Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

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

The effect of vapour space temperature on the productivity of a passive

solar still integrated with multi-functional floating absorber
Geo Sebastian, Ashmil Shah, Shijo Thomas *
School of Materials Science and Engineering, NIT Calicut, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solar still based on floating absorber, capable of heat localization, has gained popularity in the recent years for
Solar still water distillation owing to its superior design, functionality and energy utilization. However, as the design is
Water distillation relatively new, there are various aspects of such a design, especially the vapour space, that must be examined in
Solar energy
detail to improve the still productivity under actual working conditions. The present study investigates the in­
Floating absorber
Renewable energy
fluence of the various parameters in the vapour space, like the internal relative humidity, vapour space tem­
Solar thermal conversion perature, and glass cover temperature, on the performance of a three-layer multi-purpose floating absorber (T-
SS304CC) based solar still. The diurnal performance of the multilayer absorber in a passive still is compared with
an Aluminium floating absorber based solar still. It was found that the relative humidity and vapour space
temperature adversely affected the solar still productivity of the modified still in the afternoon hours. The vapour
space temperature of T-SS304CC still increased by nearly 133%. Similarly, the internal relative humidity of the
modified still was 38% lower than the Aluminium based still on the same day, due to the increase in vapour space
temperature. Based on cost analysis, it was estimated that the cost per litre of freshwater would decrease by
nearly 36%, as compared to the reference still, in the absence of the adverse effect of the vapour space.

1. Introduction
The access to potable water supply is essential to the survival of
human beings on this planet. Many factors such as exponential growth in
population, urbanization, climate change, environmental deterioration,
etc. have resulted in the depletion of available freshwater reserves.
Interestingly, the problem of potable water shortage is no longer
confined to the poor or underdeveloped nations. Within the next few
years, more than 70% of the world population will be adversely affected
by water shortage [1]. The solution to this problem lies in producing
freshwater in a sustainable and environmental friendly manner by uti­
lizing renewable energy. Solar based distillation could be the most
appropriate technology to address the freshwater scarcity of a country
like India which is known to receive up to 7 kWh/m2 daily average solar
radiation [2]. Considering the overall socio-economic scenario of the
country, a cost-effective solar distillation system would be more ideal,
especially in villages and remote locations where small communities
thrive on local resources. Solar still distillation system can meet the
water needs of small communities in an economical and hassle-free
manner. Based on a detailed review, it was found that the selection of
the type of still must be decided based on local operating conditions [3].
The factors which influence the evaporation-condensation phenomena
inside a passive solar still were also critically analysed in the literature
[4]. Solar stills have undergone many design modifications over the
years in order to achieve improved performance. The usage of floating
perforated aluminium black plate is found to enhance the output of the
solar still by 40% for a feedwater depth of 6 cm [5]. A comparative study
on the floating absorbers made of different materials identified
Aluminium as a good choice for use as floating solar absorber [6].
A recent trend in solar still design is the use of multi-layer floating
absorber which has proven to enhance the still output [7–10]. A Multi-
layer floating system works on the principle of interfacial heating or heat
localization concentrating thermal energy at the air- feedwater interface
to enable effective utilization of available solar power. A double slope
solar still was successfully operated with a two-layer floating absorber
with salt rejection capability [8]. Multilayer floating absorbers were also
fabricated using cost effective materials such as candle soot coated
cotton fabric suspended on polystyrene foam. The experiments using
this system under natural sunlight attained a solar thermal conversion
efficiency of nearly 80% [9]. The temperature of the vapour space above

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shijo@nitc.ac.in (S. Thomas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102349
Received 29 June 2021; Received in revised form 21 September 2021; Accepted 25 September 2021
Available online 19 October 2021
2214-7144/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Sebastian et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349

Fig. 1. Photograph of the experimental setup - (a) top view, (b) side view.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of solar still.

the floating absorber can influence the distillate output of solar still with
three layer floating absorber [10].
Since the floating absorber designs in solar still are relatively new,
there is need for more investigations to get a better understanding of its
design and the effect of various operating parameters on still produc­
tivity. As the feed water in the case of multi-layer floating system is
isolated from the solar thermal process with the help of the insulation
layer, the vapour space between the absorber surface and the glass cover
will have a strong influence in the performance. An investigation on low
thermal inertia based floating materials in solar stills suggested that the
solar still yield may depend on factors other than evaporation potential
[11]. Higher glass cover temperature is also reported to adversely affect
the still output [12]. In addition to this, the vapour space temperature
[13,14] and vapour content corresponding to a given vapour tempera­
ture [15] are also identified as influential parameters in determining
solar still productivity. The productivity of solar stills with floating ab­
sorbers, capable of interfacial heating, is influenced by the condensation
of humid air on the glass cover [16]. The factors contributing to this,
such as internal relative humidity are not extensively discussed in
literature. Therefore, a detailed investigation of the factors affecting the
vapour space, like vapour space temperature, glass cover temperature,
internal relative humidity, etc. of a multi-functional floating absorber in
a solar still is essential for improving its design to maximize the pro­
ductivity. Further, the use of biodegradable foam as the insulation layer
is not much attempted in a solar still. The inclusion of bio‑carbon foam
can reduce the burden of non-degradable component in the fabricated

2
G. Sebastian et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the multilayer floating absorber system.
still, thereby contributing towards a greener environment.
In this study, we introduce a new multi-layer absorber in a passive
solar still to examine the influence of factors that affect the vapour
space. The three-layer system (T-SS304CC) consists of spectrally selec­
tive solar absorber made of thermally oxidized stainless steel as the top
layer, carbon foam derived from wheat flour as the bottom layer and
cotton cloth as the middle layer. Many of the reported literature on
multi-layer floating absorbers have conducted experiments on simulated
laboratory conditions [17–19]. In the present investigation, the perfor­
mance analysis of a solar still with a novel modified three-layer absorber
is conducted outdoor under tropical conditions in India. The results are
compared with a reference still employing an Aluminium floating
absorber.
2. Materials and methods
The main raw materials used are Acetone (Qualigens fine chemicals,
India), Black paint (spray type, Rust-Oleum, USA), DI water (Millipore
Milli-Q (Resistivity = 18 MΩ cm)), Stainless steel (SS304) and
Aluminium for solar absorber preparation. SS304 and Aluminium sheets
were cleaned using DI water and acetone prior to any treatment pro­
cedure. Aluminium sheet coated with black paint was the floating
absorber for the reference solar still. Morphology of the solar absorber
was examined using a scanning electron microscope (FESEM, make-
Hitachi SU6600). Reflectivity measurement was done with UV-VIS
NIR spectrophotometer (Agilent, USA). FTIR spectrometer integrated
with ATR (make-PerkinElmer, USA) was used for emissivity measure­
ments. The absorptivity and emissivity values of the solar absorbers i.e.
T-SS304 and black paint coated Aluminium were determined by per­
forming three trails and the results are reported in terms of average
values with standard deviations.
3. Details of the experimental setup
3.1. Description of solar still
Fig. 1 shows the photograph of the experimental setup. It consists of
two stills of basin area 0.75 m × 0.3 m, fabricated with GI sheet of 20
gauge thickness. The specific height of the stills were fixed as 0.18 m to
ensure shorter vapour travel distance. Solar stills were covered using
plain glass of thickness 3 mm and both stills were positioned to face
south direction in order to receive maximum solar radiation. Two-layer
insulation was provided to minimize heat transfer between solar stills
3
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
and the ambient air. Inner layer in contact with the GI sheet was made of
HD thermocol (40 mm thick) and the outer layer was plywood (12 mm
thick). The details regarding the solar stills are depicted in the schematic
diagram shown in Fig. 2.
3.2. Description of floating absorber
A novel three layer floating absorber design is used in this work (T-
SS304CC). The component on the top of the multi-layer floating system
is a spectrally selective solar absorber (SSA) made of thermally oxidized
stainless steel (T-SS304). This material was chosen due to its low cost.
Besides, it can be prepared without any elaborate treatment and, the
preparation method is easily scalable.
The high absorptivity and low emissivity, stainless steel based solar
absorber sheet was prepared by following the procedure adopted by Wu
et al. [20]. SS304 was heat treated inside a furnace at 950 ◦ C for 2 h in
the presence of air resulting in the formation of iron oxide layer with
spectral selective property.
The bottom layer of the three-layer absorber system was biode­
gradable carbon foam made from wheat flour. The bio-carbon foam acts
as the structural support for the floating absorber with its stiffness and
low density. It also provides thermal insulation to minimize heat dissi­
pation to the feedwater below the floating system, which aids in inter­
facial heating. In order to make the carbon foam, at first, a porous
structure was prepared by baking wheat dough in a large oven for 30
min. It was then left for drying at 75 ◦ C for about 20 h. Next, the dried
porous structure was carbonized in a muffle furnace at a temperature of
350 ◦ C, resulting in the formation of carbon foam. Heat treatment at
350 ◦ C helps in the formation of defects and organic impurities which
impede phonon transfer [21]. Since thermal energy transfer in carbon
based materials occur by phonon transfer [22,23], wheat flour based
carbon foam has low thermal conductivity. The arrangement of the
novel multi-layer floating absorber is shown in Fig. 3. The prepared
carbon foam was wrapped using food grade LDPE sheet. A PU foam of 5
mm thickness was placed on top of the carbon foam to make the surface
flat. The carbon foam together with the thin PU sheet acts as the bottom
layer of the floating system. The bottom layer was then wrapped with
cotton cloth as shown in Fig. 3 to ensure a 2D water path by capillary
action which is found to be effective [24].
The thermally treated top layer of the floating absorber (T-SS304)
enables photothermal conversion, thereby heating up the cotton fabric.
T-SS304 was provided with circular holes as shown in Fig. 3. This helps
the feedwater, that rises up the cotton cloth by capillary action, to easily
G. Sebastian et al.
Table 1
Relative humidity constants.
Constant p q r 3.3. Experimental procedure and measurement
Value 4.9283 − 2937.4 273
evaporate through the holes and produce freshwater. A reference still
was used in the present study to investigate the relative performance of
the modified still with three-layer floating absorber. The reference still
uses a simple Aluminium (Al) floating absorber since its design is similar
to that of the absorber used in the modified still. Moreover, the perfor­
mance of the floating aluminium based solar still is better when
compared to the conventional solar still, as mentioned in the literature
review. The Aluminium absorber was coated with black paint to
enhance its solar absorptivity. The thermal concentration (TC) of the
solar absorber, defined as the ratio of the basin area to the evaporation
area, determines the number of holes on the solar absorber. TC was fixed
at 8 for both T-SS304 absorber as well as Aluminium absorber to ensure
Fig. 4. (a–c) Variation of ambient temperature and solar radiation with time, (d–f) Absorber and glass cover temperature comparison for Al still and T-SS304CC still.
4
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
sufficient evaporation area for effective evaporation [25].
The experiments were carried out on the roof top of the School of
Materials Science and Engineering, NIT Calicut, India, from 9 am to 4
pm on 25th April, 28th April and 6th May respectively. The tempera­
tures of the absorber, glass cover, vapour, feedwater and ambient were
measured and recorded using calibrated T-type thermocouples con­
nected to a DAQ (Agilent 39472A). The solar intensity was recorded
with the help of Davis-Vantage Pro2 weather station. The actual ex­
periments were performed after ensuring that both stills gave synchro­
nized results under same conditions. Distillate output which condenses
on the glass cover is drained through an aluminium channel by gravity
and collected in a freshwater bottle and measured using a weighing
balance every hour.
G. Sebastian et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349

Table 2
Data obtained from experimental runs.
Sl. Parameter Still type 25 April 28 April 06-May-
No. 2019 2019 19

1 Tsmax (◦ C) T- 84.4 76.7 80.2

SS304CC (12:18 (11:05 (12:31
PM) AM) PM)
Al 63.8 60.2 66.4
(14:33 (14:20 (14:21
PM) PM) PM)
2 Iavg (W/m2) – 389 429 507
3 Imax (W/m2) – 1081 889 861
(11:48 (10:58 (12:09
AM) AM) PM)
4 Time (min) to T- 30 7 22
achieve Tsmax from SS304CC
Imax Al 165 202 132

4. Calculations

Solar thermal efficiency, ηso− th which determines the fraction of solar

energy that is converted to thermal energy is calculated using the Eq. (1)
[26]
(α I − εEB )
ηso− th = × 100 (1)
I

where α and ε are absorptivity and emissivity respectively of solar

absorber and is given by Eq. (2) [27] and Eq. (3) [28]. R (λ) denotes the
spectral reflectivity at a given wavelength, λ.
∫ 900
IAM 1.5 (λ) × (1 − R(λ) )dλ
α = 300 ∫ 900 (2)
I
300 AM 1.5
(λ)dλ
∫ 25000
PB (λ) × (1 − R(λ) )dλ
∈= 2500
∫ 25000 (3)
2500
PB (λ)dλ

1 − R(λ) denotes the spectral absorptivity for the case of solar absorbers
used in this study as they are opaque in nature (transmissivity = 0).
Absorptivity is the fraction of solar energy that is absorbed by a material
and is determined by integrating the spectral absorptivity from 300 nm
to 900 nm. IAM1.5 is the standard solar spectrum (ASTM G-173-03 [29])
used for testing of materials. R(λ) for absorptivity calculations is
measured using UV-VIS NIR spectrophotometer. Eq. (3) is used to
determine the emissivity by integrating over the infrared spectrum i.e.
2500 nm to 25,000 nm. PB (λ) is the spectral emissive power of a black
body which is given by Planck's law [28]. Spectral reflectance, R(λ) is
measured using FTIR spectrometer for emissivity measurement. Internal
relative humidity is determined using Eq. (4) [30]. The values of con­
stants p, q and r are given in Table 1. Tv is the vapour space temperature
and dew
( )
q q
Tdw +r− Tv +r
RH = (Tv + r)p × (Tdw + r)− p × 10 (4)

point temperature, Tdw is taken as glass cover temperature since

condensation occurs by contact on glass cover [31]. Solar still efficiency, Fig. 5. (a–c) Solar thermal efficiency comparison for Aluminium and T-
ηstill determines the hourly freshwater production efficiency of the still SS304CC still.
for the amount of solar radiation received and is calculated using Eq. (5)
[32]. In Eq. (5), mh is the hourly freshwater yield, LH represents latent data.
heat of
∑
mh × LH 5. Results and discussion
ηstill = ∑ × 100 (5)
Ih × A × 3600
5.1. Climatic conditions and absorber temperature
vaporization, Ih is the hourly average solar intensity and A denotes the
area of the solar absorber. Uncertainty in the primary and derived data Fig. 4 (a–c) displays the ambient temperature and solar radiation
was estimated, details of which can be referred to in the supplementary data for test days corresponding to 25th April, 28th April and 3rd May
respectively. The average solar intensity for 25th April, 28th April and

5
G. Sebastian et al.
Fig. 6. Spectral reflectance data for solar absorbers along with the ideal
reflectance curve.
3rd May respectively were 389 W/m2, 429 W/m2 and 507 W/m2. The
maximum solar intensity recorded during the test days were 1081 W/m2
on 25th May, 889 W/m2 on 28th May and 858 W/m2 on 3rd May. The
ambient temperature during the experimental runs increased as the day
progressed, with the maximum recorded values of 34.9 ◦ C, 33.9 ◦ C and
35.2 ◦ C on 25th April, 28th April and 3rd May, respectively. It gradually
dropped down as expected towards the evening. Fig. 4 (d–f) shows the
comparison of floating absorber and glass cover temperatures of both
stills, for test days corresponding to 25th April, 28th April and 3rd May,
respectively. The absorber temperature for the T-SS304CC still was
found to be higher, as compared to Al still, up to about 3.30 pm for all
days tested. The maximum absorber temperature recorded for T-
SS304CC was 84.4 ◦ C on 5th April. The maximum solar intensity of
1081 W/m2 was also recorded on the same day among the three
experimental runs, as shown in Table 2.
5.2. Solar thermal conversion and evaporation potential of solar stills
The superior absorber temperature of the T-SS304CC still is attrib­
uted to the better solar thermal conversion capability of the T-SS304
solar selective layer, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The maximum solar thermal
efficiency obtained was nearly 81% on 25th April. The enhancement in
solar thermal efficiency of T-SS304CC still was found to be more evident
in the afternoon, as compared to the morning hours. Towards evening,
solar thermal efficiency of Aluminium absorber was found to decrease
further, as observed in Fig. 5, on account of the higher emissivity of
Fig. 7. SEM image revealing morphology of thermally oxidized stainless steel at 950 ◦ C.
6
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
Aluminium absorber in the infrared region of the solar spectrum. The
remarkable solar to thermal conversion of T-SS304 SSA is owing to its
high absorptivity (αT-SS304 = 0.918(0.007), αAl = 0.904(0.006)) in the
near visible, visible and near infrared spectrum, as depicted in Fig. 6.
The SEM image, as shown in Fig. 7, reveals the rhombus grain
morphology with irregular shaped structure formation as a result of the
thermal oxidation of SS304, which gives it a 3D structural arrangement
enhancing the scattering. Based on the calculation using Eq. (3), emis­
sivity of T-SS304 sheet was found to be relatively low (ℇT-SS304 = 0.145
(0.023), ℇAl = 0.232(0.027)), which would result in minimal radiative
heat loss. In addition to the spectral selective top layer, the use of
insulating layer at the bottom of T-SS304CC floating absorber enabled
heat localization at the absorber surface, as can be verified by the
relatively low bulk feedwater temperature for T-SS304CC Still (Fig. S1,
Supplementary data), which further enhanced the absorber tempera­
ture. It may be noted that the time to achieve maximum absorber tem­
perature (Tsmax), once the highest radiation intensity from the Sun was
recorded, is relatively less for T-SS304CC absorber, as compared to Al
absorber. For example, it took just 7 min for the modified absorber to
achieve Tsmax on 28th April as against 202 min for the case of Aluminium
absorber, as shown in Table 2. A similar trend may be observed for other
two days, as displayed in Table 2. This clearly demonstrates better
sensitivity and response of the proposed floating absorber.
Fig. 8 represents the variation of the difference in absorber surface
temperature and glass cover temperature, ΔTs-g, with time for T-
SS304CC still and Al still respectively. ΔTs-g signifies the evaporation
strength of a solar still. The higher the value of ΔTs-g, the higher is the
rate of evaporation, thus leading to enhanced still productivity [33].
Fig. 8 indicates better evaporation strength for the T-SS304CC still, for
most part of the experimental run on all three days considered. This is
because of the higher ΔTs-g of T-SS304CC still compared to Al still.
5.3. Solar still productivity
Fig. 9 (a–c) shows the comparison of still productivity with time for
both stills, for test days corresponding to 25th April, 28th April and 6th
May, respectively. Still productivity is measured on an hourly basis. It
may be observed that still productivity for T-SS304CC still is greater
than Al still till 1 pm, for all three test days considered. This is also re­
flected in the better cumulative output for T-SS304CC still up to 1 pm for
all days of testing. The enhancement in cumulative output for the
modified still till afternoon is 59.5%, 126.7% and 48.4% respectively on
25th April, 28th April and 6th May respectively. This indicates the quick
response of the proposed floating absorber system for freshwater
production.
However, in the afternoon, still productivity of T-SS304CC still is
found to be decreasing or less than that of Aluminium still. A similar
G. Sebastian et al.
Fig. 8. (a–c) Temperature difference between absorber surface and glass cover
with time for both stills.
trend was observed for all three experimental runs. Despite its better
evaporation potential, as mentioned earlier, T-SS304CC still displayed
reduced productivity. This confirms that the still productivity for
floating absorber based solar still will depend on other factors related to
the vapour space of the solar still.
5.4. Relative humidity and vapour space temperature
Freshwater production in a floating absorber solar still depends on
the evaporation at the absorber surface interface and the condensation
7
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
Fig. 9. (a–c) Hourly still productivity comparison for Aluminium still and T-
SS304CC still.
that occur at the glass cover. To understand the influence of the pro­
posed floating absorber on the condensation phenomena at the glass
cover, internal relative humidity of the two solar stills were determined.
Internal relative humidity of a solar still is the measure of the amount of
moisture in the region between the absorber surface and the glass cover,
i.e. the vapour space at a given temperature and pressure. Higher rela­
tive humidity implies higher degree of saturation and therefore more
possibility for condensation and vice versa. Relative humidity was
calculated using the Eq. (4). Fig. 10 shows the internal relative humidity
variation during the run time of both solar stills on 25th April, 28th April
and 6th May respectively. It may be noted that relative humidity de­
creases in the afternoon for both stills. Interestingly, the relative
G. Sebastian et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349

Fig. 10. (a–c) Variation of relative humidity in the vapour space for both stills
Fig. 11. (a–c) Vapour space temperature comparison for Aluminium still and T-
from 9 am to 4 pm.
SS304CC still.

humidity for T-SS304CC still is found to be decreasing in comparison

absorber interface as a consequence of its better optical properties and
with Aluminium still with time especially in the afternoon hours. This
heat localization. Since the saturation pressure increases exponentially
implies that rate of condensation of T-SS304CC still was adversely
with temperature, it improves the water vapour holding capacity in the
affected in the afternoon hours.
vapour space of T-SS304CC still. This theory substantiates the above
The vapour space temperature near the glass cover was analysed to
mentioned decrease in the internal relative humidity of the floating
further understand the reason for the decrease in relative humidity of
absorber based solar still with T-SS304CC absorber. Moreover, the high
the T-SS304CC still. Fig. 11 presents the variation of vapour space
vapour space temperature near the absorber surface of T-SS304CC still
temperature near glass cover denoted by ΔTv-g for both stills on the test
also implies lower relative humidity. This further confirms the high
days. It may be noted that vapour space temperature is more for the T-
evaporation potential near the absorber interface of the modified still
SS304CC still as compared to Aluminium still, for most part of the day.
(Fig. S2, Supplementary data). Therefore, the adverse effect on fresh­
More importantly, there is an increase in ΔTv-g for T-SS304CC in the
water productivity of the modified still with multi-functional floating
afternoon hours owing to the enhanced thermal energy utilization at the
absorber is associated with the condensation potential near the glass

8
G. Sebastian et al.
Fig. 12. (a–c) Hourly solar still efficiency of Aluminium still and T-SS304CC
still for the three test days.
cover rather than the evaporation potential near the absorber interface.
5.5. Adverse effect of vapour space temperature on modified still
5.5.1. Solar still efficiency
Fig. 12 presents the solar still efficiency on an hourly basis for
Aluminium still as well as T-SS304CC still. It may be observed that the
solar still efficiency is better for modified still in the morning hours. The
better still efficiency for T-SS304CC in the morning hours is because of
its higher distillate output. This also indicates the ability of T-SS304CC
still to quickly start freshwater production once the system begins its
operation. However, in the afternoon, especially after 1 pm, still
9
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
efficiency for Aluminium still is higher than T-SS304CC Still. This is
because of the adverse effect of vapour space temperature, causing a
drop in distillate output. Further, it may be noted that the solar still
efficiency is significantly more for Aluminium still as compared to T-
SS304CC still towards the evening, with the values mostly exceeding
100% for Aluminium still. It is due to the fact that Aluminium still has
better heat storage capacity. The heat energy stored gets released in the
late afternoon hours producing additional freshwater, despite the poor
solar radiation received towards the evening.
5.5.2. Cost analysis
A cost analysis was carried out to further highlight the adverse effect
that the vapour space temperature creates in the afternoon hours on the
overall performance of the proposed floating absorber based still.
Table 3 illustrates the fixed expense which sums up the fabrication cost
incurred for making solar still of 1 m2 area. Fixed expense is calculated
for both Aluminium still and T-SS304CC still as shown in Table 3. The
cost per litre of freshwater produced by a solar still is determined by
calculating the total annual expense and dividing it by the yearly
freshwater produced in litres. Total annual expense (TAC) depends on
annual fixed expense (AF), cost involved in annual operation and
maintenance (AMC) and the annual salvage expense (ASV). Annual
salvage expense is calculated by considering the salvage cost and the
sinking fund factor. Similarly, annual fixed expense (AF) is a function of
capital recovery factor (CR) and the fixed expense (F) incurred for the
solar still fabrication. The various cost parameters are calculated using
the equations listed in Table 3 [34]. The life time of solar still is assumed
as 10 years. The interest rate (R) of 12% was considered for calculating
capital recovery and sinking fund. All the assumed terms such as interest
rate (R), salvage cost rate (20% Fixed expense), annual operation and
maintenance rate (30% annual fixed expense), life time of solar still (n)
are chosen based on standard values considered in latest literature on
solar still [34,35]. Table 3 also compares the cost of freshwater produced
for both T-SS304CC still and Aluminium still. It may be noted that cost
per litre for the modified still is 0.061 $/L, whereas for Aluminium still it
is 0.052 $/L, for the day time operation. However, the per litre cost
becomes $0.118 and $0.184 respectively, for T-SS304CC still and
Aluminium still respectively, if the stills operate till 1 pm in the after­
noon for an year. The cost of freshwater production decreased by about
36% by using the modified still till the afternoon hours when the
negative effect of vapour space temperature is not present. From this, it
may be inferred that the reduction in freshwater production of T-
SS304CC still in the afternoon, due to the reduction in internal relative
humidity caused by vapour space effect, increased the cost per litre of
freshwater by nearly 18.5% for the diurnal operation.
6. Conclusions
The influence of different vapour space parameters on the perfor­
mance of floating absorber based solar stills were investigated. A
multilayer floating absorber (T-SS304CC) satisfying the desired char­
acteristic features of high absorptivity in the solar thermal spectrum,
lower emissivity in the far IR spectrum, thermal insulation for heat
localization and continuous two-dimensional water transport by capil­
lary action for effective feedwater evaporation were used. The reference
still employed a black paint coated perforated Aluminium sheet floating
absorber. The performance analysis of the modified still and the refer­
ence still was compared based on outdoor experiments conducted on
25th April, 28th April and 6th May respectively from 9 am to 4 pm in
India under tropical conditions where the daily average solar intensity
varied between 385 W/m2 to 510 W/m2 and the ambient temperature
recorded was in the range between 33.5 ◦ C to 35.5 ◦ C. T-SS304CC
absorber exhibited higher solar thermal conversion efficiency of nearly
81% when compared to Aluminium absorber. The modified still with T-
SS304CC absorber displayed better sensitivity and faster response to
change in solar intensity which was also reflected in the hourly distillate
G. Sebastian et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349

Table 3
Costa analysis for floating absorber based solar stills.
Item no Cost parameter Equation Diurnal operation Operation time up to 1 PM

Aluminium still ($) T-SS304CC still ($) Aluminium still ($) T-SS304CC still ($)

1 Capital recovery (CR) R(1 + R)n 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177

(1 + Rn ) − 1
2 Fixed expense (F) 82 87 82 87
3 Annual fixed expense (AF) CR × Fixed expense 14.513 15.398 14.513 15.398
4 Sinking fund (SF) R 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
(R + 1)n − 1
5 Salvage cost(S) 0.2 × Fixed expense 16.4 17.4 16.4 17.4
6 Annual salvage expense (ASV) S × SF 0.935 0.992 0.935 0.992
7 Annual operation and maintenance (AMC) 0.3 × AF 4.354 4.619 4.354 4.619
8 Total annual expense (TAC) AF + AMC − ASV 17.932 19.025 17.932 19.025
9 Cost per litre TAC 0.052 0.061 0.184 0.118
Yearly freshwater production
a
1USD = Rs 75.

output, especially in the morning hours. However, in the afternoon, the Subscripts
internal relative humidity of T-SS304CC still decreased with a maximum
reduction of 38% on 25th April run compared to the Aluminium still as a v-g Vapour space near glass cover
result of the spike in vapour space temperature. This adversely affected s-g Absorber surface and glass cover
the productivity of the modified still. The negative impact of vapour s-v Vapour space near absorber
space parameters on T-SS304CC still was also reflected in the still effi­ dw Dew point
ciency. For instance, on 28th April, still efficiency of T-SS304CC still was so-th Solar thermal
4 times better than Aluminium still at 11 am in the morning. However, B Black body
the solar still efficiency was about 0.3 times less for modified still by 3 v Vapour
pm on the same day. Similarly, the cost of fresh water production AM 1.5 Air mass 1.5
increased nearly 18.5% as a result of the negative influence of the s spectral
vapour space temperature. h hourly
max maximum
Nomenclatures smax maximum absorber

A Absorber area (m2)

Declaration of competing interest
L Length (m)
T Temperature (◦ C)
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
ΔT Temperature difference (◦ C)
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
RH Relative humidity (%)
the work reported in this paper.
E Emissive power (W/m2)
P Spectral emissive power (W/m2/μm)
I Solar intensity (W/m2) Appendix A. Supplementary data
m distillate output (l)
LH Latent heat (J/kg◦ C) Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
w No: of primary data org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102349.
F Primary data
D Derived data References
ΔU Uncertainty
[1] Service RF, Is it time to shoot for the sun? Science (80-) 309 (2005) 548–551,
TC Thermal concentration https://doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5734.548.
T-SS304 SSA Thermally oxidized stainless steel based spectrally [2] C. Li, Y. Goswami, E. Stefanakos, Solar assisted sea water desalination: a review,
selective absorber Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 19 (2013) 136–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.04.059.
T-SS304CC Three layer floating absorber system
[3] A. Kaushal, Varun, Solar stills: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (2010)
FESEM Field Emission Scanning electron microscopy 446–453, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.011.
UV-VIS NIR Ultraviolet Visible Near Infrared [4] A. Muthu Manokar, K. Kalidasa Murugavel, G. Esakkimuthu, Different parameters
FTIR Fourier-Transform Infrared affecting the rate of evaporation and condensation on passive solar still - a review,
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 38 (2014) 309–322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ATR Attenuated Total Reflection rser.2014.05.092.
GI Galvanized Iron [5] A.S. Nafey, M. Abdelkader, A. Abdelmotalip, A.A. Mabrouk, Enhancement of solar
HD High Definition still productivity using floating perforated black plate, Energy Convers. Manag. 43
(2002) 937–946, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00079-6.
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene [6] H. Panchal, P.K. Shah, Investigation on solar stills having floating plates, Int. J.
PU Polyurethane Energy Environ. Eng. 3 (2012) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-3-8.
DAQ Data Acquisition system [7] T. Arunkumar, A.E. Kabeel, K. Raj, D. Denkenberger, R. Sathyamurthy,
P. Ragupathy, et al., Productivity enhancement of solar still by using porous
absorber with bubble-wrap insulation, J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018) 1149–1161,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.199.
Greek symbols
[8] G. Ni, S.H. Zandavi, S.M. Javid, S.V. Boriskina, T.A. Cooper, G. Chen, A salt-
rejecting floating solar still for low-cost desalination, Energy Environ. Sci. 11
α Absorptivity (2018) 1510–1519, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee00220g.
ℇ Emissivity [9] H.M. Wilson, S.R.A. R, A.E. Parab, N. Jha, Ultra-low cost cotton based solar
evaporation device for seawater desalination and waste water purification to
η Efficiency produce drinkable water, Desalination 456 (2019) 85–96, https://doi.org/
λ wavelength 10.1016/j.desal.2019.01.017.

10
G. Sebastian et al.
[10] G. Sebastian, S. Thomas, Influence of providing a three-layer spectrally selective
floating absorber on passive single slope solar still productivity under tropical
conditions, Energy 214 (2021) 118848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.118848.
[11] W. Szulmayer, Solar stills with low thermal inertia, Sol. Energy 14 (1973)
415–421, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(73)90019-4.
[12] M.S. Reddy, D.J.N. Chandra, H.K. Sehgal, S.P. Sabberwal, A.K. Bhargava, D.S.
J. Chandra, Performance of a multiple-wick solar still with condenser, Appl. Energy
13 (1983) 15–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(83)90031-4.
[13] M. Sakthivel, S. Shanmugasundaram, T. Alwarsamy, An experimental study on a
regenerative solar still with energy storage medium - jute cloth, Desalination 264
(2010) 24–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.06.074.
[14] Z. Haddad, A. Chaker, A. Rahmani, Improving the basin type solar still
performances using a vertical rotating wick, Desalination 418 (2017) 71–78,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.05.030.
[15] K.K. Murugavel, S. Sivakumar, J.R. Ahamed, K.K.S.K. Chockalingam, K. Srithar,
Single basin double slope solar still with minimum basin depth and energy storing
materials, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 514–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2009.07.023.
[16] Z. Wang, T. Horseman, A.P. Straub, N.Y. Yip, D. Li, M. Elimelech, et al., Pathways
and challenges for efficient solar-thermal desalination, Sci. Adv. (2019) 5, https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0763.
[17] M. Gao, L. Zhu, C.K. Peh, G.W. Ho, Solar absorber material and system designs for
photothermal water vaporization towards clean water and energy production,
Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (2019) 841–864, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee01146j.
[18] L. Zhu, M. Gao, C.K.N. Peh, G.W. Ho, Solar-driven photothermal nanostructured
materials designs and prerequisites for evaporation and catalysis applications,
Mater. Horizons 5 (2018) 323–343, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7mh01064h.
[19] A. Raza, J.Y. Lu, S. Alzaim, H. Li, T. Zhang, Novel receiver-enhanced solar vapor
generation: review and perspectives, Energies (2018) 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en11010253.
[20] S. Wu, C.H. Cheng, Y.J. Hsiao, R.C. Juang, W.F. Wen, Fe2O3 films on stainless steel
for solar absorbers, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 58 (2016) 574–580, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.263.
[21] B. Wen, M. Cao, M. Lu, W. Cao, H. Shi, J. Liu, et al., Reduced graphene oxides:
light-weight and high-efficiency electromagnetic interference shielding at elevated
temperatures (Adv. Mater. 21/2014), Adv. Mater. 26 (2014) 3357, https://doi.org/
10.1002/adma.201470138.
[22] A.A. Balandin, Thermal properties of graphene and nanostructured carbon
materials, Nat. Mater. 10 (2011) 569–581, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3064.
11
Journal of Water Process Engineering 44 (2021) 102349
[23] M.M. Sadeghi, I. Jo, L. Shi, Phonon-interface scattering in multilayer grapheme on
an amorphous support, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (2013) 16321–16326,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306175110.
[24] X. Li, W. Xu, M. Tang, L. Zhou, B. Zhu, S. Zhu, et al., Graphene oxide-based efficient
and scalable solar desalination under one sun with a confined 2D water path, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113 (2016) 13953–13958, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1613031113.
[25] G. Ni, G. Li, S.V. Boriskina, H. Li, W. Yang, T.J. Zhang, et al., Steam generation
under one sun enabled by a floating structure with thermal concentration, Nat.
Energy 1 (2016) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.126.
[26] J. Mandal, D. Wang, A.C. Overvig, N.N. Shi, D. Paley, A. Zangiabadi, et al.,
Scalable, “dip-and-dry” fabrication of a wide-angle plasmonic selective absorber
for high-efficiency solar–thermal energy conversion, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017) 1–9,
https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201702156.
[27] T. Abendroth, H. Althues, G. Mäder, P. Härtel, S. Kaskel, E. Beyer, Selective
absorption of carbon nanotube thin films for solar energy applications, Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 143 (2015) 553–556, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2015.07.044.
[28] F.P. Incropera, A.S. Lavine, T.L. Bergman, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Wiley, 2007.
[29] C.A. Gueymard, D. Myers, K. Emery, Proposed reference irradiance spectra for
solar energy systems testing, Sol. Energy 73 (2002) 443–467, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00005-7.
[30] O.O. Parish, T.W. Putnam, Equations for the Determination of Humidity From
Dewpoint and Psychrometric Data, 1977.
[31] H.N. Panchal, S. Patel, An extensive review on different design and climatic
parameters to increase distillate output of solar still, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 69
(2017) 750–758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.001.
[32] A.E. Kabeel, S.A. El-agouz, R. Sathyamurthy, T. Arunkumar, Augmenting the
productivity of solar still using jute cloth knitted with sand heat energy storage,
Desalination 443 (2018) 122–129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.05.026.
[33] V. Velmurugan, K. Srithar, Performance analysis of solar stills based on various
factors affecting the productivity - a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15 (2011)
1294–1304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.10.012.
[34] A.S. Abdullah, M.M. Younes, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, New design of trays solar still
with enhanced evaporation methods – comprehensive study, Sol. Energy 203
(2020) 164–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.04.039.
[35] S.W. Sharshir, Y.M. Ellakany, M.A. Eltawil, Exergoeconomic and environmental
analysis of seawater desalination system augmented with nanoparticles and cotton
hung pad, J. Clean. Prod. 248 (2020) 119180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119180.