Thermodynamic Analysis of Single Slope Solar Still Using Graphite Plates and Block Magnets at Seasonal Climatic Conditions

2635 © 2021 The Authors Water Science & Technology | 84.
10-11 | 2021
Thermodynamic analysis of single slope solar still using

graphite plates and block magnets at seasonal climatic
conditions
R. Dhivagar, M. Mohanraj, Praveen Raj and Radha Krishna Gopidesi
ABSTRACT
In this research, the thermodynamic (energy and exergy) analysis of a single slope solar still using R. Dhivagar (corresponding author)
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
graphite plates and block magnets (GPBMSS) was investigated during summer and winter climatic QIS College of Engineering and Technology,
Ongole 523272,
conditions of Coimbatore city (latitude: 11 010 6800 N and longitude: 76 950 5800 E), in India, 2019. India
E-mail: dhivagar.papers@gmail.com
The results observed in GPBMSS were compared with a conventional solar still (CSS) under the same
climatic conditions. The outcomes observed that the hourly productivity in GPBMSS was 19.6% and M. Mohanraj
22.8% higher in summer and winter days, respectively, when compared to CSS. The cumulative Hindusthan College of Engineering and
Technology,
productivity in GPBMSS was found to be about 3.93 kg/m2 and 3.56 kg/m2 respectively, for 12 h Coimbatore 641032,
India
observations during summer and winter days. Furthermore, the energy and exergy efficiencies of
GPBMSS were substantially improved by 20.6% and 18.1% when compared to CSS during summer Praveen Raj
days. Similarly, the energy and exergy efficiencies of GPBMSS were increased by 18 and 19% Jyothi Engineering College,
Thrissur 679531,
compared to CSS in winter days. In addition, the maximum basin exergy destruction was observed in India
CSS compared to other solar still components. The results observed that the heat storage ability of Radha Krishna Gopidesi
the graphite plates and water magnetization in GPBMSS greatly decreased the exergy destructions. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Vignan’s Lara Institute of Technology and Science,
Finally, the water quality analysis proved that the distillate collected from both GPBMSS and CSS Vadlamudi 522213,
India
satisfied the requirements recommended by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
Key words | block magnets, graphite plates, productivity, solar still, thermodynamics
HIGHLIGHTS
• Graphite plates and block magnets are attached in a solar still basin (GPBMSS) and
improved the productivity by 3.93 kg/m2 and 3.56 kg/m2 respectively, in summer and
winter climatic days.
• The energy efficiency of GPBMSS was substantially improved by 20.6 and 18%,
respectively, compared to CSS during summer and winter days.
• The exergy efficiency in GPBMSS was enhanced by 18.1 and 19%, respectively
compared to CSS in summer and winter days.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying,
adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
doi: 10.2166/wst.2021.156
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

by guest
2636 R. Dhivagar et al. | Thermodynamic analysis of solar still using graphite and magnets Water Science & Technology | 84.10-11 | 2021
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
NOMENCLATURE
A solar still area, m2 α absorptivity

Cp specific heat capacity, kJ/kg.K τ transmissivity
E energy, W η efficiency
Ex exergy, W
I(t) solar irradiation, W/m2 Subscripts
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m K 2 a atmospheric air
L latent heat of vaporization, kJ/kg b basin
K thermal conductivity, W/mK c convection
m hourly productivity, kg ch charge
P pressure, N/m 2 d destruction
T temperature, K eva evaporation
U overall heat transfer co-efficient, W/m K 2 g glass
v wind velocity, m/s ge gained energy
x thickness gp graphite plate
ins insulation
mg magnet
Greek symbol o overall
εeff effective emissivity out output energy
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.67 × 108 W/m2 K4 r radiation

by guest
improved with the use of a pin-fin absorber and condenser.

s sun
Jani & Modi () used square and circular type fins in a
ss solar still double acting solar still to improve the thermal perform-
st stored energy ance. They reported that the thermal efficiency improved
sky sky by 26.8% and 54.2%, respectively. They also reported that
t total the reduction in water depth has significant improvement
w water in productivity. Sharshir et al. () found improved pro-
ductivity using copper oxide and graphite nanoparticles
in a solar still basin compared to a simple solar still.
Abbreviations They reported that the improvement in productivity was
BIS bureau of Indian standard observed to be about 41 and 32%, respectively, for the
CHTC convective heat transfer coefficient use of copper oxide and graphite nanoparticles under
sunny climatic conditions. Dumka et al. (a) used
CSS conventional solar still
sand-filled cotton bags in a solar still basin to enhance
EHTC evaporative heat transfer coefficient
the energy efficiency during summer climatic conditions.
GPBMSS graphite plate and block magnet solar still
The experiments were conducted with different masses of
sand and compared the outcomes with CSS. They found
that the increase in energy efficiency was observed as
31.3% (40 kg) and 28.9% (50 kg), respectively. They also
INTRODUCTION stated that the increase in sand quantity reduced the pro-
ductivity considerably. Modi & Modi () reported
In this world, pure water is a fundamental necessity for significant improvement in solar still performance when
humans. The increase in industrialization rapidly increases jute and cotton cloths were used in the basin. The out-
the pure water demand. The rise in human population has comes observed in the jute cloth solar still were
also played a vital role in reducing pure water availability significantly higher than the results observed in the use of
in recent times. Many developing countries are facing diffi- cotton cloth. They also found that the jute cloth solar still
culties in supplying potable water to their people due to the increased the productivity to 18% (1 cm depth) and
increase in globalization. Even though several water purifi- 24.5% (2 cm depth), respectively, compared to cotton
cation techniques such as simple disinfection treatment, cloth solar still. In addition, the lower saline water depth
reverse osmosis (RO) and the ion exchange process exist, in the solar still basin has a significant role in heightening
desalination using solar energy is the good option to the productivity. Gnanaraj & Velmurugan () used
purify brackish or saline water. The reason behind this is different types of sensible heat storage materials like fins,
that it has simple working operation with low investment granite, wick, reflector and modifications done internally
compared to other water purification techniques. The and externally in a double acting solar still and reported
system used for this technique is called a solar still and it the productivity improvement as 58.4%, 69.8%, 42.3%,
can be fabricated using materials that are readily available. 93.3% and 171.4%, respectively, compared to CSS.
The key benefit of this solar desalination technique is that Omara et al. () assessed the productivity improvements
there is zero fuel cost and no skilled labor is needed. in both passive and active solar stills using paraffin wax
Many studies have been performed on solar stills to phase change material during sunny days. They reported
enhance the productivity using different heat storage that the productivity improved by 120 and 700%, respect-
materials. The outcomes proved that the productivity was ively, in both passive and active solar stills under
significantly improved by heat storage materials such as nocturnal observations. The results also reported that paraf-
fins, nanoparticles, stones, jute cloths and PCM (Dhivagar fin wax has been widely used in many research works.
& Sundararaj ). Rabhi et al. () increased the solar Even though many researchers have used this material, it
still area by integrating the pin-fin absorber and obtained has poor thermal conductivity compared to other heat
significantly improved productivity by about 14.5%. In storage materials. El-Saida et al. () reported the pro-
addition, they have used a condenser in a solar still, ductivity and thermal efficiency improvements in a
which results in improved productivity of about 32% com- tubular solar still using porous packed wire mesh media
pared to CSS. They observed that the thermal efficiency as 4.2 kg/m2 and 34%, respectively, when the results were

by guest
compared with CSS. Munoz et al. () reported the ther- the basin improved the energy and exergy performances by
mal efficiency comparison between fiberglass and concrete 23.8% and 2.6%, respectively. In addition, the cotton cloth
solar stills under similar climatic conditions. The results significantly improved the productivity by 24.1% compared
confirmed that the fiberglass still has 8% improved thermal to CSS. Similarly, in an extended work, Dhivagar et al.
performance compared to a concrete still. Panchal et al. () found the productivity, energy and exergy efficiency
() used inclined and vertical fins in a solar still basin improvements in a coarse aggregate assisted solar still by
and reported that the improvements in productivity were 4.21 kg/m2, 32% and 4.7%, respectively, at lower water
observed as 2.37 kg/m2 and 2.32 kg/m2, respectively. They depth (1 cm). The results confirmed that the improvements
also reported that the use of inclined and vertical fins in productivity were significantly influenced by basin water
increased the thermal efficiency to 26.7% and 24.1%, depth. Erfan et al. () improved the exergy efficiencies
respectively. Kabeel et al. () used red bricks (cement- of PV/T collector and PCM assisted double slope solar
coated) in the basin of a solar still and found that the still by 27 and 2%, respectively, during summer and
energy efficiency has improved significantly to 45%. Fur- winter climatic conditions. They also reported that the pro-
thermore, the productivity improvement observed in this posed model has improved productivity of about 10.6%
proposed model was 38.8% higher than the productivity compared to CSS.
observed in a double acting solar still. Similarly, Dhivagar Researchers have carried out extensive research on the
et al. () numerically analyzed the parameters in a impact of the rate of evaporation in the basin by adding
coarse aggregate assisted solar still using computational graphite and magnetic materials. Cai et al. () found
fluid dynamics and reported that the productivity perform- that saline water surface tension was significantly mini-
ance deviation between experimental and simulation mized using a magnetic field. Amor et al. () reported
observations was ±14%. that magnetization considerably reduced the saline water
Numerous researchers have concentrated on estimating surface tension by 24%. Wang et al. () reported that
the energy and exergy efficiencies of solar stills to quantify the impact of magnetization gave significant improvement
the heat regeneration and losses. Deniz () found signifi- in the evaporation rate and also reduced the surface tension.
cant improvements in energy and exergy efficiencies of a Dumka et al. (b) used ferrite ring magnets in a solar still
solar flat plate collector assisted still as 48.1% and 2.76%, basin and reported that the improvements in productivity
respectively, compared to CSS. The results reported that were 49.2% higher than for CSS. They also reported that
the decrease in water depth improves the productivity the improved energy and exergy performance was observed
significantly. Dumka & Mishra () found a thermodyn- as 49.1% and 110.2%, respectively. In a similar work, Dubey
amic performance improvement in CSS by adding various & Mishra () used ring magnets and galvanized iron
earth heat storage materials. They reported that the coal sheet in a solar still basin and reported that the improve-
powder solar still covered with polythene increased the ment in productivity was observed to be about 21.7%.
energy and exergy efficiencies by 5.06 and 76%, respect- Furthermore, the improvements in energy and exergy effi-
ively, compared to CSS with simple earth oil. Dhivagar ciencies were 31.3% and 22.6%, respectively, compared to
& Sundararaj () used a sensible heat storage bed in a CSS. Sharshir et al. () used graphite nanoparticles, film
coarse aggregate material to improve the thermodynamic cooling and phase change materials in a solar still basin
performance of CSS. They found that the enhancements and reported that the improvement in productivity was
in energy and exergy efficiencies were around 28% and 73.8% higher than for CSS. Kabeel et al. () used graphite
5.5%, respectively. Furthermore, the observed productivity nanoparticles in a solar still basin and reported an improved
improvement is 11% higher than CSS. Hassan () efficiency of 65.1% for 20% mass concentrations. Kabeel
found the energy and exergy improvements in a parabolic et al. () performed experiments in an evacuated tube col-
collector assisted solar still as 49.9% and 2.6%, respect- lectors assisted solar still with phase change materials. The
ively, when compared to CSS. Furthermore, it was improvements in productivity and energy efficiency were
reported that the thermodynamic performance observed 21.05% (14.42 kg/m2) and 21.64%, respectively, when com-
in an active solar still was significantly higher than in pared to CSS. Through this, it is clearly observed that the
CSS. Sakthivel & Arjunan () reported the energy and graphite materials and water magnetization significantly
exergy efficiency improvements using cotton cloth in a improved the productivity of solar stills.
solar still basin during summer climate conditions in Chen- The literature review above shows that there has
nai. The results reported that the use of 6 mm thickness in been a great deal of experimentation on enhancing the

by guest
thermodynamic performance in various solar still con- EXPERIMENTS

figurations. It was found that in order to achieve the
productivity improvements, the more important adjust- The experimentations have been carried out in both
ments and modifications were made in the solar still GPBMSS and CSS under the same climatic conditions
basin. Nevertheless, the work on the solar still also has during the year 2019.
a gap in the basin using graphite plate and block mag-
nets. Therefore, an experimental work to test the
thermodynamic efficiency with the impact of ambient Experimental setup
parameters has been performed in summer and winter
climatic conditions. The results observed in GPBMSS The schematic views and photographs of GPBMSS and
were compared with CSS. In addition, the water quality CSS are illustrated in Figure 1. The solar still is fabricated
parameters of the obtained distillate were checked and using galvanized iron sheet which has 1.5 mm thick and
compared with BIS. the entire system area is 0.65 × 0.78 m2. The basin is
Figure 1 | (a) Schematic view of GPBMSS, (b) schematic view of CSS, (c) photographic view of GPBMSS and CSS, (d) graphite plates and block magnets arrangements in basin. (continued.).

by guest
Figure 1 | Continued
attached with 20 graphite plates and 16 block magnets, saline water depth is observed at each one-hour interval
respectively, and painted black to increase the heat and a consistent range is maintained. The salt accumu-
absorption rate during peak sunshine hours. A glass lation in the basin is removed regularly.
cover of 3 mm thickness is placed over the top surface The dimensions of graphite plates and block magnets
of the solar still and this has a higher transmissivity of are 40 mm × 25 mm × 10 and 100 mm × 25 mm × 5 mm,
about 0.9 and a lower absorptivity of about 0.05. The respectively. It is ideally positioned in the basin to con-
solar still angle is kept at 12o according to the latitude firm the steady flow of heat transfer and magnetic fields.
of Coimbatore city. In addition, silicon rubbers are used These graphite plates and block magnets are not
to close the solar still tightly without any vapour losses only used for saline water heating and magnetization.
to the surroundings. The condensate is collected using a They can further act as good sensible heat storage
collection tray mounted at the bottom of the glass cover. material in higher solar irradiations. The thermo-physical
The absorptivity of solar irradiation is maximized by keep- properties of graphite plates and block magnets are
ing the solar still in the east-west direction. The basin listed in Table 1.

by guest
Table 1 | Thermo-physical properties of graphite plates and block magnets still basin to warm up and achieve the steady state condition.
The glass cover top portion was unsoiled, using a smooth
Graphite Block
Parameters plates magnets
cloth to eliminate the accumulation of dust particles,
which affects the thermal performance of the entire
Thermal conductivity (W/mK) 6 7.7
system. The ambient parameters were measured at one-
Thermal expansion coefficient 3.2 3.4
hour interval from 9:00 hours to 21:00 hours during the
(μm/mK)
experimental observations. Ten experimental trials were
Density (g/m3) 1.7 7.5
made in solar stills to evaluate the correctness of the results.
Porosity (%) 13 –
Finally, these results were used to estimate the thermodyn-
Magnetic field strength (mT) – 95
amic efficiency of GPBMSS and compared to CSS.
Uncertainty analysis
Instrumentation
During the experimentations, the observed uncertainties in

The different temperature measuring locations in both
all the measuring instruments are evaluated mathematically
GPBMSS and CSS are shown in Figure 1. These tempera-
by the following relation (Holman ):
tures were measured using calibrated thermocouples with
an accuracy of ±0.2 C. A digital temperature indicator
" 2 2 2 #12
was used to connect these thermocouples with a resolution @R @R @R
wr ¼ w1 þ w2 þ þ wn
of 0.1 C. During experimentation, the intensity of solar @x1 @x2 @xn
irradiations was observed using a solar intensity meter (1)
(accuracy ±5 W/m2). The fluctuation observed in ambient
wind velocity was recorded by a cup-type anemometer Here, the function and total uncertainty are R and wr,
(accuracy ±0.1 m/s). A digital Gaussmeter (precision respectively. x and w are independent variables. The uncer-
±1 mT) was used to observe the magnetic field. The tainties observed in estimation of energy and exergy
hourly productivity was calculated using a collection efficiencies were ±2.1% and ±1.2%, respectively.
bottle. The saline water depth was measured by measure-
ment scale. The specifications of measuring instruments
are listed in Table 2. THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Experimental procedure The thermodynamic (energy and exergy) performance in

GPBMSS and CSS are estimated using the following math-
The experiments were conducted in both summer and ematical relations. The energy and exergy balance equations
winter climatic conditions during the year 2019. The find- of all the solar still components are given in this section.
ings obtained in this study were reported on April 24
(summer day) and November 14 (winter day). Before the Energy analysis
experimentations, the saline water was filled in the solar
According to the first law of thermodynamics, the energy
balance equation is estimated by:
Table 2 | Specifications of measuring instruments
Instrument Accuracy Range Error (%) Ein þ Ege ¼ Eout þ Est (2)
Thermometer ±0.2 C 0–100 C ±0.492

To perform the energy analysis, the following assump-
Thermocouple (K-type) ±0.1 C 0–200 C ±0.487
tions are considered and listed below (Dhivagar &
Digital temperature indicator ±0.1 C 0–200 C ±1.195
2
Mohanraj a):
Solar intensity meter ±5 W/m 0–1,000 W/m2 ±1.491
Cup type anemometer ±0.1 m/s 0–15 m/s ±9.712 • The glass cover inclination is negligible.
Gaussmeter ±1 mT 0.1–2,400 mT ±1.198 • The saline water depth is constant.
Measuring jar ±10 ml 0–1,000 ml ±9.814 • The glass cover and insulation are having no specific heat
capacity.

by guest
• The solar still model is in quasi–static condition. Convective heat transfer coefficient (Elango et al. ):
• The solar still has no potential, kinetic and chemical
impacts. 13
(Pw Pg ) Tw þ 273
• The saline water temperature is constant. hc, wg ¼ 0:884 Tw Tg þ
268, 900 Pw
(9)
• There is no vapor leakage in the solar still.
• The overall heat transfers are linear with temperature. Here, Pg and Pw are:
• During the one hour observation, the forces of all heat
transfers are constant.
5, 144
• The thermo-physical properties of glass cover and saline Pg ¼ exp 25:317
Tg þ 273
(10)
water are constant.

• The saline water absorptivity is lower and transmissivity
Pw ¼ exp 25:317
5, 144
(11)
is higher. Tw þ 273
The basin energy balance is given by (Elango et al. ):
Evaporative heat transfer coefficient (Elango et al. ):
dTb
αb τ g τ w I(t)Ab ¼ mb c pb þ hc bw (Tb Tw ) (Pw Pg )
dt heva wg ¼ 0:016 hc wg (12)
þ Uo ba (Tb Ta ) (3) (Tw Tg )
The graphite plate energy balance is estimated by: Radiative heat transfer coefficient (Elango et al. ):
hr, ¼ σεeff [(Tw þ 273)2 (Tg þ 273)2 ](Tw þ Tg þ 546)

kgp kins dTgp wg
(Tb Tgp ) ¼ (Tgp Ta ) þ mgp CP, gp (4)
xgp xins dt (13)
The block magnet energy balance is estimated by: Here,

kmg kins 1
(Tb Tmg ) ¼ (Tmg Ta ) εeff ¼ (14)
xmg xins 1 1
þ 1
dTmg εw εg
þ mmg CP, mg (5)
dt
The glass cover energy balance is given by (Elango et al.
The basin with graphite plate and block magnet energy ):
balance is estimated by:
dTg
αg I(t)Ag þ Uo wg (Tw Tg ) ¼ mg c pg
dT dt
αb τ g τ w I(t)Ab ¼ mb c pb,gp,mg b þ hc bw (Tb Tw ) þ (hc þ hr (Tg Tsky )
dt gsky gsky )

kgp kmg (15)
þ (Tb Tgp ) þ (Tb Tmg ) (6)
xgp xmg
Convective heat transfer coefficient between glass cover
The saline water energy balance is given by (Elango and sky (Elango et al. ):
et al. ):
hc, gsky ¼ 2:8 þ 3:0V (16)

αw τ g I(t)Aw þ hc bw (Tb Tw )
dTw
¼ mw c pw þ Uo wg (Tw Tg ) (7) Radiative heat transfer coefficient between glass cover
dt
and sky (Elango et al. ):
Overall heat transfer coefficient (Elango et al. ):
εeff σ (Tg4 þ Tsky
4
)
hr, gsky ¼ (17)
Uo wg ¼ (hc wg þ heva wg þ hr wg ) (8) Tg Tsky

by guest
The sky temperature is given by (Belyayev et al. ): Basin exergy destructions
Tsky ¼ 0:0552Ta5
1
(18) The basin exergy destruction is given by (Piyush et al. ):
Exd,b ¼ (τ g × τ w × αb )Exs (Exbw þ Exins ) (26)

Latent heat of vaporization (Belyayev et al. ):
Here, Exbw and Exins are given by following equations:
6
4
L ¼ 2:4935 × 10 × 1 9:4779 × 10 Tw
7
Ta
þ 1:3132 × 10 × Tw2 4:794 × 109 × Tw3 (19) Exbw ¼ hc bw × (Tb Tw ) × 1 (27)
Tb

The solar still hourly productivity is given by (Belyayev Ta
Exins ¼ hc ba × (Tb Ta ) × 1 (28)
et al. ): Tb
heva wg (Tw Tg ) × 3600

mw ¼ (20) Graphite plate exergy destructions
L
The graphite plate exergy destruction is estimated by the

Solar still energy efficiency (Belyayev et al. ):
following equations:
m × L
ηE, ss ¼ Pw (21) Exd, gp ¼ Exs þ Exst Ext, gpa (29)
Ass × (Iss ) × 3600
The stored exergy is given by:
The theoretical calculations are solved using C program
and are mentioned in the appendix.
Ta
Exst ¼ Qch 1 (30)
Tgp
Exergy analysis dTgp

Qch ¼ mgp C p, gp (31)
dt
The second law of thermodynamics estimates the energy
losses (exergy) in both the GPBMSS and CSS. The general The total exergy destruction between graphite plate and
exergy balance equation is given by: ambient air is given by:
Exd ¼ Exin Exout (22) Ext, gpa ¼ Exc, gpa þ Exr, gpa (32)
To estimate the exergy efficiency, the following Here,

equations are used (Hepbalsi ):

Ta
Exc, gpa ¼ hc, gpa (Tgp Ta ) 1 (33)
P Ta þ 273 Tgp
mw × L ×
Tw þ 273 !
Exout ¼ Exeva ¼ (23) 1 Ta 4 4 Ta
3600 Exr, gpa ¼ hr, gpa (Tgp Ta ) 1 þ
3 Tgp 3 Tgp
Exin ¼ Exs
X (34)
¼ Ass × Is
" #
4 Ta þ 273 1 Ta þ 273 4
× 1 × þ × Block magnets exergy destructions
3 Ts 3 Ts
(24) The block magnets exergy destruction is estimated by follow-
P ing equations:
Exeva
ηEx ¼ P (25)
Exs Exd, mg ¼ Exs þ Exst Ext, mga (35)

by guest
The stored exergy is given by: The exergy destructions in heat transfers are estimated
by (Dhivagar & Mohanraj b):

Ta
Exst ¼ Qch 1 (36)
Tmg Ta
Exeva wg ¼ heva, wg (Tw Tg ) 1 (45)
Tw
dTmg
Qch ¼ mmg C p, mg (37)
dt Ta
Exc wg ¼ hc, wg (Tw Tg ) 1 (46)
Total exergy destruction in block magnets and atmosphere: Tw
Ext, mga ¼ Exc, mga þ Exr, mga (38) " #

1 Ta 4 4 Ta
Exr wg ¼ hr, wg (Tw Tg ) 1 þ (47)
3 Ts 3 Ts
Here,

Ta
Exc, mga ¼ hc, mga (Tmg Ta ) 1 (39)
Tmg Glass cover exergy destructions
!
1 Ta 4 4 Ta The exergy destruction in the glass cover is estimated by:
Exr, mga ¼ hr, mga (Tmg Ta ) 1 þ
3 Tmg 3 Tmg
(40) Exd, g ¼ αg Exs þ Ext, wg Ext, ga (48)
Total exergy destruction in glass cover and atmosphere:
Exergy destructions in basin with graphite plates and

Ext, ga ¼ Exc,ga þ Exr,ga (49)
block magnets
Here,
The exergy destruction in the basin with graphite plates and
block magnets is estimated by:
Ta
Exc,ga ¼ hc, ga (Tg Ta ) 1 (50)
Tg
Exd, bgpmg ¼ (τ g × τ w × αb )Exs (Exbw þ Exbgpmg ) (41)
" #
1 Ta 4 4 Ta
Here, Exbgpmg is given by the following equation: Exr,ga ¼ hr, ga (Tg Ta ) 1 þ (51)
3 Tg 3 Tg

kgp Ta
Exbgpmg ¼ (Tb Tgp ) × 1 The radiation and thermo-physical properties of solar
xgp Tb
still materials are listed in Table 3
kmg Ta
þ (Tb Tmg ) × 1 (42)
xmg Tb
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Saline water exergy destructions The observed results in GPBMSS and CSS experimentations
are discussed in this section. The comparative analysis
The exergy destruction in saline water is estimated by: has been made in both summer and winter climatic
conditions.
Exd, w ¼ (τ g αw ) Exs þ Exbw Ext, wg (43)
Experimental observations
Total exergy destruction (Ext, wg ) between saline water
and glass cover is given by: Figure 2 depicts the variations of solar irradiation and wind
velocity during the summer and winter days. The observed
maximum solar irradiation in morning to afternoon hours
Ext, wg ¼ Exeva wg þ Exc wg þ Exr wg (44) were about 925 W/m2 and 804.1 W/m2 respectively,

by guest
Table 3 | The radiation and thermo-physical properties of solar still materials (Belyayev
et al. 2019):
Parameters Value
Absorptivity in glass cover (αg ) 0.05

Absorptivity in saline water (αw ) 0.05
Absorptivity in basin (αb ) 0.9
Saline water mass (mw ) 20.5 kg/m2
Glass cover mass (mg ) 10.1 kg/m2
Mass of basin (mb ) 15.6 kg/m2
Mass of graphite plate (mgp ) 12.01 kg/m2
Mass of magnets (mmg ) 0.032 kg/m2
Transmissivity in saline water (τ w ) 0.95 Figure 2 | Variations of solar irradiation and wind velocity during the summer and winter
days.
Transmissivity in glass cover (τ g ) 0.9
Specific heat of saline water (C pw ) 4.178 kJ/kg.K
velocities were observed to be about 1.6 m/s and 2.9 m/s
Specific heat of glass cover (C pg ) 0.8 kJ/kg.K
during experiments.
Specific heat of basin (C pb ) 0.48 kJ/kg.K
The variations of different temperatures during the
Specific heat of graphite plate (C p,gp ) 0.72 kJ/kg.K
summer and winter days are illustrated in Figure 3. During
Specific heat of magnet (C p, mg ) 0.36 kJ/kg.K
summer days, the ambient temperature increases in after-
Effective emissivity (εeff ) 1 noon hours (14:00 hours) and attains the maximum of
Sun temperature 6,000 K about 39.8 C. During evening hours, it was reduced to
Thermal conductivity of basin (kb ) 16.3 W/m2 K around 25 C as solar irradiation decreased. Similarly,
Thickness of basin (xb ) 0.002 m during winter days, the observed maximum and minimum
Thermal conductivity of water (kw ) 0.57 W/m2 K ambient temperatures were 38.2 C and 25.7 C, respect-
Thickness of water (xw ) 0.01 m ively. The maximum glass cover temperature of about
Thickness of graphite plate (xgp ) 0.025 m 52.3 C was observed in afternoon hours and decreased
Thickness of magnets (xmg ) 0.025 m slowly to 30.1 C during summer days. Similarly, the
observed maximum and minimum glass cover temperatures
Thermal conductivity in insulation material (kins ) 0.039 W/m2 K
were 51.2 C and 29 C in winter days. It was observed that
Thickness of insulation (xins ) 0.03 m
the graphite plates and block magnet temperatures
Heat transfer coefficient in basin and saline water 135 W/m2 K
(hc bw )
increased in noon hours and reached 70.2 C and 68.5 C,
respectively during summer days. In night hours (21:00
Overall heat transfer coefficient in basin and 14 W/m2 K
atmosphere (Uo ba )
during summer and winter days. It decreased to 30–18.7 W/m2

during the evening hours in both summer and winter climatic
conditions. Although the sunshine period was found to be
around 12 hours during the daytime, the successful sunshine
availability (more than 250 W/m2) for the experiment was
only about 8–10 hours. It is also observed that the fluctu-
ation in ambient wind velocity was very effective with
respect to time. In order for this, the temperature of the
glass cover has decreased, which results in higher conden-
sation. The maximum wind velocities of about 2.9 m/s and
2.8 m/s were observed at 17:00 hours in both summer and
winter days. The variation between the ambient wind Figure 3 | Variations of different temperatures during the summer and winter days.

by guest
hours), the temperature observed in graphite plates and GPBMSS and CSS were about 27.3 W/m2 K and
block magnets fell to 41.4 C and 40.1 C, respectively. Simi- 18.1 W/m2 K respectively, at 14.00 hours. In winter days,
larly, during the winter days, the maximum temperatures the maximum evaporative rate of GPBMSS and CSS
observed in graphite plates and block magnets were were found to be around 26.1 W/m2 K and 17.5 W/m2 K,
69.1 C and 65.8 C, respectively. During 21:00 hours, it respectively. The evaporative heat transfer rate of
dropped to 39.4 C and 38.1 C, respectively. It is known GPBMSS was 33.6% (summer days) and 32.9% (winter
that, compared to the impact of block magnets, the graphite days) higher than CSS. The average evaporative heat
plates had the greater heat absorption and heat storage transfer rate of GPBMSS has been significantly enhanced
capacity. Graphite plate heat storage capacity was 2.4% by 39.7% and 41.5% compared to CSS during summer and
and 4.7% higher than the block magnets’ heat storage winter days. It happens due to heat energy accumulated in
capacity in summer and winter days. However, the usage graphite plates and block magnets in the solar still basin.
of graphite plates and block magnets in basin has improved Finally, it is confirmed that, the magnetization of water
the temperatures significantly. During summer days, the enhances the evaporation rate as confirmed in the litera-
maximum observed water temperature in GPBMSS and ture (Wang et al. ). In summer days, the observed
CSS were about 67.4 C and 55.1 C, respectively. In maximum convective heat transfer rate of GPBMSS and
winter days, the maximum water temperature in GPBMSS CSS were 2.01 W/m2 K and 1.46 W/m2 K, respectively.
and CSS were 64.2 C and 53.3 C respectively. The During winter days, the maximum convective heat trans-
reason behind the improvements of water temperature in fer coefficient of GPBMSS and CSS were observed to be
GPBMSS is the heat storage capacity of graphite plates about 1.98 W/m2 K and 1.44 W/m2 K, respectively. The
and magnets in the basin. During the experimentation, the difference in the convective heat transfer rate of the
heat accumulated in graphite plates and block magnets are both GPBMSS and CSS were 0.55 W/m2 K (summer
stored and released during off sunshine hours. The observed days) and 0.54 W/m2 K (winter days) during noon hours.
saline water temperature in GPBMSS was 18.2% and 16.9% From this, the observed convective heat transfer rate of
higher than CSS in summer and winter days. The average GPBMSS was 27.3% and 27.2% higher than CSS during
saline water temperature in GPBMSS was 16.3% and summer and winter days. The average convective heat
17.1% higher than CSS during summer and winter days. transfer rate of GPBMSS has been significantly enhanced
Finally, it is clearly observed that the usage of graphite by 27.9% (summer days) and 29.2% (winter days) than
plate and block magnets in solar still basin have significantly CSS. This enhancement confirmed that, there is a good
improved the saline water temperature (Balachandran et al. variation in the saline water density and surface tension
). when graphite plates and block magnets are used in
The variations of evaporative and convective heat basin (Amor et al. ).
transfer coefficients during the summer and winter days
are depicted in Figure 4. During summer days, the
observed maximum evaporative heat transfer rate of Evaluation of theoretical observations
The energy balance equations of the solar stills were

theoretically solved using the fourth order Runge-Kutta
method and a numerical algorithm was developed using
C language. The initial conditions of all the solar still
components were assumed to be at ambient temperature
conditions. Convective, radiative heat transfer coefficients
and temperatures in various regions of solar stills were
calculated using physical properties. The predicted theor-
etical productivity in summer and winter climatic days
are compared with experimental productivity and illus-
trated in Figure 5(a). It is observed that the theoretical
evaluated productivity values followed the same pattern
Figure 4 | Variations of evaporative and convective heat transfer coefficients during the
observed in experimental productivity with the maximum
summer and winter days. deviations of ±8%.

by guest
Figure 5 | (a) Variations of hourly productivity during summer and winter days, (b) cumulative productivity of both the solar stills during summer and winter days, (c) Monthly average
productivity of both the solar stills.
Productivity performance than CSS. The GPBMSS has 39.4% and 31.1% (summer
and winter days) of productivity improvements than the ear-
Figure 5 depicts the hourly, cumulative and monthly average lier work reported in solar still using graphite nano-particles
productivity of GPBMSS and CSS during the summer and and phase change materials (Kabeel et al. ). In
winter days. The maximum evaporation process in both Figure 5(b), during summer times, the cumulative pro-
the solar stills were observed during the afternoon hours ductivity of both GPBMSS and CSS were about 3.93 kg/m2
(13.00–15.00 hours) in both summer and winter days. In and 2.54 kg/m2, respectively. Similarly, in winter times, the
Figure 5(a), during summer and winter days, the maximum cumulative productivity of the GPBMSS and CSS were
productivity observed in GPBMSS and CSS were 610 and observed to be about 3.56 kg/ m2 and 2.24 kg/m2, respect-
570 ml, respectively. It happens due to increase in evapor- ively. In Figure 5(c), in monthly average productivity, it is
ation process with the heat harvested in graphite plates noticed that the maximum productivity was observed
and block magnets in the solar still basin. In addition, it during April (summer) and November (winter) months,
occurs due to temperature difference between the inner respectively.
glass cover and surface of saline water. In CSS, the
enhanced productivity of about 490 ml (summer days) and Energy and exergy performance
440 ml (winter days) were collected with the low saline
water temperature. The observed productivity in GPBMSS Figure 6 illustrates the energy efficiency of GPBMSS and
was 19.6% and 22.8% higher than CSS during summer CSS during the summer and winter days. From this, the
and winter days. The average productivity in GPBMSS observed maximum energy efficiency in GPBMSS was
was 23.8% (summer days) and 25.9% (winter days) higher found at noon hours. Energy efficiency of both the solar

by guest
GPBMSS was also 18.7% and 21.4% maximum compared

to CSS during summer and winter days.
Figure 7 illustrates the exergy destructions of both the solar
stills during summer and winter days. In Figure 7 (a), the exergy
destruction observed in the basin was comparatively higher
than the exergy destruction observed in the saline water. In
summer and winter days, the exergy destruction observed in
the GPBMSS basin was 6.9% (674.2 W/m2) and 6.1%
(621.4 W/m2) lower than CSS during 14.00 hours. Similarly,
during noon hours, the exergy destruction observed in
GPBMSS saline water was 16.2% (68.2 W/m2) and 13.9%
(59.5 W/m2) lower than CSS in summer and winter days.
Figure 6 | Variations of energy and exergy efficiencies during summer and winter days.
Finally, it is observed that the usage of graphite plates and
block magnets in the solar still basin has significantly minimized
the exergy destruction compared to CSS (Dumka et al. b).
stills were increased with increase in saline water tempera- In Figure 7(b), during summer days, the exergy destruc-
ture. The maximum energy efficiency in GPBMSS and tion observed in the glass cover, graphite plates and block
CSS were about 29.1% and 23.1%, respectively, during magnets reached the maximum of about 46.3 W/m2,
summer days. Similarly, the maximum energy efficiency of 134.2 W/m2 and 26.4 W/m2 respectively. Similarly, in
the GPBMSS and CSS were observed to be about 27.1% winter days, the exergy destruction observed in the glass
and 22.2%, respectively during winter days. The energy effi- cover, graphite plates and magnets attained the maximum of
ciency observed in GPBMSS was 20.6% (summer days) and 36.4 W/m2, 120.1 W/m2 and 22.3 W/m2 respectively. The
18% (winter days) significantly enhanced compared to CSS. exergy destruction observed in the graphite plate was 80.3%
In exergy efficiency, it is noticed that the exergy perform- and 74.8% higher than the exergy destruction observed in
ance is enhanced during the morning to noon hours for block magnets during summer and winter days. The average
both the solar stills. The maximum exergy efficiency of the exergy destruction in the graphite plate was 84.5% (summer
both GPBMSS and CSS were about 4.4% and 3.6%, respect- days) and 79.2% (winter days) higher than block magnets.
ively, during summer days. Similarly, the maximum exergy
efficiencies of the GPBMSS and CSS were observed to be
about 4.2% and 3.4%, respectively, during winter days. It Distillate analysis
is also observed that the exergy performance of GPBMSS
was 18.1% (summer days) and 19% (winter days), signifi- Two samples of saline water and distillate collected in
cantly higher than CSS. The average exergy efficiency of summer and winter days were checked in chemical
Figure 7 | (a) Variations of exergy destruction of basin and saline water during summer and winter days, (b) variations of exergy destruction of solar still components during summer and
winter days.

by guest
Table 4 | Water quality parameters comparison with BIS
Parameters Saline water (summer) Saline water (winter) Distillate (summer) Distillate (winter) BIS
pH 8.7 8.9 7.1 6.8 6.5–8.5

Alkalinity (mg/l) 712 696 74 78 200
Salinity 1,345.21 1,412.34 18.4 18.9 Nil
Hardness (mg/l) 421 442 62 75 300
Chloride (mg/l) 375 390 35 38 250
Fluoride (mg/l) 384 394 41 47 250
laboratory for the analysis of water quality parameters. The During winter days, the highest observed exergy
results of pH, hardness, alkalinity, chloride and fluoride con- destruction in basin, saline water and glass cover were
centration are listed in Table 4. The observed values are 675.5 W/m2, 75.2 W/m2 and 36.4 W/m2, respectively,
compared with the required level recommended by BIS. It in CSS. The GPBMSS has significantly minimized the
is seen that all the required water quality parameters of dis- exergy destructions of basin and saline water compared
tillate are of acceptable values given by BIS. The distillate to CSS.
collected from this GPBMSS and CSS is maximum suitable (c) The observed maximum exergy destruction in graphite
for drinking when the required minerals are added. plate and block magnets were 134.2 W/m2 and
26.4 W/m2, respectively during summer days. Similarly,
the observed highest exergy destruction in graphite
CONCLUSIONS plates and block magnets were 120.1 W/m2 and
22.3 W/m2, respectively during winter days.
The experimentation was conducted in GPBMSS to heat (d) Finally, the distillate observed from GPBMSS and CSS
and magnetize the saline water in a basin during the has met the quality level recommended by BIS.
summer and winter days. This results in significantly
improved convective and evaporative heat transfer rates.
The observed results are compared with CSS. The following
FUTURE SCOPE
main conclusions are drawn:
(a) The observed heat transfer coefficients in GPBMSS are The performance analysis of single slope solar still using graph-
comparatively higher than CSS. During summer days, ite plates and magnets have gaps in evaluating the impact of
GPBMSS has improved average evaporative and con- dust accumulation on the glass cover and its shadowing effects.
vective heat transfer coefficients of 39.7% and 41.5%,
respectively, compared to CSS. Similarly, the maximum
observed average evaporative and convective heat trans- DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
fer coefficients in GPBMSS were 27.9% and 29.2%,
respectively, higher than CSS during winter days. The All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplemen-
maximum observed average productivity in GPBMSS tary Information.
was 23.8% and 25.9%, respectively, higher than CSS
during summer and winter days.
(b) The energy efficiency in GPBMSS has improved by 20.6 REFERENCES
and 18%, respectively, compared to CSS on summer and
winter days. The exergy efficiency in GPBMSS has Amor, H. B., Elaoud, A., Salah, N. B. & Elmoueddeb, K. 
enhanced to 18.1 and 19%, respectively, compared to Effect of magnetic treatment on surface tension and water
evaporation. International Journal of Advanced Industrial
CSS during summer and winter days. In summer days,
Engineering 5, 119–124.
the maximum observed exergy destruction in basin, Balachandran, G. B., David, P. W., Mariappan, R. K., Kabeel,
saline water and glass cover were 724.1 W/m2, A. E., Athikesavan, M. M. & Sathyamurthy, R. 
81.4 W/m2 and 46.3 W/m2, respectively in CSS. Improvising the efficiency of single sloped solar still using

by guest
thermally conductive nano-ferric oxide. Environmental Erfan, M. H., Sarhaddi, F. & Sobhnamayan, F.  Exergy
Science and Pollution Research 27, 32191–32204. performance evaluation of a basin-type double-slope solar
Belyayev, Y., Mohanraj, M., Jayaraj, S. & Kaltayev, A.  still equipped with phase-change material and PV/T
Thermal performance simulation of a heat pump assisted collector. Renewable Energy 145, 2409–2425.
solar desalination system for Kazakhstan conditions. Heat Gnanaraj, J. P. S. & Velmurugan, V.  An experimental study
Transfer Engineering 40, 1060–1072. on the efficacy of modifications in enhancing the
Cai, R., Yang, H., He, J. & Zhu, W.,  The effects of magnetic performance of single basin double slope solar still.
fields on water molecular hydrogen bonds. Journal of Desalination 467, 12–28.
Molecule Structure 938, 15–19. Hassan, H.  Comparing the performance of passive and active
Deniz, E.  Energy and exergy analysis of flat plate solar double and single slope solar stills incorporated with
collector–assisted active solar distillation system. parabolic trough collector via energy, exergy and
Desalination and Water Treatment 57, 13–21. productivity. Renewable Energy 148, 437–450.
Dhivagar, R. & Mohanraj, M. a Optimization of performance Hepbalsi, A.  A key review on exergetic analysis and assessment
of coarse aggregate-assisted single-slope solar still via Taguchi of renewable energy resources for a sustainable future.
approach. Journal of Renewable Energy and Environment 8, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12, 593–661.
13–19. Holman, J. P.  Experimental Methods for Engineers. Tata
Dhivagar, R. & Mohanraj, M. b Performance improvements of Mcgraw Hill Publishing Company, New York, NY.
single slope solar still using graphite plate fins and magnets. Jani, H. K. & Modi, K. V.  Experimental performance evaluation
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. In press. of single basin dual slope solar still with circular and square
Dhivagar, R. & Sundararaj, S.  A review on methods of cross-sectional hollow fins. Solar Energy 416, 86–93.
productivity improvement in solar desalination. Applied Kabeel, A. E., Abdelgaied, M. & Eisa, M.  Effect of graphite
Mechanics and Materials 877, 414–429. mass concentrations in a mixture of graphite nanoparticles
Dhivagar, R. & Sundararaj, S.  Thermodynamic and water and paraffin wax as hybrid storage materials on
analysis on augmentation of a solar still with copper tube performances of solar still. Renewable Energy 132, 119–128.
heat exchange in coarse aggregate. Journal of Thermal Kabeel, A. E., Dawood, M. M. K., Nabil, T. & Alonafal, B. E. 
Analysis and Calorimetry 136, 89–99. Improving the performance of stepped solar still using a
Dhivagar, R., Mohanraj, M., Hidouri, K. & Belyayev, Y.  graphite and PCM as hybrid store materials with internal
Energy, exergy, economic and enviro-economic (4E) analysis reflectors coupled with evacuated tube solar collector. Heat
of gravel coarse aggregate sensible heat storage-assisted and Mass Transfer 56, 891–899.
single-slope solar still. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Kabeel, A. E., El-Agouz, E. I., Muthu Manokar, A., Rajendran
Calorimetry. In press. Duraisamy, R., Ravishankar, S., Prakash, N. & Chandran, P.
Dhivagar, R., Mohanraj, M., Hidouri, K. & Midhun, M.  CFD  Comparative analysis on freshwater yield from
modeling of a gravel coarse aggregate sensible heat storage conventional basin-type single slope solar still with cement-
assisted single slope solar still. Desalination and Water coated red bricks:an experimental approach. Environmental
Treatment 210, 54–69. Science and Pollution Research 27, 32218–32228.
Dubey, M. & Mishra, D. R.  Thermo-exergo-economic Modi, K. V. & Modi, G. J.  Performance of single slope double
analysis of double slope solar still augmented with ferrite ring basin solar stills with small pile of wick materials. Applied
magnets and GI sheet. Desalination and Water Treatment Thermal Engineering 149, 723–730.
198, 19–30. Munoz, F., Barrera, E., Ruiz, A., Martínez, E. M. & Chargoy, N.
Dumka, P. & Mishra, D. R.  Experimental investigation of  Long-term experimental theoretical study on several
modified single slope solar still integrated with earth (I)&(II): single-basin solar stills. Desalination 476, 114241.
energy and exergy analysis. Energy 160, 1144–1157. Omara, A. A. M., Abuelnuor, A. A. A., Mohammed, H. A. &
Dumka, P., Sharma, A., Kushwah, Y., Raghav, A. S. & Mishra, Khiadani, M.  Phase change materials (PCMs) for
D. R. a Performance evaluation of single slope solar still improving solar still productivity: a review. Thermal Analysis
augmented with sand filled cotton bags. Journal of Energy and Calorimetry 139, 1585–1617.
Storage 25, 100888. Panchal, H., Mevada, D., Sadasivuni, K. K., Essa, F. A.,
Dumka, P., Kushwah, Y., Sharma, A. & Mishra, D. R. b Shanmugan, S. & Khalid, M.  Experimental and water
Comparative analysis and experimental evaluation of single quality analysis of solar stills with vertical and inclined fins.
slope solar still augmented with permanent magnets and Groundwater for Sustainable Development 11, 100410.
conventional solar still. Desalination 459, 34–45. Piyush, P., Rahul, D., Dhananjay, S. & Amimul, A.  Energy
Elango, C., Gunasekaran, N. & Sampathkumar, K.  Thermal matrices, exergo-economic and enviro-economic analysis of
models of solar still – a comprehensive review. Renewable modified multi-wick basin type double slope solar still.
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47, 856–911. Desalination 447, 55–73.
El-Saida, E. M. S., Elshamy, S. M. & Kabeel, A. E.  Rabhi, K., Nciri, R., Nasri, F., Ali, C. & Bacha, H. B. 
Performance enhancement of a tubular solar still by Experimental performance analysis of a modified single
utilizing wire mesh packing under harmonic motion. basin single slope solar still with pin-fins absorber and
Desalination 474, 114165. condenser. Desalination 416, 86–93.

by guest
Sakthivel, T. G. & Arjunan, T. V.  Thermodynamic Sharshir, S. W., Peng, G., Elsheikh, A. H., Edreis, E. M. A.,
performance comparison of single slope solar stills with and Eltawil, M. A., Abdelhamid, T., Kabeel, A. E., Zang, J. &
without cotton cloth energy storage medium. Thermal Yang, N.  Energy and exergy analysis of
Analysis and Calorimetry 137, 351–360. solar stills with micro/nano particles: a comparative
Sharshir, S. W., Peng, G., Wu, L., Essa, F. A., Kabeel, A. E. & study. Energy Conversion and Management
Yang, N.  The effects of flake graphite 177, 363–375.
nanoparticles, phase change material, and film Wang, Y., Wei, H. & Li, Z.  Effect of magnetic field on
cooling on the solar still performance. Applied Energy the physical properties of water. Results in Physics 8,
191, 358–366. 262–267.
First received 5 February 2021; accepted in revised form 12 April 2021. Available online 22 April 2021

by guest

Thermodynamic Analysis of Single Slope Solar Still Using Graphite Plates and Block Magnets at Seasonal Climatic Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Thermodynamic Analysis of Single Slope Solar Still Using Graphite Plates and Block Magnets at Seasonal Climatic Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thermodynamic Analysis of Single Slope Solar Still Using Graphite Plates and Block Magnets at Seasonal Climatic Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2635 © 2021 The Authors Water Science & Technology | 84.

Thermodynamic analysis of single slope solar still using

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

A solar still area, m2 α absorptivity

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

improved with the use of a pin-ﬁn absorber and condenser.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

thermodynamic performance in various solar still con- EXPERIMENTS

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

During the experimentations, the observed uncertainties in

Experimental procedure The thermodynamic (energy and exergy) performance in

Thermometer ±0.2 C 0–100 C ±0.492

Gaussmeter ±1 mT 0.1–2,400 mT ±1.198 • The saline water depth is constant.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

hr, ¼ σεeff [(Tw þ 273)2 (Tg þ 273)2 ](Tw þ Tg þ 546)

The block magnet energy balance is estimated by: Here,

hc, gsky ¼ 2:8 þ 3:0V (16)

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Exd,b ¼ (τ g × τ w × αb )Exs (Exbw þ Exins ) (26)

heva wg (Tw Tg ) × 3600

The graphite plate exergy destruction is estimated by the

Exergy analysis dTgp

To estimate the exergy efﬁciency, the following Here,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Ext, mga ¼ Exc, mga þ Exr, mga (38) " #

Total exergy destruction in glass cover and atmosphere:

Exergy destructions in basin with graphite plates and

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Absorptivity in glass cover (αg ) 0.05

during summer and winter days. It decreased to 30–18.7 W/m2

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

The energy balance equations of the solar stills were

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

GPBMSS was also 18.7% and 21.4% maximum compared

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Table 4 | Water quality parameters comparison with BIS

pH 8.7 8.9 7.1 6.8 6.5–8.5

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/84/10-11/2635/968637/wst084102635.pdf

You might also like