:00 am, then decreases
again until 4:00am. While, freshwater yield slowly decreases from 42°C to less
than 52°C for PCMs without Tm=52°C.

With the use of a parabolic solar concentrator and PCM (paraffin wax), Kabeel et
al. (2017) performed an experimental investigation to compare the system
performance of the SS with that of the CSS as shown in Figs. (2.13,a, b). The
entire solar radiation that was absorbed by the modified SS was amplified and
concentrated using a parabolic concentrator. A range of brine depths, from 1 to 6
cm, were used to test the system's functionality. The findings showed that SS yield
with parabolic in comparison to the CSS, concentrator and PCM performance is
improved by around (55–65%) in the summer and by roughly (35–45%) in the
winter. According to Fig., the best results were achieved at shallower brine depths. 

A triangular pyramid SS integrated with PCM (paraffin wax) put under the basin
was made more effective by Ravishankar et al (2013) experimental .'s work, which
was carried out . The distillate water of the SS is 20% better when PCM is used.
Performing was Kantesh ( 2012). An endeavor to improve the production of water
coupled with PCM and the SS performance (bitumen). Using PCM, the SS was
able to work more productively and efficiently, especially during the evening
hours. In comparison to CSS, the SS efficiency for SS with PCM was roughly
27%.
 Fig.(2.13): Schematic diagram of the system: (a) CSS; (b) modified SS with PCM; (c)
Average daily accumulated yield for the modified SS at different brine depths .

Adopt by (A.E. Kabeel, et al,2017).

Performance of a compound parabolic concentrator-concentric tubular SS

(CPCCTSS) was investigated by Arunkumar et al. (2016). Concentric tubes
measuring 2 metres long and rectangular basins measuring the same length were
created (2 m2 in total).  region), and cold water flow was utilized throughout the
whole experimental arrangement.  The concentric arrangement seen in Fig. over
the inner tubes. Figure 2.14 a and b . To increase the benefit from the cooling
water of the CPC-CTSS, a pale packed with PCM (paraffin wax) - compound has
been tested. The As shown in Fig 2.14, beneficial heat extraction is crucial in
increasing yield. The PCM functions as a heat source during the night to facilitate
evaporation. The findings showed that the CPC-CTSS produced roughly 3.5
L/m2/d of freshwater. The area of the collector rose with the installation of the SS,
and the output distillate increased to 2.7 L/m2/d.

Fig (2.14) : (a) Schematic view of CPC-CTSS coupled with SS, (b) SS with PCM (inner
view)

Adopt by ( T. Arunkumar, et al.,2016).

A innovative concept for a v-corrugated basin SS integrated with PCMs was put
out by Shalaby et al. (2018). The studies were conducted utilizing different brine
depths and integrated wick materials above the v-corrugated plate, as shown in
Figure (2.15), both with and without the PCM (Paraffin wax). The findings
indicate that among the investigated configurations, the modified SS with PCMs
below the v-corrugated plate and less water mass in the basin achieves the highest
performance. As shown in Fig., the daily distiller yield of the corrugated plate SS
with PCMs was 12% and 11.7% higher than that of the corrugated plate SS without
PCMs and with PCMs employing wick materials, respectively, when the water
mass in the basin was around 25 kg. 5b. Additionally, the cost per liter of fresh
water generated by the SS with PCMs utilizing wick materials, with PCMs solely,
and without PCMs is predicted to be 0.09, 0.0836, and 0.0718, correspondingly,
$/l.

Fig (2.15) : (a) Schematic view of v-corrugated basin SS integrated with PCMs and (b) comparison
of the efficiency and productivities of the examined SSs under various conditions

Adopt by (S.M. Shalaby, et al.,2018).

By utilizing PCMs and v-corrugated absorber plates, Kabeel et al. (2017) improved
the performance of a modified pyramid solar still (MPSS), as seen in Fig. 6b, and
evaluated its effectiveness in comparison to the traditional pyramid SS as shown in
Figure 2.16a. The findings showed that, as shown in Figure 2.16b, the cumulative
production yield for MPSS with PCMs is around 87.4% higher than that of CPSS.
6c. Additionally, the increase in everyday effectiveness compared to those of the
CPSS, the MPSS with PCMs alone and PCMs with v-corrugated absorber plate
were 86.41% and 88%, respectively. However, the anticipated price for each liter
of fresh water generated for MPSS and CPSS were respectively 0.0236 and 0.0262
dollars.
Fig(2.16): Layout of (a) conventional pyramid SS (b) modified pyramid SS with PCM and
(c) Accumulated freshwater for modified pyramid SS with PCM and conventional pyramid
SS . Adopt by (A.E. Kabeel, M.A, et al.,2017).

A concentric circular tubular solar still (CCTSS) combined with a parabolic

concentrator (PC) and PCMs was studied by Arunkumar and Kabeel (2017). In the
CCTSS, the trials are run both ways, with and without PCMs. In the tubular SS's
circular trough, 0.45 kg of PCMs (Paraffin wax) are poured into tubes. The
findings showed that the production of distiller water for CCTSS-CPC with and
without PCMs was 5.330 L/m2 per day and 5.779 L/m2 per day, respectively.
Additionally, the yield was increased by the PCMs by roughly 8%.

In a stepwise SS with PCMs, Radhwan (2005) carried out an experimental study

(paraffin wax). The outcomes showed that the stepped SS with paraffin wax has a
high efficiency (about 57%) and produces 4.6 L/m2 of water.

Experimental research was done by Sathyamurthy et al. (2017) to determine how

the depth of the brine affected the performance of the triangular pyramid SS with
and without PCMs (paraffin wax). According to the findings, the triangular
pyramid SS with and without PCMs, the output water is 5.5 L/m 2/d and 3.5 L/m2/d,
respectively. PCMs have a higher efficiency that improved by around 35% in
comparison to SS without PCMs.

To examine the impact of PCM mass and brine water depth on the output distillate

and the thermal efficiency of a passive SS with PCMs (myristic acid), Al-hamadani

and Shukla (2014) carried out an experimental investigation the program. The

findings showed that, in the SS basin, a bigger mass of PCMs with a shallower

brine enhances the daily output yield and efficiency greatly, however when the
PCMs approach 20 kg, the output yield declines. As a result, the SS with PCMs

increased production productivity by 35–40%. A SS using lauric acid as the PCM

was the subject of experimental research by Al Hamadani and Shukla (2011). The

findings showed that higher PCM values with lower brine depths in SS increase

thermal efficiency and distillate yield. With PCM, the SS's freshwater output

increased by roughly 127%.

On two weir type cascade SSs with and without PCMs, on semi-cloudy and bright

days, Sarhaddi et al. (2017) conducted an experimental and numerical simulation

as well as a comparative analysis of energy and exergy assessments (see Figure

2.17). The governing equations for energy analysis were found for the various

parts of an SS, such as the glazier cover, brine water, basin plate, and PCMs.

Moreover, exergy evaluation for the various parts of the SS was performed. The

findings demonstrated that on bright days, energy and exergy without PCMs are

greater than those of the SS with PCM storage. But because of its energy storage,

the SS with PCMs performs better on partly overcast days. According to Fig., the

SS's energy and exergy efficiency for a typical sunny day were 76.6% and 6.5%,

respectively. 2.17b; while, as shown in Fig. 2.17c, the energy and exergy

efficiencies of the SS with PCMs on a partly cloudy day were 74.3% and 8.5%,

respectively.
To test the effects of modified SS linked with an oil loop from a cylindrical

parabolic collector and a PCM below the basin, Kabeel and Abdelgaied (2017)

performed tests. The produced water from the SS was enhanced by around 140.4%

when compared to CSS, but the daily efficiency of evolved SS was only about

25.73%, compared to about 46% for traditional SS. This is because of the huge

area of the collectors.

Through the use of simulation and experimentation, Cheng et al. (2019)

investigated the impact of a novel shape stable PCM with high solar absorption and

high thermal conductivity on the functionality of SS. The new PCM has a thermal

conductivity of 1.50 W/m K and a solar absorption of 0.94.

Fig (2.17) : (a) Schematic view of a cascade SS, (b) energy and exergy efficiencies of the SS without PCMs for
a typical sunny day and (c) energy and exergy efficiencies of the SS with PCMs for a sample semi-cloudy day.

Adopt by (F. Sarhaddi , et al.,2017).

2.5.3. Solar still with sponge’s cubes as a TESMs

A study by Abu-Hijleh and Rababa'h (2003) looked at how employing sponge

cubes affected SS performance. The significant increase in surface area,

supplemented by sponge cubes, caused the evaporation rate to rise. The SS rises

when the sponge cubes are left in the basin output increased by roughly 273%

when compared to CSS. Murugavel et al. (2008) examined the SS using a variety

of materials, including sponge sheet, cotton, jute, fabric, and porous materials. The

data collected showed that utilising black cotton fabric leads in the maximum

output. El-Sebaii et al. (2009) , in order to create drinkable water after sunset, put

a thin layer of a storage material beneath the basin plate of an active SS and

examined the SS performance. According to Samuel et al. (2016) , provided

examples of several low-cost energy storage materials that may be used to increase

the production of fresh water in an SS, such as sponges that could be used to store

heat. They looked at the SS's performance theoretically and empirically. The

findings revealed that in comparison to 2.2 L/m2/d when no storage material is

used, the yield of fresh water employing salt as a heat storage medium and sponge

achieves a maximum productivity of 3.7 and 2.7 L/m2 /d, respectively.

Additionally, they came to the conclusion that spherical ball heat storage in an SS

provides cheap cost of the water generated ,see Figure (2.18).

Fig (2.18) : a) Diagram of a SS with; b) ball-shape; c) sponges as a heat storage.

Adopt by (D.G. Harris et al,2016).

2.5.4. Solar still with gravels and sand as a TESM

The impact of utilising black gravel and black rubber on the yield of an SS was

examined by Nafey et al. (2016). They used black gravel with a size range of 7 to

30 mm and black rubber to examine the distilled water production of the SS with

varying brine levels (ranging from 20 to 60 L/m2) and thicknesses (ranging from 2

to 10 mm). By employing black rubber with a 10 mm thickness and brine at a

volume of 60 L/m2, productivity was boosted by 20%. This may be seen as the

black rubber's capacity to collect and release solar energy more slowly than the

black gravel. Additionally, employing black gravel with a size range of 20–30 mm

boosted productivity by 19% at a brine volume of 20 L/m 2. This is a result of the

substantial solar energy absorption capacity of huge gravel sizes.

El-Bialy (2017) carried out an experimental study of a floating absorber passive

SS. To assess the performance of the still with and without a floating absorber, two

SSs were created and constructed. The first one is CSS, whereas the second has not

yet been updated (CSS with floating absorber). Additionally, the effects of water

volume and several types of absorber plates on the functionality of SS were

examined. The findings showed that the adjustment significantly increases

productivity. The many kinds of floating absorbers, including those made of

copper, stainless steel, aluminium, and mica,

SS productivity was increased by 17.2%, 15.2%, 20.1%, and 42.2.1%,

respectively, using these materials as excellent ones.

According to Sakthivel and Shanmugasundaram (2018) , The conventional solar

still (SS) has a 6 mm-diameter energy storage (gravel of black granite) that is

provided in the basin at varying depths. Black granite is used as a material for

energy storage and as an insulating layer to lessen side and bottom loss. The

findings showed that production increased by 17–20% after adding black granite

gravel as an energy storage medium.

In order to improve SS performance, Panchal (2018) conducted an experimental

study on the use of several heat storage beds (calcium, black gravel, and stone

pebbles) at a brine depth of 2 cm. Results showed that SS with calcium stones has

a freshwater production that is approximately 74% higher than that of pebbles and

black gravel. To improve freshwater output by reducing the amount of impure

water in the basin, Panchal (2019) conducted an experimental study on a double

basin SS integrated with heat storage materials (Black granite gravel) and vacuum

tubes. He then compared the performance of this system to that of a conventional

double basin SS without black gravel and vacuum. Results showed that using black

gravel combined with vacuum increased daily fresh water productivity by 65% as

compared to using traditional double basin SS.

 Summary

The usage of TESMs to store energy from the sun's brightness during the day and

use it at night to enhance SS performance and productivity has grown significantly

in recent years. That is in this study, we reviewed the research on the use of

TESMs to enhance the performance of SSs. The following are the key findings and

conclusions:

 The productivity was increased by 108% using paraffin wax and forced hot

air bubble compared with the CSS.

 The productivity of the SS using black rocks was increased by 17–20%.

 The productivity was enhanced by 67.18% by using paraffin wax compared

with the CSS.

 The stepped SS with paraffin wax had large efficiency (improved by about

57%) and the water yield was 4.6 L/m2 /day.

 The productivity was increased by 20% using black rubber of 10 mm

thickness at brine volume 60 L/m2

 The productivity of the SS was increased by 19% using black gravel of 20–

30 mm size at brine volume of 20 L/ m2 .

 The yield of fresh water using salt as a heat storage material and sponge

reached the maximum productivity of 3.7 and 2.7 L/m 2 , respectively,

compared to 2.2 L/ m2 for CSS.

 The sponge cubes in the basin water caused an increase in the SS output by

about 273% compared with CSS.

 The fresh water output from SS with sand was enhanced by 145% compared

with CSS.

 The daily efficiency for CSS and stepped SS without any modifications were

about 34% and 48%, respectively; whilst it was 59%, 52% and 55% for glass

cooling, hot air, and TESM, respectively.

 All TESMs have distinct rates of improvement in productivity and efficiency

of SSs, as is seen from the article. Based on this analysis, sponge cubes in

the basin water were the best kind, increasing the SS output by roughly

273% when compared to CSS, with PCMs coming in second. These

numerous TESM kinds depend on a variety of variables, including weather

information, operational parameters, cost, etc. The writers advise using the

ones that are readily available and reasonably priced.

References

A. Al-Karaghouli, D. Renne, L. L. Kazmerski, Solar and wind opportunities for water

desalination in the Arab regions, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 13 (2009) 2397–2407.
A. Al-Othman, N. N. Darwish, M. Qasim, M. Tawalbeh, N. A. Darwish, N. Hilal, Nuclear
desalination: A state-of-the-art review, Desalination, 457 (2019) 39–61.
A. D. Khawaji, I. K. Kutubkhanah, J.-M. Wie, Advances in seawater desalination technologies,
Desalination, 221 (2008) 47–69.
A. Shiklomanov and J. C. Rodda, “World Water Resources at the Beginning of the 21st
Century,” UNESCO, Cambridge, 2003.
A.A. El-Sebaii, S.J. Yaghmour, F.S. Al-Hazmi, A.S. Faidah, F.M. Al-Marzouki, A.A. Al-
Ghamdi, Active single basin solar still with a sensible storage medium, Desalination, 249 (2009)
699–706.
A.A.F. Al-Hamadani, S.K. Shukla, Water distillation using solar energy system with lauric acid
as storage medium, Int. J. Energy Eng., 1 (2011) 1–8.
A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, A. Eisa, Effect of graphite mass concentrations in a mixture of
graphite nanoparticles and paraffin wax as hybrid storage materials on performances of solar
still, Renew. Energ., 132 (2019) 119–128.
A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, Observational study of modified solar still coupled with oil
serpentine loop from cylindrical parabolic concentrator and phase changing material under basin,
Sol. Energy, 144 (2017) 71–78.
A.E. Kabeel, M. Elkelawy, H. Alm El Din, A. Alghrubah, Investigation of exergy and yield of a
passive solar water desalination system with a parabolic concentrator incorporated with latent
heat storage medium, Energ. Convers. Manage., 145 (2017) 10–19.
A.E. Kabeel, M.A. Teamah, M. Abdelgaied, G.B. Abdel Aziz, Modified pyramid solar still with
v-corrugated absorber plate and PCM as a thermal storage medium, J. Clean. Prod., 161 (2017)
881–887.
A.-H.A. A.F., S.S. K., Modelling of solar distillation system with phase change material (PCM)
storage medium, Therm. Sci., 18 (2014 ) 347–362.
A.M. Radhwan, Transient performance of a stepped solar still with built-in latent heat thermal
energy storage, Desalination, 171 (2005) 61–76.
A.S. Abdullah, Improving the performance of stepped solar still, Desalination, 319 (2013) 60–
65.
A.S. Nafey, M. Abdelkader, A. Abdelmotalip, A.A. Mabrouk, Solar still productivity
enhancement, Energ. Convers. Manage., 42 (2001) 1401–1408.
Ahsan A, Fukuhara T (2010) Mass and heat transfer model of Tubular Solar Still. Sol Energy
84:1147–1156.
Ahsan A, Islam KMS, Fukuhara T, Ghazali AH (2010) Experimental study on evaporation,
condensation and production of a new Tubular Solar Still. Desalination 260:172–179.
Akbarzadeh A, Peska T, Singh R, Wassouf P (2011) Novel and low cost designs of portable
solar stills. Desalination 276:294–302.
Alkaisi A, Mossad R, Sharifian-Barforoush A (2016) A review of the water desalination systems
integrated with renewable energy. Energy Procedia 110:268–274.
Al-Karaghouli and L. L. Kazmerski, “Energy consumption and water production cost of
conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 24, pp. 343-356, 2013.
B.A.K. Abu-Hijleh, H.M. Rababa’h, Experimental study of a solar still with sponge cubes in
basin, Energ. Convers. Manage., 44 (2003) 1411–1418.
C.-S. Luo, W.-W. Chen, W.-F. Han, Experimental study on factors affecting the quality of ice
crystal during the freezing concentration for the brackish water, Desalination, 260 (2010) 231–
238.
D. Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, L. Suganthi, S. Iniyan, P.A. Davies, Effects of nanoparticle-enhanced
phase change material (NPCM) on solar still productivity, J. Clean. Prod., 192 (2018) 9–29.
D. W. Gore, “Gore-Tex Membrane Distillation,” in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Convention
of the Water Supply Improvement Association, Honolulu, Vol. III, 1982, p. 1.
D. Zhou, L. Zhu, Y. Fu, M. Zhu, L. Xue, Development of lower cost seawater desalination
processes using nanofiltration technologies — A review, Desalination, 376 (2015) 109–116.
D.C. Kantesh, Design of solar still using Phase changing material as a storage medium, Int. J.
Sci. Eng. Res., 3 (2012) 1–6.
D.G. Harris Samuel, P.K. Nagarajan, R. Sathyamurthy, S.A. El-Agouz, E. Kannan, Improving
the yield of fresh water in conventional solar still using low cost energy storage material, Energ.
Convers. Manage., 112 (2016) 125–134.
Deng S, Gude VG, Nirmalakhandan N (2011) Desalination using solar energy: towards
sustainability. Energy 36:78–85.
E. Drioli and W. Yonglie, Desalination, 53, 339 (1985).
E. Drioli, E. Curcio, G. Di Profio, F. Macedonio, A. Criscuoli, Integrating membrane contactors
technology and pressure-driven membrane operations for seawater desalination, Chem. Eng. Res.
Des., 84 (2006) 209–220.
E. El-Bialy, Performance analysis for passive single slope single basin solar distiller with a
floating absorber – An experimental study, Energy, 68 (2014) 117–124.
F. Sarhaddi, F. Farshchi Tabrizi, H. Aghaei Zoori, S.A.H.S. Mousavi, Comparative study of two
weir type cascade solar stills with and without PCM storage using energy and exergy analysis,
Energ. Convers. Manage., 133 (2017) 97–109.
F. Y. Zhao, Y. L. Ji, X. D. Weng, Y. F. Mi, C. C. Ye, Q. F. An, C. J. Gao, High-flux positively
charged nanocomposite nanofiltration membranes filled with poly(dopamine) modified multiwall
carbon nanotubes, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 8 (2016) 6693–6700.
G. Gong, P. Wang, Z. Zhou, Y. Hu, New insights into the role of an interlayer for the fabrication
of highly selective and permeable thin-film composite nanofiltration membrane, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces, 11 (2019) 7349–7356.
H.N. Panchal, Enhancement of distillate output of double basin solar still with vacuum tubes, 2,
J. King Saud Uni.– Eng. Sci., 27 (2015) 170–175.
H.N. Panchal, P.K. Shah, Enhancement of distillate output of double basin solar still with
vacuum tubes, Front. Energy., 8 (2014) 101–109.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), “Water desalination using renewable
energy,” IEA-ETSAP and IRENA, 2012.
Islam MM, Uddin SA, Islam Z, Hossain MI (2013) An experimental study on small scale sea
water desalination unit through solar power in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. J Bangladesh Agric
Univ 11(1):165–170.
J. Johnson and M. Busch, “Engineering Aspects of Reverse Osmosis Module Design,”
www.lenntech.com, Dow Water & Process Solutions, 2009.
K. Kalidasa Murugavel, K.K.S.K. Chockalingam, K. Srithar, An experimental study on single
basin double slope simulation solar still with thin layer of water in the basin, Desalination, 220
(2008) 687–693.
K. P. Lee, T. C. Arnot, D. Mattia, A review of reverse osmosis membrane materials for
desalination — Development to date and future potential, J. Membr. Sci., 370 (2011) 1–22.
K. S. Spiegler and A. D. Laird, Principles of Desalination, 2nd ed., Academic Press, New York,
NY, 1980.
K. S. Spiegler, Salt Water Purification, 2nd ed., Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1977.
L. Basini, G. D. Angelo, M. Gobbi, G. C. Sarti, and C. Gostoli, Desalination, 64, 245 (1987).
Li C, Goswami Y, Stefanakos E (2013) Solar assisted sea water desalination: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 19:136–163 .
M. A. Shannon, P. W. Bohn, M. Elimelech, J. G. Georgiadis, B. J. Marinas, A. M. Mayes,
Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades, Nature, 452 (2008) 301–
310.
 M. Abu-Arabi, M. Al-harahsheh, H. Mousa, Z. Alzghoul, Theoretical investigation of solar
desalination with solar still having phase change material and connected to a solar collector,
Desalination, 448 (2018) 60–68.
M. Al-harahsheh, M. Abu-Arabi, H. Mousa, Z. Alzghoul, Solar desalination using solar still
enhanced by external solar collector and PCM, Appl. Therm. Eng., 128 (2018) 1030– 1040.
M. Sakthivel, S. Shanmugasundaram, Effect of energy storage medium (black granite gravel) on
the performance of a solar still, Int. J. Energy Res., 32 (2008) 68–82.
M.S. Yousef, H. Hassan, An experimental work on the performance of single slope solar still
incorporated with latent heat storage system in hot climate conditions, J. Clean. Prod., 209
(2019) 1396–1410.
M.S. Yousef, H. Hassan, Energetic and exergetic performance assessment of the inclusion of
phase change materials (PCM) in a solar distillation system, Energ. Convers. Manage., 179
(2019) 349–361.
P. M. Williams, M. Ahmad, B. S. Connolly, D. L. Oatley-Radcliffe, Technology for freeze
concentration in the desalination industry, Desalination, 356 (2015) 314–327.
R. Sathyamurthy, P.K. Nagarajan, J. Subramani, D. Vijayakumar, K. Mohammed Ashraf Ali,
Effect of water mass on triangular pyramid solar still using phase change material as storage
medium, Energy Proc., 61 (2014) 2224–2228.
R. W. Schofield, A. G. Fane, and C. J. Fell, “Membrane Distillation—A Novel Evaporation
Process,” in Proceedings of the 13th Australian Chemical Engineering Catalyst ‘Chemeca 85,’
Perth, 1985, p. 295.
R. Y. Huang, Pervaporation Membrane Separation Processes, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1991.
Ravishankar Sathyamurthy, M.E. P.K. Nagarajan, B. Madhu, S.A. El-Agouz, A. Ahsan, D.
Mageshbabu, Experimental investigations on conventional solar still with sand heat energy
storage, Int. J. Heat Tech., 34 (2016) 597–603.
S. Abdallah, M.M. Abu-Khader, O. Badran, Effect of various absorbing materials on the thermal
performance of solar stills, Desalination, 242 (2009) 128–137.
S. I. Andersson, N. Kjellander, and B. Rodesjo, Desalination, 56, 345 (1985).
S. Ravishankara, P.K. Nagarajan, D. Vijayakumar, M.K. Jawahar, Phase change material on
augmentation of fresh water production using pyramid solar still, Int. J. Renew Energy Dev., 2
(2013) 115–120.
S.M. Shalaby, E. El-Bialy, A.A. El-Sebaii, An experimental investigation of a v-corrugated
absorber single-basin solar still using PCM, Desalination, 398, 247–255.
S.W. Sharshir, G. Peng, L. Wu, F.A. Essa, A.E. Kabeel, N. Yang, The effects of flake graphite
nanoparticles, phase change material, and film cooling on the solar still performance, Appl.
Energ., 191 (2017) 358–366.
Scheelbeek PFD, Chowdhury MAH, Haines A, Alam DS, Hoque MA, Butler AP, Khan AE,
Mojumder SK, Blangiardo MAG, Elliott P, Vineis P (2017) Drinking water salinity and raised
blood pressure: evidence from a cohort study in coastal Bangladesh. Environ Health Perspect
125(5):057007 Varun AK (2010) Solar stills: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:446–453.
T. Arunkumar, A.E. Kabeel, Effect of phase change material on concentric circular tubular solar
still-Integration meets enhancement, Desalination, 414 (2017) 46–50.
T. Arunkumar, D. Murugesan, K. Raj, D. Denkenberger, C. Viswanathan, D.D.W. Rufuss, R.
Velraj, Effect of nano-coated CuO absorbers with PVA sponges in solar water desalting system,
Appl. Therm. Eng., 148 (2019) 1416–1424.
T. Arunkumar, R. Velraj, D. Denkenberger, R. Sathyamurthy, K. Vinothkumar, K. Porkumaran,
A. Ahsan, Effect of heat removal on tubular solar desalting system, Desalination, 379 (2016) 24–
33.
V.K. Methre, M. Eswaramoorthy, Exergy analysis of the solar still integrated nano composite
phase change materials, Appl. Sol. Energy, 51 (2015) 99–106.
W.-L. Cheng, Y.-K. Huo, Y.-L. Nian, Performance of solar still using shape-stabilized PCM:
Experimental and theoretical investigation, Desalination, 455 (2019) 89–99.
Y. Zhao, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen, Technology-driven layer-bylayer assembly of a
membrane for selective separation of monovalent anions and antifouling, Nanoscale, 11 (2019)
2264–2274.
Y. Zhao, C. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Liu, Y. Xu, J. W. Seo, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen,
Formation of morphologically confined nanospaces via self-assembly of graphene and
nanospheres for selective separation of lithium, J. Mater. Chem. A, 6 (2018) 18859–18864.
Y. Zhao, J. Zhu, J. Ding, B. Van der Bruggen, J. Shen, C. Gao, Electric-pulse layer-by-layer
assembled of anion exchange membrane with enhanced monovalent selectivity, J. Membr. Sci.,
548 (2018) 81–90.
Y. Zhao, J. Zhu, J. Li, Z. Zhao, S. I. Charchalac Ochoa, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen,
Robust multilayer graphene-organic frameworks for selective separation of monovalent anions,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10 (2018) 18426–18433.
Y. Zhao, K. Tang, H. Liu, B. Van der Bruggen, A. Sotto D´ıaz, J. Shen, C. Gao, An anion
exchange membrane modified by alternate electrodeposition layers with enhanced monovalent
selectivity, J. Membr. Sci., 520 (2016) 262–271.
Y. Zhao, K. Tang, H. Ruan, L. Xue, B. Van der Bruggen, C. Gao, J. Shen, Sulfonated reduced
graphene oxide modification layers to improve monovalent anions selectivity and controllable
resistance of anion exchange membrane, J. Membr. Sci., 536 (2017) 167–175.
Y. Zhao, K. Tang, Q. Liu, B. Van der Bruggen, A. S. D´ıaz, J. Pan, C. Gao, J. Shen, Recovery of
chemically degraded polyethyleneimine by a re-modification method: Prolonging the lifetime of
cation exchange membranes, RSC Advances, 6 (2016) 16548–16554.
Y. Zhao, W. Shi, B. Van der Bruggen, C. Gao, J. Shen, Tunable nanoscale interlayer of graphene
with symmetrical polyelectrolyte multilayer architecture for lithium extraction, Adv. Mater.
Interf., 5 (2018) 1701449.
Y. Zhao, Y. Li, J. Zhu, A. Lejarazu-Larranaga, S. Yuan, E. Ortega, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der
Bruggen, Thin and robust organic solvent cation exchange membranes for ion separation, J.
Mater. Chem. A, 7 (2019) 13903–13909.
Y. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Yuan, J. Zhu, S. Houtmeyers, J. Li, R. Dewil, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen, A
chemically assembled anion exchange membrane surface for monovalent anion selectivity and
fouling reduction, J. Mater. Chem. A, 7 (2019) 6348–6356.
Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, C. Wang, E. Ortega, X. Wang, Y. F. Xie, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen,
Electric field-based ionic control of selective separation layers, J. Mater. Chem. A, 8 (2020)
4244–4251. 7.
Y. Zhao, Y. Qiu, Z. Mai, E. Ortega, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen, Symmetrically
recombined nanofibers in a high-selectivity membrane for cation separation in high temperature
and organic solvent, J. Mater. Chem. A, 7 (2019) 20006–20012.
Y. Zhao, Z. Mai, P. Shen, E. Ortega, J. Shen, C. Gao, B. Van der Bruggen, Nanofiber based
organic solvent anion exchange membranes for selective separation of monovalent anions, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 12 (2020) 7539–7547.
Z. Yang, X.-H. Ma, C. Y. Tang, Recent development of novel membranes for desalination,
Desalination, 434 (2018) 37–59.
Z.M. Omara, A.E. Kabeel, The performance of different sand beds solar stills, Int. J. Green
Energy., 11 (2014) 240–254.