i An update to this article is included at the end

Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Resources and Industry

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

Performance investigation of atmospheric water harvesting

T
systems
Farshid Bagheri
School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3T 0A3

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: In this paper performance and limitations of commercially-available atmospheric water har-
Atmospheric water harvesting vesting (AWH) systems are experimentally investigated. A new experimental setup and test
Thermodynamics and psychrometrics procedure, following the relevant ASHRAE and ANSI/AHRI standards, are developed to measure
Performance testing the water harvesting rate and input electrical power of several residential-size AWHs from dif-
Energy consumption
ferent manufacturers. The setup is equipped with an environmental chamber to mimic all cli-
matic conditions in research laboratory at Simon Fraser University and to obtain performance
characteristics of AWH systems. The results show the range of water harvesting rate, energy
intensity ranging from 1.02 kWh/L for warm and humid to 6.23 kWh/L for cold and humid cli-
mates, and climatic limitations of the conventional AWH technology that can be used as a
platform for further development of higher efficiency AWH systems in future.

1. Introduction

Over the 20th century and into the 21st century, the global population has increased by 300%, while water consumption has
increased by 600% [1,2]. Freshwater is becoming a scarce commodity as climate change, man-made pollutants entering the water
system, and over-withdrawal of existing aquifers place enormous strain on freshwater supplies. The distribution of freshwater around
the globe is highly uneven, leading to regional shortages or excesses of water resources. The most commonly used index to determine
magnitude of regional water resources is the Falkenmark Stress Indicator (FSI), which classifies a country in different categories of
water shortage based on per capita liquid water resource availability (PWR) [3]. Based on this index, the United Nations has pre-
dicted that 48 countries will experience water stress or scarcity by 2025 [3]. Four billion people in the world face at least one month
of water scarcity every year [4]. The water crisis has or will soon turn into food crisis in many areas of the world. To avert the
looming water-food crisis, certain measures should be adopted, including, but not limited to: i) water conservation, ii) reducing
pollutants entering the water system, iii) upgrading current infrastructure, and iv) improving fresh water generation technologies.
With an estimated 12,800 trillion liters of renewable water available in the atmosphere, atmospheric water harvesting (gen-
eration) has the potential to be a viable solution to address some of the global needs for freshwater, especially in locations where even
saline and/or brackish water is not available [5]. Combining these facts and considering the challenges and shortcomings of existing
centralized water provision and delivery systems, the idea of decentralized atmospheric water harvesting (AWH) systems has
emerged and followed by a number of researchers and manufacturers during the last few decades. A conventional AWH operates
using vapor compression refrigeration (VCR) unit to condensate water from ambient air by cooling it below its dew point tem-
perature.
There is a number of claims on the performance and capabilities of the commercially available AWH. However, the literature

E-mail address: fbagheri@sfu.ca.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.001
Received 10 June 2017; Received in revised form 19 May 2018; Accepted 8 August 2018
2212-3717/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
F. Bagheri Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

lacks a critical and independent investigation into realistic performance, functionality, and limitations of such AWH systems. This
study aims to provide a systematic investigation on the performance of a few commercially available AWH systems under various
climatic conditions.

2. Literature review

Decentralized atmospheric water harvesting is a solution to a variety of challenges in common water purification processes. If the
input power is supplied from clean energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, tidal, geothermal), AWH will be a renewable and sustainable
water resource since: i) atmospheric humidity is renewed naturally through evaporation from the ocean, and ii) AWH process does
not generate any side effect or by-products harmful to the environment.
There are several studies in the literature focusing on the process and functionality of AWH systems for water harvesting [6–9].
However, most of these studies have praised the viability of the process, especially near tropical and coastal areas where temperature
and humidity levels are typically high [10–13]. One of the first works dealing with water harvesting from atmosphere was published
in 1947 [14]. An apparatus was invented that consisted of a system of vertical and inclined channels underground to collect water
from atmosphere by cooling moist air to a temperature below its dew point. Gad et al. [15] reported water harvesting using a liquid
desiccant via absorption as well as using a solid desiccant via adsorption–desorption processes. Milani et al. [12,16] classified moist
air dehumidification methods into three main categories: i) condensation on cooling surfaces, ii) sorption using desiccant materials,
and iii) gas separation using membranes. They modeled, built, and tested a solar-assisted sorption dehumidifier that was added to an
air-cooled heat exchanger to dehumidify air for reducing the energy consumption of an air conditioning system. It was shown that
their system could be used for AWH to deliver 5.2 liters of water per day in Sydney, Australia.
Scrivani and Bardi [6] calculated the energy consumption of AWH by considering typical efficiency for major components in these
systems and reported the results for several weather scenarios in three Mediterranean countries: Jordan, Lebanon, and Morocco. They
discussed the possibility of using solar power to run absorption chillers as the source of cooling for water condensation. Based on their
calculations, the energy consumption per unit of water generation varies between 2256.54 kWh/m3 for Tripoli to 7910.04 kWh/m3
for Rayack, both in Lebanon. Habeebullah [7] calculated the water yield of an AWH in relatively hot and humid climate of Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia, using a developed mathematical model. Based on the reported data, the monthly estimated average water yield per unit
area of dehumidifier (evaporator) coil during August and February were 509 and 401 kg/m2, respectively.
Gido et al. [17] introduced a new index, moisture harvesting index (MHI) as the ratio of latent heat of condensation to total heat
transfer at the dehumidifier, for evaluating the functionality and cost-effectiveness of AWH. They estimated the MHI for several cities
around the world and determined Cabanatuan in Philippines with average MHI of 0.59 as the most suitable location for AWH among
the considered locations. They also concluded that MHI < 0.3 represented unfavorable conditions for AWH.
Lekouch et al. [18] focused on natural dew and fog collection from atmosphere in an arid region of southwest Morocco. The dew
water was collected using standard passive dew condensers and fog water was collected utilizing planar fog collectors. They also
simulated the dew yield and reported potentials of 0.3–18.1 liter per m2 of collection surface from May to October (in total) for 15
Moroccan cities.
Sharan et al. [8] also studied dew yield from conventional, uninsulated, corrugated galvanized iron in northwest rural India. They
estimated that for common large roofs 100–300 m2 in northwest India region, dew water could provide 600–1800 L during the dry
season (late September to early May) when needed most by the population.
Bergmair et al. [9] analyzed a membrane facilitated AWH using a mathematical model. They showed that in warm and humid
areas, using a selective membrane to concentrate the water vapor before cooling and condensation would significantly decrease the
energy consumption of AWH systems. Based on their obtained indexes, between 40% and 68% saving in energy consumption per unit
volume of water harvested would be achieved.
Our comprehensive literature review indicates that realistic performance evaluation of AWH has not been studied independently,
and the pertinent literature lacks the followings:

• Performance of commercially available AWH in different climates,

• A standard and/or procedure for performance evaluation of AWH,
• A general and in-depth understanding of functionality and limitations of AWH technology.
The present study aims to develop a systematic experimental procedure for evaluating the performance of AWH systems. We
tested a few commercially available residential-size AWH in our lab under a variety of climatic conditions using environmental
chambers. The results were analyzed to establish realistic functionality, performance, and limitations of the tested AWH systems.

3. Experimental setup

A test-bed is custom-built to study the effects of climatic conditions on water harvesting rate and performance of commercially
available AWH systems. The test-bed is equipped with a large environmental chamber (Espec, model EPX-4H Platinous) to provide
the inlet air stream with a wide range of desired temperature (T) and relative humidity (RH) to mimic targeted ambient conditions. A
schematic and a few pictures of the test-bed are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The test-bed is equipped with several Rotronic temperature
and humidity sensors (model HC2-S3 with accuracy of ± 0.1 °C and ± 0.5% RH), air flow measurement (TSI anemometer vane
model 5725) with accuracy of ± 1.0%, and Fluke 902 clamp meter with accuracy of 2.0% for input electric power measurements.

24
F. Bagheri Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

Fig. 1. Schematic of testing facility.

Fig. 2. Test setup; environmental chamber (right); AWH connected to environmental chamber (middle); power, temperature, and humidity mea-
surement sensors (left).

The data were measured every 30 s using a DAQ (National Instrument, model PXI Multifunction). In addition, the amount of water
harvested is measured every 15 min, using a scale (Precision Weighing Balances model AEP-1500G) with accuracy of ± 0.02 g. Using
the test-bed, a few commercially available residential-size AWH are tested under a wide range of climatic conditions and the results
are presented and discussed in Section 4. As there is no performance rating standard in the literature for AWH, a new testing
procedure is developed and introduced in this study. Several relevant specifications and guidelines for performance rating of heat
pumps are adopted from ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240 [19], ASHRAE Standard 16–2016 [20], and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
128–2011 [21]. For each test, measurements are performed for 5 h after achieving steady-state conditions. All the tests are repeated 3
times to ensure reproducibility of the acquired data.

4. Results and discussion

The main goal of this study is to investigate the performance and limitations of commercially available AWH systems under
various climatic conditions. As such, three residential-size AWH with rated water generation capacity of 30 L/Day and 1500 W
nominal power, manufactured in the United States, Canada, and China are purchased and tested using the custom-built test-bed per
the testing procedure described in Section 3. The tests are performed in a research laboratory at Simon Fraser University. The

Fig. 3. Sample measured T and RH during tests (in: intake; out: exhaust).

25
F. Bagheri Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

Table 1
Performance test results for AWH #1.
Condition T (°C) RH (%) ω (gr/kg) Tdewpoint (°C) Water harvesting rate (L/h) Energy consumption rate (kWh/L) Energy costsa (₡/L)

Warm and humid 30 62 16.6 21.9 0.65 1.21 13.6

Mild and humid 20 75 11.0 15.5 0.48 1.49 16.8
Cold and humid 6 80 4.6 2.8 0 – –
Warm and dry 32 20 5.9 6.3 0.14 5.60 63.1
Mild and dry 21 45 6.9 8.6 0.25 2.79 31.4
Cold and dry 6 57 3.3 − 1.6 0 – –
Mild 25 50 9.9 13.9 0.29 2.52 28.4

a
Energy cost is calculated based on BC-Hydro tariffs in Vancouver, BC, Canada as ₡11.27/kWh.

temperature and relative humidity (RH) of air entering the AWH units are set in the environmental chamber in the ranges of 0–45 °C
and 10–100%, respectively. Fig. 3 shows a sample of temperature and RH measured at intake and exhaust of an AWH during the tests.
It should be noted that the cold air stream after the dehumidification coil in most existing AWH passes through the condenser coil to
improve the coefficient of performance (COP) of the condensing unit. As such, the temperature of air stream at the discharge of tested
AWHs is larger than the intake temperature.
Tables 1–3 represent the results of tests under different climatic conditions. These conditions are assumed based on average
monthly data for different cities in North America that can be expanded to similar climates in the world. For example typical weather
conditions in Florida, U.S., in summer and spring are considered as representatives of warm-and-humid, and mild-and-humid cli-
mates, respectively [22]. A typical weather condition of British Columbia, Canada, in winter is used for cold-and-humid; Arizona,
U.S., in summer for warm-and-dry; Colorado, U.S., in summer and spring for mild-and-dry, and cold-and-dry, respectively; and
California, U.S., in spring for mild climate form the conditions of tests [23].
An uncertainty analysis of the measured data shows an accuracy of ± 0.01 kg/h for water generation and ± 0.03 kWh for energy
consumption, respectively. Based on the obtained results, average numbers from the tested systems are used to conclude the behavior
of AWH systems. Analyzing the variation of water harvesting and energy consumption rates shows that neither temperature nor
relative humidity is alone a dominating parameter in formulating the behavior of AWHs; however, the water content (ω) or dew point
temperature (Tdewpoint) plays a significant role. As such, in Figs. 4 and 5, the average water harvesting rate and energy consumption of
the tested AWHs are plotted versus water content (ω) and Tdewpoint.
The plots represent two cases each: a real condition that shows the average measured values through experimentation of AWH
samples, and an ideal condition that is calculated based on thermodynamics and psychrometric rules. For the ideal case, it is assumed
that an ideal machine can harvest all the extractable water from ambient air without frost formation on its dehumidification coil. As
such, it is assumed that an ideal machine is designed and executed in a controlled way that cools the air stream down to a point close
to but above freezing temperature (~ 1 °C). The concept of an ideal AWH machine and its performance characteristics can provide an
evaluation criterion and give a better insight for optimal design and advancement of the current technology in future. As expected,
these plots show that: i) water harvesting rate increases at higher water content, and ii) the energy consumption per liter of harvested
water decreases as ω or Tdewpoint increases. However, the behavior of variations is not accurately predictable and the trend of real
data points is not smooth (unlike the ideal results). This inconsistency is due to the effect of another factor on the water generation
rate and the energy consumption, which is the dry bulb temperature. In fact, the amount of energy consumed by AWH to extract a
liter of water splits into the sensible cooling of air down to Tdewpoint (and below it) and the latent heat of condensation. Therefore, for
a same ω or Tdewpoint, air at a higher temperature requires higher power for water harvesting due to its higher sensible cooling load.
Consequently, at higher temperatures the rate of water harvesting will decrease and the energy consumption per liter of water will
increase.
The water harvesting plots in Figs. 4 and 5 also show that the gap between the ideal and real data points increases by increasing
the ω or Tdewpoint, which shows the importance of optimal design and functionality of AWH in high humidity (water content) areas.
On the other side, the relatively small difference between the real and ideal water harvesting rates at low humidity areas can be
interpreted that the existing AWH technology is not appropriate in such climates and there is no remarkable potential of mod-
ifications to enhance the performance of AWH units.

Table 2
Performance test results for AWH #2.
Condition T (°C) RH (%) Water harvesting rate (L/h) Energy consumption rate (kWh/L) Energy costs (₡/L)

Warm and humid 30 62 0.66 0.82 9.2

Mild and humid 20 75 0.58 0.84 9.5
Cold and humid 6 80 0.09 5.48 61.8
Warm and dry 32 20 0.12 4.77 53.8
Mild and dry 21 45 0.26 1.85 20.8
Cold and dry 6 57 0 – –
Mild 25 50 0.31 1.53 17.2

26
F. Bagheri Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

Table 3
Performance test results for AWH #3.
Condition T (°C) RH (%) Water harvesting rate (L/h) Energy consumption rate (kWh/L) Energy costs (₡/L)

Warm and humid 30 62 0.64 1.02 11.5

Mild and humid 20 75 0.51 1.13 12.7
Cold and humid 6 80 0.07 6.97 78.6
Warm and dry 32 20 0.11 4.66 52.5
Mild and dry 21 45 0.27 2.41 27.2
Cold and dry 6 57 0 – –
Mild 25 50 0.32 2.24 25.2

Fig. 4. Average water generation and energy consumption vs. water content (ω) for tested residential AWHs.

Fig. 5. Average water generation and energy consumption vs. Tdewpoint for tested residential AWHs.

Fig. 6 qualitatively represents the simultaneous effect of temperature and humidity content on water harvesting rate versus T, ω,
and Tdewpoint, where higher rates are depicted with larger size bubbles. As expected, the higher water harvesting rates – or the lowest
rate of energy consumption per liter – appears in areas with a simultaneous low T and high ω or Tdewpoint. The psychrometric chart
has a limiting line, RH = 100%, demarcated by a dashed line in Fig. 6, that confines the maximum yield in water harvesting rate. As

Fig. 6. Water harvesting rate vs. temperature (T), water content (ω), and Tdewpoint (a larger bubble represents a larger water generation rate).

27
F. Bagheri Water Resources and Industry 20 (2018) 23–28

such, the highest water harvesting rate is obtained in climates that are closer to the RH = 100% line and have higher ω or Tdewpoint.
Noteworthy is another limitation that exists due to frost formation on the dehumidifier (evaporator) coil in low temperature and
humidity climates. Based on our experiments, AWH systems do not operate in low temperature and humidity climates, i.e. cold and
dry condition: T < ~ 6 °C and RH < ~ 75%; ≈ Tdewpoint < 2 °C, and these conditions are also marked on Fig. 6. The cost of water
generation increases as T increases or ω (consequently Tdewpoint) decreases.

5. Conclusions

This paper presented a critical performance investigation of commercially available AWH systems. A new testbed was built that
featured environmental chambers to mimic realistic operating conditions of different climates. A new testing procedure was in-
troduced for assessing the performance of AWH systems following relevant ASHRAE and ANSI/AHRI standards.
Three residential-size AWH units (nominal power of 1500 W or less) were systematically tested in our lab under a variety of
conditions including: warm and humid, mild and humid, cold and humid, warm and dry, mild and dry, cold and dry, and mild
climates. The results showed that the water harvesting yield enhances by simultaneous increase of water content (ω) or dewpoint
temperature (Tdewpoint) and a decrease of temperature. The average water harvesting rate varied in a range of 0.05 L/h for cold and
humid to 0.65 L/h for warm and humid climates. The average energy consumption changed from 1.02 kWh/L for warm and humid to
6.23 kWh/L for cold and humid climates.
In addition, an ideal AWH unit was defined as a machine capable of cooling the air stream down to a point close to but above the
freezing temperature (~ 1 °C) to achieve the highest water harvesting rate at all climates. The comparisons showed an increase in the
gaps between real and ideal water harvesting rates by changing from low humidity (water content) condition to high humidity
condition. It denoted a higher potential of performance improvement in higher humidity areas through optimal design of AWH
systems for those climates. The results also showed that: i) the considered AWH units failed to operate in cold-and-dry climate; and ii)
the energy cost of AWH increased significantly in hot-and-dry conditions. A criterion, Tdewpoint > 2 °C, was established based on our
experiment as a minimum climatic requirement for using AWH systems.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Automotive Partnership Canada (APC), Grant No. APCPJ 401826-10. The work could not be per-
formed without the support from many people at Simon Fraser University. The author would like to thank Mr. Marius Haiducu, Dr.
Mohammad Ali Fayazbakhsh, Mr. Jit Tian Lim, and Mr. Tian Lin Yang for their assistance during the tests.

References

[1] J.J. Bogardi, D. Dudgeon, R. Lawford, E. Flinkerbusch, A. Meyn, C. Pahl-Wostl, K. Vielhauer, C. Vörösmarty, Water security for a planet under pressure:
interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 4 (1) (2012) 35–43.
[2] FAO Aquastat: FAO World Food Summit: Factsheet Water and Food Security; available @ 〈www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/water.pdf〉.
[3] W.A. Jury, H.J. Vaux, The emerging global water crisis: managing scarcity and conflict, Adv. Agron. 95 (7) (2007) 1–76.
[4] M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, Four billion people facing severe water scarcity, Sci. Adv. (e1500323) (2016).
[5] D. Milani, A. Qadir, A. Vassallo, M. Chiesa, A. Abbas, Experimentally validated model for atmospheric water generation using a solar assisted desiccant
dehumidification system, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 236–246.
[6] A. Scrivani, U. Bardi, A study of the use of solar concentrating plants for the atmospheric water vapour extraction from ambient air in the Middle East and
Northern Africa region, Desalination 220 (1–3) (2008) 592–599.
[7] B.A. Habeebullah, Potential use of evaporator coils for water extraction in hot and humid areas, Desalination 237 (1–3) (2009) 330–345.
[8] G. Sharan, D. Beysens, I. Milimouk-Melnytchouk, A study of dew water yields on galvanized iron roofs in Kothara (North-West India), J. Arid Environ. 69 (2)
(2007) 259–269.
[9] D. Bergmair, S.J. Metz, H.C. De Lange, A.A. van Steenhoven, System analysis of membrane facilitated water generation from air humidity, Desalination 339 (1)
(2014) 26–33.
[10] B. Hellstorm, Potable water extracted from the air report on laboratory experiments, Hydrology 9 (1969) 1–19.
[11] L. Avenue, Provence U. De, Water recovery from dew, J. Hydrol. 182 (1996) 19–35.
[12] D. Milani, A. Qadir, A. Vassallo, M. Chiesa, A. Abbas, Experimentally validated model for atmospheric water generation using a solar assisted desiccant
dehumidification system, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 236–246.
[13] D. Beysens, I. Milimouk, V. Nikolayev, M. Muselli, J. Marcillat, Using radiative cooling to condense atmospheric vapor: a study to improve water yield, J. Hydrol.
276 (1–4) (2003) 1–11.
[14] V. Tygarinov, An equipment for collecting water from air. Patent No. 69751., 1947.
[15] H. Gad, A. Hamed, I. El-Sharkawy, Application of a solar desiccant/collector system for water recovery from atmospheric air, Renew. Energy 22 (4) (2001)
541–556.
[16] D. Milani, Modelling Framework of Solar Assisted Dehumidification System to Generate Freshwater from ‘Thin Air,’ (Master Thesis), University of Sydney, 2011.
[17] B. Gido, E. Friedler, D.M. Broday, Assessment of atmospheric moisture harvesting by direct cooling, Atmos. Res. 182 (2016) 156–162.
[18] I. Lekouch, K. Lekouch, M. Muselli, A. Mongruel, B. Kabbachi, D. Beysens, Rooftop dew, fog and rain collection in southwest Morocco and predictive dew
modeling using neural networks, J. Hydrol. 448–449 (2012) 60–72.
[19] ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240, Standard, Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment, 2012.
[20] , ASHRAE Standard16, Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners, 2016.
[21] 2011, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128-, Method of Rating Portable Air Conditioners, 2011.
[22] 〈https://weatherspark.com/averages/31262/St-Petersburg-Florida-United-States〉.
[23] 〈https://weatherspark.com/averages〉.

28
 Update
Water Resources and Industry
Volume 25, Issue , June 2021, Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2021.100139
 Water Resources and Industry 25 (2021) 100139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Resources and Industry

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/wri

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest

statements in previously published articles

Declaration of Competing Interest statements were not included in the published version of the following articles that appeared in
previous issues of «Water Resources and Industry»
The appropriate Declaration/Competing Interest statements, provided by the Authors, are included below.

1. “Adsorptive removal of cesium from aqueous solution using oxidized bamboo charcoal” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 19C:
35–46] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.01.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

2. “The potential use of treated brewery effluent as a water and nutrient source in irrigated crop production” [Water Resources and
Industry, 2018; 19C: 47–60] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.02.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

3. “Reclamation of water and the synthesis of gypsum and limestone from acid mine drainage treatment process using a combination
of pre-treated magnesite nanosheets, lime and CO2 bubbling” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 1–14] 10.1016/j.
wri.2018.07.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

4. “Amorphous silica waste from a geothermal central as an adsorption agent of heavy metal ions for the regeneration of industrial
pre-treated wastewater” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 15–22] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.07.002

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

5. “Performance Investigation of Atmospheric Water Harvesting Systems” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 23–28]
10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

6. “Incidence of dairy wastewater on morphological and physiological comportment of chemlali and chetoui olive” [Water Resources
and Industry, 2018; 20C: 29–36] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.002

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

DOIs of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.07.002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

wri.2018.10.002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.02.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2019.100106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.
100105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.01.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.07.001,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.10.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2016.08.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.08.001.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2021.100139

Available online 16 March 2021

2212-3717/© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.
 Water Resources and Industry 25 (2021) 100139

7. “In-Plant Real-Time Manufacturing Water Content Characterisation” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 37–45] 10.1016/j.
wri.2018.08.003

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

8. “Development of iron oxide/activated carbon nanoparticle composite for the removal of Cr(VI), Cu(II) and Cd(II) ions from aqueous
solution” [Water Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 54–74] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.10.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

9. “Assessment of the capability of an optical sensor for in-line real-time wastewater quality analysis in food manufacturing” [Water
Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 75–81] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.10.002

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

10. “Modified amorphous silica from a geothermal central as a metal adsorption agent for the regeneration of wastewater” [Water
Resources and Industry, 2018; 20C: 100105] 10.1016/j.wri.2018.100105

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

11. “Pilot-scale evaluation of bio-decolorization and biodegradation of reactive textile wastewater: An impact on its use in irrigation
of wheat crop” [Water Resources and Industry, 2019; 21C: 100106] 10.1016/j.wri.2019.100106

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.

12. “Titania coated silica nanocomposite prepared via encapsulation method for the degradation of Safranin-O dye from aqueous
solution: Optimization using statistical design” [Water Resources and Industry, 2019; 22C: 100071] 10.1016/j.wri.2016.08.001

Declaration of competing interest: The Authors have no interests to declare.