Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experimental investigation on the negative effect of the external condenser

on the conventional solar still performance
Ahmed Rahmani a, *, Fouzia Khemmar b, Zine Saadi c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Larbi Ben M’hidi University, Oum El Bouaghi 04000, Algeria
b
Department of Matter Sciences, Larbi Ben M’hidi University, Oum El Bouaghi 04000, Algeria
c
Unité de Recherche en Energies Renouvelables en Milieu Saharien (URER.MS), Centre de Développement des Energies Renouvelables (CDER), 01000 Adrar, Algeria

H I G H L I G H T S

• A new external condenser (EC) design was presented.

• The effect of integrating an EC on conventional solar still (CSS) is experimentally studied.
• Integrating an EC into CSS is not always efficient.
• In moderate weather days, EC enhances the daily yield by about 29%.
• In cold and hot weather, EC decreases the daily yield by about 4.24% to 16.53%.

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

Keywords: This experimental study aims to reveal the negative effect of the external condenser (EC) on the conventional
Conventional solar still solar still (CSS) performance. A new EC design was proposed and integrated into a single-slope, basin type CSS.
External condenser The EC’s negative aspect is demonstrated through a comparative study between the CSS and the modified solar
Negative effect
still (MSS) in the same outdoor weather conditions. The experimental results show that adding an EC to the CSS
Experimental study
Natural circulation
is not always positive and the still performance is closely related to the weather conditions. The EC positive effect
Purging-diffusion appears in moderate weather conditions, where its contribution to improving MSS productivity reaches 29%.
While in very cold or hot weather days, the EC affects adversely the still productivity, which decreases to about
16.5% against that of the CSS. It was found that the natural circulation mode (NC) is the dominant mass transfer
process, which contributes by about 63% to 80% to the water vapor transfer toward the EC. The results show also
that the maximum daily energy and exergy efficiencies for the MSS and CSS are 23.2% and 1.9%, respectively,
while for the CSS, they are 18.25% and 2.4%, respectively.

1. Introduction well as the exacerbation of conflicts and high migration rates.

Water is one of the most vital needs for all life-forms on our planet.
Statistics indicate that only 3% of the water on earth is freshwater.
Around 77.6% of this quantity forms the lakes, rivers, groundwater and
ice in the polar ice caps, while only 0.6% is the amount available to meet
all human needs [1]. Freshwater resources are exhausted due to many
factors like rapid industrial development, population growth and
climate warming [2]. Providing freshwater is an urgent priority for
many countries, especially in Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East
and North Africa [3]. These countries suffer from an acute shortage of
water resources, which affects agricultural production, food security, as
Water scarcity mainly affects the residents of arid and remote regions
[4,5]. Water sources in these regions are limited and most of them are
deep groundwater that can’t be used, except after treatment, due to its
high salinity and its containment of bacteria and many other pollutants.
Because of the lack of water treatment plants in these regions, residents
are obliged to utilize unsafe water. This in turn, contributes to the spread
of infectious diseases as cholera and malaria [6]. Thanks to the vast solar
energy that characterize these regions, solar desalination represents the
most attractive solution for providing clean water and improving the
living conditions of residents [7,8]. The use of solar energy is not only
limited to its economic benefits but also for environmental and social

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mag_phy@yahoo.fr (A. Rahmani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114914
Received 5 August 2020; Received in revised form 20 November 2020; Accepted 17 December 2020
Available online 26 December 2020
0011-9164/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Rahmani et al.
considerations. So, energy-saving and environmental protection repre­
sents the main challenges for researchers and politicians alike.
Solar distillation has long been the subject of many scientific papers
and remains till now one of the privileged research fields. Various solar
still designs were proposed in the literature, while the most known is the
simple solar still (CSS). These devices are less expensive, easy to build
and to transport. Whereas, their main drawback is the low productivity
compared to modern desalination systems, which limits their utilization
[9,10]. Therefore, many amendments were introduced by researchers on
the CSS design and its working mode to overcome this limitation [11].
An extensive review of different techniques used in enhancing the still
productivity was recently summarized by [12,13]. These modifications
are adopted to improve evaporation, condensation, increase heat stor­
age and reduce heat loss [14].
The glass is an essential element widely used in most solar stills due
to its optical, mechanical and chemical features. It is well-known for its
ability to transmit solar rays and its resistance to degradation factors like
heat, pressure and chemical reaction. It is also perfect in solar stills to
minimize upward heat loss [15,16]. In hot weather conditions (high
solar radiation, high temperature and low wind speed), the glass cover
becomes unable to condense all water vapor in the still. Because of its
low conductivity, the glass cover fails to transfer the latent heat of
condensation accumulated in the still to the ambient. In these condi­
tions, the glass cover’s temperature rises, leading to a decrease in the
evaporation rate and a rise in the pressure inside the still. Therefore,
solar still productivity decreases, despite the high intensity of solar ra­
diation. As a solution to this problem, several practical solutions were
proposed by researchers [17], like the glass cover’s external cooling
[18], using thermoelectric cooling [19–21], vapor extraction [22], by
shading the glass cover [2,23], as well as by integrating an additional
condenser [24,25].
Many efforts are devoted to improving CSS productivity by inte­
grating an additional passive condenser [26,27]. The condenser can be
integrated to the still in three different ways, namely: built-in condenser
[28–30], internal condenser [31–33] and EC [14,22,34,35]. Most pre­
vious studies have focalized on evaluating the EC effect on the still
performance under diffusion and purging mode, whereas operating
under NC mode has not been fully elucidated.
In hot weather conditions, the glass cover’s temperature increases
due to the high solar radiation and the high ambient temperature as it
becomes unable to condense all vapor produced inside the still. In this
case, the EC intervenes to suck the water vapor excess and transfer the
accumulated heat from the still to the ambient, thanks to its high ther­
mal conductivity. Hence, the EC serves as an additional heat-sink that
acts to support the glass cover by increasing heat/mass transfer. From
the thermal point of view, the condenser acts as a heat sink that main­
taining low pressure and temperature inside the still by increasing heat
losses and by absorbing the excess of the generating water vapor
[36,37].
The literature survey shows that the condenser’s positive effect on
the CSS performance appears clearly in moderate and hot weather
conditions [38]. This positive effect is also manifested when adopting
enhancing techniques [39], like in the case of multi-effect solar stills
[34,40,41], when integrating solar collectors [42,43], using heat storage
materials [44], by using solar reflectors [36,45] as well as by using
nanofluids [46,47].
However, no much attention was paid to evaluate the condenser
effect in cold weather conditions. Under cold weather conditions (low
solar radiation and low ambient temperature) and due to excessive heat
losses, the condenser can adversely affect the still’s thermal behavior
and its productivity. This negative effect is not only related to the
weather conditions but also their geometrical and physical properties
(wall thickness, heat/mass transfer area, air volume), its operating mode
(passive or active), the materials used in the design (conductivity,
emissivity, heat capacity), the heat/mass transfer mode (purging,
diffusion or NC) and its integration way to the solar still (built-in or
2
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
separate condenser). According to the literature survey, no previous
work has focused on the combined effect between the EC design and the
weather conditions, except for a few studies that revealed a decrease in
solar still productivity due to the increase in external cooling [48–51].
Besides, there no precise calculation rule that defines the EC optimal
design, taking into account the still operating mode and weather
conditions.
This paper presents an experimental study showing the negative ef­
fect of integrating an EC to the single-slope CSS. A new EC design was
proposed in this study to highlight the condenser’s negative aspect. The
EC was built as a passive compact heat exchanger, having a large heat
transfer area and a reduced air volume, in addition to the low wall
thickness and higher thermal conductivity than the glass cover. These
features help to minimize the MSS’s thermal inertia and making it more
sensitive to weather conditions. Furthermore, these properties were
combined to highlight the EC negative effect on CSS performance, which
is the main aim of this work.
The EC impact on the still performance was evaluated through a
comparative study conducted between the MSS and the CSS for various
weather conditions in the region of Adrar-Algeria (Latitude: 27◦ 87′ N,
Longitude: − 0◦ 18′ E). Based on the obtained results, the mass transfer
phenomena related to the integrated EC, namely purging, diffusion and
NC, are analyzed. Energy and exergy efficiencies of both solar stills were
also evaluated and compared for each test day.
2. System design and experimentation
The EC effect on the solar still performance is demonstrated through
a comparative study between the modified solar still (with EC) and the
simple one (without EC). Therefore, two similar basin-type, single-slope,
solar stills were designed, fabricated and tested under the same outdoor
operating conditions at the Research Unit in Renewable Energies in
Saharan Medium (URER.MS) in Adrar-Algeria.
2.1. Solar still description and features
Fig. 1 shows a cross-sectional view of the experimental setup. The
still absorber area is about 0.35 m2 (0.5 m × 0.7 m) made from 0.7 mm
galvanized steel and coated with black spray paint to increase its ab­
sorption of solar radiation. The basin still was placed inside a rectan­
gular wooden box of 2 cm thickness, where it’s front and rear-wall
height is about 10 cm and 46.3 cm, respectively. The still bottom-side
was closed by a removable wooden sheet for easy cleaning and main­
tenance operations. The remaining space between the basin and the
wooden cover is filled with a glass wool layer of 10 cm thickness to
reduce the bottom heat loss. The still upper-side was covered with a
transparent glass sheet of 4.0 mm thickness, an area of 0.43 m2 and tilted
from the horizon by 36◦ . A small-diameter PVC tube was opened up as a
gutter and set up along the glass cover lower edge to collect and guide
the condensed water to the collection bottle. Silicone glue is applied to
prevent any vapor leakage from the stills.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the solar still condensation area has been
enlarged by an additional EC that takes the shape of a compact heat
exchanger attached to the still rear-wall. The proposed EC is a paral­
lelepiped box of 0.29 m2 (10 cm × 30 cm × 50 cm) made of a 0.5 mm
galvanized sheet. Generally, adding an EC increases air volume inside
the still, which reduces its daily productivity [52–54]. To further in­
crease the EC heat/mass transfer area without increasing its volume, five
aluminum tubes are inserted vertically in the galvanized box. Each one
has a 40 cm length, 50 mm outer diameter and 1.0 mm of thickness.
As a result, the EC heat/mass transfer area is enhanced by 81.2% and
its air volume is trimmed by about 20%. Thus, the EC represents an
additional heat/mass transfer area of about 0.52 m2 (vs. 0.43 m2 for the
glass cover) with a reduced volume ratio compared to the CSS volume
cavity (evaporator) of about 1/8 that makes the MSS more compact and
transferable.
A. Rahmani et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the MSS integrated with the EC.
To increase the rate of water vapor transfer from the evaporator
toward the EC, two-rectangular and horizontal slots (3.5 cm × 45 cm)
were performed at the top and bottom side of the still back-wall. This
layout allows getting an efficient NC of the humid-air between the
evaporator and the condenser. The EC was also protected from direct
sun rays by a plastic sheet fitted along the glass’s upper edge. The EC was
slightly tilted to facilitate the collection and extraction of the condensed
water through a narrow tube fitted to the underside of the galvanized
box.
2.2. Operating principle of the still with and without EC
After it’s passing through the transparent glass cover, the incoming
solar energy gets absorbed by the galvanized plate and then transferred
toward the brackish water in the basin still. This energy acts to raise the
temperature of various components of the solar still through different
heat/mass transfer mechanisms. The rise in water temperature causes
the evaporation process to start.
The continuous heating and evaporation result in a pressure increase
3
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
in the still cavity (evaporator). Due to the difference in temperature
between the water and the glass, the natural convection occurs in the
still, transferring the water vapor to the glass cover where it condenses
at its inner side. The condensed water droplets slide along the glass cover
toward the gutter then collected in the glass bottle. In the MSS, a fraction
of the generated vapor condenses at the glass cover inner side while the
rest will transfers toward the EC by three different mass transfer phe­
nomena, namely: purging, diffusion and NC [26,30]. By diffusion mode,
the water vapor moves from the high concentration in the still cavity
toward the lower concentration in the EC. The purging of the water
vapor depends on the relative pressure difference between evaporator
(high volume and high pressure) and EC (lower volume and low pres­
sure). Previous experiments showed that operating in diffusion-purging
mode gives an enhancement of about 62% to 70% in the still produc­
tivity [34,55].
The NC phenomenon occurs because the EC is linked to the still
through two horizontal slots (upper and lower). As a result of the air
density difference between the still cavity and the EC, the NC phe­
nomenon takes place. A shown in Fig. 3, the saturated humid air inside
A. Rahmani et al.
Fig. 3. Operating principle of the modified solar still.
the still tends to move upward and toward the EC via the upper hori­
zontal slot. Inside the EC, the fluid moves downward and streaming over
the space between the vertical aluminum tubes and the lateral walls of
the galvanized box. On the condenser internal walls, the simultaneous
heat/mass transfer causes a decrease in the humid air temperature,
where its density increases and then return toward the evaporator across
the lower slot. As reported by Fath et al. [37], NC represents the large
part of the heat/mass transfer rate from the still to the EC compared to
other modes (purging and diffusion). Thanks to the NC phenomenon,
continuous removal of the water vapor from the still cavity to the EC is
maintained, which leads to an enhanced heat/mass transfer in both sides
of the still (evaporator and EC). The water vapor is separated from the
air and condensed around aluminum tubes and on the internal walls of
the galvanized box. The condensed water slides down under the gravity
effect and then collected in a graduated glass container.
Solar still performance depends on the wind speed and the temper­
ature difference between the solar still condensing area (glass cover and
EC walls) and ambient air [55]. Wind velocity has a significant effect on
the still productivity and efficiency by cooling the condensing area and
maintaining it at a relatively lower temperature than that of the humid
air inside the still cavity. The external heat exchange from the still (CSS
and MSS) to the surrounding ambient is carried out by both radiation
and convection due to the temperature difference between the
condensing area and the ambient.
For the CSS, an increase in the wind speed increases the convective
heat transfer between the still’s glass cover and the ambient, leading to a
rise in distillate production [1]. As found by El-Sebaii [57], the CSS daily
productivity increases with an increase in wind speed up to a typical
value beyond which this increase becomes insignificant.
The wind speed effect on the MSS is higher than that on the CSS due
to the additional area provided by the integrated EC. Given its physical
and geometrical properties (large heat transfer area and high conduc­
tivity), the external heat exchange from the MSS to the ambient would
be higher. This increase in heat losses is appropriate in hot weather
conditions where the ambient temperature is high.
Under cold weather conditions, a high wind speed associated with
low ambient temperature increases the heat losses and causing a sharp
decrease in the EC’s temperature. This decrease in EC wall temperature
is followed by an increase in the internal heat transfer rate, leading to a
noticeable reduction in the basin water temperature. If the incoming
solar energy (solar intensity, sunshine duration) is insufficient to sub­
stitute the heat losses and maintains the basin water temperature, the
evaporation rate decreases leading to a sharp reduction in the MSS
productivity and even lower than that of the CSS. Accordingly, the EC’s
positive/negative effect on the still performance is evaluated based on
the energy balances between the internal heat (latent and sensible)
gained from the humid air and heat losses toward the ambient. Conse­
quently, the weather conditions (solar radiation, wind speed and
ambient temperature), in addition to the EC design (area, volume,
4
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
materials), play a vital role in determining the MSS performance.
2.3. Experimental set-up
Fig. 4 shows a photograph of the experimental setup proposed to
study the EC effect on CSS performance. Both stills were fabricated and
tested under the same weather conditions in Adrar region, located in
southwestern Algeria at a latitude of 27◦ 87′ N, a longitude of − 0◦ 18′ E
and lies at an altitude of 258 m above the sea level [6]. Both stills are
placed on an iron stand and oriented toward the south to receive
maximum solar radiation throughout the test days. At the beginning of
each test, both stills are filled with the same amount of 4.0 l of brackish
water. The main temperatures of each still (basin absorber, basin water,
glass cover inner side and condenser wall), were measured using cali­
brated K-type thermocouples. These thermocouples are connected to a
digital data acquisition system (Fluke 2638A Hydra Series III). Mea­
surements have been recorded every 10 min from 06: 00 a.m. to 08:00 p.
m. The weather data characterizing the test days (global solar radiation,
ambient temperature and wind speed) are obtained from the weather
station of the URER.MS. A CMP21 type Kipp-Zonen pyranometer was
used to measure the global solar radiation. The ambient temperature
was measured using CS215 digital thermometer. The wind speed was
measured using the NRG #40C anemometer. The distillate output is
recorded every half-hour by using a graduated glass bottle of 1500 ml
capacity.
2.4. Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty analysis is required to express limitations related to
the measuring tools and material used in the experiment. In this study,
the uncertainty analysis is performed by using the systematic un­
certainties category (type B). This uncertainty class assumes that the
measurements are evenly distributed. Systematic errors are collected
from manufacturer manuals and instrument catalogs. The standard un­
certainty related to the measuring instruments used in the present
investigation is calculated using Eq. (1), according to Parsa et al. [58].
The uncertainty associated with the measuring instruments used in the
experimental study is given in Table 1.
Accuracy of the instrument
Uncertainty = √̅̅̅ (1)
3
The uncertainty for the calculated dependent variable F(x1, x2, …,
xn) is determined according to the following equation proposed by [59].
Where, x1, x2, …, xn are the independent input variables and u(xi) de­
notes the uncertainties in the independent variables.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2
u(F) =
∂F
u(x1 )2 +
∂F
u(x2 )2 + … +
∂F
u(xn )2 (2)
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn
Accordingly, the distillate production depends on the water depth in
the glass bottle ṁd = f(h). According to Eq. (3), the total uncertainty in
the hourly freshwater production can be expressed by:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√(
√ ∂ṁ
)2
uṁd =
√ d
u(h)2 (3)
∂h
The total uncertainty related to the still energy efficiency is calcu­
lated based on the hourly distillate production (ṁd ) and the incoming
solar radiation (Is) (Eq. (16)) and simplified under the following form:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√⎛ ( ) ⎞2
√
√ u ṁd
√⎜ ⎟
(
u(Is )
)2
u(η) = η√ ⎜
√⎝ ṁd ⎠ +
⎟ (4)
Is
Moreover, the uncertainty of the exergy efficiency is estimated from
Eqs. (18), (19) and (20) and expressed as given in [60]:
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

Fig. 4. Photographic view of the experimental setup.

Table 1
Based on the experimental data, the uncertainty amount of the
Specifications of the measuring instruments.
calculated daily productivity is ±3.37%. Moreover, the highest uncer­
Instrument Accuracy Range Uncertainty tainty amount of energy efficiency and exergy efficiency is ±3.61% and
K-type thermocouple (Ni-Cr) ±1 ◦ C − 100–300 ◦ C ±0.58 ◦ C ±0.71%, respectively.
Digital thermometer (CS215) ±1 ◦ C − 50–300 ◦ C ±0.58 ◦ C
Pyranometer (Kipp & Zonen) ±1 W/m2 0–2500 W/m2 ±0.58 W/m2
3. Results and discussion
Anemometer (NRG #40C) ±0.1 m/s 0–96 m/s ±0.08 m/s
Measuring jar ±5 ml 0–1500 ml ±2.88 ml
The experimental data presented in this paper relate to four typical
tests, selected among several tests and performed under different
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
u(ηEx ) =
1
u2 (Exout ) + Ex2out ∙u2 (Exin ) (5) weather conditions. Several aspects related to the EC and the main
Exin associated phenomena are discussed in this paper.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√⎛ ( ) ⎞2
√
√ u ṁd ( )2 ( )2 3.1. Metrological parameters
√⎜ ⎟ u(Ta ) Ta ∙u(Tw )
u(Exout ) = Exout √⎜
√⎝ ṁd ⎠ + Tw − Ta
⎟ + (6)
(Tw − Ta )Tw To evaluate the weather’s condition’s effect on the still thermal
behavior (with and without an EC), four test days covering several
seasons (spring, summer and winter) were presented in the scope of this
study. Fig. 5(a)–(c) shows the evolution of the weather conditions

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√[ ( ( ) ( ) 4 ) ]2 [ ( ( ) 3 ) ]2
√ 4 Ta 1 Ta 4Ab Is Ta
u(Exin ) = √ Ab 1 − + u2 (Is ) + − 1+ u2 (Ta ) (7)
3 Ts 3 Ts 3Ts Ts

1200 55 40

1100 06/04/2018 (a) 50

06/04/2018
(b) (c)
15/04/2018 15/04/2018 35
1000 25/06/2018 45 25/06/2018
20/12/2018 06/04/2018
900 20/12/2018 30 15/04/2018
40
Ambient temperature (°C)

25/06/2018
Solar radiation (W/m²)

Wind speed (m/s)

800
35 25 20/12/2018
700
30
600 20
25
500
20 15
400
15
300 10

200 10
5
100 5

0 0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00

Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 5. Variation of the solar radiation (a), ambient temperature (b) and wind speed (c), during the four test days.

5
A. Rahmani et al.
describing the test days, namely: solar radiation, ambient temperature
and wind speed, respectively. For spring weather conditions, two days
were selected, namely: 06/04/2018 and 15/04/2018. Both tests are
distinguished by high solar radiation up to 1000 W/m2, a moderate wind
speed (between 0.18 m/s and 5.75 m/s) except for the ambient tem­
perature, which varies highly between both tests. For the first spring
test, the ambient temperature was ranged between 21.37 ◦ C and 37.6 ◦ C,
while it has ranged from 19.7 ◦ C to 26.5 ◦ C for the second spring test.
The summer test was performed on 25/06/2018, where it marked by
high ambient temperatures reaching about 45 ◦ C and high solar radia­
tion reaching 1040 W/m2. This summer day was also marked by high
wind speed, which varied between 37.5 m/s and 1.65 m/s. In order to
evaluate the still performance under cold weather conditions, an
experimental test was performed on 20/12/2018. This winter day was
marked by a reduction in the ambient temperature from 4.33 ◦ C to
21.25 ◦ C and with low solar radiation (696 W/m2) in comparison to the
other tests.
3.2. Solar still thermal behavior
The stills thermal behavior under the weather conditions effect is
evaluated through the variation of the basin temperature (Tb), the water
temperature (Tw), the glass cover temperature (Tg) and the EC wall
temperature (Tc) in Fig. 6. The temperature level in the MSS is lower
than that in the CSS. This difference is directly related to the EC, which
participates in the heat/mass transfer and maintains the MSS at lower
pressure/temperature than the CSS. For both stills, the water tempera­
ture is close to that of the basin temperature (Tb ≈ Tw) and this mainly
due to the low water mass/depth in the basin still. By comparing the two
spring tests (Fig. 6(a) and (b)), it is clear that the CSS thermal behavior is
mainly related to the solar radiation intensity. However, the MSS ther­
mal behavior is strongly affected by the low ambient temperature
characterizing the second test (15/04/2018). Qualitatively, the CSS
temperature profiles have the same trends between the two test days.
Whereas for the MSS, the gap between the main temperatures (Tw, Tg
and Tc) has widened and their profiles haven’t the same tendency as
those of the first day.
In the CSS, the maximum water-glass temperature difference (Tw-Tg)
was about 10.2 ◦ C for the first day and 13 ◦ C for the second test day.
Whereas for the MSS, the water-glass temperature difference increased
from 7.7 ◦ C to 11.4 ◦ C between the first and the second day, respectively.
The water-condenser temperature difference (Tw-Tc) is a good indicator
of the ambient temperature effect on MSS thermal behavior. The
maximum water-condenser temperature difference was 13.7 ◦ C for the
first day and 19.8 ◦ C for the second test day. This difference reveals that
the MSS is greatly affected by the decrease in the ambient temperature
than the CSS. Otherwise, this difference reflects an excessive heat loss
through the EC wall.
Fig. 6(c) shows the variation of the main temperatures of both solar
stills for the summer test day. The data show that both stills were
affected by the hot weather conditions, with a decrease recorded in the
MSS temperatures compared to the CSS. The water temperature in the
CSS increases reaching 82.5 ◦ C, while the maximum temperature of the
glass cover reaches 75 ◦ C. The maximum water-glass temperature dif­
ference in the CSS is 7.9 ◦ C, which is lower than that of the previous test
days (12.2 ◦ C and 13 ◦ C). This implies a decrease in the heat/mass
transfer rate from the water to the glass cover and then reduced fresh­
water productivity. Under these conditions, the CSS glass cover seems
unable to dissipate the latent heat of condensation accumulated in the
still toward the ambient. Whereas in the MSS, the EC intervenes to
maintain temperature levels by increasing heat losses. The maximum
recorded water temperature in the MSS is 75.5 ◦ C, while that of the glass
cover and the EC wall is 70 ◦ C and 63.3 ◦ C, respectively. The maximum
temperature difference between water and the glass cover is 6.7 ◦ C and
that between the water and the EC wall is 12.9 ◦ C. As can be seen that the
EC wall temperature (Tc) rises before and faster than the other
6
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
temperatures (Tb, Tw and Tg) of the MSS, where this overtakes remains
until 09:00 a.m. This temperature rise is due to the direct exposure of the
EC to solar radiation that reaches the EC external walls in the morning
period as well as in the afternoon (Section 3.4). This early increase in the
EC wall temperature is associated with an increase in the glass cover
temperature that exceeds the water temperature and its counterpart in
the CSS, unlike the other tests. As a consequence of the fast rise in
temperatures of both EC wall and glass cover, the MSS productivity is
retarded until 09:40 a.m.
Fig. 6(d) shows the variation of the main temperatures of both stills
on the winter test day (20/12/2018). It seems that the thermal behavior
of both stills is affected by the cold weather conditions, namely: the low
solar intensity, the reduced sunshine duration (10 h) and the low
ambient temperature. The maximum temperatures of the water and the
glass cover in the CSS are about 61 ◦ C and 54.5 ◦ C, respectively. While,
the maximum temperatures of water and glass cover for MSS reach
53.7 ◦ C and 48.5 ◦ C, respectively.
3.3. Still hourly and accumulate productivity
Fig. 7 represents the variations of the half-hour productivity for the
CSS and MSS in spring, summer and winter test days. The data show that
weather conditions affect the yield of both stills, especially to that of the
MSS, which respond adversely during the cold days. This negative aspect
is related to the EC design specifications, namely: its high thermal
conductivity (47 W/mK vs. 0.78 W/mK for the glass), a large heat
transfer area (0.29 m2), extra air volume (12.23%) and low wall thick­
ness (0.5 mm). All these characteristics enhance the heat exchange from
and to the EC wall and making the MSS more vulnerable to weather
conditions.
The first negative effect of the EC can be observed at the beginning of
each test day, in which the CSS starts always its production before the
MSS. This happens when the initial weather conditions, namely: the
solar irradiance and ambient temperature are at their lowest value. Due
to the fast-rising in its water temperature, the water vapor generated in
the CSS starts earlier than in the MSS. At the beginning of each test, the
CSS productivity overcomes that of the MSS by about 40, 30, 50 and 30
ml, during the four test days, respectively. This represents an initial
decrease in front of the CSS productivity by about 3.2, 2.5, 3.9 and 6%,
respectively. The maximum freshwater productivity rate for the MSS
was obtained on the first test day, by about 0.51 kg/m2/30 min (Fig. 7
(a)). However, the best productivity rate for the CSS was recorded on the
second test day with a maximum yield of 0.457 kg/m2/30 min (Fig. 7
(b)).
Fig. 8 displays the variations of the accumulated productivity of both
stills through the four test days. Regardless of the EC negative effect that
appears at the beginning of each test, the data show that integrating an
EC to the CSS is not always positive. The positive EC effect on the MSS
productivity was observed on hot weather days, while in cold weather
conditions, its effect is negative. The typical behavior of the MSS appears
on the first test day (Fig. 8(a)). Despite its delay by about 1 h:30 than the
CSS productivity, the MSS productivity quickly increased, overtaking
that of CSS (at 02:00 p.m.). The daily productivity of the MSS and CSS
was about 3.57 kg/m2 and 2.77 kg/m2, respectively. This improvement
in MSS daily productivity (by about 29%) reflects the EC positive effect,
which contributes by about 41% to MSS productivity.
For the second test day, it appears that the MSS productivity is lower
than that of the CSS throughout the test day (Fig. 8(b)). The calculation
shows that the MSS daily yield is lower than that of the CSS, by about
16.5%. Therefore, the EC effect on MSS productivity is negative despite
the high solar radiation that marked this day (Table 2). Compared to the
previous test day (06/04/2018), the MSS productivity did not change
much (from 3.57 kg/m2 to 3.45 kg/m2), while the CSS productivity
increased significantly from 2.77 kg/m2 to 4.02 kg/m2, as a result from
the relative decrease in the ambient temperature. The MSS glass cover
productivity was slightly increased from 2.08 kg/m2 to 2.2 kg/m2, while
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

80 80
Tb_CSS Tb_CSS
(a) (b)
Tw_CSS Tw_CSS
70 Tg_CSS 70 Tg_CSS
Tb_MSS Tb_MSS
Tw_MSS Tw_MSS
60 Tg_MSS Tg_MSS
Temperature (°C)

60

Temperature (°C)
Tc Tc
Ta Ta
50 50
06/04/2018 15/04/2018

40 40

30 30

20 20
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

80
80 Tb_CSS Tb_CSS
(c) (d)
Tw_CSS 70 Tw_CSS
Tg_CSS Tg_CSS
70 Tb_MSS Tb_MSS
60
Tw_MSS Tw_MSS
Tg_MSS Tg_MSS
Temperature (°C)

60 Tc Temperature (°C) 50 Tc
Ta Ta
40
50 25/06/2018 20/12/2018
30
40
20

30
10

20 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 6. Variation of the main temperatures describing the CSS and the MSS during the four test days.

the EC productivity decreased from 1.48 kg/m2 to 1.25 kg/m2 (a
decrease of about 36.3%). This result confirms that the EC is responsible
for the MSS productivity decrease in front of CSS.
The second negative aspect of the EC is related to the EC wall
overheating, observed in the summer test day (Fig. 6(c)). As discussed
above (Section 3.2), this external heating is due to the sun rays reaching
the EC lateral walls during the morning period. In the day-end, the EC
effect turned positive, where the MSS productivity exceeds that of the
CSS by about 9.5%. This improvement is insufficient given the typical
weather conditions that marked this day, namely: high solar radiation
and the long sunshine duration (exceed 14 h). This improvement would
not have been possible without the high wind speed and the ambient
temperature decrease in the evening.
Fig. 8(d) shows that the EC’s negative effect on the MSS daily pro­
ductivity appears throughout the winter test day. The reduction in the
daily productivity of the MSS compared to that of the CSS is about 12%.
This negative effect of the EC has resulted from a high rate of heat/mass
transfer from the still to the EC, accompanied by an excessive heat loss
through the EC wall. Data indicate that the EC has contributed by about
56% in MSS productivity, which is higher than the glass cover. More­
over, it represents the highest contribution compared to all previous
tests.
Table 2 summarizes the results of all tests performed in the scope of
this study. The daily productivity of both solar stills is closely related to
weather conditions. The negative effect of the EC is not just limited to
cold days but also appears on hot summer days due to its exposure to
solar radiation during the morning and afternoon periods. Direct expo­
sure to sun rays causes heating of the EC wall, which affect adversely the
MSS productivity (as discussed in Section 3.4). This effect can be mini­
mal if the wind speed is high enough to cool the condenser wall, as in the
case of 25/06/2018. Data also indicates that during winter days, the EC
daily productivity exceeds that of the glass cover by about 27% to 31%.
3.4. Effect of EC exposure to solar radiation
The experimental data show the EC negative aspect due to their
exposure to direct solar radiation in the morning and afternoon periods
on hot summer days. This external heating causes an increase in the EC
wall temperature, which negatively affects the MSS thermal behavior as
well as its productivity. This negative effect has been reported by
Madhlopa and Johnstone [34]. They revealed that despite its location in
the shaded zone, direct solar radiation would reach the EC wall.
Furthermore, the condenser wall receives diffuse and ground reflected-
solar radiation throughout the test day.
Generally, the rise in the EC wall temperature is caused by an in­
ternal heat/mass transfer from the still toward the EC, by diffusion,
purging and NC phenomenon as illustrated in Fig. 12(a) and that dis­
cussed in Section 2.2. The heat/mass transfer rate depends mainly on the
amount of vapor produced and the temperature difference between the
still cavity and the EC. On the summer test day, it was observed that the

7
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

0,55 0,55

0,50 CSS (a) 0,50 CSS (b)

glass_MSS glass_MSS
0,45 condenser 0,45 Condenser
MSS (glass+cond,) MSS (glass+cond,)
0,40 0,40
Hourly yield (kg/m²h)

hourly yield (kg/m²h)

0,35 06/04/2018 0,35 15/04/2018
0,30 0,30
0,25 0,25
0,20 0,20
0,15 0,15
0,10 0,10
0,05 0,05
0,00 0,00
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

0,55 0,55

0,50 CSS (c) 0,50 CSS (d)

glass_MSS glass_MSS
0,45 condenser 0,45 condenser
MSS (glass+cond,) MSS (glass+cond,)
0,40 0,40
Hourly yield (kg/m²h)

0,35
25/06/2018 Hourly yield (kg/m²h) 0,35 20/12/2018
0,30 0,30

0,25 0,25

0,20 0,20

0,15 0,15

0,10 0,10
0,05 0,05
0,00 0,00
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 7. Hourly productivity of the simple and modified solar still for the four test days.

EC wall temperature rises early and quickly a few minutes after the radiation, the EC receives solar rays from sunrise (06:06 a.m.) until
sunrise (Fig. 6(c)). Knowing that the productivity of the EC for this test about 11:30 a.m. In the afternoon period, the EC remains exposed to sun
started at 11:30 a.m. (Fig. 7(c)), i.e., there is no water vapor transfer rays from about 02:30 p.m. until sunset (08:00 p.m.).
toward the EC before this time. Thus, the rise in the EC wall temperature
is indeed due to the external heating caused by solar radiation reaching 3.5. Mass transfer analysis
the EC.
The EC wall temperature rise also affects the glass cover temperature The water vapor transfer from the still cavity to the EC is carried out,
that rises in turn above the water temperature and its counterpart in the by diffusion, purging and by the NC mode. A quantitative analysis is
CSS, unlike the other tests. The glass temperature increase is due to a performed in this section to evaluate the contribution of each mass
convective heat transfer, performed by the warm air that impinges on transfer mode in the amount of collected freshwater in the EC, as fol­
the glass cover after leaving the EC through the upper slot. The airflow is lows:
happened by the inverted NC, created due to the negative air density
ṁcond = ṁDiff . + ṁPurg. + ṁNC (8)
difference between the still and the EC. The NC loop turns inversely to
the reference case and acts to extract the warm air through the EC upper The transferred water vapor by diffusion from the evaporator to the
slot to the still, as illustrated in Fig. 12(b). The NC effect on MSS pro­ EC is estimated using the diffusion theory [34].
ductivity will be the subject of Section 3.6. ( / )
The increase in the EC wall temperature appears on the summer test ṁDiff = D Agap xgap (φs − φc ) (9)
day, where the solar azimuth angle, corresponding to sunrise, is greater D is the water vapor diffusion coefficient expressed by the flowing
than 90◦ and the condenser’s solar exposed area is higher. For 25/06/ equation [61,62].
2018, the solar azimuth angle at the sunrise time (06:08 a.m.) was
( )2.072 /
114.4◦ to the east direction. To prove that the EC is exposed to direct D = 1.8710− 10 Tf + 273 P (10)
solar radiation, two photographic pictures were captured for the MSS in
the morning of the following day (09:42 a.m.) and in the afternoon The humid air temperature in the still cavity is average between the
period (03:47 p.m.), as shown in Fig. 9. Despite its protection from solar water and the glass temperatures as Tf = (Tw + Tg) / 2 and P is the total
pressure inside the still. Agap/xgap represents the ratio between the slot

8
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

4,0 4,0
CSS CSS
3,5 glass_MSS 3,5
glass_MSS
condenser condenser_MSS
3,0 MSS (glass+cond,) MSS (glass+cond,)
3,0

Accumulated yield (kg/m²)

Accumulated yield (kg/m²)

06/04/2018 15/04/2018
2,5 2,5

2,0 2,0

1,5 1,5
41,6%
1,0 1,0 36,36%

0,5 0,5
(a) (b)
0,0 0,0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

4,0 4,0

CSS CSS
3,5 glass_MSS 3,5 glass_MSS
condenser_MSS condenser_MSS
3,0 MSS (glass+cond,) 3,0 MSS (glass+cond,)

Accumulated yield (kg/m²)

Accumulated yield (kg/m²)

25/06/2018 20/12/2018
2,5 2,5

2,0 2,0

1,5 1,5
39,6%
1,0 1,0 56%

0,5 0,5
(c) (d)
0,0 0,0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 8. Accumulated productivity of both stills for the four test days.

Table 2
Comparison of the daily productivity of the CSS and MSS for other experiments.
Date Average values of weather conditions Freshwater daily productivity (ml) Daily productivity rise
(%)
Global solar radiation (MJ/ Wind speed (m/ Ambient temperature CSS MSS
m2) s) (◦ C)
Glass Glass External Total
cover cover condenser

06/04/ 27.50 3.1 32.24 970 730 520 1250 +29

2018
15/04/ 28.33 2.7 23.20 1410 770 440 1210 − 16.53
2018
29/04/ 30.10 3.62 26.60 1090 600 540 1140 +4.58
2018
06/06/ 30.40 3.04 34.35 1280 750 415 1165 − 9.87
2018
12/06/ 28.77 5.76 36.32 1230 760 420 1180 − 4.24
2018
25/06/ 31.32 11.7 38.50 1160 770 500 1270 +9.48
2018
19/12/ 15.80 3.63 14.12 550 210 275 485 − 13.38
2018
20/12/ 15.81 3.09 13.75 560 220 280 500 − 12
2018

The negative sign (− ) indicates a decrease in the MSS productivity against the CSS.

9
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

Fig. 9. Photography of the external condenser and their exposure to solar radiation.

1,6 1,6

Condenser Condenser
1,4 1,4 NC
NC
Purging Purging
1,2 1,2 Diffusion
Diffusion
Condenser yield (kg/m²)

Condenser yield (kg/m²)

68,1%
1,0 06/04/2018 1,0 15/04/2018
63,5%
0,8 0,8

0,6 0,6
31,8% 36,4%
0,4 0,4

0,2 0,2

0,0 0,0

06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

1,6 1,6
Condenser
1,4
Condenser 1,4 NC
NC
Purging
Purging
1,2 79,7% 1,2 Diffusion
Diffusion
Condenser yield (kg/m²)

Condenser yied (kg/m²)

1,0 1,0
20/12/2018
25/06/2018

0,8 0,8
76,3%
0,6 0,6

0,4 0,4
20,2%
23,6%
0,2 0,2

0,0 0,0

06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 10. Contribution of diffusion, purging and NC in the EC accumulated productivity.

10
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

area and the distance traveled by water vapor from the still to EC, which
equals 2.0 cm in our case. The density of water vapor between (φs and
φc) is expressed in terms of partial pressure and temperature [34,37].
φ(T) = P/461.52(T + 273.15)
P(T) = exp[25.317 − 5144/(T + 273) ]
The freshwater quantity transferred by the purging mode to the EC is
determined based on the volume ratio between the EC and the still
cavity [37].
ṁPurg = ṁMSS (Vc /(Vs + Vc ) )
After determining the freshwater amount transferred by diffusion
and purging, NC contribution is then calculated by subtracting them
from the EC total production as:
( )
ṁNC = ṁEC − ṁDiff + ṁPurg. (14)
Fig. 10 shows the contribution of purging, diffusion and NC mass
transfer modes, in the EC productivity for each test day. It is clear that
NC is the prevailing mass transfer mode for all tests, which contributes
by about 63.5 to 80%. This is in accordance with that revealed by Fath
et al. [37]. However, the diffusion contribution in the mass transfer to
the EC is negligible.
3.6. Natural circulation analysis
Based on the obtained experimental data, the NC analysis is per­
formed in this section to estimate the intensity and the direction of the
humid air flowing inside the MSS. As discussed above (in Section 2.2),
NC takes place due to the air density difference between the still cavity
and the EC. The NC airflow rate is determined using the balance between
the driving buoyancy force (resulting from the density difference) and
the frictional force linked to the EC geometrical characteristics. Ac­
cording to Fath et al. [37], the air mass flow rate between the still and
the EC is expressed by:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ṁair = Ag ρc g Hc (ρs − ρc )/KE (15)
Ag is the slot flow area, Hc is the condenser height and KE is the NC
flow resistance coefficient. Regarding the large volume fraction between
the still and EC, a high-value of KE = 10 is taken to predict the air mass
flow rate for all tests.
Fig. 11(a) illustrates the estimated air mass flow rate inside the MSS
for the four test days. Firstly, it is clear that the air mass flow rate de­
pends mainly on the difference in density between the still and the EC
(Fig. 11(b)). It is clear that the profile of the NC mass flow rate has the
same asymptotic tendency as the solar radiation profile; however, its
intensity is highly proportional to the ambient temperature. The calcu­
lation shows that the predicted NC mass flow rate is high under hot
weather conditions (25/06/2018). As the difference in temperature in­
(11)
crease between the still and the EC, the humid air density difference is
increased, which leads to a faster NC and high heat/mass transfer from
(12)
the still toward the EC and leading to higher daily productivity.
The ambient temperature effect on the NC intensity appears when
comparing the two spring tests (06/04/2018 and 15/04/2018). Both
test days have approximately the same solar radiation intensity
(Table 2), while the main difference lies in the ambient temperature. The
(13)
results show also that getting the same NC mass flow rate is possible for
different weather conditions, as observed by comparing the mass flow
rate curves of 15/04/2018 with that of 20/12/2018. Between 01:30 p.
m. and 06:00 p.m., the mass flow rate of both tests has approximately
the same values, despite their different solar radiation intensities (Fig. 5
(a)). On the winter test day (20/12/2018), the NC intensity is highly
decreased due to the low ambient temperature as well as the reduced
solar radiation. Due to the excessive heat losses to the ambient, the EC
wall temperature falls, causing a decrease in the flowing air temperature
leaving the EC, this in turn decreases the basin water temperature. The
difference in air density between the still cavity and EC diminished,
leading to a low NC flow rate and a reduction in MSS daily productivity
(1.43 kg/m2) in comparison to the other tests.
Based on the results obtained in this section, a schematic diagram
showing the NC behavior inside the still is suggested in Fig. 12. When the
air density difference between the still cavity and the EC is positive (ρs >
ρc), the humid air moves from the evaporator toward the EC through the
upper slot (Fig. 12(a)). In the EC, the air temperature decrease and its
density increases and then moves toward the lower opening. The rela­
tively cold air current streaming from the lower slot and spreads over the
water surface, generating more water vapor. The simultaneous heat/
mass transfer at the water-air interface causes a decrease in the water
temperature. Thanks to the incoming solar energy, heat losses are
compensated and the temperature gap between the still cavity and the
EC is maintained. The experimental data show that the EC wall tem­
perature can highly exceed that of the basin water (Fig. 6(c)) when the
EC is exposed to solar radiation in the morning as well as in the after­
noon period. Due to the negative difference of the air density between
the still cavity and the EC (ρs < ρc), the NC turns in the opposite direction
than in the typical case, extracting the hot air from the condenser toward
the evaporator through the upper slot (Fig. 12(b)). During its passage
inside the still cavity, the hot air exchanges heat with the glass cover and
basin water, which are relatively at a lower temperature. Thus, its
temperature decreases when it moves toward the lower slot to return to
the EC.

0,8 0,08 100

06/04/2018 (a) 06/04/2018 (b)
0,07 90
0,7 15/04/2018 15/04/2018
25/06/2018 0,06 25/06/2018 80
md=3,64 kg/m²
0,6 20/12/2018 20/12/2018
Ambient temperature (°C)
Density diference (kg/m )
Mass flowrate (Kg/s*10 )

0,05 70
3

md=3,57 kg/m²
0,5
0,04 60
md=3,45 kg/m²
0,4 0,03 50
md=1,43 kg/m²
0,02 40
0,3
0,01 30
0,2
0,00 20
0,1
-0,01 10

0,0 -0,02 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 11. NC flow rate and their dependence to the density difference.

11
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

Fig. 12. Air natural circulation inside the MSS in the cold (a) and hot climatic conditions (b).

3.7. Energy and exergy efficiency
The EC effect on the solar still’s thermal performance is evaluated by
comparing the energy and exergy efficiencies of both stills. As reported
by Hassan et al. [39], energy efficiency gives a quantitative view of solar
energy effectively used by the solar still. While the exergy efficiency
represents a qualitative insight to estimate the maximum power that can
be produced by the still under certain weather conditions.
3.7.1. Energy efficiency
Based on the freshwater amount collected each half-hour, the latent
heat of evaporation and the solar energy falling on the basin still, the still

100 100

90 CSS 90 CSS
MSS MSS
80 80
06/04/2018 15/04/2018
70 70
Energy efficiency (%)

Energy efficiency (%)

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 23,2% 30

20 20 18,25%

10 18,1% 10 16%

0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
100 Time (hr) 100 Time (hr)
90 CSS 90 CSS
MSS MSS
80 80
25/06/2018 20/12//2018
70 70
Energy efficiency (%)

Energy efficiency (%)

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30
21%
20 20
10,8%
10 17,3% 10
9,1%
0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00

Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 13. Variation of energy efficiency of the CSS and MSS during the four test days.

12
A. Rahmani et al. Desalination 501 (2021) 114914

energy efficiency is calculated by the following formula [63]:

ηex = Exout /Exin (18)
ṁd hfg
ηEn = (16) The solar still exergy output is calculated based on the freshwater
Is Ab ∙1800
rate (ṁd ) collected for 30 min, ambient temperature (Ta) and water
where hfg is the latent heat of water evaporation expressed with the temperature (Tw) [68]. Where the exergy input to the solar still is esti­
following equation, which is valid for temperature between 0 ◦ C and mated, according to [69,70].
200 ◦ C, as given by [64]. ṁd hew
[
Ta
]
[ ] Exout = 1− (19)
hfg = 103 2501.9 − 2.40706Tw + 1.192217∙10− 3 Tw2 − 1.5863∙10− 5 Tw3 1800 Tw
(17) [ ( ) ( )4 ]
4 Ta 1 Ta
Fig. 13 shows the variation of the energy efficiency of CSS and MSS Exin = Ab Is 1 − + (20)
3 Ts 3 Ts
for all test days. The calculations show that the MSS daily energy effi­
ciency varies between 9.1% and 23.2%, while for the CSS, it varies be­ where, Ts is the sun’s surface temperature of about 6000 K.
tween 10.8% and 18.25%. The EC positive effect on the still’s thermal
Fig. 14 shows a comparison of the exergy efficiencies of both CSS and
efficiency appears on hot weather days, namely 06/04/2018 and 25/ MSS for the four test days. The calculation shows that the maximum
06/2018, while its negative aspect effect appears when the ambient
daily exergy efficiency for the MSS is about 1.9%, obtained for the first
temperature is reduced (15/04/2018 and 20/12/2018). test day (06/04/2018). Except for this day, the average exergy efficiency
of the CSS is higher than that of the MSS. The maximum averaged exergy
3.7.2. Exergy efficiency efficiency of the CSS is about 2.4% for the second test day (15/04/2018).
The exergy efficiency of both solar stills is defined as the ratio of the This test reveals the EC’s negative effect on the still exergy efficiency,
exergy output of evaporated water to the exergy input represented by which decreases by about 41.17% to that of the CSS. The averaged
the incoming solar energy through the still glass cove and is determined exergy efficiency for both solar stills is low in the winter test (20/12/
by [65]. According to the following references [66, 67], the solar still 2018), where the daily exergy efficiency of CSS and MSS were 1.2% and
exergy efficiency is estimated by: 0.9%, respectively.

10 10
CSS CSS
MSS MSS
8 06/04/2018 8 15/04/2018
Exergy efficiency (%)

Exergy efficiency (%)

6 6

4 4

2,4%
1,9%
2 2

1,7% 1,7%
0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00
10 Time (hr) 10 Time (hr)
CSS CSS
MSS MSS
8 25/06/2018 8 20/12/2018
Exergy efficiency (%)

Exergy efficiency (%)

6 6

4 4

2 2
1,66% 1,2%

1,57%
0,9%
0 0
06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00

Time (hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 14. Variation of exergy efficiency of the CSS and MSS during the four test days.

13
A. Rahmani et al.
4. Conclusion
The present paper deals with an experimental study revealing the
EC’s negative effect on CSS performance. The EC negative effect has
been experimentally demonstrated, through a comparison between two
similar conventional solar stills, with and without an EC. Based on the
obtained results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• The negative effect of the EC appears in three various aspects, ac­
cording to the prevailing weather conditions and during different
periods of the day, which adversely affects the MSS thermal perfor­
mance and reduces its daily yield by about 16.5% compared to CSS.
• Regardless of the weather conditions, the EC negative effect appears
at the beginning of each test day, due to the additional air volume
and area of the integrated condenser.
• The EC’s negative effect also appears during cold weather days, as a
result of the excessive heat loss through its outer surface. This
overcooling affects still’s thermal behavior and reduces its daily
productivity.
• Another negative aspect of the EC appears as a result of its direct
exposure to solar radiation during the morning and the evening pe­
riods. This negative effect appears clearly during hot summer days,
leading to an increase in the condenser’s wall temperature and a
reduction in MSS daily productivity.
• The positive effect of the EC appears in moderate weather conditions.
The maximum daily productivity of the MSS reached 3.64 kg/m2,
which is higher than that of the CSS by about 29%.
• The NC seems the dominant heat/mass transfer mode, contributing
by about 63% to 80% in the EC daily productivity. The remaining
portion of the water vapor is transferred by purging, while the
diffusion mode contribution is negligible.
• The maximum daily thermal efficiency of the MSS and CSS is 23.2%
and 18.25%, respectively. While the maximum averaged exergy ef­
ficiency is of 1.9% for the MSS and 2.4% for the CSS.
4.1. Further suggestions and perspectives
• Further investigations for solar stills integrated with an EC and
operated under NC mode are required.
• Indoor experiments can be useful in finding an optimum combina­
tion of EC geometry and weather conditions.
• Indoor experiments can be equally useful in finding a proper heat/
mass transfer model for solar stills with an EC that operates under NC
mode.
• The rise in the condenser’s wall temperature due to direct solar ra­
diation can be avoided by making the condenser east/west side walls
from non-metallic material.
Abbreviations
CSS conventional solar still
EC external condenser
MSS modified solar still
NC natural circulation
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmed Rahmani: Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision,
Visualization, Writing-original draft. Fouzia Khammar: Methodology,
Formal analysis; Data curation. Zine Saadi: Conceptualization; Data
curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
14
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research Unit in Renewable En­
ergies in Saharan Medium, Renewable Energy Development Center of
Adrar-Algeria. The authors are grateful to all the personnel of the
weather station of the Research Unit to have provided all information
relating to the atmospheric conditions and which made it possible to
conclude the present step of work.
References
[1] K. Selvaraj, A. Natarajan, Factors influencing the performance and productivity of
solar stills–a review, Desalination 435 (2018) 181–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.09.031.
[2] M. Bhargva, A. Yadav, Effect of shading and evaporative cooling of glass cover on
the performance of evacuated tube-augmented solar still, Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22
(2020) 4125–4143, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00375-8.
[3] P. Pandey, O. Prakash, A. Kumar, Desalination and Solar Still: Boon to Earth,
Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
6887-5_1.
[4] T. Rajaseenivasan, R. Prakash, K. Vijayakumar, K. Srithar, Mathematical and
experimental investigation on the influence of basin height variation and stirring of
water by solar PV panels in solar still, Desalination 415 (2017) 67–75, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.010.
[5] M. Abu-Arabi, M. Al-harahsheh, H. Mousa, Z. Alzghoul, Theoretical investigation
of solar desalination with solar still having phase change material and connected to
a solar collector, Desalination 448 (2018) 60–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2018.09.020.
[6] Z. Saadi, A. Rahmani, S. Lachtar, H. Soualmi, Performance evaluation of a new
stepped solar still under the desert climatic conditions, Energy Conver. Manage.
2018 (1711) 1749–1760, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.114.
[7] A. Pugsley, A. Zacharopoulos, J. Deb Mondol, M. Smyth, Global applicability of
solar desalination, Renew. Energy 88 (2016) 200–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2015.11.017.
[8] Q. Chen, M. Kum Ja, Y. Li, K.J. Chua, Evaluation of a solar-powered spray-assisted
low-temperature desalination technology, Appl. Energy 211 (2018) 997–1008,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.103.
[9] H. Panchal, I. Mohan, Various methods applied to solar still for enhancement of
distillate output, Desalination 415 (2017) 76–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.04.015.
[10] Nougriaya SK, Chopra MK, Gupta B, Baredar P. Stepped solar still: a review on
designs analysis. Mater. Today Proc. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020
.09.598.
[11] M. Feilizadeh, M. Soltanieh, M.R. Karim Estahbanati, K. Jafarpur, S.-
S. Ashrafmansouri, Optimization of geometrical dimensions of single-slope basin-
type solar stills, Desalination 424 (2017) 159–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.08.005.
[12] D. Das, U. Bordoloi, P. Kalita, R.F. Boehm, A.D. Kamble, Solar still distillate
enhancement techniques and recent developments, Ground Sustain. Dev. 10
(2020) 100360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100360.
[13] H. Panchal, K. Sadashivuni, R. Sathyamurthy, D. Mevada, Developments and
modifications in passive solar still: a review, Desalin. Water Treat. 143 (2019)
158–164, https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.2351.
[14] A. Rahmani, A. Boutriaa, A. Hadef, An experimental approach to improve the basin
type solar still using an integrated natural circulation loop, Energy Conver.
Manage. 93 (2015) 298–308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.026.
[15] C. Elango, N. Gunasekaran, K. Sampathkumar, Thermal models of solar still-a
comprehensive review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 47 (2015) 856–911, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.054.
[16] T. Theany, L.R. Jensen, M.M. Smedskjaer, On the relation between fracture
toughness and crack resistance in oxide glasses, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 534 (2020)
119946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2020.119946.
[17] Z.M. Omara, A.S. Abdullah, A.E. Kabeel, F.A. Essa, The cooling techniques of the
solar stills’ glass covers–a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 78 (2017) 176–193,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.085.
[18] P. Zanganeh, A.S. Goharrizi, S. Ayatollahi, M. Feilizadeh, H. Dashti, Efficiency
improvement of solar stills through wettability alteration of the condensation
surface: an experimental study, Appl. Energy 268 (2020) 114923, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114923.
[19] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, Experimental study of a novel portable solar still by
utilizing the heat pipe and thermoelectric module, Desalination 284 (2012) 55–61,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.036.
[20] S. Shoeibi, N. Rahbar, A.A. Esfahlani, H. Kargarsharifabad, Application of
simultaneous thermoelectric cooling and heating to improve the performance of a
solar still: an experimental study and exergy analysis, Appl. Energy 263 (2020)
114581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114581.
[21] S.M. Parsa, A. Rahbar, M.H. Koleini, S. Aberoumand, M. Afrandd, M. Amidpour,
A renewable energy-driven thermoelectric-utilized solar still with external
condenser loaded by silver/nanofluid for simultaneously water disinfection and
A. Rahmani et al.
desalination, Desalination 480 (2020) 114354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2020.114354.
[22] R.A. Kumar, G. Esakkimuthu, K.K. Murugavel, Performance enhancement of a
single basin single slope solar still using agitation effect and external condenser,
Desalination 399 (2016) 198–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.09.006.
[23] D. Bechki, H. Bouguettaia, J. Blanco-Galvez, S. Babay, B. Bouchekima, S. Boughali,
et al., Effect of partial intermittent shading on the performance of a simple basin
solar still in south Algeria, Desalination 260 (2010) 65–69, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2010.04.066.
[24] M. Faegh, M.B. Shafii, Experimental investigation of a solar still equipped with an
external heat storage system using phase change materials and heat pipes,
Desalination 409 (2017) 128–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.01.023.
[25] K. Rabhi, R. Nciri, F. Nasri, C. Ali, H.B. Bacha, Experimental performance analysis
of a modified single-basin single-slope solar still with pin fins absorber and
condenser, Desalination 416 (2017) 86–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.04.023.
[26] H. Panchal, D. Mevada, K.K. Sadasivuni, Recent advancements in condensers to
enhance the performance of solar still: a review, Heat Trans. 49 (2020) 3758–3778,
https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.21799.
[27] V.K. Chauhan, S.K. Shukla, J.V. Tirkey, P.K. Singh Rathore, A comprehensive
review of direct solar desalination techniques and its advancements, J. Clean. Prod.
124719 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124719.
[28] H.E.S. Fath, H.M. Hosny, Thermal performance of a single-sloped basin still with an
inherent built-in additional condenser, Desalination 142 (2002) 19–27, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00422-2.
[29] H.E.S. Fath, S. Elsherbiny, A. Ghazy, A naturally circulated humidifying/
dehumidifying solar still with a built-in passive condenser, Desalination 169
(2004) 129–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.08.014.
[30] V. Saini, L. Sahota, G.N. Tiwari, Performance and cost analysis of a modified built-
in-passive condenser and semitransparent photovoltaic module integrated passive
solar distillation system, J Energy Storage 24 (2019) 100809, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.est.2019.100809.
[31] N. Abdul-Jabbar, Khalifa, Evaluation and energy balance study of a solar still with
an internal condenser, J. Sol. Energy Res. 3 (1985) 1–11.
[32] S.T. Ahmed, Study of single-effect solar still with an internal condenser, Sol. Wind
Technol. 5 (1988) 637–643, https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-983X(88)90061-6.
[33] M.A. Al-Nimr, M.E. Dahdolan, Modeling of a novel concentrated solar still
enhanced with a porous evaporator and an internal condenser, Sol. Energy 114
(2015) 8–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.021.
[34] A. Madhlopa, C. Johnstone, Numerical study of a passive solar still with separate
condenser, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 1668–1677, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2008.12.032.
[35] A.G.M. Ibrahim, S.E. Elshamarka, Performance study of a modified basin type solar
still, Sol. Energy 118 (2015) 397–409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2015.06.013.
[36] A. El-Bahi, D. Inan, A solar still with minimum inclination, coupled to an outside
condenser, Desalination 123 (1999) 79–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164
(99)00061-2.
[37] H.E.S. Fath, S.M. Elsherbiny, Effect of adding a passive condenser on solar still
performance, Sol. Energy 11 (1992) 73–89, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01425919208909731.
[38] V.P. Katekar, Deshmukh S. Sandip, A review on research trends in solar still designs
for domestic and industrial applications, J. Clean. Prod. 257 (2020) 120544,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120544.
[39] H. Hassan, M.S. Yousef, M. Fathy, M.S. Ahmed, Impact of condenser heat transfer
on energy and exergy performance of active single slope solar still under hot
climate conditions, Sol. Energy 204 (2020) 79–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2020.04.026.
[40] P.M. Sivaram, S.D. Kumar, M. Premalatha, T. Sivasankar, A. Arunagiri,
Experimental and numerical study of stepped solar still integrated with a passive
external condenser and its application, Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2020), https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-020-00667-4.
[41] A.K. Singh, R.K. Yadavc, D. Mishra, R. Prasad, L.K. Gupta, P. Kumar, Active solar
distillation technology: a wide overview, Desalination 493 (2020) 114652, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114652.
[42] M. Feilizadeh, M.R.K. Estahbanati, M. Khorram, M.R. Rahimpour, Experimental
investigation of an active thermosyphon solar still with enhanced condenser,
Renew. Energy 143 (2019) 328–334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.05.013.
[43] Kumar S. Sandeep, V.K. Dwivedi, Experimental study on modified single slope
single basin active solar still, Desalination 367 (2015) 69–75, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2015.03.031.
[44] H. Hassan, M.S. Ahmed, M. Fathy, M.S. Yousef, Impact of salty water medium and
condenser on the performance of single acting solar still incorporated with
parabolic trough collector, Desalination 480 (2020) 114324, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2020.114324.
[45] P. Monowe, M. Masale, N. Nijegorodov, V. Vasilenko, A portable single-basin solar
still with an external reflecting booster and an outside condenser, Desalination 280
(2011) 332–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.07.031.
15
Desalination 501 (2021) 114914
[46] A.E. Kabeel, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, Enhancement of modified solar still integrated
with external condenser using nanofluids: an experimental approach, Energy
Convers. Manag. 78 (2014) 493–498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.11.01.
[47] Z.M. Omara, A.E. Kabeel, F.A. Essa, Effect of using nanofluids and providing
vacuum on the yield of corrugated wick solar still, Energy Convers. Manag. 103
(2015) 965–972, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.07.035.
[48] M.A. Al-Nimr, K.S. Qananba, A solar hybrid system for power generation and water
distillation, Sol. Energy 171 (2018) 92–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.06.019.
[49] H. Hassan, S. Abo-Elfadl, Effect of the condenser type and the medium of the saline
water on the performance of the solar still in hot climate conditions, Desalination
417 (2017) 60–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.05.014.
[50] A. Rahmani, A. Boutriaa, Numerical and experimental study of a passive solar still
integrated with an external condenser, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 42 (2017)
29047–29055, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.07.242.
[51] H. Hassan, S. Abo-Elfadl, Investigation experimentally the impact of condensation
rate on solar still performance at different thermal energy storages, J. Energy
Storage 102014 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.102014.
[52] S. Al-Kharabsheh, Y. Goswami, Experimental study of an innovative solar water
desalination system utilizing a passive vacuum technique, Sol. Energy 75 (2003)
395–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.08.031.
[53] V. Sriram, S. Hansen, K.K. Murugavel, Experimental study on a low pressure solar
still, Appl. Sol. Energy 49 (2013) 137–141, https://doi.org/10.3103/
S0003701X13030109.
[54] S. Abo-Elfadl, M.S. Yousef, H. Hassan, Energy, exergy, economic and
environmental assessment of using different passive condenser designs of solar
distiller, Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 148 (2021) 302–312, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2020.10.022.
[55] A.A. El-Sebaii, On effect of wind speed on passive solar still performance based on
inner/outer surface temperatures of the glass cover, Energy 36 (2011) 4943–4949,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.038.
[57] A.A. El-Sebaii, Effect of wind speed on some designs of solar stills, Energy Convers.
Manag. 41 (2000) 523–538, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00119-3.
[58] S.M. Parsa, Y.D. Javadi, A. Rahbar, M. Majidniya, M. Salimi, Y. Amidpour,
M. Amidpour, Experimental investigation at a summit above 13,000 ft on active
solar still water purification powered by photovoltaic: a comparative study,
Desalination 476 (2020) 114146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.114146.
[59] J.P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers, eighth ed., McGraw-Hill
Companies, New York, 2012.
[60] S. Nazaria, H. Safarzadeha, M. Bahiraeib, Performance improvement of a single
slope solar still by employing thermoelectric cooling channel and copper oxide
nanofluid: an experimental study, J. Clean. Prod. 208 (2019) 1041–1052, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.194.
[61] Y.A. Cengel, Heat and Mass Transfer: A Practical Approach, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill,
New York, 2006.
[62] H.E. Gad, Sh. Shams El-Din, A.A. Hussien, Kh. Ramzy, Thermal analysis of a conical
solar still performance: an experimental study, Sol. Energy 122 (2015) 900–909,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.10.016.
[63] H. Hassan, Comparing the performance of passive and active double and single
slope solar stills incorporated with parabolic trough collector via energy, exergy
and productivity, Renew. Energy 148 (2020) 437–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.10.050.
[64] S.W. Sharshir, G. Penga, L. Wu, N. Yang, et al., Enhancing the solar still
performance using nanofluids and glass cover cooling: experimental study, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 113 (2017) 684–693, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.11.085.
[65] P. Dumka, D.R. Mishra, Energy and exergy analysis of conventional and modified
solar still integrated with sand bed earth: study of heat and mass transfer,
Desalination 437 (2018) 15–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.02.026.
[66] R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, V.K. Dwivedi, Overall energy, exergy and carbon credit
analysis of N partially covered photovoltaic thermal (PVT) concentrating collector
connected in series, Sol. Energy 136 (2016) 260–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.07.002.
[67] N. Dimri, A. Tiwari, G.N. Tiwari, An overall exergy analysis of glass-tedlar
photovoltaic thermal air collector incorporating thermoelectric cooler: a
comparative study using artificial neural networks, Energy Convers. Manag. 195
(2019) 1350–1358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.044.
[68] E. Deniz, S. Çınar, Energy, exergy, economic and environmental (4E) analysis of a
solar desalination system with humidification-dehumidification, Energy Convers.
Manag. 126 (2016) 12–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.064.
[69] D.B. Singh, G.N. Tiwari, Energy, exergy and cost analyses of N identical evacuated
tubular collectors integrated basin type solar stills: a comparative study, Sol.
Energy 155 (2017) 829–846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.018.
[70] P. Joshi, G.N. Tiwari, Energy matrices, exergo-economic and enviro-economic
analysis of an active single slope solar still integrated with a heat exchanger: a
comparative study, Desalination 443 (2018) 85–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2018.05.012.