Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Three-effect tubular solar desalination system with vacuum operation under T

actual weather conditions
⁎
Guo Xiea,b, , Wenlong Chenb, Tiantong Yana, Jiguo Tanga, Hongtao Liua, Shunze Caob
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resource & Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solar still is an environmentally friendly technology to mitigate water scarcity in remote area. However, the high
Solar still cost and low efficiency limits its application. To this end, this study presents a novel three effects tubular solar
Solar desalination still (TSS) with greatly improved productivity. This still features a cascade feed design and vacuum operation
Vacuum system, and consists of three enveloped distillation chambers, where each chamber comprises a water trough and
Optimum operating pressure
a tubular shell. A prototype was fabricated and tested in an experiment conducted over four sunny days in
Energy utilisation efficiency
Chengdu, China. The prototype TSS was powered by an evacuated heat pipe solar collector. The freshwater yield
of the still was measured at four operating pressures: 95 (local atmospheric), 60, 40, and 20 kPa. Both the
operating temperature and the temperature difference between the three chambers decreased when the oper-
ating pressure was reduced. The freshwater yields were 3.27, 6.323, 7.056, and 4.287 kg/d, respectively, with
energy utilisation efficiencies of 0.77, 1.28, 1.39, and 0.88, respectively. The best overall performance was seen
at an operating pressure of 40 kPa. At 20 kPa, freshwater yield and energy utilisation efficiencies were relatively
low because of heat transfer deterioration on the outer shell at such low pressure. Based on the experimental
results, the optimum operating pressure for the small-scale solar still was determined to be 40–60 kPa.

1. Introduction scale commercial processes [9].

Water shortage is an increasing problem around the world. Current
projections estimate that approximate 3.9 billion people will live in
water-stressed areas by 2025 [1]. In this situation, researchers seek to
extract freshwater from saline waters via desalination technology [2].
Commercial desalination technologies such as multi-stage flash (MSF)
and reverse osmosis (RO) require self-contained infrastructure and
centralized installations, and thus are suitable for economically ad-
vanced regions [3]. Solar still is another desalination technology for
obtaining freshwater. It is environmentally friendly and especially
suitable for remote regions with abundant sunshine, such as coastal
areas and islands [4]. Various structures for solar stills have been
proposed, such as basin solar stills, vertical diffusion solar stills, and
weir-type solar stills [5]. The basin solar still is representative and
comprises a glass cover and saline water tank that is painted black for
better absorptivity [6]. Although the basin solar still was the first to be
proposed, its application is limited because of its low yield [7]. The best
water production cost for current basin solar still is around 0.0135 and
0.031 $/L [8], which is still much higher than the water cost of large
Various measures have been applied to basin solar stills to increase
their yield and decrease their water cost. One approach has been to add
functional materials to the water in the basin. Sahota and Tiwari [10]
investigated the sunlight absorption of raw water containing nano-
particles (Al2O3, TiO2, and CuO). Their results showed that the max-
imum thermal energy efficiency of the still reached 0.50 with a 0.25%
concentration of Al2O3, a level of efficiency that was 31.6% higher than
without nanoparticles. Similarly, adding a phase change material
(PCM) to the water in the basin [11] or attaching a PCM to the glass
cover [12] helped with collecting surplus energy during sunny hours
because a PCM can store thermal energy and compensate for the tem-
poral mismatch between supply and demand for solar energy [13].
Experimental results indicated that a properly selected PCM for a basin
still could increase the yield by 35%–65% [11]. Arunkumar et al. [12]
found that adding a cylindrical interlayer to a basin with a PCM can
enhance the freshwater yield by 8%. Covering the inside of the basin
with a layer of wick material can increase the evaporation area and thus
enhance production. Murugavel and Srithar [14] found that light black
cotton cloth was the most effective material for increasing production.

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resource & Hydropower, Sichuan University,
Chengdu 610065, China.
E-mail addresses: 2008xieguo@scu.edu.cn (G. Xie), echoliu215@sina.com (H. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112371
Received 22 August 2019; Received in revised form 29 November 2019; Accepted 30 November 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Xie, et al.
Nomenclature
A area (m2)
hfg latent heat of evaporation (2.3 × 106 J/kg)
mr freshwater yield rate (kg/h)
Md accumulated freshwater yield during the whole day (kg)
P pressure (kPa)
P0 standard atmospheric pressure (101 kPa)
Pop operating pressure (kPa)
PR performance ratio
Qin effective energy input for the desalination system (MJ)
Qs accumulated daily solar radiation (MJ/m2)
Rs solar radiation flux (W/m2)
T temperature (°C)
T0 temperature of circulating water(°C)
u uncertainty
Vwind wind speed (m/s)
Greek symbols
ΔTin temperature difference between water and shell (°C)
Kumar and Anand also employed a wicking material in a still [15] and
achieved a daily yield of over 3 L/m2, which is about 8% higher than
that of the same still without the wick material. A carrier gas with lower
viscosity and higher thermal diffusion can be injected into the dis-
tillation chamber to enhance the vapour transport inside the still. He-
lium was found to increase the water yield rate by 30.76% [16].
An alternative approach for improving the basin still is to modify
the structure, using such approaches as multi-effect design and mod-
ification of the top cover. As summarised by Panchal and Mohan [17], a
still with multiple basins increases the overall efficiency by reutilising
the total absorbed heat. Feilizadeh et al. [18] experimentally in-
vestigated the effect of increasing the number of stages in a multi-effect
active solar still and showed that a four-effect still yielded 73% more
freshwater than a single-effect yield. Dhindsa et al. [19] performed an
in-situ test and showed that the freshwater yield of a multi-effect still
approached 9.38 kg/m2/d. Xiong et al. [20] designed a three-effect
solar still with corrugated basins that yielded a total of 43.4 kg of
freshwater with a 3 m2 solar collector. A solar still with a hemispherical
top cover has been proposed, and different tests have shown that effi-
ciency approaches 34% [21].
Among all the proposed structural modifications for basin solar
stills, substituting plate glass with tubular glass is one the most intri-
guing. First, this modification supplies a larger condensing surface,
which accelerates vapour condensation on the surface. Second, the
basin is set inside the tubular cover, so an air gap with excellent heat
insulation naturally forms between the basin and the bottom of the
tubular cover [22], making it possible for the tubular solar still (TSS) to
operate without any additional insulation on the bottom [23].
Various studies have been carried out on TSSs since they were first
proposed by Tiwari et al. in 1988 [24]. Rahbar et al. [25] reported that
the productivity of a TSS is 20% higher than a triangular one. Ahsan
et al. [26] experimentally compared two TSSs that were the same size
but had covers made of either a transparent vinyl chloride sheet or
durable polythene film. Their results indicated that the latter reduced
the cost of freshwater production to $0.013/kg. They also compared the
design, fabrication, cost, and water production between the two stills
[27]. Arunkumar et al. [28] reported a new TSS coupled with com-
pound parabolic concentrators (CPC), where saline water in the trough
is heated up quickly and then evaporated. They also attempted to im-
prove the performance of their proposed TSS by combining the still
with a single slope solar still [29] and pyramid type still [30]. Similar
modifications were attempted by Elashmawy [31], who integrated a
2
Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371
α absorptivity
η thermal efficiency
τ transmissivity
Subscripts
a ambient
av average
c cover
col collector
ha humid air
i stage, i = 1, 2, 3, …
low pre-set lower threshold value
m maximum
s effective condensation surface of tubular shell
tr trough
up pre-set upper threshold value
w evaporating water
1 first stage
2 second stage
3 third stage
TSS with a parabolic concentrator solar tracking system and increased
the yield to 3.6 L/m2/day.
Maintaining the cylindrical chamber of a TSS under a vacuum is an
efficient method for improving the yield. Zheng et al. [32] showed that
the evaporation rate of a TSS was significantly improved when it was
operated under vacuum. At an operating pressure of 75 kPa, the yield
increased by 23.9% [33]. Xie et al. [34] analysed the energy utilisation
efficiency of a TSS at different operating pressures, and their results
indicated that the efficiency of a TSS could be increased by more than
80% under vacuum. They also proposed a five-effect conceptual design
for a TSS based on their experimental work at different pressures [35].
Kabeel et al. [36] modified the conventional solar still by using nano-
fluids and a vacuum fan, and their results showed that the distilled
productivity of the solar still under vacuum was approximately 20%
higher than that under atmospheric pressure. Abbaspour et al. [37]
tested a solar natural vacuum desalination system at different vacuums,
and obtained the highest daily yield of 8.062 kg/m2/d at 23.4 kPa.
However, maintaining vacuum in a large chamber suffers from high
energy consumption and potential leaking. Existing works commonly
focused on enhancing the productivity of solar stills by vacuum op-
eration, but ignored the effect of the rational compact structures for a
solar still that operates under vacuum. Recent study indicated that
vacuum operation is more suitable for multi-effect solar still than
single-effect one due to the higher economic performance [38], which
was seldomly investigated in the previous studies.
This study presents a novel TSS that combines multi-effect distilla-
tion and vacuum operation. A cascade feed structure is specifically
designed and fabricated to realise this concept. The TSS consists of
three nested distillation chambers, where each chamber comprises a
water trough and a tubular shell. The new TSS was tested under actual
weather conditions in a four-day experiment, and its sensitivity to the
operating pressure was investigated. The temperature, freshwater yield,
and utilisation efficiency during the experiment were measured and
analysed to identify the optimum operating pressure range for the
proposed TSS. Under the optimum operating pressure, the yield of TSS
was improved compared with the yields at other pressures. The pro-
posed TSS shows outstanding performance in comparison with existing
stills. The results of this study contribute to optimising the operation of
small-scale solar stills.
G. Xie, et al.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Operating principle of the TSS under a vacuum
Fig. 1 shows a schematic for the layout of a vacuum-pump-assisted
TSS integrated with a solar collector. The main components of the
system include a vacuum pump, a three-effect TSS module, and three
water tanks. When operated under vacuum, the distillation process
occurs in the three still chambers (denoted as #1, #2, and #3 in Fig. 1).
Feedwater flows by gravity from a saline water tank into the trough of
each stage successively.
Solar energy is absorbed by the collector and heats water that cir-
culates in the horizontal U-tube immersed in the trough of stage #1.
The saline water in trough #1 is heated by the circulating water in the
U-tube and evaporates continuously. The vapour concentration above
the water surface in trough #1 increases with the water temperature.
The vapour condenses on the inner side of the tubular shell in stage #1
and simultaneously discharges its heat to the saline water in stage #2. A
similar vaporising process occurs in stages #2 and #3. Finally, the
exhaust heat is discharged into the environment through the outer
shell.
The condensate at each stage trickles down to the bottom of the
tubular shell and is collected in the freshwater tank. Meanwhile, excess
saline water overflows to the brine tank through a discharge line. The
saline water is only replenished before the experiment early in the
morning. A similar design was presented in previous work; however,
the circulation water was heated with an electric element instead of a
solar collector [34,35]. In contrast with other studies [27,28], the
proposed TSS features multiple (three) chambers and vacuum opera-
tion; these modifications significantly improve the energy utilisation
efficiency.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the proposed three-effect tubular solar still (TSS) operated under vacuum.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371
2.2. Structural design of the prototype
The proposed three-effect TSS is formed by welding three troughs
and three shell tubes to the endplates, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Each
adjacent trough and shell tube form a stage of the still, and the stages
are numbered sequentially from inside to outside (#1, #2, and #3). For
each stage, a pair of cylindrical inner supports are welded symme-
trically to the inner bottom of the shell tube to support the trough. An
air gap is formed between the trough and shell to act as thermal in-
sulation.
The three troughs are connected by two 180° elbows, as shown in
Fig. 2. The inlet of the connecting tube opens just beneath the top edge
of the right endplate of each trough. Raw water is first supplied to
trough #3 and then overflows into troughs #2 and #1 sequentially
through the connecting tubes under gravity. This cascade flow allows
water to be promptly and consecutively fed to the three troughs. Ad-
ditional raw water can be supplied during operation to avoid the de-
position of salt sediments in the trough; such a feature is important
when solar radiation is intense.
Similarly, the three distillation chambers are connected by two
short straight tubes, as shown in Fig. 2. In each chamber, the con-
densate trickles down to the bottom and gathers in the condensate tube
at the bottom of the chamber before entering the freshwater tank
through the main condensate drain tube.
The connecting tubes enable a uniform pressure state in the three
distillation chambers. Therefore, the pressure in the still is regulated in
all chambers with a single pressure controller. In contrast to a rectan-
gular shell, the tubular shell of the proposed TSS facilitates operation
under vacuum because it is better able to withstand differences between
external and internal pressures.
Fig. 3 presents a two-dimensional drawing of the three-effect TSS.
Each trough and shell is fabricated from 304 stainless steel with a wall
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Fig. 2. Perspective drawing of the three-effect TSS showing the structural design.

thickness of approximately 1 mm. Table 1 lists the detailed parameters
of the proposed three-effect TSS. The evaporation areas (Aw) for
chambers #1, #2, and #3 are 0.13, 0.17, and 0.18 m2, respectively. The
effective condensation areas (As) are 0.19, 0.3, and 0.3 m2, based on the
CFD simulations of Rahbar et al. [39]. The water capacities of troughs
#1, #2, and #3 are approximately 6.6, 6.7, and 10.8 kg, respectively.
The net weight of the three-effect TSS is approximately 14 kg.
2.3. Experimental setup
A field test was carried out at ambient temperature (approximately
25 °C) in Chengdu, China. The local altitude is approximately 500 m,
and the atmospheric pressure was approximately 95 kPa on the day of
the test. The experimental system (Fig. 4) comprised a three-effect TSS,
three water tanks, a vacuum pump, a 1 m2 solar collector, and the
measurement instruments. The solar collector comprised several

Fig. 3. Two-dimensional drawings of the proposed three-effect TSS.

4
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Table 1 threshold (Pup), a vacuum pump was actuated to evacuate the still until
Design specifications of the three-effect TSS. the system pressure decreased to a value lower than a preset lower
Component Specifications threshold (Plow). Pup and Plow were manually set to be 3 kPa higher and
lower than the desired value to keep the operating pressure (Pop) in the
Diameter (mm) Length Thickness Weight (kg) desired range. The pressure inside the still was measured with a pie-
(mm) (mm) zometer that was calibrated to standard atmospheric pressure
Chamber Trough 89 1500 0.9 0.62 (P0 = 101 kPa). Table 3 lists the characteristics of the instruments used
#1 Shell 102 1510 0.9 1.11 in this study.
Chamber Trough 133 1520 0.9 1.14
#2 Shell 159 1555 0.9 1.78
2.4. Performance evaluation
Chamber Trough 190 1560 1.1 2.14
#3 Shell 219 1600 1.1 3.08
End plate (left side in 219 – 3 0.90 The energy utilisation efficiency of the TSS over an entire day can be
Fig. 3) represented by the performance ratio (PR) [41]:
End plate (right side in 89, 102, 133, – 3 2.49
Fig. 3) 159, 190, 219 Md hfg ∑ mr hfg
U-tube 9.5 6080 0.6 0.28 PR = =
Qin Qac ηcol (1)
Inner supports #1 = 5.5; 40 × 4 – 0.34
#2 = 12;
where Md is the accumulated freshwater yield during the entire day,
#3 = 13
Connecting tubes 15.9 405 0.9 0.05 and Qin is the effective energy input for the desalination system. The
Total weight = 13.93 kg thermal efficiency ηcol of a solar collector declines with higher oper-
ating temperature and lower solar radiation flux. The collector used in
this experiment was purchased from ShenTai Ltd, and its ηcol was es-
timated by [20] and expressed as follows:
Tw1 − Ta
ηcol = 0.635 − 1.96
Rs (2)

3. Results

Fig. 4. Photograph of the experimental system.
elements, each containing a heat pipe inside a vacuum-sealed tube, and
had high thermal efficiency for daylong performance [40]. The solar
collector was the heat source used to heat the circulation water in the
U-tube. Instead of saline water, tap water was used as the feedwater.
Table 2 lists the physical properties of the tap water, air, and 304 steel.
The instantaneous solar radiation flux (W/m2) was measured with a
solarimeter at one-minute intervals. The wind speed was detected with
a hot-wire probe, which is widely used for accurate measurement of
medium to low air velocities (up to 10 m/s). The solar radiation and
wind speed data were automatically logged with a portable data logger.
Four thermocouples were used to measure the temperatures of the
circulating water (T0) and raw water in the three troughs (Tw,i). Five
thermal resistors were used to measure the temperature of the outer
surface of the shell (Ts). The thermal resistors were circumferentially
fixed on the upper region of the outer tubular shell at 40 mm intervals.
Another thermal resistor was used to measure the ambient temperature
(Ta). Pure water and brine water were separately collected in two tanks,
and the weights of the collected waters were measured with an elec-
tronic scale. The flow rate of the feedwater was measured with a float-
type flow meter and regulated with a needle valve.
The pressure within the still was maintained with an automatic
pressure control system. When the pressure exceeded a preset upper
In the field test, solar energy was first absorbed by the collector and
then transported to trough #1 by the water circulating U-tube to eva-
porate the raw water in the trough. The experiment was performed over
four sunny days (4th, 14th, 16th, and 25th) in May 2018. The sensi-
tivity of the system to the operating pressure (Pop) was investigated by
setting Pop to 95 kPa (case 1 on 4th May), 60 kPa (case 2 on 16th May),
40 kPa (case 3 on 25th May), and 20 kPa (case 4 on 14th May). The
temperature (Ts) of the outer tubular shell was determined by averaging
the measured temperatures from the top three resistors on the outer
surface, which covered the majority of the available condensation
surface of shell #3.
The experiment was carried out from 08:30 to 20:30 each day. The
circulating pump and vacuum pump were turned off once the circu-
lating water had a lower temperature than the raw water in the trough.
The measured temperature was recorded one-minute intervals, and the
freshwater in the water tank was weighed every 30 min. The daily
accumulated freshwater yield was weighed at 08:00 on the day after the
experiment. The trough was filled with tap water before the experi-
ment. If additional feedwater was required on a sunny day, the flow
rate was adjusted to 1.5–2 times the freshwater flow rate. The vacuum
pressure was controlled by an electronic pressure controller installed on
the top of the tubular shell. During the experiment, the vacuum pump
was actuated every 2.5 min for approximately 2 s each cycle.
3.1. Solar radiation during the experiment
Climatic conditions, especially solar radiation and wind speed, have
a direct influence on the freshwater yield of a solar still. Fig. 5 presents
Table 2
Physical properties of tap water, air, and 304 steel.
Material Density Heat capacity Thermal conductivity Emissivity
(kg m3) (J kg−1 K) (W m−1 K−1)
304 stainless steel 7800 490 15 0.21
Tap water 1000 4180 0.62 0.96
Ambient air 1.2 1005 0.026 0.1

5
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Table 3
Characteristics of measurement instruments.
Instrument Brand Type Range Accuracy

2
Solarimeter DELTA LP Silicon-PYRA 0–2000 W/m ± 3%
Wind speed measurement DELTA Hot-wire probe 0–10 m/s ± 0.2 m/s
Portable data logger DELTA Multifunctional
Thermocouple Chunhui T 0–100 °C ± 0.5 °C
Thermal resistor OMEGA Pt100 0–100 °C ± 0.35 °C
Scales SOPTOP Electronic 0–15 kg ± 0.5 g
Piezometer Hongqi Mechanical 0–101 kPa ± 1.6%
Pressure controller Sinomeasure Electronic 0–101 kPa ± 2.5%
Flow meter OMEGA Float-type 2.04–98.4 ml/min ± 2%
Recorder SUPCON Paperless ± 0.2%

the instantaneous and accumulated values of solar radiation during the pressure. For instance, Twm,1 = 89.2 °C at Pop = 95 kPa, while
four-day experiment. Chengdu has a lower solar radiation intensity Twm,1 = 67.2 °C at Pop = 20 kPa. Similarly, ΔTin decreased with op-
than Patiala, India [19]; Valsad, India [42]; Tehran, Iran [43]; Jeddah, erating pressure. ΔTin,1 decreased from 7 °C in case 1 to 2.2 °C in case 4.
Saudi Arabia [44]; Ismailia, Egypt [45]; Kafrelsheikh, Egypt [46]; Pozo This phenomenon implies that a solar still operating under a vacuum
Izquierdo, Spain [47]; and many other cities in China [48]. The amount other than atmospheric pressure requires a smaller internal tempera-
of solar radiation is typical for hilly terrains such as Chengdu; high and ture gradient. A solar still with multiple stages benefits more from this
thick clouds decrease the density of solar radiation, even on sunny phenomenon.
summer days. The maximum solar radiation flux (Rs_max) for cases 1, 2,
3, and 4 were 1094, 995, 1019, and 880 W/m2, respectively. The cor-
3.3. Freshwater yield of the still under vacuum
responding accumulated daily solar radiations (Qs) were 16.76, 19.58,
20.1, and 19.36 MJ/m2/d, respectively. The wind speeds were mea-
The freshwater yield was measured every 30 min, and the corre-
sured at 08:30, 13:30, and 18:30 on each day at five positions. The
sponding hourly yield rate (mr) is presented in Fig. 7. In case 1, the TSS
average daily wind speeds (Vwind_av) for cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.8,
first started producing a measurable freshwater yield at approximately
1.21, 1.58, and 0.62 m/s, respectively.
13:00. In cases 2, 3, and 4, measurable yields were seen at approxi-
mately 11:30, 10:00, and 11:00, respectively, which were much earlier
than for case 1. The faster yield of freshwater under a vacuum provides
3.2. Temperature of the still under vacuum pressure
additional support to the argument that the heat and mass transfers in
the TSS are enhanced under vacuum. In general, the TSS had higher
Fig. 6 shows the variations in the temperatures of the ambient air,
yields at Pop = 60 and 40 kPa than at Pop = 95 and 20 kPa. Although
outer shell, circulating water, and raw water in the three troughs during
the freshwater yield of the still at Pop = 20 kPa was the highest at
the experiment. The temperatures of the circulating water and raw
11:00–12:00; afterwards, it declined to less than the yields at Pop = 60
water in trough #1 quickly increased before 12:00, while those of the
and 40 kPa. This was because the heat transfer deteriorated on the
outer shell and raw water in troughs #2 and #3 rose more slowly. This
outer shell of the still operating at Pop = 20 kPa. When the operating
is because the raw water in trough #1 was directly heated by the cir-
pressure is lowered, the overall operating temperature of the still de-
culating water, while the water in troughs #2 and #3 was primarily
creases [34]. At Pop = 20 kPa, the temperature of the outer shell was
heated by the vapour from the previous stage. The vapour concentra-
less than 65 °C. The heat discharge through the outer shell became
tion within chamber #1 was relatively low in the morning. The corre-
weaker compared with the other operating pressures, and the vapour
sponding weak heat resulted in a slow temperature rise for the water in
did not condense completely. As a result, some of the vapour over-
trough #2 during the morning. Similarly, the low vapour concentration
flowed from the distillation chamber and decreased the freshwater
within chamber #2, resulting in a slow temperature rise in trough #3.
yield of the still.
This slowness was noticeable in the early morning hours of each day of
Table 5 presents the freshwater yields during the day and night in
the experiment and explained why the outer shell temperature was
the 4-day experiment. At Pop = 60 and 40 kPa, the freshwater yields for
typically higher than the raw water temperature in trough #3 because
an entire day were 6.323 and 7.056 kg, respectively. These yields were
heat was transferred by solar radiation on the outer shell more quickly
higher than the yields at Pop = 95 and 20 kPa. At night, freshwater was
than by vapour within the chamber.
generated by the sensible heat stored in the raw water in the troughs.
At lower operating pressures, the amount of time required for the
The freshwater yield was much lower at night than during the day and
still to reach a stable operating temperature was less, as shown in Fig. 6.
accounted for less than 14% of the total yield. To examine the desali-
The still took approximately 4.5 h of heating to reach a stable operating
nation effect of the system, the total dissolved solids (TDS) and electric
temperature when Pop = 95 kPa (i.e., at around 13:00; Fig. 6(a)). At
conductivity (EC) of the freshwater yield were measured, as listed in
Pop = 60, 40, and 20 kPa, the times required to reach a stable operating
Table 6. The freshwater had 1.5 mg/L TDS and 3.4 µS cm−1 EC, which
temperature were approximately 4.5, 3, and 2 h, respectively. In all
were approximately 1% those of the feedwater. According to Ward
cases, the operating temperature of the still began to decline at ap-
[49], water with a TDS of lower than 2 mg/L can be recognised as pure
proximately 16:00. Once the circulating water had a lower temperature
water.
than the raw water in the troughs, the circulating pump was turned off
to save energy and avoid unnecessary waste heat from the solar col-
lector to the environment. After the pump was turned off, fluctuations 3.4. Performance ratio of the still operating under vacuum pressure
in the temperature were observed, as shown in Fig. 6(b) and (d); these
were caused by fluctuations in the energy input. A larger PR indicates higher energy efficiency and better distillation
To describe the heat transfer in each chamber, the maximum tem- performance. Fig. 8 shows the effect of the operating pressure on the PR
perature of the raw water (Twm) and the daily average temperature of the TSS during the four-day experiment. The PR is 0.77, 1.28, 1.39,
difference (ΔTin = Tw - Ts) were recorded, as listed in Table 4. In and 0.88 at 95, 60, 40, and 20 kPa, respectively. The results showed
general, Twm of the three chambers declined with the operating that the low operating pressure of Pop = 20 kPa reduced both the

6
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Fig. 5. Solar radiation and wind speed during the experiment: (a) case 1: Fig. 6. Variation in the temperature of the still during the experiment: (a) case
Pop = 95 kPa (local atmospheric pressure), 4th May 2018; (b) case 2: 1: Pop = 95 kPa; (b) case 2: Pop = 60 kPa; (c) case 3: Pop = 40 kPa; (d) case 4:
Pop = 60 kPa, 16th May 2018; (c) case 3: Pop = 40 kPa, 25th May 2018; (d) Pop = 20 kPa.
case 4: Pop = 20 kPa, 14th May 2018.

needed to resist the vacuum pressure. Therefore, the operating pressure

freshwater yield and energy utilisation efficiency because the cooling of can be optimised to maximise the freshwater yield of a small-scale solar
the outer shell deteriorated. In addition, maintaining a stronger vacuum still. In this study, the optimum operating pressure for the TSS was
increased the electrical consumption, and a thicker outer shell was concluded to be 40–60 kPa when both the operating and fabrication

7
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Table 4
Twm and average ΔTin of the still during the experiment.
Context Pop Twm,1 Twm,2 Twm,3 ΔTin,1 ΔTin,2 ΔTin,3
(kPa) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)

Case 1 95 89.2 82.8 72.9 7.0 8.8 1.9

Case 2 60 86.4 82.5 77.6 5.1 5.6 2.8
Case 3 40 79.9 77.8 77.1 3.4 3.1 2.5
Case 4 20 67.2 65.0 65.0 2.2 1.2 0.3

Fig. 8. Performance ratio of the TSS operating under vacuum pressure.

Fig. 7. Freshwater yield rate mr during the experiment.

Table 5
Accumulated daily freshwater yield.
Context Operating pressure Yield during the day Yield at night Total
(kPa) (kg) (kg) (kg)

Case 1 95 2.954 0.316 3.27

Case 2 60 5.438 0.885 6.323
Case 3 40 6.125 0.931 7.056
Case 4 20 4.28 0.007 4.287 Fig. 9. Performance ratios of different TSSs. (I) proposed TSS: three stages,
vacuum operation, 40 kPa; (II) Xie’s TSS [34]: single-stage, vacuum operation,
60 kPa; (III) Ahsan’s second TSS [26]: single-stage, NAP, polythene film cover;
Table 6 (IV) Ahsan’s first TSS [26]: single-stage, NAP, vinyl chloride cover; (V) Ar-
TDS and EC of raw water and production. unkumar’s TSS [28]: single-stage, NAP, CPC reflector; (VI) Arunkumar’s TSS
[28]: single-stage, NAP, CPC reflector, extra water cooling; (VII) Elashmawy’s
TDS (mg/L) EC (µS/cm)
TSS [31]: single-stage, NAP, parabolic concentrator solar tracking system.
Feedwater 117 234
Production 1.5 3.4
Table 7
Construction cost for the present solar desalination system.

costs were considered. Component Cost ($)

Vacuum-tube solar collector (1 m2) 120

4. Discussion Three-effect tubular solar still (L = 1.6 m, D = 219 mm) 80
Magnetic water pump (6 L/min, 12 V, 8 W) 15
Vacuum pump (5 L/min, 12 V, 8 W) 10
4.1. Comparison of the proposed still with existing TSSs
Feedwater tank and frame (100 L) 30
Brine and distillate tanks (20 L) 30
Fig. 9 compares PR of the proposed still with those of existing TSSs. Electronic pressure switch 15
Seven stills with different structures or operating conditions were Photovoltaic module (20 W, 12 V) 30
considered and numbered as I–VII. For existing TSSs, PR was calculated Valves 10
Connecting pipe 5
as follows based on the results of an indoor experiment:
Total cost 345
mr hfg
PR =
Rs ·ηcol (3)
In general, the still operating under vacuum performs better than
where ηcol is the thermal collecting efficiency for a typical yield with a one operating under normal atmospheric pressure (NAP). The PR of still
transparent cover. II (see Fig. 9) is approximately 0.8, which was higher than the PR values
of stills III, IV, V, and VII. The only exception is still VI, which requires
ηcol = τc τha τw αtr (4)
extra water cooling. Although a still with extra cooling benefits vapour

8
G. Xie, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371

Table 8 been widely applied to augment water supply in water-stressed coun-

CO2 emissions for different desalination processes.
Configuration
MSF (cogeneration, steam cycle, natural gas)
MED (cogeneration, steam cycle, natural gas)
RO (steam cycle)
Proposed three-effect TSS (without PV)
Proposed three-effect TSS (with PV)
tries. RO technology pressurises against a semipermeable membrane
CO2 emission (g/CO2/L) that allows water to pass but retains salt. Current state-of-the-art sea-
water RO plants consume 3–4 kWh/m3 and emit 1.4–1.8 g/CO2/L of
13.9–15.6 [54] produced water [55]. For each kWh of electricity generated, a solar PV
8.2–8.9 [54]
system discharges 43–73 g/CO2 over the greenhouse life cycle. CO2
1.4–1.8 [55]
6.9–11 [56]
emissions from the proposed three-effect TSS coupled with PV is esti-
0.8–1.4 [56] mated to be 0.8–1.4 g/CO2/L, dramatically lower than that of con-
ventional thermal desalination plants [56].

condensation, it requires a more sophisticated system and consumes 4.3. Uncertainty analysis
more electricity. Furthermore, the three-stage design significantly im-
proves the PR of the proposed still, which has a PR approaching 1.4, a The method of Kline and McClintock [57] was used to estimate the
value higher than those of the other stills. uncertainty between the measured and calculated quantities. In this
Two factors are crucial for the superior performance of the proposed method, all quantities can contribute significant uncertainty to the
still. First, the vacuum operation enhanced the freshwater yield. measurement result [58], which is typically given by
Because of Fick’s diffusion law [50], the mass transfer process is ac-
n 2
celerated in the vacuum state, which increases the freshwater yield. ∂y ⎞ 2
Furthermore, the chamber under vacuum has a higher energy utilisa-
uc (y ) = ∑ ⎛ ∂x⎜ u (x i ) ,
⎟

i=1 ⎝ i⎠ (5)
tion efficiency because there is less non-condensable gas [51] and less
energy loss within the evacuated chamber during the vapour transport where uc (y) is the combined uncertainty, y is the result of an experi-
process [52]. Second, the three-stage design amplifies the effect of the ment calculated from a set of measurements and presented by y = f (x1,
vacuum operation. The input thermal energy is used initially in stage x2, …, xn), where xi are the individual measurements, and uc (xi) is the
#1 and then reused by stages #2 and #3, which increases the fresh- uncertainty of the measurement xi. Substituting Eqs. (1) and (2) into Eq.
water yield. The cascade structure for the water supply enables the (5), the uncertainty of PR is calculated by
thermal energy to be reused. 2 2 2
uc (PR) = ⎛ ∂PR ⎞ u2 (Tw1) + ⎛ ∂PR ⎞ u2 (Md ) + ⎛ ∂PR ⎞ u2 (Rs ) ,
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ ∂Tw1 ⎠ ⎝ ∂Md ⎠ ⎝ ∂Rs ⎠ (6)

4.2. Economic and environmental analysis
where ∂PR/∂Tw1, ∂PR/∂Md, and ∂PR/∂Rs are derived as

An economic evaluation was completed for the proposed three-ef- 2

∂PR hfg ⎛ 1 ⎞ 1.96
fect solar desalination system. Details of the construction costs and = Md ,
calculations involved are presented in Table 7. The system here is ∂Tw1 Qac ⎜ 0.635 − 1.96 Tw1 − Ta ⎟ Rs
⎝ Rs ⎠ (7)
coupled with a photovoltaic module to power the circulating and va-
cuum pumps. This modified system is being tested now, and its per- ∂PR hfg
= ,
formance will be reported in the future. The cost of fabricating a three-
effect TSS was $80, including $40 for materials and $40 for labour. The
∂Md
( T −T
Qac 0.635 − 1.96 w1R a
s ) (8)
total construction cost of the desalination system was approximately 2
2
$345. Considering an annual interest rate of 5%, a lifetime of 20 years, ∂PR hfg ⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
= −1.96Md ⎜ Tw1 − Ta ⎟
(Tw1 − Ta ) ⎛ ⎞ . ⎜ ⎟

an average operation time of 270 days per year, and average daily
productivity of 5 kg/m2/d, the unit cost of freshwater for the proposed
solar desalination system was approximately $0.0082/kg. This cost of
freshwater was lower than that has been reported for other solar stills
[53].
Solar desalination is an environmentally friendly technology to
obtain drinkable water. Table 8 shows the CO2 emissions associated
with different desalination processes. Compared with conventional
desalination technologies, solar desalination does not consume fossil
fuels. Hence, it has a negligible impact on the environment. Multistage
flash (MSF) and multiple effect distillation (MED) are two conventional
desalination technologies, where seawater is heated, and the generated
vapour is condensed to produce fresh water. This evaporation process
relies on burning fossil fuels, resulting in considerable CO2 emissions
[54]. Reverse osmosis (RO) desalination is another technology that has
∂Rs Qac 0.635 − 1.96 ⎝ Rs ⎠
⎝ Rs ⎠ (9)
Table 9 displays the data regarding the uncertainties of the mea-
sured and calculated quantities in the four-day experiment. The un-
certainties of temperature and solar radiation flux were calculated by
the average values during the day. The results show that the uncertainty
of PR is smaller than ± 0.014%, which is low enough to be neglected in
this study.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a novel TSS that operates under vacuum was pre-
sented. The proposed TSS has three tubular distillation chambers, each
having an outer and inner chamber envelope. The feedwater flows into
the three chambers similar to a cascade; therefore, the three troughs of

Table 9
Uncertainties of the measured and calculated quantities.
Quantities Case 1 (95 kPa) Case 2 (60 kPa) Case 3 (40 kPa) Case 4 (20 kPa)

Daily Yield Value (kg) 3.27 6.323 7.056 4.287

Uncertainty ± 0.015% ± 0.008% ± 0.007% ± 0.012%
Averaged Temperature Value (°C) 70.9 71 69.3 59.2
Uncertainty ± 0.9% ± 0.9% ± 0.92% ± 1.04%
Solar radiation flux Value (W/m2) 438 485 475.6 479.1
Uncertainty ± 3% ± 3% ± 3% ± 3%
Performance Ratio Value 0.77 1.28 1.39 0.88
Uncertainty ± 0.01% ± 0.012% ± 0.014% ± 0.009%

9
G. Xie, et al.
the still can be filled in a once-through operation. The troughs and shell
tubes within the still are sustained and separated by inner supports that
form insulating air gaps between the trough and shell tube. A uniform
pressure state in the still is achieved because the three chambers are
connected. The proposed TSS adopts a three-effect design and operates
under vacuum. The input thermal energy is first used in stage #1 and
then reused by stages #2 and #3 in sequence.
A prototype of the current design was tested over four sunny days in
Chengdu, China. Different operating pressures (Pop) were considered:
95 kPa (case 1), 60 kPa (case 2), 40 kPa (case 3), and 20 kPa (case 4).
The instantaneous values of the solar radiation flux, temperature, and
freshwater yield rate were measured. The solar radiation (Qs) values for
the four cases were 16.76, 19.58, 20.1, and 19.36 MJ/m2/d, respec-
tively. The maximum temperature (Twm) and average temperature
difference (ΔTin = Tw − Ts) each declined with the operating pressure
(Pop). This indicates that a solar still operating under vacuum requires a
smaller internally driven temperature gradient than one being operated
under atmospheric pressure. A solar still with multiple stages benefits
from operating under vacuum and produces more freshwater. The
freshwater yields were 3.27, 6.323, 7.056, and 4.287 kg for operating
pressures of 95, 60, 40, and 20 kPa, respectively.
To evaluate the energy utilisation efficiency of the TSS, the PR of the
system was calculated and was found to be 0.77, 1.28, 1.39, and 0.88 at
Pop = 95, 60, 40, and 20 kPa, respectively. The results showed that
maintaining a vacuum in the chamber could improve the freshwater
yield of the still. However, maintaining an operating pressure that is too
low (e.g., 20 kPa) had a negative effect on the freshwater yield. This
was because of the heat transfer deterioration on the outer surface of
the still at low pressures (i.e., a low rate of heat discharge on the outer
surface resulted in incomplete vapour condensation). The optimum
operating pressure for the proposed TSS was found to be 40–60 kPa in
this study. The utilisation efficiency of the proposed TSS was compared
with those of existing tubular stills. The higher PR of the proposed TSS
was due to the three-stage structure and vacuum operation scheme. The
results of this study contribute to optimising the operation of small-
scale solar stills. The cost of freshwater for the proposed TSS was ap-
proximately $0.0082/kg. The CO2 emissions from the proposed TSS
coupled with PV is estimated to be 0.8 to 1.4 g/CO2/L. The uncertainty
of PR is calculated and the result showed that its value is smaller
than ± 0.014%, which is low enough to be neglected in this study.
Implementation of the proposed TSS design has limitations and
challenges. First, the experiment was conducted in Chengdu, which is a
hilly region with low solar radiation intensity. Studying the perfor-
mance of the proposed TSS in regions with stronger solar radiation
intensity is needed. Second, the pressure regulation of the proposed TSS
should be simplified. In this study, the chamber was evacuated using a
120 W vacuum pump, which was too cumbersome and costly for a
small-scale solar still. A smaller and less expensive vacuum pump
driven by a photovoltaic module is required. Future work will be fo-
cused on developing a new system to address these issues. Moreover,
the thermodynamic feasibility of the still will be considered. This work
increases our understanding of the heat transfer process and freshwater
yield of each stage and contributes to determining the optimal number
of stages and operating pressures of a solar still under different condi-
tions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Guo Xie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Supervision, Project administration. Wenlong
Chen: Investigation, Validation, Writing - original draft. Tiantong Yan:
Investigation, Resources. Jiguo Tang: Formal analysis. Hongtao Liu:
Data curation. Shunze Cao: Writing - review & editing.
10
Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support for this research
provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.
51606130, 51706149).
References
[1] Ni G, Zandavi SH, Javid SM, Boriskina SV, Cooper TA, Chen G. A salt-rejecting
floating solar still for low-cost desalination. Energy Environ Sci 2018;11:1510–9.
[2] Liu G, Shen J, Liu Q, Liu G, Xiong J, Yang J, et al. Ultrathin two-dimensional MXene
membrane for pervaporation desalination. J Membrane Sci 2018;548:548–58.
[3] Ye M, Zhu K, Gao J, Chen R, Zhang T. A carbon black floating film for seawater
desalination based on interfacial solar heating. Water Sci Tech-W Sup
2019;19:1938–44.
[4] Li C, Goswami Y, Stefanakos E. Solar assisted sea water desalination: A review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:136–63.
[5] Ibrahim AGM, Dincer I. A solar desalination system: Exergetic performance as-
sessment. Energy Convers Manag 2015;101:379–92.
[6] Tripathi R, Tiwari GN. Effect of water depth on internal heat and mass transfer for
active solar distillation. Desalination 2005;173:187–200.
[7] Kabeel AE, El-Agouz SA. Review of researches and developments on solar stills.
Desalination 2011;276(1–3):1–12.
[8] Kabeel AE, Hamed AM, El-Agouz SA. Cost analysis of different solar still config-
urations. Energy 2010;35:2901–8.
[9] Ghaffour N, Missimer TM, Amy GL. Technical review and evaluation of the eco-
nomics of water desalination: Current and future challenges for better water supply
sustainability. Desalination 2013;309:197–207.
[10] Sahota L, Tiwari GN. Effect of nanofluids on the performance of passive double
slope solar still: A comparative study using characteristic curve. Desalination
2016;388:9–21.
[11] Kabeel AE, Elkelawy M, Alm El Din H, Alghrubah A. Investigation of exergy and
yield of a passive solar water desalination system with a parabolic concentrator
incorporated with latent heat storage medium. Energy Convers Manag
2017;145:10–9.
[12] Arunkumar T, Kabeel AE. Effect of phase change material on concentric circular
tubular solar still – Integration meets enhancement. Desalination 2017;414:46–50.
[13] Yousef MS, Hassan H. Energetic and exergetic performance assessment of the in-
clusion of phase change materials (PCM) in a solar distillation system. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;179:349–61.
[14] Murugavel KK, Srithar K. Performance study on basin type double slope solar still
with different wick materials and minimum mass of water. Renew Energy
2011;36(2):612–20.
[15] Kumar A, Anand JD. Modelling and performance of a tubular multiwick solar still.
Energy 1992;17(11):1067–71.
[16] Hou J, Yang J, Chang Z, Zheng H, Su Y. Effect of different carrier gases on pro-
ductivity enhancement of a novel multi-effect vertical concentric tubular solar
brackish water desalination device. Desalination 2018;432:72–80.
[17] Panchal H, Mohan I. Various methods applied to solar still for enhancement of
distillate output. Desalination 2017;415:76–89.
[18] Estahbanati MRK, Feilizadeh M, Jafarpur K, Feilizadeh M, Rahimpour MR.
Experimental investigation of a multi-effect active solar still: The effect of the
number of stages. Appl Energy 2015;137:46–55.
[19] Dhindsa GS, Mittal MK. Experimental study of basin type vertical multiple effect
diffusion solar still integrated with mini solar pond to generate nocturnal distillate.
Energy Convers Manag 2018;165:669–80.
[20] Xiong J, Xie G, Zheng H. Experimental and numerical study on a new multi-effect
solar still with enhanced condensation surface. Energy Convers Manag
2013;73:176–85.
[21] Arunkumar T, Jayaprakash R, Denkenberger D, Ahsan A, Okundamiya MS, Kumar
S, et al. An experimental study on a hemispherical solar still. Desalination
2012;286:342–8.
[22] Durkaieswaran P, Murugavel KK. Various special designs of single basin passive
solar still – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:1048–60.
[23] Murase K, Tobata H, Ishikawa M, Toyama S. Experimental and numerical analysis
of a tube-type networked solar still for desert technology. Desalination
2006;190(1–3):137–46.
[24] Tiwari GN, Kumar A. Nocturnal water production by tubular solar stills using waste
heat to preheat brine. Desalination 1988;69(3):309–18.
[25] Rahbar N, Asadi A, Fotouhi-Bafghi E. Performance evaluation of two solar stills of
different geometries: Tubular versus triangular: Experimental study, numerical si-
mulation, and second law analysis. Desalination 2018;443:44–55.
[26] Ahsan A, Islam KMS, Fukuhara T, Ghazali AH. Experimental study on evaporation,
condensation and production of a new tubular solar still. Desalination
2010;260(1–3):172–9.
G. Xie, et al.
[27] Ahsan A, Imteaz M, Rahman A, Yusuf B, Fukuhara T. Design, fabrication and per-
formance analysis of an improved solar still. Desalination 2012;292:105–12.
[28] Arunkumar T, Jayaprakash R, Ahsan A, Denkenberger D, Okundamiya MS. Effect of
water and air flow on concentric tubular solar water desalting system. Appl Energy
2013;103:109–15.
[29] Arunkumar T, Velraj R, Denkenberger D, Sathyamurthy R, Vinothkumar K,
Porkumaran K, et al. Effect of heat removal on tubular solar desalting system.
Desalination 2016;379:24–33.
[30] Arunkumar T, Velraj R, Denkenberger DC, Sathyamurthy R, Kumar KV, Ahsan A.
Productivity enhancements of compound parabolic concentrator tubular solar stills.
Renew Energy 2016;88:391–400.
[31] Elashmawy M. An experimental investigation of a parabolic concentrator solar
tracking system integrated with a tubular solar still. Desalination 2017;411:1–8.
[32] Zheng H, Chang Z, Chen Z, Xie G, Wang H. Experimental investigation and per-
formance analysis on a group of multi-effect tubular solar desalination devices.
Desalination 2013;311:62–8.
[33] Hou J, Yang J, Chang Z, Zheng H, Su Y. The mass transfer coefficient assessment
and productivity enhancement of a vertical tubular solar brackish water still. Appl
Therm Eng 2018;128:1446–55.
[34] Xie G, Sun L, Yan T, Tang J, Bao J, Du M. Model development and experimental
verification for tubular solar still operating under vacuum condition. Energy
2018;157:115–30.
[35] Xie G, Sun L, Mo Z, Liu H, Du M. Conceptual design and experimental investigation
involving a modular desalination system composed of arrayed tubular solar stills.
Appl Energy 2016;179:972–84.
[36] Kabeel AE, Omara ZM, Essa FA. Improving the performance of solar still by using
nanofluids and providing vacuum. Energy Convers Manag 2014;86:268–74.
[37] Abbaspour MJ, Faegh M, Shafii MB. Experimental examination of a natural vacuum
desalination system integrated with evacuated tube collectors. Desalination
2019;467:79–85.
[38] Yan T, Guo X, Sun L, Du M, Liu H. Experimental investigation on a two-effect
tubular solar still operating under vacuum conditions. Desalination
2019;468:114057.
[39] Rahbar N, Esfahani JA, Fotouhi-Bafghi E. Estimation of convective heat transfer
coefficient and water-productivity in a tubular solar still – CFD simulation and
theoretical analysis. Sol Energy 2015;113:313–23.
[40] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2004;30(3):231–95.
[41] Gude VG, Nirmalakhandan N, Deng S, Maganti A. Low temperature desalination
using solar collectors augmented by thermal energy storage. Appl Energy
2012;91(1):466–74.
11
Energy Conversion and Management 205 (2020) 112371
[42] Modi KV, Shukla DL. Regeneration of liquid desiccant for solar air-conditioning and
desalination using hybrid solar still. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:1598–616.
[43] Sokhansefat T, Mohammadi D, Kasaeian A, Mahmoudi AR. Simulation and para-
metric study of a 5-ton solar absorption cooling system in Tehran. Energy Convers
Manag 2017;148:339–51.
[44] Ramli MAM, Twaha S, Al-Turki YA. Investigating the performance of support vector
machine and artificial neural networks in predicting solar radiation on a tilted
surface Saudi Arabia case study. Energy Convers Manag 2015;105:442–52.
[45] Kabeel AE, Dawood MMK, Ramzy K, Nabil T, Elnaghi B, Elkassar A. Enhancement of
single solar still integrated with solar dishes: An experimental approach. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;196:165–74.
[46] Kabeel AE, Omara ZM, Essa FA. Enhancement of modified solar still integrated with
external condenser using nanofluids: An experimental approach. Energy Convers
Manag 2014;78:493–8.
[47] Raluy RG, Schwantes R, Subiela VJ, Peñate B, Melián G, Betancort JR. Operational
experience of a solar membrane distillation demonstration plant in Pozo Izquierdo-
Gran Canaria Island (Spain). Desalination 2012;290:1–13.
[48] Liu Y, Zhou Y, Wang D, Wang Y, Li Y, Zhu Y. Classification of solar radiation zones
and general models for estimating the daily global solar radiation on horizontal
surfaces in China. Energy Convers Manag 2017;154:168–79.
[49] Ward J. A plastic solar water purifier with high output. Sol Energy
2003;75(5):433–7.
[50] Wijmans JG, Baker RW. The solution-diffusion model: a review. J Membrane Sci
1995;107:1–21.
[51] Gude VG, Nirmalakhandan N, Deng S, Maganti A. Feasibility study of a new two-
stage low temperature desalination process. Energy Convers Manag 2012;56:192–8.
[52] Li J-D, Saraireh M, Thorpe G. Condensation of vapor in the presence of non-con-
densable gas in condensers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011;54(17–18):4078–89.
[53] Banat F, Jwaied N. Economic evaluation of desalination by small scale autonomous
solar powered membrane distillation units. Desalination 2008;220:566–73.
[54] Mezher T, Fath H, Abbas Z, Khaled A. Techno-economic assessment and environ-
mental impacts of desalination technologies. Desalination 2011;266:263–73.
[55] Elimelech M, Phillip WA. The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology,
and the environment. Sci 2011;333:712–7.
[56] Shahsavari A, Yazdi FT, Yazdi HT. Potential of solar energy in Iran for carbon di-
oxide mitigation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019;16:507–24.
[57] Kline SJ, McClintock FA. Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments.
Mech Eng 1953;75:3–8.
[58] Lacey RE, Faulkner WB. Uncertainty associated with the gravimetric measurement
of particulate matter concentration in ambient air. J Air Waste Manage Assoc
2015;65:887–94.